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
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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
It didn't enter service in 1943.
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.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.
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.
OP:Martin-Baker M.B. 5
I really like this idea.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?
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?
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".
Was that a modified TBM/TBF?