What would a "Best of the lot" 1943 fighter aircraft look like?

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Actually, if you go with the OP description no piston engine aircraft even enters into the discussion.

As an example: The XP-80 first flew in January 1944, but all the bits and pieces for the aircraft were available in 1943. The technology existed to plumb wings for drop tanks, doesn't matter if any specific aircraft had the tech installed, all that matters is that it existed. You now have a 500mph level flight fighter with 1,200 mile range (i.e. UK to Berlin and back). As far as I know that is the fastest and best range aircraft using a first Gen engine (in this case the 2,300 ft/pound Goblin 1).

You can also build an aircraft from a clean sheet of paper. The Germans, and independently, NACA had figured out that swept wings would be superior at high speeds (Mach 0.9+) with the Germans having performed much more wind tunnel testing. Both had come up with the ideal 38-45 degree of sweep, neither country USED the knowledge, but it existed, as did the tech to construct the airframe. Build your own design.

As I understand the OP, this is not meant to be a discussion of the best fighter that did exist in 1943, but the best that could be made with the available tech.
 

Deleted member 1487

Actually, if you go with the OP description no piston engine aircraft even enters into the discussion.

As an example: The XP-80 first flew in January 1944, but all the bits and pieces for the aircraft were available in 1943. The technology existed to plumb wings for drop tanks, doesn't matter if any specific aircraft had the tech installed, all that matters is that it existed. You now have a 500mph level flight fighter with 1,200 mile range (i.e. UK to Berlin and back). As far as I know that is the fastest and best range aircraft using a first Gen engine (in this case the 2,300 ft/pound Goblin 1).

You can also build an aircraft from a clean sheet of paper. The Germans, and independently, NACA had figured out that swept wings would be superior at high speeds (Mach 0.9+) with the Germans having performed much more wind tunnel testing. Both had come up with the ideal 38-45 degree of sweep, neither country USED the knowledge, but it existed, as did the tech to construct the airframe. Build your own design.

As I understand the OP, this is not meant to be a discussion of the best fighter that did exist in 1943, but the best that could be made with the available tech.
Got any preference yourself or is the XP-80 it? Also in terms of taking advantage of swept wings, did the engines even exist to get an aircraft to Mach 1 in 1943?
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
One could also make the argument that the Me-109 was the best of WWII fighter because it shot down more enemy aircraft than any other.

Indeed I did, earlier in the thread. The Bf109G shot down more enemy aircraft than any other variant of the Bf109.

However, anyone who chooses war-losing technology over war-winning technology better have a pretty solid case for that claim that it would be 'the best of the lot'
 
Indeed I did, earlier in the thread. The Bf109G shot down more enemy aircraft than any other variant of the Bf109.

However, anyone who chooses war-losing technology over war-winning technology better have a pretty solid case for that claim that it would be 'the best of the lot'
I would say the P-51 was the best fighter of WWII and the Me-109 the greatest fighter of WWII, one based on its performance and the other on its combat record.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
As I understand the OP, this is not meant to be a discussion of the best fighter that did exist in 1943, but the best that could be made with the available tech.

Spitfire XIV, or P-51B, then. The Spit XIV (or XII) could, in theory have been available in 1940. The P-51B and the Tempest II in 1941.

'Best' includes reliability, easiness for a pilot to fly, and ease of manufacture too.

By that benchmark, no WW2/1940s jet fighter would make the cut.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
Vs. the DB 605A, the DB 605D was outfitted with new supercharger, plus featuring the increased compression ratio, as well as new oil system. Considering that even with lower CR it took 15 months for the DB 605A to be modified and rated for boost over 1.3 ata and RPM above 2600, I somehow don't take it for granted that we'd can just shove the new S/C and pistons, plus other tweaks on the 605A and got the 605D that will not burn pistons in 1943. The C3 fuel in 1944 was of 130+ PN in for rich mixture, vs. 100 PN in 1939. I'll give you the MW 50 injection as feasible (even though it was not used on the BMW 801D apart from testing), though we again hit the wall with DB 605A reliability in 1943.



That is almost all good and well. Only problem someone might point will be that an OTL P-51 vs. ALT 109 is an unfair comparison.

I'd forgotten about the SC change, you're correct. Though I've never heard of the oil system changes. Were they substantial?

And to be fair, the 605D was fairly unreliable in 44. Frankly I might take that trade, especially since we've never had criteria defined for this thread.

And the G-3 would still murder the pony below 25K. Maybe not quite as soundly, but any contemporary 109 has odds ranging from good to stellar against a P-51 in the low and medium altitude bands.
 
Actually, if