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

[ThomasP]

Hey Niceoldguy58,

This may not be the same thing, but I remember reading about a plan to fit 4x .50 cal guns to B-24s (under the nose or in the forward bomb bay?) for jobs similar to those carried out by Coastal Command Liberators. It may even have been for the RAF's Coastal Command airframes but I do not recall.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Martin had developed a bomb bay pack of 4 x 20mm cannon for the B-26, but it never went into production.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Well I suppose they were busy building masterpieces such as the Barracuda, a plane of such brilliance that it was replaced with the plane it was designed to replace!!!!!.

Put the intended Griffin engine into the Barracuda and we have a good TSR.

 

[Shortround6]

Put the intended Griffin engine into the Barracuda and we have a good TSR.

If the engine had been ready on time they would have done it.

 

[swampyankee]

Conventional designs are common because they work. The P-39's layout was a clever solution to the demand for a cannon that was too heavy and bulky to mount in the wings and not likely synchronizable. While the P-39 was useful, it was far from perfect: the engine location severely restricted fuel capacity and resulted in c/g problems as ammunition was expended.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Conventional designs are common because they work. The P-39's layout was a clever solution to the demand for a cannon that was too heavy and bulky to mount in the wings and not likely synchronizable. While the P-39 was useful, it was far from perfect: the engine location severely restricted fuel capacity and resulted in c/g problems as ammunition was expended.

Did Bell Aircraft design and produce anything fixed wing that wasn't either a poor compromise or just a failure?

 

[tyrodtom]

Did Bell Aircraft design and produce anything fixed wing that wasn't either a poor compromise or just a failure?

X-1 ?

 

[GrauGeist]

Did Bell Aircraft design and produce anything fixed wing that wasn't either a poor compromise or just a failure?

About the only aircraft they built (that wasn't a rocket or a helicopter) that performed well, was the X-5, which was based on the Messerschmitt P.1101

 

[special ed]

A Wings or Airpower article had photos of the X-5 reconstruction from the P.1101. Much of the airframe is the German aircraft.

 

[GrauGeist]

A Wings or Airpower article had photos of the X-5 reconstruction from the P.1101. Much of the airframe is the German aircraft.

The captured P.1101 was damaged in transit.
The two X-5s that Bell made were of all new construction.

 

[special ed]

I'll see if I can find the data.

 

[GrauGeist]

Here's a detailed history of the X-5 from NASA:
NASA Armstrong Fact Sheet: X-5 Research Aircraft

 

[nuuumannn]

If the engine had been ready on time they would have done it.

The first production Griffons were allocated to Firefly and Spitfire production, better use for them, to be honest.

 

[nuuumannn]

A Wings or Airpower article had photos of the X-5 reconstruction from the P.1101. Much of the airframe is the German aircraft.

hmm, not really, the Bell X-5s, as Dave said were built from the ground up by Bell. The P.1101 was accidentally dropped while being delivered to Bell, but was used for testing the fit of possible engine types and there was a plan to flight test it, but the damage done and small size, which meant it couldn't properly trial the engines under test meant this didn't happen. There is a photo of it fitted with a J35 engine.

The X-5 was designed from scratch and there are a few structural differences between the two aircraft. The P.1101 was fitted with Me 262 outer wing panels and the tailplanes were made of wood. The fuselage contours were quite different between the two.

 

[GrauGeist]

To add to Grant's info, the X-5 was slightly larger, too.
Going by memory: 3 feet longer and a 3 foot wider wing-span (wings fully extended at 20°).

 

[Reluctant Poster]

If you mean fuel injected R-3350s, then probably there were a few by the end of the war. Someone else may have more details.

The B29s used to drop the atomic bombs used fuel injection.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Hey Niceoldguy58,

This may not be the same thing, but I remember reading about a plan to fit 4x .50 cal guns to B-24s (under the nose or in the forward bomb bay?) for jobs similar to those carried out by Coastal Command Liberators. It may even have been for the RAF's Coastal Command airframes but I do not recall.
View attachment 635513

It was for costal command. They also tried rockets, but eventually decided close combat with a uboat wasn't sensible. Depth charges and homing torpedoes were more practical.

 

[pbehn]

It was for costal command. They also tried rockets, but eventually decided close combat with a uboat wasn't sensible. Depth charges and homing torpedoes were more practical.

I think that reflects the difference between attacking during daylight and night time?

 

[ThomasP]

I believe the .50s were intended for Flak suppression during the bombing/DC run.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I think that reflects the difference between attacking during daylight and night time?

Convey protection was done mostly by day. Leigh light nighttime attacks were done in the bay of biscay on uboats heading out on patrol. B24 were used on long range Atlantic convoy escort.

I believe the .50s were intended for Flak suppression during the bombing/DC run.

Either you are strafing the uboat or doing a depth charge run. You can't do both at the same time. A flexible 50 cal in the nose is a better choice. CC Halifaxes often substituted a 50 for a 303 in the nose. Shackletons had aimable 20 mms in the nose.