cammerjeff
Staff Sergeant
I always understood we were always happy to sell F-5's to countries we didn't totally trust as they could either carry weapons or the fuel to deliver them, but not both?
Sten SMG aircraft: productionized aircraft part 2, the what if
- Thread starter BarnOwlLover
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yugoslavs were always using short ranged fighters (and fighter bombers), so F-5 is just fine.
Shortround6
Major General
A lot depends on when (and/or which versions of which engine)
Yugoslavia had been making Vipers since around the very early 60s for the Soko G-2 Galeb
By the early 60s the Viper had been improved from a 1640lb thrust engine to an easy 3,000lb thrust engine and the P.209 series engines pushing towards 4,000lbs without afterburner.
The J-85 was rated at about 2,500lbs thrust without afterburner at that time (3,850lbs with), J-85 was lighter and gave, by a few percent, better fuel economy.
Next series engines promised ?????
One of major reasons why I've suggested this
Orao 1 was with the 4000 lb Vipers, 1st flight in late 1974. We'd be getting 5500+ with AB for 1980s?
Shortround6
Major General
The J-85 may have turned out better, it just took so long to go from prototype to production that you could have flipped-flopped several times during the development stages.One of major reasons why I've suggested this
Orao 1 was with the 4000 lb Vipers, 1st flight in late 1974. We'd be getting 5500+ with AB for 1980s?
They may been hoping for the Adour engine? a much closer to fit in size and weight to the Viper than the J-85. Once you design to the smaller/lighter J-85 it is harder to squeeze in
Adour (or other small two spool turbo fan) ?
They were hoping to have the 'more powerful engines' on the Orao, one day, some day
I recall the article and schematics on the 'Front' magazine that was tabulating the data for the as-is Orao, and the future, much improved version with engines with greater thrust.Adour was wider and much heavier than either of the two, so I don't think it would've been an easy fit. Even when it gotten the afterburners, Orao was still able to carry just ~60% what Jaguar did (Jaguar's wing was far more refined wrt. high lift devices; better thrust), and was still slow (had a lot to do with thick wing profile on the Orao and it's lower thrust available).
Opting for F-5 as a basis gives them a more capable A/C than it was Orao, that is lighter and more streamlined, and will be cheaper to buy and operate.
Sten alternatives to the MiG-23/-27:
- have the company make something like a big Mirage F1
- alternatively, a mini MiG-25 (just one engine, etc)
The small delta wing like what the MiG-21 will not cut it for the short take off distances that were demanded, even when scaled up. Fowler flaps and LE slats are needed, too. Not having the VG system will help with both production cost and time required, as well as not representing the weak point (wing box was redesigned twice due to the habit of MiG-23 to desintergrate under high G). Also makes easier to hang stuff - rockets, bombs, drop tanks - on the A/C.
Sten alternatives to the MiG-29:
- make the rough equivalent to the F-16, or F-20, or Mirage 2000 + canards, or Viggen
One engined design is mandatory.
- have the company make something like a big Mirage F1
- alternatively, a mini MiG-25 (just one engine, etc)
The small delta wing like what the MiG-21 will not cut it for the short take off distances that were demanded, even when scaled up. Fowler flaps and LE slats are needed, too. Not having the VG system will help with both production cost and time required, as well as not representing the weak point (wing box was redesigned twice due to the habit of MiG-23 to desintergrate under high G). Also makes easier to hang stuff - rockets, bombs, drop tanks - on the A/C.
Sten alternatives to the MiG-29:
- make the rough equivalent to the F-16, or F-20, or Mirage 2000 + canards, or Viggen
One engined design is mandatory.
Back to ww2.
Fighter loosely based on the He 100, with a 2-row radial in the nose. Might've been a good option for Sweden (a few years before the J.22), Italy (eg. Regianne making it instead of the Re.200x series that was made in penny packets). Italians can put the French G&R 14N in the good use, too.
Depicted is with Japanese engine, so this is another option. Note that lower fuselage is deeper now, not unlike what Ki-61 gained when it was becoming Ki-100.
Option for the Germans was perhaps the Ha 137 - a trim looking dive bomber. Much smaller than the Ju 87, and much more modern than the Hs 123.
Size-wise it was in-between Spitfire and Hurricane, so with a proper engine, even a crude retractable U/C, and enclosed cockpit might've been a fast bomber. Have the cooling system to be located under the engine, Ju-87B-style, so the bomb can be hidden behind it as much as possible, or make a bomb bay. All ingredients were there before ww2.
Fighter loosely based on the He 100, with a 2-row radial in the nose. Might've been a good option for Sweden (a few years before the J.22), Italy (eg. Regianne making it instead of the Re.200x series that was made in penny packets). Italians can put the French G&R 14N in the good use, too.
