What aircraft (any side) would you develope further

How about a He 177 that uses the same engine nacelle placement but using 4 props and 4 separate drive shafta instead of trying to couple 2 engines on a single driveshaft. One tractor prop driven be the front engine ahead of the wing and a pusher behind the wing beig driven by the second engine in the nacelle. This way it might have passed the RLM and Hitlers requirement of a 2-engine bomber. (unlik the 277)

If they had scrapped the He 177 idea from the beginning an built it as the He 277 I think it would have been a great bomber with good performance and great bomb load. Could have, should have, would have....

But they wouldn't let Heinkel do that so at least this way it might have a chance of RLM acceptance and more reliabillity. Though the whole ground-attack/dive-bomber requirement was even worse than the 2-engine requirement...

renrich said:

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

Click to expand...

I've never seen metrics which clearly position Allison as less vulnerable to Merlin. The Allison, per se, is not 'tougher' than the Merlin (AFAIK) so the coolant system should probably yield the difference?

What occurs to me is that in the ETO, the 51 was doing a lot more sorties at low altitude than the Allison and that in the case of the P-40 and P-38 versus the P-51, the 51 has two points of serious vulnerability - the radiator and the engine compartment - as well as the plumbing in between to transfer the coolant.

If so, that is a design vulnerability not an engine issue? Jes wondering.

kool kitty89 said:

But they wouldn't let Heinkel do that so at least this way it might have a chance of RLM acceptance and more reliabillity. Though the whole ground-attack/dive-bomber requirement was even worse than the 2-engine requirement...

Click to expand...

actually the ground attack/dive bomber role caused more weight for the airframe (positive G force increment in structure plus dive brake system) but that would just reduce performance a little bit - not kill the system.

what killed the He 177 as a system was the two engine/one nacelle to theoretically reduce drag - which it did - but in the meantime caused a lot of fires and was never truly solved with twin nacelle design - therefore the 'system' itself was a failure from a mission standpoint.

The pusher/tractor concept might have worked but it would have also added weight by forcing a nose wheel design to get ground clearance for aft props - major redesign.

great aerodynamics/terrible system

drgondog said:

what killed the He 177 as a system was the two engine/one nacelle to theoretically reduce drag - which it did - but in the meantime caused a lot of fires and was never truly solved with twin nacelle design - therefore the 'system' itself was a failure from a mission standpoint.

Click to expand...

Exactly. They should have gone with the 4 engine 4 nacelle of the 277 from the beginning.

If they were allowed to... =(

No one is argueing that. Isn't this about what you would develop further.

Totaly agree, but I did bring up the He 277 earlier in this thread and someone countered that by the time the redesign was ready the main problems with the 177's engines were rectified, but I don't think they ever were... Were they?

From page 13:

Civettone said:

130fe, there is also such a thing as an edit button...

Hello Kitty, the He 177 didn't need 4 seperate engines. By 1944 the engine overcooling problems were largely sorted out and the He 177 proved to be a reliable aircraft. In the end it was the fuel shortage which ended a promising career. I suppose the main reason behind the He 277 was because that way the more powerful DB 603 could be used.

Kris

Click to expand...

The overheating issue was adresses but probably not fully overcome.
It´s somehow comparable to the B-29 which also adressed the engine overheating but the problem remained valid, altough on a much higher factor of safety now.

I would do me 163. Change fvuel capacity. Put hydrogen with mrtane vfirst then add the helium. A nuclear one that works on plutonium could work if airfvrame strengbh was improvfed. If that worked you could havfe a plane with 5,000 or so bhp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank god you are history....

What the hell was that!?

That reminds me though, how about if the HeS-30 (109-006) wasn't canceled and one was added to the Me-163C design. or if that's not enough thrust bury 2 in the wing roots and make more room for fuel in the fuselage. Just sweep the tail and you got a Northrop X-4 Bantam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 8)

Increased endurance, cheaper more available fuel (that isn't toxic and won't eat through skin), non-exploding engines, and still that great airframe, though a little added drag from the intakes, but that's not a big issue. Of, course you'd have to model it on the Me-163C, the best design IMHO.

