Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: F4UDOA on September 30, 2004, 10:31:29 AM
-
Boards have been a bit slow (for me anyway) and I was trying to think of something different in the way of discussion.
Stricktly IRL if you were an aircraft designer in the 1940's what would you have done differently with the technology available at the time to improve your favorite mount?
I luv the F4U but frankly there are a few things that I will never understand the "why" as to how the thing was built.
For instance
1. The bubble canopy was installed on the FG-1 in mid 1944. Why not continue it in production?
2. Why not use a paddle four blade prop to absorb some of that HP? It would have raised climb by at least a few hundred FPM.
3. Why not use a more elliptical wing shape to reduce induced drag?
4. Why not use a more laminar wing to reduce drag?
Any comments or thoughts? What about your favorite rides?
This is one thread I don't have to worry about being hijacked by the luftwabbles since they think Willie Mess and Kurt Tank were perfect anyway.
Here is the FG-1(F4U-1) with the Bubble canopy.
(http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/FG1.jpg)
-
Definitly some of the anwsers are: "Cheaper or easier to produce"
I wondered why the hell the US was sending Shermans to europe to fight panzers/tigers. Till I saw the total cost/manhours needed to build a tiger compared to a sherman.... 300.000 manhours compared to 25.000 manhours.
Broes
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
1. The bubble canopy was installed on the FG-1 in mid 1944. Why not continue it in production?
I wish I could tell you about that, but it surely would be nice to have bubble canopy for both F4U and FG, but believe they were reject by either Vought Aircraft Company or US Navy(NATC or Naval Air Test Central).
Also, I still do not have a clue about XF4U-3A/XF4U-3B which it is a High Altitude fighter like P-51D and it has turbocharger of P&W R-2800-14, but why did Vought abandon them? The Vought F4U-3 project was abandoned even though Goodyear used it to transform 13 FG-1As into FG-3 which were used as test beds.
Weird thing.
-
Bf109: (F model and forward - I consider the 109 E to be a design disaster and not worth wasting time on)
Improved roll rate. Why this wasnt done before the K4 is beyond me considering they had the excellent example of FW190 to see the advantages.
Improved high speed elevator control. Same..
Earlier adoption of erla haube.
Cleaner mounting of MG131. Galland had an F model with extremely clean MG131 armament mounting, not the big bulges of the G6..
Fixed landing gear geometry. 109 gear is actually wider than spitfire's, but the wheel geometry was off and this gave 109 the bad reputation for ground handling.
Fully enclosed wheel wells.
Internal wing mounted MG151/MK108 cannon.
Most of these improvements were seen on the K series but then it was too late.
New, larger wing with inward retracting gear.
Move draggy under engine oil cooler into the wing radiator spaces.
Less vertical windshield.
Fw190:
Early use of DB603 engine. This really blows my mind. FW was ready to start production of a 450mph top speed 4000fpm climbing FW190 with this engine and 3 cannon, 2 heavy MG armament by late 1942, with service entry in early 1943.... But the powers to be decided aginst it at the time... Instead they only got a slower Jumo powered 190D9 with weaker armament into service 1.5 years later in late 1944...
Bigger wing or a general program of ligtening the plane to counter growing wing loading.
Removal of pointless 7.92mm cowl MG and related ammo and equipment's worth of weight and drag. Could have put a better supercharger in there to help the BMW 801 engine at alt. Could have use space for even more 20mm ammo. Or just left it empty and enjoy seval hundred pounds less weight..
Better flap system for 190.
-
Originally posted by Rafe35
I wish I could tell you about that, but it surely would be nice to have bubble canopy for both F4U and FG, but believe they were reject by either Vought Aircraft Company or US Navy(NATC or Naval Air Test Central).
Also, I still do not have a clue about XF4U-3A/XF4U-3B which it is a High Altitude fighter like P-51D and it has turbocharger of P&W R-2800-14, but why did Vought abandon them? The Vought F4U-3 project was abandoned even though Goodyear used it to transform 13 FG-1As into FG-3 which were used as test beds.
Weird thing.
About High altitude F4Us I've heard that the project was closed due the lack of high altitude japanieese fighers. There wasn't need in it..... thats all - that what I've read is some source.
-
Slighty OT. I've always thought that the US wasted a lot of resources developing different fighters to do the same thing. In 20/20 hindsight, couldn't almost all of the US fighter needs have been met by the F4U? An Air Corps version could have been made by removing the naval equipment of folding wings, etc.; it would then have been much lighter with room for more fuel. With some minor mods versions of it could have served in the place of the P-38, P-51, and P-47, thus saving lots of development efforts.
