POWER PLANT: Two Pratt & Whitney R-2800-65 “Double Wasp” radial engines, rated at 2,000 hp each
PERFORMANCE: 376 mph at 17,000 ft
COMMENT: In autumn 1944, two Northrop P-61B “Black Widow” night fighters were extensively modified in an attempt to improve the performance and to extend the long-range in order to use these aircraft as long-range escort fighters. Designated XP-61E the fuselage decking was cut flush with the wing to allow a large blown canopy to be fitted. The center and aft section of the fuselage nacelle housed additional fuel tanks and the nose radar was supplanted by four machine guns. The XP-61E’s were tested in the early month of 1945 but the second was lost in an accident on April 1945 and in view of the changing course of the war, further development of the “Black Widow” in this role as long-range escort fighter was abandoned. The first and remaining prototype was converted to the XF-15 “Reporter”, a long-range photo-reconnaissance aircraft, tested after the war. Due to the on-coming new turbojet powered aircraft a production order never was placed (Ref.: 9).
POWER PLANT: One Heinkel-Hirth HeS 011 turbojet engine, rated at 1,300 kp
PERFORMANCE: 618 mph
COMMENT: In winter 1944/1945, the Messerschmitt Project Bureau was intensively working on several advanced turbojet powered interceptor aircraft superior to the now in service acting Messerschmitt Me 262 “Schwalbe” (Swallow). Besides projects such as Me P.1110/I, Me P.1110/II, Me P. 1110 “Ente”, and Me P. 1112 was the Me P.1111 jet fighter/interceptor. The innovative design was as an improvement to the Messerschmitt Me P.1110 “Ente” (“Duck”). It was a tailless aircraft with the wings swept back at 45 degrees, being of near-delta shape. There was a single sweptback vertical fin and rudder. The cockpit was pressurized, fitted with an ejection seat and had a fairing extending to the base of the fin. The planned power plant was a Heinkel-Hirth HeS 011 turbojet engine, armament consisted of four MK 108 30mm cannon with 100 rounds each, two in the wing roots and two in the nose. The collapse of the “Third Reich” a few months later stopped all further work but data were transferred to the United Kingdom and influenced the post -war development of the de Havilland DH 108 “Swallow” (Ref.: 17).
POWER PLANT: Two Mitsubishi Ha 42 twin-engines, rated at 2,400 hp each
PERFORMANCE: 346 mph
COMMENT: The Mitsubishi G7M was basically a derivative of the most famous Mitsubishi G4M Navy attack bomber. It was originally designed as a long range, strategic bomber able to carry a greater payload over a longer distance. To meet these requirements a four-engine design was favored.
When detailed information about the German Heinkel He 177 became available – a four-engine heavy bomber with dive-bombing capability, powered by two H-engines twinned together in one nacelle on each side thus reducing drag – the G7M design was changed in that manner. Germany promised to deliver the needed machinery to produce the H-engines under license. Other features of the Heinkel design were incorporated, too, such as the glazed nose, four-blade propellers, and a similar tail plane. In contrast the Mitsubishi design used a tricycle landing gear system. The ongoing war situation made it impossible to import the German H-engines as well as the tools for production and the design was changed again to a four-engine bomber but the end of the hostilities stopped all further work (Ref.: 24).
POWER PLANT: Two Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet engines, rated at 900 kp each or one Heinkel-Hirth HeS 011 turbojet engine, rated at 1,300 kp
PERFORMANCE: No data available
COMMENT: This project became known through a sketch which was published in France after WW II. Probably it dates back to 1942 and suggests a possibility of the”… installation of a radial turbojet engine”. A later well-known drawing suggests that there were two configurations of the same design, the “Zerstörer-Projekt I and II”. In both the air intakes as well as the tail assembly was different. Apparently, it was planned to utilize two Junkers Jumo 004 turbojets or one Heinkel HeS 011 engine. In “Zerstörer-Projekt II” the air intake for the turbojet engines were positioned in the wing roots and the tail plane was swept sharp forward and in “Zerstörer-Projekt II” it was swept back so as the wings. Also the turbojet engine was fed by an air intake located on each side of the fuselage under the wings. To extend range, plans were made to mount two 300 liter auxiliary wingtip fuel tanks. Two Mk 108 30mm cannon were installed in the nose part. The design was not pursued (Ref.: 16, 17).
Messerschmitt Zerstörer-Projekt, Ausführung I, (Destroyer-project, Scheme I)
Messerschmitt Zerstörer-Projekt, Ausführung I, (Destroyer-project, Scheme I)
Messerschmitt Zerstörer-Projekt, Ausführung I, (Destroyer-project, Scheme I)
Messerschmitt Zerstörer-Projekt, Ausführung I, (Destroyer-project, Scheme I)
Messerschmitt Zerstörer-Projekt, Ausführung I, (Destroyer-project, Scheme I)
Messerschmitt Zerstörer-Projekt, Ausführung I, (Destroyer-project, Scheme I)
Messerschmitt Zerstörer-Projekt, Ausführung I, (Destroyer-project, Scheme I)
Messerschmitt Zerstörer-Projekt, Ausführung I, (Destroyer-project, Scheme I)
Messerschmitt Zerstörer-Projekt, Ausführung I, (Destroyer-project, Scheme I)
Messerschmitt Zerstörer-Projekt, Ausführung I, (Destroyer-project, Scheme I)
Messerschmitt Zerstörer-Projekt, Ausführung I, (Destroyer-project, Scheme I)
Messerschmitt Zerstörer-Projekt, Ausführung I, (Destroyer-project, Scheme I)
POWER PLANT: Two radial engines, rated at 1,450 hp each
PERFORMANCE: No data available
COMMENT: This design of a light bomber dates back to autumn 1941. A blueprint became available after the end of WW II showing a detailed three-view of the project and some important physical dimensions. It might be possible that this design may have had influence on the development of the Kawasaki Ki-102 (Allied code ‘Randy’). Furthermore, the design shows some similarity to the Grumman XP-50, forerunner of the Grumman F7F “Tigercat” (Ref.: 24).
POWER PLANT: One Daimler-Benz DB 603LA liquid-cooled engine, rated at 2,300 hp (with MW 50)
PERFORMANCE: 460 mph at 32,810 ft
COMMENT: By autumn 1942, it was obvious that despite earlier opinions, the USAAF had every intension of building up an immense bomber force in Britain for use against Germany, mainly Boeing B-17 “Flying Fortress” and Consolidated B-24 “Liberator”. Furthermore, intelligence reports revealed that tremendous impetus was being placed behind the mass production of a larger, pressurized successor, the Boeing B-29 “Superfortress”, capable of operations at still greater speeds and altitudes. Thus, the development of fighters possessing higher combat ceilings had assumed greater urgency. Both Focke-Wulf and Messerschmitt were, therefore, asked to submit their proposals for a “Hochhleistungsjäger” (High-performance fighter), offering a substantially improved combat ceiling and amenable to adaption for a medium-to-high altitude reconnaissance-fighter role. To meet the requirements Focke-Wulf proposed the Fw 190Ra-2 and Ra-3, a variant based on the Fw 190D, and Messerschmitt offered a long-span derivative of the Me 109, the Me 155B. These submissions were accepted by the “Technische Amt” (Technical Office of the RLM) but in August 1943 it became clear that Messerschmitt was too committed with other development programmes to devote sufficient attention to the Me 155B, this being duly passed to Blohm & Voss.
Prof. Tank, director of Focke-Wulf’s design team, worked on his proposals Fw 190Ra-2 and Ra-3 that soon would receive the RLM type designations Ta 152H and Ta 152K, respectively. Tank envisaged the short-span variant as primarily a “Begleitjäger” (Escort fighter), and the long-span version as a “Höhenjäger” (High-altitude fighter). Furthermore, Tank pressed for permission to install the turbo-charged Daimler-Benz DB 603 engine in the Ta 152 fighter owing to its indisputable superiority to the Junkers Jumo 213E engine, installed in the Focke-Wulf Fw 190D, at high altitudes. The short-span Fw Ta 152C, as it was designated now, was broadly of similar aerodynamic concept to that of the Fw 190D, but was structurally an entirely new airframe. Although test flights showed excellent handling characteristics and performance and although a production order was placed in autumn 1944 the General-Luftzeugmeister Amt (Department of the Chief of Aircraft Procurement and Supply) decided on November 1944 that the highest priority had been given to four key warplanes, the Heinkel He 162, the Messerschmitt Me 262, the Arado Ar 234, and the Dornier Do 335. So all work on the Ta 152 was stopped (Ref.: 7).
POWER PLANT: One Wright XR-3350-16 ‘Cyclone’ radial engine, rated at 2,300 hp
PERFORMANCE: 398 mph at 32,000 ft
COMMENT: In early 1941, the Curtiss Aircraft Company proposed the development of a high-performance, heavily-armed fighter designed around a liquid-cooled engine. At that time the US Navy was dedicated to using air-cooled engines, but Curtiss experience with the Curtiss P-40 gave the company good grounds for its faith in the liquid-cooled unit, and on June 1941 it received a Navy contract for two prototypes of such an aircraft, to be designated XF14C-1. The chosen power plant was the still experimental Lycoming XH-2470-4 which was expected to deliver 2,200 hp at sea level, with a normal rating of 2,000 hp at 4,500 ft. With an armament four 20-mm cannon in the wings, the XF14C-1 was expected to have a maximum speed of 374 mph at 17,000 ft and a service ceiling of 30,500 ft. However, wind tunnel testing by Navy engineers during 1942 cast some doubts on the validity of these figures and with development of the XH-2470 engine lagging, the Navy eventually concluded that the performance of the XF14C-1 would be inadequate by the time it was ready to enter service, and the programme was cancelled in December 1943.
As the first airframe was then virtually complete, the Navy suggested it be flown with the air-cooled Wright R-3350 ‘Cyclone’ engine, driving six-blade contra props. In this guise, the Curtiss fighter was redesignated XF14C-2, and the first flight was made in July 1944. Performance again fell below expectation, a speed of 398 mph being reached at 32,000 ft compared with the estimated of 424 mph, and the R-3350 was still suffering from a number of teething problems. Meantime the progress of the Pacific war made further development of the XF14C-2 unnecessary, the programme being cancelled in the early month of 1945 (Ref.: 10).
POWER PLANT: One Heinkel-Hirth HeS 011 turbojet engine, rated at 1,200 kp
PERFORMANCE: 621 mph at 23,000 ft, estimated
COMMENT: In mid 1944 the OKL (Oberkommando der Luftwaffe, Luftwaffe High Command) issued to tender a development request calling for a fighter powered by a Heinkel He S 011 turbojet engine. Required were a top speed of 612 mph at 23,000 ft and an armament of four MK 108 cannon. In contrast to the single-seater, proposed by Blohm & Voss, Bv P.212, Focke-Wulf, Ta 183, Heinkel, He P.1078, and Messerschmitt, Me P.1110, Junkers presented the project EF 128 as a two-seater all-weather fighter. In two conferences between the aircraft companies, the OKL and the DVL, held in December 1944 and January 1945, all designs were evaluated. Finally chosen was the design of Junkers EF 128, as well as single-seater, and as two-seater. The production should start in mid 1945. Due to the compact fuselage and the relative high cross section it was possible to seat the crew side-by-side in an pressurized cockpit and to integrate newest radar equipment such as FuG 240 “Berlin” (Ref.: 20).
POWER PLANT: One Allison V-1710-35 liquid-cooled engine, rated at 1,150 hp
PERFORMANCE: 350 mph at 10,000 ft
COMMENT: In 1936 the Bell Aircraft Corporation’s design team began work on the Bell XP-39, a radical design of a single-seat fighter with the engine mounted behind the pilot, driving the airscrew by means of an extension shaft. This arrangement appeared to offer superior manoeuvrability, the engine weight being concentrated around the fighter’s center of gravity. But the first flight test proved that this unorthodox fighter had a low ceiling, slow rate of climb and relative lack of manoeuvrability. So alternatively the engine was mounted forward and the cockpit was positioned to the back. This and some more minor changes led to the design of the Model 3. But calculations proved no advantage of this model compared to the P-39 “Aircrobra”, so the project was not further followed (Ref.: 13).
POWER PLANT: One Junkers Jumo 213A inline engine, rated at 1,750 hp
PERFORMANCE: 354 mph, estimated
COMMENT: Independent from each other the design teams of Blohm & Voss, Dornier and Focke-Wulf worked on projects with mid-mounted engines, driving pusher propellers via a long extension shaft. By that the pilot had an excellent view and a wide field of fire. Furthermore it was possible as far as a night- or bad-weather fighter was concerned to install a radar equipment. Dornier worked on the projects Do P.247 and Do 252 and Focke-Wulf on the Fw P.0310251. The Blohm & Voss team designed a ground attack/dive bomber that was similar to the Bv 192.01-01. A Junkers Jumo 213A engine drove a three-bladed pusher propeller via a very long extension shaft and a single fin and rudder was mounted beneath the fuselage to protect the propeller during take-off and landing. The wing had a straight leading edge and tapered trailing edge and a tricycle undercarriage was provided. The armament consisted of two MK 103 30mm cannon in the wings and two MG 151/20 20mm cannon on the nose sides. A bomb load up to 1,000 kg could be carried (Ref.: 17, 18).
Blohm & Voss Bv P.193.01-01
Blohm & Voss Bv P.193.01-01
Blohm & Voss Bv P.193.01-01
Blohm & Voss Bv P.193.01-01
Blohm & Voss Bv P.193.01-01
Blohm & Voss Bv P.193.01-01
Blohm & Voss Bv P.193.01-01
Blohm & Voss Bv P.193.01-01
Blohm & Voss Bv P.193.01-01
Blohm & Voss Bv P.193.01-01
Blohm & Voss Bv P.193.01-01
Blohm & Voss Bv P.193.01-01
Blohm & Voss Bv P.193.01-01
Scale 1:72 aircraft models of World War II
Mit der weiteren Nutzung unserer Webseite erklären Sie sich damit einverstanden, dass wir Cookies verwenden um Ihnen die Nutzerfreundlichkeit dieser Webseite zu verbessern. Weitere Informationen zum Datenschutz finden Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.