Also here's a pic of such a singe-engine design: http://www.luft46.com/duart/dul15-2.jpg and one with a nose intake: http://www.geocities.com/uni1ua/bigph/li20a.jpg

Adler, you've posted before that you would have liked to see the P-83 in service. I agree that it made a good long-range fighter and would have had decent performance once the problems had been fixed (better control surfaces, tail extention, better flaps, add air-breaks), but many here have said that it (and the basic configuration of the original Airacomet) wasn't worth development. She wasn't, pretty, but had good climb rate, powerful armament with the .60 cal. guns of the 2nd prototype, and incredible range of course. I think the range and high ceiling would have made it a good recon a/c even after it was obsolete as a fighter, and with the heavy load possible (2x 250 gal drop-tanks) it would potentialy have carried a hefty bombload and made a good fighter-bomber. What's your take on this?


I also think that if the P-59 had continued development with improvements after the YP-59As were out it might have developed into somthing akin to the Meteor. As the Meteor Mk I was not much better than the YP-59A and had had much more time to develop and streamline the (engineless) design. The early P-59 development was hampered by restrictions on wind-tunnel use and to a lesser extent lack of engine performance specs. In addition, to maintain secrecy the design staff was verry small and couldn't readily cooperate with those working on the P-63 which had similar design features, though eventually they did use some of the P-63's improvements. If the Meteor had been canceed at the same stages as the P-59 it would have been no better. (note that the development as acombat a/c was canceled before the P-59A was in production so the improvements made in the P-59A/Bs were mimimal) Both the Airacomet and early Meteor sufferd from snaking, compressibillity, short range and low engine power. The biggest problem were the wings: they were much larger than necessary, with an area of 386 square ft for an a/c weighing under 11,000 lbs loaded and under 13,000 lbs max. This resulted in a wing loading far lower than was necessary (~32lbs/square ft), admittedly good for a testbed where engines were unreliable and glide capabillities appreciated, but a wing area of around 260-280 square ft would be much more reasonable for a jet. (wing loading ~48-44 lbs/square ft) In addition the P-59, unlike the P-63, didn't utilize a liminar flow wing.In addition, the long 45.5 ft span resulted in poor roll characteristics.

Imagine an improved Airacomet with more streamlined fusalage, air intakes and engine nacelles, improved visibility/bubble canopy, improved control surfaces (possibly boosted), and air-brakes added. Square-off the tailplane. Have wing scaled to 84% of the original (~71% of the original area) resulting in a span of 38.2 ft and an area of ~272 square ft. The wing would be redesigned with improved airflow characteristics if possible. Maximize internal fuel capacity. Use the 2,000 lbf J31-GE-5 engines of the P-59B or maby up to 2,400 lbf as in the Derwent IV. Remove the cannon armament and increase total armament to 5x .50 cal BMG with increased ammo capacity to 250-300 rpg.(I doubt the nose could hold more than 5 guns) Though still not as good as the P-80, I'd expect it would have been tested and entered production by early to mid 1944 and service by very late 1944 or earl '45, like the Mk III mteor. (assuming redesign work began immediately after the initial prototype flew, and that Bell put this project on highest prioety and was continuously suported by the government; all other experemental designs like the XP-77 would be reduced in prioety or canceled. the P-63 would probably continue normaly)

I'd say remove the landing light from the nose, but I'm not sure of the reasoning behind it in the first place... (if it reall needed one, which day-fighters usualy dont, it could have wing-mounted lights as was more common. (with the light gone a larger armament might be possible, though I'm unsure of how much space the nose-wheel takes-up.

I'd expect performance to be somthing like: top speed: 520-540 mph, Range: ~400 mi normal ~700 mi max, climb: 3,800 ft/min max, weights would stay about the same at: ~8,000 lbs empty ~11,000 normal and 13,000 lbs max take-off. (the smaller wings reducing weight but increased fuel increasing it)
I'm not even going to talk about if engines with over 3,000 lbf of thrust at higher efficiency like the Derwent V were used... (ie a scale down J33 instead of the Nene) 8)


With the same kind of modification as seen in the Meteor, the P-59 would have likely seen similar improvements. Then again, if the RAF had abandoned the Meteor focused on the Vampire like the USAAF did with the P-59 and P-80...

She still looks nice in model form though: Hobbycraft 1/48 P-59A Airacomet YP-59 Airacomet by John Valo (Hobbycraft 1/48)

Kitty, everywhere I look, the performance of the XF-83 is described as "poor" due to the fact that it carried so much fuel-1,150 gallons internally and 600 gallons externally, to compensate for thirsty engines.

