What aircraft (any side) would you develope further

[kool kitty89]

There were solutions for all the problems of the P-83 except the lage size and weight. A tail extention cured instability. Slight angling outwards of the jetpipes eliminated the exaust from hitting the tail. Improved control surfaces would have improved maneuverabillity (though the agility was limitid by the bulk), airbrakes would solve the speed retention problem. Though far from the performance of the F-80 it was still decent, though honestly I'm not sure how much use it would have been as a fighter though, with the inherant drawbacks of the large size...

Still, I was curious of why Adler said he would have liked it to go further.

As for the French plane, what is it? That's exactly the kind of redesign of the Airacomet I had in mind, except for the swept wings. The nacelles are more streamlined and separated from the fusalage which allows better airflow, but still close together for better stability on a single engine. Maby Bell would have used a similar design (with unswepet, but sleeker wings) had they had the use of high-speed wind-tunnels and less design constraints.

Though I still think the P-59 could have performed decently with a less radical redesign that took place after the flight of the XP-59A. With more conservative streamling to the basic air intakes, nacelles, and fusalage, the scaled down wing (~84%), improved control surfaces, airbrakes, and revised canopy and armament. Airbreaks could replace the flaps in the same type of arrangement as was seen on the Meteor.

And I maintain that the Meteor would have been about as bad (though much better at SL by comparison) had extensive redesign work and more powerful engines hadn't occured. Granted some of the Meteor's design aspects were easier to modify than the P-59, but not by all that much. The long nacelles of the late Mk III Meteor alone increased top speed by 75mph bringing the top-speed from 415mph of the Mk I to 490mph with the same engines! Since the nacelles were the biggest aerodynamic problem of the Meteor and the wings were in the P-59, similar improvements would have beem likely. If the Vampire or maby the Gloster E.1/44 "Ace" had taken precedence over the Meteor, the Meteor would have ended up similar to the P-59, albeit it shot-down some V-1s.

Also, not related, but the original XP-59 (redesigned XP-52) had 20 degree swept wings...

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

I have a few in mind, but ill start with one of my favourites.

1. Westland Whirlwind. Only 114 made, the type had real potential but was superceeded by the Beaufighter and Typhoon because of a combination of engine troubles, political listlessness and conflicing RAF requirements.

First and most obvious thing is the get Rolls Royce to improve the reliability and power of the Peregrine. Fitting Merlins to the Whirlwind isn't really that pracitcal, despite all the fantasies about it. So bump the horespower from 885 hp to 1000-1050 hp an engine. So the Whirlwind jumps from 360 mph up to 380 mph or so. Maybe even higher as the war goes on (the Merlin grew by 1100 hp in capacity, so the Peregrine could probably squeeze out another 300-500 hp or so) A step along from that is to fit an improved supercharger to the Peregrine. Keep it single stage, as the Spitfire rules the roost at high alt anyway, but tailor it to give peak performance at about 16,000 feet. Dropping the blower height is going to increase power and speed (maybe 5-10 mph) at the expense of altitude performance above 20,000 feet.

Next fit a belt feed to the 4 nose cannon, doubling the ammunition load. Add a centerline droptank and the necessary plumbing for it. Fit trailing edge flaps to lower the stall speed and allow compatability with short grass strips (also increases turn performance).

All of a sudden, you have a very capable low-medium altitude long range escort fighter for the RAF, 2 years ahead of the introduction of the P-51B/C/D. The only two operational Whirlwind squadrons originally escorted Wellingtons all the way to Cologne (in daylight) in 1941. The RAF is still going to primarily bomb at night but it gives them a better option for heavy daylight raids if they have 5-10 squadrons of capable long-range escort fighters.

Excellent post! One of my favorites too, its a shame it was dropped, because it was more manouverable than the Beau.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by 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?

Sorry for the late response. I just saw this post now.

I think with better development it could have been developed into a decent escort fighter during WW2. Now I do agree with your other post in the other thread that it would have been outdated by Korea (but then again alot of aircraft were by then anyhow).

In its current config I think it was obviously underpowered performed poorly. However with some developement it might have been able to be something.

Probably not but it is interesting to think about.

