AHC: the ideal fighter(s) for 1940

But yes, Spitfire III is a reason why I've said that we need to go to the UK (and Germany) in order to have a real performer. Merlin XX is indeed the engine (with Merlin III until the Mk.XX is available), basic Spitfire fuselage and wings, cooling system is inn the wing leading edges -

I think you're overlooking the design philosophy that went into the Spit's wing. The leading edge and main spar form a torsion box which is compromised by a leading edge coolant radiator. Better to install the small fuel tanks, as fitted later. Clipping the wing tips improve roll but impair high altitude performance.

For Germany - an about 10% bigger He 100, so it can carry 2 cannons + 4 MGs, along with protection for fuel and pilot; drop tank facility. At 1st with DB 601A, switch to 601N when available.

Best (IMHO) response for He-100 is to build it as the Ki-61, a similar aircraft with larger wing and Meredith coolant radiator.
 
This is actually pretty tough to answer. 1940 was right on the verge of some pretty major aircraft revolutions--multi-stage, variable speed S/C; good turbo-superchargers, fuel-injection systems, laminar flow wings, etc. Excluding all of those technologies that were right around the corner and we are left with either the aircraft each country was already using/developing, or with designing a whole new A/C based on an amalgam of technologies used individually by different countries or platforms. For the U.S., for example, you want something with low fuel consumption, high power, and very reliable to cover the vast American landscape; but, none of the popular engines in 1940 fully meets the criteria. The V-1710 evolved into a great engine (with some weaknesses at high-alt) but in 1940 it was lagging behind the DB601 and Merlin engines. The R-2800 was just coming out (the F4U had its first flight in summer of 1940) but it was a bit of a hog. If I had to build my "dream engine" of 1940 it would be either an intermediate Wasp between the Twin (1800) and Double (2800) using either the Twin's 5.5" x 5.5" bore/stroke cylinders but moving it up to an 18 cylinder design (to produce the Super Twin Wasp R-2350) or the Double Wasp's 5.5" x 6" cylinders but reduce it to 14 for a Double Wasp Junior R-2200 which would basically be an American BMW 801--bonus points for Turbo-charging them with a GE B or C series turbo. Alternately, you could just throw a C-Series turbo on the R-1830 to increase its power density.

The alternative would be a liquid cooled engine, of course. In that case I would consider building a 180 degree fuel injected V-12. Why 180, you ask? Well, think of packaging. You could build a single-engine/single-seat fighter similar to the P-39 with the flat engine placed just behind the main spar at the wingroots and use a blended body design, maybe even with a "V" tail instead of standard, cruciform, or "T". Accessories (maybe a turbo?) could then be mounted above the engine (behind the cockpit) while keeping almost all the weight right in the middle of the airplane. The blended body/wing area would be great for ducting, cooling, and/or fuel (depending on how you set it up). Wings are free for more fuel and arms while the nose can house arms, the prop-reduction gear, and a nose wheel for tricycle landing gear just like the P-39. Another option with a 180 V-12 would be a two-engine layout without having to have large engine nacelles, or if it has nacelles they can be designed such as to minimize drag and actually produce their own lift as well.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
an interceptor, which is what they really needed

The Germans needed a radar-equipped nightfighter in 1940, they had virtually the best of everything else. The RAF in 1940 need a single-engine fighter better than the Bf109 - so did the French, and the Belgians, and the Dutch (and the Italian, too)
 

Deleted member 1487

The Germans needed a radar-equipped nightfighter in 1940
For what? The RAF didn't get good at bombing until 1942 due to their previous focus on defensive radar developments rather than radio guidance systems for offense. The Germans were mainly the inverse until then.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
Luftwaffe has the best of everything in 1940 - the only real gaps are an escort fighter (the Bf110 was hopeless), a dedicated nightfighter and a proper MRA

The cancelled FW187 would have filled the escort role and made the Me210 unnecessary, sparing manpower and factory space for a DB605-powered 109 replacement.

The RAF didn't get good at bombing until 1942

The fact that the Reich was being bombed at all was enough to enrage Hitler and Göring.
 
Get the meteor into production earlier as an intercepter. For the RAF. For the FAA i would say get the spitfire mk 3
 

Deleted member 1487

Luftwaffe has the best of everything in 1940 - the only real gaps are an escort fighter (the Bf110 was hopeless), a dedicated nightfighter and a proper MRA

The cancelled FW187 would have filled the escort role and made the Me210 unnecessary, sparing manpower and factory space for a DB605-powered 109 replacement.
The Bf110 was effectively a dedicated nightfighter and pretty great for the role until the Mosquito showed up, but even then still good against the Lancaster. The issue was the airborne radar system.
Proper MRA?
Yeah the Fw187 would have been likely pretty good if it kept to it's strengths, that is until a proper long range single engine fighter came along with drop tanks. Yeah the Me210/410 was better off not happening at all.

The fact that the Reich was being bombed at all was enough to enrage Hitler and Göring.
Sure, but it wasn't hitting anything of importance until after the Butt Report in late 1941.
 
FW-187 with JU-211.....should be able to punch through enemy fighter escorts and attack bombers at > 400mph @ medium altitude.

Not at 400 mph. For a reality check we can use the IMAM Ro.58, a smaller aircraft than the Fw 187, powered by the DB 601A. Was good for 378 mph.

I think you're overlooking the design philosophy that went into the Spit's wing. The leading edge and main spar form a torsion box which is compromised by a leading edge coolant radiator. Better to install the small fuel tanks, as fitted later. Clipping the wing tips improve roll but impair high altitude performance.

I've suggested installation of a real rear spar, instead of what was installed per OTL.

Best (IMHO) response for He-100 is to build it as the Ki-61, a similar aircraft with larger wing and Meredith coolant radiator.

Fuselage is great, the wing needs to be thinner than OTL 16%.
 
The alternative would be a liquid cooled engine, of course. In that case I would consider building a 180 degree fuel injected V-12. Why 180, you ask? Well, think of packaging.

vultee_ya19a_lycoming_2.jpg


That would be the Lycoming O-1230. Perfect 1200 hp at 3400 rpm. Just a little shaky and not reliable at high power. Rather than deal with lack of reliability, they twinned the engine, resulting in a bigger, more powerful engine that lacked reliability.
 
That would be the Lycoming O-1230. Perfect 1200 hp at 3400 rpm. Just a little shaky and not reliable at high power. Rather than deal with lack of reliability, they twinned the engine, resulting in a bigger, more powerful engine that lacked reliability.
Except the Lycoming is an O-12 (horizontally opposed aka "Boxer" like a modern Porsche Flat-6 or Subaru Flat-4) rather than a 180 degree V-12. Packaging is the same but the crank and firing order are completely different as on the V-12 the opposing pistons share a crankpin rather than having independent crankpins as on the H-12. It may require some counter weights but it is a more accessible design for the period and can be treated in much the same way as a conventional V-12.
 
Would the Fokker G.I fitted with engines in the 1,000hp class have been the best twin-engine fighter?

Size is the problem, for example the wing is bigger than on the Bf 110, or about 50% greater than on the IMAM Ro.58 - a fighter that was pretty fast on 1939/40 vintage engine even if some 1-engined jobs went even faster.
What a 2-engined fighter might bring to a table is serious firepower combined with good performance or/and range. Say 4 cannons, or 12 LMGs, or 8 HMGs, 350-400 mph (on RR engines preferably) and 500 miles radius.
 
Tell that to Lockheed. ;)

I assume you mean the P-38? In 1939-40 the aircraft has still in testing and having a number of issues.

Too many issues indeed. Also it can't cater for requirement of a decent number of aircraft before Autumn of 1940.
Perhaps it is too bad the Americans didn't tried to produce a no-nonsense classic twin (ie. no twin boom). Sorta 10-20% bigger Whirlwind, or a Fw-187 lookalike, powered initially by non-turbo V-1710 and, alternatively, Twin Wasp. The Skyrocket almost came close, but it was too late, designed around wrong engines etc. Stick 6 HMGs and that's it.
'Classic' layout keeps weight and cost within boundaries (also improves pilot's field of vision), so does having no turbo, at least not initially. .
 

Driftless

Donor
Too many issues indeed. Also it can't cater for requirement of a decent number of aircraft before Autumn of 1940.
Perhaps it is too bad the Americans didn't tried to produce a no-nonsense classic twin (ie. no twin boom). Sorta 10-20% bigger Whirlwind, or a Fw-187 lookalike, powered initially by non-turbo V-1710 and, alternatively, Twin Wasp. The Skyrocket almost came close, but it was too late, designed around wrong engines etc. Stick 6 HMGs and that's it.
'Classic' layout keeps weight and cost within boundaries (also improves pilot's field of vision), so does having no turbo, at least not initially. .

Work up the Grumman XP-50 - the USAAC version of the the XF5F Skyrocket. Forego the engineering for carrier use.
 
Top