Aircraft projects that you wish had been completed, just for use in Aces High.

[Fish42]

As the title says, give a project that you wish had been completed, just for use in Aces High. These may have been canceled due to issues with engines/ armament, Production, Political or just the need disappeared.

CAC Woomera

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_Woomera

This aircraft started testing in September 1941. The first prototype exploded in mid-air (most likely due to the fuel tank design). The redesign and 2nd prototype did not fly until June 1944. *By the time production was due to commence, the dive-bombing concept had fallen into disrepute, the RAAF was filling the light bomber/reconnaissance/strike role with British-designed Bristol Beaufighters (which were being made in Australia by the Department of Aircraft Production); US-made B-24 Liberator heavy bombers had also become available. Consequently, the original Woomera order was reduced from 105 to 20. After the first CA11 flew, the whole program was cancelled and the production capacity set aside for Woomeras at CAC was switched to P-51 Mustang fighters.

*General characteristics

    Crew: 3 (pilot, bomb aimer/navigator, rear gunner)
    Length: 39 ft 7 in (12.07 m)
    Wingspan: 59 ft 2½ in (18.05 m)
    Height: 18 ft 2 in (5.53 m)
    Wing area: 440 ft² (40.9 m²)
    Empty weight: 12,756 lb (5,798 kg)
    Max. takeoff weight: 22,885 lb (10,402 kg)
    Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney R-1830-S3C3-G Twin Wasp 14-cylinder two-row radial engine, 1,200 hp (895 kW) each

Performance

    Maximum speed: 282 mph (454 km/h, 247 knots)
    Range: 2,225 mi (3,580 km, 1,950 nm) (with external tank and one torpedo)
    Service ceiling: 23,500 ft (7,165 m)
    Rate of climb: 2,090 ft/min (10.6 m/s)

Armament

    Guns:
        2 × .303in Browning machine guns in the nose
        2 × 20 mm Hispano MkII cannon in the nose
        4 × .303 Browning machine guns in two rear-firing remotely controlled barbettes
        1 x .303 Vickers K machine gun in a ventral position
    Bombs:
        4× 250 lb (113 kg) bombs internally in engine nacelle bays
        and 4× 500 lb (224 kg) bombs
        or 2× Mk XII, Mk XV or Mk 13 aerial torpedoes mounted under the fuselage
        or 1× torpedo and 1× 293 imp gal (352 USG) external fuel tank mounted under the fuselage

*=Wiki copy pastes!

I think this would have been a fun plane to fly in AH. The speed was a little slow, but it carries a good sized bomb load for 1942-3 (the year it might have gone into full production) Also the forward armament was quite strong. The defensive armament could do with a little work, but it looks like the Barbettes would provide a good coverage (and who knows, CAC might have upgraded them to 20mms as the war went on).

[Wmaker]

VL Puuska


Picture source: http://www.scalemates.com/products/product.php?id=164287

Puuska (Finnish word for a gust of wind) was design study made by the Finnish State Aircraft Factory. It was envisaged as a light weight fighter powered by the DB605A-1 (BF109G's power plant). It would have had a very small wing area of just 13,5 sqm and armament consisted of only one MG151/20 cannon with 210 rounds and no armor at all. Top speed was calculated to be 424mph at critical altitude and climb to 19700ft would have taken 4.7 minutes. Puuska never got beyond the design study state as more conventional concept called Pyörremyrsky (Hurricane in Finnish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VL_Py%C3%B6rremyrsky) was chosen instead.

[Karnak]

A7M2, J7W1 and G8N.  Would give the Axis some more teeth.

[GScholz]

What's better than a 109F? ... TWO 109F's!! With no less than FIVE 30 mm cannon!




It was a hoot in Il-2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzLeKKs7_ZM

[Volron]

A7M2, J7W1 and G8N.  Would give the Axis some more teeth.

I'd tack on the G5N to this list, simply because it has a twin tail.

[glzsqd]

F2G Super Corsair




P40Q 



Ummm, ill think of more

[Greebo]

Martin Baker MB-5:- Four Hizookas, 2340 hp Griffon engine with a counter rotating prop giving 460 mph. Test pilots loved it and the access for maintenance was so good it was used by the RAF as a guide for other manufacturers on how to do it. It flew in May 1944 but the decision was made to develop jets like the Vampire and Meteor instead.

[BnZs]

XP-72

[BnZs]

One wonders why contra-rotating propellers never made it on to any WWII fighters. The elimination of net torque seems to have enormous dogfighting benefits for the P-38, now imagine something with the wing-loading and power/weight ratio of a Spit or 109 also possessing no net torque.

Martin Baker MB-5:- Four Hizookas, 2340 hp Griffon engine with a counter rotating prop giving 460 mph. Test pilots loved it and the access for maintenance was so good it was used by the RAF as a guide for other manufacturers on how to do it. It flew in May 1944 but the decision was made to develop jets like the Vampire and Meteor instead.

(Image removed from quote.)

[tmetal]

a military version of one of the prettiest planes ever built; the Bugatti 100p. Might have to drop it down to one engine to help make room for fuel, radio equipment, possibly ammo for some wing root mounted cannon?

[BnZs]

Very cool T-Metal, I had never seen this before!

[tmetal]

Yeah, she was built to be a racer but was then stashed in a barn when Germany invaded, IIRC.  The military version is just artwork somebody dreamed up as a "what if", but it is definitely an interesting "what if".


I'm gonna throw in the Ju187 as well; just for kicks and giggles. who wouldn't like a reversible vertical stabilizer to help clear the rear gunner's field of fire

[BnZs]

As the projected speed for the Bugatti is higher than the current world record for piston aircraft, I hope a replica is built and flown!

[GScholz]

One wonders why contra-rotating propellers never made it on to any WWII fighters...

They were complicated and added weight. Early-war torque wasn't much of a problem for single engined fighters. It was only in the late-war period fighter designs became powerful enough to warrant it.

[Greebo]

There are often vibration problems with this sort of setup which in some cases could cause the gearbox to fail. The basic issue is that the leading prop blades cause turbulence in their wake which then hits the trailing prop blades. Its not an insoluble problem but it needs very careful design. The original N1K floatplane was designed for a contra prop but this was dropped from the design for this reason.

IIRC some pilots complained that having to look at the visual interference pattern of the two props for hours on end was uncomfortable.