What shouldn't have been built?

In fact, the F-15 went the same way with the NAA design being technically much superior and likely even more maneuverable than the MDD version.
That wasn't the view of the proposal analysis committee:

Not only was the McDonnell Douglas proposal superior in all categories, but the Fairchild Hiller proposal was ahead of the North American Rockwell proposal in every area except logicstics - which probably means production.
Yet the Generals told NAA that they had the plane the Generals wanted to fly. The Sukhoi head of design also thought that the NAA design was superior, and the NAA design "heavily inspired" the T-10 which became the Su27 Flanker.
 
What shouldn't have been build ? way too many french types of 1939.

Best possible french air force
- LN-161 rather than MS-406
- no MB-152, more MB-170 series: 174 for reco, 175 light bomber
- moar D-520s
- moar Curtiss H-75
- more Potez 63 rather than too few Breguet 693
- more Loire Nieuport dive bomber
- more DB-7 & MArtin 167F

The core of the air force should have been, right off 1936, Potez 63 bombers with a solid escort of Loire Nieuport 161.
Once this nucleus is stabilized, then gradually introduce useful types
- US fighter (Curtiss)
- US bombers
- the D-520 to improve on the LN-161
- MB-175, and LN dive bombers to complete and replace the Potez 63 strike force, along the DB-7 and Martin 167F

End result: three good fighters to escort a powerful and coherent bomber / strike force.

No point in building LeO-451 and Amiot 350, as France won't strike German cities for fear of LW repraisals.
 
Refined variant

FIGHTERS

- Curtiss H-75
- LN-161
- D-520 later

BOMBERS
- Potez 63
- LN-401/411
- DB-7
- Martin 167F
(MB-175 later)

RECONNAISSANCE
- MB-174

Everything else can be thrown to the trash heap.
 
Yet the Generals told NAA that they had the plane the Generals wanted to fly. The Sukhoi head of design also thought that the NAA design was superior, and the NAA design "heavily inspired" the T-10 which became the Su27 Flanker.

Which then had to be re-designed, as it was found to be inferior to the F-15 . . .

cheers,
Robin.
 
In fact, the F-15 went the same way with the NAA design being technically much superior and likely even more maneuverable than the MDD version.
That wasn't the view of the proposal analysis committee:

Not only was the McDonnell Douglas proposal superior in all categories, but the Fairchild Hiller proposal was ahead of the North American Rockwell proposal in every area except logicstics - which probably means production.
And history clearly shows the F-15 was the proper choice....

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
In fact, the F-15 went the same way with the NAA design being technically much superior and likely even more maneuverable than the MDD version.
That wasn't the view of the proposal analysis committee:

Not only was the McDonnell Douglas proposal superior in all categories, but the Fairchild Hiller proposal was ahead of the North American Rockwell proposal in every area except logicstics - which probably means production.
Yet the Generals told NAA that they had the plane the Generals wanted to fly. The Sukhoi head of design also thought that the NAA design was superior, and the NAA design "heavily inspired" the T-10 which became the Su27 Flanker.
And the T-10 as originally built had much to be corrected before production as the Su-27.
Where is it written that the "generals" told NAA that it was their plane they wanted?

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
The P1127 RAF Harrier was a waste of resources for the RAF.
Money spent on the Harrier force could have gone to improving the Jaguar and Tornado.
The Sea Harrier allowed the Royal Navy to build Command Cruisers when what it really needed for its key North Atlantic role was more Type 22 ASW ships with Seaking/EH101.
Oh and SSNs with Sub Harpoon earlier to blockade Argentina in 1982.
Sacrilege! Ban uk 75 immediately ;)

Having just read RAF Harrier Ground Attack - Falklands by Jerry Pook it would seem that the 1st generation RAF GR1 and GR3 Harrier’s left a lot to be desire when it came to systems reliability and weapons delivery accuracy. According to Mr Pook that would seem to be down to penny pinching and unrealistic training.

I’d argue the Sea Harrier FRS1 was a good choice but the Invincible class carriers should have been cheap/basic WW2 style escort carriers. Hopefully this would have allowed for more escorts and subs.

