Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better

Hey Reluctant Poster,

re strafing and dropping DCs during the same run

Given that I found more than 30 accounts of strafing and dropping DCs on the attack same run, within 10 minutes search on the web . . . ??

The first site I visited mentions several such attacks at the following address:

"U-boat Successes against aircraft - The History - uboat.net"

I remember reading later in the war the tactic become to orbit a surfaced U-boat just out of range of its AA guns. If the U-boat stayed on the surface, it risked more aircraft or enemy surface ships showing up; if it started to dive, the patrol aircraft would swoop in and drop depth charges.

ThomasP said:

Hey Reluctant Poster,

re strafing and dropping DCs during the same run

Given that I found more than 30 accounts of strafing and dropping DCs on the attack same run, within 10 minutes search on the web . . . ??

The first site I visited mentions several such attacks at the following address:

"U-boat Successes against aircraft - The History - uboat.net"

Click to expand...

Yes with flexible machine guns not fixed. My point is with fixed guns you have to aim the whole aircraft at the uboat which does not allow a proper path for a depth change attack. The discussion point was Coastal commands experiment with fixed guns similar to installations on B25s and 26s

Hey Reluctant Poster,

They used fixed and trainable guns during the attack. If fixed they often attacked from head on or astern, obviating the angle off problem for the DC attack.

ThomasP said:

Hey Reluctant Poster

They used fixed and trainable guns during the attack. If fixed they often attacked from head on or astern, obviating the angle off problem for the DC attack. Ad

Click to expand...

I dont see any runs by aircraft with fixed guns other than mosquitoes wildcats and Avengers. The bigger multi engined aircraft have turrets or hand held guns. The Wildcats and Avengers worked as a team with the Wildcat strafing with the Avenger dropping the depth charges. I don't believe Beafighters or Mosquitoes carried depth charges.
Incidentally one of my fathers old flying magazines from WWII had a picture of the Liberator with the fixed 20 mms with a caption claiming that the B24 was so agile that the RAF was using it as a fighter.

Same page which refers to the u-boats that managed to shoot down attacking aircraft, page down to

27 December 1942
". . . flak hits to the cockpit area and starboard engine during the initial strafing run caused four depth charges dropped by the aircraft to fall wide by 80 to 250m" (CC Hudsons were fitted with 2x fixed .303 cal nose guns)

7 May 1943
". . . but then made a strafing attack from the bow and released six depth charges . . ." (CC Halifax GR Mk II VLR with a fixed .50 cal in the nose)

also

Coastal Command Liberator Mk I VLR fitted with a 4x20mm belly pack specifically for strafing u-boats and surface ships

Late-war Coastal Command Halifax GR Mk IIIC with a 4-gun belly pack (either 4x.50 cal or 4x20mm) specifically modded for strafing u-boats and surface ships

also

from THE HOLDING CAMPAIGN AT SEA, 1943-44 Australian War Memorial collection
Sunderland Mk II with the 4x.303 cal fixed guns, 2x per side of the nose (Australian sqdn mod) "The four fixed bow guns not only gave automatic smothering fire but also allowed the pilot to eliminate line error when carrying out a depth-charge attack while at the same time . . ."

ThomasP said:

Same page which refers to the u-boats that managed to shoot down attacking aircraft, page down to

27 December 1942
". . . flak hits to the cockpit area and starboard engine during the initial strafing run caused four depth charges dropped by the aircraft to fall wide by 80 to 250m" (CC Hudsons were fitted with 2x fixed .303 cal nose guns)

7 May 1943
". . . but then made a strafing attack from the bow and released six depth charges . . ." (CC Halifax GR Mk II VLR with a fixed .50 cal in the nose)

also

Coastal Command Liberator Mk I VLR fitted with a 4x20mm belly pack specifically for strafing u-boats and surface ships

Late-war Coastal Command Halifax GR Mk IIIC with a 4-gun belly pack (either 4x.50 cal or 4x20mm) specifically modded for strafing u-boats and surface ships

also

from THE HOLDING CAMPAIGN AT SEA, 1943-44 Australian War Memorial collection
Sunderland Mk II with the 4x.303 cal fixed guns, 2x per side of the nose (Australian sqdn mod) "The four fixed bow guns not only gave automatic smothering fire but also allowed the pilot to eliminate line error when carrying out a depth-charge attack while at the same time . . ."

Click to expand...

I stand corrected

Reluctant Poster said:

I don't believe Beafighters or Mosquitoes carried depth charges.

Click to expand...

Not sure if the Mosquito carried depth charges operationally, but they were certainly trialled.

Back to how to improve a design. What could you do to the Me-109F/G with 90 days of design time and minimal tooling change to make a 400mph class fighter?
-design out the mass balance horns on the wings
-retract the tail wheel
-stop painting the aircraft, and go to polished aluminum finish, the operational life of a 109 could not have been that long, who needs the paint.
-fully cowl the landing gear
-use a bubble canopy
-could the oil cooler design have been modified to drop the intake below the wing boundry layer, and redesign to use the Meridith affect?
Any others?

pinehilljoe said:

Back to how to improve a design. What could you do to the Me-109 with 90 days of design time and minimal tooling change to make a 400mph class fighter?
-design out the mass balance horns on the wings
-retract the tail wheel
-fully cowl the landing gear
-use a bubble canopy
-could the oil cooler design have been modified to drop the intake below the wing boundry layer, and redesign to use the Meridith affect?
Any others?

Click to expand...

First 3 shouldn't be much trouble.
Modifying the windscreen area from that contraption that looks like a refuge from an 1800s blacksmith's shop would certainly bring some improvement. Putting something like a Malcom hood over pilot may give better vision to the rear but might cost a few of the MPH picked up with the better windscreen. Cutting down the rear fuselage may be somewhat harder.

One prototype, maybe more?
Against is the fact that the extra height of the rear fuselage provided keel area, often made up with larger vertical stabilizer or fin added in front of stabilizer, all planes are different so I won't guess how much modification needed for that. Some planes got more powerful engines about the same time they got bubble canopies and would need more "keel area" for that reason so it does get confusing.
2nd fact is that if you cut down the height of the rear fuselage with no other changes you reduce the beam strength. Maybe slightly heavier fuselage skin can compensate? maybe the thinner fuselage is still strong enough to handle loads?
3rd consideration, unless well done, the "bubble" may cause more drag than the highback fuselage due to turbulence at the rear of the canopy. I believe the P-51B/C was faster than the P-51D for this reason (at least partially, there were some other changes) when using the same engines.
Improved vision may be worth a few MPH?
For the Germans such changes have to be made in a number of different factories. Not just 2 or 3.

As far as the oil cooler goes, It is under the nose, the radiators are under the wing.
Using the Meredith effect was a lot harder than it appears. You need to slow down the incoming air by using a larger duct near the radiator or oil cooler than the opening and then you need to narrow the exit duct in a gradual manner so you don't create turbulence/drag in the duct. If your transition of cross section area isn't done right you don't get much total effect. Part of the "effect" as used in the Mustang was that the Mustang used a very large radiator and the air flow though it was much lower than the airspeed of the airplane and since drag is proportional to speed this meant they radiator itself and less drag than a smaller radiator with a higher speed airflow. Mustang had the room (size of aircraft) to allow for the changes in duct size.

How better would British aircraft have been if the whole sleeve valve idea was rejected by Bristol and instead the firm focused on improving and enlarging its poppet valve Mercury and Pegasus? There's also the Hydra, but that's adding needless complexity to a need that can be addressed with more displacement and more rows of larger cylinders.

1. Sleeve-valves were superior. Period.
2. Pure aluminium finish on the 109? Ugly! Would transform a military aircraft to a pimp ride.
3. Bf 109G-2/6: Delete fuselage machine guns altogether (MG 17 was next to worthless and the MG 131 not much better) and make underwing cannons permanent.
4. P-39/P-63: Add wingtip fuel tanks to boost fuel capacity.
5. P-51B/D/H: Remove the 0.5 MGs and use 4 20 mm cannon instead. The same for the F6F and P-47 too. USN BuOrd considered one 20 mm equal to 3 x 0.5" in firepower.
6. Fw 190: Redesign (originally) the wing with large Fowlers with a stick operated (like in the J2M) manoeuvre position.
7. The original Bf 109 design should have looked like the Finnish Pyörremyrsky. The PM had some 20 % bigger wing, more spacious fuselage, yet was almost as fast as the 109G with the same engine thanks to its cleanliness. The PM handled much better all-around.

Reluctant Poster said:

I dont see any runs by aircraft with fixed guns other than mosquitoes wildcats and Avengers. The bigger multi engined aircraft have turrets or hand held guns. The Wildcats and Avengers worked as a team with the Wildcat strafing with the Avenger dropping the depth charges. I don't believe Beafighters or Mosquitoes carried depth charges.
Incidentally one of my fathers old flying magazines from WWII had a picture of the Liberator with the fixed 20 mms with a caption claiming that the B24 was so agile that the RAF was using it as a fighter.

Click to expand...

A lot of CC aircraft were armed with fixed forward firing cannons and or MG's. The idea was to try and knock out the AA gunners at range whilst attacking levelling out for the DC run. The run was the same and fire could be opened at quite a range say 1,000 yard when closing and with luck by the time you reach the U Boat the gun crew will be out of action.

On the attached video you can clearly see the 4 x 303 fitted in this aircraft

Trilisser said:

1. Sleeve-valves were superior. Period.
2. Pure aluminium finish on the 109? Ugly! Would transform a military aircraft to a pimp ride.
3. Bf 109G-2/6: Delete fuselage machine guns altogether (MG 17 was next to worthless and the MG 131 not much better) and make underwing cannons permanent.
4. P-39/P-63: Add wingtip fuel tanks to boost fuel capacity.
5. P-51B/D/H: Remove the 0.5 MGs and use 4 20 mm cannon instead. The same for the F6F and P-47 too. USN BuOrd considered one 20 mm equal to 3 x 0.5" in firepower.
6. Fw 190: Redesign (originally) the wing with large Fowlers with a stick operated (like in the J2M) manoeuvre position.
7. The original Bf 109 design should have looked like the Finnish Pyörremyrsky. The PM had some 20 % bigger wing, more spacious fuselage, yet was almost as fast as the 109G with the same engine thanks to its cleanliness. The PM handled much better all-around.

Click to expand...

1) Yet no one other than the British used them in production aircraft engines. While they did (at least according to Charles Fayette Taylor) provide better volumetric efficiency, they also provided significantly greater mechanical complexity and more difficult manufacturing. In other words, they may have been somewhat superior but not enough better for anyone else to actually use them in a production engine.

2) Natural aluminum finish was largely de rigueur for post-war military aircraft. I suspect that many WW2 era, all-metal aircraft were painted at least partly because many "all-metal" aircraft weren't, with things such as fabric-covered control surfaces or wooden empennages.

3) Getting rid of them may enable some general aerodynamic clean-up, as the Bf109 was, according to all the sources I've seen, owner of the highest zero-lift drag coefficient of any single-engine monoplane fighter to serve through WW2.

4) I wonder how that would work in combat. Tip tanks can be drag-neutral, so the only real question would be roll rate and handling with them filled.

5) The problem with this is that the US severely mishandled production of the Hispano 20 mm during the war. But, yes, they were considerably superior to the M2 Browning.

6) No comment

7) No comment.

------

I believe there is one US fighter which could be "redesigned" with minimum need for a time machine and a retroscope: the P-61. While I believe the P-39 was far from an optimum design, I cannot see any solution that would meet the USAAC spec for a 37 mm cannon without an engine designed for a hub-mounted cannon.

My P-61 revision would be straightforward: no turret, a conventional, not twin-boom, layout, tandem seating for the pilot and radar operator, and all guns (4 x 20 mm) mounted beneath the nose. If one is wed to the twin-boom design, well, fine, but that way lies greater wetted area (more skin friction drag) and likely more structural weight.

I was thinking about the P-61 with a turbochager and it's effects with earlier horsepower settings on speed. I did some very crude calculations based on manifold pressure to horsepower for the baseline P-61A/B supercharger gear based from a manual in a private message I sent to somebody awhile back. The 22500' figure I just added based on another R-2800 powered aircraft, and put the speed setting based on the fact that I know the top speed was 366 mph.



I'm not sure how the horsepower figures are so high for MCP as 1751 seems to be above the normal-rated setting, but these figures are what came from the manual (TAS, MAP and Altitude) with the exception of the critical altitude figure (22500') and the speed at altitude (the latter came from known performance figures of the P-61, and the former was a guess based on the R-2800).

With turbocharging, the figures seem generally to be quite a bit better, though I'm not sure how much thrust was produced by the R-2800's exhaust-stacks (as that would be lost). If I compute these figures right, I do get numbers just under 400 mph. It does seem that the only way to get around 430 is to add quite a bit more power.

To be honest the P61 was simply way too big, too heavy, too complex and too late.

In lieu of the P-61, consider the XP-58.

If it weren't for the problematic X-1430 and V-3420 engines, it may have seen quite a few roles: interceptor, ground attack and perhaps night-fighter.

It's armament considerations even included four 37mm cannon.

swampyankee said:

1) Yet no one other than the British used them in production aircraft engines. While they did (at least according to Charles Fayette Taylor) provide better volumetric efficiency, they also provided significantly greater mechanical complexity and more difficult manufacturing. In other words, they may have been somewhat superior but not enough better for anyone else to actually use them in a production engine.

2) Natural aluminum finish was largely de rigueur for post-war military aircraft. I suspect that many WW2 era, all-metal aircraft were painted at least partly because many "all-metal" aircraft weren't, with things such as fabric-covered control surfaces or wooden empennages.

Click to expand...

1) They also had problems of heat dissipation, special high copper alloys were developed to solve it.
2) Post war, most aircraft werent involved in a war where they could be shot up on the ground. Vulcan strategic bombers were all white until they had to fly at low level then they got camouflage on upper surfaces.

Glider said:

A lot of CC aircraft were armed with fixed forward firing cannons and or MG's. The idea was to try and knock out the AA gunners at range whilst attacking levelling out for the DC run. The run was the same and fire could be opened at quite a range say 1,000 yard when closing and with luck by the time you reach the U Boat the gun crew will be out of action.

On the attached video you can clearly see the 4 x 303 fitted in this aircraft

short sunderland flying boat - Search Videos

www.bing.com

Click to expand...

Like most conflicts it wasnt static. As depth charge attacks became more successful, U Boats especially in the Bay of Biscay were encouraged to fight it out on the surface rather than diving.

pbehn said:

1) They also had problems of heat dissipation, special high copper alloys were developed to solve it.
2) Post war, most aircraft werent involved in a war where they could be shot up on the ground. Vulcan strategic bombers were all white until they had to fly at low level then they got camouflage on upper surfaces.

Click to expand...

If I recall, North Vietnam's Air Force's MiGs were in natural metal. Of course, jets have another problem: smoke trails. The J-79s were pretty smokey.