Best possible WW2 propellor fighter using existing components

OTL "Butterfly flaps" slide back before tilting down. They increase wing area (a bit) before tilting down to increase drag. Those Japanese fighters were among the few to use "butterfly flaps" to assist maneuvering.
OTOH An updated version: double-slotted Fowler flaps are widely used on modern airliners. Because they tilt down, they are severely restricted to only extend at lower airspeeds. Deploying Fowler flaps at too high and airspeed will bend them or rip them off the airplane!

I doubt if "butterfly flaps" would lower P-51D stall speed significantly below the 90 knot limit on USN arrester cables. That would require full-span flaps, which would drive a radical redesign of ailerons.
P-51H was never seriously considered for carrier conversion because it was lighter and less strong than earlier models of P-51.
 
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.

Depends. How much roll do you want in your turn?


Actually... Yup. YMMV, but physics is physics.

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?

Clarity. Spitfires did not as a rule carry bombs when other better planes that could and did and were present. That included P-40s, Hurricanes, Apaches, P-47s, and of the course the failed Tempest.

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.

You know something here? 2-d axis (Pitch and Yaw) point is not the same as 3-d axis control which is pitch, yaw and ROLL. In a turning fight, ROLL bleeds energy without contributing to point. And that IS the point. ;)

Folding wing Martlet is a better thing than fixed wing Sea 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.

And the Seafire 45 was trounced by the IJNAS.

The Seafire F.Mk.45 was developed by Cunliffe-Owen, but the fifty production aircraft were built by Vickers at Castle Bromwich and were assembled at South Marston.

The Seafire F.Mk.45 was not a particularly successful design. The powerful engine and five-blade propeller made it quite hard to fly in a straight line, while the lack of folding wings made it unsuited for carrier operations. It was soon replaced by the F.Mk.46, which introduced contra-rotating propellers that solved the torque problems.

As for the Seafire 47

Better plane but less than 90 produced. Hardly what I call a ringing endorsement or a replacement for all those RN Hellcats.

Also... Remember what I said about propellers and the Tempest?

Let's say it happened that way. The P-51H enters the fray and kills F8F-1. End of story.

Nope, let's look at it as it actually was.

The P-51H is not carrier capable. And it would have been so fragile and it did not turn very well... Bearcat would have it for lunch.

And when given a choice in Korea the USAF opted for the P-51D. Because they wanted live pilots, not DEAD ones.[/quote]
 
Depends. How much roll do you want in your turn?
...
You know something here? 2-d axis (Pitch and Yaw) point is not the same as 3-d axis control which is pitch, yaw and ROLL. In a turning fight, ROLL bleeds energy without contributing to point. And that IS the point. ;)

Great rate of roll is essential (one of reasons the Fw 190 was highly rated by airforces/services of ww2, a reason for clipped-wing Spitfire, for metal-clad ailerons vs. fabric, a reason why P-38 was in problems before it received boosted ailerons, a reason to why Allied pilots could kill Zeros even when flying same generation of fighters...), hence my suggestion for beveled ailerons for the P-51H.

Actually... Yup. YMMV, but physics is physics.

I will not discuss number of prop blades anymore with you.

Clarity. Spitfires did not as a rule carry bombs when other better planes that could and did and were present. That included P-40s, Hurricanes, Apaches, P-47s, and of the course the failed Tempest.

Tempest was not failed.
I'm sure that clarity is present when one says 1st time 'no bombs', and second time 'yes, bombs were carried sometimes'. When a fighter starts carrying bombs regularly, it signals that either there is a better fighter in service, or that enemy has no aerial opposition, or both. Otherwise air forces prefer proper bombers.

And the Seafire 45 was trounced by the IJNAS.
As for the Seafire 47
Better plane but less than 90 produced. Hardly what I call a ringing endorsement or a replacement for all those RN Hellcats.

Who said that IJNAS trounced the Seafire 45?
Granted, the brand new Sea Hornet (that was able to be a night fighter) and Sea Fury were admitedly better choices.

Also... Remember what I said about propellers and the Tempest?

You are not renown as a redoutable source about aircraft.

Nope, let's look at it as it actually was.
The P-51H is not carrier capable. And it would have been so fragile and it did not turn very well... Bearcat would have it for lunch.
And when given a choice in Korea the USAF opted for the P-51D. Because they wanted live pilots, not DEAD ones.

P-51H needed modifications to became carrier capable, as suggested. The 'fragile' P-51H? It was Bearcat that tended to loose wing tips.
 
Last edited:
It was Bearcat that tended to loose wing tips.
The Bearcat was designed to lose its wingtips. The USN wanted the lightest plane possible around the P&W R-2800 engine and Grumman went to town hacking off weight. By designing the wingtips for a lower G force, they could be lighter. It was designed for the wingtips to come off when the G force which I think was 7 was exceeded. Pilots were only supposed to exceed a 7G force in combat maneuvers but pilots being pilots did it in peacetime as well.
 
The Bearcat was designed to lose its wingtips. The USN wanted the lightest plane possible around the P&W R-2800 engine and Grumman went to town hacking off weight. By designing the wingtips for a lower G force, they could be lighter. It was designed for the wingtips to come off when the G force which I think was 7 was exceeded. Pilots were only supposed to exceed a 7G force in combat maneuvers but pilots being pilots did it in peacetime as well.

The idea was probably good, the execution was found wanting. A quick copy/paste from Wikipedia, FWIW:

One problem that became evident in service was the snap-off wingtips not working as expected. While they worked well under carefully controlled conditions in flight and on the ground, in the field, where aircraft were repetitively stressed by landing on carriers and since the wings were slightly less carefully made in the factories, there was a possibility that only one wingtip would break away with the possibility of the aircraft crashing.[13] This was replaced with an explosives system to blow the wingtips off together, which also worked well, but this ended when a ground technician died due to an accidental triggering. In the end, the wings were reinforced and the aircraft limited to 7.5 g.
 
