AHC: a WW2 Lockheed U2 equivalent.

Curiousone

Banned
AHC: Have a major power produce (using technology of the day) a low production run, long range, dedicated strategic reconnaissance aircraft relying on whatever is perceived at the time to be 'ultra-high altitude' (for the day) performance for protection against interception/shootdown.

Bonus points for the surprise reaction of other major powers when it's used against them, how they attempt to counter it.
 

VIKINGTANK

How about the UK using the Westland Welkin as a starting point? OK it only has a maximum range of 1,500 miles on internal fuel but with guns replaced with cameras and extra fuel (conformal tanks?) it could well work. First flight of the high altitude fighter version was at the end of 1942 with 44,000 feet maximum altitude.

Vikingtank.
 

Astrodragon

There isn't anything magic about a HA aircraft that is difficult to counter.
You just need an engine that works at altitude and a large wing area.

The Germans built some, the British modified some fighters to reach them.
The U-2 was vulnerable to contemporary aircraft such as the EE Lightning.
 

Curiousone

Banned
KACKO said:
German high altitude reconaisance aircraft JU-86 P-1. I believe Spitire Mk VI was developped to counter it.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Junkers_Ju_86P_high_altitude_reconnaissance_plane_c1940.jpg
Click to expand...

Astrodragon said:
There isn't anything magic about a HA aircraft that is difficult to counter.
You just need an engine that works at altitude and a large wing area.

The Germans built some, the British modified some fighters to reach them.
The U-2 was vulnerable to contemporary aircraft such as the EE Lightning.
Click to expand...

See above, 'dedicated'.

Yes the modified Spitfighters could intercept modified JU-86's.

Could a purpose built aircraft require a purpose built counter, one which would require a long development phase in the midst of a war though?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Lockheed XC-35 had a service ceiling of more than 30,000 feet

Lockheed XC-35 had a service ceiling of more than 30,000 feet in 1938:



This aircraft had the same by 1944:




But this one beat them all: - 72,000 feet in 1935:

09-flashback-125-balloon-record.jpg



Best,
 

Richard V

You just described the Hughes XF-11. The project was delayed and over budget, causing a Congressional investigation. Howard Hughes himself was badly injured crashing the prototype.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Richard V said:
You just described the Hughes XF-11. The project was delayed and over budget, causing a Congressional investigation. Howard Hughes himself was badly injured crashing the prototype.
Click to expand...

The Republic XF-12 was even more impressive. It was capable of developing photographs in flight, so upon landing they would be immediately available.
 
Simon

Simon

Well the proposed Avro 684 heavy bomber was meant to be able to fly along at 40,000 feet with a service ceiling of 50,000 feet thanks to a fifth engine to help supply pressurised air for the cabin and engines but being a bomber its cruising speed wouldn't have been all that great. Now it's never going to get you up to 70,000 feet like Lockheed's U2 but using the general principles behind the 684 on a smaller plane specifically designed for reconnaissance could be possible. The main problem is going to be the need for one as they seem to have managed pretty well with what they already had in our timeline.
 

Aber

The Canberra design originated in a 1944 Air Ministry requirement, with a contract placed in early 1946. Eventually it set a world height record of 70,000ft in the Fifties.
 

Carl Schwamberger

The Brits modified some of their Martin Maryland bombers for long range high altitude work. While the service ceiling was not much more than 30,000 feet that did make conventional fighter interception of 1941 problematic.
 

SactoMan101

Well, the Germans nearly succeeded with a U-2 equivalent with the DFS 228:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DFS_228

This rocket powered "sailplane" could have reached an amazing 75,000 feet in altitude, even higher than the first U-2's! Sure, the endurance was short, but it would have flown above 50,000 feet for a fairly long period of time, which would have made interception impossible.
 

Tube alloys

Banned
A full metal Lancaster with pressurized body and only defensive weaponry capable of firing at high altitude and an internal fuel tank where the bomb bay would be. Theoretical range about 6000km + and a service ceiling of 10 000 feet
 

Curiousone

Banned
Tube alloys said:
A full metal Lancaster with pressurized body and only defensive weaponry capable of firing at high altitude and an internal fuel tank where the bomb bay would be. Theoretical range about 6000km + and a service ceiling of 10 000 feet
Click to expand...

'10,000' feet. Erm.. pretty sure a 40mm Bofors could hit that.
Did you mean 100,000 feet?
 

Carl Schwamberger

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tube alloys
A full metal Lancaster with pressurized body and only defensive weaponry capable of firing at high altitude and an internal fuel tank where the bomb bay would be. Theoretical range about 6000km + and a service ceiling of 10 000 feet

Curiousone said:
'10,000' feet. Erm.. pretty sure a 40mm Bofors could hit that.
Did you mean 100,000 feet?
Click to expand...

Or maybe 10,000 meters: 32,500 feet?
 

Curiousone

Banned
SactoMan101 said:
Well, the Germans nearly succeeded with a U-2 equivalent with the DFS 228:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DFS_228

This rocket powered "sailplane" could have reached an amazing 75,000 feet in altitude, even higher than the first U-2's! Sure, the endurance was short, but it would have flown above 50,000 feet for a fairly long period of time, which would have made interception impossible.
Click to expand...

Listed service ceiling (22,860 m (75,000 ft)) was comparable to the B-70 Valkyrie's(77,350 ft (23,600 m)), listed absolute ceiling (25,000 m (82,021 ft)) as comparable to the SR-71 Blackbirds service ceiling (85,000 ft (25,900 m)).

(Edit: Higher than the Bell X-1. Service ceiling: 71,900 ft (21,900 m))

That with the SR-71 having 5.66 times the wing area, B-70 29.5 times.

o_o.
 

MattII

Take a look at the weight though, empty weight wasn't much over 3,600 pounds, which for an aircraft with a wingspan of over 57'...
 

Curiousone

Banned
MattII said:
Take a look at the weight though, empty weight wasn't much over 3,600 pounds, which for an aircraft with a wingspan of over 57'...
Click to expand...

Good thing it had the altitude. Wouldn't take much for a golden bb.
Let alone that birds don't fly that high (birdstrike.. entire craft explodes..:p).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top