Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
Didn't they lengthen some of the later ones by 20 in( 50.8CM)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 also eliminates one of the P-40s known advantages, it ruggedness. as for the landing gear look at a P-46.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.
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 brakesAdopt 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.
Synchronized .50 cal guns saw their rate of fire fall from 800-850rpm to under 500rpm.Keep a pair of BMG in the cowling, and carry no armament in the wings so they can remain nice and light.
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.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.
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.
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.
Didn't they lengthen some of the later ones by 20 in( 50.8CM)
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.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
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.Synchronized .50 cal guns saw their rate of fire fall from 800-850rpm to under 500rpm.
Read the manual for the spitifre, it clearly says dive RPMs are not to exceed 3000rpms for more than 20 seconds.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.
Read the manual for the spitifre, it clearly says dive RPMs are not to exceed 3000rpms for more than 20 seconds.
Indeed, it does say that.
Does this mean the Allison was LESS capable, or MORE capable in a dive than the Merlin?
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,
Aahh....no. You wanted inward retracting gear and a dive brake. Wheel cover has to move in two different directions or planes. Two sets of hinges or pivot points. Unless you want your dive brake deployed while landing and taking off. And why do you want a dive brake anyway?
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.
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?
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
It also offered higher construction costs or needed different machinery to construct than some other types.
.
Aahh....no. You wanted inward retracting gear and a dive brake. Wheel cover has to move in two different directions or planes. Two sets of hinges or pivot points. Unless you want your dive brake deployed while landing and taking off. And why do you want a dive brake anyway?