What aircraft (any side) would you develope further

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

How about the Gloster Gloster F.5/34, with a Bristol Taurus engine and more-streamlined cowling. I'd say the Pegasus too, but the large diameter would be more difficult to integrate, while the Taurus was about the same diameter as the Mercury used in the prototype.
 
On second thought, the Pegasus, with better altitude performance (2-speed supercharger), lighter weight (only ~100lbs heavier than the Mercury, and 150lbs lighter than the Taurus), better reliabillity and fewer maintence problems (didn't use sleeve valves) and shorter length would allow easier conversion from the mercury. Though the larger diameter would require a cowling redesign, but the Plane could use better cowling streamling and integration with the fusalage anyway.
 
Possibly put a radial engine on the Bf-109 in a similar fashion to what the Japanese did with the Ki-61 to make the Ki-100. Also, the Dinah, that would have been an excellent fighter plane if more time were given to develop the options rather than just slapping some weapons onto a Dinah III and hoping it works.
 
The Ho-229, just think if she had more reliable engines. She was already way ahead of her time and was very fuel efficient and handled greatly during her flight tests and also achieved high speeds with the all wing design.
 
And flying wings of that size didn't have the same stability problems of large designs, which required at least some degree of computer stablization to work. (the XB-35/YB-49 did have such a device, albeit udementary by modern standards)
 
actualy, the stability pb's of the Ho-9 could heve been resolved if the horten would have been aware of the stability controller build by PATIN for the assymetrical bv141 AND if the size of the wing spoilers was bigger.
the Ho-9 had a very bad yaw control at low speed, the small size of the wing spoilers not allowing enough airflow to be blocked by the small size of the spoilers' surface.
 
Or if they'd used split ailerons for yaw control like in Northrop's designs.

Also the engine Nacelles would have added some degree of yaw stability over the glider version of the Ho-IX.
 
The Ho-229 had big wing spoilers if you take it's size. If you look at the H-229 V3 prototype you will see them clearly. The V1 prototype crashed because the one engine gave in and caused the plane to crash. The glider (Ho-229 V1) and the powered V2 prototype proved the design to be great.
 
Yes on the Ki-83, but it came a little late, as did most of the competitive Japanese designs, and for practicality a development of the Ki-46 would have been better.

If they'd modified the design to be a dedicated single seat fighter/interceptor with some improved streamlining stripped down unnecessary components, reduce some fuel capacity in favor of self sealing tanks and pilot armor.
Add more powerful engines. Don't use the 37mm at all, add 2x 30mm Ho 155 nose guns, keep the 2x 20mm guns.

Basicly try to move the design tward the Ki-83's capabilities.

In fact it might end up almost as good as the Ki-83. Many of these modifications were made, but not in combination, and not early enough in the design life.
 
Northtrop split ailerons could have been a posibility, but then, the mechanisme for this type of controls would shave been more complicated
than the simple spoilers buid by reimar . adding that horten has already experienced this kind of yaw control on his previous gliders.

for the V3, i only saw gotha's V3 central section, with it's oversized tubular sections, adding some weight ans strenghness especially for tha landing gear. And from i've read, gotha simply deleted the small external spoilers, so it would result in even less control! But i never saw the V3 wings, don't even sure gotha bild them. it seems that gotha has simply sabotaged the horten229 in profit of their P60...that's why there were only 2 ou3 (uncompleted) central sections found at the end of the war. Gotha wagon fabrik didn't want to build the horten plane they wanted their own project to be addapted by the RLM.
 
Deleting the spoilers wouldn't make sense, that would make it nearly impossible to aim at anything, something that would already be somewhat difficult to do with the spoilers.


And it was the V3 that the US captured and is now being restored at the Smithsonian, but iirc the wings had not been completed for the V3 but a separate set of wings were taken from another assembly site by the US.

I don't think I've seen the wings either; Henk do you have pictures of it? (or links)


 
What is your opinion of the Cavalier Mustang II and Cavalier Turbo Mustang III Series aircraft as the further development of the P-51?
 
That article Horten IX (Gotha Go 229) in detail is wrong on a few points:

The 003 engines were not used on the V2 prototype, (like with the Me 262) the 003 engines were preferred for the design, but their lagging development resulted in a redesign to incorporate 004 engines for the design. Also the claim that 004C was fitted to the V3 also doesn't make sense as this engine (004B with afterburner) was only a paper design. It may have been fitted with 004D or prototype 004E (possibly with afterburner) engines as these were built and the 004D was entering production at the War's end.

But mostly I've read that both the V2 and V3 were equipped with 004B engines.



And there are some good pictures here: ho_ix

These show the yaw control spoilers on the V2 and the ones on the wing at the NASM with the V3:


 
Most sources do seem to agree that yaw instability was not very significant.

Which makes sense as flying wings of this layout and scale shouldn't have major problems, likewise Northrop's N1M and N9M were pretty stable. At these sizes any yaw oscillation should be easily corrected by gentle "rudder" input and this should not be a significant problem for a combat a/c. (more of a mild annoyance)
 
kool kitty89, yes that is true about the engines and also when the factory send the Horten brothers the dimensions of the Jumo 004B engines and they created mock ups and build the center part of the V2 prototype, but when the real engines arrived they were not the same dimensions as the mock up engines they fitted to the V2 prototype.

Mate the control spoilers that you are talking about in the picture in the NASM is the center section of the aircraft and not the wing.
 
Been thinking that the Fairey Battle should have been altered upgrade to a larger Merlin ,armour the hell out of it where the bombs were carried should allow for installation of 40mm guns and voila you have a Brit tank buster
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

What (or what would) make a good tactical recon aircraft in World War II
Replies
10
Views
1K
ColFord
C
Any Japanese claims on 10 July 1945?
Replies
0
Views
374
CHen10
C
G
What are reliable YouTube sources?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
4K
GrauGeist
A
Any good twin engined CAS aircraft?
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
Jabberwocky
J
C
A request for any Russian historians who have access to Soviet aircraft loss records
Replies
5
Views
705
CHen10
C
Menu
Log in
Register