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

[GrauGeist]

I believe the Griffon was a clean-sheet design.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

The Stirling (and Halifax) have always appeared to me to be over-engineered the more I learn about them and a lot of that, particularly in the Stirling's case comes from Air Ministry interference and attempting to work within the specifics of the written requirements and specs. Short Brothers had experience with large multi engined aircraft (as did Handley page for that matter), yet the Stirling, a massive undertaking at the time fell short of the performance criteria of B.12/36 for numerous reasons and came with built-in obsolescence that could not be worked around without major redesign.

What it does illustrate (along with the Halifax) is that it wasn't easy to put into production large four-engined aircraft built to mid 30s specifications and anticipating whether or not they would be viable going forward. That the Manchester was Avro's very first attempt at a big (ish) all-metal aircraft is impressive (Avro had built Blenheims under licence as their first all-metal type in its workshops) and resulted in a noble but flawed effort, but essentially once the aerodynamic (and equipment) issues were worked out was a very sound design free of the performance constraints of the Stirling and the aerodynamic and overly complicated problems the Halifax suffered. Of course, the Manchester benefitted from the torpedo requirement in P.13/36, giving it that impressively large unobstructed bomb bay, as well as its inherent strength as a result of the catapulting requirement.

I think massive is an appropriate adjective for anything to do with the Stirling.
I think the blame for the Stirling rests almost entirely with the Shorts design team. The Air Ministry didn't insist that the Stirling have such a deep fuselage, in fact they were trying to limit the size. The Stirling fuselage was far deeper than is rival the Supermarine 317 ordered to the same specification. The Air Ministry didn't require the fuselage to be far longer than its rivals. The Air Ministry didn't insist on the largest, most complex undercarriage seen up to that time.
On the other hand the majority of credit for the Lancaster's large unobstructed bomb bay should go to Avro. The Halifax was built to the same spec but it couldnt even close its doors when carrying a cookie.

 

[nuuumannn]

Agree with what you have to say, Reluctant poster.

The Air Ministry didn't insist on the largest, most complex undercarriage seen up to that time.

That was most definitely Short Bros since the wing incidence was found to be shallower than desired in the S.31 small scale aircraft, but the incidence on the Stirling couldn't have been altered at such a time, as development had already progressed on the prototype, so the undercarriage was altered to increase the wing's incidence angle. That the Air Ministry approved the Stirling to B.12/36 was on it however, but little did it know how convoluted the Stirling's development would become as a result of the original specification.

On the other hand the majority of credit for the Lancaster's large unobstructed bomb bay should go to Avro.

Yes and no. P.13/36 did stipulate the carriage of two 18 inch torpedoes side by side. It's worth remembering that the HP.56, which was the original entry to P.13/36 and the HP.57 were totally different designs and the latter, which was the Halifax was essentially an entirely new design. The Manchester echoed the original requirement's stipulations more closely than how the Halifax evolved, as the torpedo carrying and catapult requirement had been cancelled before the Halifax prototype had been finished, and the Manchester's design was altered to do away with the catapult requirement, which caused delays, although the big bomb bay remained.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

But at least it was loud, and the A/C sucked...

Cheers,
Biff

We had a flight of six at my base, right in front of the fire station where I worked -- maybe 100 yards. They sounded like Black & Decker drills pulling 140 dB, and could wake us up in our sound-proofed bunkrooms.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The statement was made that the P-39 shot down more enemy aircraft than any other American fighter in Soviet service. So, how many did it shoot down and what is the source for that statement. I have certainly seen the statement in print, have repeated it myself, but have also seen no victory figures with sources to back it up. So, its basically an unsupported statement.

Enough round words of greatness, what are the figures? I hope they imclude sorties, too. including action and non-action sorties.

For that statement to have any meaning, we'd need to know 1) which other American fighters saw significant Soviet service, and in what numbers, and 2) total sorties. A fighter's efficiency isn't measured by kills, it's measured by kills per sortie, and/or kills per combat loss.

Put another way: I'd bet the -39 suffered the highest losses of any American fighter flying for the VVS. That too is simply a function of raw numbers, rather than any statement of quality or deficiency.

It looks like the P-39 doubled the numbers in Soviet use over the next American fighter, the P-40. Not sure about the kill/loss ratios between the two types under Soviet use. But I'd expect the P-39 to both have the most kills and the most losses, simply because they were more prevalent.

 

[wuzak]

I have some suggestions for the P-39, with a couple of variations.

