Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Tony Williams on April 07, 2005, 02:39:55 AM
-
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 (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Very interesting. I think I would go with a push-pull engine configuration. Might help to save room for carrier operations. Though visibility would be reduced.
-
Sounds like the F7F....
IMO the F7F would of dominated on all fronts if it had been put into service in 1944 (which was possible). Clearly superior to any other prop driven plane of the period in overall capability. 4 x 20mm, 4 x .50 ~435 mph topspeed. payload the size of a medium bomber and easily capable of out turning/dogfighting an F6F...basically a P-38 on steroids. Amazing to think the british could have had something similiar so much earlier....
-
Wouldn't the DH Hornet fit the profile? Operated by both RAF and RN as a land based and carrier based aircraft.
Too bad they couldn't get there sooner since it's in many ways an offshoot of the Mossie.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
could have been the deHavilland Vampire if the government hadn't been so anal with the development of the Jet engine ;) :D
-
Originally posted by humble
Sounds like the F7F....
IMO the F7F would of dominated on all fronts if it had been put into service in 1944 (which was possible). Clearly superior to any other prop driven plane of the period in overall capability. 4 x 20mm, 4 x .50 ~435 mph topspeed. payload the size of a medium bomber and easily capable of out turning/dogfighting an F6F...basically a P-38 on steroids. Amazing to think the british could have had something similiar so much earlier....
Yeah, I read Tony's article and was surprised by the fact that he chose not to include the F7F in the comparison. After all, it met every requirement--range, air cooled engines, ground attack, high alt fighter, torpedo carrier, night fighter, etc. and could be operated from an Essex class carrier.
If one drops the requirement for twin engines, then the F4U Corsair could have been the right plane at the right time. If they had seen the need, it would almost certainly have been possible to hang a torpedo under the wing root of a corsair--they put pretty much everything else imaginable there!
-
Tony said 1940 I think the F7F is a pretty late design.
Btw have you any pict Tony ?
(plus the SE100 is really smurfy)
-
Hi Tony,
>If you could design one additional aircraft for the RAF/FAA, to be in full squadron service by 1940, what would it look like?
Interesting thought experiment! :-)
The the Gloster G.39 the same as the F5/37? It seems its primary engine choice were Peregrines, just as for the the Whirlwind. (Are you certain that the 360 mph top speed is for the Taurus variant?)
I don't know much about the Taurus engine, but from the Wikipedia article it doesn't seem like a competetive fighter engine with 1065 HP at 5000 ft for 5 min power.
Higher octane fuel would give higher take-off power, but at combat altitude the Taurus would still be weak. Adding a more effective supercharger could raise full-throttle height only at the expense of shaft power, so you'd end up with a poor fighter engine anyway.
For carrier-based ground attack operations, on the other hand, the Taurus might be an excellent choice. It appears that the Seafire was predominantly equipped with low-altitude rated Merlins similar in altitude characterstics to the Taurus.
With regard to the long-range air superiority fighter, I don't believe that role could have been played by a carrier-capable twin in 1940. With the shortcomings of the Taurus, I'd rather try to get a single-engined, Merlin-powered long-range fighter into service - less weight, less drag, less production strain. Hindsight regarding the success of the Mustang validates this idea ;-)
As a bomber destroyer, a carrier-capable twin might be feasible, but again, not with Tauri. (I think you're probably underestimating the weight impact of designing an aircraft for carrier operations, but even a relatively heavy type like the Me 110 would have helped the RAF greatly in the Battle of Britain.)
For a carrier-capable twin, I'd suggest an aircraft laid out like the Heinkel He 219, but smaller and considerably lighter. The tricycle gear appears like a must for safe carrier operations, and it will also help in short-field landings. High-lift devices will be required for short-field and carrier take-offs in any case. Until the Hercules comes along, the only British engine I spontaneously can think of as competitive is the Merlin, so it will be inline-engined.
Without the benefit of hindsight, I'd have been tempted to suggest a lengthened, drop-tank equipped, Vulture-engined Whirlwind variant, but knowing the fate of the Vulture, I'll stay of that one :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Wouldn't the DH Hornet fit the profile? Operated by both RAF and RN as a land based and carrier based aircraft.
Too bad they couldn't get there sooner since it's in many ways an offshoot of the Mossie.
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 (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
The the Gloster G.39 the same as the F5/37? It seems its primary engine choice were Peregrines, just as for the the Whirlwind. (Are you certain that the 360 mph top speed is for the Taurus variant?)
It was designed to F.9/37. Two prototypes were produced and flew, the first with the preferred Taurus which did 360 mph, the second with Peregrines which did only 330 mph (both speeds at 15,000 feet). The Taurus-engined version also had a faster climb rate and a higher ceiling (30,000 feet).
I don't know much about the Taurus engine, but from the Wikipedia article it doesn't seem like a competetive fighter engine with 1065 HP at 5000 ft for 5 min power.
It was selected for a number of fighter projects in the mid-30s (it was specifically designed for that), but Bristol neglected its development in favour of the Hercules. If an important plane used it, of course, that might have been different...
With regard to the long-range air superiority fighter, I don't believe that role could have been played by a carrier-capable twin in 1940. With the shortcomings of the Taurus, I'd rather try to get a single-engined, Merlin-powered long-range fighter into service - less weight, less drag, less production strain. Hindsight regarding the success of the Mustang validates this idea ;-)
I'm not sure that the Taurus had shortcomings, apart from the usual teething problems. It basically used the same design features as the Hercules and Centaurus.
As a bomber destroyer, a carrier-capable twin might be feasible, but again, not with Tauri. (I think you're probably underestimating the weight impact of designing an aircraft for carrier operations, but even a relatively heavy type like the Me 110 would have helped the RAF greatly in the Battle of Britain.)
The idea would be to introduce the plane as an RAF fighter, in full squadron service in time for the BoB. Then when a need arose for a ground attack plane, it could be offered for that purpose in, say, 1941. Then after being well-established in both roles a navalised version could be offered in 1942. The FAA was desperate for decent planes and might have found it hard to resist...
For a carrier-capable twin, I'd suggest an aircraft laid out like the Heinkel He 219, but smaller and considerably lighter. The tricycle gear appears like a must for safe carrier operations, and it will also help in short-field landings. High-lift devices will be required for short-field and carrier take-offs in any case. Until the Hercules comes along, the only British engine I spontaneously can think of as competitive is the Merlin, so it will be inline-engined.
The FAA seemed happy to go along with taildraggers in the Hornet and even the postwar Wyvern.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Wasn't the Wyvern the only turboprop combat aircraft ever being used in anger? I read that somewhere... Hmmm, that cannot be true when I think of the AC-130. Were there more?
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams
I'm not sure that the Taurus had shortcomings, apart from the usual teething problems. It basically used the same design features as the Hercules and Centaurus.
In the Beaufort the Taurus was pushed to 1130hp (XII) and some sources claim 1250hp for the Taurus XX. Anyway, it's developement was never really pushed forward like the developement of the Hercules which grew from 1375hp to about 2000hp.
gripen
-
Wasn't suggesting the F7F as a possibility for the time frame, simply remarking how your "vision" was eventually developed as the F7F. I'm just amazed that the plane gets no "ink" or credit since it wasnt deployed....even though it is a true 1944 fighter unlike the bearcat or other late war "experimental" planes from other nations.
When you think about having 1 plane that could be both land and carrier based. Be the dominant air to air fighter of its time and the dominant ground attack plane as well and not deploying it simply because you dont need it...
Didnt happen again till the F-14 tomcat where you had a plane that dominant....
Hope we get it in AH someday....
-
Hi Tony,
>]It was designed to F.9/37. Two prototypes were produced and flew, the first with the preferred Taurus which did 360 mph, the second with Peregrines which did only 330 mph (both speeds at 15,000 feet). The Taurus-engined version also had a faster climb rate and a higher ceiling (30,000 feet).
Thanks! 15000 ft for the Taurus version, hm, that's not in line with the data from the Wikipedia article.
>It was selected for a number of fighter projects in the mid-30s (it was specifically designed for that), but Bristol neglected its development in favour of the Hercules. If an important plane used it, of course, that might have been different...
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 FAA was desperate for decent planes and might have found it hard to resist...
I know, there's no other explanation for the Seafire ;-)
>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.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Umm.. the Westland Whirlwind was an ideal aircraft for multi-role.
Too bad the peregrine engines never got perfected for it :( Beautiful plane.
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
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 (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
Hell, even the XF5F wouldn't have been around in 1935. But that would be my starting point.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Hell, even the XF5F wouldn't have been around in 1935. But that would be my starting point.
-Sik
HAWKAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
-
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.
-
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?
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 (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
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)
-
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 (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
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 (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
I'd stick a turbo supercharger in something that looks a whole lot like an F16c.
-pellik
-
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?:(
-
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 (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
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 (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
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)