What shouldn’t have been built is the Harrier FRS2/FA2 and GR5/7/9. The UK should have gone for the Harrier II plus!

 
In fact, the F-15 went the same way with the NAA design being technically much superior and likely even more maneuverable than the MDD version.
That wasn't the view of the proposal analysis committee:

Not only was the McDonnell Douglas proposal superior in all categories, but the Fairchild Hiller proposal was ahead of the North American Rockwell proposal in every area except logicstics - which probably means production.
Yet the Generals told NAA that they had the plane the Generals wanted to fly. The Sukhoi head of design also thought that the NAA design was superior, and the NAA design "heavily inspired" the T-10 which became the Su27 Flanker.
And the T-10 as originally built had much to be corrected before production as the Su-27.
Yes. And likely the NA335 would have needed as much adjustment due to the big vortices coming off the blended leading edges and hitting the vertical stab and rudder. Especially if NA ended up going to dual vertical stabs like I remember reading...

Where is it written that the "generals" told NAA that it was their plane they wanted?

Enjoy the Day! Mark
Read it on this very forum on the NAA model 335 thread.
 
Several aircraft projects come to mind:


The V-22 Osprey, the F-35 JSF, and the F-22. All of which had more cost-effective (and design-effective) alternatives.
What competitor was there to the V-22?
I would think a production derivative of the Boeing Vertol Model 360 perhaps?

Regards
Pioneer
 
AW159 Wildcat…

Nice helicopter but the UK armed forces should have realised that the bigger AW139M or AW149 had better potential to provide a common fleet for the future.
 
It would be very difficult (more likely impossible) for a conventional or tandem-rotor helicopter to have the payload-range performance of a tilt-rotor or tilt-wing. While the V-22 had a very difficult gestation, it was arguably the best technology for meeting the required performance.

Also, the USN and USMC had a perfectly good heavy lift helicopter, the H-53. On the other hand, I wonder why the USN and USMC kept using the H-46 long after it should have been retired.
 
Several aircraft projects come to mind:


The V-22 Osprey, the F-35 JSF, and the F-22. All of which had more cost-effective (and design-effective) alternatives.
What competitor was there to the V-22?
CL-84 is the first thing that comes to my mind. They could have had what they wanted in the mid to late 70s.
 
On the other hand, I wonder why the USN and USMC kept using the H-46 long after it should have been retired.
Or why they kept the -46 over the -47...
If I recall, the USN and USMC never used the H-47; the H-46 was much smaller.
Not that much longer through the fuselage, but much bigger rotors. -46 is 45ft long through the fuselage, -47 is 52ft, difference of 7ft. I hadn't realized just how much bigger till I looked it up: -46 is 83ft Rotors turning, -47 is 98ft, difference of 15ft total and 7ft greater rotor radius. Which makes the CH-47 take up more flight deck space than a CH-53E!
 
Several aircraft projects come to mind:


The V-22 Osprey, the F-35 JSF, and the F-22. All of which had more cost-effective (and design-effective) alternatives.
What competitor was there to the V-22?
I would think a production derivative of the Boeing Vertol Model 360 perhaps?

Regards
Pioneer
So, a super Chinook? Doesn't have anywhere near the range of the Osprey.
Well not exactly the size of the CH-47, more that of the CH-46...
Granted, perhaps not the range of the Osprey, but I'm adimit better than the CH-46, and I'm confident it being in service far quicker than the drawn out, issue plagued Osprey. To say confedently cheaper than the Osprey to both purchase and maintaine.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Several aircraft projects come to mind:


The V-22 Osprey, the F-35 JSF, and the F-22. All of which had more cost-effective (and design-effective) alternatives.
What competitor was there to the V-22?
I would think a production derivative of the Boeing Vertol Model 360 perhaps?

Regards
Pioneer
So, a super Chinook? Doesn't have anywhere near the range of the Osprey.
Well not exactly the size of the CH-47, more that of the CH-46...
Granted, perhaps not the range of the Osprey, but I'm adimit better than the CH-46, and I'm confident it being in service far quicker than the drawn out, issue plagued Osprey. To say confedently cheaper than the Osprey to both purchase and maintaine.

