Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
From the British perspective, Merlin was probably more easily available.I was wondering about availability of Merlins for the "Torbattle". Use V-1710s?
- Select a country and an air service.
- Select dates to start design, and introduce the aircraft into service. It should take three years to design a new aircraft, but blind, screaming panic mode over three months has had good results.
- Consider available resources. The Germans and Japanese fantasized about bombing the USA, but it was not happening. If your proposal is resource heavy, describe what other activity will be discontinued. Forget about not invading Russia. The whole point of WWII in Europe was to invade Russia.
- Select an aircraft manufacturer and engine(s).
- In context of WWII, new engine design from scratch takes too long. According to writer Bill Gunston, it takes five or six years to design a new engine and get it working. All the important engines of WWII were running prior to or very early in the war. You may propose upgrades of existing engines.
- Understand doctrine, design practise, and available technology of the nation and manufacturer. For example, the Russians did not see a requirement for high altitude combat. They did not make aircraft out of metal, and they did not have turbochargers. The Soviet P-47 Thunderbolt was not happening.
- Discuss how the aircraft will work, and justify your design decisions.
- You may design from scratch, or modify something that already exists.
De Havilland-Percival fighter
- Select a country and an air service.
- Select dates to start design, and introduce the aircraft into service. It should take three years to design a new aircraft, but blind, screaming panic mode over three months has had good results.
- Consider available resources. The Germans and Japanese fantasized about bombing the USA, but it was not happening. If your proposal is resource heavy, describe what other activity will be discontinued. Forget about not invading Russia. The whole point of WWII in Europe was to invade Russia.
- Select an aircraft manufacturer and engine(s).
- In context of WWII, new engine design from scratch takes too long. According to writer Bill Gunston, it takes five or six years to design a new engine and get it working. All the important engines of WWII were running prior to or very early in the war. You may propose upgrades of existing engines.
- Understand doctrine, design practise, and available technology of the nation and manufacturer. For example, the Russians did not see a requirement for high altitude combat. They did not make aircraft out of metal, and they did not have turbochargers. The Soviet P-47 Thunderbolt was not happening.
- Discuss how the aircraft will work, and justify your design decisions.
- You may design from scratch, or modify something that already exists.
- Select a country and an air service.
- Select dates to start design, and introduce the aircraft into service. It should take three years to design a new aircraft, but blind, screaming panic mode over three months has had good results.
- Consider available resources. The Germans and Japanese fantasized about bombing the USA, but it was not happening. If your proposal is resource heavy, describe what other activity will be discontinued. Forget about not invading Russia. The whole point of WWII in Europe was to invade Russia.
- Select an aircraft manufacturer and engine(s).
- In context of WWII, new engine design from scratch takes too long. According to writer Bill Gunston, it takes five or six years to design a new engine and get it working. All the important engines of WWII were running prior to or very early in the war. You may propose upgrades of existing engines.
- Understand doctrine, design practise, and available technology of the nation and manufacturer. For example, the Russians did not see a requirement for high altitude combat. They did not make aircraft out of metal, and they did not have turbochargers. The Soviet P-47 Thunderbolt was not happening.
- Discuss how the aircraft will work, and justify your design decisions.
- You may design from scratch, or modify something that already exists.
Yak-31:
- USSR, VVS
- Start in 1964, service entry 1968
- Check
- Northrop/Yakovlev; Mikulin copy of the Bristol/RR Viper
- Check
- Check
- A fail-safe bet against the problems with the new generation of fighters, and as a replacement for the MiG-15s and -17s in the world; guns being the left-over 1-barreled 23mm types
- Soviet moles get the blueprints from Northrop, while Yugoslavia makes an easy access to the small and light engine, that Soviets improve by adding an afterburner
View attachment 813488
By 1940, Bristol had finished with the Beaufighter. It would have been nice if they had focussed on updating the Hercules and getting the Centaurus into production.
I don't know (yet) what the bottlenecks were for Hercules production.
