wuzak
Captain
Probably the easiest is to lengthen the rear fuselage, as Focke-Wulf did for the Jumo and DB 603 engined Fw 190 variants.
Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Probably the easiest is to lengthen the rear fuselage, as Focke-Wulf did for the Jumo and DB 603 engined Fw 190 variants.
pinehilljoe
Senior Airman
- 737
- May 1, 2016
A DB603 powered Zero would have been interesting
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Definitely as the cockpit is integral with the wing so cannot be moved.
If the DB601 knockoff that went into the Hien is any example, not so great. The Japanese never seemed to master some of the technology that went into that one. Or maybe couldn't access the necessary alloys. Would the 603 have been any better?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Aichi Atsuta and Kawasaki Ha40 suffered from machining issues, especially with the crankshaft.
There is no doubt that any DB603 manufactured in Japan (by Aichi or Kawasaki) would be no better.
There is no doubt that any DB603 manufactured in Japan (by Aichi or Kawasaki) would be no better.
- Thread starter
- #1,826
The ultimate load was 8G. For metal that would correspond to a normal-rated load-factor of 5.33 but wood isn't the same as metal. If 6G was doable, I'd say that's pretty good actually.
P-39
Replace the tricycle gear with a traditional taildragger arrangement ala the airbonita, saving a decent bit of weight. To restore the CG move the radiator and oil cooler to lower forward nose. This will increase wetted area a bit but it has enough volume for a good duct. Get rid of the car doors and go with a more traditional canopy so the forward fuselage can be built stiffer without much, maybe any, weight gain. Use the volume in the wing freed by moving the radiators and gear to have a big fuel tank close to the cg. Make the armamaent 3 or 4 20mm hispanos in the nose.
Replace the tricycle gear with a traditional taildragger arrangement ala the airbonita, saving a decent bit of weight. To restore the CG move the radiator and oil cooler to lower forward nose. This will increase wetted area a bit but it has enough volume for a good duct. Get rid of the car doors and go with a more traditional canopy so the forward fuselage can be built stiffer without much, maybe any, weight gain. Use the volume in the wing freed by moving the radiators and gear to have a big fuel tank close to the cg. Make the armamaent 3 or 4 20mm hispanos in the nose.
Shortround6
Major General
All firing through the prop hub?
Hispanos didn't take to synchronization well (if at all).
Blowing off your own propeller does not make a good impression on new pilots.
I think its fair to say the Hornet had agility way better than the P38, isn't it? Better climb (around twice), better roll, better power to weight ratio, 50mph faster top speed . Fewer compressibility issues in a dive. Possibly the only thing the P38 might have had on it was turn radius.
Depending on model and configuration, the Hornet is lighter and has significantly greater horsepower regardless.
Can any experten give us the wing and power loadings?
Last edited:
Did the Hornet have boosted ailerons and combat flaps, or did it not need them? If it had higher roll rate without boost, how did it achieve that? If it had an airfoil with less compressability issues, it probably had a higher corner velocity, thus giving a combat flap P38 a turn radius advantage, albeit at a lower airspeed. Like fighting a Zero, keep the speed up and go vertical.
wuzak
Captain
I'm guessing being some 1,700lb (771kg) lighter, having 7ft less wingspan and not having two long booms out the side would help lower the mass moment of inertia of the aircraft.
Good point! Not lugging turbochargers, ducting, intercoolers, etc, around probably helps, too.
This doesn't address many of the points, but it does give a strong overall impression of the Hornets capability and performance. It doesn't seem to hint at any perceived lack of agility:
[From wiki, but sourced from verifiable sources]
"Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown, former fighter pilot and officer of the Fleet Air Arm, was one of the world's most accomplished test pilots and he held the record for flying the greatest number of aircraft types.
Just after VE Day the first semi-naval Sea Hornet PX 212 arrived at the RAE, Farnborough. Eric Brown initiated "work-up to deck-landing" trials. 37 years later, he was still impressed:
"...the next two months of handling and deck landing assessment trials were to be an absolute joy; from the outset the Sea Hornet was a winner!"
"The view from the cockpit, positioned right forward in the nose beneath a one-piece aft-sliding canopy was truly magnificent. The Sea Hornet was easy to taxi, with powerful brakes... the takeoff using 25 lb (2,053 mm Hg, 51" Hg) boost and flaps at one-third extension was remarkable! The 2,070 hp (1,540 kW) Merlin 130/131 engines fitted to the prototypes were to be derated to 18 lb (1,691 Hg, 37" Hg) boost and 2,030 hp (1,510 kW) as Merlin 133/134s in production Sea Hornets, but takeoff performance was to remain fantastic. Climb with 18 lb boost exceeded 4,000 ft/min (1,200 m/min)"...
"In level flight the Sea Hornet's stability about all axes was just satisfactory, characteristic, of course, of a good day interceptor fighter. Its stalling characteristics were innocuous, with a fair amount of elevator buffeting and aileron twitching preceding the actual stall"...
"For aerobatics the Sea Hornet was absolute bliss. The excess of power was such that manoeuvres in the vertical plane can only be described as rocket-like. Even with one propeller feathered the Hornet could loop with the best single-engine fighter, and its aerodynamic cleanliness was such that I delighted in its demonstration by diving with both engines at full bore and feathering both propellers before pulling up into a loop!"[18][N 1]
During this series of tests Captain Brown found that the ailerons were too heavy and ineffectual for deck landing and there were some problems with throttle movement, brakes and the rubber-in-compression undercarriage legs were still fitted. De Havilland were quick to modify the aircraft. Eric Brown:
"Landings aboard Ocean had been made without any crash barrier... Yet, in the case of the Sea Hornet, I had felt such absolute confidence that I was mentally relaxed... Indeed, there was something about the Sea Hornet that made me feel that I had total mastery of it; I revelled in its sleek form and the immense surge of power always to hand..."
"Circumstances had conspired against the Sea Hornet in obtaining the recognition that it justly deserved as a truly outstanding warplane...in my book the Sea Hornet ranks second to none for harmony of control, performance characteristics and, perhaps most important, in inspiring confidence in its pilot. For sheer exhilarating flying enjoyment, no aircraft has ever made a deeper impression on me than did this outstanding filly from the de Havilland stable."
- Thread starter
- #1,835
Wait, I thought the Hornet had a two-stage supercharger with a liquid-to-air aftercooler...
Shortround6
Major General
Shortround6
Major General
I would note that a P-38J running on 44-1 fuel was allowed to run at 70in of MAP and could climb at over 4,000fpm just above sea level.
Plane was bit of brick and maxed out at 419mph at 19,800ft.
P-38s needed a bit (or a lot) more maintenance to keep the ducts tight to get that performance.
"gross weight at take-off of 17,363 lbs. This weight which corresponds to the combat weight of the airplane included 416 gallons of gasoline, full oil, 457.5 lbs. of ballst for 1500 rounds of .50 caliber ammunition, and 200 lbs. for the pilot."
Plane had the 20mm replaced by 5th .50 cal MG.
Plane was bit of brick and maxed out at 419mph at 19,800ft.
P-38s needed a bit (or a lot) more maintenance to keep the ducts tight to get that performance.
"gross weight at take-off of 17,363 lbs. This weight which corresponds to the combat weight of the airplane included 416 gallons of gasoline, full oil, 457.5 lbs. of ballst for 1500 rounds of .50 caliber ammunition, and 200 lbs. for the pilot."
Plane had the 20mm replaced by 5th .50 cal MG.
Note: supercharger, not turbocharger. No high temp ducting back to an aft mounted turbo (a la P38 and P47), and not two stages of intercooling, just a single. All in all, a lighter weight boost system, and all concentrated forward of the firewall.
Last edited:
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
and no turbo exhaust airflow destroying the smooth airflow over the top of the "fuselages" (pylons)
...and with exhaust thrust available from the stacks.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
