@@messier82ac I did not mean to criticize your design choices, they make sense! There are only so many ways to peel an egg, convergent evolution and all that, when using the power of hindsight, there are bound to be similarities. Great video!
When Rex Beisel designed the Corsair they used the inverted gull wing to provide for shortening the landing gear while still maintaining prop clearance. Then they found that they had gained a measure of aerodynamic relief by having the junction of the wing be 90 degrees to the angle of the fuselage side, thus enhancing the speed. Seems to me that any superprop being designed today would make use of that knowledge, as you did. Nice aircraft!
Not really there are other more effective ways of enhancing speed without utilising inverted gull wings, as gull wings tended to lack stability especially in a stall. There’s a reason all super props didn’t use gull-wings.
You're basically designing a gull winged P51H with a griffon engine and gull wings. The Merlin was 27L and capable of 2.200hp. The Griffon was 37L and potentially much more power. It was used with dual 3 blade props, contra rotating. If you planned to use a P47 style Turbocharger the fuselage would no doubt have to be larger. You have a great thing here, but I think it would have to look different to fit everything in. Not a bad idea here, a big V12 with a mustang style cooling setup, combined with Corsair wings, and a thunderbolt style forced induction system. It would work, but would look somewhat different. Even the griffon would require a larger nose. I still think my first sentence applies. Martin Baker MB5 comes to mind.
The vast majority of ww2 fighters used superchargers, not turbochargers. Turbochargers were extremely heavy and costly to build, hence why the P-47 was the heaviest and most expensive US fighter of WW2. You also said that being lighter was always an advantage, which was maybe correct in the beginning of the war, but as the FW-190 proved, heavier planes had a much easier time diving and consequently climbing from a dive (also known as the "boom and zoom"), which made them virtually untouchable to the lighter aircraft, which could turn on a dime but simply could not follow the heavier aircraft. In fact, when the FW-190 was first introduced, the British had no answer for it, and they had to rush new clipped wing spitfires into production as a stopgap, and later rushed the typhoon fighters into production with disastrous consequences (the planes literally fell apart mid flight over the English channel). I suggest your read combat trials of spitfire vs P-47. As the pilots describe it, the spitfire could turn and gain the tail of the p-47 easily, but the p-47 could disengage and engage with boom and zoom at will, which meant the spitfire was essentially a sitting duck.
What is it about the weight of the aircraft the allows for the "boom and zoom" that prevents a lighter aircraft from doing this? And what constitutes "light" or "heavy" in this context? Surely the weight must be related to some fixed metric for this to be a real advantage/disadvantage otherwise it's just relative to each design, and weight would be irrelevant.
Another automation would be automatic flaps, like what the Kawanishi N1K2 had. It used a simple mercury switch that extended flaps automatically as pilots slowed down in turns to prevent the aircraft from stalling in a dogfight. It was more tempermental to fly but it could keep up with even the best of the late-war US aircraft such as the P-51, F4U, and the F6F.
Quite a few German aircraft, including the 109, had automatic slats that served a similar purpose. A lot of pilots disliked them, even going as far as to fix them permanently in the closed position. The main problem was that their operation wasn't always predictable or desirable. When deployed, they increased the lift but also the drag. This slowed the plane down even more, which is usually the last thing you want in a dogfight.
@@risingsun9595 slats and flaps serve the same purpose, but I think flaps would have a more pronounced effect on lift and drag in a dogfight, since flaps affect the Coefficient of lift/AoA curve more drastically
@@risingsun9595 I'm fully aware the N1K2 had automatic flaps rather than slats, but as I said previously - they served a similar purpose. Automatically deploying lift-enhancement devices was not a unique feature and they were in widespread combat use long before the N1K2 ever flew. The reason they weren't more popular is because speed is life in a dogfight. It's far better to preserve your energy than to turn slightly tighter but be left a sitting duck. Being able to manually override them is all well and good, but if you're having to do that more often than not then it's just extra work for the pilot.
8:28 the Spitfire, Mustang, & Bf 109 are all supercharged (either 1 stage, 2 stage, 2 speed, etc) not turbo charged. That would be the Thunderbolt, Lightnings, and a few experimental planes (it was rare in that period outside of prototype).
It was rare in fighters but way more common in bombers, turbos at the time required large cooling systems, which add weight, which matters a lot in a fighter but not so much in a bomber. That's why the p47 was completely designed around it the turbo system, and used extensive steam lining to offset the weight and parasitic drag gain from the coolers. The p38 had the fuselage space for the turbo system and was the only plane too allow the Allison engine to be competitive at high alt because America was way behind on supercharging technology, but suffered greatly from high parasitic drag, but that was offset with ridiculous horsepower and a smooth power band across all altitudes. Both turbo fighters suffered from being over weight but if those planes used a modern understanding of turbocharging they would have been untouchable at any altitude. If you're building a hindsight super-prop, turbo charging is the way too go because they make nearly full boost until they quite literally run out of air.
For survivability, you need not only armor and self-sealing gas tanks, but a radial engine. Add a gull wing to a Bearcat, and you're good to go. A land-based variant without folding wings, beefed up landing gear and tailhook would have been even lighter and faster. Four 20mms was a F8F common armament.
You do not necesarily need a radial for increased survivability. Sure. It takes away some vital systems like a water cooling bur you also add a bigger target and bigger frontal surface. Sure. It was kinda the weakness of the P51 if you wanna call it that. But it is not really s design flaw. Its more a design choice. Also. Sure. As said it gives you a bit more survivability. Bit how often will you get critical hits as a pure fighter without getting shot down. A radial gives you more advantages in a multi-role enviroment where speed is a bit less important and raw strenght and flak/light guns are more of a problem.
This is a very sleek and interesting design. The biggest doubt I have about it is the turbo. Using an unintercooled turbo set up would limit the gas quality you could use and reduce top end performance because of increased risk of knock. There is no way this thing could be intercooled the way the P47 and P38 are. The only reason the tail booms of the P-38 are so skinny is because the cockpit was located in between them. The P47 got its massive size not just from the Radial engine (which it shared with the much slimmer Corsair and Hellcat) but from all of the massive intake and exhaust plumbing from the engine to the turbo and intercooler. Also, you're aircraft features open exhaust like a supercharged inverted V-12 of a Bf-109, but with a turbo this would be impractical/impossible because you would have needed to plumb all 12 exhaust tubes down to one to feed the turbo and back to the engine bay, split into 6 pipes on each side and routed back to the front of the aircraft. This would all be easily rectified with a Two-stage supercharged Merlin the P-51D was equipped with although it would not have the advantage of the constant level of boost provided by the turbo wastegates.
Can you give us some specifications of the plane i.e. top speed, max altitude, rate of climb, turn rate, etc. so we can compare it to some actual WW2 designs?
@@appa609 , I actually had the same question. I want it to use that fighter in a story, so the plane not actually being better than real designs isn't an issue because it's an Alternative History story. In this universe, there is a Spitfire but not a Mustang. It would have fit perfectly as the builders have access to German, British and American technology plus a few others.
Given the 36L 1800hp engine this engine is in the class of the Jumo 213 and Griffon which makes it a late 1943 or 1944 engine. The Griffon IIB did start appearing in 1942 at 1735hp restricted by a simple supercharger.
Well the He-100 didn't have radiators, it just had cooling lines on the leading edge of the wings, and that was it's Achille's Heel. Because it is much easier and more likely to take damage along the width of the wings when you're being shot at, it would almost certainly get punctured at a higher rate. However, these radiators are very close to the fuselage, and the main coolant radiator is under the fuselage. This makes it much hard to hit. The spitfire had radiators on it's wing that were even further out than these, and it didn't seem to be a particular issue. Plus, many WWII fighters had their oil cooler in the wing roots. Others had them somewhere in the engine cowling, like the Thunderbolt and Hellcat that had them slung under the engine where they're only marginally better protected. The Fw-190 had an annular ring Infront of the radial engine for better aerodynamics, though this likely left it a little more vulnerable than other planes. So no matter where you put it, it was always pretty vulnerable. It just wouldn't be smart to put it (almost) across the entire width of the wings, like the He-100 did.
I saw that someone had already mentioned the fact that a turbo-supercharger necessarily needs to duct the engine exhaust to a turbine to drive a supercharger. Clearly the exhaust stacks of this 3D design are not collected and ducted to do that. However, there are a lot more issues with this design. There's no intercooler, nor mention of a first-stage mechanical supercharger (which P-38's V-1710 and the P-47's R-2800 engines both had in addition to the turbo-supercharger). I'm not sure where the storage for 900 rounds/510-lbs of 20mm ammunition (not including belt links) is supposed to be, but that's trivial compared to the fact that the space left for fuel tanks is very limited. And you can't just pretend that you could put a bunch of fuel in the tail end, because that would totally unbalance the aircraft's CG. It was fun little design exercise, but it's not much more realistic than Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Gundam mechs, or Reaganomics.
Eh taking off and landing doesn't really matter how much drag you're producing. You could also make it so the doors close when the gear is fully extended. Plus that design could double as airbrakes like the Corsair as mentioned by the other commenter.
@@Generic_Name_1-1 Drag matters a lot during take off and initial climb out. That's why the flaps are not extended fully and why the gear is retracted as soon as possible. Turning the wheel covers 90° would improve performance in this critical phase of flight, for no downside. Propeller aircraft already have a huge and easily controllable airbrake in the form of the propeller itself. Adjust the pitch to fully fine at low throttle and the drag increase is huge. This is why most WW2 aircraft didn't need airbrakes unless they were designed for dive bombing. Even if you did want to add an additional airbrake, you'd want to be able to control it independently from the landing gear. There's no good reason to deliberately design high-drag landing gear.
I think you'd run into compressibility problems before anything else. Fully articulated control surfaces would be the way to go here, as well as differential spoilers to augment ailerons. Only other thing I'd do different to try out would be to straighten the wing, sweep it slightly, and get it up where the center of action for the ailerons is close to or conjugate with the longitudinal CG, and then try and get the tail surfaces neutralized so there's no adverse pitch/yaw from a high roll rate. Consider the A4 Skyhawk, blisteringly fast roll rate but if you did it's 720 degrees/second for more than two rotations you were on the bare edge of departing controlled flight from adverse pitch.
I REALLY REALLY doubt you'll see this but it kinda looks kinda like the Skyly D/ Skyly J2 from SKY Crawlers. It's a fiction aircraft made after ww2 you should check it out cause i would really like to see your opinions on it! Pretty please! 🙏🙏🙏
Hello! I've heard a little bit about sky crawlers and have had a few friends tell me about it. This one is definitely a new comparison, though. Thank you!
This resembles the Sky Crawlers Skyly J2 that is flown by The Teacher! The regular variant seen in the anime is the Skyly D. Looks similar to this design as well.
I wish there was an RTS game that allowed to you to import builds from this, Sprocket and whatever the Naval equivalent would be to essentially build your own faction from the ground up. Your units would be separated into different tech levels based on what they have, something more similar to a Sopwith Camel or an Interwar monoplane would be placed in Tech 1, while stuff similar to an F-14 would be tech 4 or something.
That sounds like a nightmare to code. It'd be a lot easier to have a Flyout/Sprocket/NavalArt designer built into the game, and then assign tech levels to the different parts. Until someone makes a game like that, From The Depths should scratch a somewhat similar itch. You can build tanks, aircraft, and ships from the ground-up in it, although there aren't any tech levels.
They did this for real, the reasult was the F8F Bearcat. Meant to replace the FM wildcat on smaller carriers. It ended up performing more like a Jet fighter and was used for Jet conversion in the Marine corps and U.S. navy for a few years.
Hi, Aerospace student here if we're talking about an actual WW2 fighter, there are so many factors and limitations that go into building the best possible fighter. Each nation has its own context and its own requirements for what "the best fighter" looks like, and so in many ways, you physically couldn't build a better fighter for Britain during 1941 than the spitfire, or the ME-109 for the Germans in 1939. There wasn't a lot of scientific/aerodynamic knowledge you could give them that would have lead to a meaningful improvement in design here. Maybe better canopy design? They had betted correctly on high-pressure water cooling and were at the absolute cutting edge of what was possible at the time with 1940s manufacturing. I can see a lot of waste in this design that would make it unattractive to nations with smaller distances to cover. 1- it's pretty massive. Based off the engine this is at least the size of the Jug, bigger even than the corsair. The larger it is, the more drag you've got to deal with and so the less effective it could possibly be - this was chosen for America because of the massive territory their carriers had to cover in the pacific. 2- the gear is sitting further out on the wings. This requires extra structural reinforcement so the fighter can sustain landings at full MTOW, and therefore more weight (also I would recommend you get the landing gear covers to close from the fuselage side of the wings rather than from the front so you're not fighting air resistance. 3- gun in the nose section. Although Germany did this with a lot of their designs there are some major potential downsides. First - the guns have to be timed to the prop, risking prop strikes. Second - the stronger the gun the greater the vibration it's putting on the structure that supports the engine. A lot of famous nose-cannon fighters had much shorter engine life because of this. 4- your vertical stabiliser is pretty small for an aircraft of that performance level. I suspect it would suffer from directional instability IRL (yaw control is the hardest control type to model in a simulation) 5- the long wings will reduce roll rate and make the aircraft less manoeuvrable (wing loading looks like it would be fairly good however) As an energy fighter rather than a "dogfighter" some of these issues will be less important than others. Things like radio, tactics, and intelligence are also often just as - if not more important than many flight parameters. I'm sure your Monsoon would be a very competitive design, but maybe not even the best in WW2 if it was actually built and flown in 1945. A fun project nonetheless and I hope you can keep improving with your designs!
I know virtually nothing about airplanes beyond the basics and even less about aerial combat, so please forgive me if I say something truly stupid. Anyway, I'm curious as to how Brazil's Super Tucano fits in this video's thesis statement. After all, it is a modern combat focused prop. plane with apparently glowing reviews. And those reviews seem to not rate the Tucano as simply a poor man's alternative to a modern fighter jet, but a plane with genuine merit of it's own fulfulling roles that a jet could not.
@@somedude7938 The Tucano IS a very good aircraft - but a lot of that success is down to politics (and price) rather than just ability. The British RAF, for example, "chose" the Tucano over the Pilatus PC9 despite their preference for the latter because of this....
A few more things to consider. 1. Cannon details: not all 20mm cannons are created equal. What's the cartridge size, whats the velocity, what kinds of rounds are you firing. I'd recommend a relatively high velocity, average rate of fire, using SAPHEI-T(Semi armor piercing, High explosive incindiary tracer) rounds. Personally I'd prefer a combination of 2x20mm cannons with 1x30mm cannon, all with similar ballistic properties and the ability to selectively fire the 20s, 30s or both depending on what you're engaging. This effectively gives you more time on the trigger. Intercepting a bomber? Use the all the cannons. A fighter? Just the 20s till you run out of ammo then the 30s. 2. Survivability. Commonly overlooked but a major trade off is how well you want to protect your pilot vs how much weight you're willing to add. Bulletproof glass and armored steel are heavy, but they also give pilots the confidence needed to fly into bomber fire and allow your pilots to bail out and live to fight another day. I'd also add self sealing fuel tanks with neutral gas pressure like in the IL-2 and a fire suppression suppression system to the engine. 3. General designs vs Specific designs. If you're designing a high speed, high altitude interceptor you'll have to make specific design choices vs a low altitude dogfighter. Personally I think speed and climb is more important than the ability to turn. Because you might not be able to hit the enemy, but so long as you're much faster than them and employ they right tactics they won't be able to hit you. And finally all these things add complexity. Is your plane really worth 2x the resources vs 2 standard planes?
the german minengeschoss round are incredibly deadly against aircraft so my preferred gun on a "perfect" fighter aircraft will be based on the german 151-20 or even one of the 30mm, the Mk103 to be exact since though i love the 108 the ballistics will be too hard to sync with the 20mm
@@michaelkolano8686 there's a couple of issues with that. The main issue with the 50 cal is that it's too small to have much explosive filler. A 20mm round has around 3-4x the volume of a 12.5mm round. Essentially it's not realistic to have a 12.5mm armor piercing high explosive round because of how little explosive you can fit in one and the difficulties and price of getting a fuse on such a small round. There's a reason why the 20mm and 30mm cannons are still the standard on 4/5th generation fighters.
Are there multi-stage variable speed supercharging systems in flyout? I feel like it would suit this plane better than the turbo, mainly because turbocharging systems back in the 40s were enormous and hard to fit into a compact fighter like this. Think of how big the P-38 and P-47 were compared to their contemporaries
Yeah I was thinking that too, I just assumed he said "turbocharger" but meant "supercharger" since the plane doesn't really have room for a turbo as designed, and those exhausts also aren't what the ones on a turbocharged engine would look like. A high performance interceptor like this and you'd probably want to use a supercharger anyway, unless it's the P-38 we're talking about.
I LOVE this content concept. Now do tanks, trucks, ships, subs, rifles, smgs, mgs, pistols, armor, uniforms, boots, food and whatever else i cant think of!
You make the fuselage smaller then add turbocharged and three 20mm cannons. One of the reasons the p47 fuselage was fat throughout was the turbo also the turbos was the reason for twin booms on the P38.
Love this video concept. The DH Hornet would’ve been a good place to start. It had WW2 technology. More power than this model. All armament in the nose and best looking piston fighter aircraft ever built.
After the launch of Flyout, can you make a video about what this game simulates and what it doesn't do. For example, does it simulate vortex,tire wear, laminar flow...
Fuselage mounted cannon means that the rate of fire has to be carefully governed to reduce the risk of propellor strike - while doing away with convergance issues, it means your rate of fire may be considerably reduced. For example, in WW1, the twin-gun Albatros had a rate of fire not much above that of the single (un-synchronised) gun of the DH2 (a "pusher-prop"). Swings and roundabouts....
This has elements from a lot of planes. The outline mostly reminds me of the Ta-152. The total burst mass (relevant in a head-on or intercept situation) might be a little on the low side with only two nose-mounted cannons
Just small correction to an otherwise very informative video! At 8:04 you mentioned the term: “overboosting” Your explanation was spot on however what you are referring to is an altitude boosted system. Overboosting is where you are actually in a state of boost exceeding the maximum rated. Awesome video nonetheless!
One thing people had to consider during WWII was cost and manufacture time. They could have made better designs but probably couldn't have produced them on the scale needed.
I think you missed a few things. By 1945 a lot of the proposed designs put the engine behind the pilot a la P-39 and moved the pilot just behind the prop. This would increase visibility over the nose, especially for taxiing and landing. Tricycle gear was also catching on. Everyone was starting to think this way - Rolls Royce was designing a fighter for its Crecy engine. General Motors had its P-75. The Germans had a proposed Me-509. And if you think about it.. practically all jet fighters use this general layout to this day.
So, in a very recent video by the Imperial War Museum they talked about the development of armament on the spitfire. From that I learnt that pilots sometimes used the machine guns to "spray rounds" and only used the cannons when they were more confident of a hit because of the slower rate of fire. Apparently four cannon Spitfires were trialled but the pilots preferred two cannons. So I guess I'm saying that assuming more cannons = better isn't necessarily correct
I do not know if Flyout models things like self sealing fuel tanks or material properties (in terms of armor), but i think there might be a core point missed about air combat. Survivablilty/defensive capabilities (as the fourth point). If not, this is an amazing sales pitch
The most important factor is that the operational requirement to which the aircraft will be designed is correct, both in terms of the correct requirement for the combat it will need to undertake plus actually deliverable using the technology available at the point in time at which production is required. An example might be the Bolton-Paul Defiant - a perfectly good expression of a flawed operational requirement. As such you could view it as an excellent aircraft as it delivered on the requirement, or a terrible one as a consequence of it being the wrong operational requirement.
@@PaulieLDPwell Germanys economy wasn't great at the time and beside the modifications they did between the models were kinda the maximum they could do without redesigning major parts of the plane so that production of fighters planes could continue if you already strugel too produce sufficient numbers starting almost completely new isn't gona help even if the plane would have been slightly better And in my opinion the 109 was OK many of its problems came form it's route as racing plane that is a ok foundation for a fighter plane but it is a bad choice compared too a purpose developed plane like the fw 190 there many Design choices were made that the flaws of the 109 addressed(like the narrow landing gear or pilot posture, maintainability, and same more)
Tbh 3 cannons seems overkill, personally I think 2 cannons with a larger amount of ammo available would still provide a powerful armament without making ammo conservation a massive concern
Looks like an He-100 With exaggerated wing bend. The he-100 was created right before WWII and briefly set an absolute speed record (yes the he-100 is German)
How do you fit a turbocharger plus its cooling accessories in that tiny fuselage? Historically, planes with turbos had to either expose the turbo to the outside air (creating very draggy installations) or the fuselage had to be huge to house extra cooling pipes (P-47). This is basically why towards the end of the war designers moved towards the 2-stage variable speed supercharger as in the F4U-5.
Wow, this video was great, I think you did a great job on explaining everything about why you are doing what you are doing, and how it effects the plane, I also just think the plane itself was incredible, it really does look like a person just found parts of p-51s and 109s and just kind of put them together into a really cool plane.
About the supercharger boosting. In modern airplanes it's called ground boost. In modern reciprocating engines, a turbo is used to keep the same engine power up to a certain altitude, this was done with a type of wastegate which would close as altitude increased. But during ww2 you could not really leave any performance on the table. So many planes, especially late war ones, used superchargers which could change gears and therefore spin faster and deliver more air to the engine. This was done manually on some airplanes and automatically in others. The p-47 is an odd example as it featured both a turbocharger and a supercharger. This gave the aircraft pretty good high altitude engine performance On the other hand, the germans used extensive use of MW-50 as well as GM-1 mixtures. Basically GM-1 mixture is just nitros oxide injected into the manifold of the engine(at very high altitudes) and coupeled with MW-50(50% water 50% methanol) injection could keep up with mustangs at high altitudes A little sidetrack but i hope this clears things out. I maybe missed the part where you said it's ground boost it is still morning here afterall...
I'm no aeronautics expert, but I doubt Reginald Mitchell would be impressed by those long, thin, straight wings. They don't look like they'd be so good especially for dogfighting or high-speed performance. It wouldn't help manoeuvrability and it might have compression problems. Look at the Spitfire or Meteor or or P-38. None of them have that leading edge shape, they've all got beautifully tapered or elliptical wings.
I guess a radial engine version would have to only have 2 cannon or wing mount some... Actually on thinking about it, the 3 30mm sound awsome but maybe 4 20mm is better? I am totally guessing that the 30mm would have a slower rate of fire, that 3 of them would be heavier than 4 20mm guns, and balistically the trajectory of the fire would be inferior. And if you went with 4 20mm in the wings, with a radial engine, you are pretty close to something like the Hawker Fury/ Tempest 2.
As a long-time player of Simpleplanes, which recently received it's last ever update and is essentially forgotten about now, this game looks to be the perfect spiritual successor. Looking forward to the early access release!
Ed Heinemann once said that the best way to make an aircraft is to design it around the engine you want to use. Radials were popular during the war for a reason because they had a higher power/weight offering compared to V-12's, and some of the later R-2800's had similar superchargers to the Merlin which gave them good performance at altitude. This also meant no radiators and coolant on board to cut back on weight even more. Additionally, gun convergence will still be a factor, although not as much as wing mounted guns. Height over bore from the sights will still play into the accuracy of the guns, and there's something to be said about a wider shot pattern when you aren't using targeting computers to give you a gun solution. Nose mounted guns also severely cut back on your ability to carry ammunition which also adds complexity for the maintainers every time they need to tear into something under the cowling. But, this is purely about performance and not logistics. I'm interested to see how this design will do. I must admit though, it looks really good.
@@CyberneticArgumentCreator windage is an environmental factor, convergence is a mechanical factor related to how the guns are mounted. Regardless if it's nose mounted or wing mounted guns, your bullets will need to be zeroed at a set distance calibrated to the sight. Which is why I brought up hight over bore being a factor with nose mounted guns.
Not the perfect WW2 fighter until it has a tail warning radar and a gyroscopic gunsight. I'm also wondering what sort of range it has. Range vs weight is always a tradeoff.
The design looks very sleek and undoubtedly very suitable for an interceptor. Before choosing this design as the main fighter of my air force in fictional late 1940s, I would want to know if this aircraft could cover other mission roles such as escort missions requiring long range. What is the fuel endurance like? Would the aircraft have enough fuel to not require constant monitoring of fuel levels during missions other than interceptions over friendly territory? What about suitability for multi-role capability, like carrying air-to-ground ordnance? Another aspect I would want to know is survivability. Does the aircraft feature any armour for the pilot, engine, or the cooling systems? The liquid-cooled engine is fine and many other designs use very similar solution, but an air-cooled radial would have potential for better damage tolerance. Not that I'm questioning the design choices but my fleet aviators were shouting something about a tail hooks and ditching the coolant so that you could cross vast distances over ocean even when missing a few percent of the engine... What about cost? It was mentioned that this aircraft uses a turbocharger for forced induction. How does that affect the cost of the aircraft? Is the turbocharger reliable? How does the ducting work, is there an intercooler somewhere? Could similar performance be achieved at lower cost and weight by using a multi-stage/multi-speed supercharger or a single-stage variable speed supercharger instead? What kind of flight performance does the aircraft have? What about handling characteristics? Is the aircraft easy to fly or is it prone to losing control in stalls? Are the wings more optimized for low drag with a laminar flow aerofoil design, or do they feature a more conventional aerofoil that delays flow separation and gives more forgiving flight characteristics with higher stall AoA? Three 20mm cannons on the nose is adequate armament, but I would be interested in possibility of upgrading the motor cannon to a 30mm, and possibly installing additional guns on wing roots. Especially if the aircraft's main intended role is to be an interceptor, I would want additional firepower to inflict the highest possible damage to bombers during attacks, to shorten the time the aircraft has to stay within the gunners' effective range. Alternatively, a nation I know might be interested in filling the wing leading edge with machine guns, just to make their logistics simpler because they use that particular machine gun cartridge everywhere anyway...
Just one thing sticks out to me: The nose reminds me of the F-4 Phantom, although the Phantom's nose is probably longer. This isn't an issue for, say, a Fox-2 fight, but if you're turning and burning trying to get a gun solution on a bandit, a long nose can obscure the target, meaning you have to take a less straightforward deflection shot.
Just curious, why did you choose a liquid-cooled inline engine instead of an air-cooled radial engine? You can save weight by not relying on coolant, they're more robust/protected, and they provide slightly more power over inline engines.
I love your fighter; it's as cool to see as I bet it would be to fly. Build one, and let me be the first to strap it on and take it for a ride. Great video! Great idea, too.
dear god, i love absolutely everything about this aircraft. it's almost a combination of the mustang, the bf 109 with the wing design of the b7m2, although i've finding strange the use of a inverted v engine instead a regular one, but since this problably not a German engine (wich will burn as the sun) and i'm anyone for talk bullshit just gonna say that the design it's a true dream of aviation. i was also thinking that with the guns in the nose u can have a lot of setups in the wing such bombs, rockets and addition guns like the 109 and the 190. Let's make with a radial engine next time, or not who i am to say?
I've been thinking about something like this for years, and now someone has built it in 3D. Many features in common, but a bit different, but I like it! Nice design. Not sure if there is enough room inside that air frame for everything, but again, I'm not an aircraft designer. Nice work! Oh, and my name for it was 'Monsoon' (but I spelled it differently), so that really caught my eye.
Very cool concept. Might recommend modifying the underbelly scoop with a cooling door in the rear. That way you take advantage of the Meredith Effect to reduce drag/increase overall thrust. Also the engine cowling, while very sleak, probably does not offer enough space around the engine block for adequate heat dissipation. The Luftwaffe had this issue with the He-177, where they tried shoving two engines into a nacelle that was far to tight, and had huge problems with overheating, bursting into flames and killing the crew. Still a great concept, just needs a bit of refinement.
As a matter of interest. black stripes very similar to the later invasion stripes were added to the British Typhoon fighters due to recognition problems resulting in friendly fire incidents. This was around 2 years before the Normandy campaign.
@@jacksonpound6408 Apparently the Typhoon was being mistaken for the Fw190 and attacked in friendly fire incidents, with at least one killed, right from it's introduction in 1942. This was, it's fair to say, the least of its problems.
The interceptor was popular in the 60s and 70s because its mission was to fly fast and far to fire missiles at bombers and come home. Air-to-air with other fighters wasn't really considered. (try a 2-circle with an F-104)
Honestly I think it's a better looker than most real planes of the period. The subtle gull-wing and the slim V-engine cowling, plus the tail shape make it look kind of like someone made a prop version of an F-4
Really nice piece of work. One thing I would have personally added would be contra rotating props. This design as is would have the same vice that most heavy, fast WWII fighters had, namely, the pronounced torque twisting that plagued the P-51, Fw-190D, and other high powered fighters. Eliminating that torque is a tremendous boon to dogfighting capability, allowing the pilot to eke out even tighter and faster turns.
If i ever get too much money, i may have to just build an airplane factor where some of your designs come to life. This one definitely looks like it would be fun to fly
As for U.S. design the F8F Grumman Bearcat (nickname; engine with a pistol grip) was the culmination of piston engine fighter/interceptor development by 1944. Core values or Hard Factors need to be complimented with Soft Factors, such as mission adaptability, part/service commonality, reliability, ease of transitional training. It would be interesting to have a 'what if' of using a Wright R3350 radial that was developed for the Boeing B-29 and later for the Douglas Skyraider to power a Super Bearcat that would have a larger airframe not a conversion like the Reno racer named, 'Rare Bear'. It would be the ultimate Zoomiest-Boomiest plane with excellent hard/soft factors and could be put into service more quickly than a radical prototype based project. The Grumman Hellcat is a good example of that.
Would love for Greg to chime in on this awesome thought process proof of concept. Edit: Any considerations for self-sealing fuel cells or cockpit armor? Also, what about water/methyl injection?
I don't think Greg would waste his time. Though an interesting concept for a video and somewhat entertaining, trying to even remotely capture what would go into the "best" WWII fighter (if such a thing could exist given the different theaters and conditions) in an 11 minute video is an exercise in futility.
Impressive power-to-weight isn't the only thing that really matters in terms of performance. A capable airfoil is one of the more important parts too. Thing with the high performing airfoils is though, that they were prone to some interesting stall conditions... I think P-51 was a good example of that. Bf-109 imho has one of the better wing designs, as slats were a really big help in maintaining the stability at high angles of attack. Looking at this plane you made, with a spitfire-like elliptical wingtips, a thin airfoil but a long wing chord, to me it seems like a very typical wingtip staller with perhaps quite dangerous spin characteristics... And the long wing chord with a thin airfoil makes it that when the wing stalls, it's quite agressive, as a lot of lift becomes none at once, since the long leading part of the wing would mask the whole wing at high aoa. A rounder, shorter and thicker wing would stall trailing part of the wing first, with most of the leading part of the wing still flying, providing a typical buffeting warning for the pilot and allowing for higher angles of attack->more pulling. This aircraft to me seems like a very good interceptor, but not much of a dogfighter... I am no expert though, so it would be interesting to see what somebody more professional thinks of this. But anyway, a nice interesting video and topic!
There are aircraft with long thin wings that had very stable stalls, like the Kawasaki Ki-61 and Ki-100. But since they have very low wingloading, that might be the deciding factor.
@@reinbeers5322 I am not about the length of the wing but about the wing chord, i. e. the "width" of the wing, length of an imaginary line running from the leading edge of the wing to the trailing edge.
@@reinbeers5322 Indeed, and somewhat of a round airfoil... Seems stable enough to me :D Instead I am saying long chord, thin airfoil and short wings seem to be the unstable ones...
@@rederos8079 The leading and trailing edges are straight, they only round out at the wingtips which is why I mentioned it. I don't know how thin they are, but the thinner you go the more prone to tip stalls they are, which is why the Spitfire had a lot of wing twist for what it was. Given that the Ki-61 is japanese and they loved their maneuverability, probably not much!
I would say from the engine firewall backwards the aircraft resembles a FW TA-52 / F4-U Corsair cross, but as these had ring engine cowlings the design of the engine cowls look like Griffin engined Spitfire marks 22 & 24. I am surprised at only 3 blades for the propeller; nearly all end war fighters had a minimum of 4 blades, a couple had 5, and some Spitfires had contra rotating 2 x 3 blades (which stopped most issues with torque).
Hey aerospace engineering student here, great video! I liked the level of detail you put in, unfortunately you didn’t take about the wing profiles (maybe it due to software limitations). It’s a very cool design, I especially liked the Corsair-like wings because I didn’t know they improved visibility! If I may add something to improve a bit the design would be to add flaps and slats if possible (latter are very important for low speed flight envelops). Also you might want to change the wing shape (seen from above) to an elliptical shape, similar to the one on the spitfire. It’s the absolute best shape for aero efficiency and wasn’t used much because of how hard it was to build. And you could tilt (rotation from above) the vertical stabiliser a bit to counter gyroscopic effect from the torque generated by the engine.
Ellyptical wings were shown in postwar testing to offer almost no advantages over a simple trapezoidal wing, which is what the Spitfire's successor, the Spiteful used. They're also stupidly expensive to make and after the Spitfire and P-47, they disappeared completely.
@@reinbeers5322 on a strictly theoretical basis an elliptical distribution is the best you can get, in reality the advantage as you pointed out is not worth it but I wanted to point that out anyways but the addition of slats and flaps is a must.
@@ed6091 The issue is that once theory met reality, it didn't hold up at all. IIRC it was just 5% better in just one efficiency metric. And that was for a true ellipsis, while the spitfire didn't have one and had a fair amount of wing twist to combat the nasty tip stalls it otherwise would have. As for flaps and slats, they are essential yeah. Surprised more nations and manufacturers didn't use leading edge slats in WW2.
@@reinbeers5322 actually from the theory we expected such a small gains in efficiency. Had to look up my aerodynamics notes for this, Cd depends on the Oswald factor, inside this there’s a value that can range from 0 (elliptical) to 0.18 (triangular wing), for a rectangular wing it should be around 0.02 so almost negligible. I believe this was learnt after the experiments you mentioned (delta vs taper ratio graph)
@@ed6091 Yeah, it was that exact efficiency factor, I had forgotten the name. I'm not an engineer, just an enthusiast. Or in other words, a massive nerd.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
A 109, a P51 and an F4U walk into a bar ... just kidding it was a motel room, and the stuff they did there led to THIS.
I usually hate the comments saying "it's a blend of these planes", but this is funny
Hola Messier👋👋👋👋
@@messier82acwhy u got the best vids on UA-cam lol
Keep it up
Also how is college going rn
@@messier82ac I did not mean to criticize your design choices, they make sense! There are only so many ways to peel an egg, convergent evolution and all that, when using the power of hindsight, there are bound to be similarities.
Great video!
@@messier82acTo be honest... Looks like Regia Aeronautica developed British Wyvern. Love it, especially nose mounted guns
This man is slowly starting his own Air Force
Not very slowly
Slowly?
A questionable but formidable air force at that😂
@@subjectc7505Yep
He is the Air Force
not sure if its just because of the livery, but i cant stop seeing a westland wyvern that went on a diet
ha ha turboprop go phwēēēēēēēēēēēē
Snap!
The first dyson ground Attacker
That’s the first thing I thought when I saw the thumbnail.
@@PopeRocketOkay this cracked me up
When Rex Beisel designed the Corsair they used the inverted gull wing to provide for shortening the landing gear while still maintaining prop clearance. Then they found that they had gained a measure of aerodynamic relief by having the junction of the wing be 90 degrees to the angle of the fuselage side, thus enhancing the speed. Seems to me that any superprop being designed today would make use of that knowledge, as you did. Nice aircraft!
Not really there are other more effective ways of enhancing speed without utilising inverted gull wings, as gull wings tended to lack stability especially in a stall. There’s a reason all super props didn’t use gull-wings.
But hey did it in the Corsair to keep the landing gear legs shorter and stronger while giving the 18 foot prop clearance.
Would rather have a radial as they do not have the weakness of coolant lines and radiators.
@@kdrapertrucker agreed! I could be misremembering, but I think the Corsairs ultimately bested the Mustangs in the Football War
@kdrapertrucker they do have the weakness of ultimately less performance and reliability though.
You're basically designing a gull winged P51H with a griffon engine and gull wings. The Merlin was 27L and capable of 2.200hp. The Griffon was 37L and potentially much more power. It was used with dual 3 blade props, contra rotating. If you planned to use a P47 style Turbocharger the fuselage would no doubt have to be larger. You have a great thing here, but I think it would have to look different to fit everything in. Not a bad idea here, a big V12 with a mustang style cooling setup, combined with Corsair wings, and a thunderbolt style forced induction system. It would work, but would look somewhat different. Even the griffon would require a larger nose. I still think my first sentence applies. Martin Baker MB5 comes to mind.
The vast majority of ww2 fighters used superchargers, not turbochargers. Turbochargers were extremely heavy and costly to build, hence why the P-47 was the heaviest and most expensive US fighter of WW2.
You also said that being lighter was always an advantage, which was maybe correct in the beginning of the war, but as the FW-190 proved, heavier planes had a much easier time diving and consequently climbing from a dive (also known as the "boom and zoom"), which made them virtually untouchable to the lighter aircraft, which could turn on a dime but simply could not follow the heavier aircraft.
In fact, when the FW-190 was first introduced, the British had no answer for it, and they had to rush new clipped wing spitfires into production as a stopgap, and later rushed the typhoon fighters into production with disastrous consequences (the planes literally fell apart mid flight over the English channel).
I suggest your read combat trials of spitfire vs P-47. As the pilots describe it, the spitfire could turn and gain the tail of the p-47 easily, but the p-47 could disengage and engage with boom and zoom at will, which meant the spitfire was essentially a sitting duck.
What is it about the weight of the aircraft the allows for the "boom and zoom" that prevents a lighter aircraft from doing this? And what constitutes "light" or "heavy" in this context? Surely the weight must be related to some fixed metric for this to be a real advantage/disadvantage otherwise it's just relative to each design, and weight would be irrelevant.
You should do a dogfight competition between various planes you've made. Love the content, glad I could be here so early!
Kinda like a Growling Sidewinder style dogfight series
@@Seabee203 Man I love Growling Sidewinder
He made a hypergood dogfighter. Nothing else stands a chance.
@@WildmanTradingwhat about another hypergood dog fighter
The number one thing that dictates all planes is the engine. What engine you choose will change the shape of the whole plane.
Another automation would be automatic flaps, like what the Kawanishi N1K2 had. It used a simple mercury switch that extended flaps automatically as pilots slowed down in turns to prevent the aircraft from stalling in a dogfight. It was more tempermental to fly but it could keep up with even the best of the late-war US aircraft such as the P-51, F4U, and the F6F.
That’s interesting. Didn’t know that.
Quite a few German aircraft, including the 109, had automatic slats that served a similar purpose. A lot of pilots disliked them, even going as far as to fix them permanently in the closed position.
The main problem was that their operation wasn't always predictable or desirable. When deployed, they increased the lift but also the drag. This slowed the plane down even more, which is usually the last thing you want in a dogfight.
@@MrWillNeedham The 109 had automatic slats, but the N1K2 had automatic *flaps*. When necessary, N1K2 pilots could override the flaps
@@risingsun9595 slats and flaps serve the same purpose, but I think flaps would have a more pronounced effect on lift and drag in a dogfight, since flaps affect the Coefficient of lift/AoA curve more drastically
@@risingsun9595 I'm fully aware the N1K2 had automatic flaps rather than slats, but as I said previously - they served a similar purpose. Automatically deploying lift-enhancement devices was not a unique feature and they were in widespread combat use long before the N1K2 ever flew.
The reason they weren't more popular is because speed is life in a dogfight. It's far better to preserve your energy than to turn slightly tighter but be left a sitting duck. Being able to manually override them is all well and good, but if you're having to do that more often than not then it's just extra work for the pilot.
“My name is Monsoon, of the Winds of Destruction.” -This plane if it could talk.
8:28 the Spitfire, Mustang, & Bf 109 are all supercharged (either 1 stage, 2 stage, 2 speed, etc) not turbo charged. That would be the Thunderbolt, Lightnings, and a few experimental planes (it was rare in that period outside of prototype).
It was rare in fighters but way more common in bombers, turbos at the time required large cooling systems, which add weight, which matters a lot in a fighter but not so much in a bomber. That's why the p47 was completely designed around it the turbo system, and used extensive steam lining to offset the weight and parasitic drag gain from the coolers. The p38 had the fuselage space for the turbo system and was the only plane too allow the Allison engine to be competitive at high alt because America was way behind on supercharging technology, but suffered greatly from high parasitic drag, but that was offset with ridiculous horsepower and a smooth power band across all altitudes. Both turbo fighters suffered from being over weight but if those planes used a modern understanding of turbocharging they would have been untouchable at any altitude. If you're building a hindsight super-prop, turbo charging is the way too go because they make nearly full boost until they quite literally run out of air.
For survivability, you need not only armor and self-sealing gas tanks, but a radial engine. Add a gull wing to a Bearcat, and you're good to go. A land-based variant without folding wings, beefed up landing gear and tailhook would have been even lighter and faster. Four 20mms was a F8F common armament.
You do not necesarily need a radial for increased survivability. Sure. It takes away some vital systems like a water cooling bur you also add a bigger target and bigger frontal surface.
Sure. It was kinda the weakness of the P51 if you wanna call it that. But it is not really s design flaw. Its more a design choice.
Also. Sure. As said it gives you a bit more survivability. Bit how often will you get critical hits as a pure fighter without getting shot down. A radial gives you more advantages in a multi-role enviroment where speed is a bit less important and raw strenght and flak/light guns are more of a problem.
Almost looks like a mash between a Ta-152 and the Corsair with maybe a bit of VG-33
why are you not wrong
+ a bit of the westland wyvern
a little bit HE 112
fictionally, it looks like the Lautern Tulip from The Sky Crawlers
Vg33 is a damn pretty aircraft
This is a very sleek and interesting design. The biggest doubt I have about it is the turbo. Using an unintercooled turbo set up would limit the gas quality you could use and reduce top end performance because of increased risk of knock. There is no way this thing could be intercooled the way the P47 and P38 are. The only reason the tail booms of the P-38 are so skinny is because the cockpit was located in between them. The P47 got its massive size not just from the Radial engine (which it shared with the much slimmer Corsair and Hellcat) but from all of the massive intake and exhaust plumbing from the engine to the turbo and intercooler. Also, you're aircraft features open exhaust like a supercharged inverted V-12 of a Bf-109, but with a turbo this would be impractical/impossible because you would have needed to plumb all 12 exhaust tubes down to one to feed the turbo and back to the engine bay, split into 6 pipes on each side and routed back to the front of the aircraft. This would all be easily rectified with a Two-stage supercharged Merlin the P-51D was equipped with although it would not have the advantage of the constant level of boost provided by the turbo wastegates.
Would be cool if you built a strategic/supersonic bomber, like those during the Cold War before ICBM’s were really a thing.
B-1A
Can you give us some specifications of the plane i.e. top speed, max altitude, rate of climb, turn rate, etc. so we can compare it to some actual WW2 designs?
No because
1. the game is low fidelity
2. hid design is no better than historical fighters
@@appa609 , I actually had the same question. I want it to use that fighter in a story, so the plane not actually being better than real designs isn't an issue because it's an Alternative History story. In this universe, there is a Spitfire but not a Mustang. It would have fit perfectly as the builders have access to German, British and American technology plus a few others.
Given the 36L 1800hp engine this engine is in the class of the Jumo 213 and Griffon which makes it a late 1943 or 1944 engine. The Griffon IIB did start appearing in 1942 at 1735hp restricted by a simple supercharger.
Wonder if the radiators in the wings will end up being the Achilles heel of this plane, like it is on the HE-100
Well the He-100 didn't have radiators, it just had cooling lines on the leading edge of the wings, and that was it's Achille's Heel. Because it is much easier and more likely to take damage along the width of the wings when you're being shot at, it would almost certainly get punctured at a higher rate. However, these radiators are very close to the fuselage, and the main coolant radiator is under the fuselage. This makes it much hard to hit. The spitfire had radiators on it's wing that were even further out than these, and it didn't seem to be a particular issue. Plus, many WWII fighters had their oil cooler in the wing roots. Others had them somewhere in the engine cowling, like the Thunderbolt and Hellcat that had them slung under the engine where they're only marginally better protected. The Fw-190 had an annular ring Infront of the radial engine for better aerodynamics, though this likely left it a little more vulnerable than other planes. So no matter where you put it, it was always pretty vulnerable. It just wouldn't be smart to put it (almost) across the entire width of the wings, like the He-100 did.
I saw that someone had already mentioned the fact that a turbo-supercharger necessarily needs to duct the engine exhaust to a turbine to drive a supercharger. Clearly the exhaust stacks of this 3D design are not collected and ducted to do that. However, there are a lot more issues with this design. There's no intercooler, nor mention of a first-stage mechanical supercharger (which P-38's V-1710 and the P-47's R-2800 engines both had in addition to the turbo-supercharger). I'm not sure where the storage for 900 rounds/510-lbs of 20mm ammunition (not including belt links) is supposed to be, but that's trivial compared to the fact that the space left for fuel tanks is very limited. And you can't just pretend that you could put a bunch of fuel in the tail end, because that would totally unbalance the aircraft's CG.
It was fun little design exercise, but it's not much more realistic than Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Gundam mechs, or Reaganomics.
You should really change the way wheels claps closes. Now they act as a HUGE airbreaks. Landing gear produce a lot of drag as it is
Might be intended like how f4u corsair landing gear doubled as air brakes
Eh taking off and landing doesn't really matter how much drag you're producing. You could also make it so the doors close when the gear is fully extended. Plus that design could double as airbrakes like the Corsair as mentioned by the other commenter.
The F-111 had a main landing gear hatch which was a literally also the airbrake.
Have a look at the Corsair.
@@Generic_Name_1-1 Drag matters a lot during take off and initial climb out. That's why the flaps are not extended fully and why the gear is retracted as soon as possible. Turning the wheel covers 90° would improve performance in this critical phase of flight, for no downside.
Propeller aircraft already have a huge and easily controllable airbrake in the form of the propeller itself. Adjust the pitch to fully fine at low throttle and the drag increase is huge. This is why most WW2 aircraft didn't need airbrakes unless they were designed for dive bombing.
Even if you did want to add an additional airbrake, you'd want to be able to control it independently from the landing gear. There's no good reason to deliberately design high-drag landing gear.
I think you'd run into compressibility problems before anything else. Fully articulated control surfaces would be the way to go here, as well as differential spoilers to augment ailerons.
Only other thing I'd do different to try out would be to straighten the wing, sweep it slightly, and get it up where the center of action for the ailerons is close to or conjugate with the longitudinal CG, and then try and get the tail surfaces neutralized so there's no adverse pitch/yaw from a high roll rate. Consider the A4 Skyhawk, blisteringly fast roll rate but if you did it's 720 degrees/second for more than two rotations you were on the bare edge of departing controlled flight from adverse pitch.
I'm at 2:54, and if this doesn't get 20mm cannons, I'm gonna' riot.
This really reminds me of the late war Focke-Wulf designs like the Fw-190d9 and Ta-152 crossed with a P-51. Great video and thinking!
the side view of the p100 is amazing
I REALLY REALLY doubt you'll see this but it kinda looks kinda like the Skyly D/ Skyly J2 from SKY Crawlers. It's a fiction aircraft made after ww2 you should check it out cause i would really like to see your opinions on it! Pretty please! 🙏🙏🙏
oh thank fuck I'm not the only one, been looking to see if anyone pointed it out before I quoted the film
Hello! I've heard a little bit about sky crawlers and have had a few friends tell me about it. This one is definitely a new comparison, though. Thank you!
This resembles the Sky Crawlers Skyly J2 that is flown by The Teacher! The regular variant seen in the anime is the Skyly D. Looks similar to this design as well.
I wish there was an RTS game that allowed to you to import builds from this, Sprocket and whatever the Naval equivalent would be to essentially build your own faction from the ground up. Your units would be separated into different tech levels based on what they have, something more similar to a Sopwith Camel or an Interwar monoplane would be placed in Tech 1, while stuff similar to an F-14 would be tech 4 or something.
That sounds like a nightmare to code.
It'd be a lot easier to have a Flyout/Sprocket/NavalArt designer built into the game, and then assign tech levels to the different parts.
Until someone makes a game like that, From The Depths should scratch a somewhat similar itch. You can build tanks, aircraft, and ships from the ground-up in it, although there aren't any tech levels.
They did this for real, the reasult was the F8F Bearcat. Meant to replace the FM wildcat on smaller carriers. It ended up performing more like a Jet fighter and was used for Jet conversion in the Marine corps and U.S. navy for a few years.
Hi,
Aerospace student here
if we're talking about an actual WW2 fighter, there are so many factors and limitations that go into building the best possible fighter. Each nation has its own context and its own requirements for what "the best fighter" looks like, and so in many ways, you physically couldn't build a better fighter for Britain during 1941 than the spitfire, or the ME-109 for the Germans in 1939.
There wasn't a lot of scientific/aerodynamic knowledge you could give them that would have lead to a meaningful improvement in design here. Maybe better canopy design? They had betted correctly on high-pressure water cooling and were at the absolute cutting edge of what was possible at the time with 1940s manufacturing.
I can see a lot of waste in this design that would make it unattractive to nations with smaller distances to cover.
1- it's pretty massive. Based off the engine this is at least the size of the Jug, bigger even than the corsair. The larger it is, the more drag you've got to deal with and so the less effective it could possibly be - this was chosen for America because of the massive territory their carriers had to cover in the pacific.
2- the gear is sitting further out on the wings. This requires extra structural reinforcement so the fighter can sustain landings at full MTOW, and therefore more weight (also I would recommend you get the landing gear covers to close from the fuselage side of the wings rather than from the front so you're not fighting air resistance.
3- gun in the nose section. Although Germany did this with a lot of their designs there are some major potential downsides. First - the guns have to be timed to the prop, risking prop strikes. Second - the stronger the gun the greater the vibration it's putting on the structure that supports the engine. A lot of famous nose-cannon fighters had much shorter engine life because of this.
4- your vertical stabiliser is pretty small for an aircraft of that performance level. I suspect it would suffer from directional instability IRL (yaw control is the hardest control type to model in a simulation)
5- the long wings will reduce roll rate and make the aircraft less manoeuvrable (wing loading looks like it would be fairly good however)
As an energy fighter rather than a "dogfighter" some of these issues will be less important than others. Things like radio, tactics, and intelligence are also often just as - if not more important than many flight parameters. I'm sure your Monsoon would be a very competitive design, but maybe not even the best in WW2 if it was actually built and flown in 1945. A fun project nonetheless and I hope you can keep improving with your designs!
I know virtually nothing about airplanes beyond the basics and even less about aerial combat, so please forgive me if I say something truly stupid. Anyway, I'm curious as to how Brazil's Super Tucano fits in this video's thesis statement. After all, it is a modern combat focused prop. plane with apparently glowing reviews. And those reviews seem to not rate the Tucano as simply a poor man's alternative to a modern fighter jet, but a plane with genuine merit of it's own fulfulling roles that a jet could not.
@@somedude7938 The Tucano IS a very good aircraft - but a lot of that success is down to politics (and price) rather than just ability. The British RAF, for example, "chose" the Tucano over the Pilatus PC9 despite their preference for the latter because of this....
Bro woke up and made a firecrest and slapped a 1,800 hp engine and called it a day 😭
A few more things to consider.
1. Cannon details: not all 20mm cannons are created equal. What's the cartridge size, whats the velocity, what kinds of rounds are you firing. I'd recommend a relatively high velocity, average rate of fire, using SAPHEI-T(Semi armor piercing, High explosive incindiary tracer) rounds.
Personally I'd prefer a combination of 2x20mm cannons with 1x30mm cannon, all with similar ballistic properties and the ability to selectively fire the 20s, 30s or both depending on what you're engaging. This effectively gives you more time on the trigger. Intercepting a bomber? Use the all the cannons. A fighter? Just the 20s till you run out of ammo then the 30s.
2. Survivability. Commonly overlooked but a major trade off is how well you want to protect your pilot vs how much weight you're willing to add. Bulletproof glass and armored steel are heavy, but they also give pilots the confidence needed to fly into bomber fire and allow your pilots to bail out and live to fight another day. I'd also add self sealing fuel tanks with neutral gas pressure like in the IL-2 and a fire suppression suppression system to the engine.
3. General designs vs Specific designs. If you're designing a high speed, high altitude interceptor you'll have to make specific design choices vs a low altitude dogfighter. Personally I think speed and climb is more important than the ability to turn. Because you might not be able to hit the enemy, but so long as you're much faster than them and employ they right tactics they won't be able to hit you.
And finally all these things add complexity. Is your plane really worth 2x the resources vs 2 standard planes?
What about having 12 .50 cals?
the german minengeschoss round are incredibly deadly against aircraft so my preferred gun on a "perfect" fighter aircraft will be based on the german 151-20 or even one of the 30mm, the Mk103 to be exact since though i love the 108 the ballistics will be too hard to sync with the 20mm
@@michaelkolano8686 there's a couple of issues with that. The main issue with the 50 cal is that it's too small to have much explosive filler. A 20mm round has around 3-4x the volume of a 12.5mm round. Essentially it's not realistic to have a 12.5mm armor piercing high explosive round because of how little explosive you can fit in one and the difficulties and price of getting a fuse on such a small round.
There's a reason why the 20mm and 30mm cannons are still the standard on 4/5th generation fighters.
Are there multi-stage variable speed supercharging systems in flyout? I feel like it would suit this plane better than the turbo, mainly because turbocharging systems back in the 40s were enormous and hard to fit into a compact fighter like this. Think of how big the P-38 and P-47 were compared to their contemporaries
Plus I don't think a V12 ever got mated with a turbocharger, only radials afaik
@@TheSDB13 The P-38 had 2 Allison V-12 engines with turbochargers.
@@Tobias-wb6kd Forgot about that, thanks for the info, the superprop looks too small then XD
Yeah I was thinking that too, I just assumed he said "turbocharger" but meant "supercharger" since the plane doesn't really have room for a turbo as designed, and those exhausts also aren't what the ones on a turbocharged engine would look like. A high performance interceptor like this and you'd probably want to use a supercharger anyway, unless it's the P-38 we're talking about.
@@makky-kat3719 Also, considering these engines rarely breached 3k RPM, turbos would struggle to give reasonable boost.
I LOVE this content concept. Now do tanks, trucks, ships, subs, rifles, smgs, mgs, pistols, armor, uniforms, boots, food and whatever else i cant think of!
You make the fuselage smaller then add turbocharged and three 20mm cannons. One of the reasons the p47 fuselage was fat throughout was the turbo also the turbos was the reason for twin booms on the P38.
Love this video concept. The DH Hornet would’ve been a good place to start. It had WW2 technology. More power than this model. All armament in the nose and best looking piston fighter aircraft ever built.
After the launch of Flyout, can you make a video about what this game simulates and what it doesn't do. For example, does it simulate vortex,tire wear, laminar flow...
This looks sick! Keep up the good work.
Any day now we will have this masterpiece of a game
Soon™
That's what they said long time ago 😂
im shaking i cant wait
yeah, any day between now and April 21st, 2134
@@_Peperek the steam page is open and they said 2023 so hopefully
If only you knew
Fuselage mounted cannon means that the rate of fire has to be carefully governed to reduce the risk of propellor strike - while doing away with convergance issues, it means your rate of fire may be considerably reduced. For example, in WW1, the twin-gun Albatros had a rate of fire not much above that of the single (un-synchronised) gun of the DH2 (a "pusher-prop"). Swings and roundabouts....
and after a long day ill sleep another quiet night because the night king messier is still uploading
As much as cool as jet fighters are, prop fighters are more interesting to me, thanks for making one!
11:37 seeing vapor come off the wings feels really odd on a prop plane
This has elements from a lot of planes. The outline mostly reminds me of the Ta-152. The total burst mass (relevant in a head-on or intercept situation) might be a little on the low side with only two nose-mounted cannons
Just small correction to an otherwise very informative video! At 8:04 you mentioned the term: “overboosting” Your explanation was spot on however what you are referring to is an altitude boosted system. Overboosting is where you are actually in a state of boost exceeding the maximum rated. Awesome video nonetheless!
One thing people had to consider during WWII was cost and manufacture time. They could have made better designs but probably couldn't have produced them on the scale needed.
I think you missed a few things. By 1945 a lot of the proposed designs put the engine behind the pilot a la P-39 and moved the pilot just behind the prop. This would increase visibility over the nose, especially for taxiing and landing. Tricycle gear was also catching on. Everyone was starting to think this way - Rolls Royce was designing a fighter for its Crecy engine. General Motors had its P-75. The Germans had a proposed Me-509. And if you think about it.. practically all jet fighters use this general layout to this day.
Therapist: The BF-P4U doesn't exist
The BF-P4U:
Man your videos are so instructive! I learn so much about basic aerodynamic and airplane making just by watching you, thanks for this quality content.
So, in a very recent video by the Imperial War Museum they talked about the development of armament on the spitfire. From that I learnt that pilots sometimes used the machine guns to "spray rounds" and only used the cannons when they were more confident of a hit because of the slower rate of fire. Apparently four cannon Spitfires were trialled but the pilots preferred two cannons. So I guess I'm saying that assuming more cannons = better isn't necessarily correct
It has some similitudes in design to the BV-155B-1 and the Ta-152 H1
I do not know if Flyout models things like self sealing fuel tanks or material properties (in terms of armor), but i think there might be a core point missed about air combat. Survivablilty/defensive capabilities (as the fourth point). If not, this is an amazing sales pitch
i like the inverted V12, the idea of using it to get better forward visibility is great
God damn this thing is beautiful
The most important factor is that the operational requirement to which the aircraft will be designed is correct, both in terms of the correct requirement for the combat it will need to undertake plus actually deliverable using the technology available at the point in time at which production is required.
An example might be the Bolton-Paul Defiant - a perfectly good expression of a flawed operational requirement. As such you could view it as an excellent aircraft as it delivered on the requirement, or a terrible one as a consequence of it being the wrong operational requirement.
I would love to see something like the bf109 but making it improved where it main weaknesses were
Germany tried many times and failed. In the end it wasn't worth them replacing the 109 itself.
@@PaulieLDPwell Germanys economy wasn't great at the time and beside the modifications they did between the models were kinda the maximum they could do without redesigning major parts of the plane so that production of fighters planes could continue if you already strugel too produce sufficient numbers starting almost completely new isn't gona help even if the plane would have been slightly better
And in my opinion the 109 was OK many of its problems came form it's route as racing plane that is a ok foundation for a fighter plane but it is a bad choice compared too a purpose developed plane like the fw 190 there many Design choices were made that the flaws of the 109 addressed(like the narrow landing gear or pilot posture, maintainability, and same more)
thats what the bf-309 was
Tbh 3 cannons seems overkill, personally I think 2 cannons with a larger amount of ammo available would still provide a powerful armament without making ammo conservation a massive concern
Looks like an He-100 With exaggerated wing bend.
The he-100 was created right before WWII and briefly set an absolute speed record (yes the he-100 is German)
Yea pretty close.
1:26 ww1 pilots like the red baron seem to disagree
How do you fit a turbocharger plus its cooling accessories in that tiny fuselage? Historically, planes with turbos had to either expose the turbo to the outside air (creating very draggy installations) or the fuselage had to be huge to house extra cooling pipes (P-47). This is basically why towards the end of the war designers moved towards the 2-stage variable speed supercharger as in the F4U-5.
Great work on both the plane AND the video. A very informative, detailed, formidable, and gorgeous build. 10/10
Wow, this video was great, I think you did a great job on explaining everything about why you are doing what you are doing, and how it effects the plane, I also just think the plane itself was incredible, it really does look like a person just found parts of p-51s and 109s and just kind of put them together into a really cool plane.
About the supercharger boosting. In modern airplanes it's called ground boost. In modern reciprocating engines, a turbo is used to keep the same engine power up to a certain altitude, this was done with a type of wastegate which would close as altitude increased. But during ww2 you could not really leave any performance on the table. So many planes, especially late war ones, used superchargers which could change gears and therefore spin faster and deliver more air to the engine. This was done manually on some airplanes and automatically in others. The p-47 is an odd example as it featured both a turbocharger and a supercharger. This gave the aircraft pretty good high altitude engine performance
On the other hand, the germans used extensive use of MW-50 as well as GM-1 mixtures. Basically GM-1 mixture is just nitros oxide injected into the manifold of the engine(at very high altitudes) and coupeled with MW-50(50% water 50% methanol) injection could keep up with mustangs at high altitudes
A little sidetrack but i hope this clears things out. I maybe missed the part where you said it's ground boost it is still morning here afterall...
I'm no aeronautics expert, but I doubt Reginald Mitchell would be impressed by those long, thin, straight wings. They don't look like they'd be so good especially for dogfighting or high-speed performance. It wouldn't help manoeuvrability and it might have compression problems.
Look at the Spitfire or Meteor or or P-38. None of them have that leading edge shape, they've all got beautifully tapered or elliptical wings.
I dont know exactly why but it feels like a streamlined wyvern
Best videos ever man
I guess a radial engine version would have to only have 2 cannon or wing mount some...
Actually on thinking about it, the 3 30mm sound awsome but maybe 4 20mm is better? I am totally guessing that the 30mm would have a slower rate of fire, that 3 of them would be heavier than 4 20mm guns, and balistically the trajectory of the fire would be inferior. And if you went with 4 20mm in the wings, with a radial engine, you are pretty close to something like the Hawker Fury/ Tempest 2.
Looks like the plane has some Stuka in it's DNA.
I'm pleased with the nice slim wings
Why not include a bubble canopy for greater visibility as with the later P-47’s?
As a long-time player of Simpleplanes, which recently received it's last ever update and is essentially forgotten about now, this game looks to be the perfect spiritual successor. Looking forward to the early access release!
Ed Heinemann once said that the best way to make an aircraft is to design it around the engine you want to use. Radials were popular during the war for a reason because they had a higher power/weight offering compared to V-12's, and some of the later R-2800's had similar superchargers to the Merlin which gave them good performance at altitude. This also meant no radiators and coolant on board to cut back on weight even more.
Additionally, gun convergence will still be a factor, although not as much as wing mounted guns. Height over bore from the sights will still play into the accuracy of the guns, and there's something to be said about a wider shot pattern when you aren't using targeting computers to give you a gun solution. Nose mounted guns also severely cut back on your ability to carry ammunition which also adds complexity for the maintainers every time they need to tear into something under the cowling. But, this is purely about performance and not logistics.
I'm interested to see how this design will do. I must admit though, it looks really good.
You're not describing convergence, you're describing something like windage.
@@CyberneticArgumentCreator windage is an environmental factor, convergence is a mechanical factor related to how the guns are mounted. Regardless if it's nose mounted or wing mounted guns, your bullets will need to be zeroed at a set distance calibrated to the sight. Which is why I brought up hight over bore being a factor with nose mounted guns.
DUDE! Yes! I love old warbirds and this is something I’ve theorised and fantasised about quite a few times!
almost looks like a cross between an American Corsair, German BF109 and Italian G55
Not the perfect WW2 fighter until it has a tail warning radar and a gyroscopic gunsight. I'm also wondering what sort of range it has. Range vs weight is always a tradeoff.
The design looks very sleek and undoubtedly very suitable for an interceptor. Before choosing this design as the main fighter of my air force in fictional late 1940s, I would want to know if this aircraft could cover other mission roles such as escort missions requiring long range. What is the fuel endurance like? Would the aircraft have enough fuel to not require constant monitoring of fuel levels during missions other than interceptions over friendly territory? What about suitability for multi-role capability, like carrying air-to-ground ordnance?
Another aspect I would want to know is survivability. Does the aircraft feature any armour for the pilot, engine, or the cooling systems? The liquid-cooled engine is fine and many other designs use very similar solution, but an air-cooled radial would have potential for better damage tolerance. Not that I'm questioning the design choices but my fleet aviators were shouting something about a tail hooks and ditching the coolant so that you could cross vast distances over ocean even when missing a few percent of the engine...
What about cost? It was mentioned that this aircraft uses a turbocharger for forced induction. How does that affect the cost of the aircraft? Is the turbocharger reliable? How does the ducting work, is there an intercooler somewhere? Could similar performance be achieved at lower cost and weight by using a multi-stage/multi-speed supercharger or a single-stage variable speed supercharger instead?
What kind of flight performance does the aircraft have? What about handling characteristics? Is the aircraft easy to fly or is it prone to losing control in stalls? Are the wings more optimized for low drag with a laminar flow aerofoil design, or do they feature a more conventional aerofoil that delays flow separation and gives more forgiving flight characteristics with higher stall AoA?
Three 20mm cannons on the nose is adequate armament, but I would be interested in possibility of upgrading the motor cannon to a 30mm, and possibly installing additional guns on wing roots. Especially if the aircraft's main intended role is to be an interceptor, I would want additional firepower to inflict the highest possible damage to bombers during attacks, to shorten the time the aircraft has to stay within the gunners' effective range. Alternatively, a nation I know might be interested in filling the wing leading edge with machine guns, just to make their logistics simpler because they use that particular machine gun cartridge everywhere anyway...
Just one thing sticks out to me: The nose reminds me of the F-4 Phantom, although the Phantom's nose is probably longer. This isn't an issue for, say, a Fox-2 fight, but if you're turning and burning trying to get a gun solution on a bandit, a long nose can obscure the target, meaning you have to take a less straightforward deflection shot.
