WI Panic Fighter 1938?

trurle

Banned
Short-list

Airframe
Bell XP-?
Caudron
Curtiss-Wright 21
Curtiss-Wright 35 Hawk
Dewoitine 520
Gregor Monoplane
Grumman F4 Wildcat
Kawanshi 43
Lockheed XP-?
Swedish FF

ENGINE
Argus
Hispano-Suiza 12Y, in-line, water-cooled, hp
Ranger

Bristol Pegasus
Bristol Oersus
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
From this shortlist, i would like:
Airframe: Curtiss Hawk
Engine: Wright R-1820 1000 hp
Machine gun: Browning M2 12.7mm
Cannon: Hispano-Suiza 404

From shortlist, most performing airframes may be Dewoitine 520 and Kawanishi Ki-43, but these are absolutely unlikely to be purchased/built in 1938.
It would also be fine to have some second-hand Swedish FF.49 for coastal patrol. These are cheap to purchase and operate in peacetime.
 
........ 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)[/QUOTE]
———————————————————————————————

Thanks for finding another variation on NAA T-6 Texan.
We suspect that Argentina started building airplanes for fear that Peru would turn their NAA P-64s away from Ecuador and towards Argentina.
We also need to remember the CAC Boomerang, panic-fighter developed in Australia.
All three were based on NAA’s NA-16 airframe.
 
Last edited:
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.
For a world power ? Sure Is far from ideal, but as Is for a third world airplane squad, it Will be enough, and you always could put a more powerfull motor as they come With only 600hp from factory, and you could always put in something else
 

trurle

Banned
With only 600hp from factory, and you could always put in something else
This is the exact problem..in 1938 engines availability was much worse than airframe availability. Fighters were built around best available engine, not the other way.
 
At work.

Might some one here on thr forum be knowledgeable adout how far along Mr Nicolas Payen's works have developed at around this point in the proffered time-line/fictional small country?

Also..... is any one having flash-backs to "The mouee that roared" ?

:D
 
Short-list

Airframe
Bell XP-?
Caudron
Curtiss-Wright 21
Curtiss-Wright 35 Hawk
Dewoitine 520
Gregor Monoplane
Grumman F4 Wildcat
Kawanshi 43
Lockheed XP-?
Swedish FF

ENGINE
Argus
Hispano-Suiza 12Y, in-line, water-cooled, hp
Ranger

Bristol Pegasus
Bristol Oersus
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
Seems like RR is out of the list, while the under-performing Argus and non-existing Ranger are in competition? Bristol Oersus? No I-F Asso, that actually powered aircraft in the 1930s?
Bell, Kawainshi and Lockheed make it, Hurricane and Bf 109 do not?
Berezin's HMG was created after the Winter war (the one with Finland), ShVAK was barely available before 1940. DShKM probably never served aboard aircraft.
 
In 1938 I don't see any need for anything larger than .50 cal in fighters/interceptors. This will do just fine against other fighters, thank you, and against the bombers of the day (essentially all twin engine) they will be effective as well. True you'll want something more robust against something like the B-17 or the Lancaster, but those are in the future and we are discussing the need for something "now". Also, there is a bit of deciding who you might be fighting here - in 1938 only the UK and the USA are seriously in the heavy bomber development business, so unless you anticipate fighting those folks you are considering defending against He-111 or Pe-2 sorts of aircraft.

Limited ammunition ammunition and slower rates of fire means that against other fighters, your pilots need to be good shots to score hits - accepting if they do hit they are more effective. Using .50 cal gives you more shots, faster rate of fire - which if you are rapidly expanding your pilot base is a plus.
 
Limited ammunition ammunition and slower rates of fire means that against other fighters, your pilots need to be good shots to score hits - accepting if they do hit they are more effective. Using .50 cal gives you more shots, faster rate of fire - which if you are rapidly expanding your pilot base is a plus.
Nearly all of the US fighters that had cowl guns were set to use either .30 or .50 Brownings.
The thing about cowl guns, is that they need higher rate of fire, as synchronization/interrupter gear does reduce the actual rate of fire. The Soviet cowl cannons like the ShVAK ran at 700 rpm
 
Seems like RR is out of the list, while the under-performing Argus and non-existing Ranger are in competition? Bristol Oersus? No I-F Asso, that actually powered aircraft in the 1930s?
Bell, Kawainshi and Lockheed make it, Hurricane and Bf 109 do not? ........
————————————————————————————-

OP’s goal is forcing alt’ historians to “think outside the box.” ... use their brains and get creative
 
In 1938 I don't see any need for anything larger than .50 cal in fighters/interceptors. This will do just fine against other fighters, thank you, and against the bombers of the day (essentially all twin engine) they will be effective as well. True you'll want something more robust against something like the B-17 or the Lancaster, but those are in the future and we are discussing the need for something "now". Also, there is a bit of deciding who you might be fighting here - in 1938 only the UK and the USA are seriously in the heavy bomber development business, so unless you anticipate fighting those folks you are considering defending against He-111 or Pe-2 sorts of aircraft.

Limited ammunition ammunition and slower rates of fire means that against other fighters, your pilots need to be good shots to score hits - accepting if they do hit they are more effective. Using .50 cal gives you more shots, faster rate of fire - which if you are rapidly expanding your pilot base is a plus.
Not true I'm afraid

In the mid 30's the RAF did a series of tests that demonstrated that both .30 or .50 machine guns lacked power... even when 6 or 8 were used.
(IIR correctly... they actually shot at several defunct air frames on teh ground...BTW I'm looking for my sources for this)
Either took a large number of hits to do damage that would bring down down a bomber ... even a late 1930s twin engine design.

They wanted 2x20mm cannon even in interceptors .. and 4 + in their heavy fighters ... and only paper pushers stopped them.
 
Last edited:
In 1938 I don't see any need for anything larger than .50 cal in fighters/interceptors. This will do just fine against other fighters, thank you, and against the bombers of the day (essentially all twin engine) they will be effective as well. True you'll want something more robust against something like the B-17 or the Lancaster, but those are in the future and we are discussing the need for something "now". Also, there is a bit of deciding who you might be fighting here - in 1938 only the UK and the USA are seriously in the heavy bomber development business, so unless you anticipate fighting those folks you are considering defending against He-111 or Pe-2 sorts of aircraft.

Limited ammunition ammunition and slower rates of fire means that against other fighters, your pilots need to be good shots to score hits - accepting if they do hit they are more effective. Using .50 cal gives you more shots, faster rate of fire - which if you are rapidly expanding your pilot base is a plus.
Americans managed to speed up the .50 BMG from 600 rpm to 800 rpm sometime in 1940. Ie. for 1938, it is 600 rpm vs. 450-520 for the Oerlikon (FFS slowest, FFF fastest). If the BMG is synchronised, the RoF drops down by 20-25%. One 20mm shell was worth perhaps 3-4 .50 slugs of the ww2, that were copy of the Soviet 12.7mm bullet. A 20 mm shell will ruin a day even when it hits wing or tail, unlike the .50 ball.
Oerikon offered drums up to 100 rounds.

OP’s goal is forcing alt’ historians to “think outside the box.” ... use their brains and get creative
I have no probems with thinking outside the box. However, a good fiction needs to make sense, even of relaity does not :)
 
Single seat Miles Kestrel, with a Hispano Suiza 12Y-31 giving 860hp, 4 x Browning .50's in the wings, 1 x 20mm Motor Cannon and hardpoints for 2 x 110Kg bombs.

That should suit most countries needs for a fighter in 1938. Would be ideal for the Scandinavian countries and scare the hell out of the Red Air Force over Helsinki.
 
upload_2018-6-9_19-49-13.png


Here is a picture of the Miles Kestral/Master emergency light six gun fighter from 1940. The Kestrel first flew in1937 and therefore realistically this fighter version could have been available from 1988
 
Single seat Miles Kestrel, with a Hispano Suiza 12Y-31 giving 860hp, 4 x Browning .50's in the wings, 1 x 20mm Motor Cannon and hardpoints for 2 x 110Kg bombs.

That should suit most countries needs for a fighter in 1938. Would be ideal for the Scandinavian countries and scare the hell out of the Red Air Force over Helsinki.
View attachment 391244

Here is a picture of the Miles Kestral/Master emergency light six gun fighter from 1940. The Kestrel first flew in1937 and therefore realistically this fighter version could have been available from 1988
A neat looking aircraft, the 'shopped guns look very plausible. The Miles Kestrel was supposedly making almost 300 mph on the RR Kestrel, and would've been even faster with the HS 12Y. Wings were thick, it will facilitate armament installation.
 
The Italain light fighter S.A.I. 207 was offering a very good performance on 750 HP V12 - 575 km/h. Secret was that it was small, with thin wing, and lightly armed. Nothing that can't be done in 1930s.
page 9
 

trurle

Banned
View attachment 391244

Here is a picture of the Miles Kestral/Master emergency light six gun fighter from 1940. The Kestrel first flew in1937 and therefore realistically this fighter version could have been available from 1988
I am a bit concerned about engine upgrade for these airframes. Bristol Mercury in 1938 was nearing growth limit, with power stagnating around 800 hp. Quite different from 1500hp Allison V-1710 which transformed P-36 to formidable P-40.
Using Bristol Pegasus or Hispano-Suiza 12Y as replacement will help only marginally as these engines were also limited to 1000 hp.
Using Allison V-1710 may be fine, but it was about 50% heavier, likely leaving no space for armament even if it would be possible to install much heavier engine at all.
The Italain light fighter S.A.I. 207 was offering a very good performance on 750 HP V12 - 575 km/h. Secret was that it was small, with thin wing, and lightly armed. Nothing that can't be done in 1930s.
page 9
Structural problems of wings likely mean SAI.207 can not be fitted with combat flaps. Also, it was below-average climber.

Well, summarizing..if we are allowed any airfoil, hybridizing P-36/P40 fuselage with the wings of Ki-43 may give an ideal fighter/interceptor. Maneuverable, with 12.7mm weapon mount from beginning, and engine upgrade-able up to 1500 hp.
Realistically, i can imagine Nakajima covertly selling the wrecked Ki-43 11th prototype airframe in 1939 to make up the losses after been ordered to give up on it, may be after in-flight disintegration due clear-air turbulency (instead of making more mods and succeeding IOTL with 13th prototype). The Ruralia engineers reverse-engineer the Fowler flaps and overall wing profile, and re-make it in A2024 alloy - to be mated with P-36Q fuselage which is already license-produced. The result is super-maneuverable and long-range P-36, although slightly heavier than original Ki-43 (510 km/h speed and 17 m/s climb rate).
 
Last edited:
An all-new design, resembling the P-36, very smooth-surfaced (akin the P-51) gull wing with winglets, wood monocoque (steam-formed) fuselage, with the R1820 or R1830, large spinner & auxiliary cooling fan (per P-60?). Armed with 4 HS.404s in the wings.
 

trurle

Banned
An all-new design, resembling the P-36, very smooth-surfaced (akin the P-51) gull wing with winglets, wood monocoque (steam-formed) fuselage, with the R1820 or R1830, large spinner & auxiliary cooling fan (per P-60?). Armed with 4 HS.404s in the wings.
Attempts to cram as much guns as possible is the common fallacy. Wing gun arrays are specialized tool - against formations of sluggish heavy bombers. For fighter one 20mm fuselage-mounted cannon is much better, because it actually fires to where you aim it and do not compromise your speed&maneurability, unlike wobbly and high-drag wing cannon pods.
 
Top