Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Going back to the earlier premise of ease of production instead of just light weight and one of the Finnish
examples
View attachment 739318
Same engine as the Bf109G. They address the landing gear problem. They also added about 14% in wing area.
Unfortunately details are lacking or inconstant (or not identified correctly). Apparently the prototype was never given guns? so weight are either off or performance is off or ???
Another, earlier, Finnish fighter is more instructive. VL Myrsky
View attachment 739319
Now the project started in May 1939 (?) with the initial requirements, first flight took place Dec 23rd 1941 and first units got production aircraft in 1944. Which is actually not too bad.
It also allowed some later innovations to be used. Like cowling and exhaust thrust ideas that were not in existence in 1940-41. This did allow for better performance than was allowed by 1939-41 production fighters using similar engines. Yes it used wooden construction as noted earlier and it had problems with bad glue.
More subtle problems were the 300 liter fuel capacity and the rather restricted ammo capacity one source says 220rpg for the inner guns and 260rpg for the outer guns. This may have suited conditions in Finland but perhaps not in some other areas?
I am not sure what you save? or gain?Japanese options:
- Ki-27 with the 1st of Sakaes (better power all-around, less drag) + a better prop; give it another pair of MGs for the obvious reasons; retractable U/C might come in handy
- A5M with Zuisei, enclosed cockpit as in some prototypes, add a bit of firepower, again the retractable U/C will be nice to have
Both of them will require a bit more of fuel.
Don't confuse smaller with light weight or easy to build.Shortly after that:
- Ki-60 with Sakae/2-speed Zuisei/Ha-41/-109/Kinsei
- Ki-44 with Kinsei or 2-speed Sakae
(both are small fighters, so it should be easier to produce them than their bigger stablemates like the Ki-61 or Ki-43; engines suggested are in series production, not some new fancy models)
I noticed upthread that some comments pointed toward plywood as a weight saving factor.
Plywood (laminated birch/poplar veneer) is not lightweight at all. It is a strategic material alternative, but certainly not weight saving.
I am not sure what you save? or gain?
Ki-27 was about 1000lbs lighter empty than a Ki-43. In part due to the 435kg engine (?) the ground adjustable 2 blade propeller, The fixed landing gear and the two MG (12.7kg each)with 500rpg. Ki-27 held 330 liters of internal fuel.
The Early Sakae engine was about 530kg, The later ones with 2 speed supercharger went about 590-600kg?
Unknown weight change for a two pitch prop.? Ki-43 II got the constant speed prop.
Retractable landing gear?
Even two more Type 89 machine guns are 50kg not including mounts, ammo boxes, etc.
The Ki-43 gained about 15% in wing area.
The Ki-43 II got the 2 speed supercharger and constant speed prop and gained about 300lbs in empty weight over the Ki-43 I.
The Japanese 12.7mm aircraft gun was 43kg or about 2.5 kg lighter than two of the 7.7mm guns.
Time needed to retool the factory for another airframe is notable save.I am not sure what you save in materials/ labor by building the K-27 "Super" vs the Ki-43 I with the same engine, prop, guns, especially if you stick retracting landing gear on the K-27 "super". cost of the extra 30 sq ft of wing area?
Pretty much the same for the A5M which used the same engine as the Ki-27.
The early Zuisie went around 540kg. Not sure if the A5M had a controllable pitch prop or not. But you want one for the Zuisie engine. Same problem for the extra machine guns, that assumes the Japanese have the production capacity for the extra machine guns early in the war.
You want an A6M "light"? and you are short of Sakae engines? stick Zuisies in the A6M airframes. You already have the wing gun positions and most of the airframe and landing gear parts should interchange. (cost savings right there).
Don't confuse smaller with light weight or easy to build.
The Ki-60 was pretty much of a dog in many respects. The Ki-61 had much lower drag and better flying characteristics. The entire fuselage was reduced in height for one thing.
There were only 3 Ki-60s so there was not tooling to "save".
Ki-44 exists, in part, due the Kinsei and Sakae not delivering the desired power at the needed times. In 1940-41 and part of 1942 the smaller Japanese engines were nowhere near 1250hp. An under 1000hp Ki-44 would have offered nothing over the Ki-43, By the time you get 2 speed Sakae or Kinsei engines the Nakajima engine is giving 1450hp or is very near.
French certainly need to revamp their fighter program(s) a few years earlier in order for these to bear fruit. Seems to me that they endured a lot of trial and error a few years after the British did the same (where the monoplanes' prototype fighters were with severe shortcomings, but a few years later that gave them - and us all - Hurricanes and Spitfires). It helped a lot to the British that RR was delivering Merlins that gave far better power than what French had, thus a hiccup with a high-drag fighter was not such a problem at the end.Potez 230 Along with 3/4 other "light fighters".
However the French were a little too obsessed with speed and not so much with actual usefulness. The little Potez was supposed to do 342-350mph. depending on source although it was never fitted with guns (same as a D. 520) so actual in service speed is a little questionable. The other problem was it's 118sq ft wing. This might be a misprint but it's 3 stable mates all used small wings.
Bloch 700. 134sq ft G-R 14 M engine
C. 714 135sq ft Renault V-12
Roussel R. 30 110 sq ft G-R 14 M
All had wing loading on the high end for their time and French Airfields were often not the Best (understatement).
The C.714 had two derivatives, one with the Italian I-F Delta engine and the other with an experimental Renault V-16 (broke it's crankshaft on the first flight, go figure).
Squeezing another airframe into that mess and expecting a different result?
For the British?
Used airframes and engines or new construction (and/or rebuilt engines?)
Hawker Furies had a number of models. including
Which hit 242mph. Landing gear of similar type to the Gladiator.
Several versions had a pair of guns in the cowl top and an gun in each side of the fuselage (Vickers guns, British didn't put them in the wings) although one customer put a gun under each wing.
But you are expecting a lot from a 700hp engine even if you cut the wing a bit compared to the 1030hp Hurricane.
The Ki-27 only had to deal with two guns and it used a 199.8 sq ft wing. 330 liters of fuel.
Historically, as I'm sure we all know, the monoplane version of the Fury, with a new engine and retractable U/C, became the Hurricane, which for all its faults was still a phenomenally successful aircraft. How much cheaper will the above suggestion really be compared to the Hurricane, and is the savings in cost really worth the cost in performance compared to the Hurricane? Further, if Hawker would have concentrated on making the above product, that would probably have delayed the Hurricane project, likely putting Britain into a much more difficult position in the early war years.
Just put the second-tier engines into transports, patrol aircraft and some bombers, and use the best engines you have for fighters. Yes, not the topic of this thread, but that would be my recommendation. If one wants cheaper, what could e.g. Hawker have done to make the Hurricane cheaper to produce and operate, without sacrificing much capability of the aircraft?
Unfortunately the French solution was not to increase the power of the basic engines (or they tried too slowly) but to reduce the drag of the fighters to such an extent that they could use even lower powered engines. The French had a real obsession with numbers and chose to sometimes ignore actual combat effectiveness. See armor and artillery.French certainly need to revamp their fighter program(s) a few years earlier in order for these to bear fruit. Seems to me that they endured a lot of trial and error a few years after the British did the same (where the monoplanes' prototype fighters were with severe shortcomings, but a few years later that gave them - and us all - Hurricanes and Spitfires). It helped a lot to the British that RR was delivering Merlins that gave far better power than what French had, thus a hiccup with a high-drag fighter was not such a problem at the end.
My idea is that the 'real' Fury monoplane is produced instead of the Gladiator. 745 HP at 14500 ft, as on the 'Yugoslav Furies' as depicted above.
Problem here is production and design staff. Hawker was designing and setting up for production of the Hurricane, once RR figured out the PV 12-Merlin.The monoplane Fury, as noted above, should be produced instead of the Gladiator, not instead of Hurricane.
The French that were trying to reduce drag were not the same French that were trying to increase engine power. Same as the British trying to reduce drag were not the same British trying to increase the engine power.Unfortunately the French solution was not to increase the power of the basic engines (or they tried too slowly) but to reduce the drag of the fighters to such an extent that they could use even lower powered engines. The French had a real obsession with numbers and chose to sometimes ignore actual combat effectiveness. See armor and artillery.
We can recall that the thread is about the Sten gun equivalent of an aircraft, not the FG-42 equivalent - IOW not 'let's make the best, top notch machine', but 'let's make a machine that can be had en-masse and still do the job'.
If you are modifying an 6,000lb airplane you have a lot more room than when you are modifying a t 3,000lb airplane.Time needed to retool the factory for another airframe is notable save.
Radial of the day is anyway taller than a V12 (requiring for the Ki-100 to gain a bit of 'beard' in order to streamline the installation), so again the taller fuselage is not a hindrance.
Better flying characteristics of the Ki-61 vs the -60 were due to a bigger wing so there was the lighter wing loading; here I've suggested lowering the weight, so there is improvement of wing loading.
Trouble is that when you go to the radials of the time the performance goes in the toilet.While there is not much of tooling to 'save' at Kawasaki, there is a lot of time and trouble to save by not going on with the Ha-40 engine.
Hopefully the radial in the nose can help us get rid of the bathtub (radiator) under the fuselage, thus making the aircraft more slenderThat is one fat airplane
Haven't claimed I do.You are not getting a Ki-100 earlier.
Trouble is that when you go to the radials of the time the performance goes in the toilet.
The Ha-40 engine promised (delivery was questionable) both more power, better streamlining and better exhaust thrust than the radials.
The Ki-100 was about 8mph slower at the Ki-61s best height despite having both more power (around 150hp?) and better exhaust thrust than any 1942/43 Japanese aircraft had.
The Ki-44 had about 200-220hp more than the Ki-61 had at altitude and was about 16mph faster (Ki-44 did not make good use of the exhaust thrust) despite it's size.
Anything smaller in 1942/43 than the engine in the Ki-44 gives you less performance no matter what you do to the wing.
May depend on how and what you are counting.The French that were trying to reduce drag were not the same French that were trying to increase engine power. Same as the British trying to reduce drag were not the same British trying to increase the engine power.
If the French have had obsession with numbers of military aircraft, they did a great job of hiding it - Germans out-produced them in any year past 1936?
May depend on how and what you are counting.
French numbers are all over the place. Since they had a crap load of planes that date back to before 1936 things get skewed rather quickly.
Wiki. "At the start of the conflict, significant numbers of D.510s were still in operation with three Groupes de Chasse (Fighter Groups), two Escadrilles Régionale de Chasse (Regional Fighter Squadrons in North Africa), and two Escadrilles de Aéronautique Navale (Naval Aviation Squadrons)."
Now these were pretty much useless for 1st line combat
You can find this statistic.
"In May 1940, the French had 4,360 combat aircraft vs. 3,270 for the Germans. However, the French had only a fourth of these aircraft in operational formations on the Western Front."
The Germans were NOT counting or flying a crap load of antiques (Dornier 23 bombers).
French also often counted aircraft sitting on the manufactures factory ramps, even though they were not ready to fly, government supplied radios, gunsights, some instruments and even propellers not being installed on "completed" aircraft. Hey, the numbers looked good
Over 700 of these were delivered before France fell, there were almost 1400 of the family built. But they were cheap
The Famous G-R 14M engine of about 700hp. Airframe was cheap, supposedly cheaper than an Ms 406?
Smaller bomb load than Blenheim, slower, less range than a MK IV, better for strafing though!
Large numbers of squadrons without adequate ground crew and supplies means less actual missions per day.
It is a balance and large numbers of inadequate planes and inadequate support/supply is not a winning combination.
If manpower and/or supply (fuel) are short then having effective aircraft is the only hope, more planes you cannot support is a waste of money/resources.
Granted, there is much more to the airforce than what new, shiny aircraft can be produced.
At least two things to note:A fighter squadron can have over 100 ground crew, which have to housed (even in tents) and fed.
Small cheap fighters with a lower number of guns only reduces the number of ground crew a small amount.
Powerful engines suck fuel when running hard. At cruising speeds the fuel consumption is a lot closer. Fuel consumption per sortie may not be as different as percentage of the peak power.
And you need enough guns to kill/damage the enemy aircraft. If some (not all) He 111s could make it home with 200 .303 hits (scrapped after landing?) from eight gun fighters how many 4 or 6 gun fighters do you need? Or do you need better pilots? With more time in trainers and gunnery courses?
Granted we have the benefit of hindsight.
The US also had the benefit of by far the most mechanized support structure of any force in WW II, more than one General listed the Bulldozer as one of the 5 most important weapons of the war. Field length was of less importance to the US as they could make the airfield larger with ease, assuming there was land available (and sometimes even if there wasn't).
With a special racing engine they got them to go over 300mph in 1936. But racing planes are not fighter planes
The French C. 714, the only light fighter to be built in quantity by the French, used four 7.5mm machine guns.At least two things to note:
- my suggestions rarely, if ever included the reduction of armament
- not everything is about RAF
Well, we are back to the French, who did not improve or enlarge their airfields, mostly, between WW I and WW II.Most of countries with airforces worth talking about have had many years to improve and enlarge their airfields.
Airframe cost varied but it might be only 30-40% of the cost of a fighter aircraft. It is the cheapest cost on a per pound basis.
The monoplane Fury, as noted above, should be produced instead of the Gladiator, not instead of Hurricane.
Fixed U/C? For service use certainly better thing than having a biplane.
I'd also try to came out with a smaller wing and the 'beard' radiator.
I think it's unlikely Hawker would have the manpower to take on this project without impacting the timetable of the Hurricane. Now, if the Merlin would have been delayed by several years, this might have been a worthwhile project, but in OTL I don't see it making sense.
How much the fixed U/C save on the cost of the entire plane vs. how much does it reduce performance? I suspect the tradeoff is not going to look favorable.
Do you mean smaller as in smaller area or thinner? Smaller area I'm not so sure about, would have made it faster, sure, but also reduced turning performance and increased landing speed. I suspect the Hurricane wing area was a pretty decent compromise as it was.
As for a thinner wing, sure. But then again Camm got on the thin wing bandwagon in the transition from the Typhoon to the Tempest, it's perhaps a bit optimistic to postulate he could have done that already for the Hurricane?
And for the radiator, I don't know. The Hurricane one apparently wasn't that good, but it seems no really good low drag ones were successfully made of the chin/beard variant either.