Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Not that I recall, which is precisely the problem with every suggestion, in any thread, for the RAF using an American design as a primary type in any role. There's no way the American Government would let manufacturing jobs go to the UK...and the logistic chain is just too extended for the RAF to want to rely on an American aircraft as a primary type.
With regard to the bold AFAK it wasn't just a question of aerodynamics but also one of what makes a good fighter, climb and turn being thought more important, or as important as outright speed, for an interceptor of unescorted bombers climb was obviously important, and since they would obviously be faster than any bomber speed wasnt the top priority, for fighter boys of WW1 who by that time were in senior positions turning and agility were valued, even though speed was always the quest for ww1 fighters too.A large part of the Spitfires success and a large problem with trying to replace it with anything else that was on the drawing boards was that Mitchell and his team made the inspired guess to use the thin section wing. There was little or no hard data in England at the time to either support this or counter it. Just about everything else the British were designing used much thicker wing sections and the RAE had not yet figured out that there was a severe rise in drag at higher airspeeds (mid 300mph and up) which meant that many British designs ran into a wall and speed estimates were hopelessly optimistic.
Now in a "what if" we can postulate that another design team also selects a thin section wing but then we are dealing with a plane that never even existed on paper at the time.
Any design of the time using a thick section wing and using the Merlin engine of the time is going to be between the Hurricane and Spitfire in performance and probably closer to the Hurricane than the Spitfire.
Stick a Merlin onto the P-36, essentially making an early P-40L, and you're all set.I know the Curtiss was American made, so it must be a pile of crap from the start, but history shows it was still very capable in the early stage of the war. And to say that the P-51 was British made is reaching a bit. The BPC told North American what they wanted and NAA designed/built it.
You don't have to, the P-36 did OK all by itself, what was needed was trained and organised forces. The UK and French air forces, and later the Soviets were beaten on the ground more than in the air, once airfields start to be over run by ground forces you lose our ground crews, spares and supplies and your ability to fight. With a stretch of water to stop a ground advance the Hurricane was perfectly capable of beating the Luftwaffe. It has some advantages, Dowding and Park could change the disposition of fighters overnight, because all airfields have the same machines.Stick a Merlin onto the P-36, essentially making an early P-40L, and you're all set.
I'm not sure that there is a point in further discussion about the merits of a thin wing.
The Defiant should also be remembered as the only successful combat aircraft Boulton Paul ever made. It's amazing that an aviation firm could stay in business for almost fifty years whilst producing mediocre aircraft in penny packet quantities. Clearly their place was in the contract manufacturing of other firms' aircraft."The Defiant will never be remembered as a great operational aeroplane, but it deserves to be remembered as an aircraft with almost no flying vices."
Keep the tail on and all else can be forgiven.On planes like the Typhoon the problem wasn't just with the wings it was also around the chin radiator and wing root.
I think you need Spitfire shaped wings too, according to Mr Camm.Keep the tail on and all else can be forgiven.
Stick a Merlin onto the P-36, essentially making an early P-40L, and you're all set.
The Spitfire has no rival or peer in the allied side so you either have to invent one or settle. To my knowledge nothing else in the UK was flying at the time that could rival. Certainly nothing in France or USA.
...
Why was Bristol off by 40mph on the estimate for the Beaufighter? They were already flying the Blenheim with essential the same wing ( same airfoil and just about the same size and planform) so they knew EXACTLY how much power they needed to fly at 280mph. What happened at 300mph and up? They didn't have to just look at a foreign aircraft at an airshow and guess. Same for Hawker, When they designed the Typhoon they were already flying the Hurricane, They knew EXACTLY how much power that plane needed to fly at about 315mph. Why were their calculations off by so much for the Typhoon?
The Drag calculations they were using weren't taking something into account at the higher speeds even if they were accurate at lower speeds.
I think you need Spitfire shaped wings too, according to Mr Camm.
Perhaps people at Bristol didn't applied the cube root law in their calculations? At altitude, the 1st Hercules engines installed on Beaufighter were making ~50% more power at altitude than what Blenheim had. I've found this passage by you in the other thread:
However the cube root law calls for about a 46% increase in power to go from 260 to 290mph, let alone 300 mph.
So if the base speed is 286 mph (best case for Blenheim), and drag and size of the new aircraft are left very close to the base aircraft, a Beaufighter that is doing 320+- mph is just following the cube root rule. On the other hand, perhaps marketing dept at Bristol was keen to sell their product, so the 370 mph figure was communicated to the AM, rather than a 320+- mph one?
A trick for a 'Beaufighter' to be a fast aircraft is that Bristol does a new aircraft design, not to warm up a bomber.
About the Typhoon - again it was perhaps the mis-application of the cube root law (not even the Tempest V did 470 mph), combined with compressibility that will start happening earlier with a 19% t-t-c wing than it will be the case with a 13-15& t-t-c.
Sir Sidney was perhaps right to blame other people, but a) he was calling the shots in Hawker wrt. fighter design, and b) it was not Supermarine's fault that he gotten the wing thickness wrong twice.
Which may explain why his postwar aircraft were so often behind the US and Soviet Union. For example, unlike the supersonic pair of F-100 Super Sabre (entered service in 1954, same year as the Hawker Hunter) and MiG-19 (1955), no Hawker production aircraft ever broke the sound barrier. Of course Camm would likely blame the government and Air Ministry for this lack of capability, but his aircraft so often disappointed. His Sea Hawk (introduced in 1953, a year after the MiG-17) for example should have launched as a swept wing from the onset. The Hawker Sea Fury would have been the best carrier fighter of WW2, had it entered service in 1942 or 43 when the Centaurus production began, instead of 47.Sidney Camm only seems to have listened to Sidney Camm.
Had he lived it would have been something to see what Supermarine's Mitchell came up with postwar. A better Swift and Scimitar for starters.