Design your own airplane

[PFactorDave]

We already HAD the perfect plane.


It was a shark with a lazer beam on it's head. If not that, then the gatling-armed RV-8.

Beat me to it, but truth none the less.

[1pLUs44]

for some reason I don't believe this statement.  A plane with a 37mm (VERY heavy), can outrun an La7, AND can turn with an FM2...  

If one considers 420 mph at 21,000 feet poor performance. Let's face it, 95% of all engagements in AH2 are below 20,000 feet.

The answer to the La-7 is the P-63A Kingcobra. Similar climb and low-level speed, but the P-63 is nearly as maneuverable as the FM-2. Add four .50 cal MGs and a 37mm cannon.

These two fighters would be very equal except that the La-7 could not afford to turn-fight with the P-63, and the P-63 has a big range advantage, plus the ability to haul a 500 pound bomb (or a drop tank).

So, how fast does the P-63A climb? Well, for comparison, let's look at the F6F-5. It requires 7.7 minutes to climb to 15,000 feet. In contrast, the P-63A can get to 25,000 feet in 7.3 minutes! The P-51D requires near twice as long (13 minutes) to reach 30,000 feet.

When the Soviets first began flying the P-63, they found the tail to be weaker than that of the P-39. Bell developed a kit for strengthening the tail and Bell technicians made field modifications to those planes in service. That change was immediately incorporated into the production line as well.

Pilots who flew the P-63, and had time in the other major U.S. types, generally agreed that the P-63 was far and away the best performer at low to medium altitudes. Not surprising, the pilots flying it at the Joint Fighter Conference differed from rave reviews to outright dislike (the only thing the JFC ever proved was that every monkey prefers his own banana).

Since more than 3,300 P-63s were built, and it saw combat (with the Free French and Soviets) in far greater numbers than the F4U-1C or Ta 152H, I think it would be an excellent candidate for inclusion in the AH2 plane-set someday.

My regards,

Widewing

Edit: P-63C was even faster at low alts IIRC, dont know if it saw service though. 

[BnZs]

I already did this experiment once with X-Plane, before I played AH.

Yeah, it came out looking a lot like an La-7. As much radial engine in as little airframe as possible, highly tapered wings, even slats.

Now you all know my shameful secret.

[Motherland]

A Spitfire MkIX with a wing with standard flaps instead of split flaps, slats, and equipped with 2 Hispanos in the wings. The engine would be replaced with a DB605D, with a MK103 firing through it if space allowed, if not, a Mk108.

[Serenity]

Ill take a Bf-109K-4 with the cowling of the G-14 (Those bulges are sexy), and replace the Mk 108 with an MG-151/20 and mount a pair of MG-151/20s IN the wings. (1 per wing). Thats pretty much it, the Bf-109 is perfect for me as it is except for the light armament.

[mechanic]

a mosquito

[BnZs]

Come on Bat, live a little. At least change the darn engines to counter-rotating types.

[mechanic]

you're right. Lets swap the 4 spud guns for another 4 hispano.
Counter rotars are for helicopters and P38 pansies.

[Serenity]

Counter rotars are for helicopters and P38 pansies.

Well yeah, you Brits could never figure them out! 

[FLOTSOM]

actually mine would be very simple,

it would be a 262 complete and as is from the end of the fuselage forward

mated with the very tail end, including rocket of the 163.

use the 163 rockets to get you up to the stratosphere in seconds, and the 262 engines so you can stay up there all day.

course it wouldn't break my heart if you could remove 2 of the 30mm mk 108's (80 rounds) and replace them with 2 40mm vickers with as much ammo as you could shove inside.

make the 30's and 40's able to fire separately! no sense in chucking 40's at a pony!

if it is allowed by the rules i would sweep the wings back. i would keep the size similar to the traditional 262, but would sweep them back in a manner similar to the 163.

no bomber would ever know another moment of peace or serenity above 10,000 feet again.

both bomber crews and high flying escorts would tremble at the whisper of the name of this evil boy when he comes to town.

sorry i couldn't explain everything as well as you did RAM but i gave you what i could.  

FLOTSOM

[Serenity]

no bomber would ever know another moment serenity above 10,000 feet again.

I disagree. As long as there are BUFFs at 35k, Ill be there!

[Infidelz]

Low altitude, LA7 with a bit more range (20%), drop tanks, and a bubble canopy. 

For High altitude, a pony with 2 nose or wing mounted hispanos and 4 fifties, or a Yak with a bubble, more cannon and drop tanks, or a spit XIV bubble, drop tanks, 4 hispos, and clipped wings.

INFIDEL>

[Saxman]

You know what the problem is when you start kitbashing?

The resulting product never comes out as well as the sum of its parts would lead you to believe. Fighter designs are VERY sensitive and finely tuned. They work the way they do because the parts used were designed to work TOGETHER in a specific way. If you start grafting random parts from different aircraft that were designed for completely different purposes into one airframe all you end up with is a Frankensteinish mess that will more often than not spin itself right into the ground. Just look at the experiments the Allies and Axis ran during WWII doing just that (IE, the XP-75 which cobbled together parts from the SBD, P-51 and F4U). The only aircraft parts that ever proved to be swappable were engines, and often times THAT took substantial work (the cowling of the P-38K test mules had to be completely redesigned to mount the new props and uprated Allison engines).

Just say NO to kitbashing. Design planes on what you want it to DO, not components of Aircraft A, B, and C you happen to like.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

The cowling on the P-38K was only changed for the propellers, the engines had nothing at all to do with it. The larger diameter propellers along with the gear box change required to slow them down required that the propeller centerline be raised a bit. I don't think that the change from electric to hydraulic controls required any real change. No other changes were necessary. The actual changes were so small in fact that the entire production system would have been down for no more than two weeks to put the upgrade into production.

The P-38K would be a good piece for the exercise proposed by this thread. I'd carry it only slightly further. Instead of the three blade propeller, let's go ahead with a four blade version, a bolt on swap. Let's take those engines one more step up, and use the base model that ended up in the P-82, a bolt in swap, hooks right up to the entire exhaust and turbocharger system. Next, make the ailerons slightly larger, to increase roll authority at low speeds, the hydraulic boost will take care of the increased effort at higher speeds. Then substantially increase the radius at the joints where the wing sections meet the fuselages, as was done where they meet the center nacelle in early models. Finally, swap out the M2 Brownings for more 20MM cannons. Five 20MM cannons with 250 rounds each mounted in the centerline should be the most effective fighter gun package around.

[Karnak]

Well yeah, you Brits could never figure them out! 

Actually it was a logistics decision, they didn't want to have to support handed engines.

Of course there was a stupid easy solution to that which was actually used on the Hornet, just have an additional gear in the reduction gearing on one side and presto, prop rotates in the opposite direction.  Did the P-38 use that method or did it have handed engines?