WW2 Fantasy Aircraft (1 Viewer)

[Shortround6]

How many Pe-8 were built?

How many were built doesn't show anything about the original intent.

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.

Again, actual production does not show original intent. The US built a number of planes with no real intention of mass producing them. The Boeing B-15 and Douglas B-19 being prime examples. But they did show the problems involved and helped refine ideas for later aircraft. The US was very interested in long range bombing. Both of these would have been failures (engine technology was not good enough for one thing) but it helped get them to the B-17, B-24 and B-29/B-32. It also helped show the US command the problems that any enemy would face trying to build planes for the same mission.

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.

Again, planning and interest are not the same as production. Also showed what the Germans needed to do to come up with solutions. Germans came up with solutions but it took a while and carting around hundreds of kg of nitrous oxide in insulated tanks worked, just barely.

 

[bf109xxl]

How many were built doesn't show anything about the original intent.

The original intent was to create the appearance of a threat, as evidenced by both the plans and actual production numbers. From the very beginning, the Soviets understood that with their very weak aluminum industry and the lack of powerful aircraft factories capable of mass production of 4-engine bombers, building a large series of Pe-8s was absolutely unrealistic - in 1939, a plan was adopted to build 51 aircraft in eight production batches. No one dreamed of thousands of bombers in principle!

Again, actual production does not show original intent.

Taking into account all the circumstances - yes, it does.

The US built a number of planes with no real intention of mass producing them. The Boeing B-15 and Douglas B-19 being prime examples. But they did show the problems involved and helped refine ideas for later aircraft. The US was very interested in long range bombing. Both of these would have been failures (engine technology was not good enough for one thing) but it helped get them to the B-17, B-24 and B-29/B-32. It also helped show the US command the problems that any enemy would face trying to build planes for the same mission.

Please, don't compare the capabilities of American industry with those of the Soviets. It's not serious.

Again, planning and interest are not the same as production.

In the USSR there was a clear correspondence between priority and output, as resources were extremely limited. The Pe-8's high altitude performance was a priority, but production of this airplane was not planned in the quantity needed to produce high-altitude escort fighters for it. High-altitude fighters were not a priority. With a shortage of everything, the Soviets prioritized correctly.

Also showed what the Germans needed to do to come up with solutions. Germans came up with solutions but it took a while and carting around hundreds of kg of nitrous oxide in insulated tanks worked, just barely.

In this case, there was only one solution - to obtain heat-resistant alloys. And the Soviets got it only with captured German engines. The Soviets had difficulties with materials science - IIRC, many basic (perhaps the most) Soviet aluminum and heat resistant alloys came about after acquaintance with Western samples, starting in the 1930s.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,
One other thought that I've had regards the lack of a dedicated dive bomber follow up to the Skua in RN service aboard their carriers. I guess the Brewster Bermuda was supposed to fill that role, but appears to never serving as an operational Fleet Arm Arm combat aircraft. As such, I was thinking about other possibilities to fill that role.

I guess an obvious starting point might be either the P.4/34 or Hawker Henley developed as Light Bomber designs for the RAF, but it is my understanding that neither really had a full dive bomber capability, and both appeared to rely on Merlin engines.

As a potential alternative, I was thinking of maybe trying to see what a Bristol Hercules powered plane of similar size to either the Henley or P.4/34, but with a dive bombing capability, might look like. Ultimately, I don't know that such a plane would be any better than the Bermuda, but in the late 30's such a plane might have looked like a potentially promising enough concept to investigate.

In addition, I see from Wikipedia that during the development of the Hercules the Bristol company aquired a Northrup model 8A-1 (A-17) airframe to use as a test bed for the Hercules engine development. As such, maybe if Bristol worked with Northrup an evolution of the base A-17 design (or something similar to the A-17) fitted with a more powerful Hercules engine might make a suitable starting point for such a plane.

Regards

Pat

 

[tomo pauk]

• 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.

• USAAF + Allies
• Start 1940, in service in 1942
• Got it
• NAA; P&W R-2180B with the 2-stage S/C, 1300 HP at 20000 ft (no ram) FTW!
• Okay
• Okay
• With the USAAC and GM not willing to support the V-1710 project, the Allison branch was shut down in 1938. Seeing that the hi-per engines are also not going anywhere, AAC decided to support P&W and Wright in a meaningful way. This meant that the R-2180 also gotten some tailwind, and it emerged as a fully working engine by 1939, with the P-36H being the 1st recipient among the US combat aircraft. The SA4-G version went into the P-51 as it's 1st platform (the P-36K - named shortly after as P-40 - was the 2nd platform). Initial P-51s were good for 400 mph at 22000 ft in 1941/42, while the later types with the more refined exhausts went to 420 mph in 1943. Early 1944 saw the more refined superchargers installed on the engine, that was now revving up to 2800 rpm, for 1300 HP at 26000 ft, and 1600 HP at 20000 ft with w/a injection. With 440 mph, these fighters remained as the thorn in the Axis side as it was the case for the earlier models.
• Side elevation of a P-51 with a radial in the nose and the Malcolm hood.

 

[tomo pauk]

• 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.