Lloyd S Jones;
"..there is more to a fighter than long range; and the weight of all that fuel took its toll on the performance.."
"..subsequent testing showed, the XF-83 did not offer any increase in performance over existing fighters."

Peter Bowers;
"..the plane's performance was eventually judged disappointing and no orders for series production were placed."
"Apart from its range, the XP-83 offered no significant advantages when compared with other fighters which would soon be available.."

A J Pelletier;
"Performance was found somewhat disappointing."
"..was underpowered and its manoeuvrability left much to be desired."

Green/Swanborough;
"..performance proved somewhat disappointing and with more promising fighters already under development, the Bell XP-83-which proved to be the company's final war-time fighter design-was abandoned."

Dorr/Donald;
"Underpowered and unstable."
"The close proximity of the two low-slung powerplants caused hot exhaust gases to buckle the tailplane unless, during run-ups, fire trucks were used to play streams of water over the rear fuselage!"
(As a result the tailpipes had to be modified to resolve the heat/buckling problem, on the second prototype.) The tailplane needed to be raised 18 inches to improve instability but it not clear if this modification was ever carried out.
"..(XF-83) seemed to offer no improvement over the Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star."
The "USAF turned to the North American F-82 Twin Mustang"..instead.

The second prototype ended its days as a gunnery target.
The first, as a research tool…

So cavernous was the fuselage that when tested with wing mounted ramjets, a hatch was cut in the belly to provide entry into the fuselage for an engineer's station. This was a 'blind' position except for a small port-side window created behind the pilot.
(Similar ramjet testing was also conducted on F-51s F-80s and others, but with no practical application ever found).

In this guise on 4 September 1947 a ramjet caught fire and quickly spread. Pilot Chalmers 'Slick' Goodlin and engineer Charles Fay managed to bail out without the benefit of ejection seats.

A French Nord research aircraft had a similar engine layout but had the benefit of swept wings, but this was 1950.

There were solutions for all the problems of the P-83 except the lage size and weight. A tail extention cured instability. Slight angling outwards of the jetpipes eliminated the exaust from hitting the tail. Improved control surfaces would have improved maneuverabillity (though the agility was limitid by the bulk), airbrakes would solve the speed retention problem. Though far from the performance of the F-80 it was still decent, though honestly I'm not sure how much use it would have been as a fighter though, with the inherant drawbacks of the large size...

Still, I was curious of why Adler said he would have liked it to go further.

As for the French plane, what is it? That's exactly the kind of redesign of the Airacomet I had in mind, except for the swept wings. The nacelles are more streamlined and separated from the fusalage which allows better airflow, but still close together for better stability on a single engine. Maby Bell would have used a similar design (with unswepet, but sleeker wings) had they had the use of high-speed wind-tunnels and less design constraints.

Though I still think the P-59 could have performed decently with a less radical redesign that took place after the flight of the XP-59A. With more conservative streamling to the basic air intakes, nacelles, and fusalage, the scaled down wing (~84%), improved control surfaces, airbrakes, and revised canopy and armament. Airbreaks could replace the flaps in the same type of arrangement as was seen on the Meteor.

And I maintain that the Meteor would have been about as bad (though much better at SL by comparison) had extensive redesign work and more powerful engines hadn't occured. Granted some of the Meteor's design aspects were easier to modify than the P-59, but not by all that much. The long nacelles of the late Mk III Meteor alone increased top speed by 75mph bringing the top-speed from 415mph of the Mk I to 490mph with the same engines! Since the nacelles were the biggest aerodynamic problem of the Meteor and the wings were in the P-59, similar improvements would have beem likely. If the Vampire or maby the Gloster E.1/44 "Ace" had taken precedence over the Meteor, the Meteor would have ended up similar to the P-59, albeit it shot-down some V-1s.

Also, not related, but the original XP-59 (redesigned XP-52) had 20 degree swept wings...

Jabberwocky said:

I have a few in mind, but ill start with one of my favourites.

1. Westland Whirlwind. Only 114 made, the type had real potential but was superceeded by the Beaufighter and Typhoon because of a combination of engine troubles, political listlessness and conflicing RAF requirements.

