Whiffie Air Force Concepts

[PR19_Kit]

I would imagine so, yes.

But the stunbling block in that thinking is was there a need for such a system at the time? Cobham's work was directed at Imperial Airway's trans-Atlantic routes as the Short S23 Empire Boats couldn't cross from Foynes to Botwood if there was a strong westerly blowing, although the later S30s could manage it. Thus the emphasis was on bomber size receivers rather than single seaters at the time. It would have needed some serious development work to produce a workable scheme for fighters back then.

[tahsin]

I think Amelia Earhard first proposed using air refuelling with USN planes somewhere near Midway. The Navy brass apparently thought she wasn't good enough, so they changed the plans to refuelling at the Howard island. All of these are from a BBC documentary that aired in Turkey, but it might have lost something in the translation. So if correct the timeframe would be starting from 1936 or so. Have no idea on which system was proposed, though.

As a whif, one could put the hose to the fighter and the drouge to the tanker. Have no idea it would work or not, but it would surely eliminate the fighter prop from list as a problem.

[KJ_Lesnick]

PR19_Kit

I would imagine so, yes.

Fascinating

But the stunbling block in that thinking is was there a need for such a system at the time? Cobham's work was directed at Imperial Airway's trans-Atlantic routes as the Short S23 Empire Boats couldn't cross from Foynes to Botwood if there was a strong westerly blowing, although the later S30s could manage it. Thus the emphasis was on bomber size receivers rather than single seaters at the time. It would have needed some serious development work to produce a workable scheme for fighters back then.

True, but one major problem was an inability to produce fighters that would be agile yet possess long-range.  There was some appreciation in the idea, but they felt it was simply not physically possible -- any such fighter would be so big it would be too underpowered and lack agility.  They were wrong of course, but if you could refuel a fighter in mid air using flying-boats, you could escort the bombers to and from their targets.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Starting from 1934 to 1939, I'm wondering if any of these designs are technically feasible given the technology of the era.  For designation purposes I'll list designs by year and what they are (F = Fighter, B = Bomber) and a number after them.  Probably not a good real designation system but it's simply for mentioning earlier designs without difficulty.

Here's what I got so far...

1934

F-1: Single radial-engined, single-crewed, carrier-based monoplane fighter
Notes: Closed-canopy, either fully (Grumman style) or partially (like the TBD Devastator) retractable landing-gears, 2 machine guns (either 2 x 7.62 or 1 x 7.62 & 1 x 12.7), same bomb-load as the XFT

B-1: Single radial-engined, twin-crew, land-based monoplane attack/bomber
Notes: Similar in speed to the Consolidated XA-11 & Curtiss BF2C, bomb-load similar to the BF2C, offensive and defensive gun armament similar to the XA-11.

1935

PB-1: Twin-engined radials, multi-crewed, sea-based monoplane patrol bomber
Notes: Basically the same fuselage as the PBY, but rather than a parasol, the cantilevered wings would be attached to the fuselage rather than a parasol and the R-1820's fitted to pylons above the wing similar to the Saro Cutty Sark.  The retractable floats would be retained.  To reduce drag, the area behind the radial-cowls would include a tear-drop fairing which seems like a good aerodynamic feature.  

B-2: Single-engined radial, three-crewed, carrier-based monoplane torpedo/high-altitude level-bomber
Notes: Basically a TBD except perhaps some variants could be fitted with a supercharger of some sort

B-3: Four-engined radial, multi-crewed land-based monoplane heavy bomber
Notes: Similar fuselage to the Avro-Lanaster which seems to have good overall turret coverage (so long as the lower-turret is used), plus the bubble-canopy provides good overall visibility.  I think a heavy-bomber should have two pilots rather than a single pilot and a flight-engineer who can fly a plane a little bit.  Crew could still be kept reasonably low by merging the navigator & radio operator which would keep the crew at 7 if no lower turret was used and 8 if the lower-turret was used which would be identical to the Avro Lancaster.  Power-limitations would probably limit the bomb-load to 8,000 pounds.  No idea on what effect this would have on the plane's size.  Since the size of the plane would require some serious power to push it, I'm thinking of starting with R-1830's from the outset with either a twin-speed, single-stage or a twin-stage single-speed supercharger if the capability existed, then switching to turbochargers as time went on.

F-1: Single-engined radial, single-crewed, land-based monoplane fighter
Notes: Basically designed for the same mission as the P-35, some models to be fitted with twin-stage superchargers to augment performance

1936

B1: Single engined radial, twin-crewed, carrier-suitable monoplane scout-plane/dive-bomber
Notes: Basically similar to the SB2U in armament and bomb-load; used for both land-based and sea-based applications

1938

B-1: Four-engined radial, multi-crewed, seaplane monoplane patrol-bomber
Notes: Basically designed for the same mission as the PB2Y, crew of 8-10 (there could be 1-2 navigator/bombardiers, and 1-2 bombardier(s)/forward-turret operator(s))

1939

B-1: Twin-engined radial, 3-4 land-based monoplane medium bomber
Notes: Similar in appearance to the A-26, two turrets, an H-tail and the provision for a bombardier in the nose and a reduced forward armament, or a hard-nose and a heavy gun armament.  All 12.7mm guns.  R-2600 powered, twin-stage superchargers.

FB-1: Single-engined inline, single-crewed, land-based monoplane fighter
Notes: The design would be one of two planes to come out of a research project starting in 1934 to produce a long-range fighter to escort new bomber designs which will not be able to outrun newer fighters.  Features of interests would include drop-tanks, high-fuel fractions, inlines with aerodynamic radiators, radials with streamlined cowls.  I'm thinking something similar to a plane with a weight similar to the P-40, a higher fuel-fraction and drop-tanks, maybe a P-39 canopy.  Since the drop-tanks weight would probably be over 500 pounds might as well make a fighter-bomber out of it if do-able.  Armament to consist of 6 x 12.7mm guns

FB-2: Twin-engined inline, single-crewed, land-based monoplane fighter/bomber.
Notes: Designed as a fast-climbing interceptor, and a long-range fighter/bomber.  Basically the design would use a V-1710 engine with turbochargers and would look like a DH-103 with a few P-38 characteristics.  Armament 4 x 20mm cannon, and at least 2,000 pounds of bombs.  Can carry drop tanks to extend range.


So... what do you guys think?

[Tomintoul Wildcat]

I like the idea!!

I am currently planning a series of builds for the Scottish Independent Air Force (SIAF). The air arm of the newly constituted Scottish Armed Forces which will be formed after we recieve our long overdue independence!   (no, this is NOT a political rant/discussion!! ).

I have in mind the following ;
Fixed wing ;
Main combat type - Typhoon
Transport wing equipped with mix of C-130J/ Airbus A400M
Trainers - Mix of BAE Tucano/Hawk
Multi engine training flight ( to be decided later!!)
VIP Transport flight    (to be decided later)
Air refuelling flight  Airbus A330

Helicopters ;
Merlin HC1 for transport role/VIP transport role
AH64 Apache (Longbow)

I am open to ideas for types  to provide ;
ab initio fixed wing & rotary wing training
Multi engine training
VIP transport flight

I also anticipate (with whiffie glee  ) the reactions of the NIMBY brigade living in the vicinity of Edinburgh and Glasgow airports which will clearly need to have their former military roles re instated. I'm sure Abbotsinch (Glasgow) was a military air base at some time? Maybe someone can correct me.

Other airfields to be used;
Leuchars
Lossiemouth
Kinloss
Prestwick

This will of course have to wait until I have cleared the WHIF bench!! Still have to figure out HOW i'm going top make all these little saltires!!

[Mr.Creak]

I'm sure Abbotsinch (Glasgow) was a military air base at some time? Maybe someone can correct me.

It was: RNAS Abbotsinch (and prior to 1943 it was RAF & RN together).
http://www.abpic.co.uk/search.php?q=RNAS%20Abbotsinch&u=location

And don't forget the 10,000 ft runway at Machrihanish.

[McColm]

I would have gone for the Shorts Stirling as a long range bomber. Longer fuselage than the Lancaster and Halifax, although primative compaired to the four engined Merlin heavies.
That's one of my ideas combining the Stirling fuselage with the Lancaster wings, tail section and cockpit.
As to in-flight refueling another way round the problemis to use a Mistral. The bomber has fuel cells inside its fuselage and acts as an large fuel tank whilst the fighter controls and detaches when close to the target. Similar to the Space Shuttle on take off.

[PR19_Kit]

Erm, don't you mean a Mistel? Like the Luftwaffe Ju-88/Fw-190 combinations?

[McColm]

That's the chap

[KJ_Lesnick]

I think Amelia Earhard first proposed using air refuelling with USN planes somewhere near Midway. The Navy brass apparently thought she wasn't good enough, so they changed the plans to refuelling at the Howard island. All of these are from a BBC documentary that aired in Turkey, but it might have lost something in the translation. So if correct the timeframe would be starting from 1936 or so. Have no idea on which system was proposed, though.

As a whif, one could put the hose to the fighter and the drouge to the tanker. Have no idea it would work or not, but it would surely eliminate the fighter prop from list as a problem.

What kind of refuelling scheme were they using?

[tahsin]

Heard in the documentary, have no other info. Though the Earhard case is always interesting, sometime in the 1980s an aviation corporation had an ad in a mag and that was of the opinion that she was shot down by a "George" of WW2 fame ...

[tahsin]

While not directly relevant to the discussion, I would also like to point out that in the barnstorming days a few people must have surely come up with the idea to extend a hose from one plane to the one below for fuel transfer.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Alexander de Seversky did extensive research into this in 1921 to increase aircraft range.  Couldn't that have been coupled with the British research?