I would imagine Navalized versions of the YaK-9 or La-7 would be in the cards for Fighters, maybe even trying to push the envelope with some early Naval Jets.
I've also seen a concept for a Sturmovik Torpedo Bomber
Alternate History Combat Aircraft
- Thread starter S. Marlowski
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aircraft helicopter
I've also seen a concept for a Sturmovik Torpedo Bomber
Can you get that thing airborne form a carrier? I must admit to have no idea what the takeoff length for an IL-2 is. It also an interesting choice as a torped bomber overall, its very heavily armored compared to most such machines but has a similiar to speed. Depending on the exakt version you base your T conversion on you also have a significant cannon armament that could be usefull against smaller ships.
Don't forget modifications however! Looking at the tinfish, she'll need some serious undercarriage lengthening!
Hello! 
I seem to have followed a fellow forum member down a dark thread and popped up here.
My question is in regards to this attached image as created by https://www.deviantart.com/jimbowyrick1
With a quick wiki search it seems the Mitsubishi machine was developed in the mid 1930's so it's a contemporary with the Messerschmitt 109.
It's... possible, ues? The collaboration between the two country's etc.
So, my question is more about... how would such a beast perform?
Would there be advantages over either the original Zero or the 109?
Would it have given the Lufwaffe a 'Better' machine?
Could people have sat on Prof Messerchmitt long enough to get the... hybrid... developed and produced?
Would it have been worse in regards to Spitfires punching better holes in it?
Hope my first post here is within the bounds, as it were.
Cheers.
I seem to have followed a fellow forum member down a dark thread and popped up here.
My question is in regards to this attached image as created by https://www.deviantart.com/jimbowyrick1
With a quick wiki search it seems the Mitsubishi machine was developed in the mid 1930's so it's a contemporary with the Messerschmitt 109.
It's... possible, ues? The collaboration between the two country's etc.
So, my question is more about... how would such a beast perform?
Would there be advantages over either the original Zero or the 109?
Would it have given the Lufwaffe a 'Better' machine?
Could people have sat on Prof Messerchmitt long enough to get the... hybrid... developed and produced?
Would it have been worse in regards to Spitfires punching better holes in it?
Hope my first post here is within the bounds, as it were.
Cheers.
Attachments
Welcome to the best Thread on AH.com™️
From your image I gather that its a Zero with a DB601, correct?
The Japanese actually used that engine as both the Aichi Atsuta and Kawasaki Ha40, but much later than proposed here. The cooperation between Japan and Germany was notoriously terrible, especially this early, but we cold and should handwave that in favour of taking a look at the aircraft.
First of, the 601 is a larger and heavier engine than the Sakae of the original Zero, especially since its also liquid cooled and not aircooled, wich ads the need of a much more intricate cooling system. Im not sure if the structure of the A6M can take such an engine installation, since it was engineered much more for low weight than for strenght. Even if you could mount it you would loose some of the vaunted agility of the Zero due to increasing the wing loading. On the other hand you should get quite a bit of speed, but I cant realy guess how much.
As far as comparisons with the 109 are concerned its more difficult: Compared to its most important early war enemy, the spitfire, the 109 had comparable speed but was a bit less agile overall. With the Zero you would most likely loose speed and gain maneuverability. With the right tactics this could prove effective for a time, since the spitfires also failed pretty badly when pittet against the Zero in our timeline. Once the Brits develop proper energy tactics this kind of advantage would be canceled out though and speed becomes much more important.
One pretty big advantage you would gain with your plane is that the Zero airframe was build to take droptanks from the beginning and also had much greater built-in range (I dont know how how this would be impacted by the change in engine, but would guess its still much more than the 109).
Over longer time the DB-Zero could become somewhat of a liability though: The 109 was an incredibly adaptable plane that could be continously upgraded to stay relevant. Im not sure how much potential in that regard the Zero airframe has with its super low-weight construction. The japanese never did much in that direction but they also lacked the neccessary improved engines to increase carry weight and performance at the same time.
Thank'e for your time and thoughts.
So... maybe a plane that 'Could' still handle the Spitfires of its day PLUS the range to definatly escort the bombers 'There and back again' sort of thing?
But... probably being p[hased out instead of continued development because... there simply isn't enough aircraft/airframe to work with?
Interesting.
Yeah... the "Where do you put the cooler' did come to mind. Don't think the artist really showed that.
Would it be cheaper than the 109? Not sure how you go about estimating prices for these things.
So... maybe a plane that 'Could' still handle the Spitfires of its day PLUS the range to definatly escort the bombers 'There and back again' sort of thing?
But... probably being p[hased out instead of continued development because... there simply isn't enough aircraft/airframe to work with?
Interesting.
Yeah... the "Where do you put the cooler' did come to mind. Don't think the artist really showed that.
Would it be cheaper than the 109? Not sure how you go about estimating prices for these things.
If its possible to build and performs roughly to my (realy amateurish) guesses then this is a pretty likely scenario, yes.
Im not sure what the Zero cost, but the 109 was already a pretty cheap and quick to build plane by the standards of the day.
Last edited:
I agree with Leander there would be some advantages to combining the 109's engine with the Zero's airframe but I don't think there would be much room left for further development of this hybrid design without completely changing the Zero's airframe.Hello!
I seem to have followed a fellow forum member down a dark thread and popped up here.
My question is in regards to this attached image as created by https://www.deviantart.com/jimbowyrick1
With a quick wiki search it seems the Mitsubishi machine was developed in the mid 1930's so it's a contemporary with the Messerschmitt 109.
It's... possible, ues? The collaboration between the two country's etc.
So, my question is more about... how would such a beast perform?
Would there be advantages over either the original Zero or the 109?
Would it have given the Lufwaffe a 'Better' machine?
Could people have sat on Prof Messerchmitt long enough to get the... hybrid... developed and produced?
Would it have been worse in regards to Spitfires punching better holes in it?
Hope my first post here is within the bounds, as it were.
Cheers.
Here a three sided view of what the plane might have looked like.
I used the engine from an Me-109F model because it blended in better, I had to narrow down the sides of the Zero for a better fit so narrower airframe with longer nose.
BTW way the engine on the pic you posted looks like it came from a Heinkel He-112 not an Me-109, same engine but different engine cowling.
Also welcome to the thread bro.
With the much longer engine you would also have to fiddle with several other things to get the center of gravity right. So I tink overall its not overly practical to try to make the 601 fit the Zero instead of trying to design a new airframe around the engine (which ultimately lead to the Ki-60 and Ki-61). On the other hand the Japanese did put a radial into the Ki-61, creating the Ki-100 which was by all accounts a realy good plane 🤔.
@cortz#9 @Peebothuhlu What kind of armament would you propose for the plane? Also a cooperation between Japan and Germany? With the DB601 you get the ability to install a Motorkanone, but if its build in the early 30s its to early for the MG151 and the MG FF (or the Ho-5 which is developed from the same source) cant be mounted in that configuration.
@cortz#9 @Peebothuhlu What kind of armament would you propose for the plane? Also a cooperation between Japan and Germany? With the DB601 you get the ability to install a Motorkanone, but if its build in the early 30s its to early for the MG151 and the MG FF (or the Ho-5 which is developed from the same source) cant be mounted in that configuration.
I would think Zero would keep the same wing cannons of the early A6m2 the type 99 20mm cannons and maybe add a third cannon to the nose at a later date?
The Ho-5 isnt all that impressive as far as 20mm cannons are concerned. I thought maybe you can get an overall better armament by mixing german and japanese guns. The early date unfortunately does not give many options. Depending on how long you can keep the 601-Zero in service you might get MG151/15s but not much else.
The Germans could give the Japanese license to build the MG151/15 and or the MG FF, if not then I don't think this hybrid would ever have a nose gun.
The Japanese never mounted a cannon in the nose of the Ki-61, I've wondered if it was because Japanese cannons weren't suitable for mounting behind the engine?
I might be misremembering but I dont think you could install a MG FF as a Motorkanone.
For the 601-Zero I think the Japanese armament might actually be sufficent for the time its gonna stay in service. You could maybe replace the cowling guns with mg 131 in 1940 and add a 151/15 as Motorkanone, but then you are lugging around three different types of ammo with quite different ballistics, might not be worth it.
I think for their time both the 109 and the Zero were adequatly armed.
Re the Japanese lack of such guns: They only used very few non-radial engines overall, so I think they never bothered to actually develop a gun for that type of installation as it would not have been that usefull in the grand scheme of things.
Edit: That actually another problem the Japanese might have with their version of the plane: In reality they found the DB engines they got to be very complicated from a maintenenace standpoint and never managed to get them to the same level of reliability as their raidals. In this TL they should have less problems though, because they have the engine earlier and have more time to actually train their ground crews on them.
Last edited:
I agree.
I do think the Ki-61 would have benefited from a nose gun but then the Japanese ran out of the Daimler-Benz engines the Germans sent them so it wouldn't of had been worth the effort.
I agree with Leander there would be some advantages to combining the 109's engine with the Zero's airframe but I don't think there would be much room left for further development of this hybrid design without completely changing the Zero's airframe.
Here a three sided view of what the plane might have looked like.
View attachment 664250
I used the engine from an Me-109F model because it blended in better, I had to narrow down the sides of the Zero for a better fit so narrower airframe with longer nose.
BTW way the engine on the pic you posted looks like it came from a Heinkel He-112 not an Me-109, same engine but different engine cowling.
Also welcome to the thread bro.
Thank'e.
Glad to be here.
Actually the original artist mentioned that they delibratly changed the cowling to match the Zero body... not the other way around. So maybe they simply used the expedent (While sitting on Proff Willie) thing to use existing He 112 parts to help make everything fit?
Sounds plausible.Thank'e.
Glad to be here.
Actually the original artist mentioned that they delibratly changed the cowling to match the Zero body... not the other way around. So maybe they simply used the expedent (While sitting on Proff Willie) thing to use existing He 112 parts to help make everything fit?
Harking back to the previous discussion about Soviet carrier-based fighters:
After having gained some experience with US lend-lease aircraft on their new carriers, the new navy of the USSR started to look for a homebuilt replacement to use on their new Odessa-class fleet carriers. Going with what was quickly becoming standard specification, they decided their new aircraft should be propelled by an air-cooled radial engine. Their first choices, Lavochkin and Suchoi however were already maxed out on capacity rebuilding the air forces of the newly liberated European Brother States and none were keen on wasting valuable resources on designing an airplane for what would be a limited production run at best.
At the same time however, a Yakovlev plant in Tbilisi, Georgia was developing a variant of the superb Yak-3 fighter equipped with a radial, as a failsafe solution to keep the Yak-3 in production should there ever be shortages in the plane's original Klimov inline engine. The navy saw her opportunity and even while the original Yak-3U was still being tested, the second prototype was further developed into the carrier-based Yak-3UK. Conversion proceeded quickly, although by times elegant solutions were shelved in favor of quick ones. (Famously the first series had a tailhook attached to the outside of the fuselage, running around both sides of the retractable tail wheel by means of a U-shaped hook assembly.) Yet, when the first serial aircraft were delivered to the USSR Vladivostok, it was clear that in the Yak, the navy had a winner that could easily hold its own to the best allied fighters and generally had no problem confronting its Japanese counterparts.
All in all, the type performed admirably and stayed with the USSR navy throughout the complete pacific campaign and later the Indochinese Liberation Wars until being replaced by the new Yak-17 jets in the early 1950's. The last user was Thailand who bought two squadrons of Yak-3U's from Indonesia in 1955 and reportedly operated them as late as 1967.
After having gained some experience with US lend-lease aircraft on their new carriers, the new navy of the USSR started to look for a homebuilt replacement to use on their new Odessa-class fleet carriers. Going with what was quickly becoming standard specification, they decided their new aircraft should be propelled by an air-cooled radial engine. Their first choices, Lavochkin and Suchoi however were already maxed out on capacity rebuilding the air forces of the newly liberated European Brother States and none were keen on wasting valuable resources on designing an airplane for what would be a limited production run at best.
At the same time however, a Yakovlev plant in Tbilisi, Georgia was developing a variant of the superb Yak-3 fighter equipped with a radial, as a failsafe solution to keep the Yak-3 in production should there ever be shortages in the plane's original Klimov inline engine. The navy saw her opportunity and even while the original Yak-3U was still being tested, the second prototype was further developed into the carrier-based Yak-3UK. Conversion proceeded quickly, although by times elegant solutions were shelved in favor of quick ones. (Famously the first series had a tailhook attached to the outside of the fuselage, running around both sides of the retractable tail wheel by means of a U-shaped hook assembly.) Yet, when the first serial aircraft were delivered to the USSR Vladivostok, it was clear that in the Yak, the navy had a winner that could easily hold its own to the best allied fighters and generally had no problem confronting its Japanese counterparts.
All in all, the type performed admirably and stayed with the USSR navy throughout the complete pacific campaign and later the Indochinese Liberation Wars until being replaced by the new Yak-17 jets in the early 1950's. The last user was Thailand who bought two squadrons of Yak-3U's from Indonesia in 1955 and reportedly operated them as late as 1967.
Last edited:
While looking for images for the C. 205 Veltro, I had found this weird variation that appears to carry 3 passengers.
Interesting, I've heard of planes being stripped of internal parts for extra space when immediate evacuations were necessary.
While looking for images for the C. 205 Veltro, I had found this weird variation that appears to carry 3 passengers.
Pangur
Donor
I think the Luftwaffe did that quite a bit with fighters. They squeezed a mechanic in some how when evacuating