What aircraft (any side) would you develope further

[Krabat42]

I read somewhere that there was a project to put in a Griffon into the Mustang airframe. The engine would have been in the CoG and the Cockpit moved up front right behind the prop. Does anyone have a picture of this? Maybe an artist's impression. I doubt there was even a mockup, it was probably a paper project only. But it would have looked cool, I think.

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

The Brewster Buffalo would have been a good plane to be developed further. It had a lot of potential.

[kool kitty89]

The Fins sort of developed it further as they modified their 44 Bufalos to increase effectiveness. I think they alteredengine to increase reliabillity and they beefed-up the armament to .50 cal (which the prototype had used but had been deleted to save weight). That and the determination and skill of the Finish pilots gained the aircraft the highest kill ratio of the war with 496 kills (both Russian and German) and only 19 losses of the 44 they had, though the Fins had to have had this kind of strenght to hold out so long with the small force they had.

quote: "Brewsters were also popular within the FAF because of their long range and endurance, and their good maintenance record. This was due in part to FAF mechanics, who solved a problem plaguing the Wright Cyclone engine by inverting one of the piston rings in each cylinder, thus enhancing engine reliability. Note that the Finnish aircraft dispensed with most of the US Navy gear such as a life raft, resulting in a considerably lighter aircraft."

The Buffalo also suffered from poor construction quality so they generaly werent that durrable. The Fins had more sucess then the US usere because the Fins developed special tactics to play to the craft's strengths. The cockpit was roomy and was pleasant to fly even visibility was good as the canopy allowed nearly 360 degree vision like a bubble canopy with ribs.

quote: "The F4F-1 began as a unbuilt biplane design entered in a US Navy competition, being beaten by the monoplane Brewster F2A-1 design. This resulted in its complete remodeling into the monoplane XF4F-2.[1] This was evaluated against the Buffalo, but although the XF4F-2 was marginally faster, the Buffalo was otherwise superior and was chosen for production.[1]. Grumman's prototype was then rebuilt as the XF4F-3 with new wings and tail and a supercharged version of the Pratt & Whitney R-1830 "Twin Wasp" radial engine.[1][2] Testing of the XF4F-3 led to an order for F4F-3 production models, the first of which was completed in February 1940."

Overall, in its best configuration, it compares favorably to the wildcat (and certainly better than the F4F-1 or 2 proposals), the speed, range and ceiling of the F2A were only somewhat lower, the armament was the same in many F4Fs (4x .50 cal), the wildcat could carry rockets or bombs, but the buffalo had better visibility. The little Buffalo was a pretty decent fighter, though both it and the wildcat were outclassed by the newer Japanese fighters like the A6M Zero and it stayed that way until the Hellcat and Corsair came on the scene.



As a note on bubble canopies, though the first "true" bubble canopy (non-segmented glass) was used in the Hawker Tempest, the P-38 and P-39 both had good all-around vision capabillities with what I'd still call bubble canopies despie them not being one-peice, and these were first constructed in 1939, long before the advent of the Tempest or the retrofitting of the "bubbletop" P-47s. The A6M also had a symilar bubbleish canopy but with caged supports on the glass.

The Brewster also looked quite menacing when met head-on.

[kool kitty89]

Now that I look again, I was wrong about the range, guns, and bombs, the F2-A3 Buffalo had the same armament and bomb capasity , and the Buffalo had about a 1000mi range, while the wildcat had only about 800mi in any version. The only major advantage of the Wildcat was that it was tough, like the P-47 Thunserbolt, the Wildcat could be riddeled with bullets and torn to shreads and still make it home (though fighting in such condition wouls have been suiside)

The Japanese ace Saburo Sakai describes the Wildcat's ability for absorbing damage:

“ I had full confidence in my ability to destroy the Grumman and decided to finish off the enemy fighter with only my 7.7mm machine guns. I turned the 20mm. cannon switch to the 'off' position, and closed in. For some strange reason, even after I had poured about five or six hundred rounds of ammunition directly into the Grumman, the airplane did not fall, but kept on flying. I thought this very odd - it had never happened before - and closed the distance between the two airplanes until I could almost reach out and touch the Grumman. To my surprise, the Grumman's rudder and tail were torn to shreds, looking like an old torn piece of rag. With his plane in such condition, no wonder the pilot was unable to continue fighting! A Zero which had taken that many bullets would have been a ball of fire by now.

[The Basket]

Gloster F.5/34

Now that interesting.

Aint it funny that the RAF based both new fighters purely on the Merlin engine...what would have happened if it was a dog?

Like the Vulture or the Napier Sabre?

Then I bet the Gloster fighter would have got the nod.

