What aircraft (any side) would you develope further

[kool kitty89]

How about a He 177 that uses the same engine nacelle placement but using 4 props and 4 separate drive shafta instead of trying to couple 2 engines on a single driveshaft. One tractor prop driven be the front engine ahead of the wing and a pusher behind the wing beig driven by the second engine in the nacelle. This way it might have passed the RLM and Hitlers requirement of a 2-engine bomber. (unlik the 277)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

If they had scrapped the He 177 idea from the beginning an built it as the He 277 I think it would have been a great bomber with good performance and great bomb load. Could have, should have, would have....

[kool kitty89]

But they wouldn't let Heinkel do that so at least this way it might have a chance of RLM acceptance and more reliabillity. Though the whole ground-attack/dive-bomber requirement was even worse than the 2-engine requirement...

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by renrich

Do you know why the Allison engine was more resistant to battle damage than the Merlin?

I've never seen metrics which clearly position Allison as less vulnerable to Merlin. The Allison, per se, is not 'tougher' than the Merlin (AFAIK) so the coolant system should probably yield the difference?

What occurs to me is that in the ETO, the 51 was doing a lot more sorties at low altitude than the Allison and that in the case of the P-40 and P-38 versus the P-51, the 51 has two points of serious vulnerability - the radiator and the engine compartment - as well as the plumbing in between to transfer the coolant.

If so, that is a design vulnerability not an engine issue? Jes wondering.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

But they wouldn't let Heinkel do that so at least this way it might have a chance of RLM acceptance and more reliabillity. Though the whole ground-attack/dive-bomber requirement was even worse than the 2-engine requirement...

actually the ground attack/dive bomber role caused more weight for the airframe (positive G force increment in structure plus dive brake system) but that would just reduce performance a little bit - not kill the system.

what killed the He 177 as a system was the two engine/one nacelle to theoretically reduce drag - which it did - but in the meantime caused a lot of fires and was never truly solved with twin nacelle design - therefore the 'system' itself was a failure from a mission standpoint.

The pusher/tractor concept might have worked but it would have also added weight by forcing a nose wheel design to get ground clearance for aft props - major redesign.

great aerodynamics/terrible system

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by drgondog

what killed the He 177 as a system was the two engine/one nacelle to theoretically reduce drag - which it did - but in the meantime caused a lot of fires and was never truly solved with twin nacelle design - therefore the 'system' itself was a failure from a mission standpoint.

Exactly. They should have gone with the 4 engine 4 nacelle of the 277 from the beginning.

[kool kitty89]

If they were allowed to... =(

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No one is argueing that. Isn't this about what you would develop further.

[kool kitty89]

Totaly agree, but I did bring up the He 277 earlier in this thread and someone countered that by the time the redesign was ready the main problems with the 177's engines were rectified, but I don't think they ever were... Were they?

From page 13:

Originally Posted by Civettone

130fe, there is also such a thing as an edit button...

Hello Kitty, the He 177 didn't need 4 seperate engines. By 1944 the engine overcooling problems were largely sorted out and the He 177 proved to be a reliable aircraft. In the end it was the fuel shortage which ended a promising career. I suppose the main reason behind the He 277 was because that way the more powerful DB 603 could be used.

Kris

[delcyros]

The overheating issue was adresses but probably not fully overcome.
It´s somehow comparable to the B-29 which also adressed the engine overheating but the problem remained valid, altough on a much higher factor of safety now.

[the su-47 is gangsta]

I would do me 163. Change fvuel capacity. Put hydrogen with mrtane vfirst then add the helium. A nuclear one that works on plutonium could work if airfvrame strengbh was improvfed. If that worked you could havfe a plane with 5,000 or so bhp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




[IMG]56374u7[/IMG]

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Thank god you are history....

[kool kitty89]

What the hell was that!?

That reminds me though, how about if the HeS-30 (109-006) wasn't canceled and one was added to the Me-163C design. or if that's not enough thrust bury 2 in the wing roots and make more room for fuel in the fuselage. Just sweep the tail and you got a Northrop X-4 Bantam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Increased endurance, cheaper more available fuel (that isn't toxic and won't eat through skin), non-exploding engines, and still that great airframe, though a little added drag from the intakes, but that's not a big issue. Of, course you'd have to model it on the Me-163C, the best design IMHO.

Also here's a pic of such a singe-engine design: http://www.luft46.com/duart/dul15-2.jpg and one with a nose intake: http://www.geocities.com/uni1ua/bigph/li20a.jpg

[kool kitty89]

Adler, you've posted before that you would have liked to see the P-83 in service. I agree that it made a good long-range fighter and would have had decent performance once the problems had been fixed (better control surfaces, tail extention, better flaps, add air-breaks), but many here have said that it (and the basic configuration of the original Airacomet) wasn't worth development. She wasn't, pretty, but had good climb rate, powerful armament with the .60 cal. guns of the 2nd prototype, and incredible range of course. I think the range and high ceiling would have made it a good recon a/c even after it was obsolete as a fighter, and with the heavy load possible (2x 250 gal drop-tanks) it would potentialy have carried a hefty bombload and made a good fighter-bomber. What's your take on this?


I also think that if the P-59 had continued development with improvements after the YP-59As were out it might have developed into somthing akin to the Meteor. As the Meteor Mk I was not much better than the YP-59A and had had much more time to develop and streamline the (engineless) design. The early P-59 development was hampered by restrictions on wind-tunnel use and to a lesser extent lack of engine performance specs. In addition, to maintain secrecy the design staff was verry small and couldn't readily cooperate with those working on the P-63 which had similar design features, though eventually they did use some of the P-63's improvements. If the Meteor had been canceed at the same stages as the P-59 it would have been no better. (note that the development as acombat a/c was canceled before the P-59A was in production so the improvements made in the P-59A/Bs were mimimal) Both the Airacomet and early Meteor sufferd from snaking, compressibillity, short range and low engine power. The biggest problem were the wings: they were much larger than necessary, with an area of 386 square ft for an a/c weighing under 11,000 lbs loaded and under 13,000 lbs max. This resulted in a wing loading far lower than was necessary (~32lbs/square ft), admittedly good for a testbed where engines were unreliable and glide capabillities appreciated, but a wing area of around 260-280 square ft would be much more reasonable for a jet. (wing loading ~48-44 lbs/square ft) In addition the P-59, unlike the P-63, didn't utilize a liminar flow wing.In addition, the long 45.5 ft span resulted in poor roll characteristics.

Imagine an improved Airacomet with more streamlined fusalage, air intakes and engine nacelles, improved visibility/bubble canopy, improved control surfaces (possibly boosted), and air-brakes added. Square-off the tailplane. Have wing scaled to 84% of the original (~71% of the original area) resulting in a span of 38.2 ft and an area of ~272 square ft. The wing would be redesigned with improved airflow characteristics if possible. Maximize internal fuel capacity. Use the 2,000 lbf J31-GE-5 engines of the P-59B or maby up to 2,400 lbf as in the Derwent IV. Remove the cannon armament and increase total armament to 5x .50 cal BMG with increased ammo capacity to 250-300 rpg.(I doubt the nose could hold more than 5 guns) Though still not as good as the P-80, I'd expect it would have been tested and entered production by early to mid 1944 and service by very late 1944 or earl '45, like the Mk III mteor. (assuming redesign work began immediately after the initial prototype flew, and that Bell put this project on highest prioety and was continuously suported by the government; all other experemental designs like the XP-77 would be reduced in prioety or canceled. the P-63 would probably continue normaly)

I'd say remove the landing light from the nose, but I'm not sure of the reasoning behind it in the first place... (if it reall needed one, which day-fighters usualy dont, it could have wing-mounted lights as was more common. (with the light gone a larger armament might be possible, though I'm unsure of how much space the nose-wheel takes-up.

I'd expect performance to be somthing like: top speed: 520-540 mph, Range: ~400 mi normal ~700 mi max, climb: 3,800 ft/min max, weights would stay about the same at: ~8,000 lbs empty ~11,000 normal and 13,000 lbs max take-off. (the smaller wings reducing weight but increased fuel increasing it)
I'm not even going to talk about if engines with over 3,000 lbf of thrust at higher efficiency like the Derwent V were used... (ie a scale down J33 instead of the Nene)


With the same kind of modification as seen in the Meteor, the P-59 would have likely seen similar improvements. Then again, if the RAF had abandoned the Meteor focused on the Vampire like the USAAF did with the P-59 and P-80...

She still looks nice in model form though: Hobbycraft 1/48 P-59A Airacomet YP-59 Airacomet by John Valo (Hobbycraft 1/4

[Graeme]

Kitty, everywhere I look, the performance of the XF-83 is described as “poor” due to the fact that it carried so much fuel-1,150 gallons internally and 600 gallons externally, to compensate for thirsty engines.

Lloyd S Jones;
“..there is more to a fighter than long range; and the weight of all that fuel took its toll on the performance..”
“..subsequent testing showed, the XF-83 did not offer any increase in performance over existing fighters.”

Peter Bowers;
“..the plane’s performance was eventually judged disappointing and no orders for series production were placed.”
"Apart from its range, the XP-83 offered no significant advantages when compared with other fighters which would soon be available..”

A J Pelletier;
“Performance was found somewhat disappointing.”
“..was underpowered and its manoeuvrability left much to be desired.”

Green/Swanborough;
“..performance proved somewhat disappointing and with more promising fighters already under development, the Bell XP-83-which proved to be the company’s final war-time fighter design-was abandoned.”

Dorr/Donald;
“Underpowered and unstable.”
“The close proximity of the two low-slung powerplants caused hot exhaust gases to buckle the tailplane unless, during run-ups, fire trucks were used to play streams of water over the rear fuselage!”
(As a result the tailpipes had to be modified to resolve the heat/buckling problem, on the second prototype.) The tailplane needed to be raised 18 inches to improve instability but it not clear if this modification was ever carried out.
“..(XF-83) seemed to offer no improvement over the Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star.”
The “USAF turned to the North American F-82 Twin Mustang”..instead.

The second prototype ended its days as a gunnery target.
The first, as a research tool…

So cavernous was the fuselage that when tested with wing mounted ramjets, a hatch was cut in the belly to provide entry into the fuselage for an engineer’s station. This was a ‘blind’ position except for a small port-side window created behind the pilot.
(Similar ramjet testing was also conducted on F-51s F-80s and others, but with no practical application ever found).

In this guise on 4 September 1947 a ramjet caught fire and quickly spread. Pilot Chalmers ’Slick’ Goodlin and engineer Charles Fay managed to bail out without the benefit of ejection seats.

A French Nord research aircraft had a similar engine layout but had the benefit of swept wings, but this was 1950.