Of course at the time different companies were develping their fighters for different reasons, so no one could have known that in the end one fighter could potentially meet all the needs of the US.
ra
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/245_1096562670_me309b3men.png)
:D
Seriously though, I'd stiffen up the wings of the 190 to get rid of those nasty snap rolls, and add slats to help with high AoA handling. Depending on theatre of operation I might add a high-alt blower instead of the mid-alt one. Other than that the 190 series was pretty much perfect for its time.
-
I really dont like that fake design.
-
Why not?
-
Bent wingtips, elongated spinner, weird nose profile for a DB engine, central cowl cannon, oil cooler scoop, radiator shape, canopy design and position, Me262 tail surfaces etc.. Intrestingly enough it doesnt seem to have alierons, instead it looks to have spoilers for roll control..
Basically it looks odd to me.
-
Good stuff,
Gscholz,
Is that a real A/C or a concept drawing? Looks Italian to me.
GRUNHERZ,
I know what you mean with the fully enclosed wheels. The F4U-1 did that with the tail wheel and arrestor hook. When they finally closed it, it gained about 10MPH. WTF were they thinking about?
The people who built the Spit should be beaten. That radiator cost them dearly. And they had the Mustang to copy all along. I'll never understand.
Rafe,
The reason I have ever heard for the F4U-3 not being in production is that the F4U-4 was very close in performance and was cheaper, lighter and had the mechanical turbo charger which wasn't as tempermental as the supercharger so they went with the F4U-4 instead.
RA,
I think it would have done great in Europe but they would have had to raise the critical alt to combat 109's above 25K. Also the cruise on the F4U would have suffered unless heavy DT's were used. It didn't have the internal Fuel capacity of the P-47.
FYI, It was General George Marshall that squashed the F4U being used in Europe BTW. They were going to use it prior to D-Day to destroy V-1 sites with Tiny Tims but the Army was fighting the Navy almost as much as the Germans. So Marshall squashed the plan siting his quote "No Jarheads in Europe" plan. This is written about in Barret Tillmans book on the F4U. That is why the Navy tested the F4U against the FW190 prior to D-DAY. Marshall really screwed up some interesting dogfight stories I'd say.
-
I wish my P-51 would have heavier firepower than the .50 cals as well as armor plating behind the pilot.
-
I think it would have done great in Europe but they would have had to raise the critical alt to combat 109's above 25K. Also the cruise on the F4U would have suffered unless heavy DT's were used. It didn't have the internal Fuel capacity of the P-47.
Yes, it would have needed better lungs for Europe. I don't know if there was any way to do that without adding significant weight.
But it probably could have carried much more fuel in the wings than the 120 gallons of the F4U-1 with all the folding hardware removed. Republic managed to put a lot of fuel in the new Jug wings of the P-47N.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
GRUNHERZ,
The people who built the Spit should be beaten. That radiator cost them dearly. And they had the Mustang to copy all along. I'll never understand.
Even without the mustang they had the mosquito to look at with its wing LE mounted radiators. And those early mosquitos were faster than early spits..
In fact that really shocks me about the late war German twins, that they didnt copy the mosquito radiators. Heck even the P38 could hacve benefited from his setup.
I imagine the Me410 and He219 could have gained an easy 20mph with such a radiator design.. This woyld really have worked great since the german DB engines were so much cleaner t cowl than merlins - at least until the special low profile merlins designed for the DH hornet.
-
I'd change the RAF sabotage of the Mossie from 1938 through 1943. If they hadn't fought against it all that time there would have been Mossies in the air in 1940 and with a massive ramp up in production there would have been enough to go around by 1942. As it was there were never enough to supply everybody who wanted them. I'd have Curtiss decide to build them too, instead of just thinking about it.
Aircraftwise I would give it a higher priority on getting top of the line Merlins for whichever role it was to be used for. A Mossie FB.VI with Merlin 66s would be awesome.
I would also have the cockpit designed along German or American lines. The Fw190 and P-51 have incredibly well thoughtout cockpits compared to the adhoc crap the British put together. Only the P-38 stands out as having a worse cockpit layout than the Mossie.
-
The brits didnt sabotage anything compared to the RLM criminals..
