Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

GrauGeist said:
The Hs129 was a submission to the RLM's request for a dedicated ground attack platform and it was a clean-sheet design.
Click to expand...
I wonder what Henschel would have made had the spec in addition to the armoured cockpit, been built around a pair of BMW 801s and a pair of integral 30mm MK 101/103 cannons along with large ammunition capacity. Something larger than the Hs129, perhaps like a short span Focke-Wulf Fw 187?
 
The Fw187's wingspan was only 8 feet wider than the Hs129's.

The 129 was a solid concept, it just lacked good speed - but that was also an issue, as it's controls became very heavy as it built up speed in a dive.

As brilliant as Kurt Tank was, his submission (the modified Fw189) was a disappointment.

It would have been interesting to see what Heinkel or Junkers could have come up with if they had done a clean sheet design.
 

Germans could've used the Polish-made Mercury engine on the Hs 129. Still 1000 lbs, a bit better power than the 14M - even down low - but the main advantage over the 14M series is that re-engining can be done some 9 months earlier, so the resulting aircraft is fully debugged by late 1940, instead of late 1941.

The BMW 132 (and the Bramo 323) could've been mated to the Ju 87. The bigger 14N too, as well as on the Bf 109, or the original, small-wing Fw 190.
 
yulzari said:
Does anyone know what became of the Polish engine factory? One would have thought that the Germans could have found some uses for Mercuries and Pegasus.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, or perhaps the factory was looted (machine tools sent to German).
The factory was not big, or at least not big in the early 1930s. The factory built 200 (?) Mercury engines for the PZL 11 fighters in the Early 30s at the rate of 20 engines per month.
The Factory was building Pegasus engines in the late 30s, primarily for the PZL 37.
How much subcontracted was used I don't know. The Polish factory was at least (if not mostly)owned by Skoda in Czechoslovakia. Casting, at least in the 1920s and early 30s came from subcontractors. As aviation technology advanced in the 1920s and 30s they sometimes found they were unable to make new engines because they needed new tooling/machine technology that the older engines did not use.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Three twin engined ground attack aircraft I'd put forward in need of improving….
Henschel Hs 129
Click to expand...

GrauGeist said:
Considering that the Hs129 started out with Argus 410 engines, the G-R 14 series was a great improvement.
Click to expand...

The idea of "improving" the Hs 129 needs to stay inside of some strict limits.
The whole idea of the Hs 129 was to use small, cheap engines that would not conflict with the production schedules of the normal high powered aircraft engines.
With the required armor it turned out that small engines didn't have enough power (the FW 189 with armored nacelle was also vastly underpowered).

Once you are competing with Do 17Zs or Ju 52s for engines the rational for the Hs 129 is running into trouble.

The access to the GR 14M engines pretty much saved the program, the engines were small, offered 50% more power, and didn't use any German production capacity.

Did I mention small?
The GR 14M was under 1 meter in diameter. A Mercury was about 350mm larger in diameter. A much bigger target and a lot of the increased power is going to get used up by fighting the extra drag ( same for the Bramo 323 and BMW 132 which are a bit bigger than the Mercury)

Plane carried 134imp gallons of fuel (610 liters)
Range clean at economical cruise speed was 428 miles, with 30mm MK 103 cannon range was 348 miles.

If you started with a clean sheet of paper you could come up with a more capable attack plane than the Hs 129, but it would be bigger, heavier, cost a lot more, use more fuel and require engines needed for other things or GR-14N engines. Or ever 3 HS 129 Supers means one less Me 323
 
- A6M with a Kinsei engine from the outset (ala A6M8), allowing more pilot armor and at least one self-sealing fuel tank
- Ki-61 with a Kinsei engine from the outset (ala Ki-100) - eliminating a need for the Ki-43; Ki-43, Ki-61
- Ki-46 with a Kinsei engine from the outset - allowing more time to develop a better high-altitude supercharger
- NIK2 Shiden-Kai with a Kasei engine instead of the Homare and lower winger/stronger undercarriage
- J2M Raiden given priority status to be both the IJN and the IJA's B-29 interceptor starting in 1943
 
This isn't specific to one aircraft, but which designs could've benefited the most from spring tab ailerons and/or powered ones? I sort of knew that the Hawker Tempest and for sure the Sea Fury used spring tabs, and surprised to learn that the Supermarine Seafang used powered ailerons.

Also, specific to actual aircraft, I would've made the Hawker Typhoon and Tempest all-moncoque (like the Fury/Sea Fury), and I'd have proceeded with making the Spitfire's nose more streamlined, and looked to see how much a ventral Meredith radiator or at least an improved radiator solution would've helped reduce drag.
 
Sounds adventurous, but futile, as with all the effort required to do this, you might as well design a new aeroplane from scratch. The Spitfire's design precludes any Meredith radiator fuselage installation, there's no way, without redesigning the fuselage it could be done as it existed. This would mean stoppages of production and the gaps at the frontline that that meant, whereupon Griffon engined Spitfires could have equalled the results expected from the modifications proposed. In hindsight, the effort to do so would have been needless and would not have offered as much of an advantage to the Spitfire as you might think, although without comprehensive charts etc, that can't be known exactly, but could it produce an aeroplane that could out-perform what the Spitfire became with the fitting of two-speed two-stage Griffons? It's hardly worth the effort. Martin Baker's MB.5 is probably the closer to what you might be thinking of from a Biritsh standpoint. The Griffon engined Spitfire proved the airframe could remain at the forefront of fighter performance that didn't take enormous and extensive refabricating of the basic design.

It's still a Spitfire...

Spitfire static-9
 
Look at the area of the radiators, intercoolers and oil coolers in those two ducts.
Now figure out how to combine them into one under fuselage duct.
P-51 hid about 1/2 of the radiator matrix inside the fuselage and about 1/2 inside the duct.

This is something that has to be designed in, not added later. Unless you have lots of time to redesign that area of the fuselage and redo the tooling (jigs/fixtures)
 
How about a "Westernized" MiG I-225?



MiG Fighter Aircraft Development WWII

I-211 After operational tests of the MiG-3 powered by the M-82, produced in a small batch of five aircraft designated MiG-9 M-82, one ...
soviethammer.blogspot.com

What's there is pretty good by Soviet standards and late World War II standards overall, and, aside from some engine issues, the aircraft performed well.

But here's changes I'd make to it.

Replace the AM-42 (a 46-47 liter engine) with a Rolls Royce Griffon (more power and lighter weight) or a Merlin (lighter still and similar power to the AM-42).

Doing the latter also gets rid of the troublesome turbo and replaces it with a two stage supercharger. The Griffon and Merlin also would be more economical in terms of fuel economy, which means either longer than the 800 mile range it got with the AM-42, or less fuel for similar range.

Replace the ShVAK 20mm cannons with Hispano-Suiza Mk Vs like on the Hawker Tempest and later Spitfires (sadly, there's no known Western equivlant to the B-20 cannons, which weighed about the same as a AN/M2 or AN/M3 .50 MG).

Move the cannons from the fuselage to the wings (more ammo capacity and more room for fuel in the fuselage).

Possibly go for a wing with wider span and lower aspect ratio.

Get the type rated for underwing stores (like drop tanks, bombs or rockets)

And for both aero and ascetic reasons, widen the spinner and smooth the engine cowling.

I'd also see about getting rid of that ventral intake. I've variously read that it's an oil cooler or maybe the turbo's intercooler. If using the Merlin or Griffon it might be able to go away if it's indeed the intercooler.

And put fully enclosing doors over the main wheels of the undercarriage.
 
BarnOwlLover said:
Larger wing area to decrease wing loading, which was an aim of the Mitsubishi A7M and similar IJA/IJN fighters as they got larger and more powerful.
Click to expand...
Comes at the price of less speed and a loss in climb performance. All that extra wing area costs you in induced drag. You gain turn rate performance at the cost of speed, climb rate, and energy decay in high G turns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

G
Better Dambusters
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
GTX
Making better Italian aircraft, 1933~1945
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
tomo pauk
What was it about the black crosses on the wings that made German aircraft the best?
5 6 7
Replies
123
Views
9K
mikewint
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
14
Views
2K
Jugman
J
S
How much faster is an aircraft with wooden surface?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register