McPherson
Banned
Here.
Yeah, I got that, but I hate the Boeing Peashooter so much that I was suggesting things that make the Swift a winner instead of a wiener. But it is Curtiss, so of course they will screw it up.
Post-Summer 1934 French Sanity Options
- Thread starter Bougnas
- Start date
Here.
Yeah, I got that, but I hate the Boeing Peashooter so much that I was suggesting things that make the Swift a winner instead of a wiener. But it is Curtiss, so of course they will screw it up.
McPherson
Banned
You can get 150 out of those spars to the wings and wheels. I think those spatted fixed landing gears are worth another 200-300 pounds. Where do you want me to cut the rest? The fuselage barrel? Thin the stringers and hoops, flange the trusses in the wings to STIFFEN and lighten them (like Mitsubishi and Douglas are doing a couple of years later) and look at the engine mount. Maybe 200 pounds. With the way Curtiss screws up the cooling circuit in the engine installation that has to be another 100 pounds.
This may be a bit of a stretch, but the plane was built like a locomotive instead of a plane. Positively RUSSIAN!
Last edited:
SwampTiger
Banned
Look at the XF-13C naval fighter prototype flown 18 months later. It was the same weight, same basic engine before the Conqueror was installed, retractable undercarriage, and 40 mph/60 kph faster. The A-8 was only 500 lbs/460 kgs heavier than the XP-31.
Well, enough derailing the thread.
Well, enough derailing the thread.
McPherson
Banned
I will point you at the Dewoitine 500 to get it back on topic. Examine it and tell me what you think. Compare it to a Peashooter.
Unless wiki is very unreliable or the Peashooter is exceptionally in some hidden way it's worse in almost every way?
SwampTiger
Banned
The P-26 was poor to mediocre compared to most frontline fighters of the time. All aircraft manufacturers were still experimenting with all metal structures, manufacturing techniques, strength versus weight calculations, new technologies and near daily advances in materials science and aircraft technology. The USAAC failed in keeping current for several years. The US aircraft industry caught up quickly in the late Thirties. The French failed to keep current because of failures in doctrine, industrial inefficiency and conservatism. The leaders of the AdA and Air ministry envisioned steel tube framing and wood or canvas skins as late as 1935. Aluminum was unproven and expensive. This is why the M-S 405 was the winning design over more modern designs. It used the industry's existing technology and met the AdA's preferences.
McPherson
Banned
Interesting, but that kind of makes me wonder about the exact state of French aircraft manufacture, and since I am not an expert on the subject, could somebody please help me out with it, as to when did the French introduce stressed skin construction, 'cause the Amiots and LeOs we've discussed sure look like stressed skin construction over hoops and stringers to me.
SwampTiger
Banned
Introduced or adopted? Some manufacturers adopted stressed skin construction in the immediate pre-war years. France seems to have started with Duperdussin and SPAD. It dropped this line of development to go with the frame and light skin technology. The Germans took the lead away. Then, the Americans and British. France was held back by a desire to retain union jobs and reduce costs of materials.
Driftless
Donor
No hard data to back up this notion, but..... Wasn't there some elements of "the bomber always gets through" going into design? I'm thinking that more effort was put towards upgrading the aerodynamic performance of bombers, while fighters were still considered second-best priority? For a time the 1934 Martin B-10 was the cat's-meow... It could outrun many fighters of the era. Of course, that idea that fighters were farther down the pecking order isn't an absolute thing - see the Spitfire, Me109, etc. But more so true for designs in the early 30's?
Last edited:
McPherson
Banned
Thank you.
I will have to look at it. Now I have start points.
The short answer is that was the thinking among the Germans, the French and the Americans.
The LONG answer...
The British thought that way until RADAR offered an option for interception. One can see the rise of the interceptor (Spitfire, Lightning are the two extant examples) as soon as radar was proven to the British and the Americans as a warning and ground controlled intercept tool. Some would include the BF 109 in that category of indicator but the Germans built her as a battlefield tactical air superiority fighter and not a bomber killer originally. (Same as the Hurricane.) The Morane Saulnier M.S. 406
Was originally intended as a "pursuit" (Chasseur) like the Americans classified their AAC aircraft like the P-35 and P-36. The "fighter" was to chase the bomber and shoot it post facto, so in response, the bomber designers in Germany and France went for SPEED to outrun the pursuits who went after the bombers. The avions bombardiers rapides or Schnell Bomber was the result. The Americans went for the Flying Fortress and literally NAMED a bomber after that STUPID concept
As WWII lessons learned, it was actually smarter to bomb in the dark and with radar or to pick the mid-band altitude to foil flak and to use bad weather which hampered WWII fighters more than bombers as approach and escape exploits. Speed was still more effective than guns and escort fighters were a MUST. Turns out interceptors are LOUSY escort fighters, so a new class of fighter, the intruder (P-51 Mustang, P-47 Thunderbolt) evolves out of the battlefield tactical air superiority types.
(^^^ Morane Saulnier M.S. 406 sourced from https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234964808-morane-saulnier-ms406/)
This was a chasseur/pursuit. As can be seen from the photograph is a mix of hoop and tube and hoop and stringer construction with extensive fabric overlaid not only the movable controls, but also over the barrel hoops and tubes. Lest anyone think this indicates backward thinking...
That AIN'T stressed skin metal construction past the cockpit aft bulkhead and through the rondel.
As is the case for aircraft for the era, solving the airframe (wing chord for lift, tail control for turn, yaw, pitch and DRAG.) is half the problem. The other problem is the air screw and how many kilowatts you can torque through it for thrust.
The Morane Saulnier needed a better air screw, streamlining, a NACA high lift regime wing chord opted at 130-150 m/s, (290 to 330 mph) more watts and a DIET to function as a chasseur, but a better radio and a RADAR system and fighter director network with what she currently was would make her 2x as effective as she existed because then she is not used as a pursuit, but instead as an interceptor as the Hurricane was.
System of systems thinking implies that the optimum solution is not always in the platform, but what is used to SUPPORT and direct it.
I will have to look at it. Now I have start points.
The short answer is that was the thinking among the Germans, the French and the Americans.
The LONG answer...
The British thought that way until RADAR offered an option for interception. One can see the rise of the interceptor (Spitfire, Lightning are the two extant examples) as soon as radar was proven to the British and the Americans as a warning and ground controlled intercept tool. Some would include the BF 109 in that category of indicator but the Germans built her as a battlefield tactical air superiority fighter and not a bomber killer originally. (Same as the Hurricane.) The Morane Saulnier M.S. 406
Was originally intended as a "pursuit" (Chasseur) like the Americans classified their AAC aircraft like the P-35 and P-36. The "fighter" was to chase the bomber and shoot it post facto, so in response, the bomber designers in Germany and France went for SPEED to outrun the pursuits who went after the bombers. The avions bombardiers rapides or Schnell Bomber was the result. The Americans went for the Flying Fortress and literally NAMED a bomber after that STUPID concept
As WWII lessons learned, it was actually smarter to bomb in the dark and with radar or to pick the mid-band altitude to foil flak and to use bad weather which hampered WWII fighters more than bombers as approach and escape exploits. Speed was still more effective than guns and escort fighters were a MUST. Turns out interceptors are LOUSY escort fighters, so a new class of fighter, the intruder (P-51 Mustang, P-47 Thunderbolt) evolves out of the battlefield tactical air superiority types.
(^^^ Morane Saulnier M.S. 406 sourced from https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234964808-morane-saulnier-ms406/)
This was a chasseur/pursuit. As can be seen from the photograph is a mix of hoop and tube and hoop and stringer construction with extensive fabric overlaid not only the movable controls, but also over the barrel hoops and tubes. Lest anyone think this indicates backward thinking...
That AIN'T stressed skin metal construction past the cockpit aft bulkhead and through the rondel.
As is the case for aircraft for the era, solving the airframe (wing chord for lift, tail control for turn, yaw, pitch and DRAG.) is half the problem. The other problem is the air screw and how many kilowatts you can torque through it for thrust.
The Morane Saulnier needed a better air screw, streamlining, a NACA high lift regime wing chord opted at 130-150 m/s, (290 to 330 mph) more watts and a DIET to function as a chasseur, but a better radio and a RADAR system and fighter director network with what she currently was would make her 2x as effective as she existed because then she is not used as a pursuit, but instead as an interceptor as the Hurricane was.
System of systems thinking implies that the optimum solution is not always in the platform, but what is used to SUPPORT and direct it.
Last edited:
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
IIRC the Do-17, Blenheim & JU-88 were all regarded as world beaters as their first versions flew faster than the fighter aircraft of the day. Of course, by the time they debuted as bombers, the fighters that were at the same contemporary planning stage were now in service, while the bombers had added armour, machine guns, bombs, crew, etc. to add weight, and so once more the hunted remained the hunted!
McPherson
Banned
I promised a look at the French Marine National on the lessons they should have learned basis...
I think a few general comments are in order.
First, the division of the MN into what was essentially a slow and a fast squadron in 1939 makes a lot of sense based on the presence of WWI ships and the new construction. The Force de Raid received the faster and more modern ships. What does not make sense to me, is the basing mode. The Force de Raid was built around speed and was clearly a mirror of the Forza d'incursione navale (Naval raid force) which the Regia Marina had in mind if ever there was a war between France and Italy.
The MN never did develop a good DP destroyer gun. The 13 cm/L45 came close. I think slam-feed semi-auto would have been a better setup and the fixed round should have been shell and cased charge dump feed. Of course this would duplicate the 5"/L38, but it could be a lesson learned.
The French AAA is 3 bands oriented with the 13.2 mm (0.52 in) heavy machine gun being a spray and pray paired mount. As I have noted above, there was available to the French the 25 mm Hotchkiss. It could cover the lower altitude band. The 25 mm was far better than the garbage 37 mm/L54. I wonder who decided the 37 mm was acceptable? For the mid band. For mid band there was the 75 mm/L50. Despite its "obsolete" nature, it could still do the job. Slam feed and a better trainable powered mount would make it competitive. Lesson to be learned? By 1930, it should have been.
Torpedoes...
The "Toulon" torpedoes remind me very much of WWI USN torpedoes as to performance metrics. By WWII standards this might seem like a knock on these fish for the fish were slow and short ranged effectively. It is NOT a criticism. The French fish ran straight hot and normal and when they hit they reliably exploded and sank ships when they hit. There are three navies who wished their torpedoes did as well in that era. I note that even the Japanese could not guarantee a hot straight run with their vaunted "oxygen torpedoes". The ones with better fish were the Italians, but not by much over the French.
I would like some additional input about this synopsis. Let me know where you think I am wrong?
I think a few general comments are in order.
First, the division of the MN into what was essentially a slow and a fast squadron in 1939 makes a lot of sense based on the presence of WWI ships and the new construction. The Force de Raid received the faster and more modern ships. What does not make sense to me, is the basing mode. The Force de Raid was built around speed and was clearly a mirror of the Forza d'incursione navale (Naval raid force) which the Regia Marina had in mind if ever there was a war between France and Italy.
The MN never did develop a good DP destroyer gun. The 13 cm/L45 came close. I think slam-feed semi-auto would have been a better setup and the fixed round should have been shell and cased charge dump feed. Of course this would duplicate the 5"/L38, but it could be a lesson learned.
The French AAA is 3 bands oriented with the 13.2 mm (0.52 in) heavy machine gun being a spray and pray paired mount. As I have noted above, there was available to the French the 25 mm Hotchkiss. It could cover the lower altitude band. The 25 mm was far better than the garbage 37 mm/L54. I wonder who decided the 37 mm was acceptable? For the mid band. For mid band there was the 75 mm/L50. Despite its "obsolete" nature, it could still do the job. Slam feed and a better trainable powered mount would make it competitive. Lesson to be learned? By 1930, it should have been.
Torpedoes...
The "Toulon" torpedoes remind me very much of WWI USN torpedoes as to performance metrics. By WWII standards this might seem like a knock on these fish for the fish were slow and short ranged effectively. It is NOT a criticism. The French fish ran straight hot and normal and when they hit they reliably exploded and sank ships when they hit. There are three navies who wished their torpedoes did as well in that era. I note that even the Japanese could not guarantee a hot straight run with their vaunted "oxygen torpedoes". The ones with better fish were the Italians, but not by much over the French.
I would like some additional input about this synopsis. Let me know where you think I am wrong?
Last edited: