Ultimate WWII fighter
- Thread starter herman1rg
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Almost all modern aircraft cannon are nose mounted. That wouldn't be true if wing mounted cannon offered better performance. Nose mounted cannon were a superior feature of German fighter aircraft.
Nice work Tomo. Like the look of the 109, but I'd change the elevators. More squared off. Maybe at an angle up off horizontal. Beyond that, and they are small things, it is a good look.
Definitely in the class of what was standard around 1943.
Definitely in the class of what was standard around 1943.
I also think an ideal 1940 fighter would have a powerful nose-mounted armament of cannon, or mixed cannon and machine guns. Assuming we are going for a single-engined plane, that means I would start with the P-39 concept, with its mid-engine that also allows us to improve ground handling with a tricycle landing gear. I'd pack three 20mm cannon in the nose with as much ammunition as possible, one firing through the propellor spinner and the other two synchronized on the upper decking. Alternatively, I might go with a heavier cannon in the propellor spinner (30 or 37mm) with a battery of four synchronized .50 cal mgs in the forward fuselage. I'd try out either a Merlin or DB603 rated for medium to high altitudes as the powerplant. The P-39 already has pretty good all round vision, but I might throw in an all-round vision blown hood and ditch the car-style door. I'd use the laminar flow wing from a P-51, with an additional two .50 MGs mounted in the wing roots, also synchronized to fire thru the propellor arc. I would also borrow the easy to fabricate angular wing planform from the P-51 or Bf-109E, and the simple angular tail from the P-51. I would try to place the radiator and oilcooler intakes on the sides of the fuselage to minimize the risk of overheating when the nose wheel is down. I would consider placing the cockpit as far forward as possible to get the best forward visibiilty and still mount the armament. The plane will have self-sealing fuel tanks and adequate armor to protect the engine and pilot. It would be faily heavy, and be more of a boom and zoom fighter than a turning fighter. The plane would actually look quite a lot like the P-63, I suppose,
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
Okay, I was just trying to keep the plane light, freeing up nose area from ammo holding duties. My revised "wet wing" Messerschmitt; 1 engine mounted 20mm cannon, so more ammo can be carried. And 2 machine guns in each wing.
I agree the centrally mounted cannon was the best place for it to be.
I agree the centrally mounted cannon was the best place for it to be.
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
Okay, I was just trying to keep the plane light, freeing up nose area from ammo holding duties. My revised "wet wing" Messerschmitt; 1 engine mounted 20mm cannon, so more ammo can be carried. And 2 machine guns in each wing.
I agree the centrally mounted cannon was the best place for it to be.
Nice drawing of the the Messerschmitt. "Mine" would have no slats, needless in my opinion. And the landing gear would retract inward towards the belly, exactly like the Mustang.
I agree the centrally mounted cannon was the best place for it to be.
Nice drawing of the the Messerschmitt. "Mine" would have no slats, needless in my opinion. And the landing gear would retract inward towards the belly, exactly like the Mustang.
billswagger
Airman 1st Class
- 256
- Mar 12, 2009
Adopt a lighter version frame of the P-40. replacing the 5 spar design with a monospar or three spar design, and while doing that lengthen the tail another 15cm for stability purposes.
This would lower load limits but could reduce a significant amount of weight., and might also require moving or redesigning the landing gear so it can fold into the wing parallel, rather than perpendicularly into the wing.
Adopt a wheel well cover that could fold open to act as a dive break in normal flight.
Then attempt to design the Allison so it could fit a cannon down through the crank shaft, or similarly just use a DB engine if the performance suffered.
Keep a pair of BMG in the cowling, and carry no armament in the wings so they can remain nice and light.
I'd prefer the Allison over the Merlin cause it had a better capacity in the dive. Spitifires were limited to 3000rpm for 20 seconds.
If this could be improved then i would opt for the Merlin. Allisons were topped at 3250 for an unspecified period in dives.
This probably had something to do with CPS being mechanical or electric.
It would be interesting to also see if miniature F4U type wings could fitted to those size fighters to see if it offered better drag characteristics and ground clearance so that maybe larger propeller designs could be tried.
Bill
This would lower load limits but could reduce a significant amount of weight., and might also require moving or redesigning the landing gear so it can fold into the wing parallel, rather than perpendicularly into the wing.
Adopt a wheel well cover that could fold open to act as a dive break in normal flight.
