What is your favorite "1946" plane that was cancelled

File: 300px-Heinkel_Lerche.jpg (13KB, 300x240px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x240px

>the heinkel lerche b2
>it takes off and lands vertically
>top speed of nearly 500 mph
>climb rate of 50 m/s
>max altitude of just over 14,000 meters
>turns on a dime

inb4 it wouldn't work, the allies made some similar aircraft in the late 50s and 60s. It would just be a death trap.

File: air_218a_002.jpg (44KB, 950x550px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 950x550px

>>34530474
>take a p47, streamline it, replace two of the six .50cals with 37mm cannons, pressurize the cockpit, and finally stuff in the most powerful engine to ever be used in a piston fighter (the r4360 produced up to 4300 hp)

>you now have a xp-72, a 500+ mph jug
>it performed incredibly well and the air force placed a large order
>only cancelled because the military wanted jet fighters

>>34530492
Dude, why don't they build those as CAS/COIN aircraft? They'd turn circles around the Super Tucano.

File: il_46_16.jpg (206KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1280x1024px

>>34530466
>ta-183
>the planned replacement for nearly all of the German jet fighters
>it was mathematically worked out in its entirety, it showed design insight not seen until Korean war jets
>planned to use x-4 wireguided missles, whose design was the basis for a huge amount of guided munitions.

>>34530494
They were planning to use them as ground attack planes aswell, the interception of bombers took first priority however

File: Ju-187-287 Super Stuka.jpg (62KB, 1000x693px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1000x693px

I have always loved the silliness of the SuperStuka

>takes off as a regular stuka
>flips its tail section in flight
>this will surely give it superior aerodynamics than those filthy american P-41s

Me262 with the 50mm cannon. Rip tanks.

>>34531023
Good luck hitting a tank with that anyway. IIRC, it was specifically designed to kill bombers it side of their range at about 1km

>>34530492
>4300hp

but the version that would have been used was 3500hp, no different to the Napier Sabre.

Miles M.52.
No supersonic for the UK.

File: supermarine_spiteful_1.jpg (22KB, 422x239px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 422x239px

>>34530466

I will forever curse God for not letting WW2 go on long enough for the Supermarine Spiteful to see service.

File: Top Kek.jpg (126KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1920x1080px

>>34531105
>they take the wings of the spiteful and make an ugly jet

>>34531049
Stukas decimated tanks with a 37mm. 50mm isn't less accurate but it will kill from more angles

>>34531049
Good luck hitting a flying target from 1km

>>34531114
>Bore Blunder

File: 3_113.jpg (938KB, 2250x2647px) Image search: [Google]

938KB, 2250x2647px

Can the XP-40Q count?

Pls say yes.

>>34530494
Those super high end piston engines are a bitch to maintain compared to a simple turboprop.
The entire aircraft is set up to be a high altitude bomber escort, lots of overkill in many areas for a coin aircraft.

>>34531129
>Stukas decimated tanks with a 37mm

Their effectiveness was overrated, they were better than dive bombers vs tanks but that's not saying much.

>>34531140
>Implying it would be harder to shoot a giant B17 or B24 in formation from behind than it would be to dive onto a much smaller tank hidden by ground features in a fast moving jet

Could be possible, but not very practical

>>34531186
>Coming at a bomber from behind.

You dive on them from above or hit them in the belly.

Where you'll need to pull the most amount of lead because you're going 700kmh and he's probably going about 350kmh

A tank will be going 20kmh and won't be shooting back.

File: VK-108.jpg (310KB, 1200x634px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 1200x634px

0.25 hp per pound.

Scary P-51H is 0.20 for perspective.

>>34531224
In a typical fighter with short range cannons/machineguns, yes. But the 50mm was a long range standoff weapon designed to kill bombers from outside of their gunners range so the plane could kill them from behind. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BK_5_cannon

Also, the speed of the tank is irrelevant because it is small, hidden, and the plane is going at high speed. So the pilot has to identify the target from above (no glass nose so you can't look below you), line up for an attack run, get in an angle that will ensure a penetrating hit, and aim the cannon all in the matter of seconds. Boy, sure sounds easy. There is a reason ground attack planes are slow and, even then, aren't that effective.

>won't shoot back
Right because SPAA and pintle mounted .50 MGs didn't exist

>>34531224
The whole point of having a giant as fuck cannon for bomber hunting is so you can sit outside the range of the defensive guns.

>A tank will be going 20kmh and won't be shooting back.

relative speed is what counts.

Tail chasing a bomber relative speed is close to zero

vs ground targets relative speed is always large.

>>34531268
>>34531271
Like I said.

Good luck hitting a bomber from 1km

>>34530466
Does the B-36 count?

>Could out dogfight both the Sabre and MiG-15 at its operational altitude

>>34531156
What happens when P51 and P40 have nasty sex

>>34531319
Ok? Yeah it's probably a hard shot, doesn't change what it was designed to do. You're missing the point that:
1. Is is much easier than hitting a tank
2. You have much more time to aim, shoot, and adjust fire
3. You have to make comprises to get a shot off against a bomber without getting shot down which are either a fast plane with high fire rate cannons or a plane with standoff weapons like wire guided missiles or the BK37/BK5

>>34531171
>they were better than dive bombers vs tank
Uhm, you are aware that Sturzkampfbomber is German for dive bomber, right?

>>34531424
It's a fucking terrible idea to have a last ditch bomber interceptor rely on aerial gunnery when you have very few skilled pilots left anyway

File: IMG_6742.jpg (46KB, 540x401px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 540x401px

How do I git gud at IL2? Everything goes well until its time to dogfight; I usually end up in an uncontrollable dive or flat spin. I don't think I've ever hit a single enemy.

>>34531455
Probably, the whole thing was quite experimental and the Germans were pretty desperate at this point. But, I'm not arguing whether or not it's a good idea, I'm just saying it wasn't intended and wouldn't work well as a ground attacker as implied earlier.

File: 126842221.jpg (1MB, 2448x3288px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x3288px

EF-132

Two build, send to Soviet Union after the war.

All those Jet Bombers from Cold War derivate from him.

File: 1378553679967.jpg (23KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 640x480px

>>34530492
>Engine displacement was 4,362.50 cu in (71.489 L)

>>34531431
>Ju-87-G with 37mm cannons
>No bombs
>doesn't attack targets from a steep dive
>>Divebomber

File: Blitza-Bommer.jpg (193KB, 800x827px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 800x827px

>>34530508
>ta-183

German SAMs. The IR seeker they developed was the direct basis for the first AIM-9 prototypes. The AIM-9A was largely only different in that it used proportional tracking. Would have been significantly more economical for them to salvo huge numbers of SAMs than try to go for a 100:1 KDR with 162's and 262's.

>>34531319
Are you trying to say it would be hard? Because you could hit them from 600m with a 20mm, and it was -easy-. 1km is less than twice that and you have a better gun. You're also firing into a tightly woven gagglefuck of targets. You're more likely to hit a different aircraft than completely miss.

File: Xp-38k[1].jpg (20KB, 437x263px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 437x263px

>>34530466

>Flight tests were conducted from late February through the end of April 1943. Performance was better than hoped for. Maximum speed at critical altitude (29,600 ft) was 432 mph (Military Power). At 40,000 feet, the "K" zipped along at a speed that was 40 mph faster than the current production P-38J could attain at this same height. Maximum speed in War Emergency Power, at critical altitude, was expected to exceed 450 mph. The increase in ceiling was just as remarkable. Flown to 45,000 ft on an extremely hot and humid day, Lockheed engineers predicted a "standard day" service ceiling in excess of 48,000 ft! Improvement of the cowling fit and the elimination of the heavy coat of paint would have gained even more performance. Due to the added efficiency of the new propellers, range was expected to increase by 10 to 15 %. Lockheed appeared to have a world-beater on their hands.

>The plane, now designated the P-38K-1-LO was flown to Elgin Field for evaluation by the USAAF. Flown against the P-51B and the P-47D, this Lightning proved to be vastly superior to both in every category of measured performance. What astounded the evaluation team was the incredible rate of climb demonstrated by the P-38K. From a standing start on the runway, the aircraft could take off and climb to 20,000 feet in 5 minutes flat! The "K", fully loaded, had an initial rate of climb of 4,800 fpm in Military Power. In War Emergency Power, over 5,000 fpm was predicted.

>In light of this incredible level of performance, you would certainly expect that the Government would be falling all over themselves to quickly get the P-38K into production. Yet, this was not the case. The War Production Board was unwilling to allow a short production suspension in order to get new tooling on line for the required change to the engine cowling. Even when Lockheed promised that the stoppage would only be for 2 or 3 weeks, their request was turned down.

>>34530799
Huh, apparently the tail would flip upside down in mid flight so the rear turret could fire at enemy fighters.

It would still have a top speed of like 200 mph though

File: Gregor09.jpg (70KB, 700x350px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 700x350px

>be canada
>invent a world beating biplane
>biplanes are obsolete and not even mexico wants to buy it

>be canada
>invent a world beating interceptor
>interceptors are obsolete, proceeds to buy american interceptors

>be canada
>chronic depression from failed projects
>kill yourself by electing trudeau

>>34531904
Germany did a lot of stupid uneconomical things, not transitioning to an experimental hail mary wonderweapon was the least of their problems.

>>34531486
Jet a joystick

Start out with the he162's, keep your speed up, remember to aim at where the plane is going to be

Practice on the me323's set to rookie

>>34531156
I'm in love anon. Thank-you so very much

>>34532855
If we're perfectly honest about their IR SAMs though, they would have been much more effective than their near-non-existent air force at that point. Every bomber stream had near a thousand aircraft and was intercepted by no more than 50 fighters. Instead of this, a salvo of 200 missiles would have been far more reasonable to expect results from, even with the primitive IR seeker as pointing directly at the cold sky would mitigate this weakness slightly. I'd hardly call a SAM a wonderweapon. Certainly more viable than an aircraft with an engine lifespan of ten hours.

>>34533112
>what is flares