Making Bad Designs Good

[KJ_Lesnick]

There are some aircraft designs that I've seen or heard about that ranged from excellent, to good, and a few that were unremarkable, and some that were just outright horrible: Some seemed to be fundamentally flawed for one or multiple reasons, some seemed to just be the subject of bad luck, and some actually could have been quite decent had some work been put in to fix them.

So I thought about creating a thread around the concept of taking these horrible, bad, or at least unremarkable designs and either at the conceptual or detail level: Making them into decent or even excellent designs.  This would likely provide interesting model and graphic arts possibilities

Some designs that come to mind seem to be the following

Horrible!

• Breda Ba.88 Lince: Among other things, they couldn't even take off under some conditions
  
• Bell XFM-1 Airacuda: Overly complicated, didn't need defensive armament, was too slow and unmaneuverable, five crew when one would have probably sufficed, and an APU which everything depended on
  
• Saunders-Roe Lerwick: Bad handling characteristics
  

I know the exact boundaries between what constitutes as terrible/bad is debatable

Bad

• Fairey Battle: High fatality rate in combat
  
• Fairey Albacore: Too slow
  
• Blackburn Botha: Unstable and unsuitable for reconnaissance mission
  
• Heinkel He-177: Built to unrealistic design specifications (dive-bombing), would have probably been better with four engines, though the cowling and engine configuration lead to fires
  

I know the boundaries between bad and unremarkable are also debatable

Lackluster & Unremarkable

• Bristol Beaufort: Stability issues early on, more lost through accidents than in combat.
  
• Bell P-39 Airacobra: It was never really as fast as initially intended, particularly when they yanked the turbocharger out of the design; it was excessively light on controls and had no stall warning
  
• Curtiss SB2C Buccaneer: Poor low-speed handling, suffered buffeting in dives
  
• Bell P-59 Airacomet: Too slow (more accurately, it's performance was equivalent to props), poor roll-stability
  

I know some will disagree on my assessments.

Since it's nice to start out with something simple, I'll start out with the XFM-1 Airacuda: An overly complicated beast, becuase why not?

It's interesting to note that the XFM-1's basic concept was based around the following

• Combat exercises in 1934 illustrated that superior firepower was of extreme importance in bringing down a bomber
  
• Some felt that it was more important than speed
  
• A long-ranged aircraft operating as a mobile weapons platform doing standing patrols would have made for better bomber defense
  
• Larry Bell also pitched his design around escorting bombers
  

While I am a bigger proponent of speed than they were: Larry Bell did hope for a speed of 300 mph, which was at the time about the same as the P-35, and P-36's.

The XFM-1 Airacuda had many flaws
[list

• Too slow: Maximum Speed was 277 mph, slower than the B-17's
  
• Insufficiently maneuverable: If not to attack bombers, to attack fighters for it's secondary role
  
• Superfluous crew: The gunners
  
• Unneeded armament: The aircraft actually had a waist-gun, which has little purpose for an interceptor or a bomber escort in actual practice; it also had internal weapons bays
  
• Ejection was suicidal for the gunners as the propeller would have turned them into beef stew
  
• Everything was tied to the APU which resulted in an unnecessary
  

but it had some remarkable strengths which would include

• Inline engines: 2 x Allison V-1710 which were designed for supercharging
  
• Remarkably long range: 2600 miles
  
• A sophisticated fire-control system (admittedly unnecessary)
  
• Heavy firepower
  

Frankly, the concept had the potential to be more like the german Zerstorer concept if not better

• The USAAF did have restrictions against twin-engined aircraft with single crew, but the A-14/A-18 were twin-engined aircraft and the only other crew was a gunner: This was really an unnecessary requirement and by calling the plane a fighter instead of a "pursuit" airplane, you could technically write your own designations around it; that being said, a single crew member would reduce a lot of internal space and reduce weight; the weight reduction would require a smaller wing for the necessary purpose, and power to weight would go up.
  
• The waist-guns have no real purpose despite the weird belief they would be useful on escort planes: Removing them reduces weight and space, and eliminates any need for a second crew-member
  
• The need for internal bomb storage is unnecessary for air-to-ground, or air-to-air (there were some proponents of dropping bombs on bomber formations), and carrying them on the outside would free up volume
  

Had the concept been whipped up around one crew member, two-engines, only forward armament with either 1 or 2 x 37mm cannon to later be replaced with 20mm, and 2-4 x 12.7mm, you'd be well set.

From a model-building stand-point, I'm not sure what this would look like but I'm pretty sure the nose section could be based on the gunner's cockpit to a degree.

[RAFF-35]

It's a very good idea for a GB I reckon  lots of potential there 

[Weaver]

I agree: this is fertile ground for a GB or just what-if modelling in general.

In the same spirit, here's my take on fixing the Bell Airacobra. I always hate the fact that the Airacobras 'failure' has cast a blight over all mid-engined prop aircraft since, despite the fact that the failure was only partial (the Russians regarded the aircraft as successful), and only partially attributable to the engine position.


Problems

Poor altitude performance due to the turbocharger being deleted.

High structural weight due to the keel that joined the engine to the gearbox.

Collapsing nosewheels.

Poor bailout situation due to car door cockpit entry.

Long and complex control runs.

Lack of ammo for 37mm gun.


Non-problems

It's worth pointing out that some of the Airacobra problems popularly ascribed to it never actually existed:

There is no recorded case of the engine coming off it's mountings and going through the cockpit in an otherwise survivable crash.

There is no recorded case of the drive shaft breaking and flailing around in the cockpit.

The idea that the aircraft was prone to flat spins when it's ammo was expended was comprehensively debunked by USAAF test pilots who failed to reproduce the reported spin in dozens of test flights. It's important to remember that after it was withdrawn from combat, most Airacobras went straight into the hands of inexperienced pilots in training units. It's also worth pointing out that the Russians, who flew the aircraft more successfully than anyone else, never encountered this problem.



Solutions

If you don't want a turbocharger, fit a conventional supercharged engine.

Replace the car doors with a sliding or tilting hood and a conventional cockpit side structure. This solves multiple problems:

      a. It allows the fuselage bending beam to be deep all the way from the engine to the gearbox, which reduces
          the need for strength in the heavy keel, thus enabling the latter to be made lighter.

      b. It allows control runs to go straight backwards from the throttle and dashboard to the engine bay under the
         side consoles, instead of having to go forwards, down, backwards, up and backwards again to get around
          the car doors.

      c. It makes the bailout situation FAR better.


Replace the undercarriage with a conventional tailwheel setup. This also solves several problems:

      a. It saves considerable weight in an already overweight aircraft, both by eliminating the 300lb nosewheel and
          by reducing the need for structural strength in the keel at it's mounting points.

      b. It removes the collapsing nosewheel problem (obviously).

      c. It makes space in the nose for a third 0.50cal MG.

      d. By moving the main wheels in front of the main spar instead of behind it, the inboard wing volume can be
          used for extra fuel.


Replace the 37mm with a 20mm Hispano as per the British aircraft. With three 0.50 cal and a 20mm all concentrated in the nose, the firepower should be enough to remove the need for wing guns, thus improving role rate. (the Russians took the wing guns out anyway for just this reason).

[kerick]

You could improve the Fairey Battle by removing the Merlin engine and sticking it onto a Spitfire!

[Rheged]

You could improve the Fairey Battle by removing the Merlin engine and sticking it onto a Spitfire!

This reminds me of a comment I saw in  the repairs book of an LMS steam engine ( in the archives at York Railway Museum) :-

" There is a problem with the whistle........ it needs jacked up and a new engine fitted underneath"

[PR19_Kit]

 

It's got to be said that the Battle was NOT a good idea in the first place. The light bomber had had its day by 1939 and, as proved in France, they were just cannon fodder for the Luftwaffe.

The best improvement they could have made to the Battle was not to have made it in the first place and diverted the manufacturing capacity onto something else, Blenheims or Whitleys perhaps.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Weaver

In the same spirit, here's my take on fixing the Bell Airacobra. I always hate the fact that the Airacobras 'failure' has cast a blight over all mid-engined prop aircraft since, despite the fact that the failure was only partial (the Russians regarded the aircraft as successful), and only partially attributable to the engine position.

Personally, I thought the P-39 was a beautiful design to be honest especially for it's era, it had many good features.

Poor altitude performance due to the turbocharger being deleted.

It's ironic that the turbocharger was removed to reduce drag (the radiator for it): The cure turned out to be worse than the illness; while the turbocharger's arrangement was far from optimal (the exhaust gas off the engine to the turbine): It was still better than nothing ironically.

High structural weight due to the keel that joined the engine to the gearbox.

Why was that part of the design if I may ask?

Collapsing nosewheels.

Just to be clear: Do you mean it buckled?

Long and complex control runs.

You mean the extension shaft, or the control cables?

There is no recorded case of the drive shaft breaking and flailing around in the cockpit.

Was that in any related to the strong keel?

Solutions

Replace the car doors with a sliding or tilting hood and a conventional cockpit side structure.

That's a good idea

b. It allows control runs to go straight backwards from the throttle and dashboard to the engine bay under the
         side consoles, instead of having to go forwards, down, backwards, up and backwards again to get around
          the car doors.

Good point

c. It makes the bailout situation FAR better.

Agreed

Replace the undercarriage with a conventional tailwheel setup.

Personally, I actually like that feature as it made landings a lot easier and may have improved takeoff acceleration.  But you make valid points.

Replace the 37mm with a 20mm Hispano as per the British aircraft. With three 0.50 cal and a 20mm all concentrated in the nose, the firepower should be enough to remove the need for wing guns, thus improving role rate.

I do remember something about the 37mm's described as throwing a grapefruit in terms of it's bullet drop traits.


PR19_Kit

It's got to be said that the Battle was NOT a good idea in the first place. The light bomber had had its day by 1939 and, as proved in France, they were just cannon fodder for the Luftwaffe.

I'm curious what ultimately doomed the plane?

• Insufficient speed
  
• Insufficient agility
  
• Insufficient defensive armament
  
• Bombsight requirements
  
• Tactics
  

Could it have been operated at night practically?

[Weaver]

High structural weight due to the keel that joined the engine to the gearbox.

Why was that part of the design if I may ask?

Because you need to keep the engine and gearbox in fairly rigid alignment with each other to prevent the torque between then from twisting the airframe. This is one of the main arguments against extension-shaft designs and it's a valid one in theory. My point is that the penalty could have been minimised by a better airframe design.

Collapsing nosewheels.

Just to be clear: Do you mean it buckled?

The P-39 nosewheel had a habit of collapsing on landing. IIRC it was a design flaw that caused the retraction mechanism to become unlocked.

Long and complex control runs.

You mean the extension shaft, or the control cables?

Control cables, wires, rods: anything that linked the controls to the engine.

There is no recorded case of the drive shaft breaking and flailing around in the cockpit.

Was that in any related to the strong keel?

Probably not: it was just a greatly exaggerated fear because the spinning shaft was visible. How often do car prop shafts break or come loose?

(The Russian joke was that P-39s could only be flown by young men because old men's balls would get caught in the shaft... )

Replace the undercarriage with a conventional tailwheel setup.

Personally, I actually like that feature as it made landings a lot easier and may have improved takeoff acceleration.  But you make valid points.

Nosewheels are generally a better idea. However the WWII standard for single-engined fighters was tailwheels so it wouldn't have been much of a disadvantageto go back to one, plus it would have save a lot of weight in an already heavy aircraft and removed a notoriously unreliable component.

Replace the 37mm with a 20mm Hispano as per the British aircraft. With three 0.50 cal and a 20mm all concentrated in the nose, the firepower should be enough to remove the need for wing guns, thus improving role rate.

I do remember something about the 37mm's described as throwing a grapefruit in terms of it's bullet drop traits.

Just to expand on this a bit, I'm not wholly opposed to the 37mm: it had some good points, particularly in ground attack, and the Russians learned how to get the best from it (get REALLY close before firing, basically). For air-to-air work though, I still think a 20mm would be better. You don't need the 37mm's terminal effects to take down anything except a four-engined bomber, and the P-39's likely users wern't faced with that task. If they were, then the need to get very close in to have a chance of hitting would probably have been suicidal anyway.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Weaver

Because you need to keep the engine and gearbox in fairly rigid alignment with each other to prevent the torque between then from twisting the airframe. This is one of the main arguments against extension-shaft designs and it's a valid one in theory. My point is that the penalty could have been minimised by a better airframe design.

The P-39 nosewheel had a habit of collapsing on landing. IIRC it was a design flaw that caused the retraction mechanism to become unlocked.

