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

wuzak · May 31, 2019

Kevin J said:
In the case of the Defiant, it became an effective night fighter. The Botha was a disaster. The Lysander could still have been useful in the event of an invasion, and used like the Po-2 in the USSR as a light night bomber. By the time the Spitfire III comes along, we're struggling to get Spitfire II production up and running. We need to keep the Hurricane competitive. The Hurricane is our most numerous front line fighter, its cheaper to build than the Spitfire, and while it is taking heavier losses, in terms of cost, it is still competitive in unit costs to the Spitfire. So if the Spitfire destroys 1.7 enemy per loss and the Hurricane only 1.1, but the Hurricane is 2/3 the Spitfire's unit cost and is easier to train to use and more rugged and usable overseas then it is the better fighter so it deserves the better engine.

Aircraft can be replace, pilots are more difficult, especially experience pilots.

Losing 50% greater numbers of Hurricanes than Spitfires may be more cost effective, but when you include the value of the pilot, maybe not so much.

Kevin J · May 31, 2019

Shortround6 said:
The effective night fighter is quite debatable, a fair number were used as night fighters and few German planes were shot down by them But over the winter of 1940/41 none of the British night fighters were shooting down German aircraft in more than 1s and 2s. The Defiant didn't get radar until the fall of 1941, successful interceptions by Defiants at night in the fall/winter of 1941/42 can be counted on the fingers of one had with fingers left over. The Lysander was pretty much useless for any combat role. Using a 900hp engine to do what the PO-2 did with 125 hp rather points out the waste of resources the Lysander was.

No, they figured the Spitfire could get by using the Merlin XII engine against the 109E (they didn't know about the F). The Hurricane didn't deserve the MK XX engine because it was better.
It got the MK XX engine because it was the Best way to keep the Hurricane competitive. Any other version of the Merlin available in the Fall of 1940 would have meant a Hurricane of such poor performance that it would never operate at close to parity with the 109. Using the MK XII in the Spit and the MK XX in the Hurricane got the largest number of roughly equal fighters.
MK XX Spits would have been better but MK III & MK XII Hurricanes would have been distinctly 2nd rate.

If the Germans had invaded in 1940/41 then cost effective or not, regardless of type, we would have thrown everything against them even Mohawks. In the 1940/41 Blitz, the Defiant NF I with two pairs of Mk 1 eyeballs was always going to be more effective than the Hurricane which was our primary night fighter but only had 1 pair of Mk 1 eyeballs.

wuzak · May 31, 2019

Kevin J said:
In 1939, the Air Ministry considered cancelling Spitfire production in favour of the Beaufighter, in 1940, Castle Bromwich was way behind in ramping up Spitfire production. A Spitfire III in 1940 just isn't going to be approved.

Not so much cancelling production as not ordering more.

The plan was to replace them with the Typhoon/Tornado, not Beaufighters and Hurricanes.

btw, Supermarine's time getting the Spitfire into production was one of the reasons that the Type 324 (twin Merlin, 12 0.303" mg) lost out to the Tornado/Typhoon (Sabre, 12 x 0.303" mg).

Supermarine also proposed the Type 327, a development of the Type 324 proposal, for the cannon armed fighter program which led to the Beaufighter.

wuzak · May 31, 2019

Kevin J said:
In 1939, the Air Ministry considered cancelling Spitfire production in favour of the Beaufighter, in 1940, Castle Bromwich was way behind in ramping up Spitfire production. A Spitfire III in 1940 just isn't going to be approved.

In fact, the Spitfire III was approved for production. A letter to Supermarine in October 1940 approved the production of an additional 1,000 Spitfires, in addition to the previous order of 1,500, to be built at the Castle Bromwich factory. The additional 1,000 Spitfires were to be the MK.III type with the Merlin XX and 8 x 0.303" mgs.

Shortround6 · May 31, 2019

Kevin J said:
If the Germans had invaded in 1940/41 then cost effective or not, regardless of type, we would have thrown everything against them even Mohawks. In the 1940/41 Blitz, the Defiant NF I with two pairs of Mk 1 eyeballs was always going to be more effective than the Hurricane which was our primary night fighter but only had 1 pair of Mk 1 eyeballs.

During the night Blitz of 1940/41 British night fighters, including Blenheims with radar and a few Beaufighters shot down a grand total of 8 german aircraft in the first two months. The next 3 months were even worse, one month may have seen no German aircraft shot down by night fighters, In March things got better with 22 shot down, mostly by Beaufighters with MK IV radar. April saw the total of claims rise to 48 and in the first two weeks of May the night fighters made 96 claims. By this time there were nearly 200 Beaufighters, most with MK IV radar.
Nights were also getting shorter which helped the non radar equipped planes.

Now the Defiant might have been the most successful in those first two months but shooting under 8 planes (the other aircraft got a few) out of 12,000 german sorties is hardly successful in normal terms, the numbers of German planes shot down until March/April are statistically meaningless.

BTW, the Mohawks may not have been as bad as you think. They were the best fighter the French had in April/May of 1940.

throwing everything you have at an enemy sometimes accomplishes nothing except showing that your pilots can die bravely. Something like 70 Lysanders were shot down over France and accomplished next to nothing. Fighting smarter is a better answer. Properly coordinated attacks with proper escort instead of penny packet (or half penny) attacks without escort and using ill suited aircraft/weapons.

Zipper730 · May 31, 2019

Regarding the B-26 ideas

Greg Boeser said:
Go with the longer wing right from the start.

Didn't that take away high speed handling characteristcs?

Fowler flaps.

Would have improved low-speed handling quite a bit, I'm curious why they didn't field those...

*Redesign the bomb bay doors to eliminate drag. (Folding doors caused massive drag when open, reducing top speed by 25 mph.) Roll up doors like on B-24 were suggested, but never implemented.

Why didn't they proceed the rolladoors/roll-up doors?

Redesign bomb bay with capacity for tandem racks, thus eliminating need for second bomb bay.

Generally I follow the RAF's rules on this: Never use two small bays when one huge one will do the job.

Move turret forward to improve CG.

What happened with the turret in then current position? Was the airplane excessively twitchy?

Add RADAR

When did H2S & H2X become first available for night-bombing operations?

tomo pauk said:
B-26 with fuselage tailored around a bomb bay and crew of 5

What do you mean, tailored around a bomb-bay? Why 5 crew members, wouldn't that get rid of at least one gunner?

I'm also curious if they should have pursued the twin-stage supercharger set-up. I figure the engine was in prototype stage during the development of the XF4U and was flying as of May. The plane would fly in November, so it seems like it would work if one stepped up production.

Zipper730 · May 31, 2019

Shortround6 said:
Now, does that mean guns that didn't exist (but could be made with existing technology?)

I suppose if the technology meant it could have realistically been doable with what existed, I suppose you could take it there if you wanted to.

I'm curious why the USAAC seemed to produce such heavy cannon designs (I'm not talking about bore, I'm talking about the mass of the cannon -- the HS.404 was positively light compared to some of the designs).

In the Mid 30s the US still had the low velocity ammo.

I'm curious why the velocity was lower and what velocities are you talking about?

Shortround6 · May 31, 2019

Fowler flaps

Zipper730 said:
Would have improved low-speed handling quite a bit, I'm curious why they didn't field those...

They have to be designed in from the start. They cannot be added at a later date without just about a total redesign of the wing. They may require a different rear spar location (or major attachment point) that more standard flaps.

Zipper730 said:
I'm also curious if they should have pursued the twin-stage supercharger set-up. I figure the engine was in prototype stage during the development of the XF4U and was flying as of May. The plane would fly in November, so it seems like it would work if one stepped up production.

