Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better

[Reluctant Poster]

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.

Lord Cunningham was an Admiral. I belive you mean Arthur Coningham.

Arthur Coningham (RAF officer) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[GrauGeist]

Very little that Curtiss built turned out well.

Curtiss was a highly successful aircraft manufacturer, especially with maritime aircraft, up through the mid-30's.
The P-36 was, for it's time, one of the top fighter designs of the day.
With the P-40, they should have let the type run through it's natural progression of upgrades and not spend so much time and energy trying to find a spin-off that would have succeeded it, but instead work up a clean sheet design to replace it.
As far as other types, the SOC, C-46, SB2C and SC were solid performers.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Curtiss was a highly successful aircraft manufacturer, especially with maritime aircraft, up through the mid-30's.
The P-36 was, for it's time, one of the top fighter designs of the day.
With the P-40, they should have let the type run through it's natural progression of upgrades and not spend so much time and energy trying to find a spin-off that would have succeeded it, but instead work up a clean sheet design to replace it.
As far as other types, the SOC, C-46, SB2C and SC were solid performers.

The C46 and SB2C took a long time to get right. They had terrible reputations early in their careers. The SOC was prewar. The SC took too long to get into service to be of any use. As you note Curtiss was great up to the mid 30s, after that it produced a long line of failures. The list of prototype fighters is unbelievable, each one a flop. It's no accident that Curtiss stopped building aircraft after WWII.

 

[drgondog]

Lord Cunningham was an Admiral. I belive you mean Arthur Coningham.

Arthur Coningham (RAF officer) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I agree the correction..

 

[Zipper730]

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.

I corrected my post, it's weird how a few letters can totally change the meaning of a message.

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.

The problem seemed to have to do with two matters.

• Engine-out Performance: This actually prevented the F7F-1 from carrier service (I could be wrong here, but by the time they finally got around this problem, the aircraft was obsolete)
• Weight: While some carriers like the Midway were rated to 68750 lb., not all the carriers were rated to that. As a result, they often had to design around what average carriers could make do with.
• Spot Factor: The more planes you can stuff on a ship, the better in theory.

(I'm not sure why the new format no longer has the ability to make numbered and unnumbered lists, but those are my bread and butter. I know a few other people who love making lists).

But once they could put rails/racks on Hellcats, they could back down the bomber complement.

The difference between the USN and the USAAF was that the USN still retained their single-engined bombers, though both used fighter bombers.

The term attack when used by the USAAF & USN can be misleading: In the US Army they were basically tactical-bombers, in the USN they were all ship-board bombers (B/SB/TB/BT, etc...) became attack-planes.

 

[wuzak]

Could the XP-54, XP-55 and XP-56 have been improved to become realistic alternatives for conventional fighters?

For the XP-54 I would lose the 37mm cannon, the gun tilting mechanism and replace with 4 x 20mm or 6 x 0.50", all in the nose, of course. Ditch the pressurised cockpit. I think this will save significant weight.

Next, reduce the size to be more like the original proposal (wing span was ~10ft less than the eventual XP-54 IIRC).

Find a suitable engine. The H-2470 was not going to be a production engine, so what can we use? I think the only real option in the US was a turbocharged V-1710. The question then is whether the weight has been sufficiently to allow for performance around that of a P-38 or P-51.


The XP-55 needs to have the elevator be a lifting surface all the time. My understanding of the system is that the elevator was free floating - it did its own thing when the pilot was not using it for pitching the aircraft. It would need to be larger as well.

More vertical stabiliser area was also required.

I don't know how much the performance could have been improved, it was already pretty small. With the elevator giving more lift, the wing could have been reduced in span and size. A tidy up the aerodynamics would not hurt either.

The performance of the XP-55 was similar to the later model P40s.


For the XP-56 I think they would need to start again. From scratch. Maybe try for a flying wing, rather than the flying wing with fuselage and fins that it ended up as.

 

[nuuumannn]

I belive you mean Arthur Coningham.

