Most Useful Plane Not Produced

[Koopernic]

This looks like a bad joke:

The Windsor used Wallis's geodetic body and wing structure that Vickers had previously used in the Wellesley, Wellington and Warwick bombers. The wing structure had no spars but a hollow geodetic tube from tip to tip, passing through the fuselage truss. To better resist the compression and tension efforts, the elements were assembled at 16 degrees next to the root, reverting to the more conventional ninety degrees on the tips, longitudinal elements locking everything in place. The thicknesses of the elements was also reduced towards the tips. No two joints had the same angle on the wing, an authentic production engineer's nightmare. Instead of doped Irish linen covering used on the earlier geodetic aircraft, a stiff and light skin was used on the Windsor. This was made from woven steel wires and very thin (1/1000 inch thickness) stainless steel ribbons, doped with PVC or other plastic, specially designed to avoid ballooning. To properly fit the skin to the frame, a tuning fork had to be used. The wing was designed so that the tips had a noticeable droop on the ground[citation needed], but was straight in flight, so the skin had to be fitted tighter on top than on the bottom to be evenly tight in flight. Wikipedia ... Vickers Windsor - Wikipedia

That should be relatively easy to implement using todays machine tools, printing and CAD techniques. I think the idea was resurrected for then Reaction Engines SABRE powered space plane HOTOL

 

[nuuumannn]

It didn't enter service in 1943.

The first AAF unit to operate the B-29 was the 58th Bombardment Wing (Very Heavy) at Smoky Hill Airfield, Salina, Kansas, being renamed from the 58th Bombardment Operational Training Wing (Heavy) on 1 July 1943. Whether it received one or 16 bombers in serviceable or unserviceable condition is not the point. The B-29 entered USAAF service in 1943.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Yes, we have.



There were engines that existed and could be manufactured and there were superchargers that existed and could be manufactured. The rest is priorities and dollars. In the pre-war years, there was a shortage of both. But the AAF had a serious weakness in the Pacific and that was that they did not have enough interceptors that could attack high flying Japanese bombers and fighters until the high demand P-38s became available in early '43. If the P-66 could do 340 mph on 1000 hp at 15k ft, it could do over 350 mph at 19k on 1000 hp. That is faster than the P-40 (339 mph) and faster than the F4F (335 mph). And it would have about the same performance in speed, climb and service ceiling (35k+) as the P-43A only without the turbo-supercharger and 700 lbs lighter and a lot simpler. So it would have been worth the effort.


It wasn't what they wanted but it was what they needed. The AAF was not interested in the P-51 and would have shut down the production had they not changed the design to the attack version.



Same problem with the non-turbo P-38 and with the P-39 and the P-40. Poor altitude performance for Europe. No comment about ground looping?


I don't know what ruggedness problems they had. Could be losing panels on rough landings or wings coming off, not likely. I read that the Chinese flew the planes on quite a few missions but reports on all Chinese flight activity does not give one confidence in their competency. I also read of one Chinese pilot used a P-66 to great accomplishments.

I must admit that I do not know much about ground looping but it sounds more like a training problem. Pilots may have been fresh out of pilot training. When I was fresh out of pilot training I got into a serious problem as I was upgrading to the C-141, On landing in a brisk crosswind I relaxed my controls on touchdown. Immediately, the aircraft windmilled about 10-15 degrees off runway heading and the upwind wing raised significantly to the point that I was alarmed. The nose wanted to go left and the wings wanted to go right. The instructors took over and straightened the aircraft. He then gave me a lesson I would never forget "Don't stop flying the aircraft, even on the runway!" I can't see how an aircraft's design affects ground looping, especially one that looks like all the competing aircraft in this era. Maybe gear too close together but the P-66 has pretty wide gear, or maybe cg is critical. Don't know.



We don't really have a clear breakout of the P-66 but it does have cockpit placed at the back edge of the wing ala the amazingly similar F4U. It looks like there is plenty of room for maybe fuel and intercooler installation. I suspect that it would be no more difficult than putting a turbo-supercharger on an XP-41 to make the P-43. Note difference between P-36 canopy placement and the P-66. The P-36 pilot seat is approximately one third the distance from the wing trailing edge to front edge, in the P-66 pilot seat is just about the trailing edge of the wing. Both aircraft are same length, 28.5 ft.

View attachment 582101
View attachment 582098

View attachment 582093

There was a comment that the P-66 was just too late. This is probably a cause, another, probably more important, was that it was an orphan with no one looking at its potential, or recognizing a need. The plane was a good design and faster than other designs with equivalent engines. The designer was the same guy who designed the record breaker Hughes H-1.

