What aircraft (any side) would you develope further

102first_hussars · 12-18-2005, 07:07 PM

Les makes it so hard sometimes, I have nothing against him personaly but sometimes he has a bad attitude.

delcyros · 12-19-2005, 10:18 AM

The He-178 had some drawbacks.
First of all, there was no reliable jet engine in 1939. It was powered by a HeS03A (later B) radial jet engine, had a very long air intake and a long exhaustpipe, too. (same Problem with Gloster E28/39)
Second, it wasn´t easy to scale up these planes. In this case the intakes and exhaust would be even longer, thus producing a significant drop in the already reduced thrust performance of the engines (again problem for both planes). The use of axial engines could offset some of the difficulties (the engine design is longer, reducing the length of the intake pipe) but what do You think could they take? The BMW-003 wasn´t reliable prior to mid 1944, except for a very few BMW-003A0, it eventually reached maturity in early 1945. The Jumo-004, while beeing avaiable in 1943 (oo4A) was heavier, later 004B engines suffered badly from unreliebility up to early 1944.
Heinkel would take the He-S06 or He-S08 for this task. They were avaiable in 1942/43 and reached a high degree of reliability. But then again, RLM decided to cancel Heinkels jet engines (He-S0

as well as his jetfighter ideas (He-178 and He-280).
I cannot say what difficulties Gloster would face, but I expect it would be somehow comparable. The E28/39 has the advantage of a nose wheel and it probably would be easier to convert it into a useful fighter. Keep in mind that the UK jet engines in 43 and 44 were far away from beeing reliable. The Rolls Royce Nene was to big for this small airframe, an excellent solution would be the Ghost I engine, I think.

loomaluftwaffe · 12-20-2005, 08:30 AM

if i had a fighter from '39 onwards, i'd get the heinkel he100 and put a normal radiator. then i'd put 2 mg131s or mg151s on it, no bombs, bombs will look too silly on such a plane.

R988 · 12-20-2005, 06:48 PM

The Sukhoi Su-6 would have been an interesting alternative to the Il-2 for the Soviets early in the war. Pity they never had enough of those M71 radial engines.

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/museum/su6/

Su-9 would have been an interesting late war jet for the Ruskies as well if we are getting into late war 'what if they got it done sooner' stuff.

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/museum/su9_11_13/

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-21-2005, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loomaluftwaffe

if i had a fighter from '39 onwards, i'd get the heinkel he100 and put a normal radiator. then i'd put 2 mg131s or mg151s on it, no bombs, bombs will look too silly on such a plane.

When it comes to fighting a war, who cares what it looks like, it only really matters how well it fights and that it gets the job done.

carpenoctem1689 · 12-21-2005, 02:34 PM

Yeah i dont remember any battles being decided by a beauty contest haha. Many ugly aircraft got the job done.

If i could change an aircraft, i would have made the messerschmitt-110 a fighter bomber and interceptor from the very beginning of the war, with provisions for a bigger drop tank and bombload, and reduction of the crew from three to two, and even in some cases, in the interceptor role, down to one. Using the extra weight saved to add more armor, increase speed, or add additional internal fuel. Shortening that long, glazed cockpit could have been an option, and an armament in the nose of three 20mm and two 7.92mm machine guns.

wmaxt · 12-21-2005, 04:19 PM

The thing is that by '45 the Prop as a propulsive force had reached its limit. Improvements would only come by narrowing or eliminating other abilities for instance the P-47N was a fast long range high altitude fighter but its single engine had to carry more fuel, 1,165 for a range of 2,300mi than the P-38 with two engines which could fly 2,600mi on 1,030 gallons, not to mention the P-38 could carry 5,600lbs external ordanance (not at the same time) to the Ns 2,500lbs and to do that the N required a reduction of ammo from 500rpg to 267rpg.

If it wasn't a jet, it wasn't worth following/upgrading after '45 at least for fighters.

Ammo to had reached its limits to, anything under a .50 was obsolete after '45 (really by '43) and anything less than a 20mm was obsolete after speeds passed 550mhp, in either aircraft. After reaching 550mph the chances of multipule rounds hitting the target aircraft was diminished to the point that each round had to be able to cause effective damage by themselves.

wmaxt

Jabberwocky · 12-21-2005, 04:58 PM

Well, you always have turbo-props. The Brits put a pair on a Mosquito in 1945.

the lancaster kicks ass · 12-22-2005, 02:12 AM

wmaxt, don't forget about naval aviation, by it's nature it was behind land based developments, and prop driven fighters were still rquired into the 50s in some cases.............

loomaluftwaffe · 12-25-2005, 01:48 AM

longer take-off run 4 swept-wing jets, u will need alot of RATOs if u dont have anything powerful enough, and a ship full of fuel near u, ok i get it

Dogwalker · 12-25-2005, 04:54 AM

I would have seen a SS4 equipped with the Isotta fraschini "Zeta" engine. With the armament of two 20 mm and one 30 mm guns it would have been a real problem for bombers in the first half of the war (in the second half, furter developement of the engine wuld be required).

Another plane that would have deserved a chance was the MIG I-211

Capable of 670 Km/h of speed at 7100 m, and to climb at 5000 m in 4' in the early 1943.
There were studies to install a Pratt&Whitney R-2800-63 engine with a General Electric S-23 turbocompressor in it in 1944. With them the aircraft would have probably reached 740 km/h at 10,000 m altitude, and a ceiling of 14,500 m.
On April 1944 the project was presented to NKAP, but it never turned into a prototype.

DogW

wmaxt · 12-25-2005, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

wmaxt, don't forget about naval aviation, by it's nature it was behind land based developments, and prop driven fighters were still rquired into the 50s in some cases.............

Thats true to some extent, until the Brits came up with the steam catapult and angled deck (perfected by the US. Together the British and Americans are formidable), jets were very unhappy on carriers. The main thing is that after the Me-262 (second generation jets, or any jet that could fly 540mph or faster) prop fighters were obsolete they just couldn't meet the real jets anymore on a 1:1 basis.

wmaxt

the lancaster kicks ass · 12-26-2005, 03:08 AM

i assume you're counting the MiG-15 as a first generation jet because sea furies proved they could tangle with them, as i'm sure the bearcat could too, i'd rate the hornets chances too but i would rather be in sea fury...........

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-26-2005, 09:43 AM

The first generation of Jets were vulnerable to an extent from piston engine fighters, mostly take off and landing only however.

wmaxt · 12-26-2005, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

i assume you're counting the MiG-15 as a first generation jet because sea furies proved they could tangle with them, as i'm sure the bearcat could too, i'd rate the hornets chances too but i would rather be in sea fury...........

No, I think its second generation, a F-15 is vulnerable to a P-51 if its going 350mph. The fact that the mig, being flown by inexperianced Chinese pilots got hit by planes like the Corsair, and Sea Fury is an aberation not difinitive. If he keeps his speed high the piston pland isn't a real threat. That no Chinese/Korean piston fighters hit our jets is both the quality of their piston fighters and the training of our pilot who already knew, you fly at your planes best advantages not his.

wmaxt