Re-engined planes

[tomo pauk]

Since my skills in M$ Paint are growing exponentially, here are some sqetches of good planes, re-engined with different engines.
P-38 with R-2600 (2 x 1600 HP feasible in 1941, 1750 year after that, 1900 HP in 1944) - perhaps the fastest piston job, plus suddenly the A-20, B-25, B-26, A-26, P-61, F-7F became redundant. Note that oil coolers are now where turbo is for plain P-38s located:

 

[Waynos]

I was thinking of something similar yesterday, When we discuss the Westlad Whirlwind the subject of re-engining it with the Merlin always crops up, however looking at a Gloster book yesterday I saw the Peregrine and Taurus powered versions of the Reaper, so, I wondered, how about a Taurus Whirlwind? Any chance you could oblige?

 

[Colin1]

When we discuss the Westland Whirlwind the subject of re-engining it with the Merlin always crops up...

The problem with just dropping Merlins in was that the Whirlwind was really built around the Peregrine and its sparing dimensions just didn't lend themselves to a bigger powerplant. They tried with the Welkin using the Merlin 76 but its primary reason for existing in the first place disappeared when Spitfire HF.VIs made it clear that the Ju86 could no longer range with impunity over SE England.

The Welkin also had one or two compressibility issues but that's digressing a little.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hmm, lets see about Gloster F.9/37: (aka Reaper):
-fastest combat-ready plane when flown (early '39)
-well armed
-able to take punishment (two radials)
-capability for great range (pilot cabin in front, generous internal volume)

And they scrapped it. Well done

Now back to your question - yes, the Whirlwind with same/similar engines would be just as good plane. While the Peregrines received much criticism, the same engines powered the Whirlies 'till late '43 - not such troublesome engines in my eyes.

 

[Colin1]

Griffon-powered P-38
5-bladed Hamilton hydromatic screws and radiator air scoop arrangement a la P-51 (1 per nacelle)
Nose battery of 4 x 23mm Madsen cannons

That would shake an Me262 up

 

[Waynos]

The problem with just dropping Merlins in was that the Whirlwind was really built around the Peregrine and its sparing dimensions just didn't lend themselves to a bigger powerplant..

That was my thinking when opting to look at the Taurus, that fitted ok onto the Gloster which was also designed for the Peregrine. And thanks for fixing my typo in the quote

Hmm, lets see about Gloster F.9/37: (aka Reaper):
-fastest combat-ready plane when flown (early '39)
-well armed
-able to take punishment (two radials)
-capability for great range (pilot cabin in front, generous internal volume)

And they scrapped it. Well done

Yes, true genius, lol.

And yet we did put the Defiant into production!

I have often wondered how this aircraft would have fared if produced. For one thing it would mean no Blenheims in FC possibly. But I digress. I also found a photo of a Griffon Beaufighter the other day. That was a surprise.

 

[tomo pauk]

Anyway, here is the 'new' P-51R (=radial).
R-2800 aboard, with 2000 hp (well above 700 km/h) until early 1945 - then 2450 HP (for beyond 750 km/h), as in F-4U4. No turbo, sorry P-47 lovers (like me). F-4U is for comparison here:

 

[tomo pauk]

The 5-engined B-17, as discussed in thread about twin hulled planes.

The XB-38 - B-17 with 4 turbo-charged Allison engines, was capable for 530 km/h, and service ceiling was beyond 36 kft. The plane I propose would use the 5th engine (located just aft the bomb bay) to supercharge the other 4 engines, a system used in real Do-217P (one DB-605 supercharging two larger DB-603s). The weight increase would be remedied by deletion of all MGs (13 pcs in B-17G, above 80lbs each, tot more than 1000 lbs), 5 crew members less ( x 200 lbs with gear = 1000 lbs), MG ammo, armor. The deletion of 3 prominent turrets and other MGs would also reduce the drag, so I hope that plane would be able to do 600 km/h max, above 40 kft.

 

[Shortround6]

As usual the question is how much power at what altitude?

The next question for replacing bombers is the range. Late model P-38s with fuel tanks were the old inter coolers were carried 410 gallons of internal fuel. that is not going to go far feeding R-2600s.

Some versions of the B-25s could carry over 1100gals of fuel I believe while still having some room in the bomb bay. Perhaps a 2000lb bomb load while carrying that much gas.

The lower drag of your radial P-38 will help somewhat but I doubt it is going to get 2 1/2 times the miles per gallon of the bombers while toting a ton or more of bombs.

While you have a good power to weight ratio for lifting a war load your wing loading is going to really stink.

