World War II low drag 1

[spitfirevi]

It's a bit late now, but what would result from stripping a prop fighter to engine, stub wings and pipe tail? Without a fuselage, the tail flaps could be minimal, and less weight may allow for skids instead of wheels,and so reducing weight. Did they have the tech. in 1940's to make engine bearings with enough cover to act as sealed bearings for 1 hour? That would allow for removing oil-sump, with possibly oil-petrol fuel for piston lube. Air cooling on a minimal engine block may remove glycol cooling. Impossible?
spitfirevi.

 

[spitfirevi]

They would be no more 24/7 than standard planes. Both sides had experts and accountants who rejected jets. (Experts gave inadequate armor plate to US vehicles in Iraq , as in Vietnam). Reduced weight and frontal drag may have given the aerobatic edge to allow quick strikes on bombers, with survival and less expense from losses. Standard planes might have fought as normal, so the counter-factuals would be additional (like phalanx last-ditch anti-missile machine-guns on ships).
chimera

 

[rb1957]

but it's not like the rear fuselage is a heavy, nor a dragy (if that's a word) item. for most there was an internal strcuture of welded tube, and an external shell of fabric and wood (to keep the wind out).

certainly you could delete the oil cooling system, with the inherent loss of flight time and maintainability.

i doubt you could effectively replace the wheels with skids, cause i suspect you'd chew up a lot of grass fields that way (possibly more effectively than german bombs).

you mention jets ... remember that jets were not particularly effective until the 1950s; initial designs being very limited on power. Sure the long term future lay on that path.

if you want to play "what if ..." why not surmise advanced computer power, possibly allowing for unstable planes or remotely piloted planes ?

 

[spitfirevi]

But jets were adopted in 1945 and almost changed the air-war. They weren't powerful because they weren't accepted and developed in time. So development happened because the experts funded it. So standard planes happened because experts chose what they wanted. And that is why counter-factual ideas didn't get going. Skids wouldn't chew grass if on tarmac,and the skid could be bowed to allow a solid alum wheel to roll under full load. Motor-bikes have fin cooling. The point is about minimum weight and brief, local aerobatic advantage.
spitfirevi.

 

[rb1957]

frankly, i think the point is pointless

 

[btrueblood]

Jets were developed into forms useful for aircraft propulsion beginning in about 1937, but a reliable (meaning "could run more than an hour without self-destructing or catching fire") engine wasn't ready until about 1944 (German "Jumo" engine). A lot of money got thrown at the problem by both British and German engineers.

Skids don't work on tarmac.

Your arguement that the experts wouldn't listen to alternative ideas is not born out by a study of the history of WWII. Both sides struggled desperately to acheive an advantage, any advantage, no matter how temporary. A lot of tactical innovation was made, and a wealth of practical as well as innovative work was conducted. In both British and American labs, many ideas would be pursued simultaneously, and money flowed freely to anybody who had any crazy idea or plan. In Germany, just about every bicycle shop or autmotive garage had their own aircraft designer cranking out crazy looking planes that "just might work".

The idea of a short-duration (<1 hour flight), fast, no-frills, no-strategic-parts-consumed, interceptor aircraft design was tried by the Germans. The ME-163 was a plywood-sheathed rocket plane, and set world speed records almost from its first flight (possibly broke the sound barrier). It didn't work very effectively, because of its short effective combat time and because its closing speed (500 mph) on the much slower bombers (<180 mph fully laden) was too great (pilots could only get in 1 or 2 quick bursts, and then wasted a lot of time getting their fast planes to turn about). Because the engine required specialists for repair/refit/refueling, the plane had to operate from certain fixed bases, and once the Allies realized this and mapped the base locations, the threat was quickly neutralized by targeting those bases with escort fighters loaded for air/ground missions.

Based on the Me-163 experience, explain how your idea would have been more effective?

 

[spitfirevi]

Cannons in a near vertical dive on collision-course would align with the bomber's wings, more effectively than machine-gun bullets. Retractable short,wide skids with a pilot-operated squeeze-bottle of old oil might not dig in to grass. They could be splayed to give stability....
the end of this thread is in sight...
spitfirevi

 

[rb1957]

where's that train when you need it ?