[Civettone]

I though the biggest problem of the XP-83 was that it was underpowered...



Kris

[kool kitty89]

You're correct insufficient thrust was the only problem that a fix hadn't been found for. (Instabillity fixed with tail extention and repositioned tailplane. Add airbrakes and/or better flaps. Improve agility with revised and boosted control surfaces. Angle jetpipes slightly outward to prevent overheating the tail.)

It wouldn't have been underpowered if they'd switched to Nene engines, which were more powerful, fuel efficient, and lighter than the J33. Though for production the J42 (licensed Nene) would be used, and the J42 put out nearly 6,000 lbf with water injection. If you look at it, the P-83 wasn't really all that heavy for a fighter either, though for the time it was. By the early 1950s several fighters were quite heavier than it was, and many of them were quite maneuverable so it should have been possible for the P-83 to have decent agility. (granted those fighters were faster, had more thrust, and better aerodynamics)

Though it may have been better to have designed the plane around axial engines like J35s or J34s to improve streamlining. (though really not practical if production was to start before the end of 1945) Though it would have to be made somewhat smaller with less powerful J34 engines (3000-3250 lbf dry) but with the decreased drag and fuel consumption, it still might have had 2000 miles in range. But these engines were not nearly as developed as the J33 or Nene, so it would have been a while. Though this is basically how the F2H banshee ended up. With 1700 mile range and weight within 1000 lbs of the XP-83 (emty weight of the F2H was ~1000 lbs lighter, but max-takeoff was actually 1000 lbs greater), though top speed was somewhat higher at ~590 mph at altitude. But as said these axial engines were not ready for production by the time the war ended. (though maybe 4x J30s could be used in place of 2x J34s...) Overall the Nene/J42 would probably be the best solution.

[kool kitty89]

An F2A-3 with 1350 hp (or better, 1450 hp) R-1820 engine would have compensated for the added weight, bringing performance back to F2A-2 levels, and also had a 2-speed supercharger for better altitude performance. (the 1300 hp SL-rated version produced 1000 hp at 17,500 ft with supercharger at high-speed setting) The F2A-3 would have had about the same power load with a 1300 hp engine as the F2A-2 did with its 1200 hp engine did (at both normal and maximum weights) so more hp should have put performance above that of the F2A-2. Though Brewster still had management troubles which limited production quantity, punctuality (keeping to dedlines), and (to a lesser extent) quality. The stability of Grumman was probably the biggest advantage of the F4F over the F2A (the only other being durrabillity/survivabillity) and Brewster probably would have been best off with outsoursing to suplement production.

A P-36 with 1300hp(87 octane)-1450hp(100/130 octane) P&W R-2000 would have brought performance to P-40 standards0 and with a P-42 configuration (with proper fan cooling) performance would likely surpass that of even later P-40s (like the Kittyhawk and Warhawk). I beleive the R-2000 had a 2-speed or 2-stage supercharger too, which would greatly improve altitude performance compared to the V-1710 rated for 13,000 ft. It also had the added durrabillity of a radial engine. The 1300-1450 hp Wright R-1820 engine mentioned above would also have such an effect. And may have been a better choice as the R-2000 was still developmental in 1942.

[Messy1]

I would say the F8F Bearcat. I will admit that Grumman is my favorite plane maufacturer, and that coming from a Navy family I am a little biased. This I freely admit, but i also think the Bearcat would have been more than formidable!

From Wikipedia-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F8F_Bearcat

"Designed for the interceptor fighter role, the design team's aim was to create the smallest, lightest fighter that could fit around the Pratt & Whitney R2800 engine (carried over from the F6F Hellcat). Compared to its predecessor, the Bearcat was 20% lighter, had a 30% better rate of climb and was 50 mph (80 km/h) faster. In comparison with the Vought F4U Corsair, the initial Bearcat (F8F-1) was marginally slower but was more maneuverable and climbed faster. Its huge 12' 4" Aero Products four-bladed prop required a long landing gear, giving the Bearcat an easily-recognized, "nose-up" profile. For the first time in a production Navy fighter, an all-bubble canopy offered 360-degree visibility."

"The Bearcat's design was influenced by an evaluation in early 1943 by Grumman test pilots and engineering staff of a captured Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighter in England.[1]After flying the Fw 190, Grumman test pilot Bob Hall wrote a report he directed to President Leroy Grumman who personally laid out the specifications for Design 58, the successor to the Hellcat, closely emulating the design philosophy that had spawned the German fighter. The F8F Bearcat would emanate from Design 58 [2] with the primary missions of outperforming highly maneuverable late-model Japanese fighter aircraft such as the A6M-5 Zero[3], and defending the fleet against incoming airborne suicide (kamikaze) attacks.[4]"

"The F8F prototypes were ordered in November 1943 and first flew on 21 August 1944, a mere nine months later. The first production aircraft was delivered in February 1945 and the first squadron was operational by 21 May, but World War II was over before the aircraft saw combat service."

"Postwar, the F8F became a major US Navy fighter, equipping 24 fighter squadrons. Often mentioned as one of the best (if not the best) handling piston-engine fighters ever built, their performance was such that they even outperformed many early jets. Its capability for aerobatic performance is borne out by the choice of the Bearcat for the Navy's elite Blue Angels in 1946, who flew it until the team was temporarily disbanded in 1950 (during the Korean War). The Grumman F9F Panther and McDonnell F2H Banshee largely replaced the Bearcat in USN service, as their performance and other advantages eclipsed piston-engine fighters."

"An unmodified production F8F-1 set a 1946 time-to-climb record (after a run of 115 feet) of 10,000 feet in 94 seconds. The Bearcat held this record for ten years until it was broken by a modern jet fighter (which could still not match the Bearcat's short takeoff distance)."

Although the writing was on the wall eventually with the advent of jet powered fighters, had the war gone on long enough for the Bearcat enter combat, it would have been interesting to see waht effect it would have had.
Also if the war had gone on long enough for the Bearcat to have been improved on, maybe have its range improved, speed increased, etc. This is one of my favorites.

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

You're correct insufficient thrust was the only problem that a fix hadn't been found for. (...)
Overall the Nene/J42 would probably be the best solution.

But that would have meant the fighter would not have been available before 1947. So you're basically talking about a Cold War fighter.
But wouldn't there have been better designs available by then, incorporating the German lessons and technology?

Kris

[kool kitty89]

The bearcat was alittle late though, and it came at a time when interceptors were somewhat unnecessary. We were on the offensive, we needed tough, high-performance, long-range escort and penetration craft. The fact is that the F4U probably would have been much more useful to the US. The armament was impressive with its M3 machine guns (despite having only 4), but the late model Corsairs were being armmed with 4x 20mm cannons. The F4U-5 would probably have outperformed the F8F too.

As for other interceptors and early jets, the FH Phantom would have been better. Though it only had 4 M3's, the nose-mounted formation concentrated firepower. Though slow for a jet, the Phantom had a none too shabby 479mph top speed at sea level. It was flying in January of '45 and was able to take off on a single underdeveloped XJ30 engine (~1200 lbf) as the second wasn't ready. It had very low wingloading, high powerload (thrust/weight of .32 @ normal weight). It was also quite light with a loaded weight scarsely over 10,000 lbs! Normal range was a decent 695 mi and max range was 980 mi. It was the first all American jet fighter built (the Westinghouse J30 was referred to as the "Yankee" as it was an independent design, though there was one thing British about it as the Whittle-based shell-combustors and flame-cans used by GE replaced the troublesome annular one) and also only the second fighter designed by the young Mc Donnell company. (the first being the XP-67 Bat)
It was still in development at the war's end, but had the invasion of Japan gone on as planned it would have certainly seen service before the war's end and production should have been well under way by late '45.

