Sten SMG aircraft: productionized aircraft part 2, the what if

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

According to some accounts the Fury Monoplane came up in discussions in Aug 1933 between Camm and Major Buchanan of the Directorate of Technical Development, Air Ministry.
Engine was to be the Goshawk (not yet falling from favor), fixed spatted undercarriage, and four guns. Early the following year they altered things to take the P.V. 12 engine. Introduced an enclosed canopy and started on the retractable landing gear.
After partial conformity to interim Specification F 5/34 an new Specification F.36/34 was drafted around the the Design as it stood in August 1934 and the new monoplane fighter was tendered to that Specification on Sept 1934. The design was accepted and in Feb 1935 a contract was raised for the construction of one prototype to have four guns, one (Vickers) in each side of the fuselage and one (Vickers or Browning) in each wing. Arguments for heavier armament were accepted and the contract was amended to provide for eight Brownings to be mounted in the wing.
Prototype was first flown Nov 6th 1935.

To put this into perspective. The conteders for the F.7/30 fighter specification (issued Feb 1931) flew in the following order.

Supermarine Type 224 Feb 19 1934 (M)
Westland P.V. 4 March 23 1934
Bristol type 123 June 12th 1934
Hawker P.V. 3 June 15th 1934
Blackburn F.3 Taxi trials July 30 1934 never flown
Bristol type 133 June 8 1934 (M)
M is for monoplane

and the "winner" although not actually entered in the competition, was the Gladiator, first flown on Sept 19th 1934 after the abject failure of the Goshawk engine took all of the contenders except the Bristol 133 (Mercury engine) out of contention.
Bristol 133

It did not get the sliding canopy until 2 months after the first flight and was crashed in March 1935 while completing manufacture's handling and performance trials just before being handed over for service evaluation. Pilot forgot to retract the landing gear and tried to do a spin the with the landing gear extended. Designer was already working on a new design but that didn't fly until Feb 1938.

Ability of Camm and Hawker to sandwich in a Fury Monoplane into that time line?
also note that the higher power Kestrels don't show up until 1936 or later. At least the ones that make power at 14,500ft. There were some earlier 730hp versions but that required low supercharger gears and FTH was 5250ft.
 
I guess if Gloster had designed the Gladiator as a monoplane, that would have roughly covered Tomo's desire for a "Fury monoplane", without impacting the Hurricane development. And arguably, there was no big advancement in technology at the time that prevented Gloster from doing that. But also, I don't think that would really qualify as a "Sten fighter", more like a step in the evolution of fighter planes, it was the best possible with the technology of the day and not some cheap second best option.
 
tomo pauk said:
Wrt. the cost in speed, Finnish were gaining average of about 25 km/h (~15 mph) when they were experimenting with retractable U/C for their Fokker fighters.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that was what I was looking for. And presumably the hit will be much worse for faster planes as drag starts to rise quite rapidly.

Both thinner (since the thickest part is removed/not produced for the monoplane Fury) and in area.
At 170-180 sq ft, it will be plenty enough for something much lighter than the Hurricane.
Click to expand...

Ah, I was asking about making the Hurricane cheaper, you seem to be talking about your monoplane Fury which would be a significantly smaller and less capable airplane. But yes, of course the monoplane Fury would get by with a smaller area wing than the Hurricane.

I do find the thickness and area of Hurricane wing as being too big
Click to expand...

Have to admit my first thought when I first saw a Hurricane in person was "OMG those wings are thick!". It also had the MG bay covers off which made it easier to see how thick the wings really are.


I think the main argument against a chin radiator is that there just isn't the space for long inlet and exit ramps with a big low velocity radiator core (as in the P-51) as the engine gets in the way of "tucking" the radiator into the fuselage. But anyway, if you're gonna suck you might as well suck close to the engine and save some weight in piping and reducing target size.

Alternatively LE radiators, those thick wing roots certainly had the space.
 
An all-american Sten fighter to the left, vs. the historical P-40:



Wing has lost the innermost ~60 cm on either side, reducing the wingspan by ~10%, and reducing the wing area by perhaps 12%, meaning it is at around 200 sq ft (= same as on the Fw 190, or halfway between the G.55 and MC.202). Max wing thickness is also a bit smaller. Undercarriage is moved outwards, so thread is restored to the 'normal' value or thereabout. 4 HMGs, just V-1710 in the nose.
It is still not the Mustang speed-wise, but it might be as fast as the P-39 on same generation of V-1710s (talk ~360 mph before the end of 1942, and 380+ mph from winter of 1942/43).

He 100 with the nose job (transplantation from the Avia B.35):

 
Last edited:

P-40 wing showing the two wing tanks (or 1/2 of the bays for them), the wheel well, and the gun bay.
P-40 gun bays.


There may be an error in the caption? P-40B with six guns in the wing? Or wrong Model P-40 and wrong guns.

in any case, there was a lot of "stuff" in the inner part of the P-40 wing and if you take 60 cm (about 2 ft) out of each side you loose a lot of both cord and wing thickness (volume) where you want everything to go.

Maybe you can put a Bulge in the wing to cover that wheel/tire when it is moved another 2 ft out in a skinner part of the wing? Like a 109
 
Sten fighter for the jet age, depicted on the left - wing based on the wing sets produced for the Me 163, rest is pretty much the He 162. Hmm, even the designations point us to the right direction
Obviously, this plays a much greater role if it is made a year or so before the historical Salamander (depicted to the right); engine needs to be the Jumo 004 in this case, being earlier available.

 
cammerjeff said:
Here is one I haven't seen considered, performance is suspect I think Roussel R 30
Click to expand...

Tiniest of the wannabee fighters
I find performance figures believable, what is questionable to me is where the HS 404 cannons were supposed to fit.

How the 1-engined night fighter might've looked like (obviously, I've nicked the pic of some of the internals of the D4Y bomber and 'added' guns' firepower to illustrate the point). Both Germans and British can make this into workable machines, ditto for USA. Aerials are not depicted, what worked on Defiants and NF Fw 190s should work even better with a dedicated radar operator. Western companies will install s-s tanks, and there is nice place in what was supposed to be a bomb bay for additional fuel load. It will also require flame dampers on the exhausts.
No cowl guns (despite still being in the pic) - not much of firepower for NF job, while these might blind the pilot when firing.



Also the rear gun is not needed.
 
tomo pauk said:
Blohm & Voss project for a mass produced jet fighter.
Main materials (besides what was needed for the jet engine) were supposed to be steel (stahl) and wood (holz). Not my drawing:

View attachment 740240
Click to expand...
Might solve 1 of the 3 main problems the Germans faced

Needed 934 liters of J-2 (?) for and endurance of a little over 40 minutes so even though it doesn't use high (or even medium ) octane fuel it doesn't do much for the fuel shortage.

Pilots????
"Cadet Hans, you and cadet Fredrich have both managed to fly the glider down the hill 5 times without breaking any bones, You are being promoted to jet fighter pilot tomorrow, congratulations!"
 
Shortround6 said:
Might solve 1 of the 3 main problems the Germans faced

Needed 934 liters of J-2 (?) for and endurance of a little over 40 minutes so even though it doesn't use high (or even medium ) octane fuel it doesn't do much for the fuel shortage.
Click to expand...

Far easier to fuel than the Me 262

Shortround6 said:
Pilots????
"Cadet Hans, you and cadet Fredrich have both managed to fly the glider down the hill 5 times without breaking any bones, You are being promoted to jet fighter pilot tomorrow, congratulations!"
Click to expand...

Actually - experienced pilots don't get to fly anymore the 109-G6s or 190-A8s only to be KIA by the USAF escorts, but can be strapped into something faster than Merlin Mustangs. Obviously requires that Germans connect the dots by late 1943.

'Sten version' of the Fw 190: cab-forward 'original' small-wing Fw 190, with the Jumo 211 in the nose.
The heaviest and most expensive part of the Fw 190 - BMW 139/801 engine - is replaced with a lighter, more streamlined, more reliable (before late 1942) and more available engine, that also uses less fuel. Yes, power was also lower - the 'no free lunch' rule applies as ever.



Jet powered Fw 190 concept was mooted by Fw (even though I like the Jetfire idea better).
 
'Sten' counterparts to the P-38 (requires that USAAC is a bit more lenient on their insistence on turbochargers or on the V-1710s etc):
- A simple twin-engined A/C, shape of Whirlwind or Fw 187, or indeed of the Ro.58. No turbo, no tricycle U/C, obviously not a twin boom A/C - so the development cycle can be much shorter, and time & price of production can be much decreased. Still two V-1710s as powerplant, still the convincing nice guns' firepower, even easier to get to the required internal fuel tankage.
Or:
- A 'big P-43': R-2600 in the nose for the starters, turbo behind the pilot, guns in the wings, size close to the future P-47.

Actually fast bomber for the Luftwaffe: A/C that is of size and shape of Ta 154, but made in metal, with bomb bay in fuselage, and fuel tanks in the wings and above the bomb bay.
 