 

[tomo pauk]

The additional fuel tanks would been carried in place once occupied turbocharger and cooler plumbing (from middle of boom, towards the engine), so the inboard pilons would remain free.
Yep, wing loading would suffer, not so much compared with A-20 Will come with numbers shortly.

 

[tomo pauk]

WIng loadings for max take off weights, late versions (not A-26, but still..), in lbs/sqft, data from Wiki:

B-26: 58 (5300 built)
A-20: 58,5
P-47N: 64 (included for comparison of wing loading - data from my book about US planes)
A-26: 65 (1000 built till VE day?)
P-38: 66 (10 000 built)
B-25: 68 (10 000 built)

The P-38 w/ R-2600 dwarfs all of them in power loading, as admitted.

The other benefits include that 3 such P-38s could've been built for every pair of B-25s, and 2 per each B-26 and A-26. The crew needed would've shrunk from 3 to 7 times (perhaps a major benefit), if the planes would be issued 1 on 1 basis vs. the planes from comparison of this post (not vs P-47N). The air commander would have the possibilty to launch a thousand or two fighters, then same number of bombers, or same number of anti-shipping strikes.

 

[tomo pauk]

Fw-187 Falke, with Italian radial engines (2 x 840 HP Fiat A.74, good for 550 Km/h, or 2 x 1000 HP Piaggio P.XI, just under 600 km/h clean), depicted here with 30mm for tank busting:

 

[tomo pauk]

I was thinking of something similar yesterday, When we discuss the Westlad Whirlwind the subject of re-engining it with the Merlin always crops up, however looking at a Gloster book yesterday I saw the Peregrine and Taurus powered versions of the Reaper, so, I wondered, how about a Taurus Whirlwind? Any chance you could oblige?

Sure, here 'tis
(Damn, those wings are thin - guess we have add some jet engines in place of piston engines)

 

[tomo pauk]

... and here is the Whiry with jet engines. The nose got some volume and different shape to accommodate nose wheel strut, along with ammo for, now, belt-fed cannons. The extension would've also cancel out the dis-balance caused by engine removal.
The main undercarriage is attached to aft spar, retracting inward. The jet version would've been even lighter - RR Welland weighted some 300 lbs less then RR Peregrine, and prop, gearbox and radiators are not needed here. So perhaps 1000 lbs less because of jet engines, and added 200-300 lbs for nose wheel and more ammo - bottom line 700-800 lbs less for empty weight, 7-8% saved.
Feasible in 1941.

 

[Colin1]

... and here is the Whirly with jet engines.
Feasible in 1941.

I don't think much of the new pilot visibility.
Unlikely any time.

 

[tomo pauk]

Yep, pilot would've seen nothing, got to redesign it

Too bad you think pioneers of jet technology would've skip it 8)

 

[tomo pauk]

The defender of free world - P-40.
The most criticized part of plane was that engine power was not seen sufficient for such tough plane, in ETO mostly. So here it is: P-40 with R-2600. Re-engined like LaGG-3 and Ki-61, the plane would have the power of 1600, 1750 and 1900 HP, for 1941, 1942 and 1944 respectively. 6 x .50 cal, clipped wings for some extra mph roll rate. Perhaps even adding a wing fillet as seen on P-38, to smooth those tick wing roots. Speed between 600 and 650 km/h - better than most of Russian, Italian or Japanese designs, while giving almost no advantage to Bf-109 Fw-190.
The another change would be increase of fuel tank (aft pilot) to cater for increased consumption.
Version with 1750 HP (1942), weighting 7000 lbs empty (650 more then P-40E) would have power loading of 0.25 hp/lb, compared with Fw-190A-8 with 0.245, Bf-109G-6 with 0.25.
Wing loading 35 lb/ft, compared with Fw-190A-8 with 35.8, Bf-109G-6 with 34. So, as good as later German machines.
The '44 variant with 4 bladed prop (the visual difference vs. Twin wasp-engined P-36 is negligible - R-2600 was only 5% longer wider, but 80% heavier):

 

[tomo pauk]

One of widely criticized planes on this board (from me too) was Fairey Firefly.
Here is what it could look like with Napier Sabre. The 2200 HP version was feasible in 1943, offering performance comparable with FR.IV of 1945 (= around 620 km/h); the 3000 HP version (1945) with clipped wings probably around 680-700 km/h.

 

[Colin1]

Red cross for me Tomo
not sure how comfortable I'd feel over all those watery expanses with a Napier Sabre in front of me...

Anyone for engine failure during catapult launch?

 

[tomo pauk]

What might child between force-landed La-5 and MS-406 from Finnish AF looked like - the real Morko Morane. Not unlike what happened to LaGG-3 when transformed to La-5.
With some 1500 HP and 2 x Shvak 20mm, and necessarry reinforcements, of course.