wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
pbfoot said:
It's a good breakdown, the only things we dissagree on are three planes in the grey area or perhaps crossover aircraft. Not a big deal!
wmaxt
What aircraft (any side) would you develope further
- Thread starter MacArther
- Start date
It's a good breakdown, the only things we dissagree on are three planes in the grey area or perhaps crossover aircraft. Not a big deal!
wmaxt
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Agree!
Jabberwocky
Tech Sergeant
Ok, a slightly different one: The Manchester.
Fit a pair of Hercules XIIs or (later) XVIIs to replace the Vulture X's. Keep the Mk. IA configuration (no central tail unit, enlarged twin tail surfaces, 'dustbin' ventral turret deleted), add better front and rear turrets (say 2 .50cal Brownings in each), fit a retraction mechanism for the rear tyre, swap the standard dorsal turret for a lower profile unit (maybe a Boulton-Paul type?)
All of a sudden you have a much more capable medium bomber. Higher cruising speed, better reliability and, more importantly, something more capable than the Wellington to fill out the numbers until the 4 engined heavies arrive. The Manchester IA could get a 8,000 lbs bomb load up to 15,000 feet, even with the Vultures derated to ~1500 hp. Its bomb-bay was large enought to carry 4000 lb blockbusters or torpeedos.
With 1650 hp Hercules the Manchester could of been one of the great medium bombers of the war. As it was, with Vultures, it was just the inspiration for the Lancaster.
Fit a pair of Hercules XIIs or (later) XVIIs to replace the Vulture X's. Keep the Mk. IA configuration (no central tail unit, enlarged twin tail surfaces, 'dustbin' ventral turret deleted), add better front and rear turrets (say 2 .50cal Brownings in each), fit a retraction mechanism for the rear tyre, swap the standard dorsal turret for a lower profile unit (maybe a Boulton-Paul type?)
All of a sudden you have a much more capable medium bomber. Higher cruising speed, better reliability and, more importantly, something more capable than the Wellington to fill out the numbers until the 4 engined heavies arrive. The Manchester IA could get a 8,000 lbs bomb load up to 15,000 feet, even with the Vultures derated to ~1500 hp. Its bomb-bay was large enought to carry 4000 lb blockbusters or torpeedos.
With 1650 hp Hercules the Manchester could of been one of the great medium bombers of the war. As it was, with Vultures, it was just the inspiration for the Lancaster.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
that's an interesting concept, i doubt the RAF would've seen the use in going through with it, Roy Chadwick started designing a then un-named 4 engined version of the manchester before the manchester even entered service, they knew they needed a 4 engined bomber, the wellington was sufficient to do the job untill the new 4 engined bomber came into service, but your idea is interesting.............
- Thread starter
- #85
MacArther
Staff Sergeant
P-39, give it a new engine with turbocharger, and work on the manueverability.
I personally would not develop that one any further. I dont like sitting on a drive shaft. Not that I ever have but would not like it.
- Thread starter
- #87
MacArther
Staff Sergeant
T__T, does everyone pretty much hate the layout of the P39? I know Der, doesnt like it, but is it a universal hate? I think it was revolutionary, and if given a super charger and better manuvering flaps (am i right?), it could have made mincemeat out of anything that went near it.
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
I think that of P39 was basically a good idea, and the plane was nice-looking too. It could have been developed better.
DogW
DogW
Crash landing in one was much more dangerous than most. I don't like the idea of having an engine behind me, and the propellor shaft below me. A force of impact could easily send the engine flying forward to crush you, or the propellor shaft could fly up and slice you in two.
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. Bell designers were not simply fools.
DogW
DogW
I agree that bell designers were not fools, but I personally dont think the design could be much more developed than it was. The P-63 was good improvement of the P-39 and yet was not a match for the Bf-109 and Fw-190.
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
Soviets used P63 as a ground-attack aircraft, in this role it was probably better than both Bf-109 and Fw-190, with the effective possibility of chasing them if properly used.
Even in the task of destroying bombers, a P-63 is probably far more effective than a P51.
DogW
Even in the task of destroying bombers, a P-63 is probably far more effective than a P51.
DogW
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,931
- Dec 20, 2003
since when was the P-51 used as a bomber destroyer? and the Fw-190 was one of the premier single engined ground attack platforms of the war.............
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
Never. Every plane has his task. This is what I mean.the lancaster kicks ass said:
In the dedicated versions "F" and "G" wing armament was sacrificed for two hardpoints, and extra armor was added to "F" model.the lancaster kicks ass said:
I don't think that, with theese modifications (Maximum speed: 634 km/h; Service ceiling: 10,600 m) the Fw-190F was still so effective as fighter, and surely it had a little less firepower than P63 as ground-attacker.
However, I never said that P39 or P63 were the best chaser, or ground attack platforms of the war (they had several problems, especially in handling), but only that P39 was basically a good idea, and that it could have been developed better.
DogW
I disagree the Fw-190 was a better ground attack aircraft in all respects to the P-63. It had better performance and armament. Plus once it drops its bombs it can go up and shoot down all the P-63s it wants by outlflying them.
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
A ground-attack aircraft is not only a chaser that can occasionally be used to drop some bombs.
Among soviets, P63 was famous for its sturdiness, and the capacity of absorb a lot of damage and continue to fly (we can talk about the visibility from the cockpit however. Not a secondary thing when you have to hit a target below you), similar to that of the armoured Il-2 (to have to absorb a lot of damage is normal when you fly over enemy lines). No FW-190's version, apart the "F", can do that, and the "F" had no better flyng charateristic or armanent in respect of P63, on the contrary, it was slower and less armed.
However, it can be that all the ground-attack work could be done better from the existing versions, and Focke Wulf designers were fools when they prepared the "F" as ground-attacker.
DogW
Among soviets, P63 was famous for its sturdiness, and the capacity of absorb a lot of damage and continue to fly (we can talk about the visibility from the cockpit however. Not a secondary thing when you have to hit a target below you), similar to that of the armoured Il-2 (to have to absorb a lot of damage is normal when you fly over enemy lines). No FW-190's version, apart the "F", can do that, and the "F" had no better flyng charateristic or armanent in respect of P63, on the contrary, it was slower and less armed.
However, it can be that all the ground-attack work could be done better from the existing versions, and Focke Wulf designers were fools when they prepared the "F" as ground-attacker.
DogW
Dogwalker said:
So could the Il-2 but it would not win a fight with a Fw-190 and the P-63 would stand a better chance but it is still outlcassed by the 190.
Lets compare the Fw-190A/F since the F was just a A model built for ground attack to the P-63.
Fw-190F-8
Max Speed: 416 mph
Range (Maximum Fuel): 1,370km (850 miles)
Range (Maximum Bomb Load): 610km (380 miles)
Climb to altitude: 9.35 Minutes to 6,100m (20,000 ft.)
Endurance:
2 Hours at 2,000m (6,500 ft.) at 280 mph (450 km/h)
Service Ceiling: 10,360m (34,000 ft.)
Fw 190A-8/F-8:
Two 20mm Mg 151/20 wing mounted cannon.
Two 13mm Mg 131 fuselage mounted machine guns.
Up to 2,205 lb, generally consisting of:
1 × 1,102 lb (SC-500) bomb centerline
2 × 551 lb (SC-250) bombs or 8 × 110 lb (SC-50) bombs under wings
plus Rockets
P-63
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 408 mph
Cruising Speed: 280 mph
Service Ceiling: 43,000 ft.
Range: 450 miles
Armament:
One 37mm cannon
Four .50 machine guns
Up to 1,500 lb on 3 hardpoints. Typical load-out would be either 3 × 500 lb bombs, or 1 × 500 lb bomb plus rockets
So lets see the Fw-190 wins in performance except for cieling and we are talking about ground attack here so they would be at low level. The Fw-190 also wins on bomb load and I would say the P-63 wins on cannon armament.
