AHC: the ideal fighter(s) for 1940

HeinkelHe161.png

It wasn't until I was almost finished this He-100 with Ki-61 benefits that I noticed I'd already done one, but this one has a higher cockpit and clipped wing-tips.
 
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.

The incomplete guide lists the Whirly at 23015, and, of course, doesn't list the FW-187 at all. The Whirly is a little short on chord at the root, and would benefit from more wing area.

We really aren't that far off the FW-187 top speed estimate, with my previous guesstimate of 390 but not more.

Would anyone like to take a stab at the real top speed of a Spit Mk. III, in battle trim? In this case, 400 seems extravagant, based on Spit V numbers.
 

Deleted member 1487

How about a Bf109 with just MG131s? 2 in aerodynamic nose fittings, two in the wings (one in each), and one in a motor cannon arrangement? Seems like 5x 13mm MGs would be enough to rip up any fighter or bomber of 1940, especially with the HEI-T and AP-I ammo. The only issue might be lower muzzle velocity and rate of fire compared to MG17s...but it was significantly higher than MG FF rounds and comparable with the MG151 and 151/20, but was much lighter, could carry more ammo, and would thus have less impact on maneuverability, but allow for longer engagements between reloads and increased hit chances due to number of rounds in the air.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The incomplete guide lists the Whirly at 23015, and, of course, doesn't list the FW-187 at all. The Whirly is a little short on chord at the root, and would benefit from more wing area.

We really aren't that far off the FW-187 top speed estimate, with my previous guesstimate of 390 but not more.

Would anyone like to take a stab at the real top speed of a Spit Mk. III, in battle trim? In this case, 400 seems extravagant, based on Spit V numbers.

I went with Wikipedia that gives 23017 profile at root, unfortunately they are sometimes questionable when it's about details. Like how they rate the Peregrine at 100 oct for just 885 HP at just 10000 ft. greater chord will also improve thickness to chord ratio, benefitting to streamlining.

Spit V have had several disadvantages vs. the Mk.III - external BP glass (cost 4 mph), rear view mirror (3.5 to 6.75, defending on the type), snow/ice guard (7.5 to 8.5 mph), fixed taiwheel + no wheel well cover (??? mph), armament (6.75 to 10 mph just for two cannons). Imperfections in fit & finish were found to cost up to 12 mph. Cost in mph per RAE Technical note No. 1273 (Flight), can be found on the 'net, aplly for 360 mph 'base' speed. People at RAE tweaked the Mk.V (ser. no. EN.946) to attain 388 mph, mostly via deleting the ice guard and installing a better exhaust, along with better fit of the skinning and other externals.
All in all - the run-on-the-mill Spit V will be easily 25 mph slower than the unarmed Spit III, or around 15 mph that armed Spit III. So IMO we'd see a 390 mph for a Spit III in battle trim.
 
Spit V have had several disadvantages vs. the Mk.III - external BP glass (cost 4 mph), rear view mirror (3.5 to 6.75, defending on the type), snow/ice guard (7.5 to 8.5 mph), fixed taiwheel + no wheel well cover (??? mph), armament (6.75 to 10 mph just for two cannons). Imperfections in fit & finish were found to cost up to 12 mph. Cost in mph per RAE Technical note No. 1273 (Flight), can be found on the 'net, aplly for 360 mph 'base' speed. People at RAE tweaked the Mk.V (ser. no. EN.946) to attain 388 mph, mostly via deleting the ice guard and installing a better exhaust, along with better fit of the skinning and other externals.
All in all - the run-on-the-mill Spit V will be easily 25 mph slower than the unarmed Spit III, or around 15 mph that armed Spit III. So IMO we'd see a 390 mph for a Spit III in battle trim.

Again, your facts aren't my facts. The two cannon cost 3 mph, on the Mk.I as tested, the BP windscreen cost 6, etc. Why would a battle trimmed Spit fly without a mirror? The Spit IX flew with fixed tailwheel, the "planned" Mk. VIII was retractable. I prefer retractable, but that doesn't mean that a Spit III will be produced as ideal, such as better finished, in wartime.
 
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.


What motivated me to examine FW-187 was a focus on engine production # multiplied by engine life - divided by 365 days - to find an average daily availability. It reproduces 1939-1942 figures well, but fails in 1943-45.

Since then the found loss rates - helped to explain late war results spiraling out of control as flying hours were reduced and accident /loss rates exploded -especially in 1944/45.

Once I IDed potential aircraft/engine combos , it became a matter of best fitting the engine supply to mission demand and FW-187 looked like a great flexible choice. That design used or planned for JU-210/211 & DB-600/601/605 + BMW-801 engines .

Filling the bomber destroyer role looked doable ; followed by enlarged cockpit for night fighter role later .....it seemed like an ideal choice [especially if using precious engines -like BMW-801 supply- can be avoided].

I also stumbled on this platform to use up the supply of BMW-323 engines -for a mid war armored gun version in ground attack role [instead of HS-129].
 
When discussing the fw-187 in german air war, it strikes me as a candidate because of the tactical flexibility it offerred when needed.
In BOB when luftwaffe had numerical superiority, it could be in the air at altitude before the bombers, and stalk the British back to base. Like P-51 against me-262. Fighter losses would explode as these tactics did against the Germans later.
The fact that it comes in stead of bf110/210 doesn’t make it any less obvious as a good WI candidate.
He-100 seems to me an outstanding airframe with better range than bf109. A little better perhaps, but certainly more versatile.
Giving FW190 on of the scarcely available engines earlier would not hurt either. FW-190 with drop tanks instead of many of the bf110 as a heavy fighter?
 
Again, your facts aren't my facts. The two cannon cost 3 mph, on the Mk.I as tested, the BP windscreen cost 6, etc. Why would a battle trimmed Spit fly without a mirror? The Spit IX flew with fixed tailwheel, the "planned" Mk. VIII was retractable. I prefer retractable, but that doesn't mean that a Spit III will be produced as ideal, such as better finished, in wartime.

The document I was quoting the figures can be downloaded from here.
I agree that a series produced Spitfire III will feature fit & finish as the prototype did. However, one thing is to loose, say, 2-4 mph due to non-ideal finish (similar to the Spit Is or early SPit Vs), another thing is to loose 9-11 mph (late Mk.Vs). The Mk.IX was a bit better in that regard.
BP glass can be installed internaly, like it was done on the Spit IX and III, saving a few mph there vs. an externaly retro-fitted BP (from late Mk.I to Mk.Vs).
About the rear view mirror - I can't find any objection from the RAF brass re. lack of it on the Mk.III in the 'Spitfire - the history' book. Their (Dowding's actually) main concern was that clipped wings might lead to misidentification for a Bf 109E.
 
The document I was quoting the figures can be downloaded from here.

An interesting thing about the facts game is that WWII Fighter Performance lists various A&AEE reports and in one, it states that 2 cannons cost 3 mph, and in another, a cannon Spitfire gained 3 mph on another non-cannon Spit of the same type.
 
091014 104.png

Another blended aircraft, with notable improvements just not combined at the right time, perhaps even better with Wiking's armament improvements.
 
An interesting thing about the facts game is that WWII Fighter Performance lists various A&AEE reports and in one, it states that 2 cannons cost 3 mph, and in another, a cannon Spitfire gained 3 mph on another non-cannon Spit of the same type.

They need to include the talent level of the crew chiefs in the statistics.
 
An interesting thing about the facts game is that WWII Fighter Performance lists various A&AEE reports and in one, it states that 2 cannons cost 3 mph, and in another, a cannon Spitfire gained 3 mph on another non-cannon Spit of the same type.

The P-51 with two vs. four cannons shows barely a difference in speed; Hurricane IIC (4 cannons) vs. IIB (12 Brownings) also shows just a tad of speed loss. Guess the difference between individual aircraft can be greater than when this or that piece of kit is installed.
 

Deleted member 1487

View attachment 349155
Another blended aircraft, with notable improvements just not combined at the right time, perhaps even better with Wiking's armament improvements.
As you once noted we seem to have different eyes, can you detail the significant differences compared to the historical Bf109?
 
As you once noted we seem to have different eyes, can you detail the significant differences compared to the historical Bf109?
I see inward folding main gear, a different radiator installation, a revised canopy, and larger tail surfaces with a likewise larger rudder. There may be other differences that are more subtle or hard to see in profile.
 
As you once noted we seem to have different eyes, can you detail the significant differences compared to the historical Bf109?


The Meredith effect rad removes the originals from the wing, offering greater internal volume for fuel storage without penalty other than the centerline stores station, replaced by two wing hard points. The much larger wing offers deletion of the original undergarbage, replaced with inward retracting gear, saving thousands. The improved turning performance with lighter wing loading helps to remove the asymmetrical air combat drawback, and the additional range afforded broadens the tactical scope of the a/c's operational capabilities. Mostly win-win. There were no technological hurdles, just a road not taken.
 
I see inward folding main gear, a different radiator installation, a revised canopy, and larger tail surfaces with a likewise larger rudder. There may be other differences that are more subtle or hard to see in profile.

Good eyes. The Erla Haube canopy and wooden rudder are not relevant to the point, but were later modifications adopted because I like them, and the doodle was not drawn specifically for this post.
 
Nose from the Bf 109F up to the G4, horizontal tail without struts, possibly retractable tailwheel - each item offers drag reduction vs. the Emil. Better ram air intake for better speed at altitude. Thicker (both in percentage and absolute) wing from Ki-16, that was also of greater area, can house the MG FF without bulge (later MG 151 when available), as well as two reasonably big fuel tanks indeed.
 
The Fw 190 with Jumo 211D engine in 1940. Wing same as with OTL prototypes of the Fw 190, 14.9 m^2, vs. 18.3 m^2 as the OTL series Fw 190s. Two MG FF(M) cannons in outer wings, two MG 131s in wing roots.
Advantages the LW might find interesting: 30% more fuel than Bf 109E, superior undercarriage, visibility, rate of roll, cooling system. Plus the thing that Focke Wulf has a combat aircraft in service much earlier, with far less engine-related troubles than the OTL Fw 190. A coat of paint wouldn't hurt, of course ;)

190 211.jpg
 
Top