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

[Reluctant Poster]

I could be wrong but the Stirling dated from the era of very short RAF airfields, even for bombers which lead to that whole catapult the Manchester scheme.

Flying boats were built because they had, in theory, nearly unlimited runway lengths in order to get up to take-off speed.

The Poor Stirling may have been caught by timing and changing operational environments.
Couldn't get out of the pea patch RAF airfields during early development and was replaced by aircraft that needed much larger airfields. Stirlings capabilities did increase with the larger airfields (higher gross weight) but it was too late to change the basic airframe. Getting both production lines bombed sure didn't help early deployment either so there was little opertunity for it to make a name for itself before the Halifax and Lancaster showed up.

1st thousand bomber raid on Germany 30/31st of May 1942.

88 Stirling heavy bombers
131 Halifax heavy bombers
73 Lancaster heavy bombers
46 Manchester medium bombers

Plus all the other odds and sods.
Had the Factories not been bombed (or hit?) dozens or scores more Stirlings may have been available at that point in time and the Stirling may have had at least a few weeks/months in the limelight and not been competing with aircraft that were around two years newer?

The problem with the Stirling was its enormous fuselage. An empty Stirling weighted 4,000 lb more than an empty Lancaster.

 

[Glider]

The problem with the Stirling was its enormous fuselage. An empty Stirling weighted 4,000 lb more than an empty Lancaster.

I think the Sterling was designed when the RAF didn't know quite what it wanted. IIRC one of the design parameters was that it could be broken into three and carried by rail, quite why you would want to do that is a total mystery to me.
It did make it quite a good freighter and troop transport

 

[Glider]

Oddly enough, in the P-39N pilot's manual (dated February 1943), they seemed to be under the impression that the front armor was needed...

View attachment 609288

It's such a damned nuisance, those gunners on the bombers your attacking, firing back when your trying to shoot them down.

 

[pbehn]

I think the Sterling was designed when the RAF didn't know quite what it wanted. IIRC one of the design parameters was that it could be broken into three and carried by rail, quite why you would want to do that is a total mystery to me.
It did make it quite a good freighter and troop transport

I think it was a half baked idea of sending Stirlings by ship and rail to outposts of empire to bomb things, carry supplies and act as a transport.

 

[nuuumannn]

You are accusing Shorts / Gouge of getting the angle of incidence wrong. That is what I don't agree with.

Easy, tiger - let's not get personal. I think you might be reading too much into my wording as I'm not accusing anyone of anything. Obviously there was some miscalculation in its design as the aircraft did not meet a few of the criteria in B.12/36, notably and obviously altitude performance. This was common, as all three of Britain's first generation heavies suffered from design issues that took a bit of effort to fix. The Halifax suffered severe rudder overbalance and was notoriously draggy and couldn't meet the performance criteria, the Manchester suffered from aerodynamic issues, aside from the unreliable engines, which thankfully were cured by the time the Lancaster was put into production.

 

[pbehn]

Make a gunsight that can be taken out of the way for a forced landing, how many pilots were put out of action for a long time by hitting their heads on them?

 

[Shortround6]

Shorts/Gouge were experimenting with the Gouge flap.
Gouge flap - Wikipedia

Perhaps they thought they had the take-off and landing covered until the plane gained about 9,000lbs due to air ministry add ons. ??

 

[jmcalli2]

P39 - can I ask for your views on this

You don't believe the drive shaft was 10 feet long?

LiTOT: P-39: Why a Rear Engine Installation

 

[jmcalli2]

You morons?

Who are you calling a moron?

Knock it off with the insults.

It took a LOT to get me to call them morons.

They earned it.

 

[jmcalli2]

The Spitfire evolved throughout the war because the airframe had development growth, so did the Me109, FW190, P47 and especially the P51, the P39 had zero growth potential because the planes design was fundamentally flawed, you can sugar coat it as much as you want but everyone involved with running the air war new it, why waste time and effort on it when better designs were already in service?.

I never said the P-39 was a world beater.

Sorry you think your post is an insult to me, as is obvious by your tone.

The P-39 was better than the P-40, as evidenced by the follow on, the P-63 which was as much like the P-39 as the P-51H was like the P-51A; the P-40 ended production in 1944 with nothing to follow on.

The P-39 was good enough. So was the P-40. Just like the M4 Sherman.

You all have some fetish against the plane.

You attack anyone who says anything good about it, to the point of making things like 'whipping drive shafts' up.

I think that's sad.

 

[jmcalli2]

Larry Bell and boys sure screwed up when they went to all the trouble to design and build the P-63 when all they had to do was tweak the P-39 (take the armor out of the nose and move the radio),

The P-63 was the result of tweeting the P-39.

 

[jmcalli2]

My-oh-my, we're getting passionate about this topic! I'm pretty sure nobody on this forum "hates" any aircraft. We are all interested in learning more about aviation and to explore the reasons why things happened.

Personally, I find it frustrating that the P-39 seems to crop up in every bluddy thread on this forum...and it's the same people having the same arguments on all the threads. Nobody's pre-existing perspectives are getting swayed by arguments in either direction. There's a lot of transmitting but not a lot of receiving going on.

Frankly, it's getting boring.

Took a lot of words to say that.

If you were really bored, you'd have skipped to a different topic.

Nice bit of passive-aggression though.

 

[tyrodtom]

I never said the P-39 was a world beater.

Sorry you think your post is an insult to me, as is obvious by your tone.

The P-39 was better than the P-40, as evidenced by the follow on, the P-63 which was as much like the P-39 as the P-51H was like the P-51A; the P-40 ended production in 1944 with nothing to follow on.

The P-39 was good enough. So was the P-40. Just like the M4 Sherman.

You all have some fetish against the plane.

You attack anyone who says anything good about it, to the point of making things like 'whipping drive shafts' up.

I think that's sad.

I think you're calling me a liar.
Nobody attacked you, or got personal, you're the one that crossed that threshold.
I've, along with other people on this forum, have seen the damage a whipping drive shaft can do.
Any driveshaft has that potential, the P-39 was no exception.
There's thousands of lost WW2 aircraft that nobody knows what happened to them, or their pilots.
WW2 aircraft crash sites are still being found to this day and excavated, usually to recover remains.

 

[Shortround6]

The P-63 was the result of tweeting the P-39.

Yep, they tweaked a whole new wing, tweaked the wings location on the fuselage, tweaked about 2 feet of extra fuselage length, tweaked the wheelbase and tread.
In fact just about everything on the P-63 was bigger ( Larger horizontal stabilizer area, larger vertical stabilizer area, larger propeller, etc etc etc)
It just sort of looks like the P-39.
BTW the Army ordered two XP-63 prototypes in June of 1941.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Time for some cooling off.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Make a gunsight that can be taken out of the way for a forced landing, how many pilots were put out of action for a long time by hitting their heads on them?

Inertia reel shoulder straps. They existed, but there seemed to be shortage of intracranial light bulbs in the aviation world. "Duhh! Why didn't I think of that!"

 

[GrauGeist]

Yep, they tweaked a whole new wing, tweaked the wings location on the fuselage, tweaked about 2 feet of extra fuselage length, tweaked the wheelbase and tread.
In fact just about everything on the P-63 was bigger ( Larger horizontal stabilizer area, larger vertical stabilizer area, larger propeller, etc etc etc)
It just sort of looks like the P-39.
BTW the Army ordered two XP-63 prototypes in June of 1941.

And it still had armor up front!

 

[buffnut453]

Took a lot of words to say that.

If you were really bored, you'd have skipped to a different topic.

Nice bit of passive-aggression though.

It's hard to skip the thread given that there's nothing in the title to suggest it contained the same P-39 arguments that have discussed ad nauseam in at least 2 other different threads. I actually have an interest in the topic of discussing designs that could have been improved, I just don't want to see the same arguments here that already have existing type-specific threads.

Pretty rich to be accusing me of passive aggression when you proclaim anyone who criticizes the P-39 as being a "hater", not to mention your active aggression of calling other forum members "morons".

 

[Marcel]

It's hard to skip the thread given that there's nothing in the title to suggest it contained the same P-39 arguments that have discussed ad nauseam in at least 2 other different threads. I actually have an interest in the topic of discussing designs that could have been improved, I just don't want to see the same arguments here that already have existing type-specific threads.

Pretty rich to be accusing me of passive aggression when you proclaim anyone who criticizes the P-39 as being a "hater", not to mention your active aggression of calling other forum members "morons".

Guys (in general), Adler dealt with the situation. I suggest all of you leave it behind. I'll close this thread if I see it happen again before any more have to be put in the "cooler".

 

[MikeMeech]

I think it was a half baked idea of sending Stirlings by ship and rail to outposts of empire to bomb things, carry supplies and act as a transport.

I think the Sterling was designed when the RAF didn't know quite what it wanted. IIRC one of the design parameters was that it could be broken into three and carried by rail, quite why you would want to do that is a total mystery to me.
It did make it quite a good freighter and troop transport

Hi

It is hardly a 'secret' or 'unknown' why large aircraft were designed to be able to split into smaller sections, in production these aircraft were manufactured in sections and fitted out before being joined together in the factories. This meant that if an aircraft was damaged by enemy action or in an accident that was repairable it could be divided up into these sections and sent by road or rail to a repair facility, each section could be repaired individually and fitted together again or various sections reused on different airframes as appropriate.
Below are Lancaster forward sections under repair:

A Lancaster split up into 'Queen Mary' trailer loads:

A Halifax split into 'Queen Mary' loads:

Why do you think this idea was 'half-baked' or a 'mystery' for the Stirling, when it appears to be a very sensible and practical idea for all large aircraft in the circumstances of the period?

Mike