Imagine this thing circa 1940 in its original intended single seat fighter and powered with 1100hp DB601s instead of 600hp jumos.. It was better than contemprary 1100hp Bf110 even with its puny 600hp engines...
(http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/4471/fw187-1.jpg)
Add hypothetical mosquito style radiators and what do you have?
Thats sabotage. :)
-
I would strip the engine out of my 109g10, install some modern performance Jet turbine at atleast 2500 hp, and the channel the exhaust in such a way as to add thrust, u know..like put the stacks under the wings, then install ignitors in the exhaust stacks and turn it into an after burner. Theeen i would take out the 13mm MGs smooth out the cowl, and install two .50 cals in the wing routes that fire through the prop. Replace the canopy with a 262 canopy, take off the pilots amour plate, put in small wing tanks, a 6 blade counter rotating prop with slanted blades to decrease the buffeting, improve the wing slats, install manuvering flaps. and take off all things that could add parasite drag, like the df loop. and istall a radiator that runs along the wings so as to catch the prop wash. then i would reaplace the aluminum and all with titanium, make everything in the cokpit outa carbon fiber, put in a HUD, and targeting computer. And add a 1000 watt sound system with a 120gb HDD how fast u think it would go yall??? atleast 520 mphwith the after burners. To bad im not a good enough drawer to draw it.:( Hope this was an interesting read:aok
-
Fowler flaps for the 190/152.
Apparently the 152 didn't have tinted glass for the gunsight.
Earlier implementation of the 603 like GH said.
The 410 would be perfect but for one detail, it's not in Aces High.
-
Take out the Mg151/20's, drop in Hispano's and you have the best planes of WW2, imo.
Well, unless you could stick Hispano's in an La-7 anyway.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
FYI, It was General George Marshall that squashed the F4U being used in Europe BTW. They were going to use it prior to D-Day to destroy V-1 sites with Tiny Tims but the Army was fighting the Navy almost as much as the Germans. So Marshall squashed the plan siting his quote "No Jarheads in Europe" plan. This is written about in Barret Tillmans book on the F4U. That is why the Navy tested the F4U against the FW190 prior to D-DAY. Marshall really screwed up some interesting dogfight stories I'd say.
Hmmm.....F4UDOA, Did the Navy tested the F4U against the FW190? If so, How it go on the test? Who won? lol
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Bent wingtips, elongated spinner, weird nose profile for a DB engine, central cowl cannon, oil cooler scoop, radiator shape, canopy design and position, Me262 tail surfaces etc.. Intrestingly enough it doesnt seem to have alierons, instead it looks to have spoilers for roll control..
Basically it looks odd to me.
All valid points excep the aileron one. It seems to have flaperons.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Good stuff,
Gscholz,
Is that a real A/C or a concept drawing? Looks Italian to me.
It's someone's wet dream ... i.e. pure fiction.
-
If I were a Curtiss designer and Curtiss wasn't the bloated 'top dog' aircraft company that it was... then I'd have given the P40 the beefier engine it required to stay in the game. As it was, it seemed to be one step behind everything in terms of performance upgrades. Too little too late. I'd make it overkill too early :)
-
Hi F4UDOA,
>1. The bubble canopy was installed on the FG-1 in mid 1944. Why not continue it in production?
It screwed up lateral stability and was dangerous at low speed, which is BAD in a carrier fighter.
>3. Why not use a more elliptical wing shape to reduce induced drag?
At the same speed, it would have given the same lift as the rectangular wing it had. As the F4U's wing span was limited by elevator concerns, an elliptical wing of greater span and equal (or greater) area was impossible.
>4. Why not use a more laminar wing to reduce drag?
That would have sacrificed low-speed lift again, as well as low-speed maneouvrability.
>Any comments or thoughts?
Most things that were never done were never done for a reason ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Grünherz,
>In fact that really shocks me about the late war German twins, that they didnt copy the mosquito radiators.
The Mosquito radiators made the frontal area of the radiators vanish by superpositioning them on the wings' frontal area.
Junkers achieved the same effect by superpositioning the frontal area of the radiators with the frontal area of the engine. That worked for twins and single-engined planes alike - just have a look at the Fw 190D-9.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Rafe,
You never saw the F4U-1D/F6F-3 vrs the FW190A5 report?
Where you been?
Take a look on my website, the P-51B vrs F4U is on there too.
My stuff (http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/)
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one with disgust about the way things were done on our favorite A/C.