That wiki page eyeroll is slightly incorrect, Coningham's nickname was "Mary", not "Maori". He earned his nickname because "Maa-ree" was how he pronounced the word "Maori" (which is from the term Tangata Maori, which literally translates to Ordinary Man, so native New Zealanders are called Maoris by non natives - Tangata being Man; Maori are Tangatawhenua; People of the Land)

 

[nuuumannn]

On the subject of close support in WW2, of which Coningham, in command of the RAF's Desert Air Force and responsible for turning it around, was an advocate, who pioneered forward air control operations using radios to communicate between aircraft and troops on the ground for strike operations in the North African desert, the USAAF had its own close support advocate in Gen Elwood "Pete" Quesada, who also tried out the use of radio comms between ground forces and ground attack aircraft with the Ninth AF. Based in the UK in 1944, he and Coningham had a good working relationship, both working toward the same thing around Overlord, when Coningham was C-in-C of the 2nd Tactical Air Force.

Between the pair of them, these two pretty much defined future close support/interdiction principles applied since the war.

LIEUTENANT GENERAL ELWOOD R. QUESADA

Elwood Quesada was a member of the famous Question Mark endurance crew of 1929. In the first week of January, Second Lieutenant Quesada flew as a crew member with Major Carl Spaatz, Captain Ira Eaker,

www.af.mil

General Elwood Quesada: Air Tactics Innovator and Friend to Ground Troops

During the Normandy campaign of 1944, one air commander gave the ground troops the close support they wanted. That man was General Elwood “Pete” Quesada.

www.warhistoryonline.com

 

[P-39 Expert]

Could the XP-54, XP-55 and XP-56 have been improved to become realistic alternatives for conventional fighters?

For the XP-54 I would lose the 37mm cannon, the gun tilting mechanism and replace with 4 x 20mm or 6 x 0.50", all in the nose, of course. Ditch the pressurised cockpit. I think this will save significant weight.

Next, reduce the size to be more like the original proposal (wing span was ~10ft less than the eventual XP-54 IIRC).

Find a suitable engine. The H-2470 was not going to be a production engine, so what can we use? I think the only real option in the US was a turbocharged V-1710. The question then is whether the weight has been sufficiently to allow for performance around that of a P-38 or P-51.


The XP-55 needs to have the elevator be a lifting surface all the time. My understanding of the system is that the elevator was free floating - it did its own thing when the pilot was not using it for pitching the aircraft. It would need to be larger as well.

More vertical stabiliser area was also required.

I don't know how much the performance could have been improved, it was already pretty small. With the elevator giving more lift, the wing could have been reduced in span and size. A tidy up the aerodynamics would not hurt either.

The performance of the XP-55 was similar to the later model P40s.


For the XP-56 I think they would need to start again. From scratch. Maybe try for a flying wing, rather than the flying wing with fuselage and fins that it ended up as.

The two stage Allison -93 engine could have been used.

 

[wuzak]

The two stage Allison -93 engine could have been used.

In which one?

I presume you mean the XP-54, since the XP-55 doesn't have room for the 2nd stage and the XP-56 was a turd?

 

[wuzak]

Regarding the P-40, could the circular engine radiators for the V-1710 versions be relocated to the leading edge of the wing, perhaps ahead of the landing gear housing? Tidy up the lower forward fuselage.

Picture thanks to nuuumannn

Groundhog Thread Part Deux - P-39 Fantasy and Fetish - The Never Ending Story (Mods take no responsibility for head against wall injuries sustained)

Check the ingredients. If you added two oxygens to one carbon and then chilled, you'll get something else entirely!

ww2aircraft.net

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Regarding the P-40, could the circular engine radiators for the V-1710 versions be relocated to the leading edge of the wing, perhaps ahead of the landing gear housing? Tidy up the lower forward fuselage.

Picture thanks to nuuumannn
View attachment 639851

Groundhog Thread Part Deux - P-39 Fantasy and Fetish - The Never Ending Story (Mods take no responsibility for head against wall injuries sustained)

Check the ingredients. If you added two oxygens to one carbon and then chilled, you'll get something else entirely!

ww2aircraft.net

The circular radiators were an obsolete design. Curtiss should have moved to the vastly superior extended surface radiators (fin and tube, like your car radiator) as used by Rolls Royce. I believe Merlin powered P-40s did use extended surface radiators.

 

[P-39 Expert]

The circular radiators were an obsolete design. Curtiss should have moved to the vastly superior extended surface radiators (fin and tube, like your car radiator) as used by Rolls Royce. I believe Merlin powered P-40s did use extended surface radiators.

Agee, a rectangular coolant radiator and a rectangular oil radiator may have reduced the frontal area enough that the radiator housing didn't extend below the lower wing.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Centaurus production started in 1942 so it would be difficult to send four squadrons to Malaya in early 1941, eight more by October 1941.

Forget the Centaurus then. The Typhoon needs just two improvements.... make the Sabre reliable and more available, and strengthen the tail. We should be able to get some to Malaya in 1941.

Hawker Typhoon. Fix the tail at the onset, get a reliable and mass produced Sabre Send four squadrons to Malaya in early 1941, eight more by October 1941.

 

[wuzak]

Forget the Centaurus then. The Typhoon needs just two improvements.... make the Sabre reliable and more available, and strengthen the tail. We should be able to get some to Malaya in 1941.

Highly doubtful.

 

[fastmongrel]

In 1941 the Sabre is an immature very labour and spares intensive engine at the end of a very long logistics tail. Until English Electric take over Napier and move production to a new factory you are not going to get reliable engines.

Napier's factory was a Victorian relic incapable of producing mass production engines with interchangeable parts. For 1941 it's Merlin's or a US round engine.

 

[MikeMeech]

In 1941 the Sabre is an immature very labour and spares intensive engine at the end of a very long logistics tail. Until English Electric take over Napier and move production to a new factory you are not going to get reliable engines.

Napier's factory was a Victorian relic incapable of producing mass production engines with interchangeable parts. For 1941 it's Merlin's or a US round engine.

Hi
As far as I know Napier's factory was built on land purchased in 1903 and 1904 at Acton, west of London, after they had out grown their Lambeth site, to build automobile engines. Therefore it would less than 40 years old in WW2 and not 'Victorian'. For mass production of the Sabre MAP built a new factory in Liverpool, initially it was to be managed by Napiers but to re-organize production it ended up being 'taken over' by English Electric at the end of 1942 which was 'encouraged' by MAP.

Mike

 

[fastmongrel]

Hi
As far as I know Napier's factory was built on land purchased in 1903 and 1904 at Acton, west of London, after they had out grown their Lambeth site, to build automobile engines. Therefore it would less than 40 years old in WW2 and not 'Victorian'. For mass production of the Sabre MAP built a new factory in Liverpool, initially it was to be managed by Napiers but to re-organize production it ended up being 'taken over' by English Electric at the end of 1942 which was 'encouraged' by MAP.

Mike

Some of the machinery at Napier's was Victorian. It wasn't a big factory building it was a collection of relativity small buildings set around a cobbled yard. One of the problems with the sleeve valves they were machined in one building and then taken on a wooden hand cart to another building to be hardened then back by hand cart to the assembly building. So the sleeve valves which had to be perfectly round were bumped across a cobbled yard at least twice.

Napier's factory was a Victorian style small engineering works, the sort that was in common use in the mid 19th Century. There was no production line it was craftsman style production.

 

[SaparotRob]

Some of the machinery at Napier's was Victorian. It wasn't a big factory building it was a collection of relativity small buildings set around a cobbled yard. One of the problems with the sleeve valves they were machined in one building and then taken on a wooden hand cart to another building to be hardened then back by hand cart to the assembly building. So the sleeve valves which had to be perfectly round were bumped across a cobbled yard at least twice.

Napier's factory was a Victorian style small engineering works, the sort that was in common use in the mid 19th Century. There was no production line it was craftsman style production.

That reminded me of something that happened when I worked for a medical device manufacturer. We had a "gopher" (go for this, go for that). He was somewhat intellectually challenged. He was sent to pick up a highly machined (and long) component from a supplier. He decided to help by not taking a taxi to save the company money and walked the mile or two back. He was dragging one end up and down the streets of Manhatten back to our factory. He was so proud.

 

[Milosh]

they were machined in one building and then taken on a wooden hand cart to another building to be hardened then back by hand cart to the assembly building.

Going across would be no problem I would think as they hadn't been machined yet.

How would bumping across the cobbles effect the machined pieced?