[F4F Wildcat]

I would have liked to see how the J7W2 Shinden would have done.
I've been going nuts over the original. It's a beautiful machine, just needs work. Had the second one even been designed?

[kool kitty89]

They also had a jet version in mind but engines were not ready by the end of the war. It was actually designed to use the piston engine untill turbojets became available and swap out the engines when they did. The airframe was designed to acomedate a jet engine with little or no modification, save maby the engine mount. It ws intended to use the 1984 lbf Ne-130 axial-flow turbojet wich I think was a copy of the 004 engine, either way this engine was never completed before the war's end.

[delcyros]

Does anybody know something of the in-flight behavior of the J7W? I suppose that the layout would produce some tricky low speed attitudes (landing approach at very high angles of attack cannot be avoided).

[Marshall_Stack]

How about putting Allison engines on the YB-40? The XB-38 is a Fortress with the 1710 engines and it proved to be faster than a contemporary B-17F. The problem with the YB-40 is that it was too slow, especially after everyone dropped their bombs. Lockheed Vega built both of these airplanes. The YB-40 was an interim solution until longer ranged P-47 and P-51s arrived on the scene.

[Civettone]

I would have loved the Bf 109Z fly. That could have been the ultimate Zerstorer until the arrival of the Me 262.
Other axis aircraft which never got a chance are the Do 317, Do 26, He 119, Fw 187, Lippisch P 20 and the Italian Caproni Ca 331. These are basically all could have beens, though there are also aircraft which could have been altered but weren't. On the German side this doesn't seem to have been so frequent as they had the nasty habit of trying out every aircraft with all engines and in every variant possible

But here's one ... the Fw 190C. Will never believe that it would have taken Tank until Autumn 1944 to start producing this aircraft which had the same engines as the Me 410 and Do 217M which were operational by 1943.

Kris

[kool kitty89]

I totally agree about the FW-187, it was far better than the BF-110 and should've never been forced to switch engines and add another seat, even with the crippling redesign it was still better. In its original configuration, it was awsome, great firepower, outclimbing and diving the 109, good agility, great range, its sad the way it was overlooked. Its appearance in the battle of britain would have possibly turned in the German's favor. It was comparable to the P-38 and the mosquito.

There were a few great Russian aircraft that never got a chance the M.I.Gudkov Gu-VRD
ws a good small jetfighter and the airframe was tested with good results, too bad the engine was canceled. Gu-VRD
Also the Borovkov-Florov "Izdeliye D" was a nice design, but it was interrupted by the war, though cockpit visibillity doesn't look great. IzdeliyeD or Borovkov D

see also COMBATSIM.COM: Lost Aircraft, Part 2

and here's a list of many unappreciated or underrecognized craft Charles Bain home page

The Italian Reggiane Re.2007 also looks like a good design, but the Germans never delivered the engines. Re.2007

The Bell XP-59 (the varient of the XP-52, not the Airacomet) was also a good design, with 20 degree swept wings, about 1000mi range, and a top-speed of 450mph, it's ironic that it was canceled because of the Airacomet, since it had better performance. With its nose-mounted air-intake and pusher configuration, it doesn't look too had to convert to a jet, though a twin-engine configuration would be more difficult, maby one over and one ubder the fusalage so they would be over and under the tailplane. It also looked eerily symilar to the Focke-Wolf Flitzer Flitzer

Fock-wolfe had a few other twin-boom pusher designs including one that looked eerily symilar to the Vampire, the FW-198.

Below the FW-198 (2), wind-tunnel model of the XP-59, and the Flitzer

[kool kitty89]

Here's an example of the stacked orientation of engines that could be used, though a sise by side configuration might work too. Either way a single endine with a raised tailplane would be best for the XP-59 (though there wasn't a powerful enough engine available at the time to allow this)

[Civettone]

Hi Kitty
- Re.2007 was a hoax, it was designed after the war.
- The Fw 198 probably falls in the same category. Some - the Dutch? - claim it was derived from an aircraft by the Dutch firm De Scheldt.
- The Flitzer is a favourite of mine. It was designed to fly with the HeS 011 engine but in fact it was too heavy and expensive, so the Germans later on preferred the Ta 183. What I find more interesting about the Flitzer project is that it was also to be powered by one of their first TL engines, a turboprop.

Kris

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by Civettone

Hi Kitty The Fw 198 probably falls in the same category. Some - the Dutch? - claim it was derived from an aircraft by the Dutch firm De Scheldt.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...21-a-8538.html (De Schelde S.21)

[V-1710]

P-63 King Cobra. That was one plane that I never heard anything but praise from those who flew it. What of the Arado Ar. 234B?