Single Engine Tank-Buster -Tractor or Pusher??

Piper106 · Apr 2, 2013

Matt308 said:
Pusher solution would have to be an airplane designed around a gun and not just a modification.

Nothing prevented what was done in the late 1960s / early 1970s during the design for what became the Republic A-10 Warthog (BIG gun, rear engine 'pusher') that could not have been done in the late 1930s / early 1940s, had the need for a tank-buster/CAS been recognized in time.

The pusher I envisioned in my first post was a a little off. A 1940 or 41 design (contemporary to the Hs129) would have been a little smaller, built around the BMW 801 / BK 3.7, or Wright R-2600 and 37mm M9 high velocity, or Bristol Hercules and the 40mm Vickers S gun.

Had the design come along a year or 18 months later, it likely would be larger to accomodate a 18 cylinder BMW radial and 50mm BK 5 , or Bristol Centaurus and 47mm Vickers P gun. The Americans had an engine in the right class, the R-3350, but no airborn cannon around 50mm bore. A 75mm cannon is TOO much, my guess is that we would have gone reverse lend-lease, and built around the 57mm (6pdr) anti-tank gun used by both the British and American armies, and more or less copied the Mollins auto-loader.

wuzak · Apr 2, 2013

Speaking of the Molins 57mm cannon, was there any attempt to use the Mosquito FB.XVIII in the anti-tank role? As far as I am aware the FB.XVIII were used for anti-shipping/u-boat attacks.

wuzak · Apr 2, 2013

Re Skyraider:

If it were built in WW2 surely it would have been underpowered? The R-3350 during WW2 was giving 25% less power than post war versions, and was far less reliable.

Also, I assume the Skyraider design was a response to an official requirement. That being so, I would think it unlikely that the aircraft could have been developed earlier.

GregP · Apr 2, 2013

It could in my "what if" world, and it could have had either the R-3350 or the R-4360.

A downsized version could have been powered by the R-2800 ... and WAS. I refer to the Kaiser-Fleetwings XBTK, R-2800-powered and flew in April 1945 ... but could have flown much soon if the requirement had been issued sooner. I'd have added two more 20 mm cannons, but it was a contended for an attack plane that actually was built and flew before WWII was finished.

dobbie · Apr 3, 2013

I see a P63 style single engine with an effective cannon armament set up. Get the 50s out of the nose to make more room for cannon ammunition and move them to the wings-maybe 4 of them. A multispeed supercharged Merlin or Allison engine to power it. With either engine, the aircraft is more survivable should enemy aircraft be an issue.

Shortround6 · Apr 3, 2013

Pick what you want it to do. Tank bust or play fighter.

AT Cannon have miserable rates of fire making them a very poor choice for air to air work against fighters.

If you are tank busting you are at low altitude and a multi speed supercharger does you no good until you climb 6-12,000ft.

Ammo has to be inline with the breech of the cannon, if the MG are fore or aft of the main gun breech they do NOT take up cannon ammo room.

see: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p-39-p-40-rest-war-24208.html

Post #6 trying to get ammo from where the .50 cal ammo is to where the 37mm magazine is is a bit difficult without a lot of jams.

Piper106 · Apr 3, 2013

The problem with a P39 or P63 with an Allison (or Merlin) engine, is the really poor survivability of the radiator(s) for the liquid cooled engine. I assume the Hurricane IId had the same problem. In another thread currently running we are finding that even the armored radiator on the Il-2 could not survive ground fire.

dobbie · Apr 3, 2013

Pick what you want it to do. Tank bust or play fighter.

Youre not the boss of me, I can do anything I want lol

AT Cannon have miserable rates of fire making them a very poor choice for air to air work against fighters.

Guess you completely missed the 4-50 cals.

If you are tank busting you are at low altitude and a multi speed supercharger does you no good until you climb 6-12,000ft.

No kidding. The reason for them is primarily range. No sense in them having to fly all the way there and back on the deck. Also good for engaging enemy aircraft when sighted. Also no reason why the aircraft if the performance was satisfactory couldn't be used in multiple roles.

Ammo has to be inline with the breech of the cannon, if the MG are fore or aft of the main gun breech they do NOT take up cannon ammo room.

You assume a lot. I said nothing in my post about stuffing the entire nose with cannon ammo. I am very well aware of how belt or drum feeds work. The empty space might well be used for fuel, radios or other such items in order to help balance the aircraft. I always believed that the P63, if properly set up could have been a more successful aircraft.

I realize that a liquid cooled engine has some drawbacks for air to mud, but the P39 did pretty good for the Russians, no?

Piper106 · Apr 3, 2013

tomo pauk said:
If the air superiority is not a sure thing, I'll have some A-36s with Class S cannons (those from Hurricane IID), Littlejohn adapters on muzzles when available. Ditch the wing guns, so much of the cannon and ammo can be inboard. Thankyou
.

An A-36 armed the way you suggest probably has some advantages. If enemy fighters didn't get you on their first pass, you could turn on the speed and perform a manuver called "get the h*ll out of here", the A-36 being AFAIK the fastest WW2 airplane below 1600 meters / 5000 feet ever to work CAS (unless we count the prototype Tempest V with the two 47mm Vickers P guns). On the flip side, with the two wing mounted guns you have the higher dispersion of fire (see post #1 in this thread), and despite firing twice as many shells, potentially less hits than a single centerline mounted gun. Plus you still have that bulls-eye for ground fire in the form of the radiator to cause problems.

tomo pauk · Apr 4, 2013

Hurricane IID was still managing to hit tanks with it's canons, same with Ju-87. The ammo for cannons with Littlejohn adapter weights 1 lb vs 3 lb for regular AP (fired at a ~25% greater MV, admittedly), so such cannons will recoil less.
The Typhoon and HurriBombers were outfitted with additional armor, so there should not be too much of an issue to install 100 lbs of steel to cover the radiator and a as much of plumbing as possible.

vinnye · Apr 4, 2013

I go for the Hurricane IID - from Wiki ;
Hurricane IID
Mk IIs were used in ground support where it was quickly learned that destroying German tanks was difficult, the cannons did not have the performance needed while bombing the tanks was almost impossible. The solution was to equip the aircraft with a 40 mm cannon in a pod under each wing, reducing the other armament to a single Browning in each wing loaded with tracers for aiming purposes. The Hurricanes No. 6 Squadron, the first squadron equipped with this armament were so effective that the squadron was nicknamed the "Flying Can Openers".[9] A winged can-opener became an unofficial squadron emblem, and is painted on present-day aircraft of 6 Squadron.

The layout was originally tested on a converted Mk IIB and flew on 18 September 1941. A new-build version of what was known as the Mk IID started in 1942, including additional armour for the pilot, radiator and engine. The aircraft were initially supplied with a Rolls-Royce gun and carried 12 rounds, but soon changed to the 40 mm (1.57 in) Vickers S gun with 15 rounds. The weight of guns and armour protection had a marginal effect on the aircraft's performance.

The IID undertook an anti-tank role in limited numbers during the North African campaign where, provided enemy flak and fighters were absent, they proved accurate and highly effective, not only against armoured vehicles but all motor transport.[10]

glennasher · Apr 4, 2013

The lack of ANY successful piston-engined pushers more or less rules that design out. During the war, there wasn't much of anything NOT brainstormed to beat Hades. If the pushers had any real chance, someone would have built a prototype, if nothing else, to prove the point.
It worked in WWI, but only because no one was flying much past 150 knots anyway, and they were lucky to get that, and the machine guns were the only armament.

GregP · Apr 4, 2013

Someone DID build a prototype, the Vultee XP-54 Swoose Goose.

View attachment 229776

It apparently flew OK, but was not proceeded with.

Shortround6 · Apr 4, 2013

There were a lot of prototypes.

The SAAB seems to be as good as any and better than most.

Now do you put a big gun it each boom?
One big gun in the nose (forward of the center of gravity?
Try to hang things underneath ( which kind of does away with the pusher idea to begin with) ?

wuzak · Apr 4, 2013

GregP said:
Someone DID build a prototype, the Vultee XP-54 Swoose Goose.

View attachment 229776

It apparently flew OK, but was not proceeded with.

The problem with the XP-54 was that the USAAC/F mucked around with the design. It had the 37mm cannon in the nose, which was articulated to change the trajectory of the 37mm so that it would hit at the same point as the 0.50" mgs also fitted. The engine was changed from the P&W XH-2600 to the Lycoming XH-2470 because the former was cancelled. Production of the XH-2470 did not proceed, so if the XP-54 was to it needed yet another new engine.

Weights nearly doubled during the life of the project. The gun installation, the pressurised cockpit, the entrance and egress method. For all that it was slower using more power than existing fighters.

Still, it was better than the other prototypes built to the same requirement - the XP-55 and XP-56.

davebender · Apr 4, 2013

Chances of losing an engine to ground fire are too great to rely on a single engine. IMO twin engines are the way to go for CAS. That also leaves the nose free for cannon and usually allows superior visibility forward and down.

pinsog · Apr 4, 2013

Use the P38. Change the weapons to a 37, 40 or 57mm along with maybe 2 .50 Browings, maybe add a bit of armor for the radiators and pilot and your ready to go. The aircraft already existed in the real world, had centerline weapons, and good/great performance at low altitude. Whats not to like?

GregP · Apr 5, 2013

I like the abortive Soviet Grokhovsky G-38.

View attachment 229850

The guns fire from the center fuselage between the props. Altogether a pretty neat concept that was started but not built. Could have used a pair of Gnome-Rhones or whatever. But nothing wrong with an up-armed P-38 except being liquid-cooled. As a ground attacker, the pilot might prefer an air-cooled solution.

dobbie · Apr 5, 2013

Not a bad idea on the P38...a couple of R2800s, and while you probably wont go any faster, you may well increase the lifting capacity. Possibly a belly tray full of 20MM and a couple of 37MM in the nose. Only problem with those P&Ws is that theyre gas hogs but without the turbo plumbing, maybe fuel tanks instead.

davebender · Apr 5, 2013

P-38 was designed for high speed @ high altitude. CAS requires medium to low speed @ low altitude and crew protection against ground fire.

If U.S. Army Air Corps desire a twin engine CAS aircraft they should start with a clean sheet of paper just as Germany did with Hs.129 and USAF did with 1970s A-10. Results are far better then attempting to jury rig an existing fighter aircraft.

Single Engine Tank-Buster -Tractor or Pusher??

Airman 1st Class

Captain

Captain

Major

Airman 1st Class

Major General

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Creator of Interesting Threads

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Major

Major General

Captain

1st Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

Major

Airman 1st Class

1st Lieutenant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads