Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better

[pbehn]

How did you come up with that speed loss figure?

Its in this test P-39 Performance Tests about 9 or 10 MPH depending on engine RPM

 

[DarrenW]

Its in this test P-39 Performance Tests about 9 or 10 MPH depending on engine RPM

Thanks for the verification....

 

[SaparotRob]

After scoping out DarrenW avatar, I watched a video about the Hellcat v. Zero. It stated that the Hellcat had the highest kill ratio of any fighter of WW 2. Is that correct?

 

[Greg Boeser]

The graph you posted displays the performance of the F6F-3 in a "combat" condition, meaning with underwing bomb racks and fuselage bomb shackles. The points you added display the speed of the P-39N in a "clean" condition with no racks or pylons mounted. Not really an apples to apples comparison.

Sure the P-39N had a decent enough top speed and climb rate but there are other qualities needed in a fighter in order to make it competitive in it's designed role and area of operation.

EEDeeoot! No poken das schleepink Groundhog!!!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Damn it, where's my mallet?

 

[DarrenW]

After scoping out DarrenW avatar, I watched a video about the Hellcat v. Zero. It stated that the Hellcat had the highest kill ratio of any fighter of WW 2. Is that correct?

I would say it had the highest 'official' kill ratio of any American fighter, when flown by American pilots. And like all claims we can debate for centuries about the true validity of said claims but that's a different discussion all together.

Some would say the FM-2 Wildcat has it beat but if you group this variant with all other Wildcats produced (as people sometimes do) it has an official ratio that was less than that of the Hellcat.

Interestingly, the Fins were far more successful flying the Brewster Buffalo than the US Navy and racked up a very respectable kill ratio against the Soviets (greater than that of the Hellcat), but again it was an American fighter flown by Finnish pilots so it's not in the same category as the Hellcat.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

IIRC the claimed ratio was 18:1 for the Hellcat. I'm skeptical. It was certainly the highest claimed ratio. That and four dollars will get you a cup of mud at Starbucks.

I doubt Japanese loss documentation would back that up except for perhaps the special instance of the Philippine Sea battle.

 

[SaparotRob]

I would've thought the BF-109 would've had the highest score. When the Zero was a dominant fighter, it didn't face as many opponents.
I'm taking your comment about the Buffalo as a win.
I'm from L.I. Go Grumman!

 

[SaparotRob]

BTW, The B-17B is my all time favorite.

 

[SaparotRob]

EEDeeoot! No poken das schleepink Groundhog!!!

Someone please add a like. Clean sweep!

 

[GrauGeist]

IIRC the claimed ratio was 18:1 for the Hellcat. I'm skeptical. It was certainly the highest claimed ratio. That and four dollars will get you a cup of mud at Starbucks.

I doubt Japanese loss documentation would back that up except for perhaps the special instance of the Philippine Sea battle.

Going by memory (I know, scary...), the F6F's loss to the Japanese were in the low hundreds whike they accrued over 5,000 claims, so the kill to loss ratio was fairly substantial.
I know the FM2 Wildcat had a high tally, but it's usually lumped in with the F4F, which waters down it K2L ratio, but as I recall (again, memory thing, be warned) the FM2 itself was not far from the F6F's.

In regards to the Bf109's K2L ratio, it was not as high as one may think. Yes, the type accounted for a great many Allied aircraft downed, but it also suffered a considerable amount of losses, lowering the ratio substantially.

*addendum*
I beleive the kill tally for the F6F in U.S. service typically quoted, is mainly focused on victories over Japanese opponents.
The F6F in USN service also gained victories against Luftwaffe aircraft in Europe, too.
While the number isn't nearly as large, there were no losses to the Luftwaffe during their brief European operation.

 

[Spindash64]

Ki-61-II: install a larger fuel tank behind the cockpit rather than using lead weights, possibly armored. This wouldn't directly improve performance, but it would at least provide better endurance for the increased weight rather than getting absolutely nothing.

Of course, just ditching the Ha-140 altogether for the Ha-112 worked out just as well for the Japanese.

On the topic of the the Kinsei, from a design standpoint, the Japanese should have really switched to this engine over the Sakae much earlier and give the Zeroes a desperately needed power increase. This would have also freed up manpower at Nakajima to work on the Homare, potentially letting it reach desired reliability and power early enough to allow the A7M1 to reach production. I'm aware that switching engines isn't a small feat, but the Sakae's power output was simply unacceptable in comparison to alternatives, and the Kinsei was almost the exact same weight and diameter, thus making it much less painful to adapt a number of aircraft to the new powerplant than it would be for some other engine installations.

 

[gumbyk]

Ki-61-II: install a larger fuel tank behind the cockpit rather than using lead weights, possibly armored. This wouldn't directly improve performance, but it would at least provide better endurance for the increased weight rather than getting absolutely nothing.

Of course, just ditching the Ha-140 altogether for the Ha-112 worked out just as well for the Japanese.

On the topic of the the Kinsei, from a design standpoint, the Japanese should have really switched to this engine over the Sakae much earlier and give the Zeroes a desperately needed power increase. This would have also freed up manpower at Nakajima to work on the Homare, potentially letting it reach desired reliability and power early enough to allow the A7M1 to reach production. I'm aware that switching engines isn't a small feat, but the Sakae's power output was simply unacceptable in comparison to alternatives, and the Kinsei was almost the exact same weight and diameter, thus making it much less painful to adapt a number of aircraft to the new powerplant than it would be for some other engine installations.

Lead weights are used for ballast to get centre of gravity in the correct place. If you put in fuel tanks in there instead, once the tank is empty you're back to having a C of G issue.

 

[Spindash64]

Ki-61-II: install a larger fuel tank behind the cockpit rather than using lead weights, possibly armored. This wouldn't directly improve performance, but it would at least provide better endurance for the increased weight rather than getting absolutely nothing.

Of course, just ditching the Ha-140 altogether for the Ha-112 worked out just as well for the Japanese.

On the topic of the the Kinsei, from a design standpoint, the Japanese should have really switched to this engine over the Sakae much earlier and give the Zeroes a desperately needed power increase. This would have also freed up manpower at Nakajima to work on the Homare, potentially letting it reach desired reliability and power early enough to allow the A7M1 to reach production. I'm aware that switching engines isn't a small feat, but the Sakae's power output was simply unacceptable in comparison to alternatives, and the Kinsei was almost the exact same weight, thus making it much less painful to adapt a number of aircraft to the new powerplant than it would be for some other engine installations.

Lead weights are used for ballast to get centre of gravity in the correct place. If you put in fuel tanks in there instead, once the tank is empty you're back to having a C of G issue.

I'm aware. But at least USE the weight for something. Even if it's a bunch of armor plates protecting nothing in particular, it's more useful than nothing. They could also sidestep this by reducing the fuel capacity in the wing tanks slightly and making the new fuselage tank much larger

My point is, if you're adding dead weight to your aircraft for an engine that hasn't had all the kinks worked out, you already flunked up.

 

[gumbyk]

I'm aware. But at least USE the weight for something. Even if it's a bunch of armor plates protecting nothing in particular, it's more useful than nothing. They could also sidestep this by reducing the fuel capacity in the wing tanks slightly and making the new fuselage tank much larger

My point is, if you're adding dead weight to your aircraft for an engine that hasn't had all the kinks worked out, you already flunked up.

Still not gonna work. Ballast is put as far back as possible, to minimise the amount of weight needed. Where you might need 100 lbs of weigh in the tail, you could need 3 or 4 times that much as armour plate.
A larger fuel tank behind the pilot (and behind the C of G) will only serve to make the problem worse. Fuel tanks in the wings were placed there because they were ale to put them at the C of G and minimise changes as the fuel burnt off.

Everything in aircraft design is compromise. I doubt that the addition of ballast was the first or only solution considered.
Sometimes 'dead' weight is the best solution, short of a complete re-design.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm aware. But at least USE the weight for something. Even if it's a bunch of armor plates protecting nothing in particular, it's more useful than nothing. They could also sidestep this by reducing the fuel capacity in the wing tanks slightly and making the new fuselage tank much larger

My point is, if you're adding dead weight to your aircraft for an engine that hasn't had all the kinks worked out, you already flunked up.

I don't know if you know anything about weight and balance but you can't effectively start adding weight, (be it ballast or armor plate) unless that weight can be installed along the "arm" where the C/G can be maintained within the C/G envelope and can be supported structurally within the aircraft. The other key is to install that ballast in a place within the arm so you use the least amount of weight possible. Using fuel to keep and aircraft within a C/G envelope is dangerous unless there is a method to burn off or transfer fuel in such a manner that the C/G envelope can be maintained. You also have to consider what is going to happen to the C/G after any armament is expelled.

 

[GrauGeist]

Well, if you removed the nose armor...oh, wait.

Never mind...

 

[Kilkenny]

Ki-61-II: install a larger fuel tank behind the cockpit rather than using lead weights, possibly armored. This wouldn't directly improve performance, but it would at least provide better endurance for the increased weight rather than getting absolutely nothing.

Of course, just ditching the Ha-140 altogether for the Ha-112 worked out just as well for the Japanese.

On the topic of the the Kinsei, from a design standpoint, the Japanese should have really switched to this engine over the Sakae much earlier and give the Zeroes a desperately needed power increase. This would have also freed up manpower at Nakajima to work on the Homare, potentially letting it reach desired reliability and power early enough to allow the A7M1 to reach production. I'm aware that switching engines isn't a small feat, but the Sakae's power output was simply unacceptable in comparison to alternatives, and the Kinsei was almost the exact same weight and diameter, thus making it much less painful to adapt a number of aircraft to the new powerplant than it would be for some other engine installations.

Agree totally. The Sakae was a great engine; but just didn't have the same development potential as the Kinsei. If Japan had produced the A6M8 in 1942 (and put in more armor and fuel tank protection--- possibly at the expense of range), the Zero would have been competitive at least by the time the A7M went into service (ideally around mid-1944).

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, if you removed the nose armor...oh, wait.

Never mind...

Your coat's on the rack immediately right of the door.

 

[MiTasol]

And there is a sinkhole waiting just where you front step used to be