Overal the Fw-190 was the better aircraft. Oh and lets not forget about sitting on a damn drive shaft in the P-63, that is unsafe and would hurt!
Dogwalker
Senior Airman
I knew F8 entred in service only on april 1944. Moreover You posted the speed record of the original A8 series (a lot of sources report that the maximum speed for A8 was 408 Mph however). The enhanced armour of F8, logically, affect speed as all the others fliyng charateristic. To my sources, it's max speed was of 635 Km/h (394 mph)
Moreover, to expect that the overweighted F8 has the same handling of the A8 is not logical. American test pilot instead, speak favourably of the maneuverability of P63 even compared with P51 (of course, P63 was not superior), and only the soviet test pilots reported the orizontal spin problems (but they like the plane). So, for me, in an air combat between P63 and FW 190F-8, the advantage goes to P63, with other advantages, in the ground-attack role,coming from the enanced view of the pilot (it's strange to see, that the aircraft that could carry the larger payload, had the worse ground view).
However, this is only a teorical debate. Only 385 F8 were built, and and 2.397 P63 were delivered to Soviet Union. In a such dispersive war teatre, they were too few to make a real comparison with battle statistics.
Finally, the only fact that we can debate of wich of them was superior, demonstrate that the rear engine was not a bad idea, and and that it could have been developed better.
DogW
Moreover, to expect that the overweighted F8 has the same handling of the A8 is not logical. American test pilot instead, speak favourably of the maneuverability of P63 even compared with P51 (of course, P63 was not superior), and only the soviet test pilots reported the orizontal spin problems (but they like the plane). So, for me, in an air combat between P63 and FW 190F-8, the advantage goes to P63, with other advantages, in the ground-attack role,coming from the enanced view of the pilot (it's strange to see, that the aircraft that could carry the larger payload, had the worse ground view).
However, this is only a teorical debate. Only 385 F8 were built, and and 2.397 P63 were delivered to Soviet Union. In a such dispersive war teatre, they were too few to make a real comparison with battle statistics.
Finally, the only fact that we can debate of wich of them was superior, demonstrate that the rear engine was not a bad idea, and and that it could have been developed better.
DogW
Okay even if the speed of the F-8 was only 394 with the MW50 boost it would have put it higher for shorter periods of time.
As for American test pilots talking about how great a P-63 is, does not doubt me, because they talked about how great every US built plane was and downtalked everything built buy other nations.
Fewer F8 being built than P-63s does not prove anything (check out the bomber threads for this argument)
As for the rear engine or front engine placement, I think everyone including pilots and maintenance will tell you that front placement is better. Rear is more difficult to install and maintain, it is more dangerous in a crash sequence, and the pilot is sitting on a drive shaft.
Lastly if the P-63 was so good, why did the US not use all that much if at all? Hell they designed and built, why did they not use it?
Fw-190 over P-63 all the way, every day!
As for American test pilots talking about how great a P-63 is, does not doubt me, because they talked about how great every US built plane was and downtalked everything built buy other nations.
Fewer F8 being built than P-63s does not prove anything (check out the bomber threads for this argument)
As for the rear engine or front engine placement, I think everyone including pilots and maintenance will tell you that front placement is better. Rear is more difficult to install and maintain, it is more dangerous in a crash sequence, and the pilot is sitting on a drive shaft.
Lastly if the P-63 was so good, why did the US not use all that much if at all? Hell they designed and built, why did they not use it?
Fw-190 over P-63 all the way, every day!- Thread starter
- #100
MacArther
Staff Sergeant
The US never used the P63 because by the time it came around there were fighter bombers that had taken its job. It would be a logistical nightmare to reequip almost every US ground attack squadron with the new plane. Still, this does not mean that the P63 had worse perfomance than its fellow American aircraft. Also, as to the german nitro boost, one has to question how effective it would be at low altitude, as well as how damaging to the engine it would be at lower altitude. This stems from the fact that the engine has to work harder at lower altitudes, so boosting it is going to cause quite a bit of wear and tear.
