AHC: the ideal fighter(s) for 1940

Wimble, ............ 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. ......

Dynasoar

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreed!

I had the most fun flying a Grumman American Cheetah.
The prettiest airplanes - on the West Coast of Canada are Grumman Widgeons, Grumman Geese and Grumman Mallard.

As for Grumman's Wildcat being less than perfect ...... It definitely was a step in the evolution from biplanes to monoplanes. Saint Eric "Winkle" Brown described Wildcat as "the best early war naval fighter." He flew a Wildcat/Martlet when he downed a pair of German bombers.

No gentleman would even contemplate questioning the wisdom of Saint EW Brown with less than a fifth of Scotch flowing through his veins!
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
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.
Wasn't their purpose. This was part of the, thankfully brief, "aerial mine" infatuation. If you look at the wing design you will see it featured five mini bomb bays for itty-bitty 5.2 pound bombs in the left wing.

The idea was to get over the bomber formation, aim through the floor mounted window and release the bombs in groups of four or more. The bombs would then make direct hits on the enemy aircraft and destroy them. It was something that had once been considered for use against Zeppelins. It might have worked against a 560 foot long, 70 MPH max speed airship, but the advent of the all metal monoplane bombers with top speed over 200 mph made the whole idea sort of questionable.
 
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?
All the early carrier fighters had them, the Buffalo and Wildcat too, but were kind of useless
 
AFAIK British fighters did not have self-sealing fuel tanks in 1940.

If the above is correct would having self-sealing fuel tanks in 1940 have significantly reduced British losses?
 

hipper

Banned
AFAIK British fighters did not have self-sealing fuel tanks in 1940.

If the above is correct would having self-sealing fuel tanks in 1940 have significantly reduced British losses?

The reserve fuel tank of the hurricane was not self sealing untill late in the BOB done earlier it would have reduced losses and guinea pigs.
 

hipper

Banned
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


Slower than the MK 3 Spitfire
 
Hugh Dowding was haunted for the rest of his life by the fact that due to a misunderstanding in between a fuel Tank being "crash proof" and Self Sealing and the difference in weight between the two, He had not approved the fitting of self sealing tanks to the Hurricane much earlier.
 
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?

Sorry if my posts sound arogant.
I try not to dismiss figures on a whim. When something does not add in re. claimed capability and performance, I try to look around for the closest real-world examples. For the Fw 187, those might include Whirwind and Ro.58. The Whirlwind have had about the same power as the DB 600, the A/C was smaller than the Fw 187, with smart cooling system, yet we have the 360 mph speed figure. The Ro.58 went under 380 mph despite the greater power available and it was again a smaller A/C.
It is not just that A/C that got me reading stuff. The XP-39B (never above 350 mph in reality), Spitfire III (400 mh yes, or maybe, but for an unarmed A/C), ditto for the XP-38, XF4U-1 (380+ mph, not 400), the Bf 109F4 (tests during whom it 'made' 670 km/h were without compressibility correction, real figures were at about 635 km/h on 30-min power). This is all before we toss in the different Soviet A/C where no-one nowadays stated how the tests went.
OTOH, probably the most under-rated ww2 fighters were the late-war Japanese fighters.

Please, don't get me wrong - I like the Daimlerized Fw 187, but I don't think that as military-grade grade A/C ('normal' cooling even of the engines are DB 601, armed, with antennae etc) we'd be looking at 400 mph aircraft.

The graph you've posted shows the DB 600G, the 'fully supercharged' version of the series, not the 600A, 'moderately supercharged' version the Fw 187 prototype got. Difference is similar as when we compare the Merlin VIII and III.
 
Please, don't get me wrong - I like the Daimlerized Fw 187, but I don't think that as military-grade grade A/C ('normal' cooling even of the engines are DB 601, armed, with antennae etc) we'd be looking at 400 mph aircraft.

The graph you've posted shows the DB 600G, the 'fully supercharged' version of the series, not the 600A, 'moderately supercharged' version the Fw 187 prototype got. Difference is similar as when we compare the Merlin VIII and III.

no worries, read your stuff in other forums ,but the article doesn't say which DB-600 version it was, do you have any charts on the DB-600A?

The final prototype, Fw 187 V6 (D-CINY), was more heavily modified, receiving the originally specified 736 kW (1,000 PS) DB 600 engines, as well as a new surface evaporative cooling system for reduced drag. First flown in early 1939 it proved to have serious cooling problems (in common with other designs using the system, like the Heinkel He 100) and suffered some skin buckling and distortion. Nevertheless, during a series of carefully timed and measured runs in October 1939, the Fw 187 V6 reached 634 km/h (395 mph) in level flight, making it the fastest fighter in Germany at the time.