• IJN
• 1935 in Germany, 1939 in Japan, in service in 1942
• Good
• Initially Heinkel, took by Aichi; Aichi Atstuta
• Good
• Ditto
• Initially started as He 100, a few examples ending up in Japan, where Aichi modifies the design for the 'normal' cooling. The 1st version, powered by the Atstuta 21 engine was armed with two Type 99 'short' cannons + 2 LMGs, and was good for 600 km/h. 2nd version, powered by the Atstuta 32 engine, was armed with the same cannons, plus a pair of HMGs, and was making 650 km/h. Deployed as an interceptor fighter from the land bases, and later as a long-range fighter when outfitted with drop tanks. The competing design by Mitsubishi, that featured the narrow and cowling together with the fan and the extended prop shaft, lost the competition.
• Noted already

The Aichi J2A Katana ("Rick"):

 

[SaparotRob]

These are all very impressive. I did start screaming "Heretic..BURN HIM..he's a witch!" at tomo's radial engine Mustang.
It is quite clever, though.

 

[bf109xxl]

These are all very impressive. I did start screaming "Heretic..BURN HIM..he's a witch!" at tomo's radial engine Mustang.

But it could still work! Only the charges are a little different.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,
For reference, here are some plots that I put together from either data in Francis Dean's book "America's 100,000" or from stuff that I have found on the internet, that might be of use in trying to size a fantasy aircraft idea.

This 1st Plot shows Fuselage Length (in feet) versus the Full Up Gross Wt of the US WWII fighters listed in Mr. Dean's book. The blue boxes and curve through them represent those WWII US Fighter aircraft from the book, and the other three curves just represent some notional curves for "Single Engine (Modern) General Aviation Aircraft", "Twin Engine (Modern) General Aviation Aircraft:", and "Modern Agricultural Aircraft" that I had found notional equations for in an airplane design book,that I added just to see how WWII US Fighters might compare to other more modern aircraft. Here you can see that the fuselage length for the aircraft in Mr. Dean'sbook ranged from about 23 to 30 ft,with gross weights ranging from about 5000 to 14400lbs, or so.

These next plots show notional wing area vs gross weight and notional wing loading vs gross weight for the planes in Mr. Dean's book plus several others fromdata on the internet. In these plots the Blue Squares represent the USN aircraft listed in Mr. Dean's book, whilethe Green Triangles represent the US Army Air Corp planes listed in that book, with UKaircraft shown as Diamonds and other airforces shown as circles.

These next two slides show wing span versus wing area, and wing area versus wing span, respectively.

I think that I also have some plots forestimating the weights of different components, like wings, tail, and fusealge somewhere, and I'll see if I can find them.

Overall though hopefully these curves can give a feel for how long a fuselage would be and how big the wings may be for notional WWII what-if designs (at least if they are based on similar design practices to those that the US aircraft used).

Regards

Pat

 

[SaparotRob]

I gotta look at those graphics on my computer at home. This small screen is not doing them justice.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,
Here are some of the weight plots that I put together.

The first twoare wing weight plots. The first one is versus wing afrea (in sq ft) and the second is versus the gross aircraft weight. In these plots I tried tobreak the planes into a) USN aircraft with non-folding wings, b) USN aircraft with folding wings, and c) US Army Air Corp planes. The Yellow Diamond in some of these plots was what Ihad estimated for the folding wing UK fighter with a Bristol Hercules engine that Imentioned in a previous post.

The next couple plots show estimated fuselage weight versus either the Length x Max Width x Max Depth of the fuselage or versus design gross weight.

 

[PFVA63]

Next are Landing Gear Wt versus Aircraft Design Gross Wt and Propeller Wt versus Prop Diameter for both 3 blade and 4 blade props. If Ihave time and can find enough additional information I may goback and take a closer look at the propeller weights to see if there is any significant differences due to prop manufacturer or any other factors.

II have some additional plots on things like armament provisions, communications equipment, electrical systems weights, flight controls, fuel system weights, furnishings and intruments weights, but alotof them either have a lot of scatter or show trends that seem kind of off, most likely because they are probably impacted by additional factors rather than just one simple parameter such as the total design weight of the aircraft.

I hope I am not geeting too off track in these posts, or hijacking this thread. I just thought that these plots might be off use to anyone trying to visualize a what if WWII era plane.

Regards

Pat

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,
Here is some of the data that I developed for the Bristol Hercules engined fighter that I had posted about previously. The first curve shows the predicted flight envelope curve for the plane (including stall speed and max attainable speed versus altitude for the design (provided that I input the engine data correctly). This plot shows a stallspeed of about 84 mph and a max speed of about 306 mph at sea level (I can't remember if the stallspeed included flaps or not). Top speed drops down to about 296-297mph atjust under 10,000ft but climbs to about 320 mph near 20,000ft due to the supercharger (if I modeled everything correctly. Also the data shows a max cieling of just about 30,000ft.

The nextplot shows climb rate versus speed at different altitudes. From this plot it looks like the best climbing speed at sea levelis about 170 mph,which would provide a climb rate of just around 2,000 fpm (once agian I think that this is without flaps). As shown in this plot best speed for climb increses with increasing altitude but the climb rate drops off. I may try and pick off the max climb rateat each altitude and plot up a more conventional max climb rate versus altitude plot later.

As I had noted in a previous post, overall the plane seemed to have kind of OK, but not great performance, based on my estimates and output from the Airplane PDQ program.

Regards

Pat

PS. Here are the plots comparing max speed versus altitude and rate of climb versus altitude to some other similar planes from that time period.

As suggested above I'm not 100% sure I put the power versus altitude info in correctly, especially with regards to the supercharger.

PS.
Here also is a simple CAD sketch I had put together when doing this design.

 

[z42]

These are all very impressive. I did start screaming "Heretic..BURN HIM..he's a witch!" at tomo's radial engine Mustang.
It is quite clever, though.

I was thinking "Vade retro satana", but the Inquisition is fine too.