Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better

[TheMadPenguin]

So: B-29... suppose we built it with three R2800s per wing instead of two 3350s?
1: About the same rated power per wing
2: Many many fewer engine-destroying mishaps with the R2800
3: Many fewer planes lost to "causes other than enemy action".

 

[wuzak]

So: B-29... suppose we built it with three R2800s per wing instead of two 3350s?
1: About the same rated power per wing
2: Many many fewer engine-destroying mishaps with the R2800
3: Many fewer planes lost to "causes other than enemy action".

Suppose Fisher managed to finish the V-3420 power egg and put that in production instead of wasting their time on the XP-75.

Would the B-39 have been able to take-over from B-29 production by 1944?

The concept being that the R-3350 could be unbolted and the V-3420 power egg bolted in its place (it contained all coolers for the engine).

 

[wuzak]

So: B-29... suppose we built it with three R2800s per wing instead of two 3350s?
1: About the same rated power per wing
2: Many many fewer engine-destroying mishaps with the R2800
3: Many fewer planes lost to "causes other than enemy action".

I would gather that the B-29/6e would be heavier than the regular B-29A on account of its extra engines.

 

[GrauGeist]

General Motors had a wide range of divisions.
The division in charge of the development of the V-3420 was Allison, the aircraft itself was being developed at Fisher, which was GM's auto body division during peacetime.

If Fisher had dropped the XP-75 project, it would have had zero effect on the V-3420 development.

 

[Admiral Beez]

If there's any pre-jet era FAA aircraft that desperately needed intervention it's the Blackburn Firebrand.

Blackburn Firebrand - Wikipedia

"In test pilot and naval aviator Captain Eric Brown's opinion the aircraft was "short of performance, sadly lacking in manoeuvrability, especially in rate of roll".[12] The position of the cockpit even with the trailing edge of the wing gave the pilot a very poor view over the nose, inhibited his ability to view his target and to land his aircraft aboard a carrier, sufficient for Brown to call it "a disaster as a deck-landing aircraft".[13]"

 

[TheMadPenguin]

I would gather that the B-29/6e would be heavier than the regular B-29A on account of its extra engines.

Well ... I don't have the numbers for the weights of the full-up R2800 power egg (Turbo & Super) nor the full up R3350 (Turbo & Super, but before PRT which IIRR was post-war).

 

[wuzak]

General Motors had a wide range of divisions.
The division in charge of the development of the V-3420 was Allison, the aircraft itself was being developed at Fisher, which was GM's auto body division during peacetime.

If Fisher had dropped the XP-75 project, it would have had zero effect on the V-3420 development.

Fisher designed the power egg/Quick Engine Change module for the B-19A/B-39, which used the V-3420. The QEC included oil coolers, radiators and maybe even the turbos.

Diversion of Fisher to the XP-75 slowed that development.

Allison's work on the V-3420 was changed from one with a single rotation propeller with reduction gear connected to the end of the engine, to a dual rotation propeller with extension shafts and remote gearbox.

 

[GrauGeist]

Fisher wasn't building the engine, Allison was. They had 8 plants producing tanks, prime movers, artillery, B-25s, B-17 and B-29 parts and more.

Allison had several plants and the V-3420's development was not derailed by the Fisher project, yes, the V-3420-23 variant was going to consume resources, but it's development had other projects ear-marked too, like the XP-58, etc.

 

[GregP]

By "nothing really wrong with the P-39" I mean the USAAC got what it ordered, and later models could have performed well if flown at high MAP. They would never have made escort or high-altitude fighters, but the P-39N was likely a decent performer if flown at 57+" MAP in combat, even at 20,000 feet. It was quite good if flown at 70+" MAP. We just didn't DO hat as a matter of standard practice like the Soviets did. As a result (along with OTHER reasons so well-described before this post in the Groundhog thread), it was not a popular airplane with the USAAC/F.

Alas, we TESTED them at higher MAP, but did not approve 75" as recommended by Ben Kelsey. I heard that the P-40 was quite a good fighter when flown at 70+" MAP from Major General (Ret) John Allison - no relation to the engine family - before he passed away. He visited Joe Yancey's shop and Joe let him start an Allison and run it. He had an ear-to-ear grin. When he demonstrated the P-40 under Tex Hill, he used 70" MAP, according to Gen. Allison. I have no reason to doubt that and he knew exactly what MAP he could run without major damage to the engine. He was comforrtable with the V-1710 even after many years of not seeing or operating one.

 

[wuzak]

Fisher wasn't building the engine, Allison was. They had 8 plants producing tanks, prime movers, artillery, B-25s, B-17 and B-29 parts and more.

