P-40 what-if (1 Viewer)

[Clay_Allison]

Clay,

They got the P-36, instead (although not from us)....and they made a winner out of that one, too.
Would've been interesting, though, in that it seems they used their fighters differently than the Russians did.
...oh well, the Finns ended up with the 109 anyway.
I'm surprised they didn't "borrow" the J-22 from the Swedes.
Of course, that would've been 1943 and the Continuation War was almost over by then.
I think they were actually starting transfer of 109's by then anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Renrich,

That was only funny the first time.




Elvis

Funny thing about the J22. Why was SAAB busy building bombers? What is the point of building bombers when you don't have fighters? The fighter is the very first plane you should have except a Trainer. There would be something to be said for a small WWII country having an all-fighter air force if they were capable of producing a front line plane like the Bf-109.

Sweden should have been building the Bf 109 under license anyway, they could make back the cost of the license by building more than they needed and selling the extras to Germany and Finland.

 

[Marshall_Stack]

Funny thing about the J22. Why was SAAB busy building bombers? What is the point of building bombers when you don't have fighters? The fighter is the very first plane you should have except a Trainer. There would be something to be said for a small WWII country having an all-fighter air force if they were capable of producing a front line plane like the Bf-109.

Sweden should have been building the Bf 109 under license anyway, they could make back the cost of the license by building more than they needed and selling the extras to Germany and Finland.

Good point. It makes sense to have a defensive weapon ( a fighter) if you are neutral but not an offensive weapon (bomber).

 

[Clay_Allison]

Good point. It makes sense to have a defensive weapon ( a fighter) if you are neutral but not an offensive weapon (bomber).

On top of that, we all know what happens to unescorted bombers.

 

[Elvis]

You know, Clay, you ask some very good questions.
I never thought about that, but your question prompted some searching on the net and while I never could find a specific reason why Sweden in particular was building bombers at near "max production" levels, when they were a neutral nation, but I have to surmise that they must've been supplying somene(s) with these planes.
However, this is speculation on my part.

Anyway, I don't know if you'll find an answer to your question at this website, but I did find a "J-22 website".
Here ya' go.
...and that's an interesting article on airfoils, especially when I read this statement - "...the overall drag of the J22 was about 20% less than the P51 Mustang...".

(shhhh, don't tell the Mustang freaks. You'll never hear the end of it).



Elvis

 

[Elvis]

Good point. It makes sense to have a defensive weapon ( a fighter) if you are neutral but not an offensive weapon (bomber).

Exactly.
It would make better sense to have the fighters for defense, and a large "airliner", that (unbeknownst to the general public) had the capacity built into the design to work equally as well as a bomber with minimal changes, during times of war.


Elvis

 

[Clay_Allison]

You know, Clay, you ask some very good questions.
I never thought about that, but your question prompted some searching on the net and while I never could find a specific reason why Sweden in particular was building bombers at near "max production" levels, when they were a neutral nation, but I have to surmise that they must've been supplying somene(s) with these planes.
However, this is speculation on my part.

Anyway, I don't know if you'll find an answer to your question at this website, but I did find a "J-22 website".
Here ya' go.
...and that's an interesting article on airfoils, especially when I read this statement - "...the overall drag of the J22 was about 20% less than the P51 Mustang...".

(shhhh, don't tell the Mustang freaks. You'll never hear the end of it).



Elvis

Impressive, but compared to size and wing area, the Mustang was still more efficient.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Imagine what the J22 could have done with a Db-605

 

[Elvis]

LOL!

Oh man, here we go...AGAIN!






Elvis

 

[Colin1]

Imagine what the J22 could have done with a Db-605

Not necessarily anything spectacular
the J22 was a particularly small fighter and its turn-fight capability and combat acceleration would need to be considered by an enemy pilot; it was in the same class as early Spitfire marks and the A6M series.

It's possible that its diminutive size would be the reason why it would not be so simple as 'strapping a bigger powerplant to it'; there would probably need to be structural changes to the airframe to properly accommodate it and re-balance the fighter for the new weight at the front - strengthening and lengthening which would add to the fighter's empty weight and that's before you've even got it off the ground. Trade-off is an inescapable fact of engineering design in any field and you couldn't expect the J22 to hold on to all of its turn-fighting ability in this case.

Moving from an STWC-3G-powered J22 to a DB 605-powered J22 would move the fighter from one set of flight characteristics that the Allies learned to deal with to another set of flight characteristics that the Allies learned to deal with.

The USN learned to deal with the A6M series and the USAAF learned to deal with the Bf109 series, I don't see why the J22 would have been more difficult than either for the Allies to handle - don't engage the J22 on the J22's terms.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Not necessarily anything spectacular
the J22 was a particularly small fighter and its turn-fight capability and combat acceleration would need to be considered by an enemy pilot; it was in the same class as early Spitfire marks and the A6M series.

It's possible that its diminutive size would be the reason why it would not be so simple as 'strapping a bigger powerplant to it'; there would probably need to be structural changes to the airframe to properly accommodate it and re-balance the fighter for the new weight at the front - strengthening and lengthening which would add to the fighter's empty weight and that's before you've even got it off the ground. Trade-off is an inescapable fact of engineering design in any field and you couldn't expect the J22 to hold on to all of its turn-fighting ability in this case.

Moving from an STWC-3G-powered J22 to a DB 605-powered J22 would move the fighter from one set of flight characteristics that the Allies learned to deal with to another set of flight characteristics that the Allies learned to deal with.

The USN learned to deal with the A6M series and the USAAF learned to deal with the Bf109 series, I don't see why the J22 would have been more difficult than either for the Allies to handle - don't engage the J22 on the J22's terms.

My fighter plane philosophy has been (for a while) that you take the best powerplant you can build and strap the lightest plane you can to it. My ideas tend to follow that theme. My poiint was that a V engine would reduce the drag even further and more power wouldn't go to waste. Some pretty crazy engine swaps took place throughout the war. I don't think it's as impossible as people say.

As far as fighting the allies goes, I'd say participating in the continuation war and fighting the Russians is all it should have been limited to.

 

[Colin1]

My fighter plane philosophy has been (for a while) that you take the best powerplant you can build and strap the lightest plane you can to it. My ideas tend to follow that theme. My poiint was that a V engine would reduce the drag even further and more power wouldn't go to waste. Some pretty crazy engine swaps took place throughout the war. I don't think it's as impossible as people say.

As far as fighting the allies goes, I'd say participating in the continuation war and fighting the Russians is all it should have been limited to.

The best fighter designs balanced the powerplant and airframe at the drawing board stage, shunting the Griffon into the Spitfire airframe changed the handling characteristics significantly. There are examples where it succeeded beyond expectation and the transition from Allison Mustang to Merlin Mustang is a prime example.

Most of your diatribe previously in the thread compared the J22 with the Mustang, I merely responded along those lines.

 

[Shortround6]

My fighter plane philosophy has been (for a while) that you take the best powerplant you can build and strap the lightest plane you can to it. My ideas tend to follow that theme. My poiint was that a V engine would reduce the drag even further and more power wouldn't go to waste. Some pretty crazy engine swaps took place throughout the war. I don't think it's as impossible as people say.

That" philosophy" was used by more than one designer at the time. At times it works quite well. At other times not so well. It depends on what other requirements the user has.
In many books we are told that the Specification "XXX" called for such and such a speed and such and such a climb rate or climb to altitude and sometimes they even give a range or endurance requirement.
This last one starts to throw complications in from the start. If requirement #1 calls for range YYY but requirement #2 calls for range YYY+50% everything else staying the same can you use the same airframe?
Hidden requirements are often landing or take-off speeds or take-off/landing runs. A new super fighter doesn't do much good if it can't use existing runways. And in the 1930s that was much more likely to be landing fields, Large patches of rolled grass so the planes could take-off/land in any direction without having to worry about cross winds.
Granted as WW II went on the airfields/ runways did get larger and construction crews got better at fast construction of runways/airfields but given the usual 2-3 year time from drawing board to actual use trying to predict runway length available is tricky.
Costomer requirements as airframe strength also varried. I would note that the site for the FFVS J22 claims a Design load factor, limit of 6Gs with an ultimate limit of 10Gs. Many American fighters were designed for a load limit of 8Gs with an ulitimate of 12G with British fighters being somewhere in between. This means that American airframes are going to be heavier for equel size. It does mean that they will probably be more rugged. However it also means they are going to need a bigger wing to meet the landing/take off requirement which means more drag in cruising flight which means more fuel which means more weight which means more..........
Using the smallest airframe also means limiting the fuel. See problems the 109 had in the BoB. Or that Spitfires had trying to go on the offensive. Or trying to operate in the Pacific. The best performing fighter in the world doesn't do anygood if it can't get to the fight.
What is the fighter designed for? point defence intercepter, area defence, bomber escort?
Drop tanks help but a fighter using drop tanks might have more drag than a larger fighter carring the same fuel inside until the the tanks are dropped.
Armament is another consideration. It is after all one of the primary resons for being for a fighter. A fighter has to get an effective armament into firing position against an opponent/enemy. Too light an armament and they plane is a waste of effort. To heavy an armament and the plane may not be able to get into firing positions and is a waste of effort. The target would tend to drive the armaent selection but this didn't seem to be understood at times during the 1930s. "If 2 rifle caliber MGS were good enough for (insert name of WW I ACE) they should be good enough for you" thinking. Or American six .50s are good enough, of course the Americans never tried shooting down B-29s.
The plane should be designed from the start to have an effective armament, not see what can be crammed in to fit after the prototype flies and hope that is good enough.

 

[Clay_Allison]

That" philosophy" was used by more than one designer at the time. At times it works quite well. At other times not so well. It depends on what other requirements the user has.
In many books we are told that the Specification "XXX" called for such and such a speed and such and such a climb rate or climb to altitude and sometimes they even give a range or endurance requirement.
This last one starts to throw complications in from the start. If requirement #1 calls for range YYY but requirement #2 calls for range YYY+50% everything else staying the same can you use the same airframe?
Hidden requirements are often landing or take-off speeds or take-off/landing runs. A new super fighter doesn't do much good if it can't use existing runways. And in the 1930s that was much more likely to be landing fields, Large patches of rolled grass so the planes could take-off/land in any direction without having to worry about cross winds.
Granted as WW II went on the airfields/ runways did get larger and construction crews got better at fast construction of runways/airfields but given the usual 2-3 year time from drawing board to actual use trying to predict runway length available is tricky.
Costomer requirements as airframe strength also varried. I would note that the site for the FFVS J22 claims a Design load factor, limit of 6Gs with an ultimate limit of 10Gs. Many American fighters were designed for a load limit of 8Gs with an ulitimate of 12G with British fighters being somewhere in between. This means that American airframes are going to be heavier for equel size. It does mean that they will probably be more rugged. However it also means they are going to need a bigger wing to meet the landing/take off requirement which means more drag in cruising flight which means more fuel which means more weight which means more..........
Using the smallest airframe also means limiting the fuel. See problems the 109 had in the BoB. Or that Spitfires had trying to go on the offensive. Or trying to operate in the Pacific. The best performing fighter in the world doesn't do anygood if it can't get to the fight.
What is the fighter designed for? point defence intercepter, area defence, bomber escort?
Drop tanks help but a fighter using drop tanks might have more drag than a larger fighter carring the same fuel inside until the the tanks are dropped.
Armament is another consideration. It is after all one of the primary resons for being for a fighter. A fighter has to get an effective armament into firing position against an opponent/enemy. Too light an armament and they plane is a waste of effort. To heavy an armament and the plane may not be able to get into firing positions and is a waste of effort. The target would tend to drive the armaent selection but this didn't seem to be understood at times during the 1930s. "If 2 rifle caliber MGS were good enough for (insert name of WW I ACE) they should be good enough for you" thinking. Or American six .50s are good enough, of course the Americans never tried shooting down B-29s.
The plane should be designed from the start to have an effective armament, not see what can be crammed in to fit after the prototype flies and hope that is good enough.

Many American fighters were designed for a load limit of 8Gs with an ulitimate of 12G

Explains why the P-40 was so damned heavy for such a relatively smallish fighter. It really doesn't look bigger than a spitfire or a 109, nice to know where the weight came from.

 

[Colin1]

It really doesn't look bigger than a spitfire or a 109, nice to know where the weight came from

The P-40 could be more closely approximated with the P-51 or the Hawker Hurricane for general, overall size. It didn't sit tall on the ground but length and span were a good foot over the Spitfire and more again over the Bf109.

 

[Shortround6]

P-40 also carried more fuel than the european fighters as did the P-36. Might have something to do with the size of the United States and even trying to deploy fighters from one area to another.

The designer that can combine ALL the requirements into the smallest airframe is probably going to come out ahead.
Of course the really smart designers had to walk a fine line between making the plane just a little too small and not leaving any room for growth (the customer is always going to want more of something) and making the plane just a little too large and losing the competion or failing to met the specification AS CURRANTLY WRITTEN.

 

[Colin1]

P-40 also carried more fuel than the european fighters as did the P-36. Might have something to do with the size of the United States and even trying to deploy fighters from one area to another

That 5-spar wing must have contributed something extra to the empty weight

 

[Elvis]

fine, I'll throw-ijn, AGAIN...

Imagine what the J22 could have done with a Db-605

Forget the DB605, THIS, or possibly swapping for the R-2000, would've been a better way to go.
Less mods, and accomplishes the same objective.

...HOIWEVER...

If we're going to start discussing the J-22, we should really start a new thread.



Elvis

 

[Clay_Allison]

fine, I'll throw-ijn, AGAIN...


Forget the DB605, THIS, or possibly swapping for the R-2000, would've been a better way to go.
Less mods, and accomplishes the same objective.

...HOIWEVER...

If we're going to start discussing the J-22, we should really start a new thread.



Elvis

true. maybe I will start a J-22 thread.

 

[Shortround6]

That 5-spar wing must have contributed something extra to the empty weight

Quite possiably. But no one spar of the 5 is going to be as heavy as the spar/s in a single or 2 spar wing. that is per spar.

I believe I have also read that some american planes were stessed for a higher g load for landing than some other countries planes.

All metal (including metal skinned) monoplanes were only a few years (less than 5?) old when the P-36 was designed. Several prototype or racing monoplanes had had wings foldup or come off in the early thirties so designers might have been erring on the cautious side of their calculations.

 

[Elvis]

Shortround,

I believe the first all-metal monoplane fighter in the American arsenal was the P-26, so yeah, that concept wouldve only been a couple of years old, when the P-36 was developed.

Re: wing weight.
Forgive me, but are you saying that the 2 spar wing you mentioned would weigh the same as the 5-spar wing of the P-40, because the spars of the 2-spar wing would be heavier?


Elvis