Author Topic: Ideal WW2 British multi-role plane?  (Read 1059 times)

Offline StarOfAfrica2

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5162
      • http://www.vf-17.org
Ideal WW2 British multi-role plane?
« Reply #15 on: April 08, 2005, 10:30:50 PM »
Ummm, why wouldnt the F4U fit the bill?  It was begun in 1938, pushing it back a few years to get it in the air by 1940 wouldnt be that far out.  It was the first fighter to hit 400 mph.  The British were the first to take it on for regular carrier duty, so it already filled that requirement.  Matter of fact, when they clipped the wings to make the planes fit the smaller Brit carriers, they found it helped the landing problems.  It saw COMBAT service all the way through to 1969.  30 years of service time is pretty remarkable for a design that predates our entry into the war.  It served under the British, Austrailians, New Zealanders, Americans, French and Canadians.  It had a dedicated night fighter variant.  It carried external ordnance from fuel tanks to napalm to rockets through its career.  It had an 11 to 1 kill ratio vs the Japanese in WWII, had over 12,500 built through 1952.  No other fighter of the era stayed on the production lines that long.  What else remains to fit the requirements?

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ideal WW2 British multi-role plane?
« Reply #16 on: April 08, 2005, 10:47:48 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by HoHun

Thanks! 15000 ft for the Taurus version, hm, that's not in line with the data from the Wikipedia article.


The Taurus was produced with atleast two different SC gear ratios; 5,6:1 (II and XII) and 7,5:1 (VI and XVII). Also rated RPMs differed a bit being around 3100-3300.

gripen

Offline simshell

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 786
Ideal WW2 British multi-role plane?
« Reply #17 on: April 09, 2005, 09:30:36 AM »
i do see the F4U having trouble carrying a torpedo tho in combat and im not sure if it could fit a huge cannon like the one tony is thinking of for the ground attack version
known as Arctic in the main

Offline Sikboy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
Ideal WW2 British multi-role plane?
« Reply #18 on: April 09, 2005, 11:33:45 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Tony Williams
The Hornet was a superb plane, one of my all-time favourites, but it was a sophisticated design which couldn't have emerged in 1935 - same for the Tigercat.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum



Hell, even the XF5F wouldn't have been around in 1935. But that would be my starting point.

-Sik
You: Blah Blah Blah
Me: Meh, whatever.

Offline Arty

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 145
Ideal WW2 British multi-role plane?
« Reply #19 on: April 09, 2005, 08:46:30 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sikboy
Hell, even the XF5F wouldn't have been around in 1935. But that would be my starting point.

-Sik


HAWKAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

Offline StarOfAfrica2

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5162
      • http://www.vf-17.org
Ideal WW2 British multi-role plane?
« Reply #20 on: April 10, 2005, 02:47:01 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by simshell
i do see the F4U having trouble carrying a torpedo tho in combat and im not sure if it could fit a huge cannon like the one tony is thinking of for the ground attack version


I'm pretty sure it could have handled a torp if necessary, but it wasnt so it didnt.  You are probably right about the cannon, but they could have used something like the Stuka tankbuster gunpods.  If necessity had been there, I'm sure the Corsair would have been flexible enough to handle the job.  It did almost everything else.

Offline Tony Williams

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 725
      • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ideal WW2 British multi-role plane?
« Reply #21 on: April 10, 2005, 05:23:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by HoHun

Well, an engine only produces so much indicated power, so if an early Taurus with low-altitude (low power requirement) supercharger does only 1000 HP, it might end up with just 800 HP if you add the supercharger required to get to the same full-throttle height as a Merlin XII - which might do 1200 HP there. (And a twin with 1600 HP might easily end up inferior to performance to a 1200 HP single.) I'd say Bristol probably went to twin-row radials fully recognizing that the Aquila (also used in fighters) and the Taurus were too weak to compete.

 
The Taurus was a twin-row radial - with 14 cyls. The engine capacity was 25.5 litres compared with 27 for the Merlin. And if the Merlin's power could be increased from 1,030 hp in 1939 to 2,050 in 1945 (and the Hercules from 1,300 to over 2,000 hp) than why shouldn't the Taurus' output be increased?

Quote
Originally posted by HoHun
>The FAA seemed happy to go along with taildraggers in the Hornet and even the postwar Wyvern.

As far as I know, they never fielded a twin-engined propeller aircraft of conventional layout though.



The Sea Hornet saw service for quite a while after the war.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ideal WW2 British multi-role plane?
« Reply #22 on: April 10, 2005, 05:55:47 AM »
Hi Tony,

>The Taurus was a twin-row radial - with 14 cyls.

You're right, my mistake.

>And if the Merlin's power could be increased from 1,030 hp in 1939 to 2,050 in 1945 (and the Hercules from 1,300 to over 2,000 hp) than why shouldn't the Taurus' output be increased?

