- Thread starter
-
- #1,561
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.In other words keep the A-36 wing
Frankly, I think the USAAF should have given up on single-engined attack planes. The USN didn't and they worked very well.
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.
Frankly, I think the USAAF should have given up on single-engined attack planes. The USN didn't and they worked very well.
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.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.
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.
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 conceptThe 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.
The US M2 20mm was problematic and wasn't adopted as a primary weapon except for the P-61 and F6F-5N.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
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.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.
The P-51NA/Mk !A wing - which did not have pylon system for bombs/combat tanks... an 10mph slower w/20mm than Mustang I.In other words keep the A-36 wing
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 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.
So, in your mind the A-36, P-47, P-51 didn't work?Frankly, I think the USAAF should have given up on single-engined attack planes. The USN didn't and they worked very well.
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.To be honest the P61 was simply way too big, too heavy, too complex and too late.
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 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.
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.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.