The I-200 was initially designed as a high speed front-line fighter. The altitude characteristics of the AM-35 were just a bonus which was not used properly - above 8000 m it had certain difficulties with oil cooling. The real attempts to build a high altitude fighter in the USSR were the "100" by Petlyakov and the I-28 (Yak with M-105PD). even the I-135 (Su-1) with turbocharger was not.But they did. Russians as Polikarpov, for example, with his I-200. Then some Armenians as Mikoyan, Jews as Gurevich...Probably, "the Soviets" is a better term.
- Select a country and an air service.
- Select dates to start design, and introduce the aircraft into service. It should take three years to design a new aircraft, but blind, screaming panic mode over three months has had good results.
- Consider available resources. The Germans and Japanese fantasized about bombing the USA, but it was not happening. If your proposal is resource heavy, describe what other activity will be discontinued. Forget about not invading Russia. The whole point of WWII in Europe was to invade Russia.
- Select an aircraft manufacturer and engine(s).
- In context of WWII, new engine design from scratch takes too long. According to writer Bill Gunston, it takes five or six years to design a new engine and get it working. All the important engines of WWII were running prior to or very early in the war. You may propose upgrades of existing engines.
- Understand doctrine, design practise, and available technology of the nation and manufacturer. For example, the Russians did not see a requirement for high altitude combat. They did not make aircraft out of metal, and they did not have turbochargers. The Soviet P-47 Thunderbolt was not happening.
- Discuss how the aircraft will work, and justify your design decisions.
- You may design from scratch, or modify something that already exists.
That particular engine came as a bonus, indeed. My comment was the reaction to the claim that the Soviets did not have the requirement of high-altitude fighter. Polikarpov did see such a requirement as the others you mentioned. Some brains in VVS saw it as well, despite it did not materialise later in WWII. It was even popularised in the literature and the "infotainment" media of that period, as technical magazines and documentaries. The ubiquitous slogan vyshe, bystreye, dalshe (higher, faster, further) was not only a declaration but also an instruction, as many slogans in the USSR.The I-200 was initially designed as a high speed front-line fighter. The altitude characteristics of the AM-35 were just a bonus which was not used properly - above 8000 m it had certain difficulties with oil cooling. The real attempts to build a high altitude fighter in the USSR were the "100" by Petlyakov and the I-28 (Yak with M-105PD). even the I-135 (Su-1) with turbocharger was not.
If you look for an ideal design for the Eastern Front, it was the I-185. May be, it was the highest _available_ technological level for the Soviets during the war - at the edge of the acceptability due to a higher demand on the aluminum. I don't think that even now anyone can suggest anything better taking into account all the limitations of the Soviet industry.
I don't see much point in fantasizing airplanes that couldn't be built under the available conditions. And this requires accurate knowledge of the capabilities of the industry. If for the USA/UK you can fantasize almost anything, then for the USSR the inspiration will be sharply limited.
The AM-37 was originally intended to be installed on the I-200, the AM-35 was rather a forced and provisional solution, which, due to circumstances, remained permanent. I do not know any documents according to which the I-200 was designed as a high-altitude fighter. The only objective of Polikarpov was superiority in terms of maximum speed - it was important for him to achieve a higher speed than that of the competitors, even at altitudes where air combat was supposed to be unlikely.That particular engine came as a bonus, indeed.
I would say that in the USSR the development of a high-altitude fighter had a low priority until the middle of the war.My comment was the reaction to the claim that the Soviets did not have the requirement of high-altitude fighter.
Polikarpov installed the AM-35 not because he wanted to build a high-altitude fighter, but because he hoped to obtain finally the AM-37, which should allow to outperform the competitors even in the altitude range up to 5000 meters.Polikarpov did see such a requirement as the others you mentioned.
Neither the USSR nor its potential opponents had bombers at the time that would have required high-altitude fighters for escort or interception. The fact that even Petlyakov's "100" was converted into a bomber is an unequivocal evidence of a low priority of the development of high-altitude fighters.Some brains in VVS saw it as well, despite it did not materialise later in WWII. It was even popularised in the literature and the "infotainment" media of that period, as technical magazines and documentaries. The ubiquitous slogan vyshe, bystreye, dalshe (higher, faster, further) was not only a declaration but also an instruction, as many slogans in the USSR.
This was world wide and the US experimental aircraft got a lot of "press"/newsreel footage. Likewise record setting aircraft of all kinds including altitude records of various kinds (not just altitude but weight lifted to XXXX height). With the rapid progress in many areas of aviation many people expected progress to keep going at the same rate that had occurred in the mid to late 1930s.It was even popularised in the literature and the "infotainment" media of that period, as technical magazines and documentaries.
How many Pe-8 were built?The PE-8 bomber was envisioned as a high altitude aircraft.
How many Pe-8s could be produced per year by Plant No. 124 in Kazan, where serial production was deployed? The Pe-8 was a terrible airplane from the technological point of view - their production in appreciable quantities was completely unrealistic. The USSR leadership was well aware of this and prioritized aircraft design and production accordingly."These requirements specified a bomber that could carry 2,000 kg (4,400 lb) of bombs 4,500 km (2,800 mi) at a speed greater than 440 km/h (270 mph) at an altitude of 10,000 metres (32,808 ft)."
This required the installation of a Klimov M-100 engine driving a central supercharger to supply to the four Mikulin AM-34FRN engines.
Now if your government is looking at a 10,000 meter bomber it kind of stands to reason that they would be looking for a 10,000 meter interceptor in case their enemies came up with their own 10,000 meter bomber. How much (what percentage of effort) was put into these projects compared to the lower altitude planes may not have been large.
The Soviets lacked suitable heat-resistant alloys to provide the required blade reliability. The same problem that plagued the turbines of early Soviet jet engines. Soviet experiments with turbochargers were largely driven by concerns about the German high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft.My own impression of Soviet engine development is that they tried to turbo-charge just about every large aero engine they had at some point. They had less luck than the US had in the late 30s (turbo explosions were common in both countries).
This spontaneous discussion shows how the same information can be interpreted.The AM-37 was originally intended to be installed on the I-200, the AM-35 was rather a forced and provisional solution, which, due to circumstances, remained permanent. I do not know any documents according to which the I-200 was designed as a high-altitude fighter. The only objective of Polikarpov was superiority in terms of maximum speed - it was important for him to achieve a higher speed than that of the competitors, even at altitudes where air combat was supposed to be unlikely.
I would say that in the USSR the development of a high-altitude fighter had a low priority until the middle of the war.
Polikarpov installed the AM-35 not because he wanted to build a high-altitude fighter, but because he hoped to obtain finally the AM-37, which should allow to outperform the competitors even in the altitude range up to 5000 meters.
View attachment 813550
(from the book by A.Medved')
Neither the USSR nor its potential opponents had bombers at the time that would have required high-altitude fighters for escort or interception. The fact that even Petlyakov's "100" was converted into a bomber is an unequivocal evidence of a low priority of the development of high-altitude fighters.
A lot depends on exactly when and which versions of the engines are available.Yak-31:
- USSR, VVS
- Start in 1964, service entry 1968
- Check
- Northrop/Yakovlev; Mikulin copy of the Bristol/RR Viper
- Check
- Check
- A fail-safe bet against the problems with the new generation of fighters, and as a replacement for the MiG-15s and -17s in the world; guns being the left-over 1-barreled 23mm types
- Soviet moles get the blueprints from Northrop, while Yugoslavia makes an easy access to the small and light engine, that Soviets improve by adding an afterburner
View attachment 813488
There was no need, as the Soviets had something better.Yak-31:
- USSR, VVS
- Start in 1964, service entry 1968
- Check
- Northrop/Yakovlev; Mikulin copy of the Bristol/RR Viper
- Check
- Check
- A fail-safe bet against the problems with the new generation of fighters, and as a replacement for the MiG-15s and -17s in the world; guns being the left-over 1-barreled 23mm types
- Soviet moles get the blueprints from Northrop, while Yugoslavia makes an easy access to the small and light engine, that Soviets improve by adding an afterburner
View attachment 813488