[Fisneaky]

OMG ! what have I started?

Just saying that I prefer to fly a well crafted plane in IL2 than any other sim, be it a bomber, Fighter, acrobat, racer or crop duster!

Cool it guys and accept that everyone has their favourite niche and will defend it with passion, also that some can have a wider outlook on things.

[Trooper117]

We are having an adult discussion.. No need to cool anything at the moment thanks..

[Brophmeister]

I didn't call anyone specifically shallow. I said it was shallow to say that IL2 is "only" a combat sim, and ot anything else.

But yeah, we're a little off topic here.
So, anyway, about those racers...

[GentleKiller]

i guess that they will be good for coop races :lol:

[Guest]

I love this aircraft and when my spitfires are done and the 2 BF 109's ( B & C) are done i may do this,

But i got lots to do.

[Guest]

I didn't call anyone specifically shallow. I said it was shallow to say that IL2 is "only" a combat sim, and ot anything else.

But yeah, we're a little off topic here.
So, anyway, about those racers...

yes, completely off topic
my idea was only the beginning of having this beautiful airplane with two .50 machine guns in nose

[hero]

And Lardo De Apricot at the controls.....sorry.....wwwwaaaaayyyyyy off topic.

[American]

IAR anyone?

looks like it.

[Guest]

The H-1 was so stripped down and streamlined for speed that adding the fuel tanks to give it an effective range, radio equipment, guns, ammo, and everything else to build this into a fighter would have ruined it's speed aspect.

[Guest]

Why make it a fighter?I would enjoy just flying it with proper engine managment and procedures..

[Guest]

Well, the original question was if the plane would have been opperated by the USAAF or USAAC. I'm personally more interested in the first XF-11 and the H-4 Hercules.

[Guest]

Well, the original question was if the plane would have been opperated by the USAAF or USAAC. I'm personally more interested in the first XF-11 and the H-4 Hercules.

great idea
we discuss the xf-11, and coffee with biscuits
and opportunity to spread my site on aviation (still in construction)

http://pablosouto.vilabol.uol.com.br/home.html

[caldrail]

The Hughes racer was a private venture of Howard Hughes, and was never used by the US Air Force.

I know he never flew in the US Air Force, but you should know that the Bristol Blenhein also was an initiative of the private sector!
And I would like to know if there was some point in the interest of the US Air Force for this project

From Wikipedia....

Considering the contemporary service aircraft were biplanes, Hughes fully expected the United States Army Air Forces to embrace his aircraft's new design and make the H-1 the basis for a new generation of U.S. fighter aircraft. His efforts to "sell" the design were unsuccessful. In postwar testimony before the Senate, Hughes indicated that resistance to the innovative design was the basis for the USAAF rejection of the H-1: "I tried to sell that airplane to the Army but they turned it down because at that time the Army did not think a cantilever monoplane was proper for a pursuit ship..."

Aviation historians have posited that the H-1 Racer may have inspired later radial engine fighters such as the P-47 Thunderbolt and the Focke-Wulf Fw 190. After the war, Hughes further claimed that "it was quite apparent to everyone that the Japanese Zero fighter had been copied from the Hughes H-1 Racer." He noted both the wing planform, the tail empennage design and the general similarity of the Zero and his racer. Jiro Horikoshi, designer of the Mitsubishi Zero strongly refuted the allegation of the Hughes H-1 influencing the design of the Japanese fighter aircraft.

[Guest]

this was the painting I did for the h-1 in the military version for FS2002

[caldrail]

Racing aircraft are designed for one thing, speed. As a result, it's a no-compromise design that makes no allowance for military equipment or usage. Various racers have been put forward for military service (the Me209 being the most famous) but the project always comes to grief one that one essential point, that since they were never designed as military aircraft, they just aren't any good for that role. So I'm afraid Howard Hughes was talking out of his bottom. The USAAF weren't so easily conned into investing time, money, and effort in trying to turn a sports aeroplane into a front line fighter. Imagine that Hughes H-1... Now add guns, ammunition, radios, armour plating... That's a lot of extra weight. What's going to happen to your performance? Is the structure strong enough? Is there enough room for this extra stuff? What about maintenance in field conditions? Is that sleek canopy suitable for a fighter pilot to adequately see out of in combat? It's a lovely looking aeroplane for sure, but a fighter it isn't.