Probably the P-63D being the ultimate "What if" with the more powerful M9 cannon and single piece bubble canopy.
thanks! didnt think about the Allison that would have made all the differenceView attachment 666721Probably the P-63D being the ultimate "What if" with the more powerful M9 cannon and single piece bubble canopy.
P-63D
Powerplant: One Allison V-1710-109 (E22) water-cooled engine rated at 1425 hp for take off . Performance: Maximum speed was 437 mph at 30,000 feet, service ceiling was 39,000 feet, and an altitude of 28,000 feet could be reached in 11.2 minutes. Normal range was 950 miles, and maximum ferry range...forum.warthunder.com
Redesign the wing to hold four .50s and drop the "gondola" guns and I bet it could it hit 450mph; with its drop tanks and twin-stage supercharging It'd be a stand out for sure. What's even more impressive were the plans to mount the Turbo-Compound Allison that had significantly more power and fuel efficiency.
Perhaps @tomo pauk has some more ideas?
The inner portion of the Kingcobra wing held the gear and radiators. The outer portion was where all the fuel was carried. Not sure what the aft fuselage held, but I'm sure there was equipment of some kind. I'm sure the decision for gondolas wasn't haphazard. If there was an easy way to carry them internally, it probably would have been done.
Weren't .30 Cal guns in the wings originally and the gondolas were used since the .50s were too large for the same space? But I totally agree that there wasn't an easy way with the war going on; you could stretch the wingspan out and end up with some P-63/Ta 152H hybrid.
Probably the P-63D being the ultimate "What if" with the more powerful M9 cannon and single piece bubble canopy.
P-63D
Powerplant: One Allison V-1710-109 (E22) water-cooled engine rated at 1425 hp for take off . Performance: Maximum speed was 437 mph at 30,000 feet, service ceiling was 39,000 feet, and an altitude of 28,000 feet could be reached in 11.2 minutes. Normal range was 950 miles, and maximum ferry range...
Redesign the wing to hold four .50s and drop the "gondola" guns and I bet it could it hit 450mph; with its drop tanks and twin-stage supercharging It'd be a stand out for sure. What's even more impressive were the plans to mount the Turbo-Compound Allison that had significantly more power and fuel efficiency.
Perhaps @tomo pauk has some more ideas?
hol up..... is that a VTOL version with counter rotating props and a ramjet?
honestly i feel that this could have been a great fighter if it was built better. the tail control reactions would be a bit slower than a spitty but it would have better stability and protection of the engine because of where it is. a marvelous idea if i do say so myself. but this would have made a great fighter/bomber because of a mid-engined layout. however a weapons bay would be small or nonexistent because of the space taken up by the engine. what i see is a pretty concentrated armament in the hollow nose of this aircraft as a fighter variant. i was thinking like the Mitsubishi AM Zero with the calibrated guns on the cowling but more of them. either two on the sides of the nose and one on top or some other setup. however you would have to keep weight down so a few M3 Brownings or Vickers .303s would be sufficient in my opinionProbably the P-63D being the ultimate "What if" with the more powerful M9 cannon and single piece bubble canopy.
P-63D
Powerplant: One Allison V-1710-109 (E22) water-cooled engine rated at 1425 hp for take off . Performance: Maximum speed was 437 mph at 30,000 feet, service ceiling was 39,000 feet, and an altitude of 28,000 feet could be reached in 11.2 minutes. Normal range was 950 miles, and maximum ferry range...
Redesign the wing to hold four .50s and drop the "gondola" guns and I bet it could it hit 450mph; with its drop tanks and twin-stage supercharging It'd be a stand out for sure. What's even more impressive were the plans to mount the Turbo-Compound Allison that had significantly more power and fuel efficiency.
Perhaps @tomo pauk has some more ideas?
P-39D over the C had a number of changes. Wing was bigger, with greater fuel tankage (168 vs. 126-128 US gals). Engine was the latest of the 2-stage supercharged V-1710s, the -109, able to run at 3200 rpm, with carburetor between the compressor stages, and with faster-turning impeller of the auxiliary S/C; water injection was also used. All of those changes gave significant boost to the hi-alt power, and indeed the P-39D was supposed to do ~450 mph at ~30000 ft (at least per Bell's figures, so discretion is advised). However, P-39D was too late for ww2; even the -C was too late for European part of ww2 to matter.
P-63 section on Mike Williams' site: link
As for the guns - I'd delete the 37mm cannon, install the 20mm belt-fed Hispano (same as on the P-38s and P-61s), keep the nose HMGs. Delete the wing guns and their ammo, use the freed volume for even more fuel.
On 8 January 1941, an engineer of the Bell Aircraft Corporation named Arthur Young applied for a patent of a tail sitter VTOL airplane. It was propelled by one radial engine located behind the pilot driving two big contra-rotating propellers by means a geared drive shaft.
i feel like the speed would be horrible but the mobility would be amazing.... a questionable but interesting design. thanks Justo.
Try 500 MPH.
NARA II |
d. Provide additional self-sealing fuel cells giving the airplane a total internal fuel capacity of 240 to 250 gallons.
Performance - (Estimated) | |
Present Grade 130 Fuel | Grade 150 - 170 Fuel |
1. High Speed MPH2. Rate of Climb F.P.M. 3. Time to climb to 30,000 Ft. - 7.5 min. | 1. High Speed MPH2. Rate of Climb F.P.M. 3. Time to climb to 30,000 Ft. - 5.8 min. |
Performance - (Estimated) | |
Present Grade 130 Fuel | Grade 150 - 170 Fuel |
1. High Speed MPH2. Rate of Climb F.P.M. 3. Time to Climb to 30,000 Ft. - 6.6 min. | 1. High Speed MPH2. Rate of Climb F.P.M. 3. Time to Climb to 30,000 Ft. - 5.6 min. |
Do you have any more information about this?
An easier fix to firepower would have been to fit it with 3 nose mounted (one through the propeller) 20mm cannon and dump the .50's entirely. Bell had access to both British and Russian technology on 20mm cannon and could have used that if a US variant couldn't be fitted. But I think there's sufficient room for three. That's a lot of highly concentrated firepower.View attachment 666721Probably the P-63D being the ultimate "What if" with the more powerful M9 cannon and single piece bubble canopy.
P-63D
Powerplant: One Allison V-1710-109 (E22) water-cooled engine rated at 1425 hp for take off . Performance: Maximum speed was 437 mph at 30,000 feet, service ceiling was 39,000 feet, and an altitude of 28,000 feet could be reached in 11.2 minutes. Normal range was 950 miles, and maximum ferry range...
Redesign the wing to hold four .50s and drop the "gondola" guns and I bet it could it hit 450mph; with its drop tanks and twin-stage supercharging It'd be a stand out for sure. What's even more impressive were the plans to mount the Turbo-Compound Allison that had significantly more power and fuel efficiency.
Perhaps @tomo pauk has some more ideas?
Yes, it definitely would. It would also make for a better ballistic match with the .50 or 20mm.
The problem with that is that the Hispano was not initially capable of being synchronised. Only with the postwar M24 model was this possible.
Then use the Berezin B-20 or the British Polsten. Even an Oerlikon 20mm might be a choice. Build the ones going to the Russians with a copy of their cannon in the nose. As with the P-400, the USAAF might well see the value of the set up and okey doak it for their use too.
Unfortunately the Oerlikon and Polsten were even less suitable for synchronisation than the Hispano, and could not be modified to make them suitable. The B-20 would work, but was not released until the end of the war.