Allison had several plants and the V-3420's development was not derailed by the Fisher project, yes, the V-3420-23 variant was going to consume resources, but it's development had other projects ear-marked too, like the XP-58, etc.

I didn't say that V-3420 engine development was affected by the XP-75 program, but the V-3420 QEC for the B-39 that Fisher was developing.

If the B-39 had gone ahead Allison may have been able to justify dedicating more resources to it. As it was, the V-3420 was an on-again, off-again project for Allison due to the USAAF continually changing its mind.

 

[GrauGeist]

due to the USAAF continually changing its mind.

Ever notice how many proposals were hijacked by the very people who issued the proposals in the first place?

I know it's popular to poke sticks at the RLM (and rightly so), but the USAAF, USN and even the Air Ministry were the assassins of many potential aircraft types.

 

[wuzak]

btw, the XP-75 caused a delay of the first flight of the XB-39 by about a year.

 

[GregP]

When I was working at Motorola in electronic engineering, almost all of the cost bumps and overruns were the direct result of the customer (DOD in one guise or another) asking for a change from what was tested, on order, and in production. What gets me is that most of the "changes" could have and should have been anticipated in the first place.

It's like they ask for somethng basic thinking it can't be done, and then, when it gets developed, they want all these "add ons" instead of thinking about, "What if they CAN develop this weapon? What might we want added to the basic device?" A little bit of that would go a long way to controlling cost escalations due solely to government change requests to production line items.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey GregP,

I think your last post is a large part of the answer to the current discussion "Motivations for the Creation of RAND"

Maybe?

 

[GrauGeist]

When I was working at Motorola in electronic engineering, almost all of the cost bumps and overruns were the direct result of the customer (DOD in one guise or another) asking for a change from what was tested, on order, and in production. What gets me is that most of the "changes" could have and should have been anticipated in the first place.

It's like they ask for somethng basic thinking it can't be done, and then, when it gets developed, they want all these "add ons" instead of thinking about, "What if they CAN develop this weapon? What might we want added to the basic device?" Al little bit of that would go a long way tyo controlling cost escalations due solely to government change requests to production line items.

When I was in charge of the automotive department of the Telecomm company I worked for, we would bid out for public safety vehicle outfitting based on the agencies' equirements (push-bumper, console, partition, lightbar, two-way, etc.) and 9 times out of 10, the customer would want something changed midstream, which would of course create delays, cost over-runs and finger pointing.

Why none of those changed/upgrades were drafted into the original proposal BEFORE things got rolling, is beyond me.

 

[GregP]

It's also the sofware engineer's lament. They ask you to write some software to do something and, when it is finished, THEN they start asking for add-ons. Guaranteed.

 

[SaparotRob]

It's also the sofware engineer's lament. They ask you to write some software to do something and, when it is finished, THEN they start asking for add-ons. Guaranteed.

And to help us set up our printers.

 

[Admiral Beez]

If you look at any Spitfire or Hurricane pilot sat in the cockpit, it is impossible to tighten the straps enough to stop your head hitting it in a hard landing, some pilots like Bob Doe almost lost their face and were out for months if not permanently. meninroad: "© IWM (HU 54419) Portrait of a sergeant pilot of No. 610 Squadron, sitting in the cockpit of a Spitfire, … | Battle of britain, Fighter pilot, Luftwaffe

View attachment 609376

I wonder if Seafire or Sea Hurricane pilots smacked their heads when catching the wire? You're going from about 80 knots relative to carrier speed, to zero in seconds.

 

[P-39 Expert]

By "nothing really wrong with the P-39" I mean the USAAC got what it ordered, and later models could have performed well if flown at high MAP. They would never have made escort or high-altitude fighters, but the P-39N was likely a decent performer if flown at 57+" MAP in combat, even at 20,000 feet. It was quite good if flown at 70+" MAP. We just didn't DO hat as a matter of standard practice like the Soviets did. As a result (along with OTHER reasons so well-described before this post in the Groundhog thread), it was not a popular airplane with the USAAC/F.

Alas, we TESTED them at higher MAP, but did not approve 75" as recommended by Ben Kelsey. I heard that the P-40 was quite a good fighter when flown at 70+" MAP from Major General (Ret) John Allison - no relation to the engine family - before he passed away. He visited Joe Yancey's shop and Joe let him start an Allison and run it. He had an ear-to-ear grin. When he demonstrated the P-40 under Tex Hill, he used 70" MAP, according to Gen. Allison. I have no reason to doubt that and he knew exactly what MAP he could run without major damage to the engine. He was comforrtable with the V-1710 even after many years of not seeing or operating one.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Nothing really wrong with the P-39, but I think we've had more P-39 discussion than it's merits warrant.

Damn straight. Is there a way to filter out P-39 chat within a thread?