If we're getting into the "Oh wouldn't it be good if" school of aircraft design then I give you the 1931 Vickers 161 fighter.
The British P-38
- Thread starter Just Leo
- Start date
If we're getting into the "Oh wouldn't it be good if" school of aircraft design then I give you the 1931 Vickers 161 fighter.
LOL! I'd almost forgotten that one!
Does anyone see anyway of the UK manufacturing realistically manufacturing a successful P-38 equivalent, combat ready and in sufficient numbers, by 1942 or is this just unrealistic? They seemed to have trouble in our timeline and there seems to be too many bottlenecks preventing it from what I have seen.
The situation seems similar to the failure of the UK to manufacture successful planes for the RN's carriers. A combinatin of insufficient resources aggravated further by poor management.
The situation seems similar to the failure of the UK to manufacture successful planes for the RN's carriers. A combinatin of insufficient resources aggravated further by poor management.
The trouble is to get an aircraft of that type in service in that timeframe the specification has to be issued no latter than mid 1938. At that time the Airforce had no interest in long range heavy fighters. It was the Bombers that would do the long range work abley defending themselves with massed fire from the new power operated turrets. I suppose that if they put out a specification for a twin engined Battle replacement some of the proposals might come close. A twin engined machine with a Fulmer fuselage would seam a reasonable option especialy if they fitted an extra fuel tank where the observer's position was. Of course if they did that the Navy would have to order a real fighter so it's win win all round. Mind you I have a horrible feeling that what the navy would really get would be an up engined Skua.
Blenheims were more light bombers that got pressed into night-fighter service, surely?
We discussed the G-1 before, they could even have that manufactured before 1940, it being a largely wooden construction would have meant that at least the limited resources of aluminium would have less mattered, and also it could use a different workforce (carpenters and such). Of course it would not be completely equivalent, but it being available early would make a big difference.
Blenheims were light bombers converted into day fighters with an under-belly tray containing 4 .303 mgs, slaughtered in daylight, and then converted ( the remnants) into night fighters where they would be safer. Strangely, the write-ups say they gave good service as night fighters, like Defiants, even though they didn't.
Another option.
A more logical solution would have been to continue with the single engined fighter, such as the several variants of Supermarine Spitfire, and addapt them to carry more longrange fueltanks under their wings, besides providing them with a stronger variant of their engine as well, to compensate for the added drag when using these droptanks. Basically the US/British cooperation, leading into the P-51D and succeeding types of the Mustang was such a fighter. This fighter was still a pure fighter, but had the bonus of having a much longer range, when using the droptanks, while still a very superior dogfighter, compared to the more sluggish twin engined fighters, inlcuding the P-38.
Not without someone getting the industry to stop trying to produce so many designs...be nice if at the same time the rationalisation of the numerous aircraft manufacturers that was done post war could be done pre war...after all, with the Shadow Factory scheme, a major reason for drip feeding the companies pre war (keeping them alive for production if necessary) has gone...but it would be a brave minister to suggest that anytime after 36.
As night fighters the Blenheims would have been more successfull had the top turret been removed, and they had been given a solid nose with a massed battery of guns instead of the belly pack. Had the Beaufighter not been available thats probably how they would have developed.
I like the idea of the Harpy. Looks like it could be a good gunship.
I like the idea of the Harpy. Looks like it could be a good gunship.
The P-38 was not sluggish compared to single engined fighters. It was more than capable of matching up with single seat fighters.
In fact the P-38 was exceptionally maneuverable, as was noted above, being able to out turn most single seaters. It did require more training for the pilot to get the most out of it.
It was also more expensive.
Last edited:
Sior
Banned
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40933081@N04/5233569371/
Martin Baker twin boom Fighter - Top Secret Fighter
Martin Baker are best known for their ejector seats but late in 1944 the company produced this striking design for a twin engined, twin boom fighter. It is not known if the design was given a project number, or other identification and is known simply as the Twin Boom. The design was to use two Griffon power units housed one at each end of the cigar shaped fuselage, each Griffon powering a pair of 3-blade contra rotating props similar to those used in some late Mark Spitfires and the post war Shackleton. Construction methods and design would probably have followed that of the MB5 while the crew of two was curiously to be housed in slightly staggered twin side-by-side cockpits. There is no real information about potential armament, even what the expected role of the aircraft would have been, or which aircraft it was expected to replace in service. Though designated as a fighter its strange asymmetrical dual cockpit layout suggests something more than the early war concept of a fighter, as defined by the Spitfire or Bf109. Certainly dog fighting would not likely have been its prime function, while as a night fighter there is little indication of how or where the required radar would be housed. Whatever its role, had it been built it certainly would have made an impressive, if perhaps an extravagant sight. While this and other designs were exploring the extreme limits of piston engined aircraft where 600mph was considered feasible, in reality the jet and the war’s imminent end would never allow them to ever have a realistic chance of seeing the light of day, so their potential would never be proved.
Martin Baker twin boom Fighter - Top Secret Fighter
Martin Baker are best known for their ejector seats but late in 1944 the company produced this striking design for a twin engined, twin boom fighter. It is not known if the design was given a project number, or other identification and is known simply as the Twin Boom. The design was to use two Griffon power units housed one at each end of the cigar shaped fuselage, each Griffon powering a pair of 3-blade contra rotating props similar to those used in some late Mark Spitfires and the post war Shackleton. Construction methods and design would probably have followed that of the MB5 while the crew of two was curiously to be housed in slightly staggered twin side-by-side cockpits. There is no real information about potential armament, even what the expected role of the aircraft would have been, or which aircraft it was expected to replace in service. Though designated as a fighter its strange asymmetrical dual cockpit layout suggests something more than the early war concept of a fighter, as defined by the Spitfire or Bf109. Certainly dog fighting would not likely have been its prime function, while as a night fighter there is little indication of how or where the required radar would be housed. Whatever its role, had it been built it certainly would have made an impressive, if perhaps an extravagant sight. While this and other designs were exploring the extreme limits of piston engined aircraft where 600mph was considered feasible, in reality the jet and the war’s imminent end would never allow them to ever have a realistic chance of seeing the light of day, so their potential would never be proved.
The Spitfire carried 85 imp. gal in front of the cockpit and could carry 90 gal. disposable. Dropping the tank, it has 85 gal. to fight and then go home. A Mustang has the same amount of fuel in one wing, plus it has the other wing, plus it has almost the same as the Spit's internal capacity, 85 gal US, in the reserve tank, without using drop tanks, which were up to 150 gal US X2 for a trip to Berlin. But that was 1944. The Hawker Fury carried 200 gal internal, but the Centaurus used more fuel and the Fury was post-war. British single engine fighters could have been built with range as a specification, from scratch, but a short range fighter cannot be so easily converted. You can't put the fuel someplace until you make the place.
There is potentially another design floating around, the Supermarine Type 313 proposed for the F37/35 spec that Westland won with the Whirlwind - two Goshawk apparently giving 390mph at 15,000ft (this I think is a bit suspect), 7.5 minutes to 20,000ft and a ceiling of 34,000ft. Aero-engines (Hispano) 12Y engines were an alternative and if fitted then a 20mm cannon could be fired through each hub (6 x 20mm cannon are really going to spoil your day….) so different engines were a possibility.
Also the revised Supermarine F.7/30 design, the Type 300 to F.37/34 that led to the Spitfire originally had a Goshawk engine but this was changed to a Merlin when that became available and the Spitfire’s Merlin was eventually changed to a Griffon…..
Interestingly with a wingspan of 48ft, a length of 37ft and wing area 325 square foot, this makes the Type 313 bigger than the Merlin/Taurus engined Types 324 (and the similar 325, 326 and 327) so replacing the Goshawks with Merlins or Taurus shouldn't be too much of a problem. It is also a bit smaller than the Fulmar and the Barracuda, would be interesting to see what it could fold down to and whether it could carry a torpedo under the fuselage.
The design could apparently house 4 x 500lb bombs in the fuselage behind the pilot. A second crewman would be added and two of the 20mm cannon removed and max weight increased from 8,200lb to 10,700lb. (The Whirlwind’s max weight was 10,377lb).
According to BSP, the Design Conference originally recommended the Type 313 as this was most experts' preference but the types delivery date of 27 months was considered to be excessive.
So how about the Type313 being farmed off to another company to build and ending up being built with Merlins or Taurus in Rootes or Austin Motors shadow factories rather than Blenheims?
Also the revised Supermarine F.7/30 design, the Type 300 to F.37/34 that led to the Spitfire originally had a Goshawk engine but this was changed to a Merlin when that became available and the Spitfire’s Merlin was eventually changed to a Griffon…..
Interestingly with a wingspan of 48ft, a length of 37ft and wing area 325 square foot, this makes the Type 313 bigger than the Merlin/Taurus engined Types 324 (and the similar 325, 326 and 327) so replacing the Goshawks with Merlins or Taurus shouldn't be too much of a problem. It is also a bit smaller than the Fulmar and the Barracuda, would be interesting to see what it could fold down to and whether it could carry a torpedo under the fuselage.
The design could apparently house 4 x 500lb bombs in the fuselage behind the pilot. A second crewman would be added and two of the 20mm cannon removed and max weight increased from 8,200lb to 10,700lb. (The Whirlwind’s max weight was 10,377lb).
According to BSP, the Design Conference originally recommended the Type 313 as this was most experts' preference but the types delivery date of 27 months was considered to be excessive.
So how about the Type313 being farmed off to another company to build and ending up being built with Merlins or Taurus in Rootes or Austin Motors shadow factories rather than Blenheims?
usertron2020
Donor
Did not the performance of the P-38 tie in with whether the engines were super- or turbo-charged, and whether in each case they were in tropical or temperate environments?
usertron2020
Donor
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40933081@N04/5233569371/
Martin Baker twin boom Fighter - Top Secret Fighter
Martin Baker are best known for their ejector seats but late in 1944 the company produced this striking design for a twin engined, twin boom fighter. It is not known if the design was given a project number, or other identification and is known simply as the Twin Boom. The design was to use two Griffon power units housed one at each end of the cigar shaped fuselage, each Griffon powering a pair of 3-blade contra rotating props similar to those used in some late Mark Spitfires and the post war Shackleton. Construction methods and design would probably have followed that of the MB5 while the crew of two was curiously to be housed in slightly staggered twin side-by-side cockpits. There is no real information about potential armament, even what the expected role of the aircraft would have been, or which aircraft it was expected to replace in service. Though designated as a fighter its strange asymmetrical dual cockpit layout suggests something more than the early war concept of a fighter, as defined by the Spitfire or Bf109. Certainly dog fighting would not likely have been its prime function, while as a night fighter there is little indication of how or where the required radar would be housed. Whatever its role, had it been built it certainly would have made an impressive, if perhaps an extravagant sight. While this and other designs were exploring the extreme limits of piston engined aircraft where 600mph was considered feasible, in reality the jet and the war’s imminent end would never allow them to ever have a realistic chance of seeing the light of day, so their potential would never be proved.
That design is so unconventional that it reminds me somewhat of the F5U. An aircraft in search of a mission.
I don't doubt that the Mustang - developed as a long range offensive fighter - was capable of a longer range then the Spitfire, a fighter designed to intercept enemy aircraft over Britain and based on a much older design too.
The Spitfire's wings can't have helped with carrying fuel, compared to other aircraft.
However, the later Spitfires carried a 109,5 gallon of fuel internally and not 85, with later Mk XIV's carrying an additional 33 gallon internally, at least according to wiki.
Additionally AFAIK the British experimented with installing more fuel tanks in the fuselage of the Spitfire, but when fully fueled on internal tanks the aircraft wasn't balanced properly for amongst others air-to-air combat.
Probably the same goes for the Mustang, but it was thought less important there.
Well all USAAF versions of the P-38 were super-charged. The British took the super-charger out of their spec for the Lighting I version that they ordered which basically castrated it.
The US versions were turbosupercharged (i.e., exhaust driven superchargers using a turbine, also known as "turbocharged"). Turbocharging is more efficient than mechanical supercharging, as it basically converts waste heat in the exhaust to useful work. Turbosupercharging is also a more complicated process.
Only the United States mass produced turbosupercharged engines in WW II for a number of reasons, including cost, technology, and metals involved. (Special high temperature alloys are needed, such as Inconel.) It was used only in a few aircraft models, with B-17, B-24, B-29, P-38, and P-38 being the most numerous.
The Lockheed 322, the castrated Lightning, had a supercharger IIRC but it was a single stage, single speed supercharger. This resulted in greatly reduced performance, particularly at altitude.