GregP
Major
Here's my drawing of the Venom. Not much detail because I didn't HAVE much detail. Altogether an overlooked effort that probably COULD have been very useful in a lot of situations that would normally be without air support.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hello Tomo
how about something like Vickers F.5/34 Venom, 625hp Bristol Aquila, 8 7.7mm mgs, very manoeuvrable, 312mph at 16,250 ft, AUW 4,150lb wing area 146sq ft, span 32ft 2in, lenght 24ft 2in. Weak points were engine, unreliable and no other military users, so Bristol had not much interest to perfect it, a bit like RR Peregrine and because of its smallness not much growth potential.
Juha
Best lightweight fighter of WW2 has to be the A6M Zero.
OTOH, while the XP-51F wasn't quite a LW, by the post definition for empty GW it Was a LW by standard of operational US fighters. It was seriously considered for 400+ unit purchase in Oct 1943. As a 4x20mm gunned Interceptor at 5490 GW empty It had 5500 fpm ROC at 67" and, according to Chilton, topped out at 7000+ and 491mph at half fuel load and 90"MP. AAF-MC didn't seemingly trust RAF standards for AoA and side loads - which is amusing because they bought the P-51H with exactly the same design standards, but it also had 55gal internal fuselage tank..The whole point of "lightweight" fighters is really "cheaper," not less massive. So, let's look at the costs in making an effective fighter aircraft (ineffective fighter aircraft are worthless....). One item is the pilot, where the costs are salary, training, and the potential costs of paying off widows and orphans. These are not going to be significantly different for any single-engine fighter, and they are important. Initial costs would include the engine, the cost of which likely increases less than linearly with power (a 2000 hp engine isn't likely to cost twice as much as a 1000 hp engine with the same altitude performance), instruments (cost is likely independent of weight for one engine), and radios (also independent of aircraft weight). Armament cost would depend on installation, and a lightweight fighter would have less armament, with fewer guns or individually less effective guns. Airframe costs savings would come in the forms of less material and (hopefully) less labor in manufacture. Running costs would be less, as there would be less fuel and oil used, but I don't see ground crews being much smaller if the same sortie rate is to be maintained. Overall, I think, a piston-engine LWF is largely an untenable idea because there wouldn't be the sort of savings in purchase and operation that some seem to have expected. On the other hand, the truly heavy weight single piston-engine fighter, like the Boeing XF8B, was also a flawed concept.
Of course, jets changed everything. Twin-engine piston-powered fighters had significant disadvantages in dynamic maneuverability when compared with single-engine piston-powered fighters that did not apply to jet aircraft, where two engines could be placed side-by-side (or one atop the other) in the fuselage, without the increases in roll inertia and wetted area intrinsic to twin-engine piston aircraft (except for edge cases, like the Do335).
Best lightweight fighter of WW2 has to be the A6M Zero.
Indeed, followed by the Yak-3
I will try to keep my comments somewhat reasonableI may be told other reasons why it can't be done, but then at least I've learned something.
I-16s used two basic engines, the really old ones used the M-22 engine which was a licensed (British or French?) Bristol Jupiter engine.. I'd take the basic I-16 design but go back to one of the early engines, the one that had the best power to weight ratio.
Getting rid of the landing gear and flaps make the plane cheaper, it won't do much for speed. It also guarantees the plane is a one use aircraft. Once launched it will crash wither or not it even comes close to the enemy or not. I have no idea if that is good economics or not. A lot of regular fighter aircraft never shot down an enemy. But a lot of ramming attacks also failed.The easy road is just cutiing the span, but preferably a more extensively modified wing should be custom designed, benefitting from lighter structure also. When it comes to armament one mashine gun should be retained just to keep the Germans honest. It should be possible to cut down on the fuel load also. I will be generous and let the pilot keep the parachute.
The whole point of "lightweight" fighters is really "cheaper," not less massive.
I'm pretty sure a 1943 Yak 3 was considerably lighter than a 1939 Spitfire. The Yak was certainly a lightweight fighter compared to other new aircraft designs from the latter years of the war.Mighty thin definition of "light weight fighter"
Going strictly by weight a MK I Spitfire was "lighter" than a Yak-3.
An A6M was certainly no cheaper or easier to make than other Japanese fighter plane of 1939-41.(Army Ki-44 prototypes excepted?)
