Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
For the P-39
- The M-4 cannon was not particularly useful. Replace it with something like the 20 mm HIspano (its production problems were due to idiocy within the Army's bureaucracy, not intrinsic flaws in the manufacturing process).
- The car-doors were dumb. I know they were fashionable (iirc, the Tempest started with the same arrangement). Sliding canopies were definitely the way to go.
- One of the problems of the mid-engined layout is that it puts the engine, a big, heavy lump, exactly where one wants to put the fuel. While moving the engine would, in essence, change the P-39 to the P-40, fuel tankage could be increased by a small increase in wing span, and putting tanks in the wing roots.
- The original XP-39 had such a poor turbocharger installation that it actually impaired performance at altitude by increased drag. I think this could be fixed by lengthening the fuselage to permit a proper installation.
Maybe the bomb doors would need to be bulged? In any case the Mosquito was pretty much limited to four 500lbs until 1944 and even then not all bombers carried much more on every mission.
For the P-39 I'd have changed it into a pusher type with a Y-type tail (like the Bugatti P100), move the cockpit forward, install 2 x 20mm on each side of the nose (probably end up with 4 x 0.50", since it was American), possibly more fuel near the engine.
House the radiator below the fuselage, similar to the P-51. Who knows, you could even fit a turbo in that!
How about something like this?
SAAB 21 - Wikipedia
MAP told Fairey to make a navalised Spitfire. Fairey said NO!
I'm not sure why they classified 20mm cannon as anti-aircraft artillery. The USN did not do this. An aircraft mounted weapon can't always been built to the same standards as standard artillery.The M-4 cannon was not particularly useful. Replace it with something like the 20 mm HIspano (its production problems were due to idiocy within the Army's bureaucracy, not intrinsic flaws in the manufacturing process).
Me andThe original XP-39 had such a poor turbocharger installation that it actually impaired performance at altitude by increased drag. I think this could be fixed by lengthening the fuselage to permit a proper installation.
A pusher would have been a bad idea, attempt to bail out and you turn into salsa.For the P-39 I'd have changed it into a pusher type with a Y-type tail (like the Bugatti P100), move the cockpit forward, install 2 x 20mm on each side of the nose (probably end up with 4 x 0.50", since it was American), possibly more fuel near the engine.
House the radiator below the fuselage, similar to the P-51. Who knows, you could even fit a turbo in that!
It was supposed to be smaller, like the SAAB 21. That said, if I recall, the problem was mostly that it was originally designed for low/medium altitude operations. I'm not sure why they did that, as the USAAC seemed to generally favor high altitude aircraftThat's what the XP-54 should have been (and similar to what was originally proposed).
You know, that would have been a good argument for designing the Firefly as a single-seater.MAP told Fairey to make a navalised Spitfire. Fairey said NO!
It was supposed to be smaller, like the SAAB 21.
That said, if I recall, the problem was mostly that it was originally designed for low/medium altitude operations. I'm not sure why they did that, as the USAAC seemed to generally favor high altitude aircraft
- Y1P-37: Based on a P-36 with an inline engine and a turbocharger. The radiator & intercooler seemed to have screwed the design up. The P-40 was procured because it would be simple, and it turned out okay -- but it couldn't fly as high as the P-37
- XP-39: Designed with a turbocharger, though it didn't fit well, and the design needed modifications that got rid of the turbo.
- P-38: Designed as a high altitude fighter with supercharger, it was successful.
- P-47: Designed with altitude capability in the overall design, and proved successful.
On the P-39, the cockpit was a modular structure and the canopy frame was part of the framework.The car-doors were dumb. I know they were fashionable (iirc, the Tempest started with the same arrangement). Sliding canopies were definitely the way to go.
No doubt that BMW 801 earned it's place in aircraft history. What it lacked in early service was reliability, and later (mid/late 1944 on) it lacked a better supercharger. We also have a thing that 801 was not not contributing to the Axis cause for the 1st 20-22 (24?) moths of the war - 'my' RLM would've supported BMW staying in V12 business even after they acquired Bramo.
I do believe that one or two Short Stirlings were trialed with Wright R-2600s and perhaps they could have been used on the Halifax?
