My WHIF Air-Force & Military (Part II)

[Battlefield]

A already existing wing would make building swept wing aircraft easier. All you would need is existing fuselage and wing. All you woudl really need to do is mount the fuselage onto the wing. You would need to design the tail from scratch, though, but it could work. I don't know if the Navy knew about Northrop's work, either.

A simplified twin-spool jet engine would have a lot odf advantages for any aircraft powered by it. I would in that direction.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Battlefield,

A already existing wing would make building swept wing aircraft easier. All you would need is existing fuselage and wing. All you woudl really need to do is mount the fuselage onto the wing.

It does sound a hell of a lot easier than having to design a brand-new wing with a brand-new aircraft.  From what it would seem at least a couple of of early jets (FJ-1, Hawker Seahawk, and possibly the FH-1 Phantom) used airfoils from the previous generation of propeller planes, or from German research gained after WW2 (F-86, F7U Cutlass)

You would need to design the tail from scratch, though, but it could work.

Not necessarily, it's possible the tailplane could be derived from the wing to some degree (it would have to be inverted, different incidence, various changes in t/c ratios and such).

I don't know if the Navy knew about Northrop's work, either.

I'm starting to ask around via PM about that.

A simplified twin-spool jet engine would have a lot odf advantages for any aircraft powered by it. I would in that direction.

Yeah, I agree, that would definitely be a good start, so rather than going turboprop (T = is an engine designation for turboprop), going straight to turbojet, and simplifying the overly complex XJ-37 into a more practical design like the J-57 would be a good idea.  It would also help with some attack-planes and bomber designs too.

[KJ_Lesnick]

I was thinking about mid-air refuelling.  

Does anybody know when would it be a good time for the WHIF-Nation to develop it?  I know at the very least it should be developed along the same timetable as the USAF did, but the technology existed earlier.  But I'm wondering if it would have been practical to for mid-air refuelling to have been developed during the WW2 era, or at the end of WW2 (I know the Brits did some work with it by the 1930's involving large aircraft with hose and drogue refuelling).

[Battlefield]

I think they should start developing air to air refueling during the war.  That way, when the war ends, the technology will already be there. Since jet engines consume more fuel than piston engines, they'll need that extra fuel an aerial tanker can provide.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Battlefield,

I think they should start developing air to air refueling during the war.

Yeah, the technology was developed by the British in 1934 or so, and I think it would have been smarter to have capitalized on it to some degree, especially when you consider the size of the Pacific and that there were numerous missions that ran into a lot of logistical trouble because the range of current bombers and other aircraft were inadequate.  The Doolittle Raid was an example of this, they actually had to strip down B-25's and operate them off carrier decks.  If they could refuel in mid-air, they could sidestep most of this.  Post WW2 there was an obsession for some time of fitting a nuclear-powerplant on a bomber so as to give it some seriously gigantic endurance, this wouldn't have needed to have been done if mid-air refuelling was more commonplace.

Of course one problem that this does pose, is the possibility that it could have hurt the developments of long-range XB-35 and B-36 aircraft designs.  What do you think?

[Battlefield]

I think it would. If medium and short range aircraft could be refueled while in mid-air, purpose built long-range aircraft such as the B-36 wouldn't have been needed.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Battlefield,

I think it would. If medium and short range aircraft could be refueled while in mid-air, purpose built long-range aircraft such as the B-36 wouldn't have been needed.

Yeah, that's kind of the worry I had.  Of course the tankers would have to be based in key locations, and if there wasn't any friendly basing nearby you'd still be in trouble (though carriers could carry the tankers and employ them -- you could even have seaplane based tankers). 

I guess it would be best for the tanker technology to be developed around 1945 or 1946 at which point a design like the B-36 would be so far along that it would be unlikely to be cancelled.  Could that work?

[Battlefield]

It would. Considering the B-36 needed to burn so much fule, it would need refueling while in transit across the Ocean and such.

I think seaplane tankers would be agreat idea.Back in the 1950s the Convair R3Y Tradewind seaplane was used as a tanker. In fact, one of them set a record of refueling four Grumman F9F Cougar fighters simultaneously. Here's the wikipedia page about the R3Y:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R3Y_Tradewind

[KJ_Lesnick]

Battlefield,

It would.

That's good.  Even though I'm not as obsessed with the USAF when it comes to strategic warfare, I do think it's good to have long-ranged bombers.

Considering the B-36 needed to burn so much fule, it would need refueling while in transit across the Ocean and such.

Uh, I thought the whole idea of the B-36 was that it could fly enormous distances without having to stop?

I think seaplane tankers would be agreat idea.Back in the 1950s the Convair R3Y Tradewind seaplane was used as a tanker. In fact, one of them set a record of refueling four Grumman F9F Cougar fighters simultaneously

I'm surprised sea-based aircraft weren't exploited more often...


BTW:  Would it be best for mid-air refuelling to be in a state in which it's entering operational service in 1945 to 1946?  Or would it be better for testing to begin in 1945?

[Battlefield]

My mistake. The B-36 wouldn't have needed mid-air refeuling. I must of been thinking of some othr aircraft.

In regards to seaplanes, I guess in the 1950s, with the coming of submarines and missiles and such, people considered them to be an obselete technology that would have no vital role to play in the future. Of coruse, today both the Japanese maritiem defence force, and the Chinese navy, both use seaplanes for maritiem patrol duties. In fact the Chinese are still building brand new ones.

I think testing should be done during the war, with operational status being achieved in 1945.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Battlefield,

In regards to seaplanes, I guess in the 1950s, with the coming of submarines and missiles and such, people considered them to be an obselete technology that would have no vital role to play in the future.

I think a lot of use could have come out of such aircraft.

Of coruse, today both the Japanese maritiem defence force, and the Chinese navy, both use seaplanes for maritiem patrol duties. In fact the Chinese are still building brand new ones.

I did not know that!

I think testing should be done during the war, with operational status being achieved in 1945.

How long would it take to test such a system? 

[Battlefield]

Definately. Here's an kind of aircraft that doesn't need to have land bases built for it. Very handy if your fighting across an ocean with a few islands in-between.

The Japanese use the Shin Meiwa PS-1, and the Chinese use th Harbin SH-5.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Battlefield,


Regarding Mid-Air Refuelling Technology:

I'm thinking it would be far more practical to develop the technology during WW2 as soon as possible, possibly employing it at various points in WW2.  The trick would be to avoid compromising a ultra long-ranged B-36 type design.  I'm guessing the best way to go about doing this would be for it to be kept as classified as possible, and if possible kept out of the hands of the legislative branch (Congress) hands as much as possible if not completely.  I don't know if this is possible, but in wartime a lot of secrecy often occurs, and few people even know what's going on.

Afterwards, I suppose if the secrecy was sufficiently egregious, it's possible that some of the people who deceived and kept back information from the legislative branch could get exposed, and be punished.


Regarding Gas-Turbine development:

This predominantly regards the L-1000/XJ-37 design.  Nathan Price proposed the final design (prior to it being redesigned into a turboprop) on May 19, 1943.  I'm wondering if at that point in time, a decision was made to strip the design down into a more realistic design.  Remove the hydraulic clutching for the first four stages of compressors, cut the number of compressor stages to 17 of which 8 are on the HP compressor and 9 are on the LP compressor (similar to the early J57), and probably remove the inter-cooling (which was between the HP and LP compressor stages) as I don't see the need for it.  From there you could probably get a workable design, and a highly-efficient engine which could be very useful.

I don't know what effect this would have on other engine developments, but it could allow an XA-43 design to be successful (the problem with the plane was that the fuel burn was too high at lower altitudes to meet the required radius -- at high-altitude it was fine) or could allow an earlier development of a B-57 Canberra design.


What do you think?

[KJ_Lesnick]

Here's a good question

Do you think it would be a good idea to keep a size-able number of smaller Essex and Midway-Class carriers on hand, rather than focus so much on super-carriers (that doesn't mean I won't develop some super-carriers -- just not to the same degree)?  While bigger carriers are more rugged and can carry more aircraft, if one of them gets sunk and sent to the bottom, it's a complete and utter catastrophe... on the other hand if you have a butt-load of moderate sized carriers, one loss isn't *quite* as disastrous.

That and the use of some amphibious strategic bombers (They would be fully capable sea-planes, but have landing gear as well and can operate off land-bases) and it could better yield a small, lean, agile, fast-hitting strike-force.

[Battlefield]

Keeping air-to-air refueling a secret would probably be a good idea, but what's the point of developing a new kind of technology if you intend to keep a secret, and not even use it? Testing of it could probably take two or three years, I'm not sure.

As for the gas-turbine engine, that makes perfect sense.


I thinking keeping a large number of small carriers would be more effecient, and cheaper, than building a small number of large carriers. Besides, you could build two or three small carriers during the same time it takes to build a supercarrier.

Using amphibous bombers would be a great idea. In fact, the US Navy experiemnted with this idea duirng the 1950s. This article will tell you about it:

http://www.wildfreshness.com/?p=422