Rose tinted glasses time.

[Foo Fighter]

It occurred to me that many aircraft are claimed to be the finest this that or the other and we have all heard the oft repeated "Aircraft 'A' "Won" the war. None of this is true of course because no one system of any kind wins wars.

Taking the best pieces from the worlds aircraft, what would the "Best" aircraft of the differing categories look like? Wings of a Ta 152, P-51 coolant system etc. What would the result look like and would it be as good or better than the actual aircraft in service?

 

[red admiral]

Best to do what? e.g. even if a "fighter" then optimised for high altitude? low altitude? Carrying bombs? rockets? Operating from aircraft carriers?

 

[Nik]

Wider wheel-track than Spit ??

 

[Nik]

Self-sealing tanks ?? Seat armour ??

Inherent growth potential ? eg 'Manchester >>> Lancaster' ?
Also, I'm trying to remember which German plane was such a snug fit to its engine etc that it proved nigh-impossible to significantly up-grade...
( Akin to initially excellent Panzers that could not be readily up-gunned due to turret-ring diameter limits ? )

IIRC, several 'nice' US designs failed thus, did not go into production as could not grow to catch the 'goal-posts' that had moved during development --Faster ! Higher ! Longer range ! More guns !!-- or were designed too closely around an engine that simply failed to deliver...

 

[Foo Fighter]

Not thinking of one class of aircraft hence the open descriptive. Fighter, interceptor, heavy figher, light bomber, heavy bomber or whatever.

 

[1635yankee]

Frankenplanes rarely work very well (see: P-75); everything has to be designed to work together.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Mosquito: bomber, fast bomber, fighter-bomber, recce, long-range day fighter, high altitude interceptor, all weather fighter and night fighter, with low signature radar and infra-red.

 

[Archibald]

BCR: Bombardier, Chasseur, Reconnaissance. Ended as the Potez 540 monstrosity. Not a bad airplane per se, just (remarquably) inapt to all three missions, ended as transport. So: BTCR yet not so CR, rather BT.

 

[Justo Miranda]

HAB: High-Altitude Bomber

 

[Archibald]

HAB: High-Altitude Bomber

And if you think that's merely a (brilliant) joke, I can guarantee you they got every single detail right - or even better than cruel reality. The H-tail, for a start; and the glazed nose; and the very weak engines; and the rampant bureaucracy (Saint-Ex 's Flight to Arras readily agree !)

 

[Justo Miranda]

HAB: High-Altitude Bomber

And if you think that's merely a (brilliant) joke, I can guarantee you they got every single detail right - or even better than cruel reality. The H-tail, for a start; and the glazed nose; and the very weak engines; and the rampant bureaucracy (Saint-Ex 's Flight to Arras readily agree !)

I know that story well, the nationalization of the French aircraft industry was a tragic mistake.

 

[pathology_doc]

Taking the best pieces from the worlds aircraft, what would the "Best" aircraft of the differing categories look like? Wings of a Ta 152, P-51 coolant system etc.

This reminds me of a song I learned as a kid. It was called "An Ordinary Dog", and the chorus went something like:

It looked like a part of a gorilla
It could be the descendant of a bear
You could tell it was related to a shaggy yak
By the length of its hair
Its legs were as long as any emu's
Its teeth were as sharp as any shark
A platypus's feet, and to make it quite complete...
The nose of an African aardvark.

The counter-question always has to be asked: FOR WHAT ROLE?

If I were the leader of a fictitious country that was going to take up arms on either side of World War 2 and I had to standardize on the fewest possible aircraft for front-line combat and further development, I would venture to suggest that on the Allied side, I would be doing well for myself if I chose the (Merlin) P-51, the Mosquito and the Liberator, and on the Axis side the FW-190, the Ju-88 and a four-engined He-177 (assuming I could get it built over official objections).

IIRC, several 'nice' US designs failed thus, did not go into production as could not grow to catch the 'goal-posts' that had moved during development --Faster ! Higher ! Longer range ! More guns !!-- or were designed too closely around an engine that simply failed to deliver...

Are we talking specifically about aircraft drafted between 1939 and 1945, or are we expanding the terms of reference to include the horrible experiences the US Navy had with the J40 and other such total failures?

 

[red admiral]

I'm thinking that for a general purpose fighter for use throughout the war I'd probably go for something like the P-51H.

• Enough space for RR Merlin 60 series, but you can go for Merlin II, XX/30/40, 60 series, 100 series throughout the war
• Could have a designed a lighterweight airframe from the start
• Could have had an efficient single unit radiator from the start
• Probably change the wing; bit more area and aspect ratio, no laminar flow airfoil, slightly thinner, larger ailerons. Basically trade a bit of speed for increased climb rate, sustained and instantaneous turn rate, roll rate, and higher max dive speed
• Armament start with 2 20mm FF/FFL (preferable belt feed) and 2 12.7/13.2mm in the wings; later on switch to wing root cannon e.g. MG151/20 to improve roll rate/accuracy. Can fit another pair of 20mm in the outer wing position for interceptor versions

 

[Foo Fighter]

The counter-question always has to be asked: FOR WHAT ROLE?

Pick a class of aircraft and a role, using the best aspects of designs of that time. Those in service by preference as project aircraft would have lessons from experience.

 

[riggerrob]

Okay dear Foo Fighter,
Let's narrow this down.
It is mid-summer 1944. You are a WALLIED fighter pilot based on a grass airstrip in Normandy. You have only seen a handful of Luftwaffe airplanes, but you know that every German Army ground unit is "thick" with 20mm AAA. Your squadron is assigned air-to-ground strike missions and you are within range of the Falaise Gap.

 

[Dynoman]

If air-to-ground I would develop a two seat P-47 with a rear gunners position to keep the fighters away. The air cooled radial engine would be more damage resistant than an IL-2 or Ju-57 type aircraft.

If a wholly new design I would consider a mid-engine air cooled design with a ventral air intake and a dorsal exhaust (similar to Piaggio P.119). The design would have a 37mm cannon in the nose with at least two 50 cal MG either side in the nose and 8 (four each wing) 50 cal in the wings similar to the P-47.

 

[Nik]

Mid-engined == lonnng drive-shaft ??

We know too many got those wrong, but which designs got them right ? How / Why ??
==
Also, with regard to the Liberator, IIRC it had 'scary issues' with damage tolerance, handling etc. Lots of piloting mishaps.
Stick with Manchester / Lancaster ??

 

[1635yankee]

Mid-engined aircraft have issues, mostly centered on c/g. I basically think the mid-engine is a gimmick.

In my opinion, some judicious armor, a low-altitude optimized engine, and a single crewman would be a better option. See, for example, the AU-1. To deal with fighters, add escorts.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Okay dear Foo Fighter,
Let's narrow this down.
It is mid-summer 1944. You are a WALLIED fighter pilot based on a grass airstrip in Normandy. You have only seen a handful of Luftwaffe airplanes, but you know that every German Army ground unit is "thick" with 20mm AAA. Your squadron is assigned air-to-ground strike missions and you are within range of the Falaise Gap.

I think you slightly missed the point mate. The idea is to pick a classification of aircraft, take the 'best' bits of the best types and put them together to see if the result is better than average. Just a paper exercise.

 

[riggerrob]

Okay dear Foo Fighter,
Let's narrow this down.
It is mid-summer 1944. You are a WALLIED fighter pilot based on a grass airstrip in Normandy. You have only seen a handful of Luftwaffe airplanes, but you know that every German Army ground unit is "thick" with 20mm AAA. Your squadron is assigned air-to-ground strike missions and you are within range of the Falaise Gap.

I think you slightly missed the point mate. The idea is to pick a classification of aircraft, take the 'best' bits of the best types and put them together to see if the result is better than average. Just a paper exercise.

Yes.
I was suggesting an a single-engined airplane optimized for ground attack on a battlefield with few enemy fighters. Few enemy fighters reduces the need for a rear-facing gunner. The ground attack role emphasizes heavier guns (20 to 35mm auto-cannons) and the ability to carry a few thousand pounds of bombs, maybe even a few air-to-ground, un-guided rockets. The ground attack role also emphasizes good downward visibility.

 

[riggerrob]

Mid-engined == lonnng drive-shaft ??

We know too many got those wrong, but which designs got them right ? How / Why ??
==
Also, with regard to the Liberator, IIRC it had 'scary issues' with damage tolerance, handling etc. Lots of piloting mishaps.
Stick with Manchester / Lancaster ??

Liberator was more efficient, but also more fragile. B-24's Davis airfoil was almost a laminar airfoil, hence less drag in cruise. It also had a higher wing-loading to improve cruise performance. Liberator's greater cruise efficiency helped it close the mid-Atlantic Gap during the Battle of the Atlantic.
But the downside is that more efficient airplanes are also more fragile. Liberator's higher wing loading forced faster take-off speeds and smaller margins for error after an engine quit, ergo more Liberators were lost due to landing and takeoff accidents. Lib' was also less tolerant of battle-damage than the over-built Boeing B-17.

Lancaster was the best compromise of efficiency and resistance to battle damage. Lancasters' modular construction also helped mechanics mix-and-match parts from damaged Lancasters to get more Lancs' back in the air more quickly.

 

[publiusr]

From a purist’s stand point, the Bleriot in me would say the Cessna Bird Dog.

Engine and prop up front to hit birds before they hit your windshield…good for observation, etc.

The Johnny Quest in me wants a Douglas Skyrocket on steroids…canard…T tail…a little bit of every control surface so I could zoom about and look cool….like that Lamborghini from Cannonball Run with spoilers front and rear. Project Sword kinda stuff.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Mosquito with two Griffon's and the nacelles extended with radiators a la P-51 Stretched fuselage with a larger tail. The same with a Hornet fuselage possibly. Wings would need to gro a bit possibly.