AHC: the ideal fighter(s) for 1940

Folgore.png


Since this isn't a matter of what was ideal in 1940, but rather what would have been, a slightly revised Macchi wouldn't be too out of place.
 
Could the first Gloster F.9/37 prototype have been built with 2 Hercules instead of 2 Taurus engines and the second with 2 Merlins instead of 2 Peregrines? Would either have been better than the Beaufighter?
 
Could the first Gloster F.9/37 prototype have been built with 2 Hercules instead of 2 Taurus engines and the second with 2 Merlins instead of 2 Peregrines?

I certainly hope so. F.9/37 was a big aircraft for a day 2-engined fighter, that might be mixing it with 1-engined jobs. Eg. wing area was 40-50% greater than of the Whirlwind or Ro.58, and between the sizes of the Bf 110 and Me 210. Wing was not blessed by thinness, too.

Would either have been better than the Beaufighter?

Beau was huge and heavy, with wide & tall fuselage and wing still much greater than on the F.9/37. The Merlinized F.9/37, or the version with Hercules, should be a better performer than the Beau during both day and night, talk mid- and later Bf 110 level pf performance (350-360 mph for day use). Less pressure for Mossie NFs would've allowed for more of the later used as bombers.
 
Could the first Gloster F.9/37 prototype have been built with 2 Hercules instead of 2 Taurus engines and the second with 2 Merlins instead of 2 Peregrines? Would either have been better than the Beaufighter?

The F.9/37 could have been designed to take either Hercules or Merlin, but it wouldn't be the same aircraft. It was designed for Taurus, and could have served with Taurus as it developed, and might have even inspired more development. Taurus and Hercules problems, material and manufacturing, were solved in a similar timescale roughly, but by that time, interest in Taurus had waned and Hercules was favored. Bristol didn't have the engineering staff to deal with it all, and priorities ruled. The later Reaper was intended to adopt Merlins, but was going to take too long. The Gloster would have out-performed the Beau in many ways, but not in versatility. And then there were those silly guns.
 
From what I can see the PZL50 would have been fine for an aircraft entering service in 36 or 37 as a stop gap, but for an aircraft first flying in 39 was hopelessly slow. The chose the wrong engine.
 

Driftless

Donor
From what I can see the PZL50 would have been fine for an aircraft entering service in 36 or 37 as a stop gap, but for an aircraft first flying in 39 was hopelessly slow. The chose the wrong engine.

No argument, but it would have been better than what they did fly - that's it's one virtue
 
View attachment 349612

Since this isn't a matter of what was ideal in 1940, but rather what would have been, a slightly revised Macchi wouldn't be too out of place.
The Italians certainly built beautiful fighters
View attachment 349612

Since this isn't a matter of what was ideal in 1940, but rather what would have been, a slightly revised Macchi wouldn't be too out of place.
The Italians certainly built beautiful fighters
View attachment 349612

Since this isn't a matter of what was ideal in 1940, but rather what would have been, a slightly revised Macchi wouldn't be too out of place.
The Italians certainly built beautiful aircraft
 
I wonder about this layout--would the propwash from the two tractor engines interfere too much with the airstream for the pusher?

I really don't know if two is worse than just one, or if it works any better than my Lightning 3M. You know they closed the Langley wind tunnel.
 
Looks like a Dornier Do-335 to me and I think its a rather large aircraft to be considered generic, most push-pull aircraft were much smaller than the Do-335.

I've used Do-335 fuselage and Do-17 wing shape. The cockpit should be depicted as bigger (and simpler), appropriate to a wing of 300-350 sq ft for two run-on-the-mill V12 engines of 1939/40. Front engine also needs to look bigger.
 
I really don't know if two is worse than just one, or if it works any better than my Lightning 3M. You know they closed the Langley wind tunnel.
Again, it is too bad we don't have our own AHF full-scale wind tunnel;)

My concern is that, unlike when push/pull are in line, in this case the pusher will receive turbulent thrust on its tips while the rest of the propeller will only get the disturbed air from around d the fuselage. I am not sure how this would affect that rear prop.
 
A bit tweaked push-pull job. Front engine section is more to the scale, cockpit is simpler and better to the scale (yet still 1940-ish), even four barrels are sticking out.

pushpull.jpg
 
The Fw 190 with DB 601 and beard radiators (the Fw 190A-6 and Bf 109G used as base for this bashing), plus two drop tanks can be carried:

601190new.jpg
 
Top