Then attempt to design the Allison so it could fit a cannon down through the crank shaft, or similarly just use a DB engine if the performance suffered.
Keep a pair of BMG in the cowling, and carry no armament in the wings so they can remain nice and light.
I'd prefer the Allison over the Merlin cause it had a better capacity in the dive. Spitifires were limited to 3000rpm for 20 seconds.
If this could be improved then i would opt for the Merlin. Allisons were topped at 3250 for an unspecified period in dives.
This probably had something to do with CPS being mechanical or electric.
It would be interesting to also see if miniature F4U type wings could fitted to those size fighters to see if it offered better drag characteristics and ground clearance so that maybe larger propeller designs could be tried.
Bill
Shortround6
Major General
Didn't they lengthen some of the later ones by 20 in( 50.8CM)
This also eliminates one of the P-40s known advantages, it ruggedness. as for the landing gear look at a P-46.
Now you have a wheel cover that can move in two directions and move independently of the landing gear. Not impossible but certainly difficult. and maybe of no advantage over separate dive brakes
through the crankshaft
Synchronized .50 cal guns saw their rate of fire fall from 800-850rpm to under 500rpm.
Considering the Merlin was good for 3000rpm in level flight it seems strange that it wouldn't withstand a few hundred extra rpm in a dive.
Why?
Aircraft and engine designers had a fairly good idea of what size prop they needed to use. it is sort of like tires on a car. Putting on really big ones without doing anything else to the car might look cool but might actually hurt performance.
Shortround6
Major General
Almost all modern aircraft don't have propeller getting in the way of all those nose mounted guns. Some aircraft cannon can't be synchronized to fire though the propeller which rather limits the possible locations.
billswagger
Airman 1st Class
- 256
- Mar 12, 2009
Thats the power of hindsight, you can modify the frame for what it needed at the time anyway.
The trade for ruggeness could improve climb and maneuverability ten fold, although it might limit its uses for being anything but an air to air fighter, as oppose to a bomber or ground attack plane.
two birds one stone. Of course designing the dive break separately would be easier, but having wheel covers that function or do the same thing would mean no other hardware is necessary and would save weight.
I always confuse crank shaft with cam shaft, eitherway, it would follow the design of the DB engine in the 109. Don't act so surprised.through the crankshaft
That is something to consider. Again, if the focus is keeping the wings light and maneuverable, then 2 BMGs and 1 20mm cannon should be plenty for a fighter plane even at lower rates of fire.
Read the manual for the spitifre, it clearly says dive RPMs are not to exceed 3000rpms for more than 20 seconds.
because
you don't know until you try, and in this case the F4u wing designed offered those benefits. Whynot attempt to see how they could benefit other planes.
What plane would you build and out of which parts?
Bill
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Indeed, it does say that.
It also clearly says that the maximum allowable RPMs are 3,600 and the 3,000 RPM can be used above 20,000 ft for no longer than 30 minutes.
But, the Hurricane II, Spitfire V and P-40F manuals give no limitations for RPMs for Merlin engines in dives.
Likewise, the RAF's Tomahawk I manual gives no limitations for RPM in dives.
But, the RAFs Kittyhawk I pilot notes, state "Do not exceed an engine speed of 3120 RPM in dives". As do the RAAF's P-40D/E pilots notes.
Does this mean the Allison was LESS capable, or MORE capable in a dive than the Merlin?
billswagger
Airman 1st Class
- 256
- Mar 12, 2009
It isn't to say you couldn't design a CPS system for the Merlin that was better at keeping the RPMs in check.
It is probably less a capability issue than a reliability issue. Something that they probably solved with later variants.
Bill
Shortround6
Major General
With which engine? It may have needed 15cm or more for the engine that was in it.
Enough hyperbole, a P-40 with a climb rate of over 20,000ft per minute?
[/QUOTE]
two birds one stone. Of course designing the dive break separately would be easier, but having wheel covers that function or do the same thing would mean no other hardware is necessary and would save weight. [/QUOTE]
I always confuse crank shaft with cam shaft, eitherway, it would follow the design of the DB engine in the 109. Don't act so surprised.
Camshafts were in the cylinder heads.
You mean the prop shaft. It may mean a redesign of the crank case, the reduction gear case and the intake manifolds at the least.
While 10s of thousands of planes were built with such an armament that should not be confused with considering a good armament. Adequate, perhaps barely? in 1940 whose 20mm cannon do you plan on using?
Already covered by somebody else, do not confuse early, mid and late production Allisons.
It also offered higher construction costs or needed different machinery to construct than some other types.
Big props only increase your performance if the existing prop is too small. It is like going to the drag strip with a low powered car, If you can barely chirp the stock tires with engine in the car fitting 9in wide drag slicks will not make you go faster.
How about a MK III Spitfire (get rid of some of the wing clip) with four .50s in the wing?
Or a MK II Whirlwind. Inter connected fuel system and fuselage tanks, Belt fed guns when available and if allowed to modify the engines fit it with 2 speed superchargers. The last won't do much for high altitude but will give it over 100hp per engine for take off and low altitude.
Shortround6
Major General
A lot of engines had restrictions on allowable rpm in dives. With crankshaft bearing stresses going up with the square of the rpm, over speeding could wreck an engine in short order even if the throttle was part colsed and engine making less than full power.
billswagger
Airman 1st Class
- 256
- Mar 12, 2009
Machines?? I would hire orphaned children from war torn countries to work around the clock in my factories.
Problem solved.
If it were your design, I'm sure you could think of several more ways to make it more complicated than it needs to be.
My idea is actually not that hard to conceive.So try to imagine a flap that lowers from the front of the wing and a portion of which covers the wheel.
It only needs one hing point, though i can see why you'd think you'd need two if you followed the traditional wheel cover for inner retracted gears, however the wheel cover could still open from the front.
And yes they would be deployed when landing and taking off, but at lower speeds this would not matter.
If you make me draw it, i will also need to find you so i can punch you in the shoulder.
Why dive brakes? Because i read a story of a P-40 pilot who dove his plane to 470IAS, which at 20,000ft equated to about 658mph. He lost control of his plane and could not recover from the dive. Perhaps with dive breaks the plane could also achieve high dive speeds more safely, but that might also constitute leaving the 5 spar wings as they are for better sturdiness. If it could be determined it was still fesible with a lighter wing then i would opt for the lighter design.
I never really thought about which cannon to use, although the 20mm SHVAKs were said to be equivalent to Hispanos but easier to maintain. Of course the German guns had better rates of fire, did they not?
Last edited:
The all-American ultimate fighter for 1940: P-51 with turbo-charged Allison. Turbo intercooler occupy the 1st 2/3 of the ventral pod, residual gasses heat from inter-cooler ejected through opening under the pod, radiator (occupying the aft 1/3rd of the pod) intakes on sides of the pod.
Meredith effect galore
4 - 6 x 0.50in in wings.
The only shortcoming is appalling looks, like XP-72
Meredith effect galore
4 - 6 x 0.50in in wings.
The only shortcoming is appalling looks, like XP-72
Attachments
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Matsching an Db-601E into the fuselage of the french Arsenal VG39. Possible?
Remove the six wing LMG and install two french 20mm wing guns instead. Keep the centerline gun.
Historically, the Arsenal VG-39 made 625 km/h with 1200 hp/5 min. Now, the three gunned fighter should be able to achieve 650 km/h / 30 min at the HS´s best altitude. The crit Altitude is better for the Db-601E, so we would expect a top speed in the realm of 660 to 670 km/h with period technology. Using the 1.42 ata rating return us a top speed around 700 km/h, altough this wan´t be aviable until mid 1942.
In order to furtherly boost high altitude performance, why not install GM-1 injection? The Bf-109F4/z had that obviously and that returns another ~40 km/h at high altitude (700 to 710 km/h with 10 min. GM-1 rating). I think You can´t do much better in 1940...
Remove the six wing LMG and install two french 20mm wing guns instead. Keep the centerline gun.
Historically, the Arsenal VG-39 made 625 km/h with 1200 hp/5 min. Now, the three gunned fighter should be able to achieve 650 km/h / 30 min at the HS´s best altitude. The crit Altitude is better for the Db-601E, so we would expect a top speed in the realm of 660 to 670 km/h with period technology. Using the 1.42 ata rating return us a top speed around 700 km/h, altough this wan´t be aviable until mid 1942.
In order to furtherly boost high altitude performance, why not install GM-1 injection? The Bf-109F4/z had that obviously and that returns another ~40 km/h at high altitude (700 to 710 km/h with 10 min. GM-1 rating). I think You can´t do much better in 1940...
Last edited:
