Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Would it have been possible to stretch the Me 109 design like the Fw 190? Lengthening the fuselage to carry more armament and fuel, enlarging the wings to carry the weight. Obviously the undercarriage would have to change to a broad one, too. They would have had to strenghten the structure considerably as the 109 was not nearly as rugged as the 190.
Why did they not develop the A6M Zero further to be competitive?
Despite being quite a small (wet area-wise) airframe tomo once said that it was THE fighter airframe of WW2.
Why is that that it was capable of so much stretch, arguably the most if you compare it to other fighters?
Which one is that?
Among other a few fighters, I'm the admirer of the Fw 190's airframe.
Would it have been possible to stretch the Me 109 design like the Fw 190? Lengthening the fuselage to carry more armament and fuel, enlarging the wings to carry the weight. Obviously the undercarriage would have to change to a broad one, too. They would have had to strenghten the structure considerably as the 109 was not nearly as rugged as the 190.
Why did they not develop the A6M Zero further to be competitive?
The Jumo 213 weighed less than the BMW 801. I'm not sure if it really lost that much roll rate as the effective increase of inertia would still be at the centerline , so it should not have been to great. But I'm so physicist. But the Dora turned better than the Anton due to better power-to-weight ratio and aerodynamics. It's right hand turn at speed almost matched the Spitfire XIV's.
You may be right but the Japanese did not have an engine of the same class as the R-2800-C which the Bearcat used.Okay. But the Japanese did plan the deployment of the Reppu? Flight wise it would have been hopelessly outclassed by the Bearcat I assume.
The A7M was much more of a match for the F6F in concept.
Perhaps an oversimplification but I've often thought you could continue to develop just about anything indefinitely(within reason) by lengthening the fuselage to keep the COG after adding the disired aditional fuel, power, etc.
This approach seemed to work pretty well for several types like the p40. Ya, I know, we don't normally think of the p40 as being a stretched/ much improved design but if you consider where it started by the time it got to the p40 f/L it really had come a very long way from the pre p36 origins.
From what I've read even if the tail was not lengthened for COG reasons it did have a positive effect in that regard( if unintentional) as pre-lengthening p40s were apparently quite squirrely and after pretty stable. At least that's the impression I've gotten from pilots quotes so I always assumed it was lengthened for that reason.The thing with the P-40 is that any additional "length" was to accommodate the V-12 engine and for aerodynamic reasons. There was no real change in fuel capacity, the Hawk75/P-36 could hold about 160 gallons if the overload/ferry tank behind the pilot was filled. The later versions got a longer tail (20 inches) instead of a larger vertical stabilizer. The horizontal stabilizers and elevators stayed in the original position, Only the vertical stabilizer, rudder (and tail wheel?) moved. and it was not for CG reasons.
The P-40 did come a long way from the pre P-36 aircraft but the wing stayed the same size/shape, It got quite few pounds heavier to take the increased loads.
The fuselage guns migrated to the wings (on the CG) so no stretch was required for armament.
From what I've read even if the tail was not lengthened for COG reasons it did have a positive effect in that regard( if unintentional) as pre-lengthening p40s were apparently quite squirrely and after pretty stable. At least that's the impression I've gotten from pilots quotes so I always assumed it was lengthened for that reason.
I think the bottom 3 would be referred to as clean sheet designs. About all the Bearcat shares with the Hellcat is the engine type and the paint. I believe the same applies to the Sea Fury and Tempest. I know very little about the Soviet aircraftSo I see it that virtually any design has stretch. But the potential of "how much" depended on the basic design. Its dimensions, construction properties of wings and fuselage, location of cooling devices, weapons, fuel tanks, landing gear configuration etc.. All these interact and influence the extent to which modifications were possible to push the evolution further.
Planes which become "obsolete" obviously reach a level faster where it would be easier and more feasible to go with a whole new desgins.
The case where it becomes a separate machine was e.g. the Me 209 V5 which incorporated not enough common parts to the Me 109 to warrant production, other than to not offering any advantages to its competitor Fw 190D.
But how would you describe a Yak-3, Bearcat or Sea Fury? Are they "shrinkage" versions of the Yak-9, Hellcat and Tempest?
I think the bottom 3 would be referred to as clean sheet designs. About all the Bearcat shares with the Hellcat is the engine type and the paint. I believe the same applies to the Sea Fury and Tempest. I know very little about the Soviet aircraft
Interesting.Hello Pinsog,
I believe Spicmart is more or less correct for two of the three types he listed.
The Yak-3 isn't too different from the Yak-1M and was developed from it.
The Sea Fury actually WAS a more refined and lightened Tempest Mk.II.
The Bearcat didn't even share an engine with any production version of the Hellcat though.
- Ivan.