[kool kitty89]

Delcyros, you've said the L133 and L-1000 designs were unworkable, but I'm not entirely sure that's true. The L133 design was obviously too advanced and the cockpit seems crampes. (or at least the canopy seems that way at under 2ft wide) And the complex thruster roll-controll and boundary layer control systems were overcomplex and unnecessary (even by today's standards). But the overall design could have been altered to a resonable level by placeng both the elevator and ailerons in the tail (like in a delta) or using elevons, or using ailerons on the wings and altering the canard to act as an elevator. The canopy could be widened and turned into a buble-type one, and the continuous verticle-fin-canopy airfoil shape would be eliminated. The active boundary-layer control would be removed and boundary layer air-bleeds would be used where necessary. The original desing was supposed to acheive Mach .94 and aven with the alterations it should remain quite high. These developments would be conceivable if the USAAF had requested a simplified version with low-level priorety. Such a design should have been ready for testing shortly after the war. By no means did the AAF make the wrong decesion of producing large numbers of conventional fighters, but a low-level development plan wouldn't have hurt and the L-133 could have developed into a nice Korean-War erra fighter.

The engine, though quite advanced, was not actually a failure. (though development was canceled, it was not due to unworkabillity, but more to its redundancy) The L-1000 was an original development of Nathan Price, and in a way he was the US contemporary of Ohain and Whittle in that he designed the US's first jet engine and started development prior to the outbreak of the war, and did it completly independently of other nations.
From: Air Force Magazine "There were other experimenters contemporary with Frank Whittle and Hans von Ohain. American Nathan Price developed a 3,500-pound-thrust engine, and Clarence “Kelly” Johnson designed an advanced fighter to use it, but the Army Air Corps considered it so advanced that it was unlikely to be completed before World War II was over. The Army Air Corps therefore rejected it."

This engine was probable the most advanced in the world at its time. With overall performance (especially sfc effeciency) never fully matched for an engine of it's thrust range, though it is somewhat heavy. Had the USAAF promoted low-level development in 1940 it might have been useful. However work stopped when the L133 was regected and didn't restart untill after the AAC had accepted the merrit of jets and the I-A engines had flown in the XP-59A. Work continued at Lockheed, but eventualy it was transferred as Lockheed was buisy with aircraft designs. From: Lockheed L-133 by Tom Conte (Scratchbuilt 1/72)
"While the L-133 aircraft was never built, the L-1000 engine was. It was one of the most powerful and efficient engines of its time. Construction was started during the war, but Lockheed gave up on its development testing and permitted the Menasco Engine Manufacturing Co. to continue with it so it could concentrate on other projects. It turned out to be a handful for Menasco and the XJ-37 as it was now called wound up at Wright Aeronautical Corp. for testing until nearly 1950. The engine finally came to rest in a corner of Chino's Planes of Fame museum in California."

It eventually ended up with Wright who tested it but eventually dropped the design. The L-1000 was a single spool axial-flow engine with a 32 stage compressor and 4 stage turbine designed to produce 3500 lbf dry, 5500 lbf afterburning with amazing fuel efficiency and weighing 1543 lbs. The XJ37 engine tested by Wright produced 3000 lbf dry at .87 [lb/lbf hr] sfc and 5000 lbf afterburning at 1.7 [lb/lbf hr].
The project was cancelled in 1950. The only major advantages over the Westinghouse J34 engine (which had almost identical dimentions, thrust ratings and weight) then in production was a lower sfc, especially afterburning. Both engines were about 25 in dia. and weighed around 1600 lbs with afterburner, but the sfc of the J34 was 1.00 at 3,300 lbf dry and 2.60 at 4,900 afterburning. The J34 used a single-spool system with an 11 stage compressor and a 2 stage turbine. Despite the superiority of the J37 its development was behind and lacked the skill of Lockheed. Had Lockheed continued development, the engine would have been ideal for the XF-90 long-range fighter which had been underpowered with 4200 lbf J34 engines, plus it could have reduced the normal fuel load and weight. (the higher-powered afterburners were developed independantly of Westinghouse, by Mc Donnell and others for their use like with the XF-8 I'm confident that, if work had never halted (even low-level work) Lockheed designers would have had it ready for production by 1950 or shortly after.

Performance statistics from: Military Turbojet/Turbofan Specifications

It should be noted that the engine was designed and in development before the NACA started their jet propultion studies and programs of the early 1940s (including westinghouse, GE, and others. see: ch3 ) and, though the NACA did corespond with Lockheed on the design and it was the NACA project that spurred the return to developmunt in 1942, the engine was an independent project.
Another note should be made that the L-133 should have worked using J34 engines as the performance, sive and weight were all similar; though performance would be somewhat lower and range would be less.)