The Merlin actually produced a lot more power than 1030 HP internally, and that excess power was spent to drive the supercharger so that this power level could be maintained at altitude. The Taurus' internal power went to the shaft almost without losses for the supercharger, so it was a much less powerful engine than the Merlin. Its power could have been increased like the Merlin's, but it's pretty certain it would never have matched a contemporary Merlin.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline Tony Williams

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 725
      • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ideal WW2 British multi-role plane?
« Reply #23 on: April 10, 2005, 10:29:46 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by HoHun
The Merlin actually produced a lot more power than 1030 HP internally, and that excess power was spent to drive the supercharger so that this power level could be maintained at altitude. The Taurus' internal power went to the shaft almost without losses for the supercharger, so it was a much less powerful engine than the Merlin. Its power could have been increased like the Merlin's, but it's pretty certain it would never have matched a contemporary Merlin.


I guessed something like that, which is why I limited the proposed power increase to 1,400 hp.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Offline pellik

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 500
Re: Ideal WW2 British multi-role plane?
« Reply #24 on: April 11, 2005, 02:49:57 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Tony Williams
This one is just for fun.

If you could design one additional aircraft for the RAF/FAA, to be in full squadron service by 1940, what would it look like?

My take on it is here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2plane.htm

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


I'd stick a turbo supercharger in something that looks a whole lot like an F16c.

-pellik

Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
      • FullTilt
Ideal WW2 British multi-role plane?
« Reply #25 on: April 13, 2005, 08:54:19 AM »
Seems fun to play............

Given its multi role I think I would go for the  twin engined variant and choose two the 14 cylinder Taurus attempting to get a counter rotating set up.


With an initial 1200 hp devolping thru the war to maybe 1850 hp(Ash 82 type power). That gives a spread of 2400 to 3700 hp over the war. With super charging etc. It may end up with a low service cieling tho:(

Main gear is stowed below and to the rear of the engine nacelle and may need to rotate (P40'ish)

Each engine has its own oil cooler  mounted to the rear of the gear stowage area.

I want some thing in size between a P38 and a Whirlwind with pre stressed frame and skin.

Pilot  vision could be a problem so I take a corsair inverted gull wing approach to the wing shape to put him  higher than the engines and forward of the wing.

He is sitting right at the font of his nacelle behind the prop tips which are as close as they can be to each other.


Fuel tanks are in the inner wings and rear of the cockpit nacelle which is now quite high.

The cockpit nacelle is a very thin thing. The whole front of the cockpit nacelle is armoured glass. With guages positioned in 3 islands one (essential) cluster just below the gun sight and one either side. This allows a low forward view for ground attack and deflection shooting.

The pilots sits high in the cockpit, the canopy bubble extending down to nearly waist level. Whilst the tall armoured seat extends to narrow behind the pilots head the bubble canopy allows good rear vision.


The cockpit nacelle houses the central services, battery, radio, oxygen, compressed air, (and as above fuel).


Below it and the inner wing are 3 mounting points for, bombs, rockets, external cannon packages and additional fuel and maybe a torp.

Toward the war end the two outer points can take upto 1000lbs each, with the inner point capable of  2500lbs.

Total package would be limited to about 2700lbs ( a Torp)


Given these mounting points (and the high cockpit nacelle)its gonna have to be a tail dragger.

I guess its gonna have some fowler flaps so we can put some taper on the outer wings and reduce drag at higher speeds but still have some controlable lift at lower speeds.

Unconventionally it would be neat to put twin mg later growing to 20mm cannon  in/on each engine nacelle with ample space for ammo boxes over the gear stowage. They have to fire thru the props.

There may be room for 2 mg under the cockpit nacelle. They are belt fed from space in the front of the inner wing. These will never grow any bigger than 12mm.

So is this little monster twin or single fuselage? A pretty significant choice to leave til last............


Assume its a twin fuselage

I am worried about a "glass" tail. I want strength without weight in each of my engine nacel booms back to the tail.

My looong FAA landing hook is mounted to the rear of the cockpit nacelle.

In fact the hook would not be stowed under any fuselage just lifted clear tucking in a slot between two central elevators.

The vert and horizontal stabs may need to extend quite high depending upon how much the gull wing and high cockpit has up set the "total" wing.

My radio wires extend from the rear of my cockpit to the tip of the tail.

Do I have to have 1 tail wheel or can I have two?:(
« Last Edit: April 13, 2005, 09:00:13 AM by Tilt »
Ludere Vincere

Offline Tony Williams

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 725
      • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Ideal WW2 British multi-role plane?
« Reply #26 on: April 13, 2005, 01:53:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Tilt
Seems fun to play............

Given its multi role I think I would go for the  twin engined variant and choose two the 14 cylinder Taurus attempting to get a counter rotating set up.
 


Did you follow the link in the first message and read the article which kicked this off? :D

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
      • FullTilt
Ideal WW2 British multi-role plane?
« Reply #27 on: April 13, 2005, 05:30:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Tony Williams
Did you follow the link in the first message and read the article which kicked this off? :D

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum



Only the intro.... looks like I wasted a lot of time. Well at least the raised cockpit and twin booms were original.

My pilot had better vis than yours. (and more cannon)
Ludere Vincere