Both North American and Martin had designs and were building prototypes for high altitude bombers. trying to turn the B-25 or B-26 or even the A-20 into a high altitude plane was a duplication of effort and was going to delay service introduction.

Two prototypes were ordered on February 13, 1940

NA XB-28

martin XB-27 with turbo charged R-2800s

some design work done but no metal cut.

The Army was finding out that flying bombers at high altitude wasn't quite as easy as they thought. They needed better oxygen systems and better heated flying suits at the very least and pressure cabins and remote control gun mounts to prevent altitude sickness and frostbite. The planes could survive better than the crews. it took a while longer to figure out that bombing form altitudes higher than the B-17 and B-24 bombed at really hurt accuracy (and that is saying something)

Shortround6 · May 31, 2019

Zipper730 said:
I'm curious why the velocity was lower and what velocities are you talking about?

Until about 1940 the US .50 cal ammo used a 753 grain bullet at about 2500fps velocity. The .50 cal was designed at the end of WW I. Smokeless powder was about 40 years old. By the late 30s you had another 20 years of R&D on smokeless powder and they found that a new powder could offer significantly higher velocity at the same peak pressure. They also lightened the bullet up slightly. This ammo was about 20% less powerful than the M2 ball or AP that was used for most of WW II by the Americans. The British in the early part of the war used ammo manufactured to the old specifications, whether US "surplus" (this was cash and carry, not lend lease) or contracts with american companies like Remington.

Zipper730 · May 31, 2019

Shortround6 said:
Fowler flaps . . . . They have to be designed in from the start.

Of course.

As for altitude capability, why did they design a high altitude and low altitude design?

Greg Boeser · May 31, 2019

Zipper730,
The short, symmetrical wing was chosen because that met the Army's requirements for high speed, but at the cost of higher stall speeds, longer take offs. The B-25 used a more conventional airfoil and though it cost speed, it improved low speed handling, improved take off performance.
In a way the B-26 tried to meet as many expectations of the Army's requirement as physically possible, using the technology available at that time, but sacrificed much to achieve it.
The A-26, which began design just a year later, exceeded the B-26 in virtually every category. But it was designed under a different set of requirements.
The existence of the A-26 is the reason that many proposed improvements were not made to the B-26. The Army froze development on the B-26 and cancelled contracts as the A-26 neared gestation. The B-26 was costly to build, and the A-26 promised to be an improvement at a similar cost, so why invest more $$$ into an obsolescent design? The B-25 continued in production because it was cheaper and a tamer handler.

Kevin J · Jun 1, 2019

Shortround6 said:
During the night Blitz of 1940/41 British night fighters, including Blenheims with radar and a few Beaufighters shot down a grand total of 8 german aircraft in the first two months. The next 3 months were even worse, one month may have seen no German aircraft shot down by night fighters, In March things got better with 22 shot down, mostly by Beaufighters with MK IV radar. April saw the total of claims rise to 48 and in the first two weeks of May the night fighters made 96 claims. By this time there were nearly 200 Beaufighters, most with MK IV radar.
Nights were also getting shorter which helped the non radar equipped planes.

Now the Defiant might have been the most successful in those first two months but shooting under 8 planes (the other aircraft got a few) out of 12,000 german sorties is hardly successful in normal terms, the numbers of German planes shot down until March/April are statistically meaningless.

BTW, the Mohawks may not have been as bad as you think. They were the best fighter the French had in April/May of 1940.

throwing everything you have at an enemy sometimes accomplishes nothing except showing that your pilots can die bravely. Something like 70 Lysanders were shot down over France and accomplished next to nothing. Fighting smarter is a better answer. Properly coordinated attacks with proper escort instead of penny packet (or half penny) attacks without escort and using ill suited aircraft/weapons.

