Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
..
Non-turbocharged P-38s may have been better for sheer speed as well as fighter/bomber duties, but I don't think we need to go over production delays and shortages with that type again. (it was covered rather well in the discussing regarding producing more P-38s in place of P-40s and P-39s -even if the value was seen for an aircraft nearly 2x as expensive, the production capacity simply wasn't there early enough -unless the XP-38 doesn't crash and they gain a year in development along with a properly optimized unturbocharged version with counter-rotation, ejector exhaust and ram intake optimization on par with the P-40/P-51)
I'm not sure the Defiant is that worth being written off, but development limited to turretless operation would be the focus for sure. The larger, thicker wing of the Defiant may have been more suitable for cannons than the hurricane while still having overall drag characteristics better than the Hurricane and possibly better than the spitfire considering the weight and wing area. Maybe a better candidate for fighter-bomber conversion than the Hurricane (especially with the Griffon), but the hurricane still had advantages in manufacturing infrastructure that kept it in production so long historically.
In any case, single-seat defiant derivatives may have had enough merits to not simply throw them away in favor of Spitfire production.
Yes, it had a thick wing, because it was to have been armed with 12 .303 MGs...in the end, it wound up with 4 20mm cannon...
I can only pass on what I was told, about 30 years ago, by a former Napier engineer; he said that the main problem was that the groundcrews couldn't resist tinkering with the engine, to "improve" the performance, as they'd always done.Could you pinpoint for us the exact date in which these bugs were solved?
There were many problems with the Typhoon and Tempest, but the most serious defect was the Napier Sabre engine.
I can only pass on what I was told, about 30 years ago, by a former Napier engineer; he said that the main problem was that the groundcrews couldn't resist tinkering with the engine, to "improve" the performance, as they'd always done.
"Once we'd persuaded them to leave the engines at the factory settings, the problems were solved."
So we cancel the Typhoon and what shall we challenge the Fw190 with in a low-level fight? Surely not the Hurricane...
Doesn't mean it has to be untrue, unless you want it to be; 20 years after the events, what would be his purpose?That's pretty much the standard response you'll get from any factory engineer, aviation, or automotive.
And if the Sabre is cancelled, what will Napier build?
It also housed 77imp gallons of fuel in each wing root. About as much as the Mustang. Except the max thickness was a 30% of cord and not further back like the Mustang
Guns are well outboard and by the ejection ports staggered. Wing only had to be thick enough to pass one belt over the gun as the next belt was behind the first belt.
Also note that the landing gear is behind the front spar and the wheel well sucks up a fair amount of the volume where the wings are thickest instead of being in the leading edge kinks and fuselage like a P-51. With the re-designed Tempest wing some of the volume for fuel went away despite the wing being 28% bigger than the Mustang wing.
For the Germans strictly, I would cancel the disaster rocket planes such as the Me 163, and halt production of the piston planes and channel a lot of resources and research into the jet engine in order to mass produce jet fighters out on the front. Had production of the Bf 109 and the Fw 190 halt with all the focus going toward the Me 262, the air battle would be radicalized and there would most likely have been combat with the Gloster Meteor and the P-80 Shooting Star.
It may be true.Doesn't mean it has to be untrue, unless you want it to be; 20 years after the events, what would be his purpose?
That's the point that's often overlooked...when a new weapon is introduced to the battlefield, there is always a response from the other side.The thing is, if we can engage the retrospectroscope and move forward development of the Me 262, that why can't we do the same for the P-51 and get fully escorted bombing underway earlier?
Just sayin'...
But how would a Spitfire III in low gear with overboost compare?