Making Bad Designs Good

[PR19_Kit]

Almost ANYthing had a better undercarriage than a Spitfire.

With the possible exception of an Me-109........

[KJ_Lesnick]

Regarding the Fairey Firefly...

Rickshaw

Their Lordships decreed that flying and navigating over long distances was behind the capabilities of most pilots, so they decreed that Naval fighters should be two seaters.

That makes sense in the decision.  The question is why did they feel this way when the INJ and USN didn't?

Shorter might be better from a stowage viewpoint but it wasn't necessary from an aerodynamic viewpoint.

I actually based the length reduction on the removal of the second cockpit.

The Firefly was quite a good dogfighter by all accounts.  One successfully downed several Japanese fighters over Sumatra IIRC.

Makes sense it would do well in the pacific where it's lower speed would not be as big a deal...

It was the extra weight of the navigator and all his gear which didn't help.

How much weight would you guess be trimmed off?

More a Spitfire with better undercarriage.  Remember, the Firefly had a better engine than the Hurricane and better wings and undercarriage than the Spitfire.

That good?


Everybody

Regarding the Fairey Battle...

1. If it was fitted with the Hercules engine instead of the Merlin's how much better would it have performed?

2. Why did the Air Ministry remain wedded to the idea of a single-engined design when the designer proposed twins?

[rickshaw]

Regarding the Fairey Firefly...

Rickshaw

Their Lordships decreed that flying and navigating over long distances was behind the capabilities of most pilots, so they decreed that Naval fighters should be two seaters.

That makes sense in the decision.  The question is why did they feel this way when the INJ and USN didn't?

Because they were the Royal Navy?  A Navy with a thousand year old tradition that dated back to the days of King Afred the Great obviously knows better than a Navy that is only some 150 years old...

Shorter might be better from a stowage viewpoint but it wasn't necessary from an aerodynamic viewpoint.

I actually based the length reduction on the removal of the second cockpit.

The Firefly was quite a good dogfighter by all accounts.  One successfully downed several Japanese fighters over Sumatra IIRC.

Makes sense it would do well in the pacific where it's lower speed would not be as big a deal...

As they were facing Raidens and Shokis, I rather think speed was a problem even in the Pacific.  The Japanese were no slouches in dog fighting, even when their pilot quality was decreasing.

It was the extra weight of the navigator and all his gear which didn't help.

How much weight would you guess be trimmed off?

~1500lbs at least.

More a Spitfire with better undercarriage.  Remember, the Firefly had a better engine than the Hurricane and better wings and undercarriage than the Spitfire.

That good?

Yes, that good.  The Firefly if it had been developed as a single-seat fighter would have been a match for the late model Spitfires.  It's Fairey-Youngman flaps gave it a considerable advantage both in landing-on and in dogfights.   Like many late model fighters, it came just when the decision was made to abandon propellers and instead develop jets.  The result was some superior fighters who's development was cut short to their detriment.

Everybody

Regarding the Fairey Battle...

1. If it was fitted with the Hercules engine instead of the Merlin's how much better would it have performed?

No idea.

2. Why did the Air Ministry remain wedded to the idea of a single-engined design when the designer proposed twins?

Economy.  You got twice the number of aircraft for the same number of engines.  Never under-estimate the power of the bean counters to control the cash register.

[kitnut617]

Everybody

Regarding the Fairey Battle...

1. If it was fitted with the Hercules engine instead of the Merlin's how much better would it have performed?

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/bww2/battle/battle-3.jpg

[KJ_Lesnick]

Rickshaw

Because they were the Royal Navy?  A Navy with a thousand year old tradition that dated back to the days of King Afred the Great obviously knows better than a Navy that is only some 150 years old...

You'd think their experience though would have told them the versatility of aviation -- especially when they had carriers before we did

As they were facing Raidens and Shokis, I rather think speed was a problem even in the Pacific.

The Ki-44, J2M, N1K, Ki-84, and N1K-J were quite fast, but I was under the impression that the A6M was the most commonly encountered aircraft, they weren't entirely slow, but they weren't the fastest around and boy were they nimble...

~1500lbs at least.

So, loaded weight would go down from 14,020 on the Firefly Mk.I to 12,520 with one crew removed.  At the penalty of getting into pedantics, the Navigator's gear include just flight-gear, or the maps, the map-table and stuff?

Yes, that good.  The Firefly if it had been developed as a single-seat fighter would have been a match for the late model Spitfires.

Even in terms of speed?

It's Fairey-Youngman flaps gave it a considerable advantage both in landing-on and in dogfights.

They were like fowler flaps right?  They look like they'd improve maneuverability a lot.

No idea.

Worth a shot...

Economy.  You got twice the number of aircraft for the same number of engines.  Never under-estimate the power of the bean counters to control the cash register.

Makes sense, I guess it would either be that or inertia...


kitnut617

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/bww2/battle/battle-3.jpg

While I really like the image, I'm not really sure how that would perform on looks alone.

[rickshaw]

Rickshaw

Because they were the Royal Navy?  A Navy with a thousand year old tradition that dated back to the days of King Afred the Great obviously knows better than a Navy that is only some 150 years old...

You'd think their experience though would have told them the versatility of aviation -- especially when they had carriers before we did

They may have had the carriers first but it took the IJN and the USN to show how they should be used.

As they were facing Raidens and Shokis, I rather think speed was a problem even in the Pacific.

The Ki-44, J2M, N1K, Ki-84, and N1K-J were quite fast, but I was under the impression that the A6M was the most commonly encountered aircraft, they weren't entirely slow, but they weren't the fastest around and boy were they nimble...

Depends if you were facing the IJN or the IJA.  IJA never operated the A6M.  It's equivalent was the Hayabusa.   The A6M was prevalent where the IJN operated.  NEI was primarily a domain of the IJA.

~1500lbs at least.

So, loaded weight would go down from 14,020 on the Firefly Mk.I to 12,520 with one crew removed.  At the penalty of getting into pedantics, the Navigator's gear include just flight-gear, or the maps, the map-table and stuff?

EVERYTHING to do with the Navigator, from his pencils, through to his oxygen tubing and storage tanks, including his seat, desk and desklamp.  EVERYTHING.

Yes, that good.  The Firefly if it had been developed as a single-seat fighter would have been a match for the late model Spitfires.

Even in terms of speed?

Close in speed.

It's Fairey-Youngman flaps gave it a considerable advantage both in landing-on and in dogfights.

They were like fowler flaps right?  They look like they'd improve maneuverability a lot.

Fowler flaps are different.

No idea.

Worth a shot...

Economy.  You got twice the number of aircraft for the same number of engines.  Never under-estimate the power of the bean counters to control the cash register.

Makes sense, I guess it would either be that or inertia...

Expense.  Britain was spending more money than it was making and even facing the threat from Nazi Germany, economy was required.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Rickshaw

They may have had the carriers first but it took the IJN and the USN to show how they should be used.

Ironic -- admittedly the idea the IJN and USN were similar: Offense through attack, defense through attack.

Depends if you were facing the IJN or the IJA.

I was just listing all the fast planes the IJA and IJN had that I could think of

IJA never operated the A6M.  It's equivalent was the Hayabusa.

The Ki-43...

The A6M was prevalent where the IJN operated.  NEI was primarily a domain of the IJA.

NEI?

EVERYTHING to do with the Navigator, from his pencils, through to his oxygen tubing and storage tanks, including his seat, desk and desklamp.  EVERYTHING.

How much would be used by the pilot in the USN?

Close in speed.

I'm impressed...

Fowler flaps are different.

Okay, so it would lie flush under the wing; when deployed it would extend aft and increase area and act like an extra wing.  It could then droop down for additional lift, or deflect up...

Expense.  Britain was spending more money than it was making and even facing the threat from Nazi Germany, economy was required.

But a more powerful engine would be easier than two engines?

[wuzak]

NEI?

I assume he mean the Netherlands East Indies

[KJ_Lesnick]

wuzak

Oh, okay

[rickshaw]

NEI?

I assume he mean the Netherlands East Indies

Yes.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Where would I find more information on the Fairey Battle's maneuverability?

[rickshaw]

Where would I find more information on the Fairey Battle's maneuverability?

In a book on the Fairey Battle perhaps?

Pilot's memoirs perhaps?

Both would be available in a good library.

[tomo pauk]

let's fix P-39 from now on A-39 cause US Air Force and Vietnam leaded to the S variant of the P-39

first remove that useless  Allison V-1710 and let's use short version of Allison T56 with 2200hp with 4 bladed prop
removing the radiators makes more space for fuel range problem fix 
additional structural integrity reinforcement ala Russian Battle Experience (i need to find the P-39 book it's somewhere around the house to see what else they did to improve the cobra since they made a lot of changes on the Battle field )   

Modifying the P-39 into the A-39 with turboshaft engine for use in Vietnam and beyond is not fixing the supposedly bad design. The V-1710 was an useful engine in ww2.

Re. Battle with Hercules:
it should allow for greater take-off loads, when compared with Merlin III, thus making the Battle a better bomb truck. Guess it will allow it to carry a torpedo, even if the rear U/C strut need to be elongated, like at torpedo-carrying Fw-190 and G.55S. Radial engine should be a bit better for taking the battle damage. Hercules was a powerful engine even on 87 oct fuel, when compared with what was available in 1940/41, should give plenty of trouble for the Ki-27, Ki-43 and A6M to catch it (when clean) in 1942?

The 'Hercules Battle' for the FAA just need for someone to connect the dots...

[jcf]

Everybody

Regarding the Fairey Battle...

1. If it was fitted with the Hercules engine instead of the Merlin's how much better would it have performed?

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/bww2/battle/battle-3.jpg

That is a photo of the Taurus engined Battle K9331.

[jcf]

The Hercules engined, N2042 & N2184, and the Sabre engined, K9278 & L5286, Battle engine testbeds
all featured a fixed landing gear that was moved forward, it had to be repositoned due to the weight of the
engines.

Note that, with the exception of the Prince and Cyclone installation, the other engine installations
(Exe, Dagger, Sabre, Taurus, Hercules) were all done as part of the development of the engines,
not an attempt to find a different engine for the Battle design, which was already considered a dead end.
The Canadian R-1820 Cyclone installation on R7439 was done to test the concept in case the deliveries of
Merlins was interrupted. 202 of the Canadian Battles were also fitted with turrets.

Redesigning the Battle to use the Hercules would be more involved than some seem to realize.

As to flight characteristics, quoting H. A. Taylor in his book Fairey Aircraft since 1915:
"The writer - who flew his first Battle solo without any prior instruction and after little more than an hour's 'conversion'
in a North American Harvard trainer in September 1939 - can vouch for the fact that it wasa very easy aeroplane with
good handling characteristics and no obvious vices."
-page 267, 2nd edition.