What plane do you wish had sawservice

Swept back wings....
Not that surprising. You have to differ between accidently (as can be seen on the Me-262 A), forced by constructionlayout (XP-55,56 and the flying wing) and INTENTIONALLY because of better high speed figures.
Swept back wings can be found of planes from 1910 (dunne, swept back wing biplane). Dr. Lusser formulated in 1935 for the first time that swept back wings would shift the increasing drag to higher Mach figures (so it delayed the max drag, it doesn´t reduce it!)
Look at the XP-56 picture. the swept back wing design is necessary because of the rudders on the wingtips. They have to be put as far back as possible, that forced to use a swept design.
flying wing designs even depend more on the swept back wing (in order to offer at least a bit of stability).
There are also some problems with the swept back wing layout, which made this design unattractive for most aircraft designers until 1946:
1.) Increased weight
2.) Considerably less lift (thanks to a thinner wing)
3.) Reduced low speed and stall behavior (higher stall speed)
The last point was to be the most concerned, either wing boundary layers (tested by DVA in 1944) or leading edge slots reduce these effects greatly.
The first designs to deal with these problems for specificly high speed swept wings are:
1.) Me-163 A/B (because of the tailles layout) -1941
2.) Me-262 A (accidently because of the heavier Jumos and shifted center of weight) -late 1942
3.) Me-262 HG I (with more swept back wing inlet for better high speed figure) -1944
4.) Ho-IX (forced by flying wing construction layout) -1944/45
5.) Ju-287 (forward swept wing for better high speed figures) -1944
6.) Ho-XIIIa (60 degrees swept back wing glider for low speed tests)
7.) Me-262 HG-II (35 degrees swept back wing for better high speed figures) -1945 (not flown)
8.) Me-263/Ju-248 (because of the tailles design and because of better high speed figure) -1945
9.) Me-P.1101 (with variable wing swept) -1945 (not flown)
While it is true that US aerodynamics studied swept wings in 1945 (10 years after Lusser), designers refused to adopt the idea for their high speed jets (P-80, P-84 and the very first P-86) because of the risks of worse low speed handling. Acces to german aerodynamic research proved to be vital for overcoming the shortcomings of a swept wing that fast in UK/US/SU and Sweden...

What I find interesting is that modern designs have moved away from heavily swept back wings. Look at the F-18 for example:



=S=

Lunatic

The F-18 wing is optimised for sub-mach performance and max speed of less tham M2.0

The point is you don't need a lot of sweep to break mach 1. A little is enough.

To be more concrete:
You don´t even need a single degree of swept wings in order to break Mach 1. It all depends on speed. If you have a standart speed for a design up to Mach 0.7 you better use straight wings than anything else (lowest drag in that speed for good rate of lift)
At speeds between Mach 0.8 and 1.2 It is better to use swept wings (they shift the max drag figure beyond Mach 1.3).
At speeds beyond Mach 1.3 it is best to use either delta wings or straight wings. (actually delta wings are preferred, because the air behaves like a solid, reucing the drag from three dimensions to only two)
And of course it all depends on the thrust, also:
The P-80 with straight wings would need around 5000 lbs thrust to overcome the drag at 600 mp/h. With 30 degrees swept wings it would only cost around 3800-4000 lbs of thrust. On the other hand if we estimate that the airframe could go supersonic (it cannot), than the drag at Mach 1.3 would be lower for the straight wing design than for the swept wing design!
In the timeframe of 1942-1946 the thrust is the limiting factor for increasing the speed, that´s why they relied on swept wing designs for a better max speed figure. Dr. Lippisch worked on a deltawing, also (DM-1).

RG_Lunatic said:

The Japanese proved over and over they were unable to make such an engine. "Designing" it and printing an HP number on a tech sheet does not mean anything. That goes for all these fantasy specs, they are all based upon nothing but smoke and wishful thinking of the Japanese engineers and military personel.

Click to expand...

I disagree the engine for the Ki-94-II was already built and placed into the prototype. If the engine was already built it was already ground tested and probably tested in other aircraft before it was put into this aircraft. You say wishful thinking.....hello did you read that they built one that was ready to fly. Probably not because you automatically asume that it is crap because it was not built by the US.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

RG_Lunatic said:

The Japanese proved over and over they were unable to make such an engine. "Designing" it and printing an HP number on a tech sheet does not mean anything. That goes for all these fantasy specs, they are all based upon nothing but smoke and wishful thinking of the Japanese engineers and military personel.

Click to expand...

I disagree the engine for the Ki-94-II was already built and placed into the prototype. If the engine was already built it was already ground tested and probably tested in other aircraft before it was put into this aircraft. You say wishful thinking.....hello did you read that they built one that was ready to fly. Probably not because you automatically asume that it is crap because it was not built by the US.

Click to expand...

Have you read about Japanese high HP engine development? None of their attempts to reach 2000 HP resulted in a reliable engine. I assume this engine was like the rest, made from insufficiently strong steel and lacking in advanced machine techniques necessary to build such an engine. There is no evidence to the contrary.

Just because you try to build something does not mean it will work, or that it will be anywhere near reliable enough to result in an effective weapon system.

Rg, I will grant you that the Japanese engine program did have problums. Most due to the B-29s bombing and the Naval blockade. Also as said tooling and workers skills were of poor quality. But that was all late in the war.

A 2000 Hp engine could have i think been ready for the A6M if its development would have properly been done.

There is really no evidence to support that. The sakae engines were derivatives of the Wright Cyclone SGR-1820 and P&W Wasp SB3G-1830 1000 HP engines they aquired under licence from Douglas in 1935 (DC2) and 1938 (DC3) respectively. They aquired not only the designs but also key machine tooling necessary to build these planes and engines. All future engine development was based upon the production technology aquired at this time. The Japanese did make some improvements on this engine, but despite much effort never got much past the Sakae 21 in terms of a combat worthy powerplant.

The Japanese did try to build their own 18 cylinder engines, but these were all failures for one reason or another. Japanese metalurgy and machine techniques simply were not up to the task. They could look at captured R-2600's and R-2800's and try to copy them using the metals and machine tools they had, but this simply didn't result in a reliable engine.

Many aspects of Japanese aviation were quite innovative and competative with any nation in the world, but their engine technology was a shortcomming they could never overcome. A Ki-84 with an R2800-18W would have been a truely increadible plane!

=S=

Lunatic

Same situation as the Italians then- good airframes but not enough horsepower to move it

RG_Lunatic said:

Have you read about Japanese high HP engine development? None of their attempts to reach 2000 HP resulted in a reliable engine. I assume this engine was like the rest, made from insufficiently strong steel and lacking in advanced machine techniques necessary to build such an engine. There is no evidence to the contrary.

Just because you try to build something does not mean it will work, or that it will be anywhere near reliable enough to result in an effective weapon system.

Click to expand...

I will give in to most of this because you are correct however I just dont want to discredit it. Yes you are correct in the fact that it was mostly fantasy however we will never know. This one may have been it. Can I prove it no. Nor do I state to think that I can. I just think this could have been a formidle high alltitude interceptor had it came out ealier and entered service. Maybe somthing for the B-29's to have worried about.

And that is why this should be in the What plane do you wish had seen service thread, it would have been interesting to see how it would have panned out.

Nice take on the Sakae engines RG. I have read over some of the problums and yes it seems that they and the Italians did have some of the same problums.

As for a plane I would have liked to see, why not the P-40Q? Or the PBYs replacment, the "Guppy" it never even made it past prototype. It is the Model 32 or 33 I think.

Hows about the Hornet?

what a plane!!

Ahhh, yes, the awesome, superlative de Havilland D.H. 103 Hornet !!!!.......

- Indeed, what an aircraft !! This was an aircraft that may have made a very decisive difference in the Air War, particuarly in the Pacific, capable of meeting single-engined Jap fighters in combat, and were developed for very longe range and had medium-altitude fighter characteristics....Unfortunately, all Hornets missed WWII, but many did great service in the Malayan conflict, ''Operation Firedog'' from 1948-60.

The idea was hatched back in 1942, after the exceptional operational success of the Mosquito, and a mock-up was viewed by the Air Ministry in Jan. 1943, production consent given that June. It first flew on July 28th, 1944, only 13 months after commencement of the design details, and the calculated performance was met most handsomely, manoeuvrability and climb were exceptional and the prototype reached 485 mph.

Production started in late 1944, the first aircraft, PX210, was delivered to Boscombe Down on Feb. 28th, 1945. Production of the Fighter version finished in June 1952, a total of 211 were delivered to the RAF.

The first prototype Sea Hornet flew just after the Fighter-version went into production, on April 19th, 1945, and this version became the first Royal Navy twin-engined longe-range escort strike fighter. These served until 1956, and a total of 198 Sea Hornet variants, including the PR and NF's were built.

They were very light and strong, carried either 2x 1,000 lb bombs or 8x RP's or 2x 200 gal fuel tanks, along with their 4x 20mm Hispano cannons. In the period of their service, they broke speed and distance records and were known for their awesome Air Displays that they attended, often in company with jets, the very aircraft that replaced them. They were the last piston-engined fighters of the RAF and R. Navy.......[If only they'd hatched them with the Mosquitos !!!! ]

Wow1 Thanks Gemhorse

While I think about it, there is another aircraft I've mentioned in a past posting, one of the Hawker Fury F.2/43 prototypes, as they tried them all with different engines...
LA610 was the 2nd prototype, first flown with a Griffon 85, driving a Rotol 6-blade contra-rotating prop; they then put a Sabre VII in, with a 4-blade Rotol, and this was the fastest of all the Hawker piston-engined fighters, with a top speed in the region of 485 mph. Why they never settled on this version I'm not sure, but it was definately the 'best-looking' variant....I've only a grainy pic of it, but she's a compact, grunty beast......

Also, many thanks to RG for those real neat pics, especially the MB5...There's an aircraft that was really unique, and I've an article in the March 2002 'Aeroplane' about John Marlin, a retired Rockwell aerospace worker, whose building a replica MB5 at Stead Field, near Reno, Nevada, using a 1,900 hp Griffon 58 from a Shackleton. Perhaps someone's heard about it, he must be progressing well with it now.........

And also, a special thanks to Adler for the Gotha one's, I've been aware that the Smithsonian got one of the prototypes but have never seen it before...awesome!...I do hope they restore it one of these days, I believe Northrop made great use of it in their research that lead to their Flying-Wings, it's a topic I'm particuarly fascinated with....We may have been in real strife if Germany had got them up n' going during the War !......

Cheers

that just looks wrong..........

Yeah well, it's not the best of pics, but outa all of the 'heavy' Hawkers', it's certainly the more streamlined, which may have done something for it's better performance.... - Unfortunately, I don't know any more about it's development details, other than that particular configuration was to be used as a 'test structure', the last out of a total of six F.2/43 prototypes of which the others were specifically allocated engine-types; [2 fitted with Griffons; 2 with Centaurus XXII's and one with a Centaurus XII.] - With the end of the War approaching, orders for Furies were further reduced, concentrating on the Naval requirement of the Sea Fury.. I can understand finding other variants more appealing, although the Griffons definately don't look at home in a Hawker's design, compared to Sabres and Centaurus's.....

yeah the sea fury and fury truely are amazingly good looking birds..........