You're making some serious assumptions here about an ideal World where people act rationally. Anyway, in 1941 during the air war over France, 'leaning into France', all the RAF achieved was the unnecessary death of its airmen for propaganda purposes to show that they were doing something. If only we could have had those Spitfire Vb's in places like Malta, Singapore and Ceylon. That would have been much more useful. Perhaps no city bombing until area bombing was introduced in 1942 then we could have had better Maritime Recce planes for Coastal Command.

PAT303 · Jun 1, 2019

Leaning into France was a poorly executed plan that was in my opinion a reversed BOB with Germany having the advantage. Saying that if the RAF had MkIII Spits instead of MkV's they could have given JG 26 in particular a very bloody nose. The MkV was available when needed and played an important part in the war but it was just the equal of the 109F and outclassed by the 190A, the MkIII if it could have been made could of taken on both, but it's all history now.

Kevin J · Jun 1, 2019

Just read a document about projected RAF aircraft for 1935 to 1950. The only viable looking long range army co-operation single-seat fighter was the Boulton Paul P.94 IIRC. Four cannon, four m/c guns and about 164 imp gal with 2 x 30 imp gal aux tanks. Top speed 360 mph with Merlin XX, but that's inferior to the NA Mustang with V-1710-39.

wuzak · Jun 1, 2019

Zipper730 said:
When did H2S & H2X become first available for night-bombing operations?

1943.

fliger747 · Jun 1, 2019

Of course the point of the thread is what-if's. Many good-great ideas were come up with during the war, but filtering out which ones were going to work was sometimes problematical and often in error. The multiple path of development was the not all eggs in one basket approach. Hellcat was an example. Some planes that had fabulous potential such as the P47-J (505 mph) simply were going to be too much of a production re arrangement in a situation where we needed good planes today and not a better one tomorrow.

This was true in many weapon systems. Perhaps the M4 Sherman was an example of a compromise between the Russian and German approaches, things like transportability, field mobility etc. Better to have a tank that is there than one that is not.

Development took time, the R2800 C models were a big improvement over the B models and made some of the high HP late war fighters possible. But really a very different engine in the details, the devil's home.

Shortround6 · Jun 1, 2019

This is "supposed" to be the Bolton Paul P.94 prototype or the plane they based the performance estimates on.

But a lot of things do not line up. The quoted armement, fuel, performance and so on are going to need divine intervention of a biblical nature to achieve, parting of clouds, rays of golden light and thunderous voices from on high.
This aircraft in the pictures seems to have an early Merlin, the later Merlin XX having a bigger oil cooler.

Somehow removing the turret and about 600lbs is supposed to allow the installation of about 500lb worth of cannon, 90-100lbs worth of machine guns, plus ammo, plus over 50IMP gallons of internal fuel (375lbs plus weight of the tanks) and yet the resulting plane is supposed to fly over 40mph faster than the MK II Defiant with the same engine.
one suggestion was for the cannon (and maybe all the guns) to tilt up to 17 degrees fro ground strafing. I wonder how much that weighed and what the drag was of those 20mm gun barrels tilted 17 degrees from the line of flight.

There are "what ifs" and there are fantasy aircraft even if the fantasy has an official designation.

tomo pauk · Jun 1, 2019

Ivan1GFP said:
Hello Tomo Pauk,
By 1942, the BMW 801D would have been in production and that would be giving about 1700 PS at Take Off.
Power at altitude would also be improved and that isn't even counting the power adders used for emergency power.

By Spring of 1942 indeed the BMW 801D is around. However, it was de-rated until mid-October 1942. De-rating meant reduction of rpm and boost - for example, 'Notleistung' was reduced from 2700 rpm and 1.42 ata down to 2450 rpm and 1.35 ata. What it represented for the pilot is a reduction from possible 1440 PS at 5.7 km down to ~1350 PS at ~5.4 km. We still have heavy powerplant, that uses C3 fuel instead of B4, with drag and consumption greater than of the DB 601E/605A engine, while Notleistung is limited to 3 minutes, vs. 5 minutes for the DBs.
A de-rated DB 605A engine was being installed by mid-1942, 1250 PS at 5.7 km.
Power adders for BMW 801 were not a happy story, DB 605s were much better in that regard. Granted, the fully-rated BMW 801 will have 1700 PS for take off, but for the fighters the altitude power was a much more important thing. We know that P-40s and P-39s with 1600 HP at 2500 ft were nothing fancy above 15000 ft.

