Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Think big
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.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.
Perhaps but you are going to wind up with something that looks like P-26 or Dewoitine D.510- Hawker Fury: designed as a monoplane
- Gloster Gladiator: ditto; Mk.2 with retractable U/C
A-S Whitley: designed as a 4-engined bomber
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.Avro Lancaster: designed with less guns, more streamlining
- Gloster F.5/34: designed around Hercules
another plane that is going to need extensive rework to turn into an operational fighter.- MB.2: designed around Merlin, with retractable U/C
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.
Licence Curtiss Hawk III ?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kill Goering very early.
- Ivan.
- 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.
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.
I was not crystal clear - 'ditto' was supposed to mean 'also monoplane' for the Gladiator.
Depends on how crappy the propellers are and how heavy the plane is in relation to the power of the engines4-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).
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.
A new airplane indeed.
Yes, start with Merlin from the get-go.
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.
No.
The proposal was based on the P.13/36 requirements that gave the Manchester and Halifax.