Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: VooWho on December 31, 2006, 12:12:57 AM
-
Saw this neat carrier airplane in my book and found out that it came in service during WW2. I'm not asking for this plane in AH, because 1) Only 69 built and 2) few saw service. This plane the Ryan FR-1 Fireball just looks really cool. Its a pretty neat design as that it has a piston engine combined with a turbojet, using both powerplants to take-off, climb, and go to combat. It could fly and land with either engine shut down. The first squadron to use the Fireball was the VF-66 Squadron in March 1945, and last delivered Fireball was to VF-1E in June 1947.
Specifications:
Crew:1
Powerplant: one 1007kW (1350hp) Wright R-1820-72W radial engine in the nose, and one 726kg (1600Ib) thrust General Electric J31-GE-3 Turbojet engine in the tail
Dimensions: Wingspan 12.19m (40ft); length 9.85m (32ft 4in); height 4.24m (13ft 11in)
Weight: 5296kg (11,652Ib) loaded
Armament: four 12.7mm (0.50in) machine guns
My question is; If the Ryan FR-1 Fireball was to see more action during WW2 against japanese fighters, how would it do against Zero, Frank, and other famous jap fighters. If it had seen more action and more were built do you think it could or would have been added to AH? Any other info on this airplane would be nice to. :aok
-
This is something new...
Combo prop and jet... wonder hown many other planes with this setup were tried...
other than the B-36 that is
-
Here some pictures of the Ryan FR-1 Fireball.
(http://www.windcanyonbooks.com/images/Ryan3A.jpg)
(http://www.windcanyonbooks.com/images/Ryan3B.jpg)
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/p290.jpg)
(http://samoloty.webd.pl/amerykanskie/fr1.jpg)
-
"jap fighters"
There are some pictures and a little history of the aircraft here (http://avia.russian.ee/air/usa/ryan_fireball.html). The engine intakes are in the wing roots. The top speed is listed as 426mph. It must have taken a lot of work to keep it maintained and flyable. Presumably it would be used in the same way as America's other late-war carrier aircraft, using high-speed passes, snapshots, keeping fast. Perhaps if the design specification had called for an air-to-ground role it might have had a future, instead of being outlasted by the Corsairs.
I'm sure there have been other piston/jet hybrid designs. The only one that springs to mind is the AJ-1 Savage (http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/newa2_2.html) . "An AJ–1 was powered by two R–2800 piston engines and a single J33 jet engine in its tail. The jet engine was used only for heavy takeoffs from a carrier, evasive action in combat, and for speed over the target" according to this (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/aj.htm). And there is this (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/ssm-n-4.html) familiar-looking cruise missile prototype. Also, Vangelis, the Greek synthesiser musician - he was propelled along with a mixture of piston and turbojet power.
And there were several one-offs built during WW2 in order to test jet engines; the Jume 004 was tested on a Bf 110 fuselage, which might be an interesting perked addition to Aces High. Conversely the first Me 262 prototype was fitted with a piston engine, which would be a fascinating thing to see although probably not to fly.
-
The hybrid Prop/Jet came about for the Navy because early jet engines were unsuitable for carrier operations but the Navy still saw a need for faster planes.
Prop planes were nearing the limits of their speed potential because they had reach a point where they lost efficiency due to their tip speeds becoming supersonic.
Jet engines, especially the early ones, were terrible at slow speeds but the faster they went the faster they wanted to go. You can see this in the AH 262, crappy acceleration but once fast it'll stay fast.
The very low static thrust of the early jets made them difficult to launch from a CV and they were unreliable, prone to flameouts, had lousy fuel specs, and the spool-up time (time from having the throttle at idle to producing full power) was long. While these issues were important when shore based, they were critical operating off a CV. The poor static thrust could be assisted by catapult launch but the slow spool-up time was an absolute killer during landings and made the early pure-jet fighters almost impossible to land safely. Give a prop gas and you get almost immediate power but that's not true for a jet. Spool-up time improved but remained a problem even after Korea when the Navy fully switched to an all jet fighter fleet. It still can cause problems today even with afterburners.
Combining the two engines sounds like a good idea but they're really pretty incompatible. The prop has to lug around a jet engine producing little thrust at low speeds while the jet engine has the drag of the piston engine and propeller so neither engine really operated at it's full potential.
There were several other planes that added jets to what were essentially prop designs including the P2V and B-50 but it never was a very useful combination.
-
it was a nice combo on the B-36.
or maybe not, but i just loves me my B-36:aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok
-
Is it just me or is "Fireball" an unfortunate name for a warplane? ;)
-
LoL it does.
