Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better

[Zipper730]

Frankly, I think the USAAF shouldn't have given up on single-engined attack planes. The USN didn't and they worked very well.

BTW: Corrected from earlier

 

[MiTasol]

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.

In other words keep the A-36 wing

 

[pbehn]

In other words keep the A-36 wing

The P-51B/C and D were specifically escort fighters, I cant see a reason to impose the extra weight and drag of cannons onto it.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Frankly, I think the USAAF should have given up on single-engined attack planes. The USN didn't and they worked very well.

The USAAF did sort of realize this and by 1944 most single-engined attack missions were done by fighters, some modded with hard-points. Neither 8th nor 9th AFs used dedicated single-engine bombers (A-24, A-25, etc), no? That's giving up on the concept of "single-engined bomber", and transforming it to "let's stick as much ordnance as we can on this fighter." It's a subtle but clear distinction, to me. The RAF did the same thing around the same timeframe.

The USN had to keep with single-engined-bombers by dint of the carriers not being able to handle, regularly, the twins of the day. But once they could put rails/racks on Hellcats, they could back down the bomber complement.

 

[33k in the air]

The P-51B/C and D were specifically escort fighters, I cant see a reason to impose the extra weight and drag of cannons onto it.

Especially considering the .50-cal MGs were more than entirely sufficient to shoot down German (and Italian) fighters.

 

[33k in the air]

Frankly, I think the USAAF should have given up on single-engined attack planes. The USN didn't and they worked very well.

The Pacific theater was a very different environment from the European (and Mediterranean).

 

[Shortround6]

1. Sleeve-valves were superior. Period.
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.

1. Actually they didn't prove to be much better. They were better than Bristol poppet valve engines but then Bristol did very little development work on the Poppet valve engines.
The sleeve valves may have flowed more air. They seemed to have had a real problem with cooling at high power levels. There may have been problem using high boost which also limits take-off and combat power. Compare a Bristol radial to an equivalent P & W or Wright radial. And by equivalent I mean about the same size and about the same year of production.
Since nobody ever said how much the Bristol sleeve valve engines cost we are left guessing. Guesses from British authors say about double the cost per HP compared to a poppet valve engine but nobody can prove that one way or the other.

3. A MG 151/20 weighs about 2 1/2 times what an MG 131 does. The 20mm ammo is about 2.6 times heavier per round (averaging weights). Planes with the under wing 20mm guns were not noted for maneuverability. Slower initial role response and less climb may have been more important than loss of speed.

4. Inside tanks? ( inplace of wing machineguns/ammo storage) or tip tanks like a P-80?
Problems with the P-39/P-63 was limited internal fuel to fight and get home after external tank/s were punched off.

P-63s could carry 3 external tanks (at least later ones) a 75 gallon non-self sealing tank under the fuselage and a non-self sealing 75 gallon tank under each wing.
There was also a 64 gallon self-sealing slipper tank for under the fuselage. You do have to get the plane off the air-field when carrying large/multiple fuel tanks.

 

[swampyankee]

The P-51B/C and D were specifically escort fighters, I cant see a reason to impose the extra weight and drag of cannons onto it.

What would the installed weight of 6 or 8 0.5 in M2 be vs 4 Hispano 20 mm? Consider those 4 Hispano would be the equivalent of 12 0.5 in M2.

 

[33k in the air]

What would the installed weight of 6 or 8 0.5 in M2 be vs 4 Hispano 20 mm? Consider those 4 Hispano would be the equivalent of 12 0.5 in M2.

According to America's Hundred Thousand, the weight of a .50-cal MG was 70 lbs, and a 20mm cannon 129 lbs. The total weapon weights would be about:

4 x 20mm = 516 lbs
4 x .50-cal = 280 lbs
6 x .50-cal = 420 lbs
8 x .50-cal = 560 lbs

100 rounds of .50-cal ammunition weighed about 31 lbs; 100 rounds of 20mm weighed about 61 lbs.

 

[MiTasol]

The P-51B/C and D were specifically escort fighters, I cant see a reason to impose the extra weight and drag of cannons onto it.

I was purely commenting on the previous post that suggested the P-51 should be fitted with 4 x 20mm cannon showing it had been done and that the USAAF for some reason killed the concept

 

[GrauGeist]

I was purely commenting on the previous post that suggested the P-51 should be fitted with 4 x 20mm cannon showing it had been done and that the USAAF for some reason killed the concept

The US M2 20mm was problematic and wasn't adopted as a primary weapon except for the P-61 and F6F-5N.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

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.