1. Lengthen main landing gear.
2. Move pilot close to the nose (now the nose armour is pilot armour).
3. Remove doors and replace with sliding canopy.
4. Remove guns from nose (no longer any space). Replace with a pair of 37mm M4 cannons (because they fire flat to 400 yards!) mounted on the sides, with the ammo bay behind the new pilot position. With the new placement longer barrels may be able to be fitted to the M4, enabling higher muzzle velocity. Add 2 or 4 M2 0.50 cals on the sides of the fuselage, using same ammo bay. Alternatively, ditch the M4s and replace with 4 x 20mm or 6 x 0.50" firing along the sides of the fuselage.
5. Provide extra fuel tank between the engine and ammo bay.
6. Use lower altitude V-1710 to turn P-39 into ground-pounder. Or find some way to fit a Merlin, or fit a Merlin supercharger to the V-170 for normal pursuit work.
7. Add nitrous oxide bottle for performance boost at altitude.
8. No wing guns, internal or suspended.

Variation A: Move prop to tail to become pusher aircraft. Replace conventional tail with one arranged like a Y - one fin down and two angled fins above. Could put a tail wheel in lower fin and remove nose gear.

Variation B: Not having enough variations of the V-1710 was always a problem for Allison, so have then design a remote gearbox and driveshaft assembly that takes the drive to a propeller on each wing, with a small nacelle. Drive shafts should, ideally, not interfere with wing tankage.

 

[GrauGeist]

I have some suggestions for the P-39, with a couple of variations.

1. Lengthen main landing gear.
2. Move pilot close to the nose (now the nose armour is pilot armour).
3. Remove doors and replace with sliding canopy.
4. Remove guns from nose (no longer any space). Replace with a pair of 37mm M4 cannons (because they fire flat to 400 yards!) mounted on the sides, with the ammo bay behind the new pilot position. With the new placement longer barrels may be able to be fitted to the M4, enabling higher muzzle velocity. Add 2 or 4 M2 0.50 cals on the sides of the fuselage, using same ammo bay. Alternatively, ditch the M4s and replace with 4 x 20mm or 6 x 0.50" firing along the sides of the fuselage.
5. Provide extra fuel tank between the engine and ammo bay.
6. Use lower altitude V-1710 to turn P-39 into ground-pounder. Or find some way to fit a Merlin, or fit a Merlin supercharger to the V-170 for normal pursuit work.
7. Add nitrous oxide bottle for performance boost at altitude.
8. No wing guns, internal or suspended.

Variation A: Move prop to tail to become pusher aircraft. Replace conventional tail with one arranged like a Y - one fin down and two angled fins above. Could put a tail wheel in lower fin and remove nose gear.

Variation B: Not having enough variations of the V-1710 was always a problem for Allison, so have then design a remote gearbox and driveshaft assembly that takes the drive to a propeller on each wing, with a small nacelle. Drive shafts should, ideally, not interfere with wing tankage.

Ok...so then something like this?

 

[Zipper730]

Ok...so then something like this?

View attachment 612183

What kind of plane is that?

 

[GrauGeist]

What kind of plane is that?

Yokosuka R2Y1 of the IJN.

Messerschmitt had a nearly identical project, the Me509, though it did not progress nearly as far as the R2Y1.

 

[BiffF15]

I have some suggestions for the P-39, with a couple of variations.

1. Lengthen main landing gear.
2. Move pilot close to the nose (now the nose armour is pilot armour).
3. Remove doors and replace with sliding canopy.
4. Remove guns from nose (no longer any space). Replace with a pair of 37mm M4 cannons (because they fire flat to 400 yards!) mounted on the sides, with the ammo bay behind the new pilot position. With the new placement longer barrels may be able to be fitted to the M4, enabling higher muzzle velocity. Add 2 or 4 M2 0.50 cals on the sides of the fuselage, using same ammo bay. Alternatively, ditch the M4s and replace with 4 x 20mm or 6 x 0.50" firing along the sides of the fuselage.
5. Provide extra fuel tank between the engine and ammo bay.
6. Use lower altitude V-1710 to turn P-39 into ground-pounder. Or find some way to fit a Merlin, or fit a Merlin supercharger to the V-170 for normal pursuit work.
7. Add nitrous oxide bottle for performance boost at altitude.
8. No wing guns, internal or suspended.

Variation A: Move prop to tail to become pusher aircraft. Replace conventional tail with one arranged like a Y - one fin down and two angled fins above. Could put a tail wheel in lower fin and remove nose gear.

Variation B: Not having enough variations of the V-1710 was always a problem for Allison, so have then design a remote gearbox and driveshaft assembly that takes the drive to a propeller on each wing, with a small nacelle. Drive shafts should, ideally, not interfere with wing tankage.