Oh, I was well aware of what Wikipedia said and of course, we all know that Wikipedia is the last word on factual evidence.
But to say they were fragile since their wingtips came off as designed is being a little disingenuous.
Read Corky Myer's book on the Grumman Bearcat, part of the Ginter's Naval Fighters collection if you want the full story.
 
Regarding the OP's original proposition, I would vote for the Martin-Baker MB5 for the single engine aircraft and the the Grumman Tigercat for the twin-prop category, both were exceptional aircraft from off the shield components.
 
What would a production M.B. 5 be called I wonder? Since the british were never fans of numerical designations. Did Martin-Baker have a naming tradition like

The F7F seems like it could preform similarly to the P-38; that is a single-pilot twin-engine plane with performance approaching single-engine designs. I could see refitting it with lower-drag cowlings or even in-line engines to really reduce the nacelle drag.
 
Oh, I was well aware of what Wikipedia said and of course, we all know that Wikipedia is the last word on factual evidence.
But to say they were fragile since their wingtips came off as designed is being a little disingenuous.
...

Sorry if my words sounded like that. It was sorta over-reaction when other poster claimed that P-51H was fragile, both for air combat vs. Bearcat and for the Korean war. Where the F8F also took no part.
 
Sorry if my words sounded like that. It was sorta over-reaction when other poster claimed that P-51H was fragile, both for air combat vs. Bearcat and for the Korean war. Where the F8F also took no part.

Navy had a better plane by then. And as pointed out above, (^^^^) the P-51H was the Zero of the USAF. Not used and with good reason,

Propellers enter the realm of diminishing returns when too many blades are driven by too much watts. Two separate people have pointed this out, and you had two independent sources cited.

As for roll... there are only two reasons to outroll a pursuer, get out of his bullet hose, and/or bleed speed to get behind him if he is stupid enough to follow you into the roll instead of point at where he knows you will finish up. Robin Olds killed many a man that way.

Resource about aircraft?: YMMV. I read three rather bad and obvious mistakes about aircraft made by various people other than me, aside from the one I made on this one page (Spitfire and bombs- a minor mistake). Four; if you count the wiki citation.
 
Last edited:
Clarity. Spitfires did not as a rule carry bombs when other better planes that could and did and were present. That included P-40s, Hurricanes, Apaches, P-47s, and of the course the failed Tempest.
Isn't this more the opposite way round? With the worse fighter going for the ground attack role not the best bomber being picked especially with P40 and Hurricanes?
 

hipper

Banned
Isn't this more the opposite way round? With the worse fighter going for the ground attack role not the best bomber being picked especially with P40 and Hurricanes?

Keith Park started using Spitfires as Bombers in mid 1942 from Malta, he used his best aircraft as a fighter bomber.. I believe that Spitfires were the most numerous fighter bombers in Normamdy in 1944.
 
Keith Park started using Spitfires as Bombers in mid 1942 from Malta, he used his best aircraft as a fighter bomber.. I believe that Spitfires were the most numerous fighter bombers in Normamdy in 1944.
My questions what fighters where based on Malta in mid 42 or UK in mid 44? By that time would P40s or Hurricanes not have been demoted to training or sent to lower priority theatres like the far east?
 
Navy had a better plane by then. And as pointed out above, (^^^^) the P-51H was the Zero of the USAF. Not used and with good reason,

Nobody pointed out that.
Zero was underperformer vs. late-war Allied A/C, the P-51H was not. In 1054, the USN have had 3 fighter aircraft types with piston engines in production for their needs, plus Hellcat being phased out from production - money was to be spent to buy jet fighters if there was any left.

Propellers enter the realm of diminishing returns when too many blades are driven by too much watts. Two separate people have pointed this out, and you had two independent sources cited.

Yet nobody proved your point that 4 blades will push the air in symetric fashion, while 5 blades will not.

As for roll... there are only two reasons to outroll a pursuer, get out of his bullet hose, and/or bleed speed to get behind him if he is stupid enough to follow you into the roll instead of point at where he knows you will finish up. Robin Olds killed many a man that way.

Getting out from the bullet hose seem like a very good reason to use superior rate of roll, if that was the option.

Resource about aircraft?: YMMV. I read three rather bad and obvious mistakes about aircraft made by various people other than me, aside from the one I made on this one page (Spitfire and bombs- a minor mistake). Four; if you count the wiki citation.

3-4 mistakes?? Add just my own mistakes and the number skyrockets, just in this forum.
 
LAUGHTER... some good points above. I may still disagree about the pie-plating and prop hub torque loading, but still some good points (^^^^). As always; (YMMV).
 
I am thinking:

Airframe: new; something akin to a hybrid P-39/P-51 (XP-78?); low-drag; flush air intake scoops (NACA ducts)
Engine: Griffon with direct fuel injection (& crude hot-wire mass air flow sensor); 2500hp; good two-stage turbo
Guns: 2x20mm HS404 (700 shots/minute) & 4x12.7mm ShKAS (all in nose, just ahead of cockpit)
Propeller: Well-balanced 5-blade variable-pitch, hollow blades.
Canopy: Plexiglass bubble, side-hinged.
Wings: laminar wing (akin to P-51); option to carry tip drop tanks (not fixed tanks); about 7% thickness-chord ratio?
Seat armour, armoured windscreen, back armour, probably some armour for the weaker spots of the propulsion (oil etc).
Compressed air ejection seat
Tricycle gear
 
Top