I don't see how an intercooler would fit behind the engine, you have to get the air in and out. The Wildcat intercoolers are within the engine cowling. I assume that's where the intercoolers for the P43 would be. Does anyone have details on the P43 turbocharger system.

 

[Koopernic]

My problem with the Fw 187 is that it requires not just changing the engines but several other modifications.
The one prototype that flew with DB 601s was using experimental engines with some sort of hybrid evaporation cooling system. Stick conventional radiators on it (109 or 110 type) and the Performance, while very good, is no longer in a class of it's own.
As an escort fighter the single seat version has a few of the same problems as the 109 had. If equipped with the same radio as the 109 you can't talk to the bombers (or to base).
You have two more mgs than the 109 but no more ammo. 500rpg rather than the up to 1000rpg of mg ammo the 109E carried (110 had 1000rpg for the mgs) and we run into the limited cannon ammo. This is glossed over by claiming the the Germans could have used bigger drums or developed a belt feed for the MG FFs, but for the BoB this would have to be done in a hurry, faster than the did historically. Or you stick in the guy in the back seat, have him operate the long range radio and change drums on the cannon, like was done on the 110.

It is never just change one thing on the FW 187, it always seems to need 2,3,4 changes in addition to just sticking the DB 601s of the same type the 109s or 110s were using, on it.
Also since the last prototype was built in early 1939 the chances of it having either armor or self sealing tanks is about zero so again, actual flight performance and estimated flight performance may vary.

One Fw 187 protype was allocated to steam cooling system. It was unlike the Heinkel System, yes it did flash water to steam but used radiators and was completely independent development from Heinkel. Unlike the He 100 it did not use the wing leading edges to cool and the system was overall different, It is described in Dietmar Hermann's book. There were no problems with its performance. They did perform better than pressurised water radiators but didn't have the issues of skin cooling though skin cooling was proposed.

The aircraft didn't need the steam cooling to out perform the Me 109. It out performed the 109 with the Jumo 210 and it would with the DB601 and DB605.

There is a chart in Dietman Hermann's book on Fw 183C performance with 2 X DB605A engines, ordinary under wing radiators, with a 1000kg bomb, an observer and rear facing armament (remote controlled). The speed was estimated at 670km/h (416mph) with a 1000kg bomb and 2800RPM special WEP (1475 metric HP) Without the bombs and with only 2600rpm normal WEP the speed went to 683km/h (424). There is no estimate with 2800RPM special WEP without bombs. This is the two seater, with rear armament and a slightly raised cockpit. It would be faster as a single seater. The Me 109G6 was only doing 400mph with this engine in full 1.42 ATA WEP. Fitting the DB605AS, ASM clearly would help speed at high altitude.

The concept of a small but twin engine streamlined aircraft with low frontal area to engine power ratio, power to weight ratio and wing loading the same as a single engine fighter clearly worked at producing a twin engine fighter that could compete and even outperform a single as shown by the P-38, Westland Whirlwind, Grumman Tigercat, DeHaviland Hornet clearly worked. Focke-Wulf's famous designer had the correct idea. For the trouble of two engines the aircraft offers much more range, more fire power and the possibility of a second crew member to operate navigation, radar and radio equipment. Range was expected to be 1250km (1330 for the Fw 187 C0) at cruise speed 335mph on internal fuel. With drop tanks this became 2100km.

The Fw 187 to go to from Jumo 210 to DB601 and DB605 required virtually no modification.

When whomever in the Luftwaffe or RLM started to get focke wulf to present the design with a rearward facing observer with guns it was clear that whomever had completely lost the plot and no longer understood aerial combat Surely one of the worst cases of missed opportunities. The Fw 187 test pilot Hans Sander, who was interviewed by Hermann says that Goering was in principle opposed to single seat twin engine fighters but that this had evaporated by the end of the war with the appearance of the Do 335.

 

[Shortround6]

This is what I hate about the FW187 (I actually kind of like the plane itself) is that so much is made of estimates and proposed later versions. Lets remember that the Beaufighter was supposed to do 370mph and the Typhoon was a 450mph airplane in the planning stages.
The addition of the rear seat crewman to the early FW 187 was not anywhere near the hit to performance that is claimed.

