AHC: the ideal fighter(s) for 1940

Driftless

Donor
Would the Fokker G.I fitted with engines in the 1,000hp class have been the best twin-engine fighter?

The G.1 could have been a formidable attack plane.

But in hindsight, with the German's right on the Netherlands door step, might they be best served by a plane that can get airborne very quickly with the highest rate of climb possible? And be able to work off improvised fields... Climbing speed over fire power?
 
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. .
Oh, I wasn't advocating for the P-38 as the answer to this particular riddle. I was only commenting on the implication that a twin-engine couldn't keep up with a single in 1940.

No, I think the P-38 is a very poor choice for our requirements. A simple twin might fit the bill but even then we want simple and easy to both mass produce and learn and the P-38 is neither of those, especially in 1940. They (Lockheed) never intended it to be mass produced and many of the early delays with getting it out were directly related to the extensive changes needed to make it so--apart from the well documented and known technical issues with the design, many of which wouldn't become apparent until 1941 or later.
 
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.
Re firepower my reference book is Allied Fighters of World War II by Bill Gunston. According to him:

G.Ia - eight 7.9mm FN-Browning machine guns fixed in the nose and one manually aimed in the tail cone.

G.Ib - two 23mm Masden cannon and two 7.9mm FN-Browning machine guns fixed in the nose and one manually aimed in the tail.

Gunston wrote that the Fokker G.Ia had a maximum speed of 295mph on 2 Bristol Mercury VIII engines producing 830hp each. While the G.Ib had a maximum speed of 268mph on a pair of P&W Twin Wasp Juniors producing 750hp each.
 
Just a short one dealing with the Germans, since there appears to be a consensus that the Spitfire is not in need of improvement.

As a long-time pilot, I would hesitate a long time before soloing in a Bf 109. Not worrying about flying the beast, but ground handling- takeoff and landing. I have been given to understand that more 109s were lost in these maneuvers, than were shot down by enemy aircraft. The Heinkel He 100 appears much better handling, particularly for a lower time pilot, with its wide track landing gear. My understanding is that the 100 is a little heavier and more expensive than the 109.

Considering the 109, here is what I would propose: Insert a short span center section to widen gear track while angling the struts more vertically. The original retracting mechanism could be retained and there would be more room along the centerline for a serious drop tank. This drop tank (volume to come) would be fabricated from strips of newsprint and linen laminated in the German equivalent of "WeldWood plastic resin glue"- light, strong, quick drying and fuelproof. More time over England is a major force multiplier.

The raccoon cage canopy would have to go. Replace it with one like a Spitfire or even from a Spitfire. I'm sure I.G. Farben has something like plexiglas. And while you're at it see about a two place check-out ship.

With the slightly reduced wingloading resulting from the centersection and some lightening where experience with the structure will permit, and more pilots completing their missions the B of B might have had somewhat altered results.

Next- US Carrier fighters.

Dynasoar
 
Bf-109Stretch800.JPG
Just a short one dealing with the Germans, since there appears to be a consensus that the Spitfire is not in need of improvement.

But it is - better carb & exhausts, armament, more rigid wing, the cooling system can be better, a better canopy, fully retractable & covered U/C...
Though the OTL SPitfire III was probaly closest to an ideal 1940 fighter.

Considering the 109, here is what I would propose: Insert a short span center section to widen gear track while angling the struts more vertically. The original retracting mechanism could be retained and there would be more room along the centerline for a serious drop tank.

(my bold)
Something from 2010/11 is attached above. Features the early prototype of the Bf 109F (note the absence of the round wing tips) with the 'wing plugs' that host MG 151/20 on each side, but the idea works for the 109E too. No cowl MGs.
 
Just a short one dealing with the Germans...
There was a later war high-altitude version of the 109, the Bf.109H, that experimented with exactly the type of center-section expansion you advocate, so it is certainly possible.
I'm sure I.G. Farben has something like plexiglas.
Plexiglas was actually a German invention (and trademark). It was simultaneously discovered in the U.K., more-or-less, and trademarked by ICI as Perspex and produced by DuPont in the U.S. as Lucite, irrc. The material isn't the problem but proper molding techniques. OTL these were all pretty well established no later than '43 with most of the basics already in place by 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.

Well prewar LW thinking feared the WALLIES could field an air-force of up to 20,000 bombers....so sooner or latter they would need lots of bomber destroyers. In the mean time it works as a schnell bomber, since the JU-88 is converted to medium bomber.

First FW-187 prototype managed 329mph with pair of 730hp Ju-210 . That's a PWR of 309 HP/TON
Later prototype was souped up with two 1000hp engines and got trail speed of 395mph on 454 hp/ton.

If they mount JU-211 1200-1400HP , the PWR goes up to 510 to 583hp/ton and speed should reach 389 to 407mph.

Yes if you beef it up with radars and 4 x canon's in a new nose , that's going to slow it down to 390mph. Still a lot better platform than Me-110. Messerschmitt should be building more & more Me-109.
 
Last edited:
Well prewar LW thinking feared the WALLIES could field an air-force of up to 20,000 bombers....so sooner or latter they would need lots of bomber destroyers. In the mean time it works as a schnell bomber, since the JU-88 is converted to medium bomber.

The expected 20000 bombers figure - any source for that?

First FW-187 prototype managed 329mph with pair of 730hp Ju-210 . That's a PWR of 309 HP/TON
Later prototype was souped up with two 1000hp engines and got trail speed of 395mph on 454 hp/ton.

1460HP/5ton=286 HP/ton. 2000HP/454HP/ton = 4.4 ton. The Fw 187 with DB 601 just got lighter. Congratulations.
That is before we raise an eyebrow on how the Daimlerized Fw 187 went almost 20 mph faster than the Ro.58 despite being bigger. Or just how that aircraft managed to almost beat the 400 mph on sea level, as it is claimed by German Wikipedia. Or a sticky question when the Germans started accounting for compressibility when measuring the airspeed - in 1942 perhaps?

If they mount JU-211 1200-1400HP , the PWR goes up to 510 to 583hp/ton and speed should reach 389 to 407mph.

Yes if you beef it up with radars and 4 x canon's in a new nose , that's going to slow it down to 390mph. Still a lot better platform than Me-110. Messerschmitt should be building more & more Me-109.

Baring that there was no 1400 HP Jumo 211s in 1940, the big & bad Fw 187 now weights 4.7 tons. The radar will be controled by whom? Re-ballancing the aircraft that now has cannons in the nose?
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
Just a short one dealing with the Germans, since there appears to be a consensus that the Spitfire is not in need of improvement.

The Spitfires used in the Battle of Britain needed a hell of a lot of improvements! The 109E was the fifth iteration of the Bf109, the Spitfires MkIs and IIs

An engine that doesn't cut out whilst inverted would a massive improvement.
 
The expected 20000 bombers figure - any source for that?



1460HP/5ton=286 HP/ton. 2000HP/454HP/ton = 4.4 ton. The Fw 187 with DB 601 just got lighter. Congratulations.
That is before we raise an eyebrow on how the Daimlerized Fw 187 went almost 20 mph faster than the Ro.58 despite being bigger. Or just how that aircraft managed to almost beat the 400 mph on sea level, as it is claimed by German Wikipedia. Or a sticky question when the Germans started accounting for compressibility when measuring the airspeed - in 1942 perhaps?



Baring that there was no 1400 HP Jumo 211s in 1940, the big & bad Fw 187 now weights 4.7 tons. The radar will be controled by whom? Re-ballancing the aircraft that now has cannons in the nose?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_187

Plane is 3.7mt empty & 5mt max, so 1/2 fuel is 8.7/2= 4.35 rounded up to 4.4t for good measure. With 2 × Junkers Jumo 210G 12-cylinder inverted-V piston, 515 kW (700 PS) each that's 700 x 2 /4.4= 309, which corresponds to 329mph.

Replace with DB-600 [another prototype], shp reaches 1000hp each and pwr reaches 454hp/ton [power cubed= 1.1376 x 329= 372 mph].....which makes it better than me-110 from start.

War time it should have ju-211BC...1184HP same mass of DB-600 , 1938 , which should allow 2368hp /4.4MT = 538 pwr = 1.2 x 329= 395mph ~ 1940

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_211
 
Last edited:
It might be easier to specify an ideal fighter for 1940 by picking a month more precisely, because that's how significant improvements arrived.

I have no problem believing that the FW-187 with DB 600 and evaporative cooling with wrinkling skin panels reached 390 mph. Although the RO 58 was smaller by span and length, it was also heavier, which could mean it is larger in some dimensions. I never did figure out the cooling system. Nor was such figured out for the FW.

Good luck finding out what ideal is.
 
OTL Messerschmitt 109 undercarriage was extrapolated from Me 108. Mind you, Me 108 fuselage was at least double the width of 109 because 108 seated 2 pilots side-by-side.
Me109 prototypes started with main undercarriage legs bolted to the fuselage, but that resulted in too narrow a wheel track for decent ground handling. That is why all production Me 109s sported splayed UC and only had marginal ground handling in cross-winds.
Me 109's primary advantage was that it was a very simple and light-weight airframe wrapped around the largest engine available. Relocating main UC legs to the wings would increase weight and complexity.
Note that the proposed Me 209 had inward-retracting UC. Me 209 was cancelled when it failed to demonstrate better performance than 109.

Spitfire started with similar UC, slightly wider. Spitfires had acceptable ground-handling but were considered difficult to land on carriers. Note that the last marks: Spiteful and Seafang had a completely new wing with inward-retracting UC.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_187

Plane is 3.7mt empty & 5mt max, so 1/2 fuel is 8.7/2= 4.35 rounded up to 4.4t for good measure. With 2 × Junkers Jumo 210G 12-cylinder inverted-V piston, 515 kW (700 PS) each that's 700 x 2 /4.4= 309, which corresponds to 329mph.

Replace with DB-600 [another prototype], shp reaches 1000hp each and pwr reaches 454hp/ton [power cubed= 1.1376 x 329= 372 mph].....which makes it better than me-110 from start.

War time it should have ju-211BC...1184HP same mass of DB-600 , 1938 , which should allow 2368hp /4.4MT = 538 pwr = 1.2 x 329= 395mph ~ 1940

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_211

It might be easier to specify an ideal fighter for 1940 by picking a month more precisely, because that's how significant improvements arrived.

I have no problem believing that the FW-187 with DB 600 and evaporative cooling with wrinkling skin panels reached 390 mph. Although the RO 58 was smaller by span and length, it was also heavier, which could mean it is larger in some dimensions. I never did figure out the cooling system. Nor was such figured out for the FW.

Good luck finding out what ideal is.

Empty weight + crew + ammo + fuel + oil = loaded weight. So our OTL Fw 187 will be at, say, 4700 kg with half a ful & oil?
The question of weight was why I've alluded to the Fw 187 somehow getting lighter despite the installation of heavier engines. New engines up the dry weight by 2x100 to 2 x 150 kg, plus the heavier cooling & oil system (2 x 50 kg?), heavier prop, engine support & cowling (= 2x75 kg?), plus the increase of drag due to a bigger engine and cooling system (I'll skip the surface cooling system for a combat aircraft of ww2). Provided the aircraft is perfectly ballanced so no counterballance is needed, and the airframe is already strong enough so no extra reinforcements is needed, the empty weight just went up by how much, 350 to 450 kg = 5100 kg with half fuel.
Ro.58 went heavy because it featured 5 cannons, extra crew member and his HMG, plus still heavier DB 601A engines. Cooling system for each engine was between nacelle and fuselage, just before the flaps. Can be barely discerned at some photos, not featured at illustartions.
The supposed DB 600A was a lousy fighter engine. 1000 HP at sea level that was the rated altitude in the same time - at 4 km say 700 HP? The RR Peregrine beats it, and we know that Whirly was no 380-400 mph aircraft. Perhaps the writers of Wikipedia articles mixed it with DB 601A?? That was a far better engine, 1000 HP at 4 km+.
 
Wimble, My statement that there appeared to be a consensus that the Spitfire was not in need of improvement was an observation, not an opinion. All things considered, I'd prefer driving a modified 109.

