What aircraft (any side) would you develope further

[Marshall_Stack]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Why?

The US Strategic Air Force was neither trained nor equipped for night ops in Europe. Secondly, doubling up 8th and 9th AF for night ops would have made for very interesting air traffic/logistics management in terms of planning and preparation - particularly if USAAF decided to fly a mixture of day and night ops from same bases. Imagine the fun co-ordinating with RAF in context of planning and air traffic control.

Early Pacific night ops were a function of necessity as Japanese had control of air over Truk and Rabaul and target definition in harbors was actually feasible as contrasted with typical ETO conditions. But once control of air established USAAF went dominantly to day ops until LeMay changed the game for 20th AF in March 1945.

This may be a debate for a different post, but I think there would be less bomber losses and it would be harder for the Luftwaffe to concentrate all of its fighters to night ops and to respond to all of the targets getting hit. The accuracy of daylight bombing and the Norden bombsight have proven to ineffective. You might as well as area bomb.

I didn't realize that the 9th AF conducted night bombing. I thought they were for tactical support which would have been done during the daylight hours.

[kool kitty89]

Daytime bombing would have worked fine if they'd had a capable escort fighter, but the only one with long enough range was the P-38 and this wasn't available in Europe large numbers until early 1943 (after the battle of midway) because they were needed in the Pacific.

Though by mid 1943, the P-47 would have had enough range with external tanks (a paper ferry tank was used as an intrim measure July through August of '43, though this wasn't verry durable, it did have a large capacity, and was available before steel drop-tanks for the P-47 were)

And I'm not sure why the XP-72 couldn't have been used as an escort fighter. With external tanks since (if I remember correctly) it had a maximun range of 1200 mi, good enough for escort, though it should have been possible to increase fuel-load further. The only reason the P-47J was canceled was to develop the P-72.

Also the moonbat's performance wasn't that great add had an odd armament of six 37mm canonn, the engines were a major problem, but te range was good being well over 2009mi. I guess it would make a good long-range escort-fighter or ground attacker.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Marshall_Stack

This may be a debate for a different post, but I think there would be less bomber losses and it would be harder for the Luftwaffe to concentrate all of its fighters to night ops and to respond to all of the targets getting hit. The accuracy of daylight bombing and the Norden bombsight have proven to ineffective. You might as well as area bomb.

I didn't realize that the 9th AF conducted night bombing. I thought they were for tactical support which would have been done during the daylight hours.

The 9th did not do night bombing - but if the Strategic doctrine changed to area bombing at night, then the concentration of German fighters available for day time defense would have made it very tough on medium bombers (and fighter bombers) over Europe... and speculatively the destruction of the Luftwaffe would not have occurred (enough) by D-Day making that an even more risky venture

The Norden was ineffective when there was cloud cover - and certainly didn't live up to it's reputation in 1942 through mid 1943 until LeMay formulated lead crew doctrine and put the best bombadiers and navigators in lead ships... but at its worst in clear weather it was better than area bombing at night.

[Marshall_Stack]

Originally Posted by drgondog

The Norden was ineffective when there was cloud cover - and certainly didn't live up to it's reputation in 1942 through mid 1943 until LeMay formulated lead crew doctrine and put the best bombadiers and navigators in lead ships... but at its worst in clear weather it was better than area bombing at night.

Using this doctrine, I would have used the Droop Snoot P-38s more often. Less risk of aircrew getting lost and the other P-38s can better defend themselves after dropping their loads. The Douglas Mixmaster would have been great if that could have been developed earlier.

I just don't like losing 10 men on every heavy bomber that goes down...

[renrich]

That was the idea, Civvetone. The F4U1 carried more internal fuel than the later model Corsairs and had substantially more range than the Jugs used early in the war.

[kool kitty89]

But when P-47s were fitted with external tanks in mid '43 it increased their range enough for escort duty. P-38s already had the range needed for escort, but were needed in the Pacific and didn't enter Europe in large numbers until early '43.

The P-47 also had more development potential as seen in the XP-47J and XP-72 which had top speeds over 500 mph (the XP-72 managed 480 mph at Sea Level) and these figures are better than those of the Super Corsair (which had numerous other problems), but the Thunderbolt variants would still be less agile. The P-72 would have been a good intrim measure for jet-fighters as it was ready for production in early '44

The USAAF had even placed an order for the P-72, but this was cancelled because there was more of a need for escort fighters, like the P-51, not interceptors (which was a major purpose of the P-72). The P-72 would have made a good escort fighter with external tanks, and the range could have been further improved (as well as maneuverabillity) if the P-47N's wings had been fitted to it. (So I'm not sure why an escort varient was not considdered)

With ample speed, excelent armour, and good high-altitude performance, the P-72 would have prooved a stuborn opponent aganst the Me-262.

Though not superior, the craft would still have bridged the speed gap that was the 262's main advantage, and the P-72 had a 6000 ft ceiling advantage, but the 262 would probably have been much more agile, especially at high speeds. This is ofcourse assuming that the P-72 was no more manuverable than the P-47 and that it didn't sport the squared-off wing-tips of the P-47N (which improved roll).

[kool kitty89]

A little off topic, but I just discovered a plane built by HenriConada in 1910 that used jet propultion! Albeit a motorjet, this design was 30 years ahead of its time. Its a shame no one took financial intret in this venture. Still, it was the first designed and built manned jet aircraft and it even took to the air, though this occurnce was accedental and unfortunately resulted in the distruction of the aircraft. It's amazing that such a design was conceived and constructed even before the outbreak of WWI. Also from the figures I've seen the craft's weight was a little under 1000 lbs and the thrust output was around 450 lbf, giving this aircraft a thrust/weight ratio of more than .45 such was not seen by jet aircraft until after WWII. (though seeing the airframe such a high thrust would easily push it past its limit if left at full throttle)

see: Coanda
and Coandă-1910 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[kool kitty89]

I've taken another look at the moonbat's design and with a little modification to the wings two J33 turbojets could be installed as engines possibly bringing acceptable performance as a heavy jet fighter. It may also have made a good attack aircraft with its 6x 37mm cannon. I'm not sure what range would be like though.

The XP-83 Airacomet II would also have been a good design to develop. Though it was underpowered with early I-40 engines, uprated 4,600 lbf J33 engines would have helped, improving Thruft/Weight from .29 to .33, possibly getting it up to 560 mph top speed. It wouldn't be usefull in WWII, and though it was outclassed by the Mig-15, produced in sufficient numbers it would have made a better long-range escort fighter than the F-51s or F-82s did in the opening days of the war. Long range was its main advantage (well in excess of 2,000 miles) and not suprising since it was developed to be a long-range penetration fighter for the invasion of Japan's mainland.

[delcyros]

The XP-83 even with uprated engines (15% more thrust are roughly 3.75% speed everything else equal -not adjusted for compressibility effects, which would reduce that even more), so the top speed couldn´t go over 541.5 mp/h with a new top speed of around 535 mp/h beeing reasonable. Not sure, but I suspect the USAAF did best with her P-80.

[comiso90]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

The XP-83 Airacomet II would also have been a good design to develop.

I cant wrap my brain around that.. The Airacomet was at best a transition aircraft. Crunch all the numbers u want, it was a learning tool not worth development.

.

[kool kitty89]

comiso90, I said the XP-83 Airacomet II, not the P-59 airacomet. True, the P-59 was best as a conversion trainer, but the P-83 was sesigned as a long-range penetration fighter for the planned invasion of japan.

Yes the XP-83 wasnt stellar or pretty, but it could have provided long-range escort of B-29s when other jets couldn't. Since the piston-engined F-51 and F-82 were the only planes available for such a task early in Korea, and were completly outmatched by almost any attacking jet (maby not he Yak-15) so any decent jet-powered replacement would have been better. It was the only early jet with a range of more than 2000 miles.

Though if the P-47J or better, the P-72 had been produced, they would have been better intrim measures as they were more fuel efficient than early jets and, with external tanks and the P-47N's wings (with internal tanks) could easily have ranges around 2000 miles. They both had top-speeds over 500 mph, with the P-72's projected at 550 mph at altitude and 480 mph observed at SL. They would also have had better prformance than the P-83, especially the P-72 which test-pilots reported was very agile and had good handeling, which means it was likely better than the Mustang and with the jug's amazing armour and toughness. The P-72 had virtually no development problems and could have been produced in 1944.

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

I just discovered a plane built by HenriConada in 1910 that used jet propultion! Albeit a motorjet, this design was 30 years ahead of its time. Its a shame no one took financial intret in this venture. Still, it was the first designed and built manned jet aircraft and it even took to the air, though this occurnce was accedental and unfortunately resulted in the distruction of the aircraft.

From the site you provided..
Coanda

“Henri Coanda should be known in history as the Farther of the Jet Engine his design (which he made himself) was thirty years before Whittle, yet all the world believes Frank Whittle invented this form of propulsion.”

As you first mentioned, Coanda did not invent a jet engine, but instead what is regarded as a motorjet. Even then he was not the first to come up with this idea.
Motorjet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“The aeroplane was on display in October 1910 at the Second International Aeronautical Exhibition at the Grand Palais in Paris were it caused a great deal of interest..”

A lot of the interest centered not only on the power plant but the airframe. Designers were impressed by its elegance and structural ingenuity. For the first time struts and bracing wires were kept to a minimum, and also for the first time, the aeroplane was completely wooden skinned. This fact and what would later be named after him, the Coanda Effect, was the reason the aircraft burned so readily during the so called ‘trial’.

“…as no one had seen any thing like it before (nor would they for another thirty years!)”.

Not until the Caproni-Campini N.1, as far as motorjets are concerned. Despite the ‘fantastic’ publicity at the time this aircraft is best described by Bill Gunston as “pathetic” and “…had Caproni merely made a normal two-seater with the same piston engine it would have weighed half as much, burned one third less fuel and cruised between two and three times as fast.” (Important to remember that at this time the 'secret’ Heinkel 178 had already flown.)

“How ever after this (the FIRST flight of a jet powered aeroplane) Henri Coanda could not find financial backing to progress with his invention.”

Actually, England’s Bristol aircraft factory employed him as a designer. He produced numerous designs for the firm under the title of Bristol Coanda. If there was promise in the motorjet I feel certain that Bristol would have persevered with Coanda’s help. But it never happened.

The only nation that had some success with the motorjet principle was the Soviet Union. Two designs’ early post war, that utilised what they called the “accelerator” were MiG I-250 and Sukhoi Su-5. However they altered the motorjet concept to include a tractor propeller.
Illustrated is the Su-5.
Engine (9) drives propeller (3) and reduction gear (8). This in turn drives the compressor (22) which forces air past seven fuel nozzle chambers (36) producing thrust. Simple!
Results were promising but the writing was already on the wall, ‘true’ jet engines were the future.

[kool kitty89]

Interesting notes on Conada.

I knew about the Su-5 and I-250. The I-250 actually saw some active service with at least 50 production aircraft built. Another interesting feature of the I-250 was that its jet had a veriable exaust nozzel.

The Su-9 would have been a nice design, and though it looks like the Me-262, and was most likely influenced by it, for the most part it was an indiginous Russian design . It did use a copy of the 004 engine though. Its design was authorized in early 1944. Its performance was comperable to the Me 262. It had the same armament as the Mig 9 of 2x 23mm and 1x 37mm connon and compared quite favorably to the Mig and had much better handeling. Gun placemnt was better than the 262 in the front of the nose rather than the top reducing blinding effects. Though not swept, it had low-profile laminar-flow trapizoidal wings, that had a smaller span and area than the 262's. If anything the Su-9 looked more like the P1065 the prototype preceding the 262 which had symilar wings and a narrower fusalage like the Su-9. It also had a variable-incidence tailplane, a cordite-powered ejetion seat and provisions for RATO and a break parachute.
It didn't enter production for political reasons, particularly Yakolev's agruments aganst it to stallin. The early Yak jets were far inferrior to it as well as the Mig 9, both the Yak 15 and Yak 17 were sub-par aircraft, the Yak 23 was decent but didn't enter service until 1949 by which time the Mig 15 was ready.

see: Sukhoi Su-9 (K) - fighter-bomber
Su-9
Sukhoi Su-9 (1946) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Translated version of http://www.afwing.com/intro/me262/new/1.htm

[Graeme]

Nothing left but wooden models, however A.J. Shcherbakov was on the right track with his vertical lift aircraft of 1946. Designated VSI, which stood for Vysotno-Skorostnii Istrebitel or 'High Altitude and High Speed Pursuit Aircraft'
His drawing office was dissolved in 1947 but the supreme command of the Air Force allowed him to continue his work. It was planned to use Rolls-Royce Nenes as the rotatable engines, however only German BMW 003 engines were available. One source claims that hovering tests began in 1948 but "work was soon halted, conflicting reasons given by different sources".

[kool kitty89]

Another note on the XP-83 is that it was verry dificult to slow down. Due mostly to aerodynamics but also to inadequit flaps and lack of airbrakes. On the positive side this would have made crusing more efficient and reduced speed loss durring maneuvers. However this made landing a major problem, but improvement of flaps and addition of breaks would help.

The Airacomet II actually had pretty decent aerodynamics, especially compared to all the shortcomings of the P-59 Airacomet, but Bell's their fighters the P-39 and P-63 had nice streamlined airframes as well as good canopy visabillity. The P-59 had neither of these, and while I'm unsure behind the reason for the canopy design, the lack of streamlining is due to restrictions placed on the development team, including little information on engine schematics/performance and lack of wind-tunnel use, though some low-speed tunnel testing was done. The designers were basicly forbidden to streamline and were rushed for development time, though not so much as Lockheed was with the XP-80, but unlike Bell, Lockheed had already had experience in jet designs as well as valuable high-speed performance info from working with the P-38 .

So opposed to the P-59, the XP-83 has better aerodynamics, better canopy view, more than twice the range (of P-59B, >4x the P-59A's range) and a better armament. (6x .50 cal BMG or being decided on but later changed to six 0.60-inch T17E3 machine guns in the second prototype. There were provisions for heavier armaments, including 4x 20mm or 37mm cannons making it useful for ground attack. Less conservatively a battery of 20x .50 BMG were considered )

Though as I stated earlier the P-72 would have been a better road to go down for a high-speed (greater than 500mph) long-range/escort fighter. ANd the P-72 would have had the advantages of the Mustangs of being able to take-off from grass/dirt runways early in Korea. Lack of adequit runways for jets was another heavily limiting factor on their apperarance as escorts early in the war. The piston engine fighter would also have had better performance and fuel efficiency, and was much lighter and smaller.