What aircraft (any side) would you develope further

[Engram]

Two British aircraft that it would have been handy to get hold of a bit earlier:

Dr Havilland DH103 Hornet
Martin Baker MB5

The Hornet would give the XP72 a run for its money and had the range to operate in the Pacific Theatre. The MB5 would have stayed with any of the late-model piston-engined fighters.

Oh, and let's not forget the Commonwealth - it looked like a Mustang on steroids.

[eddie_brunette]

what about the lighning, first flight on 27 January 1939. imagine ligtnings at pearl

the me 262 first flight were in April 1941, also what would have happen if they were operational on the russian front from 1941.

also a pipe dream....the p40 airframe with the merlin engine, just see what the merlin did for the mustang

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont really think the Lightning can be included in the list. Only because it was develeped extensivly. Its not about developing ealier but rather being further developed than it was.

[Jabberwocky]

Originally Posted by eddie_brunette

also a pipe dream....the p40 airframe with the merlin engine, just see what the merlin did for the mustang

Errrm, not actually a pipe dream, as they did operate with Merlins. Of the 13,740 or so built, just over 2,000 operated with Merlin engines.

The P-40F and P-40L both flew with Packard Merlin V-1650-1 engine, essentially a licence built copy of the Merlin 28 engine, but built to US tooling measurements and featuring US carburettors and some other detail improvements (as well as a tendency to leak oil).

Performance at atitude was better than with the Allison, but not spectacularly so. P-40Fs topped out at about 365 mph at 20,000 ft, and the lighter P-40Ls about 5 mph faster. Compare this to the 360 mph at 15,000 feet of the P-40D/E and, while better, its not anything to write home about.**

Most P-40Fs unded up serving with the Soviet Union, but 300 or so served with the RAF, RAAF and SAAF.

The fundamental difference between the P-40 experience and the P-51 experience is that while the P-40 swapped its single stage, single speed Allison for a similarly powerful single stage two speed Merlin 28/V-1650-1 engine, the P-51 swapped its single stage, single speed Allision for a more powerful two stage, two speed Merlin 60 family engine.

Some 300 P-40L/Fs were converted back to Allison engines, because of the lack of Packard Merlin engines and spare parts, and their incompatability with the British/Commonwealth supply train (requiring slightly different sized tools and such to work on).

**Just looking through some war time test data, and it seems the RAAF had a hard time getting any speeds above 350 mph out of its P-40Es, even with the Allsions cranked up at the 57" War Emergency Rating. To be fair though, their P-40Fs were 5-10 mph down on their nominal tested speed as well.

Seems to be a common thread with RAAF tests. The P-30F they tested was about 15 mph down on advertised top speed, while their Spitfire Mk VIIIs was about 10 mph slower than given nominal. Might of been something to do with the atmospheric conditions the tests were conducted in.

[eddie_brunette]

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

Errrm, not actually a pipe dream, as they did operate with Merlins. Of the 13,740 or so built, just over 2,000 operated with Merlin engines.

The P-40F and P-40L both flew with Packard Merlin V-1650-1 engine, essentially a licence built copy of the Merlin 28 engine, but built to US tooling measurements and featuring US carburettors and some other detail improvements (as well as a tendency to leak oil).

Performance at atitude was better than with the Allison, but not spectacularly so. P-40Fs topped out at about 365 mph at 20,000 ft, and the lighter P-40Ls about 5 mph faster. Compare this to the 360 mph at 15,000 feet of the P-40D/E and, while better, its not anything to write home about.**

Most P-40Fs unded up serving with the Soviet Union, but 300 or so served with the RAF, RAAF and SAAF.

The fundamental difference between the P-40 experience and the P-51 experience is that while the P-40 swapped its single stage, single speed Allison for a similarly powerful single stage two speed Merlin 28/V-1650-1 engine, the P-51 swapped its single stage, single speed Allision for a more powerful two stage, two speed Merlin 60 family engine.

Some 300 P-40L/Fs were converted back to Allison engines, because of the lack of Packard Merlin engines and spare parts, and their incompatability with the British/Commonwealth supply train (requiring slightly different sized tools and such to work on).

**Just looking through some war time test data, and it seems the RAAF had a hard time getting any speeds above 350 mph out of its P-40Es, even with the Allsions cranked up at the 57" War Emergency Rating. To be fair though, their P-40Fs were 5-10 mph down on their nominal tested speed as well.

Seems to be a common thread with RAAF tests. The P-30F they tested was about 15 mph down on advertised top speed, while their Spitfire Mk VIIIs was about 10 mph slower than given nominal. Might of been something to do with the atmospheric conditions the tests were conducted in.

tx i just learned something

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

Most P-40Fs unded up serving with the Soviet Union, but 300 or so served with the RAF, RAAF and SAAF.

The P-40F and L models were designated Kittyhawk II by the RAF. Australia's 3 Squadron flew them extensively in the Middle East but none received serial numbers, and hence do not appear on the RAAF's inventory.

[Marshall_Stack]

It would have been interesting if the P-40 would have gotten the same two stage, two speed Merlin as the P-51.

