What aircraft (any side) would you develope further

[Glider]

I would find it hard to disagree with this list. In a debate such as this asn with technology improving at an ever increasing rate grey areas will always exist.
The only change that I would make is to make the Mig 19 a Third Generation jet. Its timing, performance and combat ability would make it more similar to a Hunter and F100 than the purely subsonic Second Generation machines.
Harrier I would make third Generation and the SR71 I would leave out all together. it exotic, special and has nothing even remotely close to it exists anywhere else on the planet.

[FLYBOYJ]

Agree with both of U!!!!

[pbfoot]

This excellent article divides the various generations of jet fighter technology up nicely IMHO
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archi...gap/index.html

[plan_D]

But, where does the Lightning go, del? Since it had several points that were considered revolutionary (Super-cruise, shockcone, ABS [albeit mechanical], all-flying tailplane) Man, it's just every generation rolled into one.

No, I'd say there was just a Lightning generation that just has the Lightning in it.

[delcyros]

I would put the Lighting into 3rd gen jets. It could easily reach multiple Mach and therefor is qualified. Unlike 4th gen jets it has shortcomings in low speed handling. The MiG-19, indeed, is questionable. If you put it into 3rd generation as well, I could understand. It has performances to do and it also reached Mach 1+. However, my point was that the design in general is heavily based on the earlier MiG-17. It just has a stretched airframe, even more wingsweep (which furtherly increases the crit drag zone to about Mach 1.48 at 60 degrees) and more power. The true solution of supersonic flight wasn´t reached with this plane, it was just the extreme version of second gen (delaying drag by sweeping the wings) jets (just my mind). The next step was introduction of new aerodynamic supersonic concepts, like deltawing(F-106), very high wingload by F-104 like "wingys" or variable wing geometry (Mig-23). However, Mig-19 remains in the grey zone, no doubt.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

This excellent article divides the various generations of jet fighter technology up nicely IMHO
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archi...gap/index.html

It's a good breakdown, the only things we dissagree on are three planes in the grey area or perhaps crossover aircraft. Not a big deal!

wmaxt

[FLYBOYJ]

Agree!

[Jabberwocky]

Ok, a slightly different one: The Manchester.

Fit a pair of Hercules XIIs or (later) XVIIs to replace the Vulture X's. Keep the Mk. IA configuration (no central tail unit, enlarged twin tail surfaces, 'dustbin' ventral turret deleted), add better front and rear turrets (say 2 .50cal Brownings in each), fit a retraction mechanism for the rear tyre, swap the standard dorsal turret for a lower profile unit (maybe a Boulton-Paul type?)

All of a sudden you have a much more capable medium bomber. Higher cruising speed, better reliability and, more importantly, something more capable than the Wellington to fill out the numbers until the 4 engined heavies arrive. The Manchester IA could get a 8,000 lbs bomb load up to 15,000 feet, even with the Vultures derated to ~1500 hp. Its bomb-bay was large enought to carry 4000 lb blockbusters or torpeedos.

With 1650 hp Hercules the Manchester could of been one of the great medium bombers of the war. As it was, with Vultures, it was just the inspiration for the Lancaster.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

that's an interesting concept, i doubt the RAF would've seen the use in going through with it, Roy Chadwick started designing a then un-named 4 engined version of the manchester before the manchester even entered service, they knew they needed a 4 engined bomber, the wellington was sufficient to do the job untill the new 4 engined bomber came into service, but your idea is interesting.............

[MacArther]

P-39, give it a new engine with turbocharger, and work on the manueverability.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I personally would not develop that one any further. I dont like sitting on a drive shaft. Not that I ever have but would not like it.

[MacArther]

T__T, does everyone pretty much hate the layout of the P39? I know Der, doesnt like it, but is it a universal hate? I think it was revolutionary, and if given a super charger and better manuvering flaps (am i right?), it could have made mincemeat out of anything that went near it.

[Dogwalker]

I think that of P39 was basically a good idea, and the plane was nice-looking too. It could have been developed better.

DogW

[plan_D]

Crash landing in one was much more dangerous than most. I don't like the idea of having an engine behind me, and the propellor shaft below me. A force of impact could easily send the engine flying forward to crush you, or the propellor shaft could fly up and slice you in two.

[Dogwalker]

Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. Bell designers were not simply fools.

DogW