I was thinking something similar, but not quite as radical.Anyway with these reservations, I'd go to the Soviet union and make a dedicated light weight rammer. I'd take the basic I-16 design but go back to one of the early engines, the one that had the best power to weight ratio. I'm not near my books, so not entirely sure it doesn't weigh too much, but I guess it shouldn't.
Now I delete the flaps and the landing gear. The idea is to let the TB 3 lift them into the air, as was done in the version carrying its own escort fighters. With the reduced weight and no requirement to take off or land, it should be possible to have a smaller wing. The easy road is just cutting the span, but preferably a more extensively modified wing should be custom designed, benefiting from lighter structure also. When it comes to armament one machine gun should be retained just to keep the Germans honest. It should be possible to cut down on the fuel load also. I will be generous and let the pilot keep the parachute. As we must have it ready in 40, it should be possible to have quite a few available in summer 41, whether modified old models or those with the new wing.
The two biggest problems are getting the TB 3's airborne in time, and that I'd be shot after presenting the idea, it obviously being defeatist. But there you have it, by the way this should show why I usually don't do this kind of thing.
As far as the aerodynamics of the I-16 go, OK it wasn't a barn door. It was a brick.
Plane...............................wing area........................Percentage Wing area............................Fuselage length..........................Percentage Fuselage length.
I-16....................................156.........................................100%............................................................20 ft 1in..........................................100%
Buffalo.............................208..........................................1.33%..........................................................26 ft 4in...........................................1.30%
Hawk 75..........................236..........................................1.51%..........................................................28 ft 1 in..........................................1.40%
Martlet I..........................260...........................................1.66%.........................................................28 ft 7in ............................................1.42%
All planes powered by Wright R-1820s or Soviet versions. For all it's small size it didn't perform much different than the larger (very much larger?) and very much heavier American planes.
I have been saying that weight wasn't as important as some people think but take another look at the Marlet I. The size of the wing, the size of the fuselage AND the fact that the Martlet was almost 60% heavier. And that the Martlet was faster (313mph using 1000hp?) Granted it had a bit more power but the I-16 looks like it was dragging an anchor behind it.
And the Martlet I was not what springs to mind when we talk about sleek aircraft.
And those came about several years later. The very first -109 flew in 1935, about the first time early models of the I-16 were entering service. These -109s produced and entered service at least a year later.The I-16 was about the same weight as many other fighters that entered service from 1932-35. Compare to even fixed landing monoplanes or even the Bf 109 with Jumo 210 engine.
And again, you're making a comparison with an aircraft that developed and flown several years after the I-16In fact the Curtiss Hawk 75 (first flight April 1935) with the original Wright R-1670 Twin Whirlwind engine of 900hp was supposed to weigh 4,843lbs. Armament was a pair of .30 cal guns.
Well it does if you're going to compare it with what you've shown (Buffalo, Hawk 75, Martlet)The Wright R-1670 Twin Whirlwind engine was such a dud that Curtiss fitted a P & W R-1535 (maybe because it was quick?) but since that didn't provide the desired performance Curtiss fitted a Wright R-1820 9 cylinder radial. And the race find an effective engine for the Hawk 75 was well under way
The I-16 doesn't become a "light weight fighter" except by default. Most of the other major countries had progressed to heavier fighter in the late 30s. The Russians themselves were trying to the stretch the I-16 though a number of projects like the I-180 (5,355lbs)
And you're just showing wing area, as with weight, not a conclusive factor.As far as the aerodynamics of the I-16 go, OK it wasn't a barn door. It was a brick.
Plane...............................wing area........................Percentage Wing area............................Fuselage length..........................Percentage Fuselage length.
I-16....................................156.........................................100%............................................................20 ft 1in..........................................100%
Buffalo.............................208..........................................1.33%..........................................................26 ft 4in...........................................1.30%
Hawk 75..........................236..........................................1.51%..........................................................28 ft 1 in..........................................1.40%
Martlet I..........................260...........................................1.66%.........................................................28 ft 7in ............................................1.42%
All planes powered by Wright R-1820s or Soviet versions. For all it's small size it didn't perform much different than the larger (very much larger?) and very much heavier American planes.
I have been saying that weight wasn't as important as some people think but take another look at the Marlet I. The size of the wing, the size of the fuselage AND the fact that the Martlet was almost 60% heavier. And that the Martlet was faster (313mph using 1000hp?) Granted it had a bit more power but the I-16 looks like it was dragging an anchor behind it.
And the Martlet I was not what springs to mind when we talk about sleek aircraft.
View attachment 670491
Note short cowl.