What aircraft (any side) would you develope further

kool kitty89 said:

Well there's also the Me-209II which was canceled due to slow development and was outperformed by the Fw-190.

There's also the Me-309 but, though it was ready before the 209II, it was still not up to par with the Fw-190 and had poorer manuverabillity than the Bf-109.

Click to expand...

You are pretty much correct in what you are talking about here but you need to be careful about the info you get from wikipedia. It is really not the best source and is more often very full of mistakes and falsehoods.

Dont take me wrong I use wikipedia from time to time as well as a quick reference, but you can not believe everything that is in it and you have to cross reference with better materials.

I don't have one of my books in front of me, so you'll have to excuse the lack of terminology.

1. Introduce the FM-2 modifications into the original F4F-4 so that by Coral Sea or Midway the US fighters aren't sucking air whenever they go to climb to higher altitudes.

2. Give the B-17s and B-24s 2000hp engines. Why? Because I said so!

3. Ditch the F2 Buffalo original and instead use the B-339 or whatever the export was called. Give it a cannon or two, and some extra fuel tanks, use it as a long range fighter/recon plane.

4. Introduce that one battleship/cruiser launched seaplane (the replacement for the Kingfisher and those planes) made in the US that appeared only at the end of the war at the beginning of the war. The thing was practically a light fighter, with 2 .50 cals, top speed of 314 mph, and something like 650lbs of ordinance.

PS: The Me-309 V4 is soooooo prettiful!!

There are two that I would like to have seen developed more...

The first is the XB-42 Mixmaster. Even though it would have been too late for WWII, it may have been useful in Korea.

XB-42 Mixmaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The second is the the XF5U Flying Flapjack. We could have learned a lot from the VSTOL characteristics and again it would have been late for WWII but may have been useful in Korea in areas that did not have developed runways.

Vought XF5U - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Though not a plane, I think it's a shame that the HeS-30 wasn't allowed to fully develop. It could have been used sucessfully on either the He-280 or the Me 262. The prototype showed thrust of about the same amount as the 004A engine did and weighed about half as much and produced 200lbs more thrust than the 004B. At an airspeed of 500mph the engine was projected to have about 2470 lbs of thrust (coincidentally less than 300 lbs less than the HeS-011 "class II" engine produced in testing)
As stated the engine was much lighter than the other class I engines (only 390kg, 859lb) this lighter construction used far less material than the others and used only a 3-stage compressor. Though more complex in some areas, the resulting problems had been mostly rectified by the time the prototype was ready in May of 1942, only 2 months after the 004A was tested. The engine also utilized conventional flame cans an thus didn't have the same difficulties as the BMW 003, and would have likely been ready for production long before the 003, though probably a few months after the 004.

Unfortunately the German government saw the 004 and 003 as "good enough" (obveously not noticing the problems the 003 was having). They cancelled the HeS-30 along with Heinkel's other class-I engine, the centrifugal HeS-8, in favor of production of the more complex and problematic class II HeS-011 wich had no chance of being ready before the end of the war. This is too bad because 2 HeS-30 engines would have heen as good as any class II engine and would be small enough (2ft in diameter) to be placed side by side or stacked in place of a single, larger class II engine. This arrangement could have been utilized by many of the prototype/experimental aircraft designs without major alteration IMHO.

The Lockheed L-1000 axial turbojet suffered a symilar fate when the USAAF wsa uninterested in funding the twin-engine L-133 jet-fighter project in 1940. Though work the engine was resumed in 1943 and continued later on after the war (as the J37) the design never went beond testbed examples or entered production. The L133 was never developed past scale wind-tunnel models and mock-ups. GE also had a design for a centrifugal turbojet based on one of their turbochargers around the same time but the project never left the drawing board. The main difference between these projects and the German ones like the He-280 is that the Germans continued working on the projects independantly after being denied contrects and eventualy gained the intrest of the government, but sadly, this didn't save Heinkel's project. =(

Too bad Heinkel didn't defect, with his dislike if the Nazi regime's policies (and them in general) and his treatment by them he must have considdered switching sides especialy after his company was "nationalized" in 1942. Though it probably would have been virtualy impossible for someone in his position to escape the axis territory (at least not alive), especialy in that stage of the war.

There were also various other turbojets being designed independently in the US durring the war like the axial-compressor westinghouse turbojets (the J30 which produced 1600lbf and was first operted in fall of '44 and used for the FH Phantom which first flew in early '45 and was basicly the navy's equivalent of the P-59). Check them out, as well as some other early jets, here: Jets45-Engines

I wonder if the J30s or maby even the J31(if there were enough that had not been diverted to the P59 untill its cancellation and wasn't too much wider than the L-1000) would have worked in the L133 design...

I've seen the beauty of many German engeneered aircraft but of all the early German jet designs I've never seen one that I found as amazing as the L133 (though some were certainly more
unorthadox)

Though the airforce would still probably be uninterested as it was such a radical design. Still it would be cool to see a flight sim feature it, same for the He-280.

The He-280 had a lot of potential, though it's range was't that great, but it may have been possible to fit external tanks to improve this especialy considdering the low weight of the intended engines and the high thrust and small size of the the HeS-30. (both the HeS-8 and 30 weighed about 850lbs but the 30 produced over 2000 lbf while the 8 only produced 1320 lbf, though due to its centrifugal compressor the HeS-8 was about 2/3 the length and only slightly wider.)
Since the Junkers 004 engines weighed over 1500 lbs each and put out 1980 lbf and were also much larger than the original engine, it's no surprise the 280 didn't perform well using them.

Oh cool, there are several dowloads for He-280 mods for several combat flight sims online! =)

Here's a cool page I found on a google search: Heinkel He 280 archive file

I read somewhere that there was a project to put in a Griffon into the Mustang airframe. The engine would have been in the CoG and the Cockpit moved up front right behind the prop. Does anyone have a picture of this? Maybe an artist's impression. I doubt there was even a mockup, it was probably a paper project only. But it would have looked cool, I think.

The Brewster Buffalo would have been a good plane to be developed further. It had a lot of potential.

The Fins sort of developed it further as they modified their 44 Bufalos to increase effectiveness. I think they alteredengine to increase reliabillity and they beefed-up the armament to .50 cal (which the prototype had used but had been deleted to save weight). That and the determination and skill of the Finish pilots gained the aircraft the highest kill ratio of the war with 496 kills (both Russian and German) and only 19 losses of the 44 they had, though the Fins had to have had this kind of strenght to hold out so long with the small force they had.

quote: "Brewsters were also popular within the FAF because of their long range and endurance, and their good maintenance record. This was due in part to FAF mechanics, who solved a problem plaguing the Wright Cyclone engine by inverting one of the piston rings in each cylinder, thus enhancing engine reliability. Note that the Finnish aircraft dispensed with most of the US Navy gear such as a life raft, resulting in a considerably lighter aircraft."

The Buffalo also suffered from poor construction quality so they generaly werent that durrable. The Fins had more sucess then the US usere because the Fins developed special tactics to play to the craft's strengths. The cockpit was roomy and was pleasant to fly even visibility was good as the canopy allowed nearly 360 degree vision like a bubble canopy with ribs.

quote: "The F4F-1 began as a unbuilt biplane design entered in a US Navy competition, being beaten by the monoplane Brewster F2A-1 design. This resulted in its complete remodeling into the monoplane XF4F-2.[1] This was evaluated against the Buffalo, but although the XF4F-2 was marginally faster, the Buffalo was otherwise superior and was chosen for production.[1]. Grumman's prototype was then rebuilt as the XF4F-3 with new wings and tail and a supercharged version of the Pratt Whitney R-1830 "Twin Wasp" radial engine.[1][2] Testing of the XF4F-3 led to an order for F4F-3 production models, the first of which was completed in February 1940."

Overall, in its best configuration, it compares favorably to the wildcat (and certainly better than the F4F-1 or 2 proposals), the speed, range and ceiling of the F2A were only somewhat lower, the armament was the same in many F4Fs (4x .50 cal), the wildcat could carry rockets or bombs, but the buffalo had better visibility. The little Buffalo was a pretty decent fighter, though both it and the wildcat were outclassed by the newer Japanese fighters like the A6M Zero and it stayed that way until the Hellcat and Corsair came on the scene.



As a note on bubble canopies, though the first "true" bubble canopy (non-segmented glass) was used in the Hawker Tempest, the P-38 and P-39 both had good all-around vision capabillities with what I'd still call bubble canopies despie them not being one-peice, and these were first constructed in 1939, long before the advent of the Tempest or the retrofitting of the "bubbletop" P-47s. The A6M also had a symilar bubbleish canopy but with caged supports on the glass.

The Brewster also looked quite menacing when met head-on.

Now that I look again, I was wrong about the range, guns, and bombs, the F2-A3 Buffalo had the same armament and bomb capasity , and the Buffalo had about a 1000mi range, while the wildcat had only about 800mi in any version. The only major advantage of the Wildcat was that it was tough, like the P-47 Thunserbolt, the Wildcat could be riddeled with bullets and torn to shreads and still make it home (though fighting in such condition wouls have been suiside)

The Japanese ace Saburo Sakai describes the Wildcat's ability for absorbing damage:

" I had full confidence in my ability to destroy the Grumman and decided to finish off the enemy fighter with only my 7.7mm machine guns. I turned the 20mm. cannon switch to the 'off' position, and closed in. For some strange reason, even after I had poured about five or six hundred rounds of ammunition directly into the Grumman, the airplane did not fall, but kept on flying. I thought this very odd - it had never happened before - and closed the distance between the two airplanes until I could almost reach out and touch the Grumman. To my surprise, the Grumman's rudder and tail were torn to shreds, looking like an old torn piece of rag. With his plane in such condition, no wonder the pilot was unable to continue fighting! A Zero which had taken that many bullets would have been a ball of fire by now.