Rigger, The LG legs would still retract outward into the unmodified wings. Considering possible additional brackets and shafting in new centersection, repositioning the LG might add 7-10 pounds abs max- in return for decreasing the attrition rate of aircraft and pilots substantally.

US carrier fighters using technology available prior to F4U:

The Brewster Buffalo was an aircraft obsolete before introduction, and is better forgotten. The Grumman F4F was a quickie conversion of a biplane configuration and, in retrospect was adopted only because the Buffalo made it look good by comparison.
(disclosure: I like Grumman, regularly fly an airplane much modified by their Roy LoPresti and my grandfather built Avengers at their Trenton N.J. GM plant. Despite my warm feelings for Grumman, the Wildcat was.....) Wish they had saved that name for a better aircraft. Candidates for a better carrier fighter for 1940 might be based on a
Northrop/Vought derivative of the V-143, which appeared to embody many characteristics later used and improved on by Jiro Hirokoshi in the Mitsubishi "Zero" series. No, I'm not implying any copying; both designs were converging on similar performance objectives, and Jiro succeded. I'm describing a sophisticated light weight structure (tho we did not enjoy the higher strength 7075-like alloys developed interwar by Japan, we were just then applying analytic techniques that they lacked.) stressed for carrier operation, and incorporating the latest drag reduction, airfoil and radial engine technology available up to the topic deadline. It would probably resemble the Vultee P-66 mentioned in an earlier post. Essential that this hypothetical be faster than the Zero, since our pilots' training did not stress aerobatics in combat and they should be able to bug-out as necessary. Major drop-tank capability, including carrier landings with empty tanks in place, also CO2 or nitrogen inerting of light weight "first use" fuel tanks. Would like to see this aircraft as Grumman's real "Wildcat".

Dynasoar
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Another option would, of course, be the F4U (or another aircraft built around the R-2800). Heavy armament, fast as a thief (400+ mph in initial form), turn on a dime and give you nine cents change.

First flight: May, 1940.

Last combat: July 17, 1969
 
Empty weight + crew + ammo + fuel + oil = loaded weight. So our OTL Fw 187 will be at, say, 4700 kg with half a ful & oil?
The question of weight was why I've alluded to the Fw 187 somehow getting lighter despite the installation of heavier engines. New engines up the dry weight by 2x100 to 2 x 150 kg, plus the heavier cooling & oil system (2 x 50 kg?), heavier prop, engine support & cowling (= 2x75 kg?), plus the increase of drag due to a bigger engine and cooling system (I'll skip the surface cooling system for a combat aircraft of ww2). Provided the aircraft is perfectly ballanced so no counterballance is needed, and the airframe is already strong enough so no extra reinforcements is needed, the empty weight just went up by how much, 350 to 450 kg = 5100 kg with half fuel.
Ro.58 went heavy because it featured 5 cannons, extra crew member and his HMG, plus still heavier DB 601A engines. Cooling system for each engine was between nacelle and fuselage, just before the flaps. Can be barely discerned at some photos, not featured at illustartions.
The supposed DB 600A was a lousy fighter engine. 1000 HP at sea level that was the rated altitude in the same time - at 4 km say 700 HP? The RR Peregrine beats it, and we know that Whirly was no 380-400 mph aircraft. Perhaps the writers of Wikipedia articles mixed it with DB 601A?? That was a far better engine, 1000 HP at 4 km+.


Not sure -since the max weight is stated @ 5mt! The literature states the plane was made with lighter materials.
I don't think you can just dismiss the figures because they don't seem right?

http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/Daimler-Benz/Daimler-Benz.shtml


https://www.google.ca/search?q=db-600+engine+power+graphics&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CRRJLqbxIKrvIjiUA8jY5nhVz2_1xiz5HsbNnKhE1awOV79CPGgbLruTiValmCokC4xFFNGykETxfBawr2UrSHdmC9ioSCZQDyNjmeFXPEU9GflFeihHqKhIJb_1GLPkexs2cRHfrSLLPxpQcqEgkqETVrA5Xv0BGsfNk91BnAtSoSCY8aBsuu5OJVEU6AgjitBbGIKhIJqWYKiQLjEUURxkBFA44_16QcqEgk0bKQRPF8FrBGLui3HbVbruSoSCSvZStId2YL2ES7xqp5s3qQF&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBsvzOvOzWAhXmiVQKHUhUChkQ9C8IHA&biw=1024&bih=505&dpr=1.25#imgrc=FEkupvEgqu9gIM:&spf=1507859089839
 
Last edited:
Spitfire MK 3 with the Merlin XX easily the best fighter that could be built in 1940. It's got a. multi stage supercharger as well!
Vought-XF4U-1-Corsair-Bu.-No.-1443-in-flight1.jpg

29 May 1940: Vought-Sikorsky Aircraft Division test pilot Lyman A. Bullard, Jr. took the U.S. Navy’s new prototype fighter, the XF4U-1, Bu. No. 1443, for its first flight at the Bridgeport Municipal Airport, Bridgeport, Connecticut. Designed by Rex B. Beisel, this would be developed into the famous F4U Corsair.

The F4U Corsair is a single-place, single-engine fighter, designed for operation from the U.S. Navy’s aircraft carriers. The XF4U-1 prototype was 30 feet (9.144 meters) long with a wing span of 41 feet (12.497 meters) and overall height of 15 feet, 7 inches (4.750 meters). It had an empty weight of 7,505 pounds (3,404 kilograms) and gross weight of 10,500 pounds (4,763 kilograms).

The XF4U-1 was first powered by an experimental air-cooled, supercharged, 2,804.4-cubic-inch-displacement (45.956 liters) Pratt & Whitney Double Wasp A2-G (R-2800 X-2), and then an SSA5-G (R-2800 X-4), both twin-row 18-cylinder radial engines. The R-2800 X-4 was an X-2 with a A5-G supercharger. It was rated at 1,600 horsepower at 2,400 r.p.m. at 3,500 feet (1,067 meters); 1,540 horsepower at 2,400 r.p.m. at 13,500 feet (4,115 meters); 1,460 horsepower at 2,400 r.p.m. at 21,500 feet (6,553 meters); and 1,850 horsepower at 2,600 r.p.m for takeoff. The engine drove a 13 foot, 4 inch (4.064 meter) diameter, three-bladed, Hamilton Standard Hydromatic constant-speed propeller through a 2:1 gear reduction. The X-4 had a compression ratio of 6.66:1 and used a two-speed, two-stage supercharger.

The XF4U-1 prototype had a maximum speed of 378 miles per hour (608 kilometers per hour) at 23,500 feet (7,163 meters). Although it has been widely reported that it was the first U.S. single-engine fighter to exceed 400 miles per hour (643.7 kilometers per hour) in level flight, this is actually not the case. During a flight between Stratford and Hartford, Connecticut, the prototype averaged a ground speed 405 miles per hour (652 kilometers per hour). This was not a record flight, and did not meet the requirements of any official speed record.

Fuel Capacity 272 gal
Armament:
Four guns ahead of the pilot’s cockpit were originally to be imported 23-mm Madsen cannons, but in February 1939, two .30-caliber and .50-caliber guns were specified, as then planned for the F4F-3. Four .50-caliber guns were scheduled in July 1940.

Bomb cells in wing, 20 5.2-pound anti-aircraft bombs in five containers within each wing;
they were to be released in salvos at a fixed distance above an enemy formation.
XF4U-1+Top+View.jpg
 
Last edited:
Dear Marathag,

I find it amusing that early F4U Corsairs had downward vision windows in the cockpit floor! How much help would they be during carrier landings?

Reminds me of a conversation with a Christen Eagle (aerobatic, biplane kitplane) pilot who (half-jokingly) said: "When your engine quits, whatever you see in the belly (clear) panel is where you are going to land."
By way of explanation, most kit biplanes have ..... um ....... er ........ steep glide ratios.
 
Dear Dynasoar,
I too am sadden by the decline of civil discourse in our modern society. No self-respecting, sober gentleman would ever question the superlative flying characteristics, charm or good looks ... sheer beauty ..... of early Spitfires.
 
Top