WW2 Fantasy Aircraft (3 Viewers)

SaparotRob said:

I was wondering about availability of Merlins for the "Torbattle". Use V-1710s?

Click to expand...

From the British perspective, Merlin was probably more easily available.
OTOH - British were also using the Bristol Taurus on the Albacore, so having that powering the "TorBattle" would've not been a long shot. Also makes the aircraft lighter and shorter a bit. Use the R-1830 on it, too?

Howard Gibson said:

• 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.

Click to expand...

• Italian AF
• 1938, in service in 1941
• Check
• Caproni; Isotta-Fraschini Asso L.122 of 1000 HP
• Check
• Check
• A fast 1-engined bomber, max speed of 530 km/h clean, 500 km/h bombed-up (shown with a 1000 kg bomb). Two HMGs in the wing. Italians can afford it.
• A spin-off from the Ca.335 design. wing area of 265 sq ft.

Howard Gibson said:

• 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.

Click to expand...

De Havilland-Percival fighter

• UK, RAF
• Start in 1936, in service in 1940
• Check
• De Havilland and Percival cooperation; RR Merlin
• Check
• Did
• A fighter whose airframe is mainly wooden 'composite' material. Both the companies knew how to make a sleek A/C, and wood 'composite' was DH's bread and butter come 1930s. Less gaps and leakage = lower drag = higher speed. Merlin in the nose, 8 .303s initially in the wings; later two cannons + 4 .303s. A lot of fuel to cover North Sea and for over-seas service.
• Percival and DH racers fell in love, and this is the child of that love.

Howard Gibson said:

• 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.

Click to expand...

• 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

Yak-31:

tomo pauk said:

• 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

Yak-31:

View attachment 813488

Click to expand...

Howard Gibson said:

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.

Click to expand...

IIRC Bristol spent a lot of time getting the Hercules into decent shape, largely due to the valves. Due to this the Centaurus got pushed further and further into the future, to the point it missed the war.

As far as bottlenecks, one issue was the Hercules used a lot of ball bearing which were supplied in small lots from Sweden with either fast aircraft or fast boats.

SaparotRob said:

Click to expand...

The Yak-31 prototype in the workshop after the 6th flight:
(historically, an ex-Vietnamese F-5E at Sukhoi's)

Dimlee said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.