• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Escort fighter projects

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,287
Reaction score
3,198
Hi,

from Flightglobal a suggesting for escort fighter projects.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1940/1940%20-%200080.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1940/1940%20-%200081.html
 

Attachments

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,451
Reaction score
162
Thanks for that Hesham, you're my idol :)
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
76
I always liked the escort fighter idea. Thanks for the pictures.

I believe that its real heyday was during world war one, when fighters didn't carry cannons and a bomber could survive to fighter for a sufficient period of time. Fast two-seaters were regularly used as escorts and there were several prototypes of large multi-turreted fighters. I suppose the YB-40 would classify as one of the last escort fighters?

By the way, do you know if the Wellington with the Vickers (eg. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/mitchtanz/tyui.jpg) intended to be a testbed for future heavy fighters?

Its a bit OT but I thought I'd quote myself here regarding offensive rear armaments:
"There were many experiments with fixed rearward firing weapons (especially on bombers). Two problems are generally encountered: One is effective aiming and reduced velocity of the rounds (eg. if you're going 300kph backward instead of 300kph forward the bullets are going 600kph slower - this lower airspeed effects the ballistics of the round regardless of the effects of closing speed of the aircraft to the target).

Adding a gunner makes aiming easier but necessitates a larger aircraft, and while a larger aircraft can be usually almost as fast and sometime have a smaller turn radius, nimbleness (acceleration into a turn) generally suffers. Another feature in the failure of aircraft like the Bf-110 that was largely ignored prior to its modelling in Il-2 plays a role: The larger surface area of the aircraft provides a larger target and makes it very vulnerable to fighters that find it easy to aim at and hit.

The exception would be the Alekseyev designs which existed in a period where single seat fighters lost manoeuvrability (making them vulnerable to gunners), aircraft had enough power but top speeds were bounded by the sound barrier (making a heavy aircraft have similar kinetic performance) and heavy automatic cannons produced enough firepower to make any target fairly vulnerable at range.

It is also possible today as modern fly-by-wire systems coupled with electro-optical sights and laser range-finders and computers have already allowed fighters on autopilot to score kills. The GSH-301 is light enough and high enough performance that a rear firing defensive installation is feasible. "


S!
 

Apophenia

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,541
Reaction score
823
Avimimus said:
...By the way, do you know if the Wellington with the Vickers (eg. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/mitchtanz/tyui.jpg) intended to be a testbed for future heavy fighters?...
The Wellington VII with Vickers S gun turret was indeed a test bed for a heavy fighter -- the twin Vulture/Sabre-powered Boulton-Paul P.92 designed to F.11/37.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Village/4082/brit/bp_p92.jpg
 
Top