Just curious, why did you choose a liquid-cooled inline engine instead of an air-cooled radial engine? You can save weight by not relying on coolant, they're more robust/protected, and they provide slightly more power over inline engines.
Lockheed martin wants to know your location
When are you going to attempt to make the Tie fighter fly in this game?
I love your fighter; it's as cool to see as I bet it would be to fly. Build one, and let me be the first to strap it on and take it for a ride.
Great video! Great idea, too.
dear god, i love absolutely everything about this aircraft. it's almost a combination of the mustang, the bf 109 with the wing design of the b7m2, although i've finding strange the use of a inverted v engine instead a regular one, but since this problably not a German engine (wich will burn as the sun) and i'm anyone for talk bullshit just gonna say that the design it's a true dream of aviation.
i was also thinking that with the guns in the nose u can have a lot of setups in the wing such bombs, rockets and addition guns like the 109 and the 190. Let's make with a radial engine next time, or not who i am to say?
I've been thinking about something like this for years, and now someone has built it in 3D. Many features in common, but a bit different, but I like it! Nice design. Not sure if there is enough room inside that air frame for everything, but again, I'm not an aircraft designer. Nice work! Oh, and my name for it was 'Monsoon' (but I spelled it differently), so that really caught my eye.
Very cool concept. Might recommend modifying the underbelly scoop with a cooling door in the rear. That way you take advantage of the Meredith Effect to reduce drag/increase overall thrust. Also the engine cowling, while very sleak, probably does not offer enough space around the engine block for adequate heat dissipation. The Luftwaffe had this issue with the He-177, where they tried shoving two engines into a nacelle that was far to tight, and had huge problems with overheating, bursting into flames and killing the crew. Still a great concept, just needs a bit of refinement.
As a matter of interest. black stripes very similar to the later invasion stripes were added to the British Typhoon fighters due to recognition problems resulting in friendly fire incidents. This was around 2 years before the Normandy campaign.
when I read it I thought you ere talking about the eurofighter typhoon first.
@@jacksonpound6408 Apparently the Typhoon was being mistaken for the Fw190 and attacked in friendly fire incidents, with at least one killed, right from it's introduction in 1942. This was, it's fair to say, the least of its problems.
@@vipertwenty249 I was talking about the jet. not the prop plane
@@jacksonpound6408 I was talking about the prop plane not the jet.
Nice effort....but pretty much reinventing the wheel 😮, it would have been much easier to model a developed version of the Martin Baker MB5😉
The interceptor was popular in the 60s and 70s because its mission was to fly fast and far to fire missiles at bombers and come home. Air-to-air with other fighters wasn't really considered. (try a 2-circle with an F-104)
the gull wing really isnt necessary, it was only on the Corsair because the propeller was so big
I love how the wing design and weapons are pretty much the same as the Corsair. Such an underrated plane.
Why no swept wings and improve high speed performance?
Honestly I think it's a better looker than most real planes of the period. The subtle gull-wing and the slim V-engine cowling, plus the tail shape make it look kind of like someone made a prop version of an F-4
Really nice piece of work. One thing I would have personally added would be contra rotating props. This design as is would have the same vice that most heavy, fast WWII fighters had, namely, the pronounced torque twisting that plagued the P-51, Fw-190D, and other high powered fighters. Eliminating that torque is a tremendous boon to dogfighting capability, allowing the pilot to eke out even tighter and faster turns.
You had me going in the beginning, I almost thought this was a real plane. One of those canceled designs that couldn't compete with jets.
Why no counter rotating props?
If i ever get too much money, i may have to just build an airplane factor where some of your designs come to life.
This one definitely looks like it would be fun to fly
I actually miss the pun "and we were ready to _fly out_ ", I really liked it 😅
Anyway, every build you make is a pleasure to see!
As for U.S. design the F8F Grumman Bearcat (nickname; engine with a pistol grip) was the culmination of
piston engine fighter/interceptor development by 1944. Core values or Hard Factors need to be complimented
with Soft Factors, such as mission adaptability, part/service commonality, reliability, ease of transitional training.
It would be interesting to have a 'what if' of using a Wright R3350 radial that was developed for the Boeing B-29 and later for the Douglas Skyraider to power a Super Bearcat that would have a larger airframe not a conversion like the Reno racer named, 'Rare Bear'. It would be the ultimate Zoomiest-Boomiest plane with excellent hard/soft factors and could be put into service more quickly than a radical prototype based project. The Grumman Hellcat is a good example of that.
Would love for Greg to chime in on this awesome thought process proof of concept.
Edit: Any considerations for self-sealing fuel cells or cockpit armor?
Also, what about water/methyl injection?
I don't think Greg would waste his time. Though an interesting concept for a video and somewhat entertaining, trying to even remotely capture what would go into the "best" WWII fighter (if such a thing could exist given the different theaters and conditions) in an 11 minute video is an exercise in futility.
Impressive power-to-weight isn't the only thing that really matters in terms of performance. A capable airfoil is one of the more important parts too. Thing with the high performing airfoils is though, that they were prone to some interesting stall conditions... I think P-51 was a good example of that. Bf-109 imho has one of the better wing designs, as slats were a really big help in maintaining the stability at high angles of attack. Looking at this plane you made, with a spitfire-like elliptical wingtips, a thin airfoil but a long wing chord, to me it seems like a very typical wingtip staller with perhaps quite dangerous spin characteristics... And the long wing chord with a thin airfoil makes it that when the wing stalls, it's quite agressive, as a lot of lift becomes none at once, since the long leading part of the wing would mask the whole wing at high aoa. A rounder, shorter and thicker wing would stall trailing part of the wing first, with most of the leading part of the wing still flying, providing a typical buffeting warning for the pilot and allowing for higher angles of attack->more pulling. This aircraft to me seems like a very good interceptor, but not much of a dogfighter... I am no expert though, so it would be interesting to see what somebody more professional thinks of this. But anyway, a nice interesting video and topic!
There are aircraft with long thin wings that had very stable stalls, like the Kawasaki Ki-61 and Ki-100. But since they have very low wingloading, that might be the deciding factor.
@@reinbeers5322 I am not about the length of the wing but about the wing chord, i. e. the "width" of the wing, length of an imaginary line running from the leading edge of the wing to the trailing edge.
@@rederos8079 Yeah, go look at a Ki-61's wings. Pretty long with a narrow chord.
@@reinbeers5322 Indeed, and somewhat of a round airfoil... Seems stable enough to me :D
Instead I am saying long chord, thin airfoil and short wings seem to be the unstable ones...
@@rederos8079 The leading and trailing edges are straight, they only round out at the wingtips which is why I mentioned it.
I don't know how thin they are, but the thinner you go the more prone to tip stalls they are, which is why the Spitfire had a lot of wing twist for what it was.
Given that the Ki-61 is japanese and they loved their maneuverability, probably not much!
I would say from the engine firewall backwards the aircraft resembles a FW TA-52 / F4-U Corsair cross, but as these had ring engine cowlings the design of the engine cowls look like Griffin engined Spitfire marks 22 & 24. I am surprised at only 3 blades for the propeller; nearly all end war fighters had a minimum of 4 blades, a couple had 5, and some Spitfires had contra rotating 2 x 3 blades (which stopped most issues with torque).
Hey aerospace engineering student here, great video! I liked the level of detail you put in, unfortunately you didn’t take about the wing profiles (maybe it due to software limitations).
It’s a very cool design, I especially liked the Corsair-like wings because I didn’t know they improved visibility!
If I may add something to improve a bit the design would be to add flaps and slats if possible (latter are very important for low speed flight envelops).
Also you might want to change the wing shape (seen from above) to an elliptical shape, similar to the one on the spitfire. It’s the absolute best shape for aero efficiency and wasn’t used much because of how hard it was to build.
And you could tilt (rotation from above) the vertical stabiliser a bit to counter gyroscopic effect from the torque generated by the engine.
Ellyptical wings were shown in postwar testing to offer almost no advantages over a simple trapezoidal wing, which is what the Spitfire's successor, the Spiteful used. They're also stupidly expensive to make and after the Spitfire and P-47, they disappeared completely.
@@reinbeers5322 on a strictly theoretical basis an elliptical distribution is the best you can get, in reality the advantage as you pointed out is not worth it but I wanted to point that out anyways but the addition of slats and flaps is a must.
@@ed6091 The issue is that once theory met reality, it didn't hold up at all. IIRC it was just 5% better in just one efficiency metric. And that was for a true ellipsis, while the spitfire didn't have one and had a fair amount of wing twist to combat the nasty tip stalls it otherwise would have.
As for flaps and slats, they are essential yeah. Surprised more nations and manufacturers didn't use leading edge slats in WW2.
@@reinbeers5322 actually from the theory we expected such a small gains in efficiency. Had to look up my aerodynamics notes for this, Cd depends on the Oswald factor, inside this there’s a value that can range from 0 (elliptical) to 0.18 (triangular wing), for a rectangular wing it should be around 0.02 so almost negligible. I believe this was learnt after the experiments you mentioned (delta vs taper ratio graph)
@@ed6091 Yeah, it was that exact efficiency factor, I had forgotten the name. I'm not an engineer, just an enthusiast. Or in other words, a massive nerd.
Therapist: Inline Corsair isnt real, it can't hurt you...
Inline Corsair:
The f8f bearcat was essentially the existing pinnacle of piston engine gunfighters built with hindsight and too late to join the war in the pacific.
I am very surprised you didn't go with a twin engine plane. Or better, a twin engine disc plane.