Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better

[pinsog]

I would have to agree with you. When I suggested a skinnier P43 I thought it was for a better land based fighter. I don't think you can do with a smaller wing for a carrier based fighter.

 

[tomo pauk]

True but the Ju-88 A-4 used engines that had 1340hp for take-off and gave 1060hp at 17,000ft (?? old source, open to correction)
while the Do-215 used DB 601Aa engines that gave 1175ps (1 minute) for take off and 1100ps at 12,210ft. (5 minute).
The Do-215 was being phased out before the Ju-99A-4 really entered production due to delays in the Jumo 211J engine.
The Ju-88 carried 369 Imp gallons of fuel without resorting to bomb bay tanks and the Do-215 carried 341 imp gallons in the wing root tanks without resorting to bombay tanks.

AN "improved" DO 215 might well operate at somewhat higher gross weights than the Do-215 (7000-8500kg) and put a bit more fuel in the wings?

The Ju-88A-4 was an "improved" Ju-88A-1 with a bigger. stronger wing, more powerful engines, beefed up landing gear and a few other changes that that raised the empty equipped weight by over 2000kg..

Trying to modify the Do-215 to equal the Ju-88A-4 in load carrying ability is a losing game. You need a whole new airplane. But using the Do-215 as a starting point for a high speed (330mph ?) bomber that could carry four 250kg bombs at a high cruising speed might have promise.
Given the chronic shortage of DB engines it is not realistic and that engine shortage is the main stumbling block.

The Ju 88A-1 was rated for 28 x 50 kg bombs, and was available in 1940 for the BoF (in small numbers) and for the BoB (in better numbers). Initially started with two Jumo 211A engines (1100 PS for take off), then switched to 1200 HP 211s.
Ju 88 line can also be fast bomber - no racks, no dive brakes, thin cockpit, better engines than it was around in 1940 etc.

I would have to agree with you. When I suggested a skinnier P43 I thought it was for a better land based fighter. I don't think you can do with a smaller wing for a carrier based fighter.

Well, neither Zero nor WIldcat carried anything from the high-lift devices. Known to the pople all around the world by mid-1930s, Fowler flaps were used on Lockheed aircraft, as well as (as a derivative) on the Ki-43. Slats were also around.

To move a bit from the Pacific Dynamic Duo.
- Hawker Fury: designed as a monoplane
- Gloster Gladiator: ditto; Mk.2 with retractable U/C
- A-S Whitley: designed as a 4-engined bomber
- Avro Lancaster: designed with less guns, more streamlining
- Ju 88: designed with shoulder/high wing, so it can have a meaningful bomb bay
- Gloster F.5/34: designed around Hercules
- MB.2: designed around Merlin, with retractable U/C

 

[Kevin J]

Trying to make a better carrier plane than the F4F is going to take a bit of doing.
Using the stock flaps reduces the take-off run by about 25%. At 7921lbs it is supposed to take just under 700ft to take off in zero wind using the flaps.
Stalling speed with 4 guns clean was supposed to be 69 knots power off, Power on reduced that to 63kts. with flaps and gear down the stalling speed dropped about 9 knots or more.
Flaps had one setting (43 degrees)and were vacuum operated, as speed built up over 130knots the flaps "blew up" until about 10 degrees meaning the pilot could pretty much ignore them while taking off (a good thing as he had to crank the landing gear up by hand.)
Using a small wing and trick flaps may not actually get you much.

I would also note that the figures for the P-43 at 6913lbs (about 1000lbs lighter) call for a ground run of 1070ft using 15 degrees of flap.
P-43 at weight has no armor, no self sealing tanks. 145 US gallons and 250.6 pounds of armament ( four .50s with no ammo weigh around 300lbs)
P-36C needed 600ft with 30 degrees of flap at a weight of 5800lbs (another 1000lbs lighter) and held 105 us gallons, 292lbs of guns and ammo, no armor, no self sealing tanks. and had trouble with the wing skin wrinkling or buckling in the area of the landing gear attachments.

Of course you could always take a standard Spitfire I/II of 1939/40, add folding wings, catapult spools, arrestor hook, naval radio etc. Now that should knock a good 20 mph off its top speed, so say 335 mph. Looks like its not going to be any faster than a Wildcat but much more fragile. So what would everyone prefer in 1940/41 a Seafire or a Wildcat? I'd go for the Wildcat.

As an interim measure, you could sling a hook underneath a Hurricane, add individual exhausts and you should not lose any speed, but at altitude is there any significant performance difference between that and a Wildcat? No there isn't. At low altitude where the performance is needed, the Sea Hurricane is much faster with first 12 then 16 lbs of boost, but you can only operate them in a deck park and on outriggers. Alternately why not use water injection on the Wildcat engine to boost low altitude speed? Then the Wildcat would show itself to be superior to the Sea Hurricane.

 

[wuzak]

Of course you could always take a standard Spitfire I/II of 1939/40, add folding wings, catapult spools, arrestor hook, naval radio etc. Now that should knock a good 20 mph off its top speed, so say 335 mph. Looks like its not going to be any faster than a Wildcat but much more fragile. So what would everyone prefer in 1940/41 a Seafire or a Wildcat? I'd go for the Wildcat.

As an interim measure, you could sling a hook underneath a Hurricane, add individual exhausts and you should not lose any speed, but at altitude is there any significant performance difference between that and a Wildcat? No there isn't. At low altitude where the performance is needed, the Sea Hurricane is much faster with first 12 then 16 lbs of boost, but you can only operate them in a deck park and on outriggers. Alternately why not use water injection on the Wildcat engine to boost low altitude speed? Then the Wildcat would show itself to be superior to the Sea Hurricane.

Why not just put a hook on the Spitfire, like you did for the Hurricane, which should allow it to retain its performance, like you suggest for the Hurricane?

The Spitfire I is good for 355-360mph at best altitude, with 2 x 20mm cannon. You could improve that by adding individual exhaust stacks, like you suggest for the Hurricane.

The Spitfire is smaller than the Hurricane, both retaining fixed wings. It is smaller in length, wing span and height.

It's also lighter, so the supposed fragility has to deal with lower loads than the Hurricane. Or F4F.

As to your first question, in 1940 I'd definitely go for the Seafire, or at least a Spitfire I with arrestor hook. In 1940 the Spitfire I has the significant advantage over the F4F of actually being available.

For 1941 we might put those Merlin XXs that would have otherwise gone into Sea Hurricane IIs, further improving the Spitfire's performance. Plus you have the additional 20mm cannon firepower.

 

[Kevin J]

Why not just put a hook on the Spitfire, like you did for the Hurricane, which should allow it to retain its performance, like you suggest for the Hurricane?

The Spitfire I is good for 355-360mph at best altitude, with 2 x 20mm cannon. You could improve that by adding individual exhaust stacks, like you suggest for the Hurricane.

The Spitfire is smaller than the Hurricane, both retaining fixed wings. It is smaller in length, wing span and height.

It's also lighter, so the supposed fragility has to deal with lower loads than the Hurricane. Or F4F.

As to your first question, in 1940 I'd definitely go for the Seafire, or at least a Spitfire I with arrestor hook. In 1940 the Spitfire I has the significant advantage over the F4F of actually being available.

For 1941 we might put those Merlin XXs that would have otherwise gone into Sea Hurricane IIs, further improving the Spitfire's performance. Plus you have the additional 20mm cannon firepower.

You're crazy. The Spitfire I/II/Vb would never have worked well over the Atlantic and Arctic. I mean, where did we use it first, in the calmer waters of the Mediterranean, and we still lost lots of them. Now me, I would have used the Spitfire III as the basis for the Seafire. So Westland could have perhaps produced its first batch of 50 for training purposes in 1941 rather than the Spitfire I's they actually produced. So Seafire I with Merlin VIII, hook only 1941. Seafire II with Merlin XXX, hook plus catapult spools, 1942. Seafire III using Merlin 32, hook, catapult spools, folding wings, 1943. That would bring its service intro forward a whole year.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

To circumvent a bit powerplant-related issues of the F4F - how about Grumman (or anyone capable) makes a fighter where the widest part of fuselage is at engine cylinders, not at half of length? Couple that with a smaller wing (say, 220 sq ft?) that has Fowler flaps installed, and both drag and weight should be a bit trimmed down, for better speed & climb?

Similar for the Japanese - Zero with wing of 200 sq ft (instead of 240 sq ft) with Fowler flaps. Thus even with Sakae it can prove a better match for improved Allied aircraft of late 1942 on. With shorter wing it should also roll better.

Hello Tomo Pauk,
It sounds to me like the CW-21 would fit your requirements for an ideal fighter if it had a bit more engine power.
The problem with Fowler flaps is that they really aren't magical. You are going to need more equipment and structure to make that work.

The A6M actually had a pretty high roll rate. It just didn't have a high roll rate at high speed. It wasn't a matter of wing area or wing span that reduced its roll rate at high speed.
The problem with reducing the wing area down to 200 ft^2 is that it would take a serious range hit and lose maneuverability.
Note that the A6M3-32 Hamp had a clipped wing down to only about 230 ft^2 and even that small reduction proved to be not so useful to the point where only a few hundred were produced.

Note also that the Ki 43 Hayabusa had a pretty similar sized wing to the A6M series and did not suffer the same reduction in roll rate at high speeds.
As I see it, the Sakae series of engines was a nicely refined and reliable design, but it was pretty much a dead end for development.
The power improvement with the Type 0 Mk.II series of fighters wasn't enough to offset the weight increases over the Mk.I (A6M2) to the point where the earlier fighter was considered better at low and medium altitudes.

Think big

Kill Goering very early.

- Ivan.

 

[Shortround6]

You're crazy. The Spitfire I/II/Vb would never have worked well over the Atlantic and Arctic. I mean, where did we use it first, in the calmer waters of the Mediterranean, and we still lost lots of them.

And counter intuitively, it was those calm waters with their lack of wind and high temperatures that caused the problems. Together with operating off of escort carriers with small decks and a distinct lack of speed to make up for the zero wind.
Please note that the US made no attempt to operate their army fighters off carriers. They flew them off once lightly loaded to land ashore. At Salerno the US was able to P-38s based in NA to cover the invasion.

The early Seafires still needed beefing up but the losses would have been much reduced had the temperature been even 10 degrees C colder and a somewhat steady 8-12 knot wind for most of the day. Or carriers that went faster, of the five British carriers at Salerno one went 24 kts, the other 4 did 18kts tops.

 

[Shortround6]

- Hawker Fury: designed as a monoplane

Perhaps but you are going to wind up with something that looks like P-26 or Dewoitine D.510

and perfectly useless for combat in 1939.

- Gloster Gladiator: ditto; Mk.2 with retractable U/C

Licence Curtiss Hawk III ?

A-S Whitley: designed as a 4-engined bomber

Using what for engines? And any four engine machine may have been too large and too expensive for the ministry to contemplate at that time.
A 4 engine bomber using the airfoil of the Whitley would make the Sterling look like a speed demon

Avro Lancaster: designed with less guns, more streamlining

You have to start back with the Manchester, once you are stuck with the Manchester fuselage no amount of plating over openings or putting fairings on the nose and tail it going to get you enough speed to really change things.

- Gloster F.5/34: designed around Hercules

Another candidate for R-1830 or R-2600 engines when the early Hercules turns into a problem child with early production problems.
early Hercules III was good for about 1250hp at 15,500ft and the drag of an early Hercules engine nacelle/installation is going to kill any HP advantage over an early Merlin.
With a bigger prop, the much heavier engine and new landing gear you are pretty much designing a new airplane.

- MB.2: designed around Merlin, with retractable U/C

another plane that is going to need extensive rework to turn into an operational fighter.

This is with the 3rd tail fin and rudder and it is going to be too small for a Merlin.

 

[fliger747]

Perhaps the best change that can be made to a satisfactory existing design is to "Simplicate and add lightness" via careful detail design. Heinemann attributes the success of His A4 to this, careful design of everything. The FM2 was a successful upgrade to the F4F without using too much new technology. However the "Zero" already had good detail design, which unfortunately left little room for "improvement".

 

[tomo pauk]

Perhaps but you are going to wind up with something that looks like P-26 or Dewoitine D.510
and perfectly useless for combat in 1939.

Monoplane Fury gives experience to Hawker in designing, well, monoplanes. So we might have a less conservative Hurricane, and better performing Typhoon from day one.

Licence Curtiss Hawk III ?

I was not crystal clear - 'ditto' was supposed to mean 'also monoplane' for the Gladiator.

Using what for engines? And any four engine machine may have been too large and too expensive for the ministry to contemplate at that time.
A 4 engine bomber using the airfoil of the Whitley would make the Sterling look like a speed demon

4-engined bomber is not lost in case of engine-out, so the AM might see the point there (though I don't hold my breath that they will).
Engines - prototype might as well use the A-S Tiger (yes, I know that it was not a very good engine), then switch to Pegasus.
For real-world example, please see: A-W Ensign (switched from Tigers to Cyclones). Together with DH Albatros, it indeed looked like speed demon vs. British multi-engines aricraft of the time,

You have to start back with the Manchester, once you are stuck with the Manchester fuselage no amount of plating over openings or putting fairings on the nose and tail it going to get you enough speed to really change things.

Yes, start early for the gain. OTOH, even getting rid of top and nose turrets and streamlining the nose would've meant that German NFs have a shrunken window of opportunity for shotdown.

Another candidate for R-1830 or R-2600 engines when the early Hercules turns into a problem child with early production problems.
early Hercules III was good for about 1250hp at 15,500ft and the drag of an early Hercules engine nacelle/installation is going to kill any HP advantage over an early Merlin.
With a bigger prop, the much heavier engine and new landing gear you are pretty much designing a new airplane.

A new airplane indeed.

another plane that is going to need extensive rework to turn into an operational fighter.
This is with the 3rd tail fin and rudder and it is going to be too small for a Merlin.

Yes, start with Merlin from the get-go.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hello Tomo Pauk,
It sounds to me like the CW-21 would fit your requirements for an ideal fighter if it had a bit more engine power.
The problem with Fowler flaps is that they really aren't magical. You are going to need more equipment and structure to make that work.

CW 21 have had it's good points, though my ideal fighter would've probably been Spitfire III for 1940/41.
I've suggested Fowler flaps exactly because no magic is involved (although several companies in 1930s/40s might've thought of them as of magic - talk majority of German, US, British, Italian and Soviet companies), just like there was no magic in constant speed props or folding wings.

Kill Goering very early.

- Ivan.

Beyond the scope of the thread

 

[wuzak]

- Avro Lancaster: designed with less guns, more streamlining

You have to start back with the Manchester, once you are stuck with the Manchester fuselage no amount of plating over openings or putting fairings on the nose and tail it going to get you enough speed to really change things.

Perhaps scrap the Halifax and build the proposed Handley Page High Speed bomber?

No turrets, etc, Using same engines as Manchester (Vulture) but faster and lighter, with similar bomb load capability.

Estimated top speed 380mph.

 

[Shortround6]

Monoplane Fury gives experience to Hawker in designing, well, monoplanes. So we might have a less conservative Hurricane, and better performing Typhoon from day one.

Unfortunately the "Fury Monoplane" means many things to many people. Since the plane pretty much only existed on paper how much it actually had in common with the Fury biplanes is certainly subject to question.
Hawker Fury I which flew in 1931

about 21 built?
turning this into a monoplane is going to be hard
Nobody was using flaps yet (except experimenters), you need an all new much larger wing than the existing bottom wing.

however in 1936 the Fury II made it's appearance. First flight Dec 3rd 1936, over one full year after the Hurricane prototype flew. However Hawker built 23 and 75 were built by General aircraft Ltd. in 1936/37. It was intended to be an interim aircraft until the Hurricane could be brought into full production. Obviously very little could have been learned about monoplanes of the Hurricane type at this late date. The several gap is explained by the Air Ministries insistence on building the airplanes powered by the steam cooled Goshawk engine and this meant a lost generation of british fighters.

I was not crystal clear - 'ditto' was supposed to mean 'also monoplane' for the Gladiator.

In both the case of the Fury and a monoplane Gladiator you are not "modifying" the aircraft but throwing it out, designing a new plane and using the old name. With the Gladiator again you need an entirely new lower wing (unless you are build a parasol fighter) and since they couldn't fit a .303 browning in the wing the idea that you can fit retracting landing gear in it doesn't seem likely. Leaving you with the Grumman style retract into the fuselage landing gear (which Curtiss licenced and paid Royalties on).
The Gladiator was a somewhat modified Gauntlet which reduced the need for redesigning everything.

4-engined bomber is not lost in case of engine-out, so the AM might see the point there (though I don't hold my breath that they will).

Depends on how crappy the propellers are and how heavy the plane is in relation to the power of the engines

a 1932 Armstrong-Whitworth design.

four 340hp 10 cylinder two row radials and 90ft of wingspan and 1886 sq ft of wing. It was supposed to stay in the air on three engines.

A "proper" two engine bomber should not be lost either. But you need high power engines and feathering props (or at least more than a a two pitch prop)

Yes, start early for the gain. OTOH, even getting rid of top and nose turrets and streamlining the nose would've meant that German NFs have a shrunken window of opportunity for shotdown.

The thing is we KNOW the performance figures for the airliner conversions of the Lancaster with all turrets gone and long and rather pointy fairings both front and back.
If the performance of that plane (totally unarmed) will do the trick all well and good, If it is still too slow then the idea is a non-starter.

A new airplane indeed.
Yes, start with Merlin from the get-go.

again, not modified aircraft but brand new ones using the old name.

 

[Shortround6]

Perhaps scrap the Halifax and build the proposed Handley Page High Speed bomber?

No turrets, etc, Using same engines as Manchester (Vulture) but faster and lighter, with similar bomb load capability.

Estimated top speed 380mph.

Is the same guy doing the estimate the guy who estimated the Beaufighter would hit 370mph ?
Or the Typhoon 460mph?

We do have this airplane

top speed about 370mph (with the rockets????) but using 2470hp engines and not 1800hp engines.
Not exactly a low drag design I will grant you but a lot smaller plane than one carrying 8,000lb of small bombs (250lb bombs?) inside.

 

[Conslaw]

I like Pinsong's argument for a production F5F. With first flight in Feb 1940 (three months before the XF4U), it would be pushing it to get a service fighter available in 1941. (Perhaps with "Battle of Kansas" style modifications it could be done.) Admiral Tower slow tracked the plane because of the resources consumed by the twin-engined design, and in truth, he was right, we needed more Wildcats more than we needed 350-mph carrier fighters, but practicality isn't what this thread is about.

 

[wuzak]

Is the same guy doing the estimate the guy who estimated the Beaufighter would hit 370mph ?
Or the Typhoon 460mph?

No.

We do have this airplane

top speed about 370mph (with the rockets????) but using 2470hp engines and not 1800hp engines.
Not exactly a low drag design I will grant you but a lot smaller plane than one carrying 8,000lb of small bombs (250lb bombs?) inside.

The proposal was based on the P.13/36 requirements that gave the Manchester and Halifax.

 

[Shortround6]

No.




The proposal was based on the P.13/36 requirements that gave the Manchester and Halifax.

A lot of the British proposals of 1938-39 were, shall we say, overly optimistic, due to some faulty assumptions. I tend to look at some of these paper proposals with some skepticism.

To be fair, more than few US proposals of this period (and even into 1942) show just as much if not more optimism, all three "light" fighters for instance (Douglas XP-48, Tucker XP-57 and Bell XP-76) and a bunch more, so it is not just a British thing. The rules that allowed accurate estimates at around 300mph and under (and perhaps in the low 300 mph range) needed a correction factor when you got into the higher 300mph range.

I was using the Brigand as a reality check, Granted it is a bit "lumpier" than the HP proposal but it is smaller, carries a lighter load (externally) so the fuselage is smaller and uses more powerful engines and won't meet the speed. This casts some doubt on the HP bomber doing what was claimed.
It was supposed to carry 4 times the bomb load of an early Mosquito (8 times the prototype Mosquito) using engines only about 50% more powerful? and go just about as fast?

 

[wuzak]

The HP proposal had a maximum bomb load of 8,000lb, but the top speed was probably not with that load on board.

It would be instructive to know what the estimated performance of the Brigand.

Also note that there was the performance estimates of the companies (such as the 460mph Typhoon) and then the MAP also did their own estimates, which were usually lower.

 

[Shortround6]

The Douglas XP-48 estimate (525mph?) was so far out from what the Army estimated that the Army refused to fund any further development.

The Brigand was the result of a long and tortuous path that combined the the wings, powerplant and tail (?) of the of the Buckingham bomber

With a skinny fuselage that was being designed for a Beaufighter replacement for the torpedo strike role. As the strike aircraft grew in weight in the design stages it was considered that keeping the Hercules engines would result in too little of a performance gain to make changing aircraft worthwhile (not to mention needing new landing gear and other changes) so as a "quick fix" they adopted the wings, Engines, tail and landing gear of the Buckingham. The Buckingham itself was considered not suitable for use as a tactical or medium bomber at this stage in the war. to keep from scrapping already built components they came up with the Bristol Buckmaster trainer.

Which is listed as having a 352mph speed at 12,000ft which seems a bit low of an altitude.

I can't seem to find a picture of the proposed HP high speed bomber but what I recall from a drawing in a book it had a very streamlined nose with no step for the windscreen and the fuselage got fatter behind the cockpit which means pretty much no rearward vision for the pilot. I don't know if this was operationally acceptable.

 

[wuzak]