Okay

Probably not: it was just a greatly exaggerated fear because the spinning shaft was visible.

It was also very long too

The Russian joke was that P-39s could only be flown by young men because old men's balls would get caught in the shaft...

I love it!

Just to expand on this a bit, I'm not wholly opposed to the 37mm: it had some good points, particularly in ground attack, and the Russians learned how to get the best from it (get REALLY close before firing, basically). For air-to-air work though, I still think a 20mm would be better. You don't need the 37mm's terminal effects to take down anything except a four-engined bomber, and the P-39's likely users wern't faced with that task.

Valid point, but the P-39 was designed for fast-climbing ability...

[kerick]

Weaver



PR19_Kit

It's got to be said that the Battle was NOT a good idea in the first place. The light bomber had had its day by 1939 and, as proved in France, they were just cannon fodder for the Luftwaffe.

I'm curious what ultimately doomed the plane?

• Insufficient speed
  
• Insufficient agility
  
• Insufficient defensive armament
  
• Bombsight requirements
  
• Tactics
  

Could it have been operated at night practically?

What doomed the Battle was an outmoded design concept. In detail, the first three above were enough to render any aircraft useless in combat. It also had only one gun firing forward. As far as night operations, what mission could it do? It didn't carry enough bombs for area targets at night. Only one forward firing gun was pretty useless for a night fighter.
Back to the original thought for this thread, drop the one defensive gun, go with only the pilot and add some real firepower forward and you just might have a chance at something useful.

[Weaver]

Going back to the original list, the Bristol Beaufort also had persistent problems with it's Bristol Taurus engines.

Heinkel actually built an He 177B with four separate engines after considerable conflict with the RLM.

My solution to the Fairey Battle is much like others: don't build the bloody thing!

What I'd have liked to see (with perfect 20/20 hindsight) is a twin-engined single seat airframe for the RAF that could take either Merlin or Mercury engines (a kind of scaled-up Whirlwind, in effect). If we hadn't built Battles, Defiants, Fulmars and Blenheims, there'd have been enough spare engines for 500 Merlin-engined bomber destroyer/long-range fighters and over 1000 Mercury-engined ground attack/dive-bomber versions, plus a single-Mercury-engined, single-seat fighter for the FAA.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Weaver

Going back to the original list, the Bristol Beaufort also had persistent problems with it's Bristol Taurus engines.

What was wrong with the engines?

My solution to the Fairey Battle is much like others: don't build the bloody thing!

Agreed

[KJ_Lesnick]

As for the "single-seater" YFM-1 idea: I'm pretty sure that by just removing four crew members, the waist-guns, and the ammo attached to it, you remove around 1271.4023 pounds of weight.  Still, I'm thinking of making a far more practical design around the baseline concept

• Long-range patrol-interceptor: Far as I know that was the role the plane was built for
  
• Heavy fire-power: After all a lot of firepower can help bring a bomber down faster
  
• Ability to escort a bomber: Obviously useful whether the bomber-barons realized it LOL
  

As for that being said

As a basic template, I'm thinking of some good candidates in the following

• Focke-Wulf Fw 187: Good looking aircraft, nice lines, though a little slow
  
• Gloster G.39 (F.9/37): Looks like a bomber, but it had a decent rate rate of speed and flew well despite it
  
• Vickers 432: Good range and speed
  

What do you think?

[rickshaw]

Weaver

Going back to the original list, the Bristol Beaufort also had persistent problems with it's Bristol Taurus engines.

What was wrong with the engines?

My solution to the Fairey Battle is much like others: don't build the bloody thing!

Agreed

I have no idea, Robyn/Kendra, just no idea at all...   

[NARSES2]

Replace the car doors with a sliding or tilting hood and a conventional cockpit side structure. This solves multiple problems:
   

Replace the undercarriage with a conventional tailwheel setup. This also solves several problems:
         

Replace the 37mm with a 20mm Hispano as per the British aircraft. With three 0.50 cal and a 20mm all concentrated in the nose, the firepower should be enough to remove the need for wing guns, thus improving role rate. (the Russians took the wing guns out anyway for just this reason).

Now I like these ideas and I like the Academy kit (built 4). This may become reality in 2016, would look good alongside my Airabonita