What protoype do you wish had seen service in WW2?

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

I am not so sure that making an airplane out of wood is easier than making it out of metal, aside from availability of materials. And the Spruce Goose did fly, granted not for very far or very long, but it did fly.
 
Spruce has the strongest weight/strength of most materials, rivalling or even beating carbon fibre IIRC!

Glues can also be stronger than rivetting or welding.

I think the worst material is the corrugated iron on German bombers.
 
schwarzpanzer said:
Glues can also be stronger than rivetting or welding.
Not so - weld a piece of 7075 aluminum and heat treat it - it could have a tensile strength of up to 100,000 ksi. The only piece of wood you'll find that strong will be in a petrified forest :shock:

Now if you're talking about light alloy aluminums (6061) and pop rivets, yes a wood glue structure would be stronger, but light alloys are usually used for non-structral components.

Wood structures will not be stronger than 2024T-3 skins riveted on to 2024T-6 or 7075 main structural members, especially if 2117DD "Ice box" rivets are used - these are kept cold and actually work harden when driven.

The O-2 Kingfisher actually had a good portion of it's primary structure welded because of the catapult launching it will be subjected to.....

schwarzpanzer said:
I think the worst material is the corrugated iron on German bombers.

Corrugated structure is one of the stronger aircraft assembly structures. The B-17s wings were corrugated with sheet metal riveted over the corrugations
 
I couldn't be sure, but I think the bigger Junkers; Ju290/390 and Ju57(?)that FG plane, in the end of Where Eagles Dare. There were others?
 
FLYBOYJ said:
schwarzpanzer said:
Glues can also be stronger than rivetting or welding.
Not so - weld a piece of 7075 aluminum and heat treat it - it could have a tensile strength of up to 100,000 ksi. The only piece of wood you'll find that strong will be in a petrified forest :shock:

Now if you're talking about light alloy aluminums (6061) and pop rivets, yes a wood glue structure would be stronger, but light alloys are usually used for non-structral components.

Wood structures will not be stronger than 2024T-3 skins riveted on to 2024T-6 or 7075 main structural members, especially if 2117DD "Ice box" rivets are used - these are kept cold and actually work harden when driven.

Very true. I actually had pop rivets on my aircraft pretty much break out of my aircraft. They were just recently found in a phase and even thow the area was not a structural part it led to severe cracks in a structural part so my aircraft is down for a while. Thats what flying the piss out of them for a year in Iraq does to it. :p
 
As a fighter I would chose the Horten 229 as a fighter and a bomber I would chose the Junkers 390. The Junkers 390 would be able to bomb like hell and the Horten 229 would be able to fly fast and shoot down the enemy out of the skies.

If I had to chose a dive bomber I would chose the Hs-132.

Another bomber prototype I would have love to see in action is the Junkers 287, just to see how it would be in action.

The Dornier 335 would also have been a great fighter or interceptor to go and intercept the bombers. The Heinkel 100 was a great aircraft, but later int the war it would not be great later in the war.

One more aircraft is the He-488, I wonder how it would have been like.

Yep, that is my list.

Henk
 
I would have liked to see the XP-39 fly in combat, as opposed to the P-39 did get used.
 
Yes, that would be nice. I think these aircraft can only be proved as great when they are in combat. Then and only then will you know if it is a great aircraft.

Henk
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back