I have always thought that the A-9 was a closer match than the A-8 to the Dora and the margin for speed may be just a bit closer.
Certainly the armament installation of the A-9 is closer.
The FW 190D-9 was also the end result of a LOT of development and I am not entirely convinced that such a clean installation was likely in 1941 especially when one looks at the other FW 190 prototypes with inline engines.

The Jumo 213A will need bigger raditors than DB 601 engines, due to making greater power. Bigger radiators are likely to make greater drag.
We can take a look at A-9, of course. At 5.7 km, BMW 801S was making 1650 PS, vs. Jumo 213A making ~1550 PS, yet A-9 was slower than D-9 by 20 km/h above 6.5 km.

I believe the issue here is that the BMW 801 would be relying on different factories, different engineering staff, etc.
If it were so simple to just tool up another factory to build the same Daimler Benz engine, then it would have made more sense to have everyone build those instead of the early JuMo engines or BMW 801 engines that were being installed in bombers.

- Ivan.

We can also make a speculation how interested was Germany in investing money in a private compaby that DB was, vs. in the government-owned Jumo in the time Germany beliveed that the've won the war? For whatever the reason, production of DB engines stayed about the same from late 1939 to late 1940, while production of Jumo engines doubled in the same time.
Note that I don't advocate cancelling the BMW 801s, they can come in handy on Ju-88s, a small Ju 288, and later, f/b versions of Fw 190. What I'd cancel is the Bf 110 and subsequent 210 programe by winter of 1940/41.

Shortround6 · Jun 1, 2019

Trying to come up with a few ideas,

for the Germans, leave some sort of wing guns in the 109F even if it just a MG17 in each wing. this roughly doubles the firepower of the F-0 when the 55-60 rounds in the MG/FFM run out. Leaves an option for the 109G to have one 20mm and four MG 131s? Not B-17 killing armament but something better than hanging guns under the wing.

AS mentioned before for the Ju-87, double the number of MG 17s, you can carry bombs and strafe(somewhat) without hanging gun pods on the under wing racks.

Germans actual develop a full power turret with two MG 17s or MG 131s and stick it on top of the HE 111. And put up to date engines in the He 111 after 1940.

The British could use a host of changes, some are simple, like deciding in 1936/37 that variable pitch/constant speed props are not the work of the devil and are to resisted at all costs
Some are operational, you don't have to give up bombing Germany until 1942 in order to give Coastal Command 100-200 Blenheims in 1939/40. The MK IV Blenheinm was a designed as quick and dirty modification of the MK I Blenheim to suit a Canadian requirement for a maritime recon aircraft. It was originally called the Bolingbroke. Not as good as the Beaufort but it could have been available in numbers (half dozen squadrons anyway) when the Beaufort was still entering production.

The Americans are in pretty good shape in regards to engines and propellers. Now just beat somebody over the head until they agree that sticking 800-1000lbs worth of guns and ammo in 1200hp airplanes isn't really a good idea

more later.

Shortround6 · Jun 1, 2019

tomo pauk said:
We can also make a speculation how interested was Germany in investing money in a private company that DB was, vs. in the government-owned Jumo

DB seemed to be a bit late (chronically?) in delivering either the number of engines or engines that delivered the promised power. Maybe it was not their fault but the change over to DB 601s from Jumo 210s and DB 600s seems to have been later than desired.

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

Captain

Banned

Captain

Captain

Major General

Chief Master Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Major General

Major General

Chief Master Sergeant

1st Sergeant

Banned

Tech Sergeant

Banned

Captain

Senior Airman

Major General

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major General

Major General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads