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.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
We could try to solve some of the CoG problems by moving the cockpit back. The pilot of a Zero (or an F4F) sat near the CoG whilst the pilot of a Hayate (or an Fw 190) sat near the rear edge of the wing. Can we simply add a section of fuselage in front of the cockpit increasing the length of the aircraft to that of the Ki-84? We can also add the armour added in the A6M5c or possibly rather more. The longer fuselage may also compensate for the effects of a four blade propeller and the added power. It might allows us to expand the fuselage fuel tank to regain the A6M2's range but will we have to learn a curved approach from the FAA and is that consistent with the IJN's landing light system?
A DB603 powered Zero would have been interestingProbably the easiest is to lengthen the rear fuselage, as Focke-Wulf did for the Jumo and DB 603 engined Fw 190 variants.
Probably the easiest is to lengthen the rear fuselage, as Focke-Wulf did for the Jumo and DB 603 engined Fw 190 variants.
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?A DB603 powered Zero would have been interesting
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.The Mosquito was not stressed for fighter style maneuvers. I believe the practical limit was about 6 Gs ?
All firing through the prop hub?Make the armamaent 3 or 4 20mm hispanos in the nose.
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.Also, is there a way that anyone knows of to make the DH Hornet have agility similar to the P-38?
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.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?
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?
Good point! Not lugging turbochargers, ducting, intercoolers, etc, around probably helps, too.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.
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:Good point! Not lugging turbochargers, ducting, intercoolers, etc, around probably helps, too.
Wait, I thought the Hornet had a two-stage supercharger with a liquid-to-air aftercooler...Good point! Not lugging turbochargers, ducting, intercoolers, etc, around probably helps, too.
details, details.Wait, I thought the Hornet had a two-stage supercharger with a liquid-to-air aftercooler...
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.Wait, I thought the Hornet had a two-stage supercharger with a liquid-to-air aftercooler...
...and with exhaust thrust available from the stacks.and no turbo exhaust airflow destroying the smooth airflow over the top of the "fuselages" (pylons)