Or Variation C: Buy... More... Merlin... Mustangs...

Cheers,
Biff

 

[wuzak]

Or Variation C: Buy... More... Merlin... Mustangs...

Cheers,
Biff

Actually, variation C: have Bell build the P-51B or D.

 

[P-39 Expert]

I have some suggestions for the P-39, with a couple of variations.

1. Lengthen main landing gear.
2. Move pilot close to the nose (now the nose armour is pilot armour).
3. Remove doors and replace with sliding canopy.
4. Remove guns from nose (no longer any space). Replace with a pair of 37mm M4 cannons (because they fire flat to 400 yards!) mounted on the sides, with the ammo bay behind the new pilot position. With the new placement longer barrels may be able to be fitted to the M4, enabling higher muzzle velocity. Add 2 or 4 M2 0.50 cals on the sides of the fuselage, using same ammo bay. Alternatively, ditch the M4s and replace with 4 x 20mm or 6 x 0.50" firing along the sides of the fuselage.
5. Provide extra fuel tank between the engine and ammo bay.
6. Use lower altitude V-1710 to turn P-39 into ground-pounder. Or find some way to fit a Merlin, or fit a Merlin supercharger to the V-170 for normal pursuit work.
7. Add nitrous oxide bottle for performance boost at altitude.
8. No wing guns, internal or suspended.

Variation A: Move prop to tail to become pusher aircraft. Replace conventional tail with one arranged like a Y - one fin down and two angled fins above. Could put a tail wheel in lower fin and remove nose gear.

Variation B: Not having enough variations of the V-1710 was always a problem for Allison, so have then design a remote gearbox and driveshaft assembly that takes the drive to a propeller on each wing, with a small nacelle. Drive shafts should, ideally, not interfere with wing tankage.

You need a whole new plane. I always liked the idea of the pusher with a simpler radial with a cooling fan pulling air through the engine. Something like an XP-56 but more stable.

 

[wuzak]

You need a whole new plane. I always liked the idea of the pusher with a simpler radial with a cooling fan pulling air through the engine. Something like an XP-56 but more stable.

I think the P-39 is uniquely set up to convert to a pusher!

But I like your thinking - keep the IFF and build a completely new aircraft.

 

[wuzak]

Or Variation C: Buy... More... Merlin... Mustangs...

Cheers,
Biff

The only other thing to say about that is that my suggested mods could make the P-39 into an effective low altitude ground attack aircraft.

 

[Shortround6]

except the 37mm guns would have to be pushed Wwaaaaaaayyyyyy out.

I don't believe they could be synchronized and 37mm projectile (even without explosive) meeting propeller blade makes for a really bad day.

Time for the pusher prop?

Just be careful or the customer may demand something like this.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Just be careful or the customer may demand something like this.
View attachment 612280

Fantastique! Ze WussAir!

 

[P-39 Expert]

except the 37mm guns would have to be pushed Wwaaaaaaayyyyyy out.

I don't believe they could be synchronized and 37mm projectile (even without explosive) meeting propeller blade makes for a really bad day.

Time for the pusher prop?

Just be careful or the customer may demand something like this.
View attachment 612280

Correct on the 37mm not synchronizable, and they had to be in the nose. Out on the wings the slow rate of fire would have had them spraying shells all over the sky unless they somehow fired at the same exact instant (doubtful).

What is that second open cockpit up on top in the photo?

I think the pusher was the wave of the future in WWII, but then the jet engine came along and they all became pushers.

 

[tyrodtom]

Correct on the 37mm not synchronizable, and they had to be in the nose. Out on the wings the slow rate of fire would have had them spraying shells all over the sky unless they somehow fired at the same exact instant (doubtful).

What is that second open cockpit up on top in the photo?

I think the pusher was the wave of the future in WWII, but then the jet engine came along and they all became pushers.

Wave of the future during WW2 , the pusher ???
Can you think of a single successful pusher design from WW2 ?
The Saab 21 hardly qualifies , it didn't become operational till after WW2 was over.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Wave of the future during WW2 , the pusher ???
Can you think of a single successful pusher design from WW2 ?
The Saab 21 hardly qualifies , it didn't become operational till after WW2 was over.

Japanese Shinden? Very late in the war if it made it at all.

 

[tyrodtom]

The Shinden had one or two successful flights.
Is that your definition of a successful aircraft ?
Well, 3 flights in early August 45, for a grand total of 45 minutes of flight time.