First and most obvious thing is the get Rolls Royce to improve the reliability and power of the Peregrine. Fitting Merlins to the Whirlwind isn't really that pracitcal, despite all the fantasies about it. So bump the horespower from 885 hp to 1000-1050 hp an engine. So the Whirlwind jumps from 360 mph up to 380 mph or so. Maybe even higher as the war goes on (the Merlin grew by 1100 hp in capacity, so the Peregrine could probably squeeze out another 300-500 hp or so) A step along from that is to fit an improved supercharger to the Peregrine. Keep it single stage, as the Spitfire rules the roost at high alt anyway, but tailor it to give peak performance at about 16,000 feet. Dropping the blower height is going to increase power and speed (maybe 5-10 mph) at the expense of altitude performance above 20,000 feet.

Next fit a belt feed to the 4 nose cannon, doubling the ammunition load. Add a centerline droptank and the necessary plumbing for it. Fit trailing edge flaps to lower the stall speed and allow compatability with short grass strips (also increases turn performance).

All of a sudden, you have a very capable low-medium altitude long range escort fighter for the RAF, 2 years ahead of the introduction of the P-51B/C/D. The only two operational Whirlwind squadrons originally escorted Wellingtons all the way to Cologne (in daylight) in 1941. The RAF is still going to primarily bomb at night but it gives them a better option for heavy daylight raids if they have 5-10 squadrons of capable long-range escort fighters.

Click to expand...

Excellent post! One of my favorites too, its a shame it was dropped, because it was more manouverable than the Beau.

kool kitty89 said:

Adler, you've posted before that you would have liked to see the P-83 in service. I agree that it made a good long-range fighter and would have had decent performance once the problems had been fixed (better control surfaces, tail extention, better flaps, add air-breaks), but many here have said that it (and the basic configuration of the original Airacomet) wasn't worth development. She wasn't, pretty, but had good climb rate, powerful armament with the .60 cal. guns of the 2nd prototype, and incredible range of course. I think the range and high ceiling would have made it a good recon a/c even after it was obsolete as a fighter, and with the heavy load possible (2x 250 gal drop-tanks) it would potentialy have carried a hefty bombload and made a good fighter-bomber. What's your take on this?

Click to expand...

Sorry for the late response. I just saw this post now.

I think with better development it could have been developed into a decent escort fighter during WW2. Now I do agree with your other post in the other thread that it would have been outdated by Korea (but then again alot of aircraft were by then anyhow).

In its current config I think it was obviously underpowered performed poorly. However with some developement it might have been able to be something.

Probably not but it is interesting to think about.

I though the biggest problem of the XP-83 was that it was underpowered...



Kris

You're correct insufficient thrust was the only problem that a fix hadn't been found for. (Instabillity fixed with tail extention and repositioned tailplane. Add airbrakes and/or better flaps. Improve agility with revised and boosted control surfaces. Angle jetpipes slightly outward to prevent overheating the tail.)

It wouldn't have been underpowered if they'd switched to Nene engines, which were more powerful, fuel efficient, and lighter than the J33. Though for production the J42 (licensed Nene) would be used, and the J42 put out nearly 6,000 lbf with water injection. If you look at it, the P-83 wasn't really all that heavy for a fighter either, though for the time it was. By the early 1950s several fighters were quite heavier than it was, and many of them were quite maneuverable so it should have been possible for the P-83 to have decent agility. (granted those fighters were faster, had more thrust, and better aerodynamics)

Though it may have been better to have designed the plane around axial engines like J35s or J34s to improve streamlining. (though really not practical if production was to start before the end of 1945) Though it would have to be made somewhat smaller with less powerful J34 engines (3000-3250 lbf dry) but with the decreased drag and fuel consumption, it still might have had 2000 miles in range. But these engines were not nearly as developed as the J33 or Nene, so it would have been a while. Though this is basically how the F2H banshee ended up. With 1700 mile range and weight within 1000 lbs of the XP-83 (emty weight of the F2H was ~1000 lbs lighter, but max-takeoff was actually 1000 lbs greater), though top speed was somewhat higher at ~590 mph at altitude. But as said these axial engines were not ready for production by the time the war ended. (though maybe 4x J30s could be used in place of 2x J34s...) Overall the Nene/J42 would probably be the best solution.