There is little or no increase in frontal area and there is no significant increase in drag due to the rear cockpit as there is no turbulent area due to a step or raised canopy like the rear if the Bf 110 (or just about any other two seat aircraft)
Please note the rear gun, it's elevation and traverse are extremely restricted. I am not offering this as a criticism of the aircraft but rather to try to point out that if the intention was to try to install a rear gun and gunner for defensive purposes they failed miserably. If on the other hand they needed a 2nd crewman to handle the radio and for any other duties (reloading the 20mm cannon?) then giving him a single MG 15 and few drums of ammo was a small weight penalty and tiny increase in drag over giving him no gun.
The Fw 187 might well have improved the Luftwaffe's odds and performance during the BoB but you need large numbers of them and the FW187 might not have been quite as good as the Bf 110 at some other jobs.
One of the Luftwaffe's big failings was inadequate reconnaissance/target damage assessment. The Bf 110 was made in a recon version with a huge camera in the cockpit, going where the seldom carried 3rd crewman went (and replacing the 20mm guns?) Perhaps not enough were made?
Could the Fw 187 have take over that role and where would the camera go? Displace part of the fuel tank behind the cockpits?

It doesn't matter how wonderful the Proposed Fw 187 with DB 605 engines was going to be if we are discussing the 1940 BoB and the use of DB 601 engines.

 

[TheMadPenguin]

Boeing 314 (12 built 1939 - 1941; 11 pressed into military service but none more built on military order)
Build as a flying luxury liner, but could be built/equipped as AWACS by installing radar, radios, hydrophones/sonar.
Purposes were (potentially) met by other craft, but not all in any one craft.
Atlantic Prowl (submarine hunt): there would be no MOMP with no airborne top cover. Able to land, lower hydrophones/sonar, summon escorts, wait for their arrival, and re-liftoff.
Flying Flag Bridge for any convoy, any ocean.
Critical cargo/VIP shuttle (5 tons cargo)
I'd upgrade engines after July 1941 to R2800 for 2-engine-out flight capability, and recommend adding wheeled landing gear folding into the sponsons and retractable steerable rudder/tailwheel.

 

[Big Jake]

Martin-Baker M.B. 5

 

[TheMadPenguin]

Martin-Baker M.B. 5

OP:

- Was available in prototype form by Jun '43 (give or take)
- Less than 100 were made
- It would have been a good idea, from a practical, military and economic point of view, to make many more.
- It was a "lost opportunity".

M.B.3 was available, but the 5 prototype first flew 23 May 1944.
M.B.5 does look like "take the best aspect of spitfire/mustang and stuff a Griffon in front".

 

[RW Mk. III]

Boeing 314 (12 built 1939 - 1941; 11 pressed into military service but none more built on military order)
Build as a flying luxury liner, but could be built/equipped as AWACS by installing radar, radios, hydrophones/sonar.
Purposes were (potentially) met by other craft, but not all in any one craft.
Atlantic Prowl (submarine hunt): there would be no MOMP with no airborne top cover. Able to land, lower hydrophones/sonar, summon escorts, wait for their arrival, and re-liftoff.
Flying Flag Bridge for any convoy, any ocean.
Critical cargo/VIP shuttle (5 tons cargo)
I'd upgrade engines after July 1941 to R1800 for 2-engine-out flight capability, and recommend adding wheeled landing gear folding into the sponsons and retractable steerable rudder/tailwheel.

I really like this idea.
My only concern is the landing and dipping a sonar in the sea. AFAIK landing a flying boat on the North Atlantic is only possible if a really anomalous sea-state exists. Otherwise it's restricted to landing in the wake of ships and even then, the sea must be very calm. Taking off in the wake of a ship presents the real problem of you might hit the ship...

Does the necessary calm sea state threshold raise as the flying boat gets bigger? Could the 314 handle more swell and chop as a bigger boat or was it just a bigger thing to break in bigger ways?

 

[TheMadPenguin]

I really like this idea.
My only concern is the landing and dipping a sonar in the sea. AFAIK landing a flying boat on the North Atlantic is only possible if a really anomalous sea-state exists. Otherwise it's restricted to landing in the wake of ships and even then, the sea must be very calm. Taking off in the wake of a ship presents the real problem of you might hit the ship...

Does the necessary calm sea state threshold raise as the flying boat gets bigger? Could the 314 handle more swell and chop as a bigger boat or was it just a bigger thing to break in bigger ways?

It was built tough, but also it was built for luxury flying so impromptu landings to watch whales or submarines wasn't in the schedule.
How well the 314 would handle North Atlantic sea states I just can't say (nobody liked the North Atlantic weather except people who weren't there).

"When Poseidon gets roaring drunk and decides to play "Kick The Can" with your boat, you might just be in the North Atlantic".

Weather would cause casualties; the question then is how many 314's are worth losing to kill one U-boat which otherwise will take 1+ Liberty Ships (& crew & cargo) to the bottom? I'd hope the loss ratio would be better than 1 plane lost per sub sunk. Understandably, German sailors would feel differently. 314's would raise the risk level, and the perceived risk level, as seen by U-boat drivers. I haven't the data to do any speculation.

 

[swampyankee]

I really like this idea.
My only concern is the landing and dipping a sonar in the sea. AFAIK landing a flying boat on the North Atlantic is only possible if a really anomalous sea-state exists. Otherwise it's restricted to landing in the wake of ships and even then, the sea must be very calm. Taking off in the wake of a ship presents the real problem of you might hit the ship...

Does the necessary calm sea state threshold raise as the flying boat gets bigger? Could the 314 handle more swell and chop as a bigger boat or was it just a bigger thing to break in bigger ways?

Yes, as a rule larger flying boats can manage more severe sea states. The 314 could probably handle landing on the North
Atlantic a few weeks of the year

 

[NevadaK]

OP:

- Was available in prototype form by Jun '43 (give or take)
- Less than 100 were made
- It would have been a good idea, from a practical, military and economic point of view, to make many more.
- It was a "lost opportunity".

M.B.3 was available, but the 5 prototype first flew 23 May 1944.
M.B.5 does look like "take the best aspect of spitfire/mustang and stuff a Griffon in front".

Martin Baker's desire was to power the M.B.3 with a Griffon engine rather than the Sabre. Following the crash, the M.B.3 design was refined as the M.B.4, essentially a Griffon reengineering with minor aerodynamic adjustments. That plane could have been airworthy by end of 1942/early 1943 and would have been a great contributor to the war effort. Unfortunately for MB, too much time lapsed and the MB3/4 was abandoned for the MB5.

I think the Martin Baker designs are evocative of "what could have been" and nice examples for this thread. Had the MB3 been given the opportunity to use the Griffon rather than Sabre engine there is a good chance that it would have entered service and given the RAF an greater edge in the air.

 

[SaparotRob]

The 314 could stay airborne far longer than a PBY. It could certainly carry a larger crew for observation. PBY's were patrolling parts of the North Atlantic and the 314 had better range. Installing a 1943 AWACS "equivalent" radar might require major structural modifications ( those things were huge, right? There were blimps carrying large radar sets, not sure when) but all manner of Allied aircraft carried search radar.
Flying command center is brilliant. I'm sure a "CIC" could've been installed.
I wish I thought of it.

 

[wuzak]

Not sure that a "a 1943 AWACS "equivalent" radar" existed.

 

[SaparotRob]

I'm sure it didn't as well. Refer to post #126. Converting the 314 as an early warning system by installing radars, sonar, etc seems like a good idea. The Boeing is a big airplane and I'd think about putting the biggest radar I could on it. Something the size of the equipment on Hawaii that detected the the Pearl Harbor raid but improved. The 1943 equivalent of AWACS. There were blimps carrying large radars though probably post war. Bet you could stuff a whole bunch of different types of radar in that plane.
Don't think a dipping sonar would work but what the heck. That thing has lots of room.

 

[SaparotRob]

....and it's a super cool airplane.

 

[Shortround6]

AWACS=Airborne Warning And Control System.

It is not just the radar, it is the signal processing, tracking and communications (lots of radios)

What you are asking for is something like this

About ten years early. crew was commonly 18, 6 officers (2 pilots, 2 navigators, 2 weapons controllers) and 12 enlisted (2 flight engineers, 1 radio operator, 2 crew chiefs, 5 radar operators, 2 radar technicians) bulge under the belly is the search radar, dome on top is height finding radar. Look down capability won't exist for another 10 years or more.

The Navy had this

maiden flight on 5 August 1944 but entered service May 1946

The Boeing 314 was big enough, The radar and other electronics didn't exist.

The British had tried dipping hydrophones in WW I from flying boats, It worked, sort of. The flying boat had to turn of it's engines while "listening" and drift. In WW II you had better microphones and amplifiers but range is very limited in passive mode.

The Navy did have hundreds of these by the end of the war.

radar was similar to the British H2X.
The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: APS-15 Airborne Radar

Range
15 nautical miles (28 km) on harbor buoys
40 nautical miles (74 km) on 5000-ton ship
95 nautical miles (176 km) on large coastal city
Minimum range 200 yards (180 m)

 

[SaparotRob]

Uh guys, it wasn't my idea. I just liked it.
I used the expression AWACS equivalent in the same way someone suggested the P-36 could've been the 40's equivalent of an F-5. Not literally.
BTW Shortround6, that's some awesome stuff. Was that a modified TBM/TBF?

 

[wuzak]

Was that a modified TBM/TBF?

Yes.

 

[SaparotRob]

Speaking of "look down" radar, there was a special on PBS about radar for fire control and U-boat detection. It brought up aircraft mounted radar and it's evolution during WW2. Isn't that radar "looking down" to find the surfaced subs? I mean that airplane gotta have real grief if it's looking up to see a ship.