Most Beautiful Aircraft (1 Viewer)

Kool Kitty,

Thanks for the clarification on the radiator / oil cooler locations on the P-40.
Much obliged.

As for the mentions of the P-51's radiator intake, yes, aestetically, it's a very nice and effective piece of hardware.
However, its design constituted that whatever plane it was attached to be a fighter, primarily.
Anyone who has any knowledge of the F-51's "success" in the Korean conflict knows that that large scoop turned out to also be really great at catching debris due to strafing, which was a role it was pressed into during that time.
A lot of crashes due to engine failures caused by lack of coolant were reported (or so I've read/heard).

One other airplane that I like, aesthetically, was a swedish plane (I believe).
I think it was called a "Dragon" and I seem to remember it being described as an attack/observation airplane.
The pic I saw, which was in some magazine I had as a kid, showed a black twin engined airplane.
VERY sleek looking and the only time I ever saw one or ever saw mention of one.
The reason I think it was swedish is because I thought it was mentioned that it was made by Saab and can picture the white circle with the three inverted triangles on the side of the fuselage, which I believe signify's the Swedish Airforce.

Can't find any info, or even any mention of the plane on the web.

Anyone know what I'm referring to?

The "Dragon" name is only a guess. I could be totally off on that part.



Elvis

...never mind, I think I just found it.
The propeller version is the one I'm thinking of and apparently it was a single, pusher (sorry about that. Hey, it was 30+ years ago!).


While I was parusing the site that included the plane I asked about, I found this...



I like this one. Kinda reminds me of a Focke-Wolff 190, but a little sleeker.
Nice long lines that are kinda curvy, but not too much.
It almost looks like a Greyhound, waiting at the gate.

Here's the article that accompanies that pic.





Elvis

There's the J-21 behind it. 8) And she's a nice plane but I think I like the rounder fusalage/nacelle of the Vampire/Spidercrab and the Bell XP-59 twin boom pusher paper project.

The Mustang wasn't really cut out for the close support role. The P-47 (F-47) would have been a much better choice for the role, the P-36 would have been good too, as the ducting for the engine was mostly on the top (plus the radiator intakes at the wing roots) and the 2-stage supercharger only had a rudementay cooling system but also water-injection. The P-36 also had more power than the Mustang (with 1,600 hp millitary/takeoff and 1,800 hp with water-injection at SL) and had much better low-altitude maneuverabillity than the P-51. Though the USAAF had never ordered the craft for service and thus there were none available. (save for the hadfull of flying-target and target-towing RP-63s)

The P-47 would have been far as well due to firepower and incredible survivabillity. The T-Bolt wasn't chosen for Korea due to lower numbers in reserve inventory than the F-51D. This was a bad move imho since, not only would the 'Bolts have saved the lives of many pilots (and probably many more ground forces they were supporting), but due to lower losses ther would have still been more F-47s (had they been used) left in the end than F-51s. There were large numbers of P-47Ns left over after WWII and most had only served frontline escort service for the last months of the war (not entering service untill early 1945) and these outperformed the F-51Ds that were used.(except somewhat in agility) (If you dont like the wet wings as some others have expressed due to volnerabillity, you don't have to load them with fuel) It's also one of my favorite P-47 varients, and despite the longer span and area, the new wing improved roll (and thus, maneuverabillity) and reduced overall drag due to the squared-off tips. (I think it was also a laminar flow airfoil, but I'm not sure)


I also remember a nice looking Romainian plane mentioned here earlier that looked like a Fw-190 + a Corsair.

The IRA 80

Again, while reading 'Wings on my Sleeve', I have discovered the Saunders Roe A-1 jet powered flying boat. First flying on 15 July 1947, the A-1 had a more boat like appearance than piston engined flying boats, mainly because it did not require ground clearance for the propellor, and could therefore sit lower in the water. In order to reduce drag, the floats could rotate 180 degrees to sit inside the wings. It also performed very well, with excellent handling, shown at the Farnborough Air Show in 1948, where the pilot put her through some amazing manoeuvres (for a flying boat). It achieved a top speed of over 500 miles per hour, which was well within the capabilities of most land based jet aircraft of the time. However the end of the war meant that there was very little need for such an aircraft, and the design was scrapped in 1951, after three prototypes had been built.
This would have to be a very beautiful aircraft, it is very streamlined and, for want of a better word, sexy

It's Nice, (I first saw the plane in "Seaplanes and flying boats" and later in "Worst weapons")

