RW Mk. III
Airman 1st Class
Ju88 fills that hole if there's no 110.
Most Useful Plane Not Produced
- Thread starter kitplane01
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Most useful plane not produced. Factory spec Brewster Buffalo's with the actual correct, (no sub par substitute accepted) engine.
It was already in production. It was already in service. It was there and in numbers. If only more of them worked as advertised.
It was already in production. It was already in service. It was there and in numbers. If only more of them worked as advertised.
No comparison - Bf 110 is better as a night-fighter.
Apparently, it was done, once. According to a chapter of the book, Hurricane (I read this thing about 60 yars ago, so don't press me for details) someone in a Hurri night fighter squadron had his bird loose an engine, and he replaced it with a unit from either a Tiffy or a Tempest; he had great success with it, until the buaurocraps caught up with it, and shut him down. Seems the firewalls on the Hawker fighters were zll the same....
RW Mk. III
Airman 1st Class
Despite the radiator under the hurricane being designed for a 27L 1500hp engine, not a 36L 2000-2600hp engine.Apparently, it was done, once. According to a chapter of the book, Hurricane (I read this thing about 60 yars ago, so don't press me for details) someone in a Hurri night fighter squadron had his bird loose an engine, and he replaced it with a unit from either a Tiffy or a Tempest; he had great success with it, until the buaurocraps caught up with it, and shut him down. Seems the firewalls on the Hawker fighters were zll the same....
Despite the sabre weighing a full 250kg more before all the oil that goes in it and it's attendant oil cooler.
Despite the sabre being 10" wider, with exhausts in a different location. How did they manage the aircraft skin around it?
What about prop? The sabre has a much to0 big prop on it for a Hurricane it would hit the ground on takeoff. So you fit a smaller hurricane prop and somehow the sabre (temperamental engine) performs properly with much less mechanical resistance at the crank.
Also a 2.6 ton 32' aircraft and a 4 ton 42' aircraft have the same firewall??
I have a strong suspicion this story is apocryphal.
Last edited:
Oh, and B-29s over Nihon....
Major problem was lack if suitable strategic targets--Much of Japanese war production was in small shops, even private homes; the factories were mainly assembly centers, not like Western ones, where metal stock goes in a loading dockat one end, and finished aircraft roll out the other. Engine factories seem to have been similar to the Western model--when the one producing engines for the Ki-61 'Tony' was destroyed, they had to replace it with a radial, resulting in the Ki-100(?) 'Tony'
Major problem was lack if suitable strategic targets--Much of Japanese war production was in small shops, even private homes; the factories were mainly assembly centers, not like Western ones, where metal stock goes in a loading dockat one end, and finished aircraft roll out the other. Engine factories seem to have been similar to the Western model--when the one producing engines for the Ki-61 'Tony' was destroyed, they had to replace it with a radial, resulting in the Ki-100(?) 'Tony'
RW Mk. III
Airman 1st Class
They did the ijaaf a favour there. The Ki100 can be argued to be the best Japanese fighter of the war.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Not sure where that info comes from, Japan had large industrial centers throughout the home islands.
Even late into the war, many of these arras were still producing war material even after being bombed, much like Germany was doing.
Yes, small workshops were all across the country in towns and villages manufacturing everything from rifle ammunition to aircraft components, but their industrial centers were still active, viable targets.
And typically, where there was an industrial center, an Army and/or Navy facility could be found.
Even late into the war, many of these arras were still producing war material even after being bombed, much like Germany was doing.
Yes, small workshops were all across the country in towns and villages manufacturing everything from rifle ammunition to aircraft components, but their industrial centers were still active, viable targets.
And typically, where there was an industrial center, an Army and/or Navy facility could be found.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
What about the Spruce Goose? Heck of a payload.
The P-38K's prop required a different gear ratio and different reduction gear casing; the prop centerline was a few inches higher which required a redesign of the engine cowling. That cowling redesign was what would have shut production down for a few weeks. Those few weeks of production loss is why the AAC nixed the P-38K.
Conslaw
Senior Airman
From my perspective as an American, looking at American aircraft, I am struck by how many times they made the RIGHT call on aircraft production. After an iffy first year of not being ready for war, the USAAF and USN made good calls that resulted in good aircraft in all categories being produced in large quantities.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,028
- Jun 25, 2013
An early ekranoplan. It may have been unable to get out of ground effect.
How hard is it to change the gear-ratio? I remember there was a test run with an F4U-1 with a 0.4 gear-ratio instead of 0.5.
Why would it matter if the centerline was a little higher or lower, or did it have to do with the shape of the spinner?
And how quickly we managed to get things to work at exactly the right moment... honestly some of it surprises me.
wuzak
Captain
The R-2800 used an epicyclic (planetary) reduction gear system. Changing the gear ratio on that may have been as simple as changing the gears, or may have required redesign of the carriers.
The V-1710 used a spur reduction gear type (except on the earlier long-nose C series). The centre spacing of the gears could be the same if only small adjustments are required, but if one of the gears (the one driven by the crank) is the smallest it can be for the tooth profile, the spacing between the gear centres would need to be changed.
This would require a redesign of the reduction gear case - easier on the V-1710 than the Merlin, whose reduction gear case was partially in unit the crankcase casting.
If the centreline was higher or lower the cowl shape would change, if the spinner was the same as the previous version. It may not have been possible to make a smaller spinner, since the spinner has to contain the workings of the propeller pitch mechanism.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,028
- Jun 25, 2013
Well, it requires a new set of gears, which have to be designed and built. It can actually be quite hard. There may have been a lot of luck involved, a gear combination could have been thrown together from off-the-shelf components, but something that is being built for a one-off test is not the same as something that's going to be produced in thousands.
One is there would be a step behind the propeller, so more drag. Steps can also generate a lot of noise, buffeting, possibly interfering with control surfaces causing fatigue damage airframe.
Shortround6
Major General
The Sabre is a 1070kg (corrected) engine, the Merlin 20 is a 600kg engine. You would need about 150(corrected) kg of ballast in the tail. There were proposals for a Vulture Engine Hurricane so its not entirely absurd.
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
There were?
The Vulture was not as wide or tall as the Sabre, but it was 5 to 6 inches wider than the Merlin, a couple of inches taller, quite a bit longer (than the single stage Merlin used on the Hurricane) and was, like the Sabre, about 500kg heavier than the Merlin.
I know there were proposals for a Griffon powered Hurricane, which makes sense as the Griffon was designed to fit on aircraft powered by Merlins (ie the Spitfire).
The Re 2006 with a DB 603A engine was projected to reach 750 km/h at 7200m (466 mph at 23620 feet)! The first prototype was completed in February 1944 but for political reasons was not flown and was later dismantled.
Kevin J
Banned
My only thought on 1941/42 is that it was a shame the Soviets didn't get the Cobra 6 months earlier to wring the bugs out of it. Then I'm sure the Americans could have made far better use of it out in the Pacific in 1942/43.
