What aircraft (any side) would you develope further

The Japanese had some promising designs that would have been interesting had they progressed. I'll not include the Shinden or the jet types to keep this post simple.

The Ki 100 was a successful adaptation of the Ki 61 "Tony" to use a radial engine. By all accounts a great performer.

The Ki 84 "Gale". Captured examples bested P-51s and P47s.

The N1K2KJ Shiden "George". Derived from a floatplane and a deadly adversary.

tom

Why not mix the Ki 100 and the Ki 84? The Ki-116 was a Ki-84 with the same engine as the Ki-100.
In fact, the only fighter aircraft the Japanese needed was the Ki-84 as it was superior to all others AND easier to produce. No need for the Ki-61, J2M or N1JK. The Ki-116 could then have become the standard light fighter side by side with the Ki-84.

After that the Shinden or the first jet fighters were the way of the future.

The Japs had quite a lot of interesting tdesigns actually.
Kris

This baby is what I would've developed further, the Messerschmidt P.1011:


As it was it never got past the prototype stage...

If the Ta-183 could've been fielded that would been great for the Germans as-well. As it was its construction plan had already been worked in detail and the design thuroughly tested in windtunnels, and the characteristics displayed in these tests looked VERY promising. It would've needed automatic leading edge slats or wing fences though to avoid violent stalling characteristics, the same as discovered with the MIG-15.

Here are some great pictures of how the Ta-183 probably would've looked in Luftwaffe colors:

I think you mean the Messerschmitt P.1101. Her's what the original design looked like: Messerschmitt Me 1101 initial concept Quite different from the V1 prototype. The original wing and tail were abandoned and the outer wings from the Me-262 were used along with a conventional tail. I think the variable sweep was for testing only and a fixed-wing was to be used in production. The prototype's small, low-profile canopy also resulted in poor visibility (for a bubble canopy) and would likely need a redesign for the prodution version. But it did have good potential.
see also: Messerschmitt Me P.1101 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was also captured by the US and was served for the basis for the Bell X-5. See: Bell X-5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As for the P-38, by late 1941 the USAAF actually had 13 YP-38s as well as 30 P-38s, (which were armmed with 2x .50 and 2x .30 or 4x .50 cal BMG and 1x 37mm cannon, but not considdered combat capable), and 36 P-38Ds which had improved insterments and self-sealing tanks and armmed with 4x .50 cal BMG and 1x 37mm cannon. So the USAAF did have P-38s by the time of the Pearl-Harbor attack, but the kinks in the design had not been worked out and these aircraft were used primarily for training and work out the bugs, so pilots wouldn't have been fully ready for combat even if they were pressed into serfice as they would still be getting used to the aircraft.

quote: "On 20 September 1939, before the YP-38s had been built and flight tested, the USAAF ordered 66 initial production P-38 Lightnings, 30 of which were delivered to the USAAF in mid-1941, but not all these aircraft were armed. The unarmed aircraft were subsequently fitted with four .50s (instead of the two .50 and two .30 of their predecessors) and a 37 mm cannon. They also had armor glass, cockpit armor and fluorescent cockpit controls.[19] One was completed with a pressurized cabin on an experimental basis and designated XP-38A.[20] Due to reports the USAAF was receiving from Europe, the remaining 36 in the batch were upgraded with small improvements such as self-sealing fuel tanks and enhanced armor protection to make them combat-capable. The USAAF specified that these 36 aircraft were to be designated P-38D. As a result, there never were any P-38Bs or P-38Cs. The P-38D's main role was to work out bugs and give the USAAF experience with handling the type."

As stated before, a P-39 with a turbocharger like the prototype would have made a much better fighter (on par with early combat P-38s) and had decent maneuverabillity. Actually both the P-38 and P-39 were designed for the Circular Proposal X-608 for a high performance, high altitude interceptor, but the Lightning won the contract so the P-39 was redesigned into a standard fighter.