For the British:
- MB.2 - it is/was touted as easy to build - but with a 'normal' V12 engine instead of a 24 cyl engine; introduce the retractable U/C without much of delay; will also need a bigger vertical tail if engine of choice is Merlin III and later.
- Gloster F.5/34, but again with the V12 in the nose, preferably Merlin. I don't mind the unrefined U/C at all. Several profiles of what-if Glosters made by the late Just Leo are here.

Why make these? Both were smaller than Hurricane, so the performance should be better on the same engine, while supposed to be easier to make than Spitfire.
 
tomo pauk said:
Why make these? Both were smaller than Hurricane, so the performance should be better on the same engine, while supposed to be easier to make than Spitfire.
Click to expand...
What are you giving up?
Hurricane Prototype...................5,672lbs
MB. 2 Prototype...........................5,537lbs
Gloster F.5/34 Prototype..........5,400lbs

The Hurricane gained weight, it is logical to assume the others would too. Difference in gross weight is minimal. but more details later. Wing area is not the only way of judging size/cost.

tomo pauk said:
- MB.2 - it is/was touted as easy to build - but with a 'normal' V12 engine instead of a 24 cyl engine; introduce the retractable U/C without much of delay; will also need a bigger vertical tail if engine of choice is Merlin III and later.
Click to expand...
The "normal" V-12 (Merlin?) was about 1375lbs once they got it into production. The Dagger engine was about 1390lbs,not enough to worry about except the Merlin requires about 300lbs of radiator, cooling system and cooling fluid. Both planes have wooden two blade props and need better (heavier) propellers. Retracting landing gear is also heavier. Larger tail has more to do with drag than weight and if you are worrying about the size of the tail in relation to construction cost you are trying to cut a bit too fine while ignoring cost of tooling/ factory space (Martin Baker has none from a production standpoint) and the costs of inventorying and suppling hundreds/thousands of parts that cannot buy either the Hurricane or Spitfire.
The Hurricane was always going to have been produced. The MB. 2 first flew when Hurricanes were in service with several squadrons. Waiting for the MB. 2 Super would mean hundreds fewer planes in Service in 1939/40. Now maybe the MB. 2 Super could have been introduced in 1940-41 to ease thing up a bit but then it is going up against the Hurricane II and introducing a 3rd (or 4th?) single seat day fighter is not really a money saver. By Jan 1939 planning (months after MB.2 first flight) there were plans underway for 4 different factories/production lines for the Hurricane. Original factory, new factory at Langley, sub-contract to Gloster and the start of the Canadian production plan. The last took a while to implement but it would not have been any quicker with any other airframe.
tomo pauk said:
- Gloster F.5/34, but again with the V12 in the nose, preferably Merlin. I don't mind the unrefined U/C at all. Several profiles of what-if Glosters made by the late Just Leo are here.
Click to expand...
Much the same story as the MB.2, first flying in 1936 it is at least in the running time wise. Already has a better prop
however swapping a 1010lb engine for a 1675lb engine (including cooling system) is going to require a bit of work. Certainly not impossible but since you have shortage of Melrins already? Swiping them from Hurricanes is not a good idea unless you can get the Merlin F.5/34 flying and approved before Gloster gets the sub contract for the Hurricane I.
Now we have the question of IF the F.5/34 is actually cheaper to build than the Hurricane and/or require different tooling than the Hurricane for it's all metal fuselage?

This quote (from Wiki) is somewhat suspect? "Compared to its contemporaries, test pilots found the F.5/34 prototypes had a shorter take off run, offered better initial climb and were more responsive and manoeuvrable due to ailerons that did not become excessively heavy at high speed."

Put even a two pitch prop on an early Hurricane and the take-off run and initial climb of the early Hurricane I would have been much better too. That was a function of the propeller and not the airframe.
 
I'm giving up the drag of the Hurricane, and the slow production rate of Spitfire.


Curtiss did the similar thing when going from P-36 to P-40, Macchi did the same thing when going from MC.200 to MC.202, Regianne did it when going from Re.2000 to the Re.2001 - and nobody looked back.
Merlins get swiped from Defiants - any what-if scenario worth speaking of has the Defiants never see light of the day anyway.

Shortround6 said:
Now we have the question of IF the F.5/34 is actually cheaper to build than the Hurricane and/or require different tooling than the Hurricane for it's all metal fuselage?
Click to expand...

As above - vs. Hurricane I expect better speed (sorta what early P-40 had over the Hurricane I), while gain in numbers produced might happen when compared with Spitfires.
Added bonus is that Merlin XX is not so dearly needed by a not-Spitfire fighter in 1940, so Spitfire can get it, while the others will get Merlin XII (and Mk.45 from early 1941 on) and still perform just fine in 1940.