Regards
Pioneer
The USN and USMC had and have a helicopter in the H-47 class, the H-53. Why would they buy a second helicopter with similar performance?
 
The USN and USMC had and have a helicopter in the H-47 class, the H-53. Why would they buy a second helicopter with similar performance?
Because my dumb ass didn't realize that the H-47 was that big? I've only ever seen H-47s, having grown up well inland and away from normal Marine stomping grounds.
 
MiG-23 in in my list - Soviets should've specified an improved simple and light fighter - sorta proto-F-20 - instead of it
MiG-29 - Soviet F-16 should've been designed and manufactured.
Me 163 - Germans needed an 1-engined jet fighter instead.
Potez 63 series.
Defiant, Roc and Botha.
Me 110, 210, 410, He 177.
Airacuda, P-63.
A whole host of Japanese aircraft, that were manufactured in dozens and hundreds during the ww2 (not counting the big flying boats here).
Fiat CR.42 (Italians should've forgotten the whole biplane saga by the time CR.42 is in design phase), Ba.88.
 
The USN and USMC had and have a helicopter in the H-47 class, the H-53. Why would they buy a second helicopter with similar performance?
Because my dumb ass didn't realize that the H-47 was that big? I've only ever seen H-47s, having grown up well inland and away from normal Marine stomping grounds.

Ayuh; the H-53 and H-47 are both big. I spent more time around the former (I was a ground test engineer at Sikorsky), but got to see the latter when I worked at Lycoming in Stratford (where I was also a test engineer). Alas, I've never gotten to see the big helicopters from the former USSR.
 
What shouldn't have been build ? way too many french types of 1939.

Best possible french air force
- LN-161 rather than MS-406
- no MB-152, more MB-170 series: 174 for reco, 175 light bomber
- moar D-520s
- moar Curtiss H-75
- more Potez 63 rather than too few Breguet 693
- more Loire Nieuport dive bomber
- more DB-7 & MArtin 167F

The core of the air force should have been, right off 1936, Potez 63 bombers with a solid escort of Loire Nieuport 161.
Once this nucleus is stabilized, then gradually introduce useful types
- US fighter (Curtiss)
- US bombers
- the D-520 to improve on the LN-161
- MB-175, and LN dive bombers to complete and replace the Potez 63 strike force, along the DB-7 and Martin 167F

End result: three good fighters to escort a powerful and coherent bomber / strike force.

No point in building LeO-451 and Amiot 350, as France won't strike German cities for fear of LW repraisals.
Potez 230​

The Potez 230 inherited the most advanced elliptical wing of the time, built with an integral torque box, from its ancestor, Les Mureaux 190 light fighter, developed during the 30s. The philosophy of design of the Potez 230 was based on the specification Chasseur Monoplace C1 (June 3, 1937), calling for one high-performance small airplane that could use some technical elements left aside by first line fighters.

Thus, the surplus of Hispano-Suiza H.S.12 Xcrs engines, H.S.9 cannons and MAC 34A machine guns coming from the obsolete Dewoitine D.510 fighters could go back to combat without overloading the French war production of H.S.12 Y-45, H.S.404 and MAC 34 M39, intended for the Dewoitine D.520. Would the new equipment be available in enough quantity, it would also had been used by the Potez 230 as it was compatible to both of them.

A prototype was built in the Potez C.A.M.S. factory of Sartrouville in 1939. During a series of tests performed in the Villacoublay test centre in March 1940, it reached the speed of 560 km/h being equipped with an H.S.12 Xcrs of just 680 hp (the Dewoitine D.520 reached 525 km/h and the Bf 109 E-1, 575 km/h with much more powerful engines). It was expected that the Potez 230 could fly at 622 km/h after the installation of one of the new H.S.12 Y-45 of 910 hp but it was captured by German forces in June and translated to a technical research centre of the Luftwaffe to study the wing construction system.

