WI Panic Fighter 1938?

trurle

Banned
There is no wonder that US fighter designs from late 1930s featured mostly V-1710s or R-1830s while on drawing board.
These engines are my primary choice too. R-1830 was not formally fit to the OP conditions being 2-row and 1050 HP, but it was one of options for (easily) exported and licensed DC-3, therefore in fact may be most available of all the top-notch engines.
Formally OP definition fit would be one-row radial Wright R-1820, meaning P-36/A5M/I-16 level of performance (i.e. obsolete by 1941).
Therefore, best choice may be to seriously considering upgrade to liquid-cooling engine later (1940+), but this require airframe design with good structural margin. P-36 has did it morphing into successful P-40 powered by V-1710.
 
Last edited:

trurle

Banned
I wonder if you could put Napier Dagger 24 cylinder engine of up to 1000HP in a Hurricane? If that fails how about putting it in the Miles Kestrel?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Dagger
As usual for early liquid-cooled engines, Napier Dagger had the cooling problems (or saying alternately, its alloys and lubricants were designed for way too low operation temperature). By the way, because so many liquid-cooled engines in 193x have tended to overheat, Allison V-1710 tended to overcool due to common cautionary practices.
Also, Napier Dagger has small frontal area and unusually high aspect ratio in YZ plane, making upgrades/replacements complicated, therefore resulting in earlier obsolescences of airframes designed for it.
Regarding your question, Miles Kestrel likely had no space or center-of-mass allowance to fit Napier Dagger instead of Kestrel 16.
 
Last edited:

trurle

Banned
I think they thought about it.
Could you give the full page link?
My consideration for engine weight torque (which is proportional to offset of center of mass):
Kestrel 16: 4.04 kN*m (on miles kestrel)
Mercury 20: 2.56 kN*m (on miles master)
Napier dagger: 6.13 kN*m (on ?)
Allison V-1710: 6.77 kN*n

RR R-1830: 4.13 kN*m

Roughly these numbers mean shifting of center of mass after installation of Napier Dagger by 10cm, resulting in increase of already positive pitch/yaw/roll stability (because Miles Master was trainer) and unsuitability for the fighter role. Well, COM offset from center of lift can be counter-balanced by ~40kg added to tail or by negative trim of horizontal stabilizer, but both solutions are bad for performance.
 
Last edited:

trurle

Banned
They managed to put a Napier Dagger in a Hawker Hart turning it into the Hector.
At the cost of 389kg of empty mass increase (of which just ~50% was from engine) and reduced range. Well, climb rate of Hawker Hector has improved over Hawker Hart, but i have grave doubts about Hector maneuverability.
Well, P-36 to P-40 similar engine upgrade weighted ~600kg - and on airframe twice heavy compared to Hawker Hart. P-40 did not compromise range or maneuverability of P-36, therefore i suspect fighter-class upgrade of Miles Kestrel with Napier Dagger engine would add to empty weight at least 800kg. Or even more weight if you consider future armament upgrades. At this point, may be better to start from initially sturdier airframe?
 
Last edited:

trurle

Banned
they were worse in maneuverability on the B/C. and the D were far worse in climb and turn, roll slightly worse
Almost every P-40 model was worse than the last, until the 'N'
Yes. Low-drag engines were not panacea, and performance other than speed suffered. Also, tactics of air fighting evolved - "boom and zoom" become more favored compared to turning battles. Most pilots tended to emphasis turning battles and therefore maneurability in 1938 though - mostly because it produced better results with available light weapons of contemporary fighters.
 
As usual for early liquid-cooled engines, Napier Dagger had the cooling problems (or saying alternately, its alloys and lubricants were designed for way too low operation temperature). By the way, because so many liquid-cooled engines in 193x have tended to overheat, Allison V-1710 tended to overcool due to common cautionary practices.
Also, Napier Dagger has small frontal area and unusually high aspect ratio in YZ plane, making upgrades/replacements complicated, therefore resulting in earlier obsolescences of airframes designed for it.
Regarding your question, Miles Kestrel likely had no space or center-of-mass allowance to fit Napier Dagger instead of Kestrel 16.
I'm afraid there are a lot of mistakes there:
- Napier Dagger was an air-cooled engine, not liquid-cooled
- early liquid-cooled engines were working more than fine in SE-5, Spads, Albatros, Fokker D.VII
- V-1710 cooling worked as advertised
- people were happily re-engining fighters from V12s to radials or vice-versa already in 1920s, and that practice continued in 1930s and 40s, so I see no problems with Dagger being replaced with something more promising from RR kitchen
- weight of the Dagger is approx same as weight of RR Kestrel + weight of liquid cooling system the RR Kestrel used, so why not the Dagger engined Miles Kestrel

Could you give the full page link?
My consideration for engine weight torque (which is proportional to offset of center of mass):
Kestrel 16: 4.04 kN*m (on miles kestrel)
Mercury 20: 2.56 kN*m (on miles master)
Napier dagger: 6.13 kN*m (on ?)
Allison V-1710: 6.77 kN*n

RR R-1830: 4.13 kN*m

Roughly these numbers mean shifting of center of mass after installation of Napier Dagger by 10cm, resulting in increase of already positive pitch/yaw/roll stability (because Miles Master was trainer) and unsuitability for the fighter role. Well, COM offset from center of lift can be counter-balanced by ~40kg added to tail or by negative trim of horizontal stabilizer, but both solutions are bad for performance.
As above - once we add weight of cooling system dimensioned for Kestrel, the equation is very much in balance. Radios and batteries can be shifted back and forth in the rear fuselage to help with CoG problems if those arose, ditto with backseat armor, while Spitfire flew happily with ballasted tail.
Again we can recall that P-40 didn't have problems with CoG, despite the added weight of both V-1710 and cooling system in front of the aircraft.
 
The book “Panic Fighters Enemy at the gate” written by Justo Miranda, was published by Fonthill, UK in late 2019.
My copy arrived just after New Year’s Day 2020. I have only read as far as page 62 because the book is so densely packed and I can barely a read one chapter per sitting.
If we thought we covered all the possible panic fighters ... hah!
The new book has 1/72 scale drawings of most of the airplanes mentioned in this thread plus a dozen more, including the Danish Orlogs Vaerftet OV-J-1!
Text is concise and covers politics, timing, technical difficulties, etc.
I highly recommend Justo Miranda’s book “Panic Fighters.”

Disclaimer: I paid full retail price and waited a month (over Christmas).
 
Sorry about the error in post 272. Please delete that post.

It should have read Latecoere 670 to 673. They were light-weight fighters designed to be catapulted from large warships. Late 670, 671 and 672 had conventional tractor propellers while 673 had a pusher propeller. Some versions had two pontoons for landing at sea. Pretty little planes. They were drawn in 1938 and 1939. Sadly, they never got off the drawing board.
 
Does the country in question have enough engineering background to bring an engine like the Lycoming O-1230 or Alfa Romeo 135 to greater reliability and mass production? Otherwise at least license the Mitsubishi Kasei if at all possible - first run in 1938, over 1550 HP at altitude and 1850 on takeoff, 1.08 hp/lb output, etc. It was able to get a 3000kg plane over 1000 miles with two 7.7mm machine guns and an 800kg torpedo on 1550 liters/410 gallons of 87 octane fuel.





And here's a fighter that later used the same engine with 20 mm cannons: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_J2M
 
Last edited:
Does the country in question have enough engineering background to bring an engine like the Lycoming O-1230 or Alfa Romeo 135 to greater reliability and mass production? Otherwise at least license the Mitsubishi Kasei if at all possible - first run in 1938, over 1550 HP at altitude and 1850 on takeoff, 1.08 hp/lb output, etc. It was able to get a 3000kg plane over 1000 miles with two 7.7mm machine guns and an 800kg torpedo on 1550 liters/410 gallons of 87 octane fuel.





And here's a fighter that later used the same engine with 20 mm cannons: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_J2M
The fighter in question was made in 1942. This is 1938.
But you do raise interesting points in the form of the Kasei.
 
The fighter in question was made in 1942. This is 1938.
But you do raise interesting points in the form of the Kasei.
Yes the fighter is from 1942 and uses the 1938 engine. I hoped to give an example of possible specs of what such an engine could do based on real aircraft.
 
So let's make this interesting and satisfy the OP. Take a Mitsubishi Kasei engine at 42L displacement, 780kg weight, and takeoff power of 1850 HP (with 87 octane fuel) and drop it in the Rare Bear airframe. The original engine for said frame was the Pratt and Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp with 46L displacement, 1076kg weight, and takeoff power of 2100 HP (with 100/130 octane fuel).