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

My bold, it still seems like excellent platform.
 
Last edited:
no worries, read your stuff in other forums ,but the article doesn't say which DB-600 version it was, do you have any charts on the DB-600A?

No chart, just data from the 'Flugmotoren und Strahltriebwerke' by Von Ghersdorf et al. They state the DB 600A and B (opposite rotation) used 'Bodenlader' - ie. the S/C was with gearing set for low altitudes. Nothing unusual, many of 1930s and 1940s engines used the similar principle in order to improve low-alt power while sarificing the hi-alt power. Rated altitude is stated at zero meters. Thus we have the 600A/B well suited for bombers of the era, or perhaps carrier-based A/C (to lift off the heavy load and/or for short take off strip), but not that good for fighters needs where hi-alt capability is needed.

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

My bold, it still seems like excellent platform.

I've never questioned the ability of the platform, but the claimed performance. German Wikipedia states the speed was 635 km/h at sea level with DB 600A on board - beats the Tempest V with 2400 HP and far a lower drag, ditto for Fw 190A with extra boost (1950 HP), the Bf 109K-4 and Fw 190D-9 on best possible power. Thus IMO the claimed turn of speed is too good to be true.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
My bold, it still seems like excellent platform.

The FW187, He100, He280 were all great missed opportunities for the Luftwaffe, the 187 being the most useful of the three.

It would butterfly the ME210/ME410 debacle, and the Hs129 as well.
 
Rigger,

Would not presume to disagree with Brown (or Bill Gunston), about the Wildcat or anything else, regardless of my Glenlivet payload. I question whether he had the opportunity to fly a Mitsubishi A6M before praising the Grumman.

Incidentally, I have a Grumman AA5B Tiger, now based based at Santa Paula, KSZP. During my thirty or so years of ownership, it spent lots of time tied down at Camarillo, KCMA, within a few hundred yards of the then Confederate Air Force restored and flying Zero. Several short finals on the Zero's tail, and visa versa. (Also Martin Cadin's often ground looped Me 108, back East many years before.

Dynasoar
 
then Confederate Air Force restored and flying Zero. [/QUOTE]

The Commemorative Air Force Zero is powered by the R-1830 engine, just like the Wildcat. Small world.
 
Sorry if my posts sound arogant.
I try not to dismiss figures on a whim. When something does not add in re. claimed capability and performance, I try to look around for the closest real-world examples. For the Fw 187, those might include Whirwind and Ro.58. The Whirlwind have had about the same power as the DB 600, the A/C was smaller than the Fw 187, with smart cooling system, yet we have the 360 mph speed figure. The Ro.58 went under 380 mph despite the greater power available and it was again a smaller A/C.
It is not just that A/C that got me reading stuff. The XP-39B (never above 350 mph in reality), Spitfire III (400 mh yes, or maybe, but for an unarmed A/C), ditto for the XP-38, XF4U-1 (380+ mph, not 400), the Bf 109F4 (tests during whom it 'made' 670 km/h were without compressibility correction, real figures were at about 635 km/h on 30-min power). This is all before we toss in the different Soviet A/C where no-one nowadays stated how the tests went.
OTOH, probably the most under-rated ww2 fighters were the late-war Japanese fighters.

Please, don't get me wrong - I like the Daimlerized Fw 187, but I don't think that as military-grade grade A/C ('normal' cooling even of the engines are DB 601, armed, with antennae etc) we'd be looking at 400 mph aircraft.

The graph you've posted shows the DB 600G, the 'fully supercharged' version of the series, not the 600A, 'moderately supercharged' version the Fw 187 prototype got. Difference is similar as when we compare the Merlin VIII and III.
If you look at the fw-187, whirlwind and RO.58 the latter pair has cockpits bound to create more drag than that on fw-187 and the twin tails of ro.58 is surely not the most aerodynamic. Basically, they look like compromises, fw-187 is pure speed. Guess the question is: how comparable was aerodynamics in those days? How good is HP/ton as a direct comparison in level flight?
 
Everking has a thread just based on that.
Well, yes and no. My thread is based on the premise of NACA performing the wind-tunnel tests six months earlier than OTL, June-July 1941 instead of December 1941-January 1942. It is quite a different beast, possibly requiring ASBs to get the P-38 fully sorted out in time for mass production in 1940. I think a simpler A/C is a better way to go.
 
