Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
So, naturally, they didn't build it!
change the engine, it is a P-40.I'll take a stab. The P-36.
I may have misread the OP. I thought we're going for simple. P-36. Radial. Less plumbing.change the engine, it is a P-40.
Kudos to the people in the British Air Ministry for that decision, and thank them 1000 times from the free world.
I may have misread the OP. I thought we're going for simple. P-36. Radial. Less plumbing.
A long nose P-40 was about 30mph faster than a P-36. we can argue about effectiveness.but most effective,
with no armor, no self sealing tanks, only 56 Imp gallons of fuel, no bomb load. I am not sure how much support you actually get for what they cost you.repair Venoms
It's tough to know when history only saw one that never made it into combat, Shortround6. I still think some support in areas that had none would have been better than what they had but, in the end, "what ifs" are sort of not my cup of tea.with no armor, no self sealing tanks, only 56 Imp gallons of fuel, no bomb load. I am not sure how much support you actually get for what they cost you.
British tried Lysanders, Battles and Blenheims over France in 1940, didn't work very well.
If you try to make a 9 cylinder Taurus instead of the Aquila you get about a 740hp engine that weighs somewhat more than the Aquila, Next step is a Mercury which weighs about 200lbs more plus the bigger prop.
Straight, untapered wing, easy fabrication, lots of "easy to make and repair" type features. A low-wing monoplane single-seat, single-engined, eight-gun fighter aircraft. It was fast and manoeuvrable but its Bristol Aquila radial engine was underpowered.
Vickers Venom
Bristol sleeve valve Aquila engine.
Now take whatever pre WW II Hallucinogenic drug you prefer and figure out how to get the advertised performance out of engine that was 70% of the size of the engine in an AT-6.
Maybe they really did use a Jockey pilot (120lbs dressed instead of 200lbs)
The problem with most (all) of the light weight fighters is that the operational equipment (instruments, radios, pilot armor, etc) cannot be scaled down to suit the power of the engine.
Fair enough.C'mon, Tomo, let's hear a good argument, not a one-liner.
I'm thinking the simplest was the Vickers Venom. It did NOT make production, but was extremely simple and robust.
Straight, untapered wing, easy fabrication, lots of "easy to make and repair" type features. A low-wing monoplane single-seat, single-engined, eight-gun fighter aircraft.
Hard to imagine an easier-to-make, easier-to-repair aircraft.
It had decent performance (315+ mph, 3000 fpm rate of climb) for the installed power. But, history sort of is what it is, and the Venom never made it into production and got consigned to the rubbish bin of prototypes that didn't make it. Meh.