Since the YFM-1 Sucked...

[KJ_Lesnick]

The Airacuda was a remarkably stupid aircraft design: It was too slow, too flimsy (rated for only 5.1g vs 9-12g for most fighters), 2 obviously superfluous crew-members, a waist-gunner that has no real need, and arguably no need for a co-pilot.

It was based on a number of moronic ideas

• That the key to attack bombers is heavy firepower more than speed: Speed is less important for standing-patrols rather than point-defense, but it's still important -- so is agility.
  
• That a bomber-escort should be a heavily armed flying-gunship: What's really needed is a fighter with long range
  
• That dropping bombs on bombers would be an effective way to destroy them: The USN actually had a similar idea and ultimately abandoned it; the Germans would try it at Schweinfurt with unclear success
  

It did have a few good features though

• Two engines makes for more power than one single engine
  
• It could fly large distances
  

It seems a more practical design would have had the following

• Either 1-2 crew: The design did not need a waist-gunner, nor did it need engine-pod gunners; the only possible justification for two crew would be to operate a type of optical gunsight provided it could not be operated by the pilot himself
  
• A smaller and stronger fuselage: The requirement for 1-2 crew would require less internal volume for crew, and allow for a smaller aircraft overall.  This would likely also reduce the overall weight of the aircraft, and while extra strength would add weight, building the strength in from the start is often a good way around excessive gains
  
• No internal bomb-carriage for attacking other bombers: It's a waste of space and weight, and even if it had to be carried for prototype testing (a'la the XF4U-1), it could be removed and replaced with additional tankage.
  

The question then comes down to basic shape.

I was wondering what thoughts you guys have for the following shapes

• Tractor Prop: It'd have a smaller fuselage and cockpit but similar in basic outline to the YFM-1, a lower aspect-ratio wing of greater taper, a tail-dragger, with engines mounted on pods on the wings
  
• XB-42: Basically a tear-drop fuselage with a large ventral fin to prevent the propeller from pecking the ground, tricycle-gears, and a bubble-ish canopy (the idea had been proposed since 1934 if I recall).  The engines would be placed amidships to reduce drag, with each propeller driving it's own propeller
  

[Leading Observer]

 

[kerick]

Sounds like you want to keep the wings and junk the rest. Perhaps a clean sheet of paper would have been best. The whole bomber destroyer concept finally fell by the wayside.

[KJ_Lesnick]

kerick

The idea is to modify the basic spec that gave rise to the aircraft into something that's workable; then with the aid of graphic arts whiffjitsu, produce a design that would have actually worked 

[sandiego89]

While concluding something - in your words- sucked, was stupid or moronic,  I might offer you are not looking at things through the prism of time properly.

The metal monoplane "fighter" was what 5 years old at the time? Speeds were slow, and firepower was deemed important. While agility was understood, this took time to evolve.  Several had the thought that a heavily armed escort might work, and looking at the 1930's performance figures that is not an entirely unreasonable approach. Having larger guns that could engage other aircraft at longer ranges does not seem unreasonable. This was still the battleship era after all, and more and bigger guns were always better...

But things changed so rapidly during this era that many designs, and concepts, were obsolete as they rolled off the assembly line. Many fighters, bombers and escorts of the period had very short operational careers and were totally outclassed by designs just a few years later. Many designs also failed to meet performance goals by wide margins.  In hindsight it is easy to dismiss some of these concepts, but based on what folks knew at the time, things looks less unreasonable. Yes some concepts were a bit ill advised or dubious, but not quite moronic.

[Mossie]

Here's some simple profiles I did many years ago.  V1710 with tractor props and two different types of nose, a slightly modified streamlined nose and a stepped one.  I used the XFM-1 as a basis simply because I didn't have any other profile to base it on.

[NARSES2]

There interesting Mossie 

But things changed so rapidly during this era that many designs, and concepts, were obsolete as they rolled off the assembly line. Many fighters, bombers and escorts of the period had very short operational careers and were totally outclassed by designs just a few years later. Many designs also failed to meet performance goals by wide margins.  In hindsight it is easy to dismiss some of these concepts, but based on what folks knew at the time, things looks less unreasonable. Yes some concepts were a bit ill advised or dubious, but not quite moronic.

Absolutely Sandie, I couldn't agree more. I have quite strong views on this area, but you've said it far better than I could 

[Mossie]

There interesting Mossie 

My thoughts were more around conversion to a medium bomber, but it might work for a heavy fighter/attack aircraft, more versatile than the Airacuda.  I had a Valom kit that I was toying with converting, but I passed it on to a friend.

[NARSES2]

I have that kit and keep getting it out and then putting it back on the shelf again. Maybe after Telford if I'm not totally drained

[PR19_Kit]

My thoughts were more around conversion to a medium bomber, but it might work for a heavy fighter/attack aircraft, more versatile than the Airacuda.  I had a Valom kit that I was toying with converting, but I passed it on to a friend.

And that lower pic of yours looks remarkably like an inline engined Martin Baltimore to my eyes too.

[Mossie]

My thoughts were more around conversion to a medium bomber, but it might work for a heavy fighter/attack aircraft, more versatile than the Airacuda.  I had a Valom kit that I was toying with converting, but I passed it on to a friend.

And that lower pic of yours looks remarkably like an inline engined Martin Baltimore to my eyes too.

That was my intention at the time, to create something close to the early American twins like the Maryland and Baltimore.  Thinking on it, it's a bit slim for a bomber.  There was a later strike aircraft based on the Airacuda, looks quite a lot like the streamlined one:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5532.msg302792.html#msg302792

[PR19_Kit]

That was my intention at the time, to create something close to the early American twins like the Maryland and Baltimore.  Thinking on it, it's a bit slim for a bomber.  There was a later strike aircraft based on the Airacuda, looks quite a lot like the streamlined one:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5532.msg302792.html#msg302792

The Maryland was a LOT skinnier than your drawing, and they called it a bomber, even though it majored as a PR aircraft in RAF and SAAF service.

[Mossie]

That was my intention at the time, to create something close to the early American twins like the Maryland and Baltimore.  Thinking on it, it's a bit slim for a bomber.  There was a later strike aircraft based on the Airacuda, looks quite a lot like the streamlined one:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5532.msg302792.html#msg302792

The Maryland was a LOT skinnier than your drawing, and they called it a bomber, even though it majored as a PR aircraft in RAF and SAAF service.

I meant from the front, the Airacuda was tandem seated so it's got a narrow fuselage.

[zenrat]

That was my intention at the time, to create something close to the early American twins like the Maryland and Baltimore.  Thinking on it, it's a bit slim for a bomber.  There was a later strike aircraft based on the Airacuda, looks quite a lot like the streamlined one:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5532.msg302792.html#msg302792

The Maryland was a LOT skinnier than your drawing, and they called it a bomber, even though it majored as a PR aircraft in RAF and SAAF service.

Public Relations?

[NARSES2]

Public Relations?