If you look at the fw-187, whirlwind and RO.58 the latter pair has cockpits bound to create more drag than that on fw-187 and the twin tails of ro.58 is surely not the most aerodynamic. Basically, they look like compromises, fw-187 is pure speed. Guess the question is: how comparable was aerodynamics in those days? How good is HP/ton as a direct comparison in level flight?

The data on aerodynamics is scant for these A/C. Neither Whirly nor Fw 187 don't impress with wing thinnes (talk 17% at root for the Wirly, the 187 is in the ballpark), nor there is some groundbreaking wing profile used on either. Wing thickness and profile used get increasingly important as the desired speed is increased. Whirly is smaller, a plus when speed is wanted.
Power to weight ratio - Whirly is better, especially as the altitude increases. Jumo 210 were lousy altitude engines, the 210G included even if it was better than the 210D. The 210D was supposed to make 500 PS at 4.5 km, the 210G some 600 PS (670 PS at 3.8 km), while the Peregrine was good for 885 HP (897 PS) at 15000 ft (4.57 km) on +6.75 psi boost (87 oct fuel). On 100 oct, Peregrine was allowed for +9 psi boost for take off and emegency - that is around 1000+ HP at ~12000 ft?
Granted, installation of the DB 600G/601A/Jumo 211B improves the situation for the 187 dramatically (the 600A is wrong choice). Above 4.5 km the power is almost doubled. Part of the increase in power will be consumed via increase of drag due to bigger engines with bigger cooling system, plus there is increase in weight (500+ kg increase at least). Rest will be used for increase in speed. Again - how fast will it be? IMO - 370-380 mph in military trim is realistic goal.
 
IMO - 370-380 mph in military trim is realistic goal.
Which is realistically adequate for 1940. 400 mph+ fighters really didn't start coming on scene until late '42 at the earliest and that is pushing it in combat trim. I think the bigger question is whether a twin-engine interceptor is really the best choice for Germany in 1940. They are still trying to win the BoB and so many of their resources are going to bombers rather than fighters. Can one make a realistic argument that those resources should be diverted to twin-engine interceptors instead of building more upgraded single-engine 109's. While we're at it, what are the prospects of getting the FW-190 introduced a year earlier (Aug. 1940 instead of Aug 1941)? I think, overall, the 190 was Germany's greatest aerial asset.
 
Which is realistically adequate for 1940. 400 mph+ fighters really didn't start coming on scene until late '42 at the earliest and that is pushing it in combat trim. I think the bigger question is whether a twin-engine interceptor is really the best choice for Germany in 1940. They are still trying to win the BoB and so many of their resources are going to bombers rather than fighters. Can one make a realistic argument that those resources should be diverted to twin-engine interceptors instead of building more upgraded single-engine 109's.

The Daimlerized (hopefully) Fw 187 can be a fine long range fighter, and even at 370-380 mph will be quite a problem for the RAF, until/unless the Spitfire II is actually produced. The 187 instead of the Bf 110 makes plenty of sense, the Bf 109E is still needed very much.

While we're at it, what are the prospects of getting the FW-190 introduced a year earlier (Aug. 1940 instead of Aug 1941)? I think, overall, the 190 was Germany's greatest aerial asset.

Could not agree more about the Fw 190 being such a great aircraft.
The Fw 190 1st flew on June 1st 1939. It might ot be such a stretch the RLM allows the Fw 190 being designed around a V12 engine, even if it is the Jumo 211A/B, that should avoid the relaibility problems and speed up the development. Keep the small wing initially, the V12s are much lighter than the heavy BMWs and less draggy, even with liquid cooling system accounted for. End result mght be a fighter with excellent visibility and rate of roll, say 2 cannons in the wing, 4 MGs in the wing roots. Excellent undercarriage, both in layout and streamlining. Better range vs. Bf 109, and probably better speed.
 
Rigger,

Would not presume to disagree with Brown (or Bill Gunston), about the Wildcat or anything else, regardless of my Glenlivet payload. I question whether he had the opportunity to fly a Mitsubishi A6M before praising the Grumman.

Incidentally, I have a Grumman AA5B Tiger, now based based at Santa Paula, KSZP. During my thirty or so years of ownership, it spent lots of time tied down at Camarillo, KCMA, within a few hundred yards of the then Confederate Air Force restored and flying Zero. Several short finals on the Zero's tail, and visa versa. (Also Martin Cadin's often ground looped Me 108, back East many years before.

Dynasoar

Well he certainly flew it

And he did say that it ruled the roost until mid war
 
Top