AHC: the ideal fighter(s) for 1940

091014 177.png

In the Dornier vein.
 
The Fw 190 with DB 601 and beard radiators (the Fw 190A-6 and Bf 109G used as base for this bashing), plus two drop tanks can be carried:

View attachment 350144

Good job - If its the DB-601E engine, the plane is going to be lighter and power to weight figures are going to be close enough to FW-190A. I estimate 5-10mph slower than FW-190A, but still looks better than contemporary Spitfire V and comparable low altitude performance to the Spitfire VIII.
 
Good job - If its the DB-601E engine, the plane is going to be lighter and power to weight figures are going to be close enough to FW-190A. I estimate 5-10mph slower than FW-190A, but still looks better than contemporary Spitfire V and comparable low altitude performance to the Spitfire VIII.

In 1940 (ie. for this thread) the engine will initially be DB 601A, in the later part of the year the 601N will be avilable in small quantities. With the initial small wing (thats from OTL) and not too heavy armament it should be at least as fast as the MC.202, ie. about 370+ mph on the 601A, and another 10 mph on 601N (= comparable with Bf 109F1 or F2). MC 200 series used thick wing in percentage points, 18% thick at root, vs. 15.6% for the Fw 190; NACA 230 series for both, and both companies modified the profile a bit vs. NACA original.
With DB 601E/605A it should be at least as fast as the OTL contemporary Fw 190A.

True but LW can't afford two engines per plane in 1940....unless its a fighter/bomber or a bomber destroyer?

It depends on what the investment of two engines per fighter buys them in 1940. If that is 600+ km/h fighter with excellent firepower, rate of climb and range/radius, then it might be a difference between mission acomplished vs. mission failed.
 
True but LW can't afford two engines per plane in 1940....unless its a fighter/bomber or a bomber destroyer?
If its a better plane than the Me-110, why not?
My own take on a push-pull airplane. Part Me-209 and Kawanishi Shinden. Armament: 1x30mm cannon and 2x13mm MGs in the nose, 1x20mm cannon in each wing root. I breifly considered adding a cannon to the rear propeller, thinking wouldn't that be a nice surprise for an enemy plane that got on your six but then I came back to my senses, so to speak. :)
Pure fantasy but fun to draw.

2XdjGXY.jpg
 
Funny thing that both supercharger intakes are on the left side.
I remember we had this same discussion on the alternate "Air & Space" thread. I noted that artist placed the intakes on left side, while modelers placed them on the right side but both placed them on the same side of the plane IIRC.
 
Last edited:
In 1940 (ie. for this thread) the engine will initially be DB 601A, in the later part of the year the 601N will be avilable in small quantities. With the initial small wing (thats from OTL) and not too heavy armament it should be at least as fast as the MC.202, ie. about 370+ mph on the 601A, and another 10 mph on 601N (= comparable with Bf 109F1 or F2). MC 200 series used thick wing in percentage points, 18% thick at root, vs. 15.6% for the Fw 190; NACA 230 series for both, and both companies modified the profile a bit vs. NACA original.
With DB 601E/605A it should be at least as fast as the OTL contemporary Fw 190A.



It depends on what the investment of two engines per fighter buys them in 1940. If that is 600+ km/h fighter with excellent firepower, rate of climb and range/radius, then it might be a difference between mission acomplished vs. mission failed.

If that is in fact the case, any FW-190 with only the DB-601A would make the fighter just equal to the SPITFIRE II [edge in speed at less than 5km].

ANY power profile on the DB-601N?

BTW DB-601 engine production was only 6234 engine in 1940.[Vajada & Dancey- GERMAN AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY AND PRODUCTION 1933-1945 pp 237] If the engine life is 100 hours- that's only 1708 engine hours per day. Couple of hour per mission means max potential is ~ 854 sortie per day for Me-109. If its a double engine plane, that's only 427 x 2 hour sortie per day.
 

Deleted member 1487

If that is in fact the case, any FW-190 with only the DB-601A would make the fighter just equal to the SPITFIRE II [edge in speed at less than 5km].

ANY power profile on the DB-601N?

BTW DB-601 engine production was only 6234 engine in 1940.[Vajada & Dancey- GERMAN AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY AND PRODUCTION 1933-1945 pp 237] If the engine life is 100 hours- that's only 1708 engine hours per day. Couple of hour per mission means max potential is ~ 854 sortie per day for Me-109. If its a double engine plane, that's only 427 x 2 hour sortie per day.
Engine life was much more than that for the DB601, certainly more than that between overhauls. Question is how many were lost in combat or written off due to damage.
 
Engine life was much more than that for the DB601, certainly more than that between overhauls. Question is how many were lost in combat or written off due to damage.

Though in USAAF practice, any time the engine throttle was moved to War Emergency Power, the ground crew were to do an inspection, followed by overhaul if needed
 

kernals12

Banned
Why is wearing the markings of a unit Yeager never flew with?:confounded:

If Lockheed gets that flying in 1940 while sweating blood over the P-38, they are getting ASB help.
I simply took that picture off google images. I have no idea why it has those markings.
 
Top