No, I cannot. There are limits to what can be squeezed out of a Skua.Can you imagine an improved or enlarged version with a Hercules and 1000lb bombs. Heck even a Perseus 100 would give 1200hp and a significant increase in capability.
Specifications (Skua Mk. II)[edit]
Skua L3007 in target tug markings, 1941
Data from Blackburn Aircraft since 1909[15]
General characteristics
Performance
- Crew: 2
- Length: 35 ft 7 in (10.85 m)
- Wingspan: 46 ft 2 in (14.07 m)
- Height: 12 ft 6 in (3.81 m)
- Wing area: 319 sq ft (29.6 m2)
- Airfoil: root: NACA 2416; tip: NACA 2409[16]
- Empty weight: 5,496 lb (2,493 kg)
- Gross weight: 8,228 lb (3,732 kg)
- Powerplant: 1 × Bristol Perseus XII 9-cylinder air-cooled radial sleeve-valve piston engine, 890 hp (660 kW)
- Propellers: 3-bladed variable-pitch propeller
Armament
- Maximum speed: 225 mph (362 km/h, 196 kn) at 6,500 ft (1,981 m)
- Cruise speed: 187 mph (301 km/h, 162 kn) [17]
- Range: 760 mi (1,220 km, 660 nmi) [18]
- Service ceiling: 20,200 ft (6,200 m)
- Rate of climb: 1,580 ft/min (8.0 m/s)
- Guns: [19]
- 4 × 0.303 in (7.7 mm) forward-firing Browning machine guns with 600 rounds per gun
- 1 × 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Lewis or Vickers K machine gun on flexible mount in rear cockpit
- Bombs: 1 × 500 lb (230 kg) semi-armour piercing bomb under fuselage or 8 × 30 lb (14 kg) practice bombs under wings[19]
Some things to consider... A Bristol Hercules masses 150 kg more than the Wright R1820. The Dauntless carries more fuel compared to a Skua as a result. The wings give eerily similar lift, but the better less draggy and more pancake shaped Dauntless airframe provides added cylinder lift so it can carry more bombload further.Specifications (SBD-5)[edit]
Data from McDonnell Douglas aircraft since 1920 : Volume I[59]
General characteristics
Performance
- Crew: 2
- Length: 33 ft 1.25 in (10.0902 m)
- Wingspan: 41 ft 6.375 in (12.65873 m)
- Height: 13 ft 7 in (4.14 m)
- Wing area: 325 sq ft (30.2 m2)
- Airfoil: root: NACA 2415; tip: NACA 2407[60]
- Empty weight: 6,404 lb (2,905 kg)
- Gross weight: 9,359 lb (4,245 kg)
- Max takeoff weight: 10,700 lb (4,853 kg)
- Fuel capacity: 260 US gal (220 imp gal; 980 l) in non-metallic self-sealing fuel tanks
- Powerplant: 1 × Wright R-1820-60 Cyclone 9-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engine, 1,200 hp (890 kW)
- Propellers: 3-bladed Hamilton-Standard constant-speed propeller
Armament
- Maximum speed: 255 mph (410 km/h, 222 kn) at 14,000 ft (4,300 m)
- Cruise speed: 185 mph (298 km/h, 161 kn)
- Range: 1,115 mi (1,794 km, 969 nmi)
- Ferry range: 1,565 mi (2,519 km, 1,360 nmi)
- Service ceiling: 25,530 ft (7,780 m)
- Rate of climb: 1,700 ft/min (8.6 m/s)
- Wing loading: 28.8 lb/sq ft (141 kg/m2)
- Power/mass: 0.128 hp/lb (0.210 kW/kg)
- Guns: ** 2 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) forward-firing synchronized Browning M2machine guns in engine cowling
- 2 × 0.30 in (7.62 mm) flexible-mounted Browning M1919 machine guns in rear
- Bombs: 2,250 lb (1,020 kg) of bombs
Considering when it would have been operational it would have needed a separate height finder Ariel. To ensure that they knew the altitude of any potential threat.
and that would certainly have gotten a response from AustraliaThe Chengdu J-10 in Indonesian Service
In 1965, when the Communist Party of Indonesia overthrew the Sukarno Government and created the Peoples' Democratic Republic of Indonesia (PDRI) under President Untung bin Syamsuri who had lead the Revolution on 30 September 1965. He replaced President Sukarno soon afterwards. The Indonesian Air Force, became a largely Soviet equipped one. When the Soviet Union dissolved at the end of the Cold War Indonesia was left without a backer. They turned to China. China was quite prepared to support Indonesia.
The first Chinese aircraft that the Indonesians received was the Shenyang J-8, a Chinese version of the MiG-21, with two engines. Twin Guizhou WP-13B, a version of the Tumansky R-13, rated at 10,580 lbf thrust dry, 15,430 lbf with afterburner. This however was only a stop gap while more modern equipment was being developed. Indonesia received its first example of the Chengdu J-10 its successor in 2008.
The J-10 is a modern, lightweight fighter-bomber. the airframe's aerodynamic layout adopts a "tail-less canard delta" wing configuration. A large delta wing is mid-mounted towards the rear of the fuselage, while a pair of canards (or foreplanes) are mounted higher up and towards the front of the fuselage, behind and below the cockpit. This configuration provides very high agility, especially at low speeds, and also reduces stall speed, allowing for a lower airspeed during instrument approaches. A large vertical tail is present on top of the fuselage and small ventral fins underneath the fuselage provide further stability.
A large rectangular air intake is located underneath the fuselage, providing the air supply to the engine. Newer variants use a diverterless intake that does not require a splitter plate, and may reduce radar cross signature. Also under the fuselage and wings are 11 hardpoints, used for carrying various types of weaponry and drop-tanks containing extra fuel.
It is armed with internal armament consisting of a Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23 twin-barrel cannon, located underneath the port side of the intake. Other weaponry and equipment is mounted externally on 11 hardpoints, to which 6,000 kg (13,228 lb) of either missiles and bombs, drop-tanks containing fuel, or other equipment such as avionics pods can be attached.[citation needed]
Air-to-air missiles deployed may include short-range air-to-air missiles such as the PL-8 and PL-10 (on J-10C), medium-range radar-guided air-to-air missiles such as the PL-12 and PL-15 (on J-10C), unguided and precision guided munitions such as laser-guided bombs, air-to-surface missile such as KD-88,[30] anti-ship missiles such as the YJ-91A[30] and anti-radiation missiles such as the YJ-91.
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/8017/B6ygMN.jpg[/img]
The Kit
The kit is the Trumpeter 1/72 scale kit. Painted with a rattlecan. Decals by Kit Speckman Enterprises.
What would that look like ?Considering when it would have been operational it would have needed a separate height finder Ariel. To ensure that they knew the altitude of any potential threat.
Like the EC-121 a separate ariel under or in front of the fuselage. They had an ariel for azimuth and an ariel for the height finding sets. Combined ariels didn't appear until the late 1960s.What would that look like ?
I believe the word you're looking for is aerial. However this picture on the fuselage of the E-36 would be memorable.Like the EC-121 a separate ariel under or in front of the fuselage. They had an ariel for azimuth and an ariel for the height finding sets. Combined ariels didn't appear until the late 1960s.
🤣🤣I believe the word you're looking for is aerial. However this picture on the fuselage of the E-36 would be memorable.View attachment 639664
Aaaaaaand the thread is doneI believe the word you're looking for is aerial. However this picture on the fuselage of the E-36 would be memorable.View attachment 639664
A trick which was employed apparently by Meteor pilots was to raise the undercarriage while the aircraft was still taking off, hence "provoking" the aircraft into flying. Apparently an RAF pilot tried the same trick with the Clyde powered machine and sheared several inches off the propellers.Would be interesting to see turboprops with more field testing during WW2. The later Clyde seems to have been undercut by focus on the Avon. Trent's being deployed may have convinced Hives that the market was worth pursuing earlier.
AIUI the Trent Meteor test-bed was where they determined the huge skill and workload on a pilot in manually operating the engine and propeller separately. It nearly caused Eric Greenwood (Gloster's chief test pilot) to crash on landing. This led to the development of the interconnected engine and prop controls on the Dart. I am not sure if such a system could have been developed in time for the Trent Meteor to be deployed to the Pacific (The Dart first ran in 1946).
I was thinking of endurance just have them orbiting in patternsWould would be the advantage of using such a large airplane for an AWACs? You wouldn't need an extraordinarily long range for the AWACs role. But the long endurance could be useful. Would the electronic tech of that era, late 1950s, require the weight and volumne carrying capacity of a B-36 to carry a sufficient electronics suite for the powerful radars? It's a impressive looking beast but I'm unsure of its practicality.
Would would be the advantage of using such a large airplane for an AWACs? You wouldn't need an extraordinarily long range for the AWACs role. But the long endurance could be useful. Would the electronic tech of that era, late 1950s, require the weight and volumne carrying capacity of a B-36 to carry a sufficient electronics suite for the powerful radars? It's a impressive looking beast but I'm unsure of its practicality.
I was thinking of endurance just have them orbiting in patterns