That only lasted about a month before Donitz ordered the Uboats to remain submerged during the day and only surface at night to recharge the batteries.
Note that the British introduced rockets shortly after the order to fight it out on the surface. A swordfish was the first aircraft to lanch a British rocket in anger sinking U 752 on May 23 1943.

 

[drgondog]

In other words keep the A-36 wing

The P-51NA/Mk !A wing - which did not have pylon system for bombs/combat tanks... an 10mph slower w/20mm than Mustang I.

 

[drgondog]

The USAAF did sort of realize this and by 1944 most single-engined attack missions were done by fighters, some modded with hard-points. Neither 8th nor 9th AFs used dedicated single-engine bombers (A-24, A-25, etc), no? That's giving up on the concept of "single-engined bomber", and transforming it to "let's stick as much ordnance as we can on this fighter." It's a subtle but clear distinction, to me. The RAF did the same thing around the same timeframe.

The USN had to keep with single-engined-bombers by dint of the carriers not being able to handle, regularly, the twins of the day. But once they could put rails/racks on Hellcats, they could back down the bomber complement.

The A-36 Mustang was designed, proposed, and delivered as 'Low Level Attack Aircraft' - It was deployed and highly successful in all low level attack roles including specifically dive bombing and glide bombing - as well as being capable of defending itself. The Air Force did indeed use the A-24/-25 and not happy with inability to defend themselves.

The CAS Doctrine which emerged in 1941-42 was to deploy two types of aircraft to support US Army battlefield operations - Fast Attack Bomber (originally A-20) for low/medium level tactical strikes, and Fast Attack Fighter for Recon, Strafing, light bombing and capable of battlefield air superiority. The P-38/F-4 was originally tasked for fast battlefield recon but replaced by the emerging Mustang designs beginning with P-51-NA/F-6.

The doctrine based on Lord Cunningham's Desert Air Force tactics began to take root (AAF-HQ) in late 1942 and 43 and at the same time the P-51A contract and design supplanted the A-36. The A-36 was then abandoned as the primary battlefield fighter. It did not have continued production after first 500 and the new P-51A was deemed a superior fighter with superior range, bomb load and performance over the P-39 and P-40. By that time the the AAF Mustang evolution - from Allison 1S/1S supercharged engine based 20mm equipped/no bomb rack (P-51), to 6x0.50 cal/bomb rack/dive brake (A-36), to 4x0.50, bomb rack equipped, 1 Speed/1 Stage/water injected Allison (P-51A) - had morphed performance envelope to the P-51B-1 with Packard Merlin.

In May 1943 the new P-51A and B were tasked to replace all P-39 and P-40 in US TAC, specifically 9th AF. Zero were allocated to Strategic Air Forces.

 

[drgondog]

Frankly, I think the USAAF should have given up on single-engined attack planes. The USN didn't and they worked very well.

So, in your mind the A-36, P-47, P-51 didn't work?

 

[pinehilljoe]

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

the first hand accounts by pilots in the old Wings and Airpower magazine agreed it was too slow. In the big picture it may have been better if the US had license built Mosquitos for the night fighter role.

 

[Ascent]

the first hand accounts by pilots in the old Wings and Airpower magazine agreed it was too slow. In the big picture it may have been better if the US had license built Mosquitos for the night fighter role.

How about licence building Beaufighters for the night fighter role? Replace the engines with something American made, I'm sure there are plenty of options for powerful radials, although I don't know enough about American radials to know what would be equivalent.

 

[Shortround6]

If the P-61 is too slow the Beaufighter is waaaaaaay to slow. The US did use a number of Beaufighters as night fighters in the Med. Closest US engine was the R-2600 and it won't offer much performance improvement.

 

[pinehilljoe]

How about licence building Beaufighters for the night fighter role? Replace the engines with something American made, I'm sure there are plenty of options for powerful radials, although I don't know enough about American radials to know what would be equivalent.

The not-invented here, and the lobbies could never be overcome. Remember Curtis-Wright was the largest company in the USA at the time, bigger than GM. Curtis didnt build the P-61 but with that much money in the industry, the US wasnt going to license an aircraft. The only designs licensed in any number that I can think of were the DH-4, Canberra and Harrier, planes that were superior or unique.

 

[GrauGeist]

Also have to consider the amount of time to find a manufacturer who will accept the job (Cessna, Beech) and then devote a manufacturing site for the project.
Then (assuming DH had jigs to spare) assemble a workforce and necessary equipmentand and add the needed vendors getting on board
Then there's the issue of engine supply - Packard was doing the best they could keeping up with current demand, would an American Mossie production line push them behind on current orders?