As mentioned earlier the engine resides at Chino's Planes of Fame. This is amazing, as I had no idea one of these had survived, but I'll admit that I'm not all too surprised it was POF that saved it. If anion it would have been them, as they are one of the best a/c history conservation organizations in the US. It's just amazing: (again from: Lockheed L-133 by Tom Conte (Scratchbuilt 1/72) )
"The engine finally came to rest in a corner of Chino's Planes of Fame museum in California. Back in 1993 while I was wandering around a hanger I came across what appeared to be a large waffle wrapped around a sewer pipe under and behind another display. When I realized this dusty relic’s important position in the early history of jet aircraft, I was inspired to learn more about the engine and aircraft, which resulted in a model.

Although the L-133 aircraft was not built does not mean it never contributed to the wealth of aeronautical information. If one notices, it has the same wing outline as the P-80 Shooting Star Lockheed did build a few years later. One reason that the P-80 was able to be constructed and flown so quickly was because the engineers could draw from their previous work on the L-133."

I wonder if it's still working. It would be a great complement and contrast to their YP-59A that's soon to be flying. I wonder if Evanglider knows that POF has the engine.


Comparing Lockheed's P-80A to Bell's P-59A is a far worse comparison than the Me-262 to the He-280, as the 280 at least had good performance, it just lacked proper engines in time. But comparing the L-133 to the P-80 is similar to comparing the Me-262A-1a with the Me-262 HG III with 2x HeS 011 engines. The He-20 was only inferior as an interceptor to the Me-262 and though the Aerodynamics were less the critical mach of .79 is still higher than the Meteor III and equal to the Vampire Mk I.

[kool kitty89]

Honestly, though, the He-280 could have been in production while the 262 was still in development if Ohain had taken a more conservative approach. If he had continued improving on the sucessful HeS 6 deesign instead of working on the troublesome HeS 8, the He 280 could have been test flown immediately with these engines instead of performing glide-tests. This may have allowed some of the flaws of the 280 to be corrected in time to contend with the Me 262, or simple beat it to production as it should have been ready by early 1942 with improved HeS 6 engines. Though due to the He 280's design around narrower engines (HeS 30 according to the below article), the HeS 6 engines could still be mid-mounted (or partially so) in the wings (to allow grownd clearance) with the engine mounted behind the main wing spar and mounted on a strengthened section cut into the wing similar to the Meteor.

The HeS 6 would have been a far better intrim measure for the HeS-30 than the HeS 8 was. Though larger and heavier than the HeS 3b, the HeS 6 was not much wider (still much smaller than Whittle's W.2 engine; ~37in/.94 compared to ~44in/1.12m for the W.2) as the combustor had been elongated to fit closer around the engine with even more folded infront of the compressor and specific fuel consumption was much improved as it used about as much fuel at full throttle as the HeS 3b but with significantly more thrust. The engine produced 1300 lbf at 13300 rpm by the time work moved to the HeS 8 in late 1939.(thrust that the HeS 8 didn't produce untill late 1941, and only after an axial compressor stage had been added) If Ohain and Max Hahn cotinued on improving the output and efficiency of the HeS 6 (most importantly using turbine alloys to replace the plain steel or using air bleed to cool the then uncooled turbine) such improvements should have allowed the engine to run at speeds closer to the 16,000+ rpm that Whittle was able to acheive with improved turbines. (though whittle needed Nimonic 80 to do this, Ohain's radial turbine was inherently stronger as such turbines suffer from less thermal and mechanical wear than axial ones, so possibly 14,500 rpm)

