WI Panic Fighter 1938?

[tomo pauk]

He 112, the type with small wing (like most of the produced examples had) is also a decent choice - it even had a few advantages over the Bf 109, like the canopy with better vision, and less tricky U/C. Though the Bf 109 with a modest weight and modest torque should've still be manageable on the runaways. I'd try to have Kestrel or the HS 12Y at the nose, though, the Jumo 210 is distinctively a 3rd rank engine by 1938.
I don't know why people scoff of at the Oerlikon FF(F) - Axis (German, Japanese) and other pilots managed to rack impressive scores with it or it's derivatives.

 

[Tales Weaver]

How about lisense building Polikarpov I-16 with 700hp Nakajima Hikari engines?

 

[tomo pauk]

How about lisense building Polikarpov I-16 with 700hp Nakajima Hikari engines?

I-16 is another aircraft at my liking. (link)
Though I'd suggest the Bristol Mercury in the nose.

 

[KACKO]

Hungarian Mavag Heja, based on Re.2000. But first flight was only in 1940.

 

[Tales Weaver]

I-16 is another aircraft at my liking. (link)
Though I'd suggest the Bristol Mercury in the nose.

Okay. Can I put two type 89 on the cowling and two 20mm ShVAK cannon on wings??

 

[sonofpegasus]

Scale down a Hurricane say to 7/8ths, use a Kestrel engine and arm it with either 6x .303 Brownings or a couple of 2omm canons. Or just stick to my earlier suggestion of the Miles/Kestrel master fighter. I wish 'JustLeo' was still with us to provide his wonderful Pictures.

 

[Driftless]

^Echo your comment on missing JustLeo here...

A Hurricane with a radial perhaps? Sturdy and adaptable airframe, rough surface field capable, the partial fabric skin can be repaired by old-school fitters with limited re-training.

One question on the 109 as an option: what was the level of pilot skill needed compared to other suggestions made so far? I've always understood that the 109 needed a skilled hand - both when on the ground and in the air; or is that an overstatement?

 

[sonofpegasus]

One advantage of the I16 is that it has a combat record and showed a remarkable ability to adsorb ever more powerful engines.

 

[riggerrob]

........ I don't know why people scoff of at the Oerlikon FF(F) - Axis (German, Japanese) and other pilots managed to rack impressive scores with it or it's derivatives.[/QUOTE]

——————————————————————————

OTL Biggest disadvantage with Oerkikon FF (20 x 80 mm) cannon is as its slow muzzle velocity (2,000 feet per second) ..... okay for intercepting lumbering 4-engined bombers, but not much use against other targets. When the panic-fighter specification was written (1938) few air forces had any 4-engined bombers.

ATL The Ruralia army started by buying anti-tank guns chambered for high-velocity 20 x 110 mm ammo with a muzzle velocity of 2,800 feet per second. Remember that muzzle velocity is the most important variable for AT guns.

A few years later, the Ruralia Coast Guard/Navy bought 20 x 110 mm deck cannons to intercept smugglers’ high-speed cigarette boats. These auto-cannons serve a secondary AAA role.

As the third user, the Ruralia Air Force is “strongly encouraged” to buy guns that can fire existing stocks of ammo. ........ er ...... the Ruralia Government Arsenal can only afford to stock a few types of ammo.

 

[riggerrob]

...... One question on the 109 as an option: what was the level of pilot skill needed compared to other suggestions made so far? I've always understood that the 109 needed a skilled hand - both when on the ground and in the air; or is that an overstatement?[/QUOTE]

——————————————————————————————-
You are correct.

Me109 was easy to ground loop.
It’s undercarriage was developed directly from the outward-retracting UC on the Me108. The Me108 had a fuselage wide enough to seat a pair of pilot side-by-side. Bolting UC legs directly to a fuselage bulkhead was a quick, light and simple concept.
OTOH Me109 had a narrow fuselage, barely wide enough for a single pilot. The first few Me109 prototypes copied Me108 UC directly, but proved so unstable (roll axis), that the second batch got UC legs splayed outboard. Splaying improved ground handling, but Me109 still required above-average Pilot skill.
Later Me208 and 309 Concepts included wide-track UC.

ATL Any fictional panic-fighter needs wide-track UC to bring landing handling within the skill level of junior pilots.

 

[Ward]

D.520 with the Hispano-Suiza 12Y,and the The production standard armament was a 20 mm HS.404 cannon firing through the propeller hub and four belt-fed MAC 1934 M39 7.5 mm (.295 in) machine guns in the wings.[17]

 

[marathag]

ATL And fictional panic-fighter needs wide-track UC to bring landing handling within the skill level of junior pilots.

The narrow track Grummans didn't seem to have abysmal ground handling habits.
Yeah, it could ground loop, but wasn't known as a widowmaker or ensign eliminator

Accident rate on the Wildcats wasn't near as bad as the Bf-109 or other craft with known issues

 

[tomo pauk]

OTL Biggest disadvantage with Oerkikon FF (20 x 80 mm) cannon is as its slow muzzle velocity (2,000 feet per second) ..... okay for intercepting lumbering 4-engined bombers, but not much use against other targets. When the panic-fighter specification was written (1938) few air forces had any 4-engined bombers.

ATL The Ruralia army started by buying anti-tank guns chambered for high-velocity 20 x 110 mm ammo with a muzzle velocity of 2,800 feet per second. Remember that muzzle velocity is the most important variable for AT guns.

A few years later, the Ruralia Coast Guard/Navy bought 20 x 110 mm deck cannons to intercept smugglers’ high-speed cigarette boats. These auto-cannons serve a secondary AAA role.

As the third user, the Ruralia Air Force is “strongly encouraged” to buy guns that can fire existing stocks of ammo. ........ er ...... the Ruralia Government Arsenal can only afford to stock a few types of ammo.

Let me refine my statement re. the FF(F).
It was the wepapon that was in the use far before any airforce introduced 4-engined bombers. German pilots managed to chase off Polish AF with help of that cannon (mostly 1-engined fighter and bombers), Belgian AF (mostly 1-engined A/C), Dutch AF (same targets), French AF (no 4-engined bomber either) and the RAF deployment in France (Hurricanes, Battes, Lysnaders mostly). IJN aviators were making plenty of kills on Buffaloes, F4Fs, P-39s, P-40s, SBDs and other 1-engined non-fighters. Cannon was light, two were mostly carried for a combined RoF of 1000+ rpm, 20mm shells were lethal vs. anthing.

About the 'Ruralia's' AT guns and CG/Navy - neither is mentioned in the OP, thus moot points.

...
You are correct.

Me109 was easy to ground loop.
It’s undercarriage was developed directly from the outward-retracting UC on the Me108. The Me108 had a fuselage wide enough to seat a pair of pilot side-by-side. Bolting UC legs directly to a fuselage bulkhead was a quick, light and simple concept.
OTOH Me109 had a narrow fuselage, barely wide enough for a single pilot. The first few Me109 prototypes copied Me108 UC directly, but proved so unstable (roll axis), that the second batch got UC legs splayed outboard. Splaying improved ground handling, but Me109 still required above-average Pilot skill.
Later Me208 and 309 Concepts included wide-track UC.

ATL And fictional panic-fighter needs wide-track UC to bring landing handling within the skill level of junior pilots.

Any good and proven data on how the Bf 109s were easy to ground loop? How much they were to ground-loop when with 600-700 HP engine, how much with 1300-1400, how much with 1700-2000? How dangerous on grass vs. pavement?

 

[tomo pauk]

The narrow track Grummans didn't seem to have abysmal ground handling habits.
Yeah, it could ground loop, but wasn't known as a widowmaker or ensign eliminator

Accident rate on the Wildcats wasn't near as bad as the Bf-109 or other craft with known issues

Yet, on the 'America's hundred thusand' book, pg. 491, a commander is quoted saying that there are two kinds of F4F's pilots - those that already ground-looped, and those that are going to.

 

[marathag]

Yet, on the 'America's hundred thusand' book, pg. 491, a commander is quoted saying that there are two kinds of F4F's pilots - those that already ground-looped, and those that are going to.

Was it that being in a Grumman 'Ironworks' the pilot who goofed up and did the GL, wouldn't be hurt? far fewer fatal accidents, it seems

But one wonders why the A-36 had over twice the accident rate as it's cousin, the P-51

 

[riggerrob]

Short-list

Airframe
Avia B35
Bell XP-77
Caudron-Renault 770
Curtiss-Wright 21
Curtiss-Wright 35 Hawk
Dewoitine 520d
Douglas XP-48
Fokker DXXI and 150 series
Fokker pushme-pullyou
Gregor Monoplane
Grumman F4 Wildcat
Kawanshi 43
Lockheed XP-?
North American Aviation
Payen 22
SAAB 21
Rutan Ares
Swedish FFVS J22
VEF I-16
Vultee Vanguard

ENGINE
Argus 411, inverted V-12, Air-cooled, ? hp
Hispano-Suiza 12Y, in-line, water-cooled, 800 to 900 hp
Klimov
Ranger SGV-770-7, inverted V12, 550 hp
Renault inverted V12, Air-cooled, 500 hp
Rolls-Royce Kestrel V-12, liquid-cooled, ? up
Walter Sagitta, inverted V-12, Air-cooled, 520 hp

Bristol Jupiter, Mercury and Pegasus series up to 1,000 hp
Bristol Perseus, 830 hp
Shevnetzov
Wright R-1820, 9 cylinder, single-row, Air-cooled, radial, 1,000 hp.

Machine gun
Berezin and DShKM 12.7 x 108 mm, MV 2,600 FPS, 1,000 rpm
Browning .50 calbre HMG (12.7 x 99 mm NATO), MV 2,900 FPS, 1,200 rpm

Cannon
MG FF 20 x 80 mm, shell weight ? , muzzle energy, MV 2,00” FPS (600 mps), 500 rpm
Hispano-Suiza 404 & Oerlikon 20 x 110 mm, mv 2,700 fps, 450 rpm
ShVAK 20 x 99 mm, mv 2,500 FPS, 750 rpm

 

[Lenwe]

WI - during the late 1930s - you are tasked with designing an interceptor to protect your small country.
You represent a second or third world Air Force - and you know that war is coming. You are a mid-level Air Force engineering officer or mid-level design engineer at the national aircraft factory. You are tasked with designing a short to medium-range interceptor.
Since your nation is comparatively small, endurance is not much of an issue. Your nation has dozens of grass airstrips, but only one concrete runway. Road and rail transport is good and some inland waterways support barge traffic.

To date your national aircraft factory has designed and built a variety of fabric-covered biplanes and a few multi-engined flying boats. Your local automotive industry produces motorcycles and small trucks while your shipyards produce steel fishing vessels and tug-boats.

Costs limit you to one engine and one pilot.

Since your country does not have a huge armaments industry, you are forced to buy critical components (engines, radios and armament) overseas. Awkward politics further limit arms purchases to second-string or “last week’s fashion.”

Engine choices are limited because RR refuses to sell the new Merlin engine. American politics prevent Allison from selling you any engines and German factories will only sell you “last week’s fashion.”
This limits you to inline or single-row radial engines producing less than 1,000 horsepower.

As for armaments, you have concluded that .50 caliber (12.5 mm) is the minimum, but you would prefer 20 mm cannons to intercept the newest bombers.

This thread limits you to materials and components available off-the-shelf in 1938. The good news is that you can use 2018-vintage aerodynamics developer by Reno Air Racers..

As South America, all I Have a Third world Air force,(note really but you know).

I will go the Sweden way and Licence Build a North American T-6 "Texan" BT-9, is a good, robust, Cheap plane and the fact that is trainer will significantly simplify any licence issues in case of war.

Historically they have a two crew configuration, but this is because is a trainer, the Airplane only need one Crew to be able to fly .As a panic Airplane, They could easily be reconverted to one man and the space, (and weight) liberate.

As the Argentinean Demonstrate, they could be Build with a Wood frame(ie I.Ae. 22 DL )and easily produced in third world countries

They could easily be fitted with a DShK machine gun, or a licensed build DShk style weapon, its´again, a good,robust and above all cheap weapon.

Why I go this way? because is a panic option,is the cheapest, easiest way I could come to build an air force without have to buy wholesome news airplanes or design to the world powers


(being south american give you a neutral stance with the allies, the Comintern and the Axis)

 

[tomo pauk]

Short-list

Machine gun
Browning .50 calbre HMG (12.7 x 99 mm NATO), MV. 2,900 FPS, 1,200 rpm

Cannon
MG FF 20 x 80 mm, shell weight ? , muzzle energy, MV 2,00” FPS (600 mps), 500 rpm
Hispano-Suiza 404 & Oerlikon 20 x 110 mm, mv 2,700 fps, 450 rpm
ShVAK 20 x 99 mm, mv 2,500 FPS, 750 rpm

Before 1939: Browning .50 calibre HMG (no NATO in 1930s), MV 2500 FPS, 600 rpm. Let's not mix in the Korea-war .50, that fired at much faster RoF, greater MV and fired either brand new & light bullet or the copy of ww2 Soviet API bullet, vs. what was available in late 1930s.

MG FF shell weight 134 gram, 520 rpm. 25 kg + drum.
HS 404 fired at 600 rpm, production was just being started in France, even the British will not start use of their Hispanos until mid/late 1940. Weight 50 kg + drum.

 

[trurle]

OTL Biggest disadvantage with Oerkikon FF (20 x 80 mm) cannon is as its slow muzzle velocity (2,000 feet per second) ..... okay for intercepting lumbering 4-engined bombers, but not much use against other targets. When the panic-fighter specification was written (1938) few air forces had any 4-engined bombers.

ATL The Ruralia army started by buying anti-tank guns chambered for high-velocity 20 x 110 mm ammo with a muzzle velocity of 2,800 feet per second. Remember that muzzle velocity is the most important variable for AT guns.

A few years later, the Ruralia Coast Guard/Navy bought 20 x 110 mm deck cannons to intercept smugglers’ high-speed cigarette boats. These auto-cannons serve a secondary AAA role.

As the third user, the Ruralia Air Force is “strongly encouraged” to buy guns that can fire existing stocks of ammo. ........ er ...... the Ruralia Government Arsenal can only afford to stock a few types of ammo.

Then HS.404 20mm autocannon may be a logical candidate for interceptor weapons upgrade given ammunituin commonality demands.
I think the consensus reached the 1st generation of "stubby" all-metal interceptors (P-36, I-16 or similar) would be a fine choice, therefore the likely armament is from 2x12.7 to 1x20+2x12.7, depending in structural limits. 20x110 cartridge is a bit overpowered, therefore delaying interceptors future upgrades. 20x110mm is much better than previously proposed Madsen`s 20x120mm though.

 

[trurle]

As South America, all I Have a Third world Air force,(note really but you know).

I will go the Sweden way and Licence Build a North American T-6 "Texan" BT-9, is a good, robust, Cheap plane and the fact that is trainer will significantly simplify any licence issues in case of war.

Historically they have a two crew configuration, but this is because is a trainer, the Airplane only need one Crew to be able to fly .As a panic Airplane, They could easily be reconverted to one man and the space, (and weight) liberate.

As the Argentinean Demonstrate, they could be Build with a Wood frame(ie I.Ae. 22 DL )and easily produced in third world countries

I think T-6 is a bit too slow for effective fighter/interceptor role by 1938. It would be fine to have them in original configuration (as trainers with dual purpose as light ground attack), because purpose-built fighters/interceptors have bad stability by design, and are unforgiving for beginner`s pilot errors.