Best possible WW2 propellor fighter using existing components

I've made a thread like this, but it focused on 1943 aircraft and ended up devolving into people throwing out "the 262 protype flew 1943 hahahahaha" so I'm wary of resurrecting it.

My personal favorite design would use either a late-model Napier Sabre or a R-R Griffon and have four 20mm cannon in a fighter role. I'd go down to three cannon if a motorkanonne was possible with a really good inline engine. Maybe a ShVAK or MG151/20 firing Minengeschoß? For the gun I'd like maybe I'd give it a very long range and medium-thickness and size wing, or a thick wing and embed the cannon within the wing. With embedded cannons, I'd maybe use a MG/FF cause it's smaller. fairly heavy ground-attack payload would be great too.

Rules:
-No totally new engines, cannons, or other major components that are not normally unique to a particular aircraft.

-Completely new airframes are fine

-No turboprops

-Components may be modified to fit with other components, but only within reason. Minengeschoß Hispano 20mm cannon ammunition is fine, but not 57mm Minengeschoß. You can mix-and-match turbochargers etc.

-No jets.

-Rocket assist (in the vein of the Su-7) is fine, so long as it isn't the main propulsion method. Be sensible.

-Prototype engines are fine, but consider the fact that they probably won't be very reliable.
 
Last edited:
I am thinking something like this:

Airframe: Tempest F II, with improved air cooling intakes (iron out the bugs).
Engine: Bristol Centaurus radial with direct fuel injection, 3 220 Hp, good supercharger.
Guns: 4x20mm HS404 (700 shots/minute) or 4x20mm ShVAK (800 shots/minute).
Propeller: Well-balanced 5-blade changable.
Canopy: Plexiglass bubble.
Wings: Tempest F II slim wings with good performance both on high and low altitude.
Seat armour, armoured windscreen, back armour, probably some armour for the weaker spots of the propulsion (oil etc).

The ability to carry a droppable extra fuel tank would be nice, as would an ejector seat. Keeping the plane flying long enough for the pilot to survive should be the priority - planes can be built quickly, good pilots takes months to train. That is also why I choose a radial engine, which can coninue to work even on reduced power after losing cylinders to enemy fire.
 
I am thinking something like this:

Airframe: Tempest F II, with improved air cooling intakes (iron out the bugs).
Engine: Bristol Centaurus radial with direct fuel injection, 3 220 Hp, good supercharger.
Guns: 4x20mm HS404 (700 shots/minute) or 4x20mm ShVAK (800 shots/minute).
Propeller: Well-balanced 5-blade changable.
Canopy: Plexiglass bubble.
Wings: Tempest F II slim wings with good performance both on high and low altitude.
Seat armour, armoured windscreen, back armour, probably some armour for the weaker spots of the propulsion (oil etc).

The ability to carry a droppable extra fuel tank would be nice, as would an ejector seat. Keeping the plane flying long enough for the pilot to survive should be the priority - planes can be built quickly, good pilots takes months to train. That is also why I choose a radial engine, which can coninue to work even on reduced power after losing cylinders to enemy fire.

Centaurus in 1945 was around 2500 HP max. The HS 404 was 600 shots/min, the Hispano V was at 750-800 s/m. Perhaps use the B-20 - as good as Shavak, but uch lighter at 25 kg?
Tempest airframe is excellent choice.

upper limit of 15 aug 1945, but only piston propellor airplanes

Okay. When range/radius is not important:
Yak-3 airframe, DB 605D or 605L, synchronised 3x B-20 cannons or 2 x MG 213C.
When range is important:
P-51H, with 'butterfly flaps' and beveled ailerons, 4 x B-20 cannons or 4 X Hispano V.
Naval fighter:
Same P-51H as above, obviously with folding wing, hook and other navlalization stuff. Alternatively, something like Sea Hornet.
 
von Adler said:
I am thinking something like this:

Airframe: Tempest F II, with improved air cooling intakes (iron out the bugs).
Engine: Bristol Centaurus radial with direct fuel injection, 3 220 Hp, good supercharger.
Guns: 4x20mm HS404 (700 shots/minute) or 4x20mm ShVAK (800 shots/minute).
Propeller: Well-balanced 5-blade changable.
Canopy: Plexiglass bubble.
Wings: Tempest F II slim wings with good performance both on high and low altitude.
Seat armour, armoured windscreen, back armour, probably some armour for the weaker spots of the propulsion (oil etc).

The ability to carry a droppable extra fuel tank would be nice, as would an ejector seat. Keeping the plane flying long enough for the pilot to survive should be the priority - planes can be built quickly, good pilots takes months to train. That is also why I choose a radial engine, which can coninue to work even on reduced power after losing cylinders to enemy fire.

Centaurus in the Tempest was a heat problem never truly solved. Wing airfoil chord was botched. As noted, (^^^^) the air cooling was a problem. The Centaurus was actually too big for the plane both in torque load and in cross section frontal area so the engineering compromises in wing form, cowling and aft ballast and trim were unnecessary complexities that rob the plane of performance that a lighter smaller diameter engine might have conferred. Ditto the heat problem. Four blade gives you symmetric shock wave to pass into. Five blade with that honking intake? Nope. Slim wings robs lift at the 200-300 knot regime. Got to be careful about the ARMOR. Since this bird is still a bolo at high altitude, she will be bounced. Need to armor overhead and to the back. Cannon fit YMMV, but a quad of Hispanos is better than ShVAKs. Fewer jams, better ballistics, more accurate, more reliable ammo.
Centaurus in 1945 was around 2500 HP max. The HS 404 was 600 shots/min, the Hispano V was at 750-800 s/m. Perhaps use the B-20 - as good as Shavak, but much lighter at 25 kg?

Tempest airframe is excellent choice.

See above.

Okay. When range/radius is not important:
Yak-3 airframe, DB 605D or 605L, synchronised 3x B-20 cannons or 2 x MG 213C.
When range is important:
P-51H, with 'butterfly flaps' and beveled ailerons, 4 x B-20 cannons or 4 X Hispano V.
Naval fighter:
Same P-51H as above, obviously with folding wing, hook and other navlalization stuff. Alternatively, something like Sea Hornet.

The P-51 is not stressed for carrier operations. One good trap and it is a write-off.

F8F Bearcat with a decent BRITISH Hispano quad of HS404 series 20 mms. Hard to improve on that bird.

Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate again with a rationalized and product quality controlled Homare engine. (Hard to beat its Pratt origins, you know?). Engine matched to a typically superb Japanese airframe: nimble agile in most altitude bands, decently protected (for a Japanese aircraft), deadly right to the close of the war in the hands of a skilled pilot. No complaints about the Ho5 cannons or the Ho105 machine guns that quality control could not address in the main. Mister Browning would have recognized their classic features and approved of the closely matched ballistics; though I am not a fan of mixed caliber aircraft armament.
 
Wasnt the P-51 stall speed much higher than the OTL carrier aircraft?

Per OTL - it was. My proposal has the 'butterfly flaps' to improve low speed capabilities & maneuverability.

Centaurus in the Tempest was a heat problem never truly solved. Wing airfoil chord was botched. As noted, (^^^^) the air cooling was a problem. The Centaurus was actually too big for the plane both in torque load and in cross section frontal area so the engineering compromises in wing form, cowling and aft ballast and trim were unnecessary complexities that rob the plane of performance that a lighter smaller diameter engine might have conferred. Ditto the heat problem. Four blade gives you symmetric shock wave to pass into. Five blade with that honking intake? Nope. Slim wings robs lift at the 200-300 knot regime. Got to be careful about the ARMOR. Since this bird is still a bolo at high altitude, she will be bounced. Need to armor overhead and to the back. Cannon fit YMMV, but a quad of Hispanos is better than ShVAKs. Fewer jams, better ballistics, more accurate, more reliable ammo.

Do you have any sources that five blades are compounding the supposed problems of the Centaurus installationn on the Sea Fury? When the wing area ceased to be a property of an aircraft? By how much of the lift was the slim-winged Spitfire robbed? When the Tempest II and Sea Fury became slow all the sudden? Experiences from India, Pakistan and Cuba about the Centaurus at high temperatures?


See above.
The P-51 is not stressed for carrier operations. One good trap and it is a write-off.

Above is adressed.
Sea Hurricane, Spitfire/Seafire, Sea Hornet - neither was being a write off after one good trap.

F8F Bearcat with a decent BRITISH Hispano quad of HS404 series 20 mms. Hard to improve on that bird.

Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate again with a rationalized and product quality controlled Homare engine. (Hard to beat its Pratt origins, you know?). Engine matched to a typically superb Japanese airframe: nimble agile in most altitude bands, decently protected (for a Japanese aircraft), deadly right to the close of the war in the hands of a skilled pilot. No complaints about the Ho5 cannons or the Ho105 machine guns that quality control could not address in the main. Mister Browning would have recognized their classic features and approved of the closely matched ballistics; though I am not a fan of mixed caliber aircraft armament.

The 420 mph fighters in 1945 are passee.
 
Per OTL - it was. My proposal has the 'butterfly flaps' to improve low speed capabilities & maneuverability.

Ineffective.

Do you have any sources that five blades are compounding the supposed problems of the Centaurus installationn on the Sea Fury? When the wing area ceased to be a property of an aircraft? By how much of the lift was the slim-winged Spitfire robbed? When the Tempest II and Sea Fury became slow all the sudden? Experiences from India, Pakistan and Cuba about the Centaurus at high temperatures?

Here is some reading.

Spitfire did not carry bombs. The Jug did. Ask why since both planes fought in the same altitude bands with about equal success. Who cares about slow when corner speed is the metric?
Never mind south Asia. How about France where the problem about heat was noticed and complained about?

Above is addressed. Sea Hurricane, Spitfire/Seafire, Sea Hornet - neither was being a write off after one good trap.

Ah... yes they actually were. It's called the banjo effect. Trap hard and fast and the tail is stretched. OOPs.

The 420 mph fighters in 1945 are passee.

In a turning fight or zoom/boom, when they have an energy bleed advantage? The F8F-2 (one actually used [455 mph]) would eat a Tempest or Sea Fury alive. From the word "bounce".
 
Spitfire did not carry bombs. The Jug did.

Sorry...I couldn't resist...the large majority of Spitfire fighters lost during the Normandy campaign were lost to ground fire while performing ground attack missions!

Here is Geoffrey Page (an early member of the Guinea pig club as a result of the RAF not fitting self sealing liners to the Hurricanes forward fuel tank the fools) about to take of in his MKIX with 2 x 250 pound and 1 x 500 pound bomb

GeoffreyPageSpitfire.jpg


Apart from some instances where the bombs did not release and the stress from the savage pull up resulted in the wing/s failing (due to rebuilt AC using the same rivet holes) - the Spit made for a very accurate DB.
 
Ineffective.

Japanese disagree with you, they installed that type of flaps on Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-84, JM2, N1K.

Here is some reading.

Spitfire did not carry bombs. The Jug did. Ask why since both planes fought in the same altitude bands with about equal success. Who cares about slow when corner speed is the metric?
Never mind south Asia. How about France where the problem about heat was noticed and complained about?

Please, post something meanigful as a proof, not direct me to the text where it says that more powerful engines dictate more blades since less blades either will not cut it due to being too short, or will be hitting the ground if they are of needed length.
Spitfire didn't carry bombs? Amazing.
Corner speed is your metric, not the metric. If you have proof that Centaurus engines have had that a big problem with high temperatures - post the proof.

Ah... yes they actually were. It's called the banjo effect. Trap hard and fast and the tail is stretched. OOPs.