I got to thinking about it when I was reading the results of this years Reno Air Races. There are no F4U's in it anymore. Just P-51's, SeaFurys and Bearcats with the occassional Yak. Someone even raced a F4F this year.
I couldn't help but think how much better the F4U would be if you put the outer wing section of the SeaFury on it.
Just think they had this in WW2 and never used it in production.
WHY,WHY,WHY!! I need an answer!
(http://www.insideairracing.com/gallery/history/round/e00_002.jpg)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I really dont like that fake design.
Fake?
(http://www.warbirds.jp/kakuki/kyosaku/17ki/img/photo.png)
-
why did Gruman never put a "modern" prop on the hellcats and stayed with the original 3 blade?
too busy mass producing hellcats?
Bozon
-
They put a 4-bladed prop on the F6F-6, but they decided to go with the F8F instead.
-
Just give me a Mustang Mk.Ia or P-51 (no letter designation was applied) with its four Hizookas, and I'll be as happy as a pig in a mud puddle. ;)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi F4UDOA,
>1. The bubble canopy was installed on the FG-1 in mid 1944. Why not continue it in production?
It screwed up lateral stability and was dangerous at low speed, which is BAD in a carrier fighter.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
HoHun
That would be Goodyear F2G-1/-2 Super Corsair which it has Lateral Stability problem in World War II and I have not heard about FG-1A with Bubble Canopy problems yet, but willing to find out about that. The Goodyear F2G Super Corsair was design to stop "Human Bombs" during Kamikaze attacks and it would probably be most successfully if they ever production early without problems, but too late.
F4UDOA
I believe last time i probably know that F2G did race in 1993 at Reno, Nevada, but bad news that F2G crash then burn and saw the last racing Super Corsair crash into the Nevada Desert.
Things have been change between Corsair and Super Corsair right after year of 1993.
BTW, Thanks for links of F4U/F6F Vs Fw190, interesting read it :)
-
id put a pan above the engine for a pop corn popper, and a radiator powered minifreezer... that'd raise morale!!!
-
I'd have to say stick the P51 D Engine in the P40. Then you'd have the best fighter plane in all of WW2.
-
I know this isnt much of a change but instead of the P38L in the game I want the P38D because of the 37mm which I would help for shooting against bombers and tanks.
Canaris
-
Yes its a fake design, a japanese modeler came up with it on his website.
HoHun I'm not sure thats true. The Jumo style radiators are bigger than the engine.
And this is certainly true when you talk about fitting them to a DB engine.
Also imagine fitting an annular radiator to a Bf109 with DB605, could you do it with the same frontal profile diameter as the current spinner? I dont think so..
-
Originally posted by GScholz
All valid points excep the aileron one. It seems to have flaperons.
I think they are spolilers. Take a look at the model designers drawing.
(http://www.warbirds.jp/kakuki/kyosaku/17ki/img/katamuki.png)
-
Actually, a 190D/Ta with only a nose-103 would be interesting.
-
Would be like the Yak9T, except more ammo, faster but muchless manuverable.
-
replace 2 of the 4 30mm cannon on the ME262 with a setup of
2 30mm
2 20mm
-
Holy crap ... that this is actually real, at least the basic concept of it. Me-309:
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/me309.html
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/me309-1.jpg)
(http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal3/2201-2300/Gal2285_Me-309_Flitton/01.jpg)
(http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/messerschmitt/me309.jpg)
(http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/messerschmitt/me_309.jpg)
-
Me309 as in your last post is very real. But the the other thing you posted is fake.
The real Me309 was a dog, a terrible design. It was much heavier than a late Bf109G but the wing was only a bit bigger. It was basically an extend Bf109 wing, the root chord and taper of both LE and TE are identical to Bf109 wing. It only had a bit of a tip extension. Handling was terrible.
-
To the P-38L-10-Lo, I'd add a Hamilton Standard four blade high activity paddle prop with a 13'6" diameter, and I'd release the 64" manifold pressure restriction (odd, the gage in AH II shows 60", it should be 64", the horsepower difference is significant) and allow 74" @ 3200 RPM.
By the way, the P-38L had tail warning radar, which is included in the weight used to model the plane. Why is it not working, since I have to carry the weight, I'd like to have the weight do its job.
-
You already got a tail warning system.. they are called tracers. And hit sounds.
-
That's easy, a Malcolm hood on my P-51B and 2 hispanos instead of two of the 0.50's.
-
Grun, spoilers are traditionally mounted mid chord on the upper surface of the wing (see the F-4 Phantom). They put them there so that they have more air flow disturbance during high speed flight.
I think they would more properly be called flaperons in this case.
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
Grun, spoilers are traditionally mounted mid chord on the upper surface of the wing (see the F-4 Phantom). They put them there so that they have more air flow disturbance during high speed flight.
I think they would more properly be called flaperons in this case.
I belive this color diagram illustrates TWO alternative roll control setups. Notice the short dark blue and dark red arrows showing the intended roll direction (the right wing lifts up, the lefty wing drops and the airplane rolls to the left).
Look at the top color drawing, it shows a standard plane with standard ailerons in blue and flaps in red. The ailerns are drawn in moved positions. They are shown to influence the airflow stram arrows to initiate rolls. Everything is prettyu standard.Notice this drawing does not have spoliers.
Next look at the lower of the two color drawings. Its a totally different plane, notice the bent up wing tips on tis one - its like the 3 view drawing plane. What are the llittle blue tabs, mounted mid chord, on the top surface of the wing? They are spoilers. This drawing does not have any ailerons. The flaps are in red. Notice the flaps are darwn in a static position and do not affect airflow. Notice how one of the spoliers is clearly in an elevated position and is shown to affect the airflow straem arrows just in such a way as to roll the airplane. Its using spoliers to control rolls.. Its not showing the flaps as roll control devices - just the spoliers.
The flaps are not flaperons, they are just full span plain flaps according to this drawing.
(http://www.warbirds.jp/kakuki/kyosaku/17ki/img/katamuki.png)
Finally on this 3 view notice that the plane has identical spoilers as the second color drawing above. They are the small rectangales just in front of the flap on the top surface of the outer wing.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/245_1096562670_me309b3men.png)
-
The only change that I would make to my Yak-9U would be to drop the NS-37 in the nose as opposed to the ShVAK.
The Yak-9UT added the NS-37 and 2x 20mm's, but I'm easy going, and could live with just swapping the ShVAK for an NS-37.
-Sik
-
Sikboy I think an even better choice would be to add the IL2's 23mm instead of the 37mm. Much higher ROF and usually ony takes 2 hits to desroy most fighers.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Sikboy I think an even better choice would be to add the IL2's 23mm instead of the 37mm. Much higher ROF and usually ony takes 2 hits to desroy most fighers.
I've considered that, but I think I'd still prefer the 37mm, since it only takes 1 round, and (going from memory) the Prototype 23mm instalation on the Yak-9 only had a 60 round clip. I'd rather have 30 of the 37mm than 60 of the 23. YMMV of course.
Now, what I'd really love is the chance to take them both up and find out which I like better, so that I don't have to guess :p
-Sik
-
All I would do is add a cool LW paint job to the F8F-2 and it would be perfect.
-
All I would do is add a cool LW paint job to the F8F-2 and it would be perfect.
They did. It's called the FW-190A9.
Crumpp
-
Install an engine and prop from the P-82 twin Mustang. Solves the top speed, high altitude speed, and climb rate issues for the P-40 series. Since the P-82 twin Mustang used a V-1710 Allison it should be a bolt in swap.
-
La7 with Ash 71 (2000hp instead of Ash82 1850hp) engine and 4 B20 instead of 3 (as per La9).......fuselage and wings further lightened using alloy construction instead of wood and larger fuel tanks.
The Ash71 was tested on one prototype in 44 but dropped because further development was required and it was not (at that time) under mass production anywhere and the loss in out put retooling an Ash82 line was prohibitive.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Install an engine and prop from the P-82 twin Mustang. Solves the top speed, high altitude speed, and climb rate issues for the P-40 series. Since the P-82 twin Mustang used a V-1710 Allison it should be a bolt in swap.
Are you suggesting that if the P-40 used the same engine as the P-82 and a different prop it could be uber? NOT LIKELY. It was the lead sled, even with a Merlin.
-
Originally posted by ra
Are you suggesting that if the P-40 used the same engine as the P-82 and a different prop it could be uber? NOT LIKELY. It was the lead sled, even with a Merlin.
Merlin in a P-40? Haven't seen one. What the P-40 needed most was about 400-600 more horsepower, and the prop to make use of it. Uber? No, but very competitive.
-
I think that the P-40F had a Merlin.
-Sik
-
The British "Hawks" has Merlins didn't they?