One interesting thing is that both planes had the same initial armament of 2x .50 cal BMG and 1x 37mm M4 cannon, both had 360 degree view cannopies, and both utilized trycicle landing gear.. (a redesigned P-40 was also designed but didn't make it past the prototype stage)

Another improved Airacobra (originally the P-39E) was the XP-76 which introduced a laminar flow wing and used a supercharged Continental I-1430 engine. It generaly outperformed the original turbo XP-39 and had good agility and armament. The prototype flew in 1942 and 4,000 aircraft were initially ordered, the order was cancelled to permit the Bell factory to manufacture Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers. It would have made a good fighter and, though slower than the P-38J it had good maneuverabillity and its 37mm cannon was good aganst bombers and for ground-attack, though the oveall armament of the P-38 was better especially the high ammo capacity and it had extremely long range. Still I feel the P-76 was the best varient of the Airacobra line and, unlike the P-63, was ready before it was outclassed by the Mustang.

The P-59 Airacomet might have been a decent combat plane and still have been ready for use as a testbed if 2 separate design lines were taken, both using the same general design. The testbed would be simpllified design basicly the same as the XP-59A that was tested, but the combat varient would be streamlined using Bell's experience in good aerodinamics seen in the Airacobra and Kingcobra.(and later in the XS-1) Basicly the production would have thinner, narrowerer, shorter wings (~40ft) and an improved nose able to hold a larger armament (or more ammo/ variable armament like a provision for 2x .50 cals replacing the cannon), improved fuel capacity and a 360 degree view canopy. The combat prototype could have been ready a few months after the testbed and improved using the data gained from the testbed's problems.(as well as the Kingcobra's) It could have entered service testing by late 1943 and full production and introduction by mid 1944; possibly entering service in time to aid Britain with the V-1's (at least the pre-production version) and to combat the rising Me-262 threat. It would perform at least as well as the Meteor III's in speed (first ~450 later ~500mph), though it would still be outperformed by the germann jets, except in low-to-mid-speed maneuverabillity, and would still be outclassed by the P-80 once its kinks had been worked out. Besides the wings the second biggest aerodynamic hinderance was the engine placement, though the snaking problem was eventually resolved the mountings still reduced performance due to aerodynamic interferance, but they did have the advantage of being able to fly on one engine without serious problems. "turbojets were installed in housings underneath the wing roots, adjacent to the fuselage. This arrangement had the advantage in that no appreciable asymmetric forces were exerted if one engine went out." (the engines were also partially burries in the fusalage so the frontal area was less than those on the Meteor.

Here's another, more comprehensive page about the XP-72: Republic XP-72

According to this it had a range over 2520 mi when crusing crusing at 315mph and with 2x 125 gal. drop-tanks, though this seems excessive and contradicts the 1530 mi of: www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org - U.S.A.A.F. Resource Center - Republic XP-72 It also claims that provisions for an alternate armament of 4x 37mm cannons were made.

Still, with the P-47-N's wing it's feasible that it would conceivably have around a 2000 mile range, though this wing also reduced top-speed since it was thicker, but it also improved roll with square wing-tips. It also included compressabillity-recovery flaps symilar to those used in late model P-38s.

I know it's been mentioned before, but the P-38 K was just awsome, it was the best of the line, and if it had been produced it would have reduced the need for the P-82 for escort of the B-29s and was ready much erlier (though the P-82 was still useful as a nightfighter). It also may have stayed in service longer and outperformed and outranged the P-51, so it would have made a better escort for the B-29/B-50s, as well as close air support, fighter-bomber, and general long-range fighter in Korea than the F-51D (and like the Muctang, and other piston-engine fighters, it had the shorter takeoff runs making it sutable for the small airstrips in Korea). (and unlike the XP-72 there's no what-ifs about the range, it was certainly over 2000 miles)


It's really too bad that the Allison V-1710 wasn't developed with powerful superchargers in mind. It was mainly designed for use with turbochargers and aircraft that couldn't practically use one were stuck with the engine's single-stage single-speed supercharger as seen in the P-39 and P-40. If a 2-speed or 2-stage supercharger had been mated to it, it would have had much improved altitude performance without a turbocharger.(though a suplemental supercharger was added to the version used in the P-63 and P-82) Too bad the turbo-compound version also had'nt been developed sooner as this offered amazing performance. The only all-American liquid cooled engine engine, earlier in the war that offered appreciable power without the use of a turbocharger was the Continental I-1430 wich was ready by 1943 and was to be used in the Bell P-76 and was tested in Lockheed's P-49.

