Yes. I do think the FW 190 will still replace this Arado fighter.
Alternate Aircraft of Nations
- Thread starter Count of Crisco
- Start date
This has the same type of awesome retro-sci-fi aesthetics as the Betty and now I want some kind of pulp sci-fi setting where both of these are a thing
Aesthetics wise this is closer to actual late 40 aircraft than the other two and more plausible overall. The bulbous bow installation of the liquid cooled engine is rather strange but aside from that its a quite cool design!
Yeah I like the art work too - it's obviously not mine
I was looking at the Gloster F5/34 and from what little I saw written about it, is that Folland redesigned the Gladiator as a monoplane. With 87 octane fuel, it had lighter controls and a better climb rate than the Hurricane. The listed top speed was 316 mph, with the Mercury.
However unlike a hypothetical conversion of the Gladiator to a monoplane the F5/34 wouldn't have a fixed undercarriage dragging down its performance. The Mono-Gladiator is most like the Fokker DXXI which had a top speed of 290mph with the same Mercury as the F5/34.
Going back to the post I made regarding the "shuttle replacement" idea I had, and some of the feedback I received, I wonder if it'd be more feasible scaled back to 15 tons (or 7-8 crew in a dedicated escape module that would replace most of the cargo bay) in terms of payload capacity? And, presumably, this would instead be built on "X-33 flew, but proved that SSTO is really hard, so we needed a new plan" instead of "TSTO!X-33 program".
Engines wise, how far along in terms of development were methane/LOX engines in the US at the time? Would a swap to methalox actually be seen as developmentally reasonable, and if so would the performance tradeoff of denser tanks be worth the hit to specific impulse? My guess is that it would be, but I'm not sure.
Relatedly, with the payload capability reduction, how would such a system want to go about things like Hubble Servicing Missions? My best guess is it'd be a two-launch affair, with the servicing payload and Hubble capture equipment launched ahead of the crewed spacecraft, which picks it up and carries it to go visit Hubble - the basis for that is mostly using STS-125 and its ~13 metric tons of servicing payload as a basis, which would put the mission outside of the performance of any reasonable "crew plus payload" configuration in the downsized orbiter. (And yes, I'm aware that's a ~2000s mission, but it seems a reasonable benchmark for what a "high performance" servicing mission would be expected to carry).
Presumably, either the crew orbiter could be configured with enough reserve delta-V for shoving a servicing payload + carrier pallet up to dock with Hubble, and then drag the pallet + removed hardware into a disposal/graveyard orbit when leaving, or the Payload Carrier Pallet could be placed on an orbit close to but not quite the same as Hubble's, allowing the cargo orbiter to do most of the heavy lifting on getting the payload to Hubble. Presumably, similar techniques could be used for delivery of logistics payloads to a space station, if the unmanned system was not sufficiently trusted to approach the station and hand off Multi-Purpose Logistics Module equivalents to a station-side robotic arm for berthing.
Engines wise, how far along in terms of development were methane/LOX engines in the US at the time? Would a swap to methalox actually be seen as developmentally reasonable, and if so would the performance tradeoff of denser tanks be worth the hit to specific impulse? My guess is that it would be, but I'm not sure.
Relatedly, with the payload capability reduction, how would such a system want to go about things like Hubble Servicing Missions? My best guess is it'd be a two-launch affair, with the servicing payload and Hubble capture equipment launched ahead of the crewed spacecraft, which picks it up and carries it to go visit Hubble - the basis for that is mostly using STS-125 and its ~13 metric tons of servicing payload as a basis, which would put the mission outside of the performance of any reasonable "crew plus payload" configuration in the downsized orbiter. (And yes, I'm aware that's a ~2000s mission, but it seems a reasonable benchmark for what a "high performance" servicing mission would be expected to carry).
Presumably, either the crew orbiter could be configured with enough reserve delta-V for shoving a servicing payload + carrier pallet up to dock with Hubble, and then drag the pallet + removed hardware into a disposal/graveyard orbit when leaving, or the Payload Carrier Pallet could be placed on an orbit close to but not quite the same as Hubble's, allowing the cargo orbiter to do most of the heavy lifting on getting the payload to Hubble. Presumably, similar techniques could be used for delivery of logistics payloads to a space station, if the unmanned system was not sufficiently trusted to approach the station and hand off Multi-Purpose Logistics Module equivalents to a station-side robotic arm for berthing.
June 1940
For 2 days the 8 Hawker Hectors, 5 Bristol Bulldogs and 4 Hawker Nimrods of the Jersey Volunteer Air Corps hold back the Luftwaffe. Hidden in barns and flying from farmers fields to avoid being bombed 6 times they rise to resit the invaders before being overwhelmed. The night after the island is captured the last of the defenders again takes to the sky in an attempt to reach England. The badly battered Hector covered in patches cut from sheets will make a forced landing on the Isle of Wight carrying the pilot, his wife and two small children.
In those two days they dispatch 1 JU 52/3m, 1 Fieseler Storch, 2 launches, and 2 JU 87s
For 2 days the 8 Hawker Hectors, 5 Bristol Bulldogs and 4 Hawker Nimrods of the Jersey Volunteer Air Corps hold back the Luftwaffe. Hidden in barns and flying from farmers fields to avoid being bombed 6 times they rise to resit the invaders before being overwhelmed. The night after the island is captured the last of the defenders again takes to the sky in an attempt to reach England. The badly battered Hector covered in patches cut from sheets will make a forced landing on the Isle of Wight carrying the pilot, his wife and two small children.
In those two days they dispatch 1 JU 52/3m, 1 Fieseler Storch, 2 launches, and 2 JU 87s
Last edited:
An Arado 197 fighter is catapulted off the German training carrier Seeadler (A converted refrigerated cargo ship) to carry out a strike against the British at Narvik. The strike lands two small bombs on Glorious leading to her withdrawal to Britain for repairs. However Seeadler is found by aircraft from the Ark Royal and sunk by Skua divebombers.
Last edited:
The world's first carrier vs carrier battle?
I wouldn't want to be anywhere near the ATL discussions about which side really won that battle.Obviously the Germans won because the British withdrew from Narvik shortly after. They were terrified of more attacks from the Mighty Kriegsmarine, just ask Herr Goebbels and Lord Haw Haw.The world's first carrier vs carrier battle?
First example of the Brazilian Aguia (eagle) fighter shortly before her test flight in 1942.
Fortunately a solution quickly presented itself as the Allison V-1710 engine was available in numbers from the United States. Conscious of the rapidly changing situation Brazil would place an order for three hundred of these engines, sufficient for all planned aircraft with some to spare for replacements, in 1940 and begin development of a re-engined version of the CR.42.
This work would last until September 1941 when a prototype flew successfully and full production of the newly named Aquia fighter began using the airframes produced at the time production ceased in 1940, nearly one hundred fighters. Conversion would be completed in 1943 when the final example of the type entered service. Though the type would prove to be somewhat difficult to maintain in service due to its cramped engine cowling and heavy strain on the airframe.
There was also the fact that Brazil had purchased large numbers of Curtis Hawk fighters from the United States at the same time that they had ordered their engines, and these planes were clearly superior to even a re-engined biplane in terms of firepower, rate of climb, and overall usability. Making the appearance of the type in service in 1942 as the most powerful and last frontline biplane fighter something of a quiet event for what should have been a significant event in aircraft history.
Early, in 1938. while waiting for his model to undergo wind tunnel testing at Hawkers, the young Russian born Canadian engineer, Michael Gregor hoped he got his design right. The NACA data that he was able to access helped determine his choice of a semi elliptical wing shape. His design borrowed from the Grumman F3F biplane that the Canadian Car & Foundry had a licence to build. Next was an engine. The U.S. seemed the obvious source because of proximity.
As he waited, Michael went over his design choices. A radial engine, for simplicity. Flush riveting and stressed aluminum skin to reduce drag. A bubble/tear drop canopy for good visibility and the retractable landing gear of the F3F for rough field operation, he thought were good choices. More controversial was the inclusion of folding wings. The harsh conditions and limited hanger space that he felt the aircraft would operate in, it seemed a logical choice. His last choice of eight gun,Browning's, four/wing was to it common with what the British were doing.
Michael, the Hawker engineer said, your model did very well in the wind tunnel test, what are you planning to power it with? I was thinking an American radial would be best replied Michael. Bristol has very good radial engines, why not check them out while you are here. They might even offer a licence to build them in Canada.
The letter of introduction from Hawkers provided Michael the opportunity to tour Bristol's engine facility. The small size, compact and quiet Taurus he found particularly impressive. The 1,050 hp rating on 87 octane fuel would be ideal for his aircraft. A licence agreement, in principal, was made followed up over several months to a formal agreement.
Flight testing of the prototype began in December, 1938 and a number of issues came up. The canopy had vibration problems at speed and the Taurus radial, supplied by Bristol, had some reliability problems. GM Canada, which was contracted to build the Taurus, under licence, looked at fixing the engine issue. The canopy required a redesign to correct the vibration problems.
While fight testing continued, GM brought in several engineers including some from their diesel division to try to fix the teething issues with the Taurus engines. What was eventually found was quality control issues with the pistons. One of the fixes that the diesel engineers tried was to fuel inject the engine. The engine, with improved pistons and fuel injection, gained a modest increase of power of 8%, which raised the output to 1130 hp on 87 octane fuel. The slight increase in unit cost was felt worth the increase in performance and was accepted by the CC&F.
The Dominion Day celebration, in Ottawa, July 1, 1939, was highlighted by the flights of various aircraft, including DeHavilland Moths, Avro Prefects and Hawker Harts. The last aircraft to appear, were 3 FDB-1s, which overtook the other flights at over 300 mph.
Over the next few weeks orders began to come in. The Canadian Government had previously ordered 25 but had increased this to 50. Finland ordered 25, France ordered 25 and the Duchy of Grande Fenwick 3. The FAA also showed some interest but were limited by Treasury as to what they could purchase.
As he waited, Michael went over his design choices. A radial engine, for simplicity. Flush riveting and stressed aluminum skin to reduce drag. A bubble/tear drop canopy for good visibility and the retractable landing gear of the F3F for rough field operation, he thought were good choices. More controversial was the inclusion of folding wings. The harsh conditions and limited hanger space that he felt the aircraft would operate in, it seemed a logical choice. His last choice of eight gun,Browning's, four/wing was to it common with what the British were doing.
Michael, the Hawker engineer said, your model did very well in the wind tunnel test, what are you planning to power it with? I was thinking an American radial would be best replied Michael. Bristol has very good radial engines, why not check them out while you are here. They might even offer a licence to build them in Canada.
The letter of introduction from Hawkers provided Michael the opportunity to tour Bristol's engine facility. The small size, compact and quiet Taurus he found particularly impressive. The 1,050 hp rating on 87 octane fuel would be ideal for his aircraft. A licence agreement, in principal, was made followed up over several months to a formal agreement.
Flight testing of the prototype began in December, 1938 and a number of issues came up. The canopy had vibration problems at speed and the Taurus radial, supplied by Bristol, had some reliability problems. GM Canada, which was contracted to build the Taurus, under licence, looked at fixing the engine issue. The canopy required a redesign to correct the vibration problems.
While fight testing continued, GM brought in several engineers including some from their diesel division to try to fix the teething issues with the Taurus engines. What was eventually found was quality control issues with the pistons. One of the fixes that the diesel engineers tried was to fuel inject the engine. The engine, with improved pistons and fuel injection, gained a modest increase of power of 8%, which raised the output to 1130 hp on 87 octane fuel. The slight increase in unit cost was felt worth the increase in performance and was accepted by the CC&F.
The Dominion Day celebration, in Ottawa, July 1, 1939, was highlighted by the flights of various aircraft, including DeHavilland Moths, Avro Prefects and Hawker Harts. The last aircraft to appear, were 3 FDB-1s, which overtook the other flights at over 300 mph.
Over the next few weeks orders began to come in. The Canadian Government had previously ordered 25 but had increased this to 50. Finland ordered 25, France ordered 25 and the Duchy of Grande Fenwick 3. The FAA also showed some interest but were limited by Treasury as to what they could purchase.
Driftless
Donor
I think the CCF plane FDB-1 (biplane) was still a few hundred pounds lighter than the F3F, but it's hard to really compare Wiki numbers, as you can't tell exactly how they were equipped to hit that weight. The CCF plane was certainly much lighter (original form) than the beefier F4F. It would be fascinating to see how a military equipped version (guns and radio) would weigh out and perform.
There is nothing on the technical side that would prevent such a use, though the rather narrow fuselage would likely result in a substandard transport if used for that. Its otherwise not a particular fast aircraft by postwar standards but its a proven and reliable design that should be usable in the other roles you listed if an airforce does not have anything else better suited to use and the french actually did use the 188 until 1951.
If I remember correctly the 188 was also only build in reconnaissance and bomber versions so there are no night fighters that you would have to either scrap or modify extensivly.
Its just overall not a very economical thing to do (the way the weapons stations are set upf for example makes kicking out the armament less beneficial than on some other types), as I think there are better aircraft available for all of these jobs after the war, even if you want a victorious germany to continue with their use. The likeliest scenario would be for a small ATL airforce with no access to other options a bit like the Avia S-199 used by Israel.
Yeah, export for nations that can't aford jets,(at least early on) would be it's best chance. Then again, with the USAAF disposing of thousands of medium bombers (B-25, B-26...) it would face stiff competition, cost-wise...