F8F stats per OTL have a loaded weight of 4627 kg with 2250 HP for takeoff. 454kg of that are in bombs, 275kg are in the combined *four* 20mm cannons with 325 rounds per inboard and 188 rounds per outboard cannon (total of 1026 rounds at 0.35kg per round, total weight of 359.1 kg [http://www.pmulcahy.com/ammunition/autocannon_ammunition.html; look under 20x110mm ammunition]), and 61kg for each of the four 127mm rockets for a total of 244kg (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Velocity_Aircraft_Rocket). Range was 1105 miles with 185 gallon self-sealing main tank, not to mention an optional droppable 150 gallon fueslage tank or 100 gallon drop tank per wing (possible total 535 gallons, possible maximum range of 1835 statute miles [https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/tag/grumman-xf8f-1-bearcat/], effective operational radius of approx. 450-600 statute miles).

So how does this change the aircraft? This proposed engine swap sees loss of 400 HP (17.78%) for a weight saving of 296kg. Removing the rockets saves 244kg while taking the bombs saves 454kg. Removing two 20mm cannons saves 137.5kg, decreasing the total 20mm rounds from 1026 to 600 saves a total of 149.1kg. This makes for a total of 1280.6kg off of its original loaded weight of 4627kg (27.67%); keeping the bombs <[or adding equivalent fuel of 166.5 gallons for additional range; 571 miles for just the fuel but say +500 miles to ferry range or +225ish miles to operational range to include the tank for total *operational* radius of 650 to 850 statute miles]> but still saving weight elsewhere as above still saves 826.6kg (17.86%). I am unsure how much more power the improved fuel would give the Kasei or what the lesser fuel would take from the R-2800.

In short you now have a heavy fighter able to tangle with any existant aircraft of the day with tactical air support capacity better than some frontline light bombers and possible operational range equal or better than the *ferry range* of the Bf 109 or Fw 190. As an example, at 400 mile operational radius from a base in Warsaw such an aircraft could reach Minsk, Riga, most of former East Germany, Vienna, or Budapest. At 600 miles it could reach Venice, Belgrade, all of Bulgaria and Denmark, western/central Ukraine, all but westernmost Germany, Stockholm, and Tallinn. At 800 miles it could almost reach Rome, Paris, or Constantinople. All of northern Italy, the Benelux, major areas of Scandinavia, Moscow, Leningrad, all but easternmost Ukraine, and most of the Adriatic would be in range.
 
Last edited:
Does the country in question have enough engineering background to bring an engine like the Lycoming O-1230 or Alfa Romeo 135 to greater reliability and mass production? Otherwise at least license the Mitsubishi Kasei if at all possible - first run in 1938, over 1550 HP at altitude and 1850 on takeoff, 1.08 hp/lb output, etc. It was able to get a 3000kg plane over 1000 miles with two 7.7mm machine guns and an 800kg torpedo on 1550 liters/410 gallons of 87 octane fuel.
...
And here's a fighter that later used the same engine with 20 mm cannons: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_J2M
So let's make this interesting and satisfy the OP. Take a Mitsubishi Kasei engine at 42L displacement, 780kg weight, and takeoff power of 1850 HP (with 87 octane fuel) and drop it in the Rare Bear airframe. The original engine for said frame was the Pratt and Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp with 46L displacement, 1076kg weight, and takeoff power of 2100 HP (with 100/130 octane fuel).
...
Several statements don't add up.
J2M was not powered by a 1938 version of the Kasei, but by 1942/43/44 versions. Kasei was indeed able to make more than 1800 HP, but it needed water-alcohol injection, 92 octane fuel and redesign of engine internals to withstand greater RPM and boost to do so. The 1st Kaseis, as used on G4M that helped sunk Force Z, were good for ~1500 HP for take off, and ~1350 HP at 15000 ft (note that this is winter of 1941/42). Granted, this is still about as good as BMW 801C, with much better reliability and lighter weight, however it is years too late for 1938.
 
We are very off topic here. The idea is a panic fighter in 1938.

As I see it, any small nation needing fighters NOW, will buy off the shelf. Forget Aircraft entering service in the next three years do not fit the requirements. Thus, you could choose from Gladiator, CR.50, CR 32, I 16, Buffalo, P 35, P 36, D XXI, M 406, P-11/24, or B 534. Of these, I would lean towards a monoplane with Mercury engine. I would lean towards D XXI or P-11 right this minute, with a projection of adding newer models when available. If money is no object, look into Hurricanes or P-36's, especially if you can get a production license. Train your pilots intensively. Build war stocks. Look at Finland for your example.
 
Top