The Hercules II engines fitted to the Stirling Mk I were expected to be replaced by US-made Wright Cyclone engines for the Mk II. However, Hercules engine production was accelerated to meet demands, and when three aircraft-N3657, N3711, and R9188 -were fitted with Wright Cyclone engines at Swindon, performance and fuel consumption trials to assess performance and fuel consumption produced disappointing results. They offered no improvement over the Hercules and were much noisier, therefore a contract was not given.
No but the Germans had some problems coordinating fire. If we are going to trouble of designing ideal aircraft why are we using 2nd rate armament?
The MG FFM had a few problems, yes it was better than A machine (or even two) but you have the drum feed problem and the mixed ammo load problem, sometimes only 40% of the ammo was the mine shell. Bigger drums are not a real problem for the fuselage mounted gun but more of a problem with the wing mounted guns. Japanese may have shifted to some sort of box magazine? details/translations are not good. When you are dealing with 1000-1200hp there is only so much you can do, but when better engines are available (and faster targets) it doesn't give quite the return for investment.
My German is practically non existent. In the early part of that manual is some reference to 650kph but I don't what it refers to.
Blatt 4 (?) near the end of the first paragraph?
BTW the manual shows some rather strange drawings of a Zerstorer near the end. it appears to have a single cannon firing through each prop hub and no other changes to armament.
Unsold proposal? Magazines under the gun? notes seem to indicate Oerlikon FFS guns which used the same ammo as Allied AA guns (very comparable to the Hispano.
Export to Sweden?
Like but disagree:-
Mig-3. No change. Discarded as unsuccessful design for Eastern Front.
Sea Hurricane I from 1939 for service on carriers not Sea Gladiator. No folding wings ever as interim type pending arrival of Seafire. Sea Hurricane Ib (1939), IIb (1940), IIc (1941). Replaced by Seafire in 1942.
Spitfire III to form basis for Seafire to be put into production by Westland in 1941. Maybe Seafire Ic (c for carrier version) not Spitfire I's in 1941 for training, hook only and Merlin 20. Seafire IIc as per Spitfire III without folding wings in 1942 with late Merlin 20 series, but with hook and catapult spools. Seafire LIII as per Spitfire III with folding wings service intro early 1943 using Merlin 32, first deliveries late 1942. Cunliffe Owen to build Seafire XV based on Spitfire IV with Griffon engine service intro 1943, limited edition. Seafire FR 17 to appear in 1944. Should all be feasible. Supermarine leads the way for land based versions with Castle Bromwich being the mass producer. Westland uses their design skills to turn the Spitfire III/IV into World beating carrier fighters.
Zero and Oscar with Kinsei from 1943 on.
Ki-100 service intro 1944. No Ki-61-II. Replaces Shoki phased out of production in favour of Ki-84. Performance not quite as high as Raiden but more reliable. Better range and dive speed.
Bigger engines, same fighter means less range. Even the F4F-3 Wildcat was delivered without self sealing fuel tanks. It was all about range. I'm suggesting 1943 because clearly that's the point where the Jap Empire has expanded to its max extent. You need a defensive mentality after that, aircraft too.I know that MiG-3 was not a great success. My proposal rectifies lack of firepower (there was a hostorical small series of MiG-3s with two cannons, so nothing ground-breaking there), lack of engine power under 3-4 km (where it was actually needed; such MiG-3 was tested, achieved 600 km/h) and propensity for pilots to fly with open canopies (that robbed the speed).
Zero and Oscar with better motors only from 1943 means that Japan has still lost not just battles, carriers, aircraft and men, but also pilots to fly them.
Hello Tomo Pauk,
I guess the our "What-If" conditions are just a bit different. I was thinking minimal adjustments to the industry and fairly small changes in the existing environment while it seems like you were thinking of much larger series of cascading changes and management direction.
I had forgotten that the changes to the Allison engine series was mostly just a change in supercharger gear ratios.
- Ivan.
Bigger engines, same fighter means less range. Even the F4F-3 Wildcat was delivered without self sealing fuel tanks. It was all about range. I'm suggesting 1943 because clearly that's the point where the Jap Empire has expanded to its max extent. You need a defensive mentality after that, aircraft too.