Other than the lack of this development the Allisons were superior to the Merlins, they were lighter, smaller, easier to build and repair, and were much more resistant to battle-damage. Up to the development of the 2-stage supercharged Merlin 61, the Allison was totaly superior.

quote: "The US Army had specified that the V-1710 was to be a single-stage supercharged engine and, if a higher altitude capability was desired, the aircraft could use their newly developed turbosupercharger as was featured in the P-37, P-38, and XP-39."
"The benefits of a two stage supercharger eventually became so clear cut that Allison did make some efforts in this direction. Allison attached an auxiliary supercharger in various configurations to the existing engine mounted supercharger and carburetor. Early versions of these two stage supercharger engines were used on the P-63. No intercooler, aftercooler, or backfire screen were incorporated into these two stage V-1710 engines (except for the V-1710-119 used on the experimental P-51J, which had an aftercooler). The two stage Merlin engines had all of these features, which were designed to prevent detonation from charge heating and backfire into the supercharger." from: Allison V-1710 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

KoolKitty89,

Read what I wrote again, I did write Messerschmidt P.1101, I added the Ta-183 as another choice.

Yet the first Allison V-1710 built to a USN order, and completed in Aug 1931, was for powering airships. After the crash of the Akron and Shenandoah, the USN dropped the airship requirement. The Army then took an interest and the funding. The Army had bought its first Allison V-1710 in Dec 1932.

Still it was a great engine, I wonder how the mustang would have done with a turbocharged Allison? Though engeneers found such a configuration impractical, especially considdering the strong export market since there was a ban on turbocharger export. A major flaw in the P-51 was a lack of combat toughness, particularly the volunerabillity of the merlin (particularly compared to the verry tough thunderbolt, though its radial engine helped in this respect), as said before the allison was more resistant to battle damage and would have helped the P-51 considderably, if only it could have had the altitude performance necessary without necessitating a turbocharger. (though turbochargers a great in their own right, the compicated duct work and added cooling system, as well as the export prohibition, were severe disadvantages, and also had some problems when used in the P-38, though radial engined bombers, as well as the P-47 and the like did verry well with them.)

Also on the coparison between the P-40 and the P-51 having replaced engines I don't think the P-40 would have benefitted as much from the Merlin-61 as the P-51 did. As even with the same Allison powerplant, the P-51 was 30 mph faster than the P-40, though the P-40 had the advantage of better low-altitude handeling, so the standard powerplant was good for its role.

Do you know why the Allison engine was more resistant to battle damage than the Merlin?

I haven't looked at every page in this thread, but did anyone venture a Westland Whirlwinf with RR Merlins? Can you imagine the beast.... I've been tempted to paint one just for myself.

Cheers,

Steve

I'm not totally sure about the damage resistance, but I remember it being mentioned in several different places, I try to remember where. It was sertainly easier to work on though, due to the lower parts count and more uniform/interchangible parts (though the Packard Merlins were more uniform).

Also the second staged allison, despite its flaws, was still able to produce 1,500 hp at SL and 1800 hp with water injection.

Seeing the good aerodynamics of the later P-63 (P-63C+), I'm confident that if the P-59 had had, shorter higer aspect ratio wings like the P-63 and a streamlined fusalage it would have performed well enough for combat use. Also seeing how large the nose is there should have been plenty of room for a larger, more recessed armament, like 4-5x .50 BMG with >400rpg in addition to the 37mm cannon with standard ammo. (as said before the wings should also have been thinner, especially since, unlike the cobras, fuel was stored in the fusalage instead of the wings, so thick wings weren't necessary. They would have also benefitted from more adeqate flaps or even better: airbrakes!)

I would have just liked to see Bell produce a fighter that competed with the best of the war (in the eyes of more than just the Soviets).