One quote from [B]Pioneering Turbojet Developments of Dr. Hans Von Ohain—From the HeS 1 to the HeS 011[/b] (see: Cookies Required) is that: " Engine Development for the He 280 Jet FighterShortly after the demonstration of the He 178 to the RLM,Heinkel started development of a twin engine fighter which wasdesignated the He 280. The aircraft could not use engines of theHeS 3B type because of the large engine diameter and low per-formance. At this time, however, the axial flow engine designatedthe HeS 30 that was being developed by Mueller who had arrivedat the Heinkel Rostock plant, was experiencing serious develop-ment problems. Recognizing that this engine would not be readyin time, von Ohain took a gamble in designing a back up solution designated the HeS 8 which would employ a radial rotor similar tothe HeS 3B combined with an axial vane diffuser and a straightthrough flow combustor. Only 14 months were available for this development, as the He 280 airframe was developed much faster than its engines. It is interesting to examine the history of the Mueller engine incontext of von Ohain’s work. Mueller had his initial contacts withHeinkel and Dr. von Ohain in early 1939 when he offered to bringHeinkel the Wagner engine and the project team. At this time, Mueller gave the impression that the engine program was well advanced and Heinkel and von Ohain believed that this program together with their own HeS 3 engine would place Heinkel in a leading position as a jet engine maker. Mueller and his team were hired by Heinkel and came over in the summer of 1939. The Wagner engine took on the Heinkel designation of HeS 30. Mueller and his team were incorporated in Dr. von Ohain’s propulsion group and given the task to finalize the development of the HeS 30. Dr. von Ohain and Heinkel soon realized that this engine program was nowhere near the advanced stage, implied by Mueller. Heinkel pushed hard for the effort to make this program successful especially as the HeS 30 was to be the propulsion plant for Heinkel He 280 fighter. During contract negotiations with the RLM, Udet, who was supportive of Heinkel and who had recognized that Heinkel needed engine manufacturing capability and skilled manufacturing manpower to compete with the established engine companies, made Heinkel a gentlemen’s agreement that if the He 280 succeeded in flying before April 1941 Heinkel could buy the Hirth Motoren company in Stuttgart. By the end of 1939 the HeS 30 progress was very slow and Heinkel, concerned of the adverse impact on the He 280 program, approached Dr. von Ohain to develop a backup solution. Dr. vonOhain’s solution, designated the HeS 8A, was a design based onthe HeS 3B but with an axial diffuser and a straight through flow combustor. The engine program was done under a RLM contractgiving the engine the first RLM designation of a German turbojet the 109-001. It was not without risks because the specification ofthe aircraft limited the engine diameter and therefore the axial diffuser function and efficiency together with the straight through combustor became very critical. Luckily for Heinkel, von Ohain’s HeS 8 engine managed to meet the minimum requirements andwas ready in time for the first flight of the He 280 which tookplace in late March 1941. The HeS 30 program still sufferedseveral problems including a mismatch between the compressorand turbine. (which resulted in excessive mass flow) Thus, it is thanks to von Ohain’s HeS 8 that the He 280 flew on schedule and the RLM allowed Heinkel to purchase Hirth Motoren company which could then give the Mueller team support with the HeS 30 program."

[helmitsmit]

I might have developed the Lancaster quicker. By putting merlin 61 or griffon 61 and replacing the turrets with 20mm or 0.50. or both. Extenting the bomb bay and you've got a decent day bomber with high altitude and high speed performance. I would also put a vental turret (a copy of the dorsal turret upside-down) just behind the bomb bay. Because I think we should have made some effort in the day bombing. However, I wouldn't use such a close formation as the Lanc could maneovour well! Oh and retract the bloody tail-wheel!

[helmitsmit]

I also would've been keen to make the Westland Whirlwind with merlins 20s. All you need to do is redesign the nuscles and add a bit of cooling. I don't think the peregrine could have been developed more unless u put two stage superchargers on it, afterall it was effectively a uprated kestral which had already been in service for 7 years! I had some ideas for the Manchester too! It could have been our standard medium bomber. With two Griffon IV just entering service in 1942 we could have had a decent medium bomber. I would have decrease the bomb bay a bit. Remove the nose turret and put a streamlined nose with a few forward firing guns. Again retract the bloody tail-wheel! I hate it when we made a good plane but make it look flimsy by leaving the tail-wheel down!

[helmitsmit]

I would have liked to have seen more of this

[Messy1]

I just think it's cool that a piston engine aircraft held the time to climb record for 10 years, and in those 10 years many jet aircraft have become operational with the US military. I bet it was a blast to fly.