[Zorin]

Let me add that the B-42 would be a nice 46 addition.


But one thing I would like to know, as she has contra rotating props, what happens if one engine fails? The Do335 had no problem with that, but would she still be able to keep on flying?

(The Do335 flew in Oct 1943 and in the production version of 44 already obtained speeds of 474 mph. So as she was purpose build as fighter-bomber, only carried 2,200lb of bombs over half the combat range of a XB-42)

[gibbage]

Im not sure. I will look into it. I dont know if the two engines fed into a single shaft, or twin shaft's. Both ways, one engine can be shut down. I dont see any reason why they would design a twin engine aircraft that a single engine out would be catastrophic.

Found it.

"The aircraft that finally emerged was powered by a pair of 1325 hp Allison V-1710-125 liquid-cooled V-12 engines installed completely inside the fuselage immediately aft of the pilot's cabin. Air for the cooling radiators was provided by narrow slots cut into the leading edges of the inner wings. The centerline of each engine was about 20 degrees to the vertical and the engines were toed in a few degrees to the vertical. The power was transmitted via five lengths of shafting to a pair of contra-rotating propellers installed in the extreme tail cone. Each of the three-bladed contra-rotating propellers was driven by its own engines, the left powerplant driving the forward propeller and the right the aft. A lower fin and rudder was fitted underneath the tail to prevent the propellers from striking the ground during nose-high takeoffs and landings. "

[109dude]

HI GIBBAGE! ITS ANTHONY FROM COMBAT ACE!
Now that that outburst is over... It does seem that the IL2 community is more focused on the Deutschland 46, rather than US 46... I'd love to see the YB-49 in here... As you know we have it in the TW series...

[gibbage]

Long time Anthony!

Here is another US 46 to consider. The F5U!!! Flying Pancake! This was a MEAN lookin bugger. VERY slow stall speed, TONS of HP, and lots of firepower. Also was rated VERY fast.



The full prototype never flew, but the smaller test aircraft did, and from all accounts, flew VERY well.



Sadly, this aircraft got hit by the "Jets or nothing" policy at the end of WWII that killed MANY nice prop aircraft, even though props and pistons still played a major roll in Korea many years later. Interestingly, even though aircraft like the F8F, F7F, and P-51H was introduced later, it was the F4U and P-51D that served as the work horse in Korea.

[Guest]

oh nonsense. and a lot of people are right. Did that thing even fly or is that picture just doctored?

Pathetic. Your simplistic historical thoughts are telling.

All of these designs flew, unlike this BS fantasy Luft-crap we have in game now. And most did it BEFORE 1945. Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of everyone downplaying US / British technological innovation in WW2. The Germans were smart, but they weren't the only ones.

Maybe so but so much of US tech gravy-trains German without giving due credit. And why go into detail about stuff that's fake anyway.

[shakthamac]

oh nonsense. and a lot of people are right. Did that thing even fly or is that picture just doctored?

Pathetic. Your simplistic historical thoughts are telling.

All of these designs flew, unlike this BS fantasy Luft-crap we have in game now. And most did it BEFORE 1945. Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of everyone downplaying US / British technological innovation in WW2. The Germans were smart, but they weren't the only ones.

Maybe so but so much of US tech gravy-trains German without giving due credit. And why go into detail about stuff that's fake anyway.

I pray to god your a troll, because you can't possibly be this moronic

[Radoye]

US 1946's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-80_Shooting_Star
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-82_Twin_Mustang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F8F_Bearcat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F2G_Corsair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_XF15C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FR_Fireball
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XF2R_Dark_Shark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_XP-79
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FH_Phantom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FJ-1_Fury
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F6U_Pirate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-84_Thunderjet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AF_Guardian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AM_Mauler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TB2D_Skypirate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XB-43_Jetmaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XB-42_Mixmaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-35

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-2_Neptune
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P4M_Mercator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JRM_Mars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XF-12_Rainbow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_XF-11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edo_OSE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_H-5

[gibbage]

Maybe so but so much of US tech gravy-trains German without giving due credit. And why go into detail about stuff that's fake anyway.

Are you still under the belief that the B-35 is somehow faked?

As for gravy-train tech without giving credit, the ace of that catagory goes to Von Braun by a mile. Von Braun used dozens of Dr Goddard's patents on the V2, including the guidance systems, gyro systems, and the engine itself. Even Von Braun himself credited Goddard, so dont say its a lie.

[md_wild_weasel]

Dont mean to be offensive to my american cousins here BUT Looking at all the pictures in the first post all i could think of is that ALL these planes look familiar. for example the XP-55 Ascender looks exaclty like the j7w1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABsh%C5%AB_J7W The XP-56 "black bullet" is comparible to the komet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_163 . The same for the YB_35 which looks the same as the Horton Ho 229 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-35. Can you c the patteren here? Im no expert on experimental aircraft but i tend to lean on the germans for inventing advanced technology purely because history regarding americans and their distortion of the truth (i aint arf goin to stir up the bees nest here!) is quite well known . Ask an american about the Parkard Merlin.. :wink: Also take for example a recent film " U571" which caused great offense over here in blighty.

my two cents worth on american "wonder" technology.

[XabaRus-1]

The only thing about the first lot of US 1946 planes is that they were rubbish.

not only did they not reach their design speeds they weren't as agile or stable as they found in flight testing so I doubt they would make good fighters. I agree the Lerche is a complete guess but the likes of the Ta-183 looks credible.

Do you really want a US 1946 plane that os going to get busted the minute it gets into the air?

[Ryan Crierie]

There is so much outright lies, distortion and bullshit here that I'm literally shaking my head here.

The US had all sorts of designs that would have come into play if WWII had continued into 1946 or longer; like the lightweight P-51s:

NAA's Lightweight Mustangs

Suffice to say; the P-51H/L/M would have been a very serious threat to any Luftwaffe "Napkinwaffe"

P-51H
300~ MPH at Sea Level
413 MPH at Sea Level with Water Injection
391 MPH at 22,700 ft
474 MPH at 22,700 ft with Water Injection

The above specs by the way are taken direct from the Standard Aircraft Characteristics sheet for the F-51H issued in 1949 by the US Air Force; they're much less optimistic than the commonly stated figures for the P-51H; which were 487 MPH at 25,000 ft.

Other secret projects are the P-72A; the successor to the P-47, powered by the Wasp Major; the XP-72 hit 490 MPH at 25,000 ft; the USAAF ordered 100 of them with an even more powerful Wasp Major version than the XP-72; to be armed with either six fifties or four 37mm cannons. Expectations were speeds would be in the 500 MPH range.

And of course, there's the Shooting Star; the P-80A actually flew a few combat missions (albeit with no enemy encounters over Italy in 1945 just as the war was ending. By 1946, improved Shooting Stars (P-80B) will be flying, with 5,200 lb turbojets; making it very competitive with the claimed specificiations of Ta-183; which by the way was a flying death trap.

[CUJO_1970]

This is the kind of thread that has been thankfully missing from this internet site until now.

No one here is against Allied 46 aircraft, nor have they ever been.

It is very simple really...go start a 3D model and post your progress and most everyone here will be glad to see another a/c in the pipeline. In fact, there are already research threads and some models being worked on and no problems here.

But start a thread like this and it will immediately degenerate into an opinionated, emotional cry-fest full of nonsense information just as it already has.

[si1va]

There were a few British experimental aircraft that deserve a mention in this thread also. The first two would have to be the Gloster Meteor and de Havilland Vampire, you could also include the Gloster G.28/39 prototype and single engined Gloster E.1/44.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_E.28/39
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_E.1/44

Seeing as every man and his dog has a flying wing you can throw the Baynes Bat in there too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baynes_Bat

For the truly bizarre you would want the Blackburn B20, a proper oddball.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_B-20

For 1946 we could have fielded the de Havilland DH 108, just don't fly too fast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_DH_108

Lastly the Short Shetland, replacement for the Sunderland as a long range recce flying boat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Shetland

All the aircraft I've mentioned flew before or during 1946, no paper designs here.

Germany was not the only country designing the futuristic and fantastical designs, the Hafner Rotabuggy and a possible Rotatank, the Handley-Page Manx, Miles Libellula and Miles M.52 (can anyone say Bell X1 ahem).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafner_Rotabuggy
http://www.handleypage.com/Aircraft_hp75.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Libellula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_M.52

[Radoye]

Dont mean to be offensive to my american cousins here BUT Looking at all the pictures in the first post all i could think of is that ALL these planes look familiar.

All planes that ever flew look somewhat familiar to each other. They're all designed to do pretty much the same thing (to fly) and have some common elements (wings, control surfaces, crew accommodation etc).

for example the XP-55 Ascender looks exaclty like the j7w1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABsh%C5%AB_J7W

The canard concept was not new, there were experiments long before WW2 with this configuration - even the 1903 Wright Flyer could be considered as a canard plane.
The XP-55 first flew in 1943, two years before the J7W, and well before anyone in the USA was even aware of what the Japanese or Germans were experimenting with during the war.

If there ever was a design in the USA that was influenced by the J7W and German tailless aircraft to any significant degree, it was the Vought F7U Cutlass:

The XP-56 "black bullet" is comparible to the komet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_163 .

This one too flew for the first time before the introduction of Me-163 into combat, before the Allies were able to examine it and learn from it or possibly even knew about its existence.

The same for the YB_35 which looks the same as the Horton Ho 229 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-35. Can you c the patteren here?

YB-35 is descended from Northrop's own experiments with flying wings from 1930's (Jack Northrop is at least as much of a pioneer of this concept as the Horten bros were), Northrop had a flying wing prototype completed and flight-tested in 1940-41.

The pattern is to be expected - you have a number of engineers working on the same set of problems using the same basic scientific principles. They test different ideas, keep what they find useful and discard those more far-fetched or too far ahead of their time (flying wings were impractical until advanced computerized FBW systems came along late 1970-ish). It is similar to the evolution - sharks (fishes), some species of marine dinosaurs (reptiles) and dolphins and whales (mammals) all look strikingly similar yet are pretty much unrelared. Because they all live (or lived) in the same type of environment and had to catch similar prey to eat they all developed the same evolutionary characteristics.

Im no expert on experimental aircraft but i tend to lean on the germans for inventing advanced technology purely because history regarding americans and their distortion of the truth (i aint arf goin to stir up the bees nest here!) is quite well known . Ask an american about the Parkard Merlin.. :wink: Also take for example a recent film " U571" which caused great offense over here in blighty.

my two cents worth on american "wonder" technology.

Yes, the Yanks (as well as the Russki) benefited a lot from the Axis research after the war, this is true, but that doesn't mean they did not invent any technology or that they just simply copied everything from the Germans. A lot of the concepts German advanced designs were based on have actually been common knowledge among the aeronautical engineers even before the war.

The British would've done the same (used captured Axis know-how) if they could afford it, but due to the damage caused by the war they coudn't and let the Americans lead the way. It was in their best interest to have someone develop technology for them faster than they would be able on their own, because of the Soviet threat as WW2 quickly turned into the Cold War.

And i'm sure if Germans would've won (God forbid!) they would test and learn from the Allied designs. They proved already they're not shy to do so, they used Russian know-how and ideas to design some of their mos famous tanks during WW2 (the Panther was directly influenced by the T-34).

It's all perfectly normal and to be expected...

[Chaoic16]

The only thing about the first lot of US 1946 planes is that they were rubbish.

not only did they not reach their design speeds they weren't as agile or stable as they found in flight testing so I doubt they would make good fighters. I agree the Lerche is a complete guess but the likes of the Ta-183 looks credible.

Do you really want a US 1946 plane that os going to get busted the minute it gets into the air?

Your statement sounded arrogant, no offense to you. It is not wise to assume thing on your own and not all US experimental plane were rubbish.

oh nonsense. and a lot of people are right. Did that thing even fly or is that picture just doctored?

Pathetic. Your simplistic historical thoughts are telling.

All of these designs flew, unlike this BS fantasy Luft-crap we have in game now. And most did it BEFORE 1945. Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of everyone downplaying US / British technological innovation in WW2. The Germans were smart, but they weren't the only ones.

Maybe so but so much of US tech gravy-trains German without giving due credit. And why go into detail about stuff that's fake anyway.

Fake? You OBVIOIUSLY have not watched the video I sent you in my previous post. I posted video of YB-35 and YB-49 giant flying wings. Before you claim they are fake, please watch the video and accept the fact that they EXISTED and FLEW!

I am quoting my own post, in case you missed it.

struwwelpeter,

YB-35 (propeller version) and YB-49 (jet version) actually existed and flew. Here is videos on these experimental bombers that US have done with these giant flyng wings:

YB-35

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAj-ECF3 ... re=related (starting at 6:20, you'll see YB-35 engine starting then take off)

YB-49
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwgqYUoWCTg

Chaoic out...