I did some more looking and I think I got the idea that the Allison was tougher because many sourses list the P-40, P-39, and P-63 as able to obsorb alot of battle damage and remain flying (I think the P-38 was thus listed, but it had 2 ingines so I'm not sure it can be compared, pluss it had its own engine reliability problems). The P-51 is often sited as being fairly volnerable to damage so I guess I made an assumption this was largely due to the engine (which many sourses list as a volunerabillity) but the Spitfire, and especially the Hurricane don't have this so excentuated. Maby it's just the Mustang.

Also it seems from what I've read that the USAAF did like the P-63, and many pilots enjoyed its handeling and performance. The problem was that the P-51 had taken its plase as a fighter, and the P-47 was at least as good in the ground-attack and support role. So with it being unsuitable as an escort fighter due to its range, all the jobs in the USAAF had been filled. It did proove acceptional as a miltirole fighter in Soviet service and was one of the best soviet fighters of the war. It matched performance with contemporary fighters and, though slightly slower than the P-51 P-47 or the Best german prop fighters (410 mph at 25,000 ft max), it could outturn many of its contemporaries and had overall better maneuverabillity, particularly at lower altitudes, and retained this at high speeds.

I was just reading a book about P-51s in the CBI theatre. A squadron that was previously equipped with P-40Ns were making comments about the P-51Cs. They said that there were "miles of coolant lines" that made the P-51 more vulnerable than the P-40. Maybe the Merlin required more plumbing and was therefore "not a tough" as the Allison.

There were two major problems with the P63 as far as combat in WW2 was concerned. One was that high speed performance suffered up high. The other was no fuel could be carried inside the fuselage so it was very range limited. Those factors were not as much of a disadvantage on the Russian front(where it's only operational use took place) because it was used in a ground support role.

The P-63 didn't suffer nearly as much as the P-39 at altitude due to the auxillery supercharcher wich resulted in a rudementary 2-stage supercharger, though not as complex and effective as the Merlin-61 it helped greatly to improve performance. This engine was also equipped with water injection resulting in a boosted WEP of 1800 hp. (other stantard allison engined planes suffered from the same problems as seen in the P-40 and P-51A)
The P-63D was the hottest of the P-63 seried with excelent speed and altitude performance, though fuel capacity was still limited.
The P-63D's speed and altitude performance was on par with the Mustang up to 30,000 ft with an improoved 1,400+ hp engine and propeller, and it clearly had the advantage at lower altitudes, though range was still lacking with a normal range of 950 miles. This model was kind of a last effort by bell for USAAF service. (top speed @ 30,000 ft was 437 mph and ceiling was 39,000 ft) This varient also had a sliding Bubble canopy and longer wings. As said before other craft had already taken it's place so it wasint ordered.

Like most of bells fully streamlined fighter models, the P-63 had a verry clean airframe. (such a design was troublesome when flaps were too small as the planes had trouble slowing down due to lack of drag, as seen in early Airacobras and the XP-83; too bad the P-59 was never properly streamlined. The P-59's landing problems were due to "float" caused by excessive lift at low speeds from the large, thick wings and not from a lack of drag.)

see: Bell P-63D Kingcobra

The tough P-47 would have been a better choice for the support roll than the P-51. Particularly the P-47N whic had improved aerodynamics and range. Now that I've read more about the redesigned wing, I believe it had a positive performance impact with better flow characteristics and roll rate and wasn't noticeably thicker than the standard wing. It was also one of the fastest production thunderbolts, second only to the P-47M with a top speed of 460 mph at 30,000 ft compared to the P-47M's 470 mph.

I rather dislike the fact that the P-47N had fuel tanks in the wings. It seems to me that the P-47D would be more than sufficient for the support role. The P-47N was the better fighter so I think that's what it should have been used for.

P-63A-10 was also a good candidate for the support role.
Kris

Either way the P-47 would have done better in Korea than the P-51. The P-38K would have als been useful there and the P-38M had some advantages over the P-82 in the night role. Also all versionsof the P-38 with chin radiators had wet wings (in wing fuel cells) using the area formerly occupied by the intercoolers.