Gloster F.5/34

Now that interesting.

Aint it funny that the RAF based both new fighters purely on the Merlin engine...what would have happened if it was a dog?

Like the Vulture or the Napier Sabre?

Then I bet the Gloster fighter would have got the nod.

I would have liked to see how the J7W2 Shinden would have done.
I've been going nuts over the original. It's a beautiful machine, just needs work. Had the second one even been designed?

They also had a jet version in mind but engines were not ready by the end of the war. It was actually designed to use the piston engine untill turbojets became available and swap out the engines when they did. The airframe was designed to acomedate a jet engine with little or no modification, save maby the engine mount. It ws intended to use the 1984 lbf Ne-130 axial-flow turbojet wich I think was a copy of the 004 engine, either way this engine was never completed before the war's end.

Does anybody know something of the in-flight behavior of the J7W? I suppose that the layout would produce some tricky low speed attitudes (landing approach at very high angles of attack cannot be avoided).

How about putting Allison engines on the YB-40? The XB-38 is a Fortress with the 1710 engines and it proved to be faster than a contemporary B-17F. The problem with the YB-40 is that it was too slow, especially after everyone dropped their bombs. Lockheed Vega built both of these airplanes. The YB-40 was an interim solution until longer ranged P-47 and P-51s arrived on the scene.

I would have loved the Bf 109Z fly. That could have been the ultimate Zerstorer until the arrival of the Me 262.
Other axis aircraft which never got a chance are the Do 317, Do 26, He 119, Fw 187, Lippisch P 20 and the Italian Caproni Ca 331. These are basically all could have beens, though there are also aircraft which could have been altered but weren't. On the German side this doesn't seem to have been so frequent as they had the nasty habit of trying out every aircraft with all engines and in every variant possible

But here's one ... the Fw 190C. Will never believe that it would have taken Tank until Autumn 1944 to start producing this aircraft which had the same engines as the Me 410 and Do 217M which were operational by 1943.

Kris

I totally agree about the FW-187, it was far better than the BF-110 and should've never been forced to switch engines and add another seat, even with the crippling redesign it was still better. In its original configuration, it was awsome, great firepower, outclimbing and diving the 109, good agility, great range, its sad the way it was overlooked. Its appearance in the battle of britain would have possibly turned in the German's favor. It was comparable to the P-38 and the mosquito.

There were a few great Russian aircraft that never got a chance the M.I.Gudkov Gu-VRD
ws a good small jetfighter and the airframe was tested with good results, too bad the engine was canceled. Gu-VRD
Also the Borovkov-Florov "Izdeliye D" was a nice design, but it was interrupted by the war, though cockpit visibillity doesn't look great. IzdeliyeD or Borovkov D

see also COMBATSIM.COM: Lost Aircraft, Part 2

and here's a list of many unappreciated or underrecognized craft Charles Bain home page

The Italian Reggiane Re.2007 also looks like a good design, but the Germans never delivered the engines. Re.2007

The Bell XP-59 (the varient of the XP-52, not the Airacomet) was also a good design, with 20 degree swept wings, about 1000mi range, and a top-speed of 450mph, it's ironic that it was canceled because of the Airacomet, since it had better performance. With its nose-mounted air-intake and pusher configuration, it doesn't look too had to convert to a jet, though a twin-engine configuration would be more difficult, maby one over and one ubder the fusalage so they would be over and under the tailplane. It also looked eerily symilar to the Focke-Wolf Flitzer Flitzer

Fock-wolfe had a few other twin-boom pusher designs including one that looked eerily symilar to the Vampire, the FW-198.

Below the FW-198 (2), wind-tunnel model of the XP-59, and the Flitzer

Here's an example of the stacked orientation of engines that could be used, though a sise by side configuration might work too. Either way a single endine with a raised tailplane would be best for the XP-59 (though there wasn't a powerful enough engine available at the time to allow this)

Hi Kitty
- Re.2007 was a hoax, it was designed after the war.
- The Fw 198 probably falls in the same category. Some - the Dutch? - claim it was derived from an aircraft by the Dutch firm De Scheldt.
- The Flitzer is a favourite of mine. It was designed to fly with the HeS 011 engine but in fact it was too heavy and expensive, so the Germans later on preferred the Ta 183. What I find more interesting about the Flitzer project is that it was also to be powered by one of their first TL engines, a turboprop.

Kris

Civettone said:

Hi Kitty The Fw 198 probably falls in the same category. Some - the Dutch? - claim it was derived from an aircraft by the Dutch firm De Scheldt.

Click to expand...

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/de-schelde-s-21-a-8538.html

P-63 King Cobra. That was one plane that I never heard anything but praise from those who flew it. What of the Arado Ar. 234B?