Technical data

Engine: one 680 hp Hispano-Suiza H.S.12 Xcrs twelve-cylinder ‘Vee’ liquid-cooled, driving a three-bladed Ratier airscrew with pneumatic variable-pitch. Armament: one 20 mm engine-mounted H.S.9 cannon and four 7.5 mm. MAC 34A machine guns mounted under the wings. Wingspan: 8.74 m, length: 7.57 m, height: 2.18 m, wing area: 10.97 sq.m, maximum weight: 1,800 kg, maximum speed: 560 kph.



Roussel R.30​

The Roussel R.30 was conceived as a private venture ‘Jockey Fighter’ in answer to the Programme technique A.23 (12 January 1937) that required a light fighter able to fly at 520 km/h. Construction of the prototype began at Courbevoie, flying for the first time equipped with a 690 hp Gnôme-Rhône 14 M7 engine in April 1939.

In August 1939 it was transferred to the Centre d’Essais du Matériel Aérien (C.E.M.A.) for official trials, as a result of which it was recommended to install a more powerful engine to better use its excellent flying performances. During the Battle of France, the airplane was armed with two 20 mm Oerlikon FFS cannons mounted in the wings and some tests were performed for the installation of a bomb rack under the fuselage.

In combat, the R.30 could have destroyed any Luftwaffe bomber thanks to its high fire power of 2 Kg/sec, 2.8 times that of the Bf 109 E-1. In ground attack mode it would have had more possibilities to survive the Flak than the unfortunate Breguet 693 of the GBA 54 due to its high speed and small size. The only prototype was destroyed in Bordeaux-Mérignac airbase during a He111 bomb raid.

Technical data

Engine: one 690 hp Gnôme-Rhône 14 M7 of fourteen-cylinder, air-cooled radial driving a Ratier 1527 airscrew with electrically adjusted pitch. Armament: two 20 mm Oerlikon FFS cannons and one 250 kg G.P. bomb. Wingspan: 7.75 m, length: 6.15 m, height: 2.10 m, wing surface: 10 sq.m, maximum weight: 1,766 kg, maximum speed: 520 kph at 6,000 m.

Bloch M.B.700​

The Bloch M.B.700 was also designed as an answer to the Programme technique A.23. This small interceptor differentiated from the Roussel in that it was built from wood. This fact made its mass production easier as it did not require strategic materials that could be used for the Dewoitine D.520 conventional fighter. Outwardly, it looked like an 83% scaled down version of the conventional fighter Bloch M.B.152. The main advantage of the M.B.700 reduced size was that while equipped with an engine with 75% the power of an M.B.152, it flew 80 kph faster, still carrying the same armament, and was a more difficult target in dog-fight.

In 1939 a prototype was built in the Blériot-Aéronautique of Suresnes, flying for the first time by mid-April 1940. During the flight tests made on 13 May, it reached a maximum speed of just 380 kph, instead of the expected 580 km/h. As a consequence, the Mercier engine cowling and clear canopy were modified, and external plates were installed in the main undercarriage.

The airplane was destroyed shortly afterwards by the German troops in Buc airfield. There was a plan for a shipboard variant named M.B. 720 with tail hook and the armament reduced to four MAC 1934 M 39 machine guns.

Technical data

Engine: one 700 hp Gnôme-Rhône 14 M6 fourteen-cylinder, air-cooled radial engine driving a Gnôme Rhône variable-pitch airscrew. Armament: two 20 mm Hispano-Suiza H.S. 404 cannons and two 7.5 mm MAC 1934 M39 belt-feed machine guns mounted in the wings. Wingspan: 8.9 m, length: 7.34 m, height: 3.4 m, wing surface: 12.4 sq.m, maximum weight: 2,000 kg, maximum speed: 550 kph.
 

Attachments

  • 043.jpeg
    043.jpeg
    532.2 KB · Views: 14
  • 044.jpeg
    044.jpeg
    580.4 KB · Views: 14
  • 045.jpeg
    045.jpeg
    457.7 KB · Views: 14
Back
Top Bottom