The P-63 wa a good miltirole craft, well balanced for a number of duties, except escort ar other long-range duties. The P-38 was likewise but moreso in the escort, fighter-bomber, and night-fighter role in all configurations, symilar to the Mosquito, the Lightning was an excelent mitirole heavy-fighter.

Also the P-63 was used by some French forces after the war and it was possibly used by North Korea. The soviets tend to downplay the use of forign fighters and many sourses say that the Bell fighters were at least as sucessful as the Sturmovicks if not more. See: French P-63s and P-63s in the Soviet Union and Airacobras in the Soviet Union


I'd also say the P-39 was superrior to the P-40 accept in low-speed maneuverabillity and the cannon was great for bomber interception. It would have been quite useful at Pearl Harbor. (I think there were P-39s in service at the time of Pearl but they werent yet combat ready, but alot closer than the P-38 )

I also read that after reviewing the YP-59A the British submitted a list af improvements to be implemented to it, though I dont think they were used. (maby a few were in the P-59B) The meteor I wasn't much better than the Airacomet with only a 8 mph higher top-speed than the YP-59A and a view that wasn't much better (no bubble canopy in the MK-1) though it had thinner, shorter wings but bulkier nacelles. The Meteor took awhile to improove, and had the P-59 gone down the same route of development it might have faired alittle better. As things were the the P-59B was about equal to the early Meteror III even with Derwent-I's and had an altitude advantage; though the Meteor could have outmaneuvered it if the stick-forces hadn't been increased to limit stress to the airframe. The Meteor outgunned the P-59 as long as it had reliable guns. And I think the Airacomet did have wing-tanks so thinning would have been a problem, though shortening was possible and boosted hydrolic controll would have improved maneuverabillity. With it's amazing altitude performance it might have made a good recon unit if nothing else.(as unmodified)

Though both the Vampire and the P-80 were superior to their counerparts and the meteor only managed to succede when massive amounts of thrust were applied. Just immagine a revised P-59 with Derwent V's or higher. The vampire also did quite well with a Nene engine, though it was never produced as such, I think some 60 to 100 RAAF Vampires were completed as such.

The XP-49 might have been superior to the P-38 with better engines. It was originaly proposed to use Pratt Whitney X-1800-SA2-G (military designation XH-2600) liquid-cooled engines which were supposed to develop somewhere between 2000 and 2200 horsepower. For production Lockheed proposed to replace these engines by a pair of 2300 hp Wright R-2160 Tornado turbosupercharged radials. But both Lockheed and the USAAF later decided that these powerplants would make the plane seriously overpowered (quite a Hotrod actually) so it was decided to substitute a pair of experimental Continental XIV-1430-9/11 twelve-cylinder inverted-vee liquid-cooled engines rated at 1540 hp for takeoff. Less powereful than the P-38J's Allisons. The result was a somewhat sub-par aircraft that slightly outperformed the current P-38s. The XP-49 was also to have a Pressurized cockpit.

I think using R-2800 Double-Wasp, R-2600 Cyclone 14, or maby even a higher rated R-1820 Cyclone 9. Personally I'd lean tward the R-2600 as it had a high
horsepower, but not so much as the 2800 which would be getting close to overpowered again. The 2600 was also 300 lbs lighter than the 2800. The 1820 would be pushing it as it didn't offer any more power than late version Allisons and was draggier. The R-2600 was powerful enough to make up for added drag and had the added durabillity of a radial. (rted between 1600 and 1900 hp weighing 2000 lbs) The XP-49 was to have a second 20mm cannon which significantly raised its firepower. It also had a larger fuel capacity than early lightnings. Assuming the R-2600 put out 1850 hp the XP-49 would have had a power/weight of nearly .20 hp/lb when fully loaded. (~19,000 lbs) Of course, like in the P-38K paddle props would be needed to take full advantage of this power. (maby even 4-bladed props like the maller ones of early P-47s)

Of course radials had never been implemented for the design but the worked successfully in Grumman's Heavy fighters. Though Lockheed had proposed the tornado, but it was a oddity in that it was a LIQUID-cooled radial engine. see: Republic XP-69 And large radials were used in thr XP-58.

see: Lockheed XP-49