Acree's Profiles

[Acree]

Until the military construction boom brought about by WW II, Farralon had far more sheltered harbors, coves and lakes than prepared landing fields.  As a result, the FAF was always on the lookout for capable seaplanes, and especially amphibians.  However, combat capable amphibians were relatively rare in the 1930s.  SOOOO, when Alex de Seversky demonstrated his SEV-3 at Port Farralon in 1934, it generated quite a bit of interest.  The FAF ultimately bought the SEV-3 in both amphibian (SEV-3MAF -Military Amphibian Farralon), and fixed-gear landplane (SEV-3MLF - Military Landplane Farralon) versions. 

[elmayerle]

Might this perhaps lead to a floatplane version of the P-47?  I hope so.

[Tophe]

On the SEV-3 float plane, why is there a tail wheel on the fuselage, above the tail wheel on the float? Conversion to landplane in routine? :)

[apophenia]

Now the designer of the Binturong VI was someone who took armament installation seriously  :)  None of this fannying about with rifle-calibre peashooters 

Liking those Severskys too!

[Acree]

On the SEV-3 float plane, why is there a tail wheel on the fuselage, above the tail wheel on the float? Conversion to landplane in routine? :)

In land operation, the floats were free to swivel vertically.  The aircraft actually landed on the fuselage mounted tailwheel - I think the small wheel on the floats were there just to protect the floats. 

[Empty Handed]

Lovely Severskys!

[Acree]

Might this perhaps lead to a floatplane version of the P-47?  I hope so.

Well, maybe....  Here is a step or two in that direction...

By combining the amphibious float equipment of the SEV2 with the EP-106 being built for Sweden, Seversky created a relatively potent (and unique) amphibious fighter, the EP-119.  The FAF was impressed enough to buy 30, but it was quickly clear that an amphibious fighter could never compete with landplanes, or even pure floatplanes in performance.  However, the EP-119 was well-liked (other than its challenging takeoff and landining characteristics on land), so they ordered land-plane versions, starting with the fixed-gear EP-127.  The retractable-gear EP-129 was virtually identical to its EP-106 progenitor.
Trying different engine installations led to the Napier Dagger powered EP-127D and Rolls-Royce Peregrine powered EP-127P (both fixed gear) and the Peregrine-engined EP-129P with retractable gear. 
The most powerful version was the Allison-engined EP-135A.  The EP-135A-2 was a development with an improved cockpit canopy.  Both version of the EP-135 suffered from lateral instability and poor spin characteristics, and this led to the ultimate development, the EP-150, which was an EP-135 with a lengthened rear fuselage. 

[arc3371]

Love the P-35 evolution profiles

[Cliffy B]

My God that seaplane must be scary to land on land anyway     Nice job on the evolution man, very believable 

[elmayerle]

Beautiful evolutionary development there.  Just out of curiosity, how do you see this comparing to the evolution from the RE.2000 to the Re.2006 in Italy.  There is, after all, a most distinct resemblance between the Re.2000 and the P-35.

[Acree]

Beautiful evolutionary development there.  Just out of curiosity, how do you see this comparing to the evolution from the RE.2000 to the Re.2006 in Italy.  There is, after all, a most distinct resemblance between the Re.2000 and the P-35.

Well, it seems to me that the parallel with Reggiane development is rather close.  Seversky and reggiane started with closely similar aircraft (the P-35 and the Re 2000), but, whereas Seversky/Republic went on to develop the airframe (P-35A - P-43 - P-44 - P-47), Reggiane focused mostly on engine changes (Re 2001, 2002, 2003, Re 2004), and even the Re 2005 had relatively minor airframe changes.  So, the Farallonian development was more like the Italian than the American development. 

[elmayerle]

Cool!!  Though I'll argue that Reggiane did a fair bit of airframe refining as they went along.  Still, there's a very close resemblance between the Re.2005 and Re.2000. 

[apophenia]

Yeah but Reggiane never did floats ... so Farralon wins 

[Acree]

Thanks everyone for the kind comments.  I'm onto a differnt thing now (at least for the moment). 

The new thing: What if the US Army had taken the same approach as the Soviets regarding the transition of biplane to monoplane?  Specifically, what if the USAAC had decided to push the development of biplanes as far as Polikarpov did with the I-153?  I started with the Boeing P-12E as the most advanced biplane fighter in US Army service - the top profile below is a "real-world" P-12E from 1939.  The next development was to replace the P-12E's 500 hp R-1340 radial in a Townend ring with a 1050-hp R-1830 in a state-of-the-art NACA cowl.  Of course, significant airframe strangthening was required!  This was the P-12M.

The next development included some aerodynamic refinement, including a cantilever (single-strut) landing gear, and a cockpit canopy - as the P-12N.

The most radical development was the P-12P in which the lower wing was redesigned to house the retractable main landing gear.  A retractable tail-wheel was also included, and the cabane and interplane struts were replaced by a gulled upper wing and I-strut respectively.  An all-round-vision canopy completed the features of the P-12P. 
Thoughts?

[GTX_Admin]

 :)

[Empty Handed]

The P-12N & P are awe-inspiring!!!

[elmayerle]

The P-12P is quite the inspired piece.  How about a XP-12R with an early Allison V1710 and a streamlined radiator installation?

[apophenia]

Damn, those are nice! The P-12P is kind of Boeing meets Polikarpov with a dash of CCF/Gregor FDB-1  :)

[JP Vieira]

Very good

[Logan Hartke]

That looks awesome, Acree, but did you check the scale?  I don't know if an R-1830 is fitting in that.  Maybe an R-1535?

Aesthetically, though, those are gorgeous.  I think they're among the best-looking profiles you've ever done, if not the best!

Are you going to do an F4B-equivalent?  Maybe even an F9C airship fighter replacement?

Also, one minor JMN-esque niggle.  In the prewar USAAC, an engine change required a different designation.  If you do anything other than an R-1340, it wouldn't have been a P-12 anymore.  Annoying, but there it is.

Finally, here's a few real-world P-12 variants that you may like, though.

Boeing Model 100F (P-12F with an R-1535)
So great was the diameter of the propeller used that both take-off and landing had to be performed in the "three-point" attitude to maintain ground clearance.



Boeing XP-15
High-wing P-12



Boeing XF6B
Navy derivative of the F4B; it was nearly entirely of metal construction, powered by an R-1535.



Boeing Model 100A
This was a special convertible two-seat version of the basic Model 100 (civil version of the F4B-1series) built to the special order of Howard Hughes (hence also known as Hughes Special).  Hughes undertook extensive modifications after taking delivery, adding a full NACA cowl, wheel pants, and a higher vertical tail.



Cheers,

Logan

[raafif]

That Hughes Special is starting to look like a GeeBee !

I've always loved the Polikarpovs so P-12 equivalents go well with me too :)
If the US had stayed out of WW2 they wouldn't have used the P-51 or P-40 until much later - possibly 1943.
How about some profiles of these P-12s in cam ? Maybe like the 1936 trials done on various types.

Would it get a Ranger or other inline engine ??

[Acree]

OK, Logan, I admit it  I got lazy with my scaling and resorted to TLAR again.  In this case, I badly underestimated the tiny-ness of the P-12.  WHen I scaled a P-35A cowling it was honking HUGE (well beyond the frontier of ridicule).  So, let's go with the R-1535 idea!  A little less raw power, but probably much more realistic for the P-12 anyway.  As for the designation issue, I know you're right, but I didn't want to face the idea of coming up with an alternate designation, since every "P-anything" evokes some image in our minds - so let's just chalk that one up to "it's a WHIF!"

As for the other suggestions... standby, I'll work on it when I can...

[Logan Hartke]

No problem.  I again want to emphasize that they look gorgeous.

I agree with apophenia that the final one looks a lot like the FDB-1 (which was also R-1535 powered).  The Grumman F2F, Hughes H-1, and some variants of the Fokker D.XXI were powered by the R-1535, so it could certainly give you a very good fighter.  The R-1535 still developed a very respectable 825 hp in its final form.  The only major radial that I can think of from that timeframe to get over 1000 hp with that diameter was the Nakajima Sakae of A6M Zero fame.  The reason the Polikarpovs always looked so tubby is that they were powered by Wright Cyclone copies and those engines were relatively huge in diameter.

Cheers,

Logan

[Acree]

Ok, so here are the inline versions of the "super" P-12 developments. 

The XP-12Q was tested at Wright Field with the Ranger V-770 engine.  The limited power of the V-770 (only 4% greater than the P-12E), limited the performance improvement (although better aerodynamics and lighter wieght helped).  All in all, the P-12Q was not accepted for production.

The P-12R was the next variant, using the liquid-cooled Allison V-1430 inline.  This engine was a "scaled-down" version of the V-1710 with ten cylinders, developing 1090 hp.  This version was successfully used by the USAAF and exported to several Allied nations, including China and Brazil. 

[Empty Handed]

Great stuff! Your scaled down Allison will certainly nark off Continental with their IV-1430!