autogun

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by autogun

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3225
    MEMBERS
  • 183065
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

The Foresight War Revisited: Air Forces   Novel: The Foresight War

Started 16-Feb by autogun; 2557 views.
In reply toRe: msg 14
tomo_pauk

From: tomo_pauk

8-Mar

Past and concurrent with Spitfire: jet-powered fighter. Engine being a work of Power Jets, Metropolitan-Vickers, De Havilland and Napier (no Sabre). I'd try to get them in a co-operation, so there are two engine types to be had (for redundancy sake). 4 cannons, hopefully a ranging radar can be developed to assist with gunnery.

Bombers: a war of beams will be unfolding, together with escorted bombing. Anti-radiation missiles/bombs are simple to do, the radars can be easily pinpointed for free-fall bombing, too. TFW introduced what is basically a 4-engined Mosquito, named 'Manchester', that relies on speed, stealth, jamming and cruising altitude to evade interception and Flak - excellent. Tossing the friendly night fighters as escort might help.

Jet-powered bombers for 1942 and on. Mass production of Mosquito (as a bomber, fighter-bomber, night fighter, LR fighter to be used against enemy LR patrol aircraft, recon).

Have Westland and Boulton Paul make Spitfires by 1939 (= no Whirlwind, no Defiant anyway). No Gladiator (re-badge the Gauntlet instead), no Henley (past a prototype), have Gloster making the Hurricanes.

Bristol: a Hercules-powered Henley as an FAA attack aircraft (both for torpedoes and as dive-bomber), a Hercules-powered Hurricane or Spitfire as fighter bombers.

Fairey: after a few hundred of Battles, make something more useful, like the Mosquito with metal wings?

FAA: Sea Hurricane for the starters, the Skua (I'd install the Pegasus engines on it, so the sleeve valve production all goes to Hercules' needs; Pegasus also offers more power; make a lot of such Skuas) and Swordfish (no Albacore). Move to something more powerful by 1940, that can compete vs. German opposition, without neglecting the night bombing ability.

autogun

From: autogun

8-Mar

hobbes154 said:

For the Germans, what about drop tanks for the 109 in the BoB and Norway?

I've now obtained some information about these, after posting some questions on another forum

Basically, the Bf 109 drop tank doubled the effective range: the internal tank only held 400 litres and the drop-tank 300 litres. Ferry range went from 650 to 1,350 km (combat radius typically one-third of these figures). Certainly well worth doing.

autogun

From: autogun

8-Mar

On the Bf 109, I have long thought that later versions (F-series onwards perhaps) could have been much improved by adding a couple of inserts at the wing roots to increase the wing span by about 1 metre. There could be three advantages:

1. An increase in wing area to compensate for the ever-growing weight of the aircraft.

2. The undercarriage mounting point could be shifted from the fuselage to the outside of the wing root, increasing the track (and the stability on landing and take-off).

3. Provide a home for a pair of synchronised MG 151/20. Together with the engine cannon, that would mean three cannon clustered close together; the cowling MGs would not be needed so the aerodynamics could be cleaned up instead.

tomo_pauk

From: tomo_pauk

8-Mar

I've bashed together this 10-12 years ago. 'Wing plugs' (to both improve U/C geometry and to house the cannons), deletion of the fuselage MGs (no need, since there are 3 cannons aboard), wing tips clipped. Bf 109F as base picture is used.

autogun

From: autogun

8-Mar

tomo_pauk said:

I've bashed together this 10-12 years ago. 'Wing plugs' (to both improve U/C geometry and to house the cannons), deletion of the fuselage MGs (no need, since there are 3 cannons aboard), wing tips clipped. Bf 109F as base picture is used.

Great minds think alike!  sunglasses

In reply toRe: msg 19
tomo_pauk

From: tomo_pauk

8-Mar

The 'non-sexy' aircraft:

UK: Noorduyn Norseman (designed in Canada, 1st flight in 1935) for light transport, medevac, obviously with British engine; Piper Cub for artillery spotting (again with British engine); Bristol Bombay for 2-engined transport; combination between the A-W Ensign (but with Pegasus engines) and Short Sunderland for heavy transport. Trainers - keep the Miles trainers, have trainers being built in Canada and Australia.

4-engined aircraft and Blenheims for anti-sub and anti-cruiser patrols.

More support for Australian aero industry; the historical 'cooperation' left a sour taste in Aussie's mouths.

Germany: all-out cooperation with Italy and Japan, both in technical and strategical matters.

Storch is fine as-is; make a 2-engined transport on technology of yesterday ( steel tube structure, with wooden parts and doped linen covering, with alloy metals kept to the minimum - basically a transport equivalent of Hawker Hurricane). Make the Me 323 Gigant ASAP for carrying bigger loads, powered by BMW 132 engines.

There will be a need for long range marine patrol A/C, a converted Fw 200 transport will not cut it, something better is needed.

larrikin2

From: larrikin2

13-Mar

Trainers were being built in Australia, the infamous Wirraway was a North American NA-16 (Harvard in British service) with a Wasp engine made under licence in Australia.

What would really make a big difference to Australian manufacturing would have been to get a decent load of machine tools out to Australia sometime in 1937, rather than shaking some loose during the war and then having the ship carrying them sunk on the way out.

The Australian authorities were evidently getting on well with both Pratt and Whitney and North American, so that gives access to their more modern designs under licence.  So maybe Twin Wasps and Mustangs?

DavidPawley

From: DavidPawley

13-Mar

CAC did build mustangs.

larrikin2

From: larrikin2

13-Mar

I should have said "earlier".  Twin Wasps were also built in Australia, from 1943(?) onwards.

TOP