One of only two seaplane jet fighters built (the other being the Sea Dart) and the only aplication of the Metrovick F.2/4 Beryl turbojet engines. It was a good design, and possibly useful in Korea, but at less than 520 mph she was limited as a fighter. Despite this it had good powerload (with 2x 4,000 lbf engines and only a 16,000 lb loaded and 19,000 lb max weight) and climb, and had a powerful 4x Mk V Hispano cannons. With ample bomb/rocket load and an amazing 1,200 mile combat range with 2.4 hour endurance, she would have made one hell of a Fighter-bomber or close-support craft. A good complement to the Vampires. (assuming the RAAF ordered them)

And with any calm area of water easily set-up as an airbase, it could have helped hold off North Korea in the early stages of the war, when Meteors, Vampires, F-80s, and F-84s were limited to mainly using remote airfields (like in Japan) as they were not suitable for the small dire and grass fields on the South Korean front. (Similar to the role the F-51s played in the opening days of the war, though the F-47Ns would have still been better IMHO)



Here's the P-47N on its first patrol in the ETO. (It saw most service in the PTO though)

Kool Kitty,

Couldn't agree with you more.
47 MUCH better ground attack/fighter plane than the 51.
...for a pure fighter, its a toss-up to me, but the 47 was a much tougher airplane and the superior fire power of the 47 only gives it that much more of an edge in the ground attack role.

...also, LOVE the IRA 80.

I'm gonna research that one, too.
Thanks.



Elvis

Neither the Jug or the Mustang ere paricularly maneuverable at low altiude, but the armor and volnerabillity is what matters at low level, particularly in the close-support or attack role. The Thunderjet was also particularly adept in the air-to-ground role. The P-63 may have been even better suited to the close-support role due to excelent low-altitude and high-speed (for a prop plane, ie 380-450 mph) handeling and, despite the liquid-cooled engine, was quite resistant to battle damage. (mainly due to a simpler 2-speed supercharger and dorsal intake) Though the wing-based fuel tanks would be somewhat volnerable. The 37mm M10 cannon was also good on hard targets/ lightly armoured vehicles. Of course, the craft wasn't available in the US's inventory since it was never ordered...
Ironically, there is some evedence that North Korea used P-63s (an maby P-39s) recieved from the Soveits, in the war.


Probaly the ultimate ground-attack close-support craft (that was prop powered and thus would be usable in the small airfields of the South Korean front early in the war) would probably be the P-72. Speed and climb rivaling jets good range, the Jug's extreme toughness and a good armament (though I'm not sure the 4x wing-mounted 37mm cannons of the dedicated interceptor varient would have been sucessful or reasonable) and though the standard armament was to be 6x .50 cal guns, they probably could have used 8, especially if they used the P-47N's wing design. Or maby just upgrade to 6x M3 .50 calls with more ammo (400+ rpg) as the added ROF would give more firepower than 8x M2 guns. The handeling and maneuverabillity were supposed to be better than the P-47D iirc, and the P-47N's wing would improve this even more.


And with a P-47 aganst a Mustang in a dogfight... I'm not sure either. Assuming an early razorback (offered better speed and stabillity until the fin extention was added) P-47D without wing pylons and an American P-51B (without the awkward extra rear fuel tank added to late models). And assuming both were arround 30,000 ft and near combat cruse (~400 mph) The Jugs would only get one pass to take the Mustangs, then the 'Stangs could evade. But the Jugs would have the option of dissengaging at will with their dive capabillities.

While the p47 and the p51 are dogfighting (and losing altitude like in many dogfights), an f4u will zoom by and shoot them both down.

Any idea on how the IRA 80 performed? I know looks can be deceiving (Breda 88 for example) but that is a cool looking AC.

Me thinks Mangnocain is also Renirich, or they're just friends.

(you guys really need an "Rah! Rah! F4U!" sticky, so you get this out of your systems )

------------------------------

Pflueger,

Actually, performance wasn't all that outstanding.
Here's an article on the IAR 80 that includes a little bio, some stats, more pics and a couple of links at the bottom.

Personally, I think a J22 could take it, in a dogfight.





Elvis

I'll give you that the F4U could certainly handle the Mustang and Jug at low level, but not so easily higher up. Plus the P-63C/D could best them all at low-to medium altitude performance, and still competitive higher up too. And had the firepower to take down the Jug easily (within 300m) with the 37mm M10 (or possibly the far more powerful, but heavy M9 of the P-63D) while the .50 cals of the P-51 and F4U, or even the 20mm's of some F4Us (which many lacked gun-heaters for high-alt) could be absorbed by the Jug in considerable amounts.

Though the P-47M (or N with half fuel load/no wing fuel= 1000 mi range) at altitude would best them all, and even be a challenge down low.

Though the Tempest Mk II would also be quite a contender.

Don't even mention the P-47J or P-72...

If the British hadn't spurred the US jet program (in Gen. H. Arnold) in 1941 (which had already been working in Lockheed in '39 and with NACA contracts in '40, but had taken low priority) The US would have still had a 500+ mph (estimated 550 mph theoretical with contra props and 3,000 hp) fighter in the P-72 and possibly even faster with an uprated later model Wasp major (3,500-4,000 hp, possibly meetin the original theoretical 550mph). This could have been in service by early 1945 and would be devastating to early jets, and would be easy to convert to, and far more reliable and fuel-efficient. With the P-47N's wings it would have made a good escort too. And despite the (relatively) high drag from the thick wings, the standard P-47 had a mach limit of ~.75+ and the P-72 with improvements and dive-flsps of late-model P-47N's should have been around .79 mach (similar to early jets: Meteor I-III, Vampire I, Airacomet, He-280)

I do feel sorry for the pilot who has to face off a p63 head on (or directly behind) with that 37mm cannon.

...or, god forbid, you find yourself behind a B-25 that happens to be equipped with the 75MM M8 cannon in its nose

I wasn't aware of the M9 37mm gun.
Was it used widely in aircraft during the war?
Sounds like they should've put that in the M5 tanks...they may have faired a little better.



Elvis

The M9 was nevere used operationaly iirc, just in prototype form. It was heavy and had high high muzzel velocity at the expense of high recoil. So it would be easier to aim for a single shot and had much longer range than the M4 and M10 cannons, but I'm not sure it's woeth the recoil and weight (thus performance loss). The M10 was probably the best, only modestly heavier than the M4 and with the same balistics but a higher rof and nearly double the ammo. see: The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Gun Tables

Though perhaps a 30mm gun would have been a better interceptor weapon, but the US didn't realy have4 one and the 37mm is a good weapon once you're aquainted with it and, despite the dropping, the trajectory was fairly predictable and many experienced pilots could hit targets accurately around 400m. Though it is probably best used in a semi-automatic fashion due to the low rof as it would be easier to aim this way.

And for twins, don't forget the DH.88 Comet! Remind you of anything? (rember the Comet is circa 1934)

I always thought she'd have made a good combat plane with the necessary modifications, as the design was very sleek and the wings unusualy thin for the time.(slightly scaled-up with clipped wings with rounded tips, strengthened airframe, added armour and weapons, cockpit redone as singe-seat and moved foreward for better visibility, withe the nose fuel-tanks replaced with rea-mounted ones-to make room for cockpit+guns, and more powerful engines: possibly Kestrels, Peregrines, or maby radial Mecury or Pegasus engine, maby even merlins!)

It manuvered like a freight train on a freeway, very slowly.

kool kitty89 said:

And for twins, don't forget the DH.88 Comet! Remind you of anything? (rember the Comet is circa 1934)

Click to expand...

Gee, by chance, does that start with "MOS" and end with "QUITO" ?






Elvis

Actually I meant the superficial resemlance to the Me 262...

But the Mossie certainly shared characteristics with the Mossie.(especially in construction)

And the DH.88 was realy crap in aerobatics/agility? With the large conntrol surfaces and low wing loading it should have been at least decent, even if the long span and outboard enfines limited roll rate.

kool kitty89 said:

Actually I meant the superficial resemlance to the Me 262...

But the Mossie certainly shared characteristics with the Mossie.(especially in construction)

And the DH.88 was realy crap in aerobatics/agility? With the large conntrol surfaces and low wing loading it should have been at least decent, even if the long span and outboard enfines limited roll rate.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be suprised after all she was designed for long range with a high cruising speed for which she relied on being a clean design and fuel economy.
The engines with only 2 x 225 hp engines would lack power for aerobatics.

That might explain it. I wonder how she'd have performed with clipped wings and 525 hp Gipsy Twelve engines? Or maby even 700 hp Kestrels, or some bristol Radials, like Jupeters or Mercurys.(though the large diameter radials would adversely affect drag...)