WesWorld

Dassault MD.1050G Gargouille Naval Fighter
In late 1941, Avions Dassault (at the time still Avions Marcel Bloch) undertook design of a further variant of the MB.1050D "Milan Royal" carrier-based fighter. At the request of the Aeronavale, Dassault placed great importance on further developing the range, payload, firepower of the Milan Royal. The final design first flew in late 1943 and a photograph appeared in French newspapers in February of 1944, but the plane, dubbed the 'MD.1050G Gargouille', shared so much visual similarity to the Milan, particularly at a distance, that few aviation experts recognized it as new type. The Gargouille's first appearance and public revelation occurred at the 1944 Paris Air Show, where the Aeronavale announced their intention to purchase a number of them.

Although designed as a follow-on to the MD.1050D, the Gargouille never fully replaced the Milan. The heavy aircraft could only operate from the longer and wider decks of the St. Cyr, Bucentaure and Vengeur class fleet carriers. As the MD.1050D Milan Royals could operate from the smaller aircraft carriers, they remained in production as late as 1945, and in service until 1949, while the Gargouilles had a shorter service life before being replaced by jet aircraft.

In service, the MD.1050G proved to be a formidable fighter-bomber, although it sometimes proved a handful for novice pilots. The sizeable payload, which could include two aerial torpedoes, allowed the Gargouille to easily double as a naval bomber. To improve its attack performance, the MD.1050G.CB variant incorporated modest dive-brakes. A land-based variant without folding wings and an arrestor hook, designated the MD.1052G, and a night-fighter version called the MD.1050G.CN Dragon, were also manufactured.

General characteristics
Crew: One
Wingspan: 12.71 m (41 ft 8 in)
Length: 15.77 m (51 ft 9 in)
Height: 4.86 m (15 ft 11 in)
Wing area: 38.82 m² (417.9 ft²)
Empty weight: 5673 kg (12,507 lb)
Loaded weight: 9055 kg (19,963 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 9549 kg (21,052 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × HS-24K TRP-Composé turbo-compound engine, 3,500 hp (2,600 kW), with two contra-rotating 3-blade adjustable-pitch propellers

Performance
Maximum speed: 697 km/h (376 knots, 433 mph) at sea level
Cruise speed: 305 km/h (165 knots, 190 mph)
Combat radius: 2,897 km (1,564 nm, 1,800 mi)
Ferry range: 3,902 km (2,107 nm, 2,425 mi)
Service ceiling: 11,250 m (36,909 ft)
Rate of climb: 17.8 m/s (3,500 ft/min)
Power to Weight Ratio: 0.29 kW/kg (0.175 hp/lb)
Wing Loading: 233 kg/m² (47.8 lb/ft²)

Armament
Guns: 4 × 23 mm DEFA cannon with 125 rounds per gun
Bombs: 2,200 kg (4,850 lb) of payload on four external hardpoints and an internal bay; may include 2 × 1,040 kg aerial torpedoes, 16×105mm Brandt T-10 unguided rockets, 2× underbelly drop tanks, or 2× rocket pods with 18×37mm rockets each

Impressive.

Other contenders/ rivals include the Westland Wyvern and Blackburn Firecrest which are approaching production. The new Dutch De Schelde S.26 would also fall into this category too. It seems the navies are getting the crop of the best attacking single-engine types.

Nice design but use of a turbo-compoud engine caises me headache, especially so for a plane using it during first flight in 1943.

OTL the Wright 3350:is the best known and most often used engine of this category. Itwas available in 1943 for use in planes like the B-29, but that was still as a normal 18-cyl. Radial engine. It suffered from overheating amnd caused some issues, thou it also was a very powerful engine.

However, IIRC it was not before 1950 that three turbines were added to modify the former radial engine into a turbo-compoud engine which was then used for the DC-7 for example. It turned out a mechanics nightmare and the Lockheed Constellation (also using that engine) was know to be the best three engined aircraft of the world - because it rarely reached her destination with all four engines still running.

The Napier Nomad also does not offer a historically valid example for a successful 1943/44er compound engine, nor does the RR Crecy.

So I think use of a successful such engine in the aircraft above is - at this time - not acceptable. (Note I have not checked what other similar exploids have already come to existance in WesWorld. This is just the first time I stumble across the issue.)

Cheers, HoOmAn

I know there are historical fighter-bombers that could carry a torpedo, but are there examples that could lug a pair?

Quoted from "The Rock Doctor"

I know there are historical fighter-bombers that could carry a torpedo, but are there examples that could lug a pair?

I can find two examples of postwar American aircraft that could (A-1 Skyraider and the Martin Mauler), but those are dated somewhat later in first flight and service entry then the presented design.

EDIT: And there is also the Skypirate, which could (according to wiki) carry 4.

Quoted from "The Rock Doctor"

I know there are historical fighter-bombers that could carry a torpedo, but are there examples that could lug a pair?

Boeing XF8B was supposed to carry a pair of torpedoes. The Gargouille is basically intended to be a sort of Milan-based upgrade to something like the F8B, which is why I got permission from Jason to use the specs as a basis and the photo for reference.

Quoted from "HoOmAn"

Nice design but use of a turbo-compoud engine caises me headache, especially so for a plane using it during first flight in 1943.

OTL the Wright 3350:is the best known and most often used engine of this category. Itwas available in 1943 for use in planes like the B-29, but that was still as a normal 18-cyl. Radial engine. It suffered from overheating amnd caused some issues, thou it also was a very powerful engine.

However, IIRC it was not before 1950 that three turbines were added to modify the former radial engine into a turbo-compoud engine which was then used for the DC-7 for example. It turned out a mechanics nightmare and the Lockheed Constellation (also using that engine) was know to be the best three engined aircraft of the world - because it rarely reached her destination with all four engines still running.

The Napier Nomad also does not offer a historically valid example for a successful 1943/44er compound engine, nor does the RR Crecy.

So I think use of a successful such engine in the aircraft above is - at this time - not acceptable. (Note I have not checked what other similar exploids have already come to existance in WesWorld. This is just the first time I stumble across the issue.)

Cheers, HoOmAn

Hispano-Suiza has been developing turbo-compound engines for several years now; it's basically a line of development akin to the Crecy. I've used it on a few aircraft so far, largely experimental - I don't recall when it first flew, but it was probably sometime in 1943.

Funny thing is, I used the wrong engine anyway. The Gargouille is radial-engined, and the HS-24K turbocompound is definitely not a radial engine. For some reason when I put the engine specs in, I thought I had a Gnome-Rhone T-C version of the Gr18K, which I don't appear to have done just yet. I'll need to replace the engine and find something different - initial idea is to do what I first intended and put a Gr28N radial into the Gargouille, but I'd preferred the T-C as I figured it was lighter for the amount of power required.

Might reduce the weapons payload slightly to account for the change in weight.

Alternative engine, payload reduced to account for higher weight.

Quoted

Dassault MD.1050G Gargouille Naval Fighter

General characteristics
Crew: One
Wingspan: 12.71 m (41 ft 8 in)
Length: 15.77 m (51 ft 9 in)
Height: 4.86 m (15 ft 11 in)
Wing area: 38.82 m² (417.9 ft²)
Empty weight: 5750 kg (12,677 lb)
Loaded weight: 9055 kg (19,963 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 9549 kg (21,052 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Gr-28N four-row 28-cylinder radial engine, 4,122 hp (3,031 kW), with two contra-rotating 3-blade adjustable-pitch propellers

Performance
Maximum speed: 697 km/h (376 knots, 433 mph) at sea level
Cruise speed: 305 km/h (165 knots, 190 mph)
Combat radius: 2,897 km (1,564 nm, 1,800 mi)
Ferry range: 3,902 km (2,107 nm, 2,425 mi)
Service ceiling: 11,250 m (36,909 ft)
Rate of climb: 17.8 m/s (3,500 ft/min)
Power to Weight Ratio: 0.33 kW/kg (0.206 hp/lb)
Wing Loading: 233 kg/m² (47.8 lb/ft²)

Armament
Guns: 4 × 23 mm DEFA cannon with 125 rounds per gun
Bombs: 1,750 kg (3,858 lb) of payload on four external hardpoints and an internal bay

You have a 4,000+hp engine ready for serial production in 1943? Seriously?

I don't believe I said when it was ready for serial production.

Given what was mentioned in the preamble my guess would be mid to late 1944. The engine power is a bit high, though the US has engines making close to that kind of power none are in production and the OTL aircraft you based the specs off of made do with 1000 less hp at a cost of around 40 mph top speed in comparison to this design. Is the additional power worth the cost of admission given the likely higher maintenance when a 3000-3500hp engine would "do the job" likely nine times out of 10? Now if others have a 4000hp engine in serial production already I don't mind as clearly the bar has been raised and France and the US need to update their power packs to match others.

Quoted from "TheCanadian"

the OTL aircraft you based the specs off of made do with 1000 less hp at a cost of around 40 mph top speed in comparison to this design.

Honestly, I would feel a little more comfortable if the specs more closely matched the plane that Jason is referencing. Im not opposed to the current version, but I think others (Italy, SAE, etc) are going to have to respond in kind. Having it be closer to a historical type gives us all a little more RL grounding for our designs. I am contemplating updating the Mariana Millitare's primary carrier strike fighter to something faster then the Ba.67 (A 10 year old design at this point) and the Gargouille forces me to look differently at what I was considering.

I fear I must agree with several of the other players - I think that the engine horsepower is in advance of the state of the art; the Pratt and Whitney engine of the F8B exemplar is posted as 3,000 hp; I think a production engine in that range would be available at this point in time, and given the close convergence between the revised stats for the Gargouille and the F8B that should suffice. Now a "souped-up special" for the Paris show might have had better output but a production engine of that class is improbable, IMHO.

I then request that what's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

I'll explain how I arrived at the engine horsepower figures that I did. I took the latest version of the Gnome-Rhone 18k engine, divided by eighteen to give the horsepower per cylinder, and then multiplied by twenty-eight to get the horsepower for a four-row radial. I am perfectly fine de-tuning the engine to produce less horsepower, but honestly, I don't really want this engine. I want the two-row eighteen cyclinder engine I originally envisioned. Since that won't work without the turbo-compound element, and my fallbacks seem to be flak magnets too, then maybe I'll just pursue another project.

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

I then request that what's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

On that point I am in complete agreement...

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

I then request that what's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

On that point I am in complete agreement...

I will give the benefit of the doubt that the design has not flown seeing as it still says expected and was last edited in 2012. I do agree with Bruce and Brock that the engines proposed for that aircraft are far from acceptable and I would voice far greater concerns then I stated in regard to the Gargouille as currently presented were the aircraft in question to fly in the listed configuration.

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

I am perfectly fine de-tuning the engine to produce less horsepower, but honestly, I don't really want this engine. I want the two-row eighteen cyclinder engine I originally envisioned. Since that won't work without the turbo-compound element, and my fallbacks seem to be flak magnets too, then maybe I'll just pursue another project.

The only thing that makes me iffy about the stats in post 7 is the engine and what it influences. I am perfectly fine with the XF8B with a little Dassault twist showing up.

Might I propose a compromise? I know the life of this aircraft is limited by jets, but would it be acceptable to introduce a version with a statline closer to the historical XF8B at the times as outlined in your original post and then introduce an improved varient with the stats/engine in post 7 in 12-24 months? I think the additional time would put quite a few of our issues with the design to rest.

I've no issues with an turbo-compound Gr18K radial. While only the USA managed it OTL, here we have no destruction of the French industry so we have no ideas where French developments might have gone had the events of 1940 not cut things off. I can't recall exactly, buts its probable German has worked on such engines too at some point in WW. Anyway, who says the Gr18K TC won't be a beast to maintain? None of the ultimate piston engines were ever easy to maintain and were probably far too complex. I don't think sheer HP is necessary here, you only need enough to get airborne and lug a large load, this is no fighter while its got external stores on it. I can believe it carries 2 torpedoes, although that would be draggy and could you realistically drop both against one target without interference? [I can confirm the Skypirates planned load, from a book on Boeing, so its not crazy Wiki info in case anyone is wondering...]

I put my cards on the table and say now that I am working on a Twin Centaurus radial, basically two Centarus stuck together based off a real project by Bristol (note this is not the dual-Centaurus layout of the Brabazon with a common driveshaft but a tandem 48-cylinder single unit design). I will post some drawings RA shared with me nearer the time. I've pencilled in 5,000hp but I'd probably loose some HP and the cooling issue is a serious one. Such an engine will fly for tests in 1945 and is intended for transatlantic airliners (my Britannia with pistons in place of the Brabazon). I do not believe it will be successful or easy to maintain and is only a stop-gap until turboprops arrive in powerful enough forms, which I'm hoping will be 1947-48-ish. [I assume Walter's 5,000hp is similar taking two 2,500hp radials and pairing them onto a common driveshaft]

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

I then request that what's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

On that point I am in complete agreement...

:D

Indeed. Missed this one...

Quoted from "Hood"

I've no issues with an turbo-compound Gr18K radial. While only the USA managed it OTL, here we have no destruction of the French industry so we have no ideas where French developments might have gone had the events of 1940 not cut things off.

Several attempts were launched to generate a successful T-C radial but only the Americans managed OTL, while all others failed. Well, of course this could be used as an argument to say it is possible for France without the destruction suffered OTL. However, without the cause for said destruction - the second world war - there also was little requirement to push development the way it was during war times. No need for countries to pump money into their aircraft industry. No reason for companies to engineer things they can't sell, that have no good business case etc. So I dare to argue that without OTL world war two technical development would have been much slower; and while comparable engines just barely came to life in 1943/44 OTL we are probably still some years away from that in WesWorld.

However, I have long accepted that the fight against pushed limits and an irrational technological race has long been lost. So I agree with the others. If the design is slightly modified to bring it closer to its historical cousin (still an knife-edge design) I am comfortable with it.

Yeah, I'm not bothering with this design any more. I'll just fly a jet earlier than I'd originally planned.

Pity. Would have been an impressive bird. Ah well, one for 'Secret Projects: Wesworld'.


At least thanks to the Royal Navy we know its possible to land and take-off a jet from a carrier-deck!
Even so, I feel a little uncomfortable about a jet strike-fighter until later into the 1940, lugging this kind of load with unresponsive early jets with slow throttle responses could be a problem. As impressive as our jets our even at this stage in WW, none are carrying much armament beyond that of normal single-seat interceptors. Historically it wasn't until the 1950s that strike fighter type jets began serving aboard carriers (I don't consider a jet fighter with a couple of bombs or a handful of rockets a true strike type, compared to the kinds of loads the Skyraider could get airborne).