Depicted is with Japanese engine, so this is another option. Note that lower fuselage is deeper now, not unlike what Ki-61 gained when it was becoming Ki-100.
Option for the Germans was perhaps the Ha 137 - a trim looking dive bomber. Much smaller than the Ju 87, and much more modern than the Hs 123.
Size-wise it was in-between Spitfire and Hurricane, so with a proper engine, even a crude retractable U/C, and enclosed cockpit might've been a fast bomber. Have the cooling system to be located under the engine, Ju-87B-style, so the bomb can be hidden behind it as much as possible, or make a bomb bay. All ingredients were there before ww2.
Shortround6
Major General
I prefer the V12 powered version.
Domobran42
Recruit
- 3
- Oct 27, 2023
Problem with that in a dive bomber is that liquid cooled engines are rather more vulnerable than air-cooled engines. Where they shine is the high-altitude performance, where there is not much air to cool the engine down.
So good for interceptors, so-so for low-altitude fighters, and not a very good choice for dive bombers.
Liquid cooled engine is a 1st step towards a fast bomber, at least for the Germans in late 1930s.
A-36 disagrees
Hi-alt performance is more a function of the capability of a supercharger, rather than whether engine is liquid- or air-cooled. Eg. see here.
Shortround6
Major General
Hummm. Interesting way to cripple the Luftwaffe, send them down the garden path of the single engine fast bomber
Did that actually work for anybody against anyone that had a moderately good air defense?
Twin engine fast bomber has possibilities.
A-36, Fw 190 bomber versions? In scenarios with feeble or no fighter escort, seems like these fared better than the 'normal' bombers.Hummm. Interesting way to cripple the Luftwaffe, send them down the garden path of the single engine fast bomber
Did that actually work for anybody against anyone that had a moderately good air defense?
Sure it has.
Shortround6
Major General
They did but the role of the light (single engine) bomber changed.
Pre-war most people looked it as a cheap (might I say Sten gun?) bomber that could do most things that twin engine bombers could, maybe not with as heavy a load or quite as far.
A-36 and Fw 190s fighter bombers were pretty close range, Load may be good (not great) but range is short.
Some nations had not split planes into tactical and Strategic yet.
Retract the gear, fit more powerful engine= fast light bomber !
Hundreds of miles more range than the A-36. Just don't expect very many to come back if the enemy has even mediocre fighters.
Domobran42
Recruit
- 3
- Oct 27, 2023
Any idea why? US dive bombers and other ground attack aircraft (including P-47, which was turned into ground attack aircraft, as well as SBD Dauntless) predominantly had air-cooled engines. And it is not like e.g. Stuka was fast enough to survive if jumped by fighters. (EDIT: Fixed a bain fart)
IIRC, single-engined bombers were far more survivable than heavy bombers. But no, neither really worked against moderately good air defense unless escorted by fighters.Hummm. Interesting way to cripple the Luftwaffe, send them down the garden path of the single engine fast bomber
Did that actually work for anybody against anyone that had a moderately good air defense?
Twin engine fast bomber has possibilities.
Last edited:
Less drag, and for Germany also more power vs. the radials they had.
Re-engine the Stuka with any engine and it will still be killed off easily, since the drag was too big (mostly due to the Stuka's size, and fixed U/C). Not even the Germans, even in the late 1930s, were under illusion that Ju 87 was a fast bomber.
P-47 was 1st a fighter, and then it became a fighter bomber; it was also a good dive-bomber. Having 2000-2800 HP is all another ball game than trying to make a bomber or a fighter around, say, 1000 HP engine, and it will give ability to do more military missions.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
hit reply by accident.
While air cooled engines definitely have an advantage in terms of tolerance to battle damage, there's a zillion things that can go catastrophically wrong on an aircraft as a result of being hit.
(IIRC in a previous thread on this site it was mentioned that the Americans use Corsairs and Mustangs for ground attack in Korea, with pretty similar loss rates.)
For Germany, the problem is that the only high power radial they had was the BMW 801, which became available only in the fall 1941 (or early 1942 after fixing the most egregious issues), production was initially dedicated to the FW190, and it most definitely was not a "Sten" engine, being (depending on the source) about twice as expensive as the DB and Jumo inlines.
If one insists on a radial engine dive bomber, I think Germany would need to look into a small two person twin engine plane powered by BMW 132 or Bramo 323 engines.
Any engine??? Challenge accepted!
Let's see, the Jumo 211 was about 640kg. So punch the buttons on the time machine and order a PW150 turboprop engine. At 718 kg dry, might need some slight ballasting at the tail. But the 5000 hp at the shaft should make up for it.
The undercarriage is still non-retractable, however with that power it might very well be detachable, thus reducing drag.