I thought I read that Curtiss said that if they had that engine it would have been superior to the P-51. Hard to believe since the airframe was older, didn't have laminar wings or the extra thrust that the P-51 gets from its air scoop and so on...

[MacArther]

If you all are interested in the P40, look up the P40Q, lovely bird, but a bit of a last gasp for the line.

Info
Variants P-40Q

Link to forum page with pics of P40Q

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/air...p40q-3165.html (Request: P40Q)

[Graeme]

[kool kitty89]

The DH Hornet definately had excelent range and probably could outgun the P-72, but it was bulkier (likely less maneuverable), with 2 engines, and it was slower, the P-72's top SL speed was faster than the Hornet's one at altitude!
The P-72 also had a better power to weight ratio, and I'm not sure about toughness but I suspect the P-72's would be better. Though like was said the Hornet would give the P-72 a run for its money.

Though with a projected top speed of 550 mph with the contra-rotating propeller, the P-72 could have gone toe-to-toe with the Me-262.(of course this was a theoretical measurement only, speeds around 520-530 mph being more practical) Even with the standard prop it was on par with the Meteor F-III with a top speed aprox. 506mph.(though was probably more agile due to the restrictions placed on the F-III's airframe)

With the Me-262's performance drop-off approching its ceiling (and its lower ceiling) the P-72 could have outrun or chased it,imagine the confused jet pilot being tailed by it. (this would be especially true if the P-72s were at a higher altitude, concevable due to higher ceiling, gaining speed in dives.)

[machine shop tom]

The Japanese had some promising designs that would have been interesting had they progressed. I'll not include the Shinden or the jet types to keep this post simple.

The Ki 100 was a successful adaptation of the Ki 61 "Tony" to use a radial engine. By all accounts a great performer.

The Ki 84 "Gale". Captured examples bested P-51s and P47s.

The N1K2KJ Shiden "George". Derived from a floatplane and a deadly adversary.

tom

[Civettone]

Why not mix the Ki 100 and the Ki 84? The Ki-116 was a Ki-84 with the same engine as the Ki-100.
In fact, the only fighter aircraft the Japanese needed was the Ki-84 as it was superior to all others AND easier to produce. No need for the Ki-61, J2M or N1JK. The Ki-116 could then have become the standard light fighter side by side with the Ki-84.

After that the Shinden or the first jet fighters were the way of the future.

The Japs had quite a lot of interesting tdesigns actually.
Kris

[Soren]

This baby is what I would've developed further, the Messerschmidt P.1011:


As it was it never got past the prototype stage...

If the Ta-183 could've been fielded that would been great for the Germans as-well. As it was its construction plan had already been worked in detail and the design thuroughly tested in windtunnels, and the characteristics displayed in these tests looked VERY promising. It would've needed automatic leading edge slats or wing fences though to avoid violent stalling characteristics, the same as discovered with the MIG-15.

[Soren]

Here are some great pictures of how the Ta-183 probably would've looked in Luftwaffe colors:

[kool kitty89]

I think you mean the Messerschmitt P.1101. Her's what the original design looked like: Messerschmitt Me 1101 initial concept Quite different from the V1 prototype. The original wing and tail were abandoned and the outer wings from the Me-262 were used along with a conventional tail. I think the variable sweep was for testing only and a fixed-wing was to be used in production. The prototype's small, low-profile canopy also resulted in poor visibility (for a bubble canopy) and would likely need a redesign for the prodution version. But it did have good potential.
see also: Messerschmitt Me P.1101 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was also captured by the US and was served for the basis for the Bell X-5. See: Bell X-5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As for the P-38, by late 1941 the USAAF actually had 13 YP-38s as well as 30 P-38s, (which were armmed with 2x .50 and 2x .30 or 4x .50 cal BMG and 1x 37mm cannon, but not considdered combat capable), and 36 P-38Ds which had improved insterments and self-sealing tanks and armmed with 4x .50 cal BMG and 1x 37mm cannon. So the USAAF did have P-38s by the time of the Pearl-Harbor attack, but the kinks in the design had not been worked out and these aircraft were used primarily for training and work out the bugs, so pilots wouldn't have been fully ready for combat even if they were pressed into serfice as they would still be getting used to the aircraft.

quote: "On 20 September 1939, before the YP-38s had been built and flight tested, the USAAF ordered 66 initial production P-38 Lightnings, 30 of which were delivered to the USAAF in mid-1941, but not all these aircraft were armed. The unarmed aircraft were subsequently fitted with four .50s (instead of the two .50 and two .30 of their predecessors) and a 37 mm cannon. They also had armor glass, cockpit armor and fluorescent cockpit controls.[19] One was completed with a pressurized cabin on an experimental basis and designated XP-38A.[20] Due to reports the USAAF was receiving from Europe, the remaining 36 in the batch were upgraded with small improvements such as self-sealing fuel tanks and enhanced armor protection to make them combat-capable. The USAAF specified that these 36 aircraft were to be designated P-38D. As a result, there never were any P-38Bs or P-38Cs. The P-38D's main role was to work out bugs and give the USAAF experience with handling the type."