AHC: a 350 mph/560 km/h fighter for 1935

I guess if you are asking for speed, the fokker D.XXIII could easily be imagined as a 4 engined fighter. Theee puller and one pusher.
Not cheap, but in 1935 it would be quite competitive.
And if performance us good enough, skip the center front engine and add some heavy cannons.
 
In the US if Curtiss had been able to get the USAAC to back off from its 300° operating temperature for the Conqueror maybe somethng could be done there.But I doubt it. I just don't see the US being advanced enough aerodynamically at the time. The Navy is still flying biplanes. The AAC is flying Peashooters with bracing wires for Christ's sake.

Still the idea of Curtiss being able to achieve the required speed, reliability and airframe design is two or three steps too far IMO. That said the Conqueror or the D-12 would of made a hell of a tank engine.

The Consolidated P-30 was a cantilever monoplane, retractable U/C and cutting edge powerplant - a V12 engine with turbocharger. 750 HP above 25000 ft was quite an achievement for the 1930s. The major shortcoming of the design was that it was designed as two-seater, with rear gun, and that it was too big, wing area was twice of the I-16.
USA/NACA was aerodynamically very advanced in 1930s, they were leading the way with monoplanes in practice and in aerodynamic theory. Thus - a 1-seater, turbocharged Conqueror, wing of 200 sq ft (instead of almost 300 sq ft as on the P-30), 2-3-4 MGs.
This scenario leaves the Conqueror in production (hopefully improved), thus it can be indeed installed on the tanks once V-1710 is available.
 
I guess if you are asking for speed, the fokker D.XXIII could easily be imagined as a 4 engined fighter. Theee puller and one pusher.
Not cheap, but in 1935 it would be quite competitive.
And if performance us good enough, skip the center front engine and add some heavy cannons.

----------------------------------------------------

OTL Fokker XXIII flew 325 mph with only 1,060 hp!
That pair of Walter 530 hp engines put it in the "Panic Fighter" class.
With a single, pusher engine producing 1,000 hp that would free up the nose for cannon armament. The greatest challenge -of any pod-and-boom airplane - is stabilizing airflow at the wing-pod trailing edge. Longer pods are easier to streamline, but can ruin balance with pusher engines. Perhaps snuggling radiators into wing roots could smooth airflow????
 
Last edited:
As with the FIAT AS-6, two V-12 connected end to end.
It's one way to avoid crank whip in a single block.

But you were thinking one on each wing, right? extra drag from the installation

Now you could do a Do-335, push and pulling, to avoid the extra drag you get with the extra booms or nacelles

-----------------------------------------------------------

Pusher airplanes - with long drive shafts - also suffer a variation on "crank-whip" plus torsional vibration. As individual pistons and individual propeller blades introduce a complex series of vibrations, those vibrations overlap in ways that can shatter a shaft in seconds.
The helicopter industry really only solved torsional vibration problems after they introduced - much smoother - jet engines.
 
Water and alcohol injection can also reduce knocking in high-compression engines.

The water/alch injection (a.k.a. 'ADI') is also a way to circumvent the problem of not having enough (or at all) of hi-oct fuel. Granted, the best thing is combination of ADI, hi-oct fuel, intercooler, and not too high CR.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Pusher airplanes - with long drive shafts - also suffer a variation on "crank-whip" plus torsional vibration. As individual pistons and individual propeller blades introduce a complex series of vibrations, those vibrations overlap in ways that can shatter a shaft in seconds.
The helicopter industry really only solved torsional vibration problems after they introduced - much smoother - jet engines.

IIRC there was no such catastrophic crashes with P-39s or P-63s, both types used long drive shafts. Even during the racing days.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------

Pusher airplanes - with long drive shafts - also suffer a variation on "crank-whip" plus torsional vibration. As individual pistons and individual propeller blades introduce a complex series of vibrations, those vibrations overlap in ways that can shatter a shaft in seconds.
The helicopter industry really only solved torsional vibration problems after they introduced - much smoother - jet engines.

The Bellanca TES 'Blue Streak' was an (ugly)experimental plane with twin Curtiss Conquerer engines, a tractor with the 'pusher' mounted directly behind it in a nacelle large enough for the Flight Engineer access to both engines. The rear engine was geared down, and a drive shaft went to the end of the craft to a 3 blade prop

It was a long range monster for 1930 5000 mile radius range, 2150 gallons of fuel- It was a large tank in the fuselage, and that drive shaft went thru it LINK

And a model of it, and B&W pics just do not do it justice
finished_4.jpg


It never made the Record setting flight it was designed for, first non-stop flight from Seattle to Tokyo, as in a cross country flight test, that shaft failed, killing all onboard in 1931
 
Top