Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


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.
 
Agree with what you have to say, Reluctant poster.

Reluctant Poster said:
The Air Ministry didn't insist on the largest, most complex undercarriage seen up to that time.
Click to expand...

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.

Reluctant Poster said:
On the other hand the majority of credit for the Lancaster's large unobstructed bomb bay should go to Avro.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 
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?

 

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

Cheers,
Biff
 
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.
 
P-39 Expert said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

What was it about the black crosses on the wings that made German aircraft the best?
5 6 7
Replies
123
Views
7K
mikewint
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
14
Views
958
Jugman
J
A
1939-1942 FAA: Better aircraft or more aircraft?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
S
How much faster is an aircraft with wooden surface?
Replies
16
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
M
If German have access to high ocatane fuel, how does that impact the performance of their fighters?
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Engineman
E
Menu
Log in
Register