Opportunities Missed
- Thread starter Akuma
- 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
I'm going to take a stab at it. The Lockheed L-133.
- Thread starter
- #3
If nothing else an L-133 prototype would have given them some experience in jet aircraft tech.
Admiral Beez
Major
It has to be Sir Frank Whittle and Power Jets Ltd. If the Air Ministry had invested money, resources and support earlier, the Gloster E.28 might have flown in late 1938 or early 39, instead of May 1941. Thus we may have seen the Gloster Meteor enter service 1-2 years earlier, with something even better by 1945.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Grumman XP-50
special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,654
- May 13, 2018
Limiting the period to 1930-41 will keep the Republic F-12 Rainbow from becoming a post war airliner powered by turboprops to compete with the Viscount and Britannia.
- Thread starter
- #7
That's a good point. One wonders what the reaction of the Luftwaffe would have been if the Meteor was flying in that time frame.
- Thread starter
- #8
I did a side by side comparison between the Fokker G-1 and the Bf-110c; speeds at comparable altitudes, rates of climb, weights, ranges and so on. initially they looked pretty evenly matched and I thought typical performance for twin engine fighters designed in that time period. Then I happened to look at the engines. The 110 had two v-12s rated at 1100 initial hp each while the G-1 had two radials rated at 830 initial each. Assuming these figures are close to reality, someone in Fokker design was doing something very right or someone at Bf design was doing something very wrong.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Would have most likely made the RLM get their head out of their arse and take their own development seriously.
As it was historically, the He178 first flew in '39, followed a year later by the He280 - so the British having their first jet flying sooner would have certainly benefited the 280's program.
Why would we rate Fokker very high for the G.I, or MTT very low for the 110?
As for the missed opportunities (= aircraft that would've been very good or great if mass produced):
Spitfire III, Mustang X, P-51 + V-1650-1, ANT-58, MiG-3 + AM-38 + two cannons, He 100 with 'normal' cooling system, Fw 187 + DB 601s, Fw 190 with DB 601/605, MC.200 with I-F Asso or L.121, LaGG-3 with AM-39, Ki-44 with Sakae, Ki-61 with Ha-41/-109/-45, Zero with Kasei, Tempest with 2-stage Griffon and 190 imp gals of fuel, Komet powered by a jet engine, A-20 with turboed V-1710s; B-38, A-W Ensign made as a bomber instead as a transport...
- Thread starter
- #11
Okay, I'll take a shot. 2X1100=2200 and 830x2=1660. Lets posit that each engine at 15000 to 20000 ft has lost 100 hp. That leaves 2000 hp for the 110 and 1460 hp for the G1. 2000-1460= 540hp. So the G1 flight envelope is pretty much matching that of the 110 with 540 less hp. I am curious as to why two aircraft with that difference in engine power have what amounts to the same performance.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Perhaps because the Fokker G.1 was smaller and lighter (length-wise/wing area-wise/weight-wise) than the Bf110?
- Thread starter
- #13
Got these from a quick google. Note: the wing loading figure for the 110 is approx. (Probably they all are when dealing with google.)
Fokker G1: Max weight: 7330 lbs, Max allowable take off weight: 11,023, Wing loading: 25.7 lb/sq. ft. Time to 19950ft: 7'30" Power/Mass: 0.132
Bf-110: Max weight: 10,760, Max allowable TO weight: 14880, Wing loading: 32.15 Lb/sq. ft. Time to 19685: 10'12" Power/Mass: 0.147
The figures indicate a lower weight and larger wing area for the G1.
G1 Max V: 295mph@13,451 ft.
Bf-110 Max V: 295mph@13,451
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Bf110's wing area is 413.3 sq.ft.
G.1's wing area is 412.0 sq.ft.
The G.1's wings were almost 3 feet wider, but the planform was narrower than the Bf110's.
G.1's wing area is 412.0 sq.ft.
The G.1's wings were almost 3 feet wider, but the planform was narrower than the Bf110's.
- Thread starter
- #15
Almost the same wing area and the usable weight on the G1 is 3693lbs while on the 110 it's 4120lbs, again approx for both. The G1 is equaling the speed and climbing to same alt in less time with 540 less hp than the 110.
330 mph for 110C at ~13500 ft on 2x 1020 PS.
Shortround6
Major General
As Tomo has noted, this line is based on poor information.
From Wiki.
G-1......
Bf 110 C-1
...................................................541 km/h (336 mph; 292 kn) at 6,000 m (19,685 ft)
The 110 will cruise (max cruise) faster than the G-1 will go at max speed.
I am a bit suspicious of the range figures. The 110 holds 20% more fuel.
The speed and altitude of the G-1 are not given for the cruise range.
From Wiki.
G-1......
- Maximum speed: 475 km/h (295 mph, 256 kn) at 4,100 m (13,451 ft)
Bf 110 C-1
- Maximum speed: 475 km/h (295 mph, 256 kn) at13,289 lb (6,028 kg) at sea level
...................................................541 km/h (336 mph; 292 kn) at 6,000 m (19,685 ft)
The 110 will cruise (max cruise) faster than the G-1 will go at max speed.
I am a bit suspicious of the range figures. The 110 holds 20% more fuel.
The speed and altitude of the G-1 are not given for the cruise range.
- Thread starter
- #18
I agree that Wiki Google is hardly the most accurate when it comes to the kind of information we need for our discussions.
Given the success stories of the P-38 and the Fw-189 in terms of becoming the capable twin boom aircraft that they were, I feel that the G1 had real possibilities. It's a shame that the Dutch did not have enough time to follow that line of inquiry.
Conslaw
Senior Airman
Good choice.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The L-133 was an optimistic concept - it's design certainly looks fast, but it's design also shiws it would be more suited as an interceptor rather than a fighter.
Matter of fact, it gives me the impression of a futuristic F-104 (also from Lockheed coincidence perhaps?).
Matter of fact, it gives me the impression of a futuristic F-104 (also from Lockheed coincidence perhaps?).