Yes, trap hard and all of that. Yet, they were flying and fighting, so those funky British pilots and their aricraft were good for something.

In a turning fight or zoom/boom, when they have an energy bleed advantage? The F8F-2 (one actually used [455 mph]) would eat a Tempest or Sea Fury alive. From the word "bounce".

The F8F-2 was an aircraft from 1948, with engine of same vintage. Ie. not applicable to here.
Where is the table sorting the fighters by energy bleed advantage? Why would anyone try to turn vs. enemy, when flying a faster aircraft?
 
So Martin-Baker MB5 then?

Only if you want to win the thread

And I have some major issues with the aircraft

I mean like...um...erm....well its.....ahh the guns MkII HS 404 - ARE YOU MAD!!!!?

Obviously they need to be changed to MK V HS 404......

Other than that shift some production around at Castle Bromwich and start spamming it out - Squadron service in 45

Seriously though what I like about the MB-5 is the fact that it was designed for ease of maintenance and ease of construction - yet still out performing a Spit with the sort of range enjoyed by the Mustang

It is sort of like a Griffon powered Mustang - what's not to like
 
Sorry...I couldn't resist...the large majority of Spitfire fighters lost during the Normandy campaign were lost to ground fire while performing ground attack missions!

Here is Geoffrey Page (an early member of the Guinea pig club as a result of the RAF not fitting self sealing liners to the Hurricanes forward fuel tank the fools) about to take of in his MKIX with 2 x 250 pound and 1 x 500 pound bomb

GeoffreyPageSpitfire.jpg


Apart from some instances where the bombs did not release and the stress from the savage pull up resulted in the wing/s failing (due to rebuilt AC using the same rivet holes) - the Spit made for a very accurate DB.

Wing stress.

Japanese disagree with you, they installed that type of flaps on Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-84, JM2, N1K.

Those are not the Tempest, you notice?


Please, post something meanigful as a proof, not direct me to the text where it says that more powerful engines dictate more blades since less blades either will not cut it due to being too short, or will be hitting the ground if they are of needed length.

Here. Self explanatory.

Spitfire didn't carry bombs? Amazing.

Of course they did, but not usually and despite what Cryhavoc writes (sorry, fella) they were not very good at it.

Corner speed is your metric, not the metric. If you have proof that Centaurus engines have had that a big problem with high temperatures - post the proof.

Corner speed is the metric in a 2 axis turning fight. Kind of what a fighter is designed to do down to the present as it aligns to point and shoot. (Even missiles.) The whole point of the metric I chose was to point out where the Tempest failed as a fighter.

Yes, trap hard and all of that. Yet, they were flying and fighting, so those funky British pilots and their aricraft were good for something.

Hence the changeover to a PROPER carrier fighter when the FAA got their hands on Martlets and Hellcats?

The F8F-2 was an aircraft from 1948, with engine of same vintage. Ie. not applicable to here.

Where is the table sorting the fighters by energy bleed advantage? Why would anyone try to turn vs. enemy, when flying a faster aircraft?

The Bearcat (Let's use *45 version) had altitude, lift and dive advantage on a Tempest. Also outturned the British plane. Who dies first? QED, speed of 20-25 mph at lower altitude only allows the Tempest to run if it survives the bounce. Unlikely. However if the Bearcat survives the bounce, it becomes a turning fight. And then the pilot skills being equal, the Tempest dies.
 
Last edited:
............. Please, post something meanigful as a proof, not direct me to the text where it says that more powerful engines dictate more blades since less blades either will not cut it due to being too short, or will be hitting the ground if they are of needed length. ........ that Centaurus engines .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------

May I interject a bit of propeller theory?

First, propeller tips must travel slower than Mach 1. Trying to turn them faster just converts fuel to noise at an alarming rate. See the Republic Thundershreak turboprop for details.

The second variable is diameter, which is defined by airframe configuration and undercarriage length. Diameter determines disc area.

Once tip speed and diameter have been defined, they determine rotations per minute, which is largely determined by gear ratios in the propeller speed reduction unit.

The next variable is disc-loading. The greater the horsepower per square foot of disc area, the greater the blade area required. Blade area can be increased two ways: wider blades or more blades. Wider, paddle blades (P-47) were installed on later Pratt & Whitney R2800 radials and many turboprops.

The other way to increase blade area is increasing the number of blades from two (Spitfire Mark I) to 5 on later marks.

A third way to increase the number of blades is installing counter-rotating propellers. Initially CR props were developed for Griffon-engined Spitfires to allow more horsepower to be delivered through the same prop diameter, retaining the original landing gear length. A pleasant side-effect was the way the pair of propellers cancelled out each others' torque, reducing yaw during power changes. This side-effect reduced pilot work-load during take-off.
The world's fastest production turboprop (Russian Bear bomber) still uses CR props.
 
Last edited:
Only if you want to win the thread

And I have some major issues with the aircraft

I mean like...um...erm....well its.....ahh the guns MkII HS 404 - ARE YOU MAD!!!!?

Obviously they need to be changed to MK V HS 404......

Other than that shift some production around at Castle Bromwich and start spamming it out - Squadron service in 45

Seriously though what I like about the MB-5 is the fact that it was designed for ease of maintenance and ease of construction - yet still out performing a Spit with the sort of range enjoyed by the Mustang

It is sort of like a Griffon powered Mustang - what's not to like
And just look at it!!!
Gmb5-index.jpg

The wide undercarriage suggests that an adaption would be a much superior idea to the Seafire?
(Not to mention the advantages that having a common Griffon engine based Naval Aircraft family would give)
 
Those are not the Tempest, you notice?

I did not suggest outfitting Tempest with butterfly flaps, but P-51H. Would've been also good on the Tempest (or other fighters) now that you've mentioned it.

Here. Self explanatory.

Nope.

Of course they did, but not usually and despite what Cryhavoc writes (sorry, fella) they were not very good at it.

So in one post you claim that Spitfires didn't carry bombs, then in this one 'of course they did'? Have we all the sudden became 5 y.o. kids?

Corner speed is the metric in a 2 axis turning fight. Kind of what a fighter is designed to do down to the present as it aligns to point and shoot. (Even missiles.) The whole point of the metric I chose was to point out where the Tempest failed as a fighter.

It is you word that tempest failed as a fighter, vs. word from air service/forces that used it both in war time and peace. I know what to choose. That air fighting happens in a 3 axis space is also something to consider.

Hence the changeover to a PROPER carrier fighter when the FAA got their hands on Martlets and Hellcats?

Folding wing Martlet is a better thing than fixed wing Se Hurricane, 390 mph Hellcat with long range is a better thing than 350 mph Seafire with short range. However, the 400-430 mph Seafire 45 and 47, long range fighters, were still produced and used.

The Bearcat (Let's use *45 version) had altitude, lift and dive advantage on a Tempest. Also outturned the British plane. Who dies first? QED, speed of 20-25 mph at lower altitude only allows the Tempest to run if it survives the bounce. Unlikely. However if the Bearcat survives the bounce, it becomes a turning fight. And then the pilot skills being equal, the Tempest dies.

Let's say it happened that way. The P-51H enters the fray and kills F8F-1. End of story.
 
And just look at it!!!
Gmb5-index.jpg

The wide undercarriage suggests that an adaption would be a much superior idea to the Seafire?
(Not to mention the advantages that having a common Griffon engine based Naval Aircraft family would give)

Its sooooo pretty

Another advantage if adopted as a carrier aircraft is that with a contra rotating prop it would eliminate much of the Torque issues on take off that impacted soem of the very powerful late war prop a/cs
 
The RN was concerned about the scissor action of a contra rotating prop cutting through the safety barrier. I wonder if the adoption of a Contra rotating propeller aircraft could have brought the adoption of the angled flight deck forward?
 
Top