Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better (1 Viewer)

[Zipper730]

It should have been anticipated.

You mean the trends that were occurring at the time with aircraft getting bigger and faster. The A-26 and P-80 weren't airborne in 1940-1941, the first flew in 1942, the other in early '44.

In 1940-41 time frame studies and tests should have been made so that training could be implemented quickly.

Seems to make enough sense.

As for the Navy, they should be studying how to improve efficiency and safety of carrier deck operations and how to handle heavier and faster aircraft. Instead they were busy making advance aircraft compatible with aircraft carriers designed to carry biplanes.

That sort of *is* adapting to higher performance aircraft.

Of course both services were up to their butt in alligators at the time.

Alligators?

Not sure if the Jumo 211 had been developed into a double engine, as the DB 601 was with the DB 606.

Probably not, but it seemed that the requirements didn't seem to dictate two propellers at first. I was told that about 3% of a difference in top speed occurred with the same horsepower if four nacelles and props were used instead of two.

 

[jmcalli2]

The XP-54, XP-55 and XP-56 are responses the the Air Corp's 1939 request R-40C for an improved fighter (speed, firepower, etc.) And the XP-54, XP-55 and XP-56 were designed around the P&W X-1800 engine.

The XP-55 ended up with an Allison V-1710, the XP-54 ended up with a Lycoming XH-2460 and the XP-56 ended up with a P&W R-2800.

I always wondered if the XP-54 wouldn't have faired better with the V-3420 and ditching the "turret" in the nose. It certainly looked cool!
I also wondered if all three (along with the XP-69 and XP-75) couldn't have been adapted to jet engines rather nicely...

 

[Stig1207]

What's your data source? I always heard the Hellcat and the Spitfire held the top spots.

Not that I can vouch for the validity of the numbers in the attachment, there are some differences in other sources, but it is close enough. The P-51 has almost 800 victories more than the Hellcat; I don't how many victories were achieved by Allied airforces with these two types, but I would think that the P-51 also leads the Hellcat.

The important thing to note is that the P-51 scored the majority of it's victories in the late war ETO, where claiming accuracy was better than it had been earlier and better than in other theatres. The Hellcat would be a contender for most shot down enemy aircraft by an American made fighter, if the claiming accuracy was just as good in the PTO, but I don't know if a case can be made for that.

 

[Stig1207]

But most of the USSR's highest scoring aces scored most of their victories in the P-39, and their totals rivaled the German numbers: 3 over 60, 5 over 50, 18 over 40, and 30 over 30.

A high number of victories those necessarily mean an equally high number of enemy losses; been over it already in the groundhog thread #700.

 

[Stig1207]

Funny not a mention of it here:View attachment 607818

I am pretty sure it is, seeing as it's the only book I've read on that particular campaign, but I can't tell you what page it's on as I've had to return it to the library.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

A hit in the reduction gearbox is the same whether it was mounted on the engine or remotely like the P-39. No other reduction gearboxes were armored.

Reread and understand post #727. The P39/63 were NOT like other aircraft.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

All the planes were tested and performance figures adjusted to standard day conditions. Planes in combat with each other all flew in the same atmosphere. The faster plane in standard day conditions will still be the faster plane in hot day conditions.

YOU JUST DON'T GET IT!

 

[jmcalli2]

Not that I can vouch for the validity of the numbers in the attachment, there are some differences in other sources, but it is close enough. The P-51 has almost 800 victories more than the Hellcat; I don't how many victories were achieved by Allied airforces with these two types, but I would think that the P-51 also leads the Hellcat.

The important thing to note is that the P-51 scored the majority of it's victories in the late war ETO, where claiming accuracy was better than it had been earlier and better than in other theatres. The Hellcat would be a contender for most shot down enemy aircraft by an American made fighter, if the claiming accuracy was just as good in the PTO, but I don't know if a case can be made for that.

The problem is at the top of the page:
"FLOWN BY US PILOTS"

That is a different statistic than "Shot down by US manufactured aircraft"

 

[jmcalli2]

A high number of victories those necessarily mean an equally high number of enemy losses; been over it already in the groundhog thread #700.

That assumes ALL P-39 victories were Me-109s.

A patently absurd idea.

I reject the article.

In THIS post.

 

[jmcalli2]

I am pretty sure it is, seeing as it's the only book I've read on that particular campaign, but I can't tell you what page it's on as I've had to return it to the library.

Could be, I have no interest in rereading the book again.

What I remember is that the P-39s had little warning of approaching raids, certainly not the amount of time the AVG had.

 

[Milosh]

There is also something called 'target rich environment'. Europe and Eastern Front were 'tre' while the Pacific not so much.

 

[davparlr]

You mean the trends that were occurring at the time with aircraft getting bigger and faster. The A-26 and P-80 weren't airborne in 1940-1941, the first flew in 1942, the other in early '44.

Much work was being done in the early 40s on upgrading war fighters. B-29 concepts started before the war, ditto with the A-26, and Lockheed was already studying design concepts for an advanced jet aircraft, the L-133. I should have also mentioned that they needed to define operational requirements for higher wing loaded aircraft, which, within four or five years would become prevalent. You shouldn't wait until the aircraft first flies to anticipate operational support.

Alligators?

From an old saying
When you are up to your a** in alligators it's difficult to remember that your job was to drain the swamp. Which means, that in this case, they were so busy fighting a war to address a lot of anticipated designs.

 

[GrauGeist]

That assumes ALL P-39 victories were Me-109s.

A patently absurd idea.

I reject the article.

In THIS post.

*IF* one actually read the artical, then one would see that the artical stated (in Russian):

Действительно, по данным Журнала боевых действий 5-й воздушной армии в воздушных боях лётчиками было сбито довольно внушительное количество вражеских самолетов – 240, из них: 122 Ме-109, 83 ФВ-190, 25 Ю-87, 4 Ю-88, 3 Хш-129, 1 Хш-123, 1 ФВ-189 и 1 ПЗЛ-24. Кроме того, на аэродромах было уничтожено 4 самолета

Which translates to (my bold for clarification):

Indeed, according to the Journal of Combat Actions of the 5th Air Army in air battles, pilots shot down a rather impressive number of enemy aircraft - 240, of which: 122 Me-109, 83 FW-190, 25 Ju-87, 4 JU-88, 3 HS-129, 1 HS-123, 1 FW-189 and 1 PZL-24. In addition, 4 aircraft were destroyed at the airfields.

So 118 EA downed out of 240 were NOT Bf109s...

 

[jmcalli2]

I am pretty sure it is, seeing as it's the only book I've read on that particular campaign, but I can't tell you what page it's on as I've had to return it to the library.

I went into the Kindle edition and searched for "warning."

You were right, I was wrong. The P-39s did have SOME warning some of the time that "helped offset the P-39's rate of climb."

My apologies.

 

[Stig1207]

The problem is at the top of the page:
"FLOWN BY US PILOTS"

That is a different statistic than "Shot down by US manufactured aircraft"

I don't know how many victories British and Commonwealth had flying eg. P-51's, they would need to be added to statistic for American made aircraft.

I went into the Kindle edition and searched for "warning."

You were right, I was wrong. The P-39s did have SOME warning some of the time that "helped offset the P-39's rate of climb."

My apologies.

No problem

 

[jmcalli2]

I don't know how many victories British and Commonwealth had flying eg. P-51's, they would need to be added to statistic for American made aircraft.

True.
That would also apply to P-47s flying for Britain, Brazil, Free France, USSR, and Mexico.
It's all interesting.

 

[P-39 Expert]

YOU JUST DON'T GET IT!

What am I not getting? Please enlighten me.

 

[P-39 Expert]

I went into the Kindle edition and searched for "warning."

You were right, I was wrong. The P-39s did have SOME warning some of the time that "helped offset the P-39's rate of climb."

My apologies.

From what I have read there were some coastwatchers in NG but not to the same extent as Guadalcanal. Guadalcanal had the advantage of being much farther away from Japanese bases so raids had to come in about the same time every day, around noon. In NG Port Moresby was less than 200mi from the Japanese bases at Lae so those raids could come at any time. No radar until August at Milne Bay and September at PM. There was Australian radar but it was just too far away to be effective.

Even after radar was installed at PM interceptions were often sent after clouds or flocks of birds. Still very primitive. But better than coastwatchers.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

What am I not getting? Please enlighten me.

In post #703, you stated:
"Extra boost would only be available up to the critical altitude of around 14000' with ram."
And I replied in post #711:
"And that density altitude would be at a much lower MSL physical altitude in a tropical climate."
To which you replied in post #714:
"Yes and your opponent would be flying in the same atmosphere."
And my reply was, in post #716:
"Yes, but with a significant supercharger advantage and a super lightweight and high lift airframe. Superior power giving superior thrust/weight, and superior L/D at altitude."
Which you either ignored or didn't comprehend. The Zero (ignore Koga's plane; it wasn't performing to capacity) has all the advantages enumerated above in any atmosphere, making the P39 of the time a LOSER any way you slice it. The only factors, as I see it, that allowed the New Guinea P39s to establish any sort of a win/loss record was the occasional tendency of teenage IJN pilots to exuberantly ignore their hard learned lessons of combat and play to the P39's strengths, as well as the ability of American pilots to un-learn their trained tactics and adapt to the new reality.

 

[P-39 Expert]

In post #703, you stated:
"Extra boost would only be available up to the critical altitude of around 14000' with ram."
And I replied in post #711:
"And that density altitude would be at a much lower MSL physical altitude in a tropical climate."
To which you replied in post #714:
"Yes and your opponent would be flying in the same atmosphere."
And my reply was, in post #716:
"Yes, but with a significant supercharger advantage and a super lightweight and high lift airframe. Superior power giving superior thrust/weight, and superior L/D at altitude."
Which you either ignored or didn't comprehend. The Zero (ignore Koga's plane; it wasn't performing to capacity) has all the advantages enumerated above in any atmosphere, making the P39 of the time a LOSER any way you slice it. The only factors, as I see it, that allowed the New Guinea P39s to establish any sort of a win/loss record was the occasional tendency of teenage IJN pilots to exuberantly ignore their hard learned lessons of combat and play to the P39's strengths, as well as the ability of American pilots to un-learn their trained tactics and adapt to the new reality.

The supercharger and weight advantage you allude to would be operating in the same atmosphere as the P-39. If the P-39 was faster than the A6M2 in tests it would still be faster in theater since both planes would be at the same disadvantage. By the way, what supercharger advantage are you speaking of? Both planes had about the same critical altitude and speed bled off above that at about the same rate. See attached chart.