Random Ideas

[KJ_Lesnick]

I'm thinking of a couple of interesting ideas based around the following: Input appreciated.

I. Fighter

A. F4U/F2G Hybrid

• F4U with the slightly shorter nose of the prototype with the canopy that would look like some progenitor of the F2G (P-38, P-39, XF5F, Typhoon types would be good examples).
  

.
B. P-39 Like Design

• I remember seeing a design in Seversky's Victory Through Airpower which vaguely resembled a P-39
  
• It wasn't exactly the same so a variety of details could be different
  
• It looked slick
  

.
C. Davis P-75 Manta Derivative

• The wings were beautiful
  
• The engine was underpowered and the propellers were too small: However with a V-3420 and bigger props and a change of incidence on the ground could have given it serious power
  
• The design could have traits from the P-39 and P-63 as well
  
• The USAAF could have used a plane with a 10 hour endurance and a 3500 mile range
  

.
D. P-61 Black Widow Derivative

• The Black-Widow seemed to have good wings and overall good agility
  
• The turret was unnecessary and the British even abandoned it on their design; the P-61 rarely even used it.
  
• Possibly an inter-cooled (liquid or air-cooled) twin-stage, twin-speed supercharger: The latter was already there
  
• I was thinking something like an XP-61E with a radar in the nose and the rear guy being a radar operator
  

Not sure if this design would have been given the go-ahead in favor of the A-26 or a turreted P-61, but it looks like it'd perform better with less weight and drag and also would look way cooler too.

E. Fighterized Fairey Gannet

• The Fairey Gannet had a nice look about it
  
• If it had no bomb-bay, a slightly skinnier fuselage, and one crew, it looks like it could have performed nice
  
• Utilized some kind of radial or inline engine in the nose instead of a turboprop
  

.
F. Navalized Swept Wing Fighter in Lieu of the F7U

• The F7U was an ambitious design: It was unfortunately too ambitious
  
• A tailed design with a decent sized wing would work well
  

.
II. Tactical Bomber

A. Enlarged XF5U

• Relatively low aspect ratio ellipse wing, though higher than the XF5U with tip mounted props
  
• Engines to be either R-3350, R-4350, or turboprop
  
• Bomb bay to be grafted under the fuselage in shape (think of it as a ventral spine)
  

It sounds like it'd make a hell of a CAS design.

B. Nuclear Strike Concept 1

• The idea would be kind of a design that was a dedicated tactical bomber that at low altitude was similar to the F-105
  
• The idea would be to allow conventional storage in the bomb-bay, and possibly some improved altitude performance and range at altitude improving it's mission profile
  
• One idea I thought of was a wing that was similar to the English Electric Lightning with a lower sweep angle, more taper and the same outboard tip would provided a bit more area, a lower aspect ratio at the same time and possibly similar low-speed performance and high altitude capability
  
• Could have one or two engines
  

.

[rickshaw]

Why don't you build some models of them, Kendra/Robyn?  It'd be interesting to see your handiwork...   

[maxmwill]

I think the P39 idea was what the P47 was initially envisioned to be.

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

I'm mostly interested in the graphic art style stuff so if anything does materialize it'll be there.


maxmwill

I think the P39 idea was what the P47 was initially envisioned to be.

Actually the P-47 was a rival to the XP-46 which was to be a successor to the P-40 Warhawk.

[Tophe]

I'm mostly interested in the graphic art style stuff so

I am willing to draw new shapes (for the P-61 and Manta twin-boomers) but your words seem to focus on devices (engine détails, turrets, tanks) thus I cannot bring anything. Sorry.

[sandiego89]

I would not put too much thought into a fighterized Gannet. Neat aircraft, but not a fighter by any means.  With all The changes you propose you would not have a Gannet anymore.  Big aircraft, with high empty weight, and you want a piston powerplant?  so you would have a @15,000 lb plane, empty, with maybe 2,700 horsepower, or a bit more if you went with the U.S. 4360, a still draggy big fuselage, thick wing.  Would likely have to totally move the cockpit for a piston up front.  Nahh not looking good as a fighter for the period. It would be totally outclassed by lighter piston fighters like the Sea Fury, and jets of the era.

Now she is similiar to to the A-1 Skyraider, so a single seat COIN or attack version would be within reason, and a few beauties have been Whiffed on this very forum... 

-Dave.

[wuzak]

I would not put too much thought into a fighterized Gannet. Neat aircraft, but not a fighter by any means.  With all The changes you propose you would not have a Gannet anymore.  Big aircraft, with high empty weight, and you want a piston powerplant?  so you would have a @15,000 lb plane, empty, with maybe 2,700 horsepower, or a bit more if you went with the U.S. 4360, a still draggy big fuselage, thick wing.  Would likely have to totally move the cockpit for a piston up front.  Nahh not looking good as a fighter for the period. It would be totally outclassed by lighter piston fighters like the Sea Fury, and jets of the era.

Now she is similiar to to the A-1 Skyraider, so a single seat COIN or attack version would be within reason, and a few beauties have been Whiffed on this very forum... 

-Dave.

Could use a Rolls-Royce Eagle 22 of 3500hp, or a Pennine of 2800hp+ (2800hp was achieved in initial development). Or a Sabre of 3000hp+.

[sandiego89]

I would not put too much thought into a fighterized Gannet. Neat aircraft, but not a fighter by any means.  With all The changes you propose you would not have a Gannet anymore.  Big aircraft, with high empty weight, and you want a piston powerplant?  so you would have a @15,000 lb plane, empty, with maybe 2,700 horsepower, or a bit more if you went with the U.S. 4360, a still draggy big fuselage, thick wing.  Would likely have to totally move the cockpit for a piston up front.  Nahh not looking good as a fighter for the period. It would be totally outclassed by lighter piston fighters like the Sea Fury, and jets of the era.

Now she is similiar to to the A-1 Skyraider, so a single seat COIN or attack version would be within reason, and a few beauties have been Whiffed on this very forum... 

-Dave.

Could use a Rolls-Royce Eagle 22 of 3500hp, or a Pennine of 2800hp+ (2800hp was achieved in initial development). Or a Sabre of 3000hp+.

True, guess I was thinking of more proven UK and US engines- I can imagine all those valves and spark plugs on some of those would have kept the wrench turners busy! 

Still don't think any big piston would have made Kendra's Gannet much of a "fighter" however.... 

[wuzak]

I would not put too much thought into a fighterized Gannet. Neat aircraft, but not a fighter by any means.  With all The changes you propose you would not have a Gannet anymore.  Big aircraft, with high empty weight, and you want a piston powerplant?  so you would have a @15,000 lb plane, empty, with maybe 2,700 horsepower, or a bit more if you went with the U.S. 4360, a still draggy big fuselage, thick wing.  Would likely have to totally move the cockpit for a piston up front.  Nahh not looking good as a fighter for the period. It would be totally outclassed by lighter piston fighters like the Sea Fury, and jets of the era.

Now she is similiar to to the A-1 Skyraider, so a single seat COIN or attack version would be within reason, and a few beauties have been Whiffed on this very forum... 

-Dave.

Could use a Rolls-Royce Eagle 22 of 3500hp, or a Pennine of 2800hp+ (2800hp was achieved in initial development). Or a Sabre of 3000hp+.

True, guess I was thinking of more proven UK and US engines- I can imagine all those valves and spark plugs on some of those would have kept the wrench turners busy! 

Still don't think any big piston would have made Kendra's Gannet much of a "fighter" however.... 

No, it would need a total redesign.

[Captain Canada]

You could build that Gannet in a Gannet Group Build

[KJ_Lesnick]

Tophe

I am willing to draw new shapes (for the P-61 and Manta twin-boomers)

Well, the Manta I was planning on using was to be the single fuselage design based on the fact that in that era a bail-out would require a propeller up front...

However, I would be quite interesting in the P-61 idea: I could send you a PM regarding that if you're interested

but your words seem to focus on devices (engine détails, turrets, tanks)

Well the engine details only matter so long as they affect the exterior contours.  They often don't so it shouldn't be a problem.

[Rick Lowe]

Tophe

I am willing to draw new shapes (for the P-61 and Manta twin-boomers)

Well, the Manta I was planning on using was to be the single fuselage design based on the fact that in that era a bail-out would require a propeller up front...

However, I would be quite interesting in the P-61 idea: I could send you a PM regarding that if you're interested

but your words seem to focus on devices (engine détails, turrets, tanks)

Well the engine details only matter so long as they affect the exterior contours.  They often don't so it shouldn't be a problem.

1. The Do-335 had a prop at the rear and there were methods to get around that...
2. The P-38 and Vampire however, while front-engined, had tailplanes that seemed as if they were designed to relieve the baling out pilot of their lower extremities...

3. Exterior contours are tweaked to suit the powerplant dimensions to a greater or lesser degree... the aircraft is usually drawn/sized around the desired engine.

Cheers

[Weaver]

Tophe

I am willing to draw new shapes (for the P-61 and Manta twin-boomers)

Well, the Manta I was planning on using was to be the single fuselage design based on the fact that in that era a bail-out would require a propeller up front...

However, I would be quite interesting in the P-61 idea: I could send you a PM regarding that if you're interested

but your words seem to focus on devices (engine détails, turrets, tanks)

Well the engine details only matter so long as they affect the exterior contours.  They often don't so it shouldn't be a problem.

1. The Do-335 had a prop at the rear and there were methods to get around that...
2. The P-38 and Vampire however, while front-engined, had tailplanes that seemed as if they were designed to relieve the baling out pilot of their lower extremities...

3. Exterior contours are tweaked to suit the powerplant dimensions to a greater or lesser degree... the aircraft is usually drawn/sized around the desired engine.

Cheers

I know an ex-Vampire pilot. The approved bailout method pre-ejector seats was to dive over the side underneath the leading edge of the wing. Of course they were all very aware of the possibility of getting stuck on the air intake, so they didn't have much confidence in it.

[Weaver]

I would not put too much thought into a fighterized Gannet. Neat aircraft, but not a fighter by any means.  With all The changes you propose you would not have a Gannet anymore.  Big aircraft, with high empty weight, and you want a piston powerplant?  so you would have a @15,000 lb plane, empty, with maybe 2,700 horsepower, or a bit more if you went with the U.S. 4360, a still draggy big fuselage, thick wing.  Would likely have to totally move the cockpit for a piston up front.  Nahh not looking good as a fighter for the period. It would be totally outclassed by lighter piston fighters like the Sea Fury, and jets of the era.

Now she is similiar to to the A-1 Skyraider, so a single seat COIN or attack version would be within reason, and a few beauties have been Whiffed on this very forum... 

-Dave.

Could use a Rolls-Royce Eagle 22 of 3500hp, or a Pennine of 2800hp+ (2800hp was achieved in initial development). Or a Sabre of 3000hp+.

True, guess I was thinking of more proven UK and US engines- I can imagine all those valves and spark plugs on some of those would have kept the wrench turners busy! 

Still don't think any big piston would have made Kendra's Gannet much of a "fighter" however.... 

No, it would need a total redesign.

Also, the Gannet pilot sat on top of the two slim turbine engines, whereas a big radial would have to go all in front of him. Big changes to not only nose contours but also CofG.

However the Gannet evolved from late-WWII strike-fighter designs that had two Merlin/Griffon engines: one underneath the pilot driving the gearbox directly and one behind him driving it via a shaft. You could possibly "de-evolve" a Gannet kit to that kind of configuration.

[jcf]

The Gannet's competitor was the Blackburn B-54.

The two prototypes were Griffon 56 powered, another was to be powered by a twinned Napier Naiad
powerplant, this didn't work out so it was built with Double Mamba as the B-88.






Griffon 56




Double Mamba

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/sea/b88.html

The Blackburn B-48 Firecrest was largely based on the preceding B-37/B-45/B-46 Firebrand, and
was a downsize of the basic concept. Studies for turbo-prop conversions of the B-48 led into the B-54/B-88
development. The Firebrand itself under went a change of Griffon to Centaurus.

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/fbrand.html

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/fcrest.html