-
Originally posted by mussie
This is something new...
Combo prop and jet... wonder hown many other planes with this setup were tried...
other than the B-36 that is
The Lockheed P2V Neptune and Fairchild C123 Provider spring to mind.
-
Didn't see action. As such, that kinda disqualifies it in HTC's eyes (as well as many players).
I'm familiar with this plane, however. If HTC ever decided to do an "extended war what-if" thing then this would surely be a candidate.
p.s. They tested it by landing it on carriers with either the prop engine or jet engine shut down and it performed fine both ways. From what I've read it did indeed recieve some benefit from both engines, one providing advantages at lower alts with the other providing advantages at higher. I suppose one has to put it in context with comparing it to the contemporary prop planes of it's day and not the jet fighters that shortly followed.
-
I've seen data for the Fireball, and while it was generally inferior to the late-war fighters up high (such as the F4U-4, F8F-1 and F7F-2N), it was plenty fast down low. As much as 399 mph at sea level, but not much faster at 426 mph up at 18,100 feet. Climb was excellent down low, with an initial climb rate of 4,800 fpm from sea level. Climb fell off some above 12,000 feet and it required 5.6 minutes to get to 20,000 feet, which means it averaged just under 3,600 fpm over the 20k climb. Not bad... Better than the F6F-5 or Sp-51D.
Wing loading was pretty darn good at 36.2 lb per sq/ft at normal takeoff weight. The Fireball was also fitted with a laminar flow wing design. Navy tests showed that it was highly maneverable, fitting in between the FM-2 and F6F in turning ability. Pilots who had the chance to fly the Fireball, liked it very much. It did remarkably well in its carrier quals.
Overall, it would be a monster in the game, where most combat is at low level. It would turn better than the F6F-5, Climb better than an F4U-4 and run down a Tempest in short order. It would be a beastie. Its only real weakness is FM-2 quality guns.
Unfortunately, the first operational squadron was still not yet been released for combat when Japan surrendered. Therefore, we will never see it in the game.
My regards,
Widewing
-
To bad we coudn't see it in the game, but man one hell of a plane. Thanks for that info.
-
"(The climb rate was) Better than the F6F-5 or Sp-51D."
Sp-51D? You have Spitfires on the brain.
-
Originally posted by Apeking
"(The climb rate was) Better than the F6F-5 or Sp-51D."
Sp-51D? You have Spitfires on the brain.
No monkeyboss, I have a typo...
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Arlo
They tested it by landing it on carriers with either the prop engine or jet engine shut down and it performed fine both ways. From what I've read it did indeed recieve some benefit from both engines, one providing advantages at lower alts with the other providing advantages at higher. I suppose one has to put it in context with comparing it to the contemporary prop planes of it's day and not the jet fighters that shortly followed.
With all due respect "fine" is not a recognized test and evaluation term. Just for comparison the T-2C Buckeye was almost identical in weight, and a straight wing but had about 6K Lbs of thrust. I have absolutely no doubt that the plane was very capable around the CV with just the prop but the jet alone would be less than marginally satisfactory for CV landings (actually downright scary) and then only in an emergency and probably even then they'd divert it ashore if possible. As a backup the jet engine had the glow of "the next big thing" and would have been considered ideal by single-engine prop guys and but then even test pilots sometimes see what they want to see.
Comparing the planes to older WWII designs it does show advantages but then so do most of the planes that began development during the war but didn't arrive until afterward like the planes Widewing mentions and one of my favorites the Spad with 8K ordnance loadout plus four 20mm cannons it would be a hellofa JABO. Also, the McDonnell Phantom flew for the first time in Jan 45. For the reasons I mentioned and the rapid progress of pure jets composite power was neither beast nor fowl and was a dead end.
I did a little checking and there are several other interesting composite powered aircraft by both the Navy and USAF after the Fireball. Ryan followed up with the Darkshark which replaced the radial engine with a turboprop along with the pure jet. Pretty unique looking plane. There were also the Convair XP-81, Grummand XTB3F-1 and Curtis XF-15. Link (http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Ryan-FR-1_XF2R-1/FR-1_XF2R-1.htm) For you LA7 freak check this one out Link (http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/La-7S/La-7S.htm) , now this is just the sort of thing we need :O
-
Originally posted by Apeking
"(The climb rate was) Better than the F6F-5 or Sp-51D."
Sp-51D? You have Spitfires on the brain.
that or SPADs
(http://www.tayyareci.com/digerucaklar/turkiye/1923ve50/images/spad51.jpg)