I'm 100% cool with Hurricane's rate of climb and take-off distance. What I'm not cool about is the speed, and with that were not cool the people back in the 1940s, too.
 
tomo pauk said:
I'm giving up the drag of the Hurricane, and the slow production rate of Spitfire.
Click to expand...
And getting not the speed of the Spitfire and not the production of the Hurricane.
The Hurricane gained around 650lbs from Prototype to service standard in the Spring of 1939 and over another 400lbs by the time of the BoB (with Rotol prop). Very little reason to believe the other two would not suffer a similar weight gain in addition to the power plant change.
tomo pauk said:
Curtiss did the similar thing when going from P-36 to P-40, Macchi did the same thing when going from MC.200 to MC.202, Regianne did it when going from Re.2000 to the Re.2001 - and nobody looked back.
Click to expand...
You can build the fighters heavier, But the MB.2 doesn't gain as much from the liquid cooled engine.
The Italian fighters made a more substantial gain in power.

fighter.................................P-36C..............................P-40
empty weight..................4620lb............................5367lb
useful load........................1180lb...........................1440lb
normal gross....................5800lb...........................6870lb

P-40 used for weights was #5 and 66lb light. P-40 used two .50s and two .30s, P-36C used one .50 and three .30s. P-40 used an 11ft prop instead of a 10ft prop.
P-36C max speed was at 10,000ft vs the 15,000ft of the P-40. Neither had any protection. P-36 held 105 US gallons, P-40 held 120 US gallons.
Both the P-36 (without wing guns) and the P-40 had a number of teething problems. P-40s had so many ground loop accidents that AC39-165 was detailed to NACA Langley from June 18th to July 15th 1940 to investigate the problem and possible solutions. Changing engines did not always go trouble free (to be fair, the P-36 had more than it's share of landing problems).

The MB.2 had problems still to be solved in the Fall of 1939. The flight in Aug of 1938 was with no vertical tail, in the fall of 1939 rudder control was found to be satisfactory however
other flight controls still needed improvement. The MB. 2 was not a small airplane.

Use as a carrier fighter? View from the cockpit may have been 360 but forward and down over the nose was ?????
Good practice for later Corsairs
Note the flap in the landing gear trouser/fairing. They stuck the oil cooler in the left fairing. You can move it.
One drawing of a proposed retracting landing gear shows the landing gear retracting into underwing fairings, with the wheels staying vertical and 1/2 housed in the wing structure. No exposed wheels for a wheels up landing like the F.5/34.

With enough time and money you can fix anything. The MB.2 was a good first effort but too much stuff needing changing and 1939-40 was not the time to be doing it.
tomo pauk said:
As above - vs. Hurricane I expect better speed (sorta what early P-40 had over the Hurricane I), while gain in numbers produced might happen when compared with Spitfires.
Click to expand...
The Gloster's wing was sort of between the Hurricane and the P-40. 18% at the root. Thinner at the tip than the Hurricane. But not a thin as the P-40 at the root.
 
Shortround6 said:
And getting not the speed of the Spitfire and not the production of the Hurricane.
Click to expand...

Shortround6 said:
The Gloster's wing was sort of between the Hurricane and the P-40. 18% at the root. Thinner at the tip than the Hurricane. But not a thin as the P-40 at the root.
Click to expand...
I'm okay with speed of the Merlin 'Gloster' to be half way between the Hurricane I and Spitfire I - 340 mph - even thought the early P-40 was faster still (with the fully rated V-1710). Puts it in the ballpark with the Bf 109E instead of the 35+- mph deficit the Hurricane had; it is also a tad faster than the Bf 110, unlike what Hurricane was able to do.
It should also dive and roll better than the Hurricane (ie. at least as good as the Bf 110), and not require a new wing to be constructed in order to rectify the weak points of the old wing.

Shortround6 said:
The Hurricane gained around 650lbs from Prototype to service standard in the Spring of 1939 and over another 400lbs by the time of the BoB (with Rotol prop).
Click to expand...


I accept the weight gain, just like the actual companies did in order to make better performing fighter.

Defending the installation of a Merlin on a British fighter is a completely new experience to me, to be frank. BTW - what happened to the often stated information of the (X)P-40 being 22% less draggy than the P-36

Granted, MB.2 needs to be designed with the Merlin in the nose from the get go, if it is to be accepted into production in a timely manner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
What if the Me109Z instead of Bf110?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
German artillery what-if: going all-in with gun-howitzers past 1935
2 3
Replies
59
Views
3K
tomo pauk
Making better Italian aircraft, 1933~1945
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
A
1939-1942 FAA: Better aircraft or more aircraft?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
4K
Admiral Beez
A
A
What if the Germans had radar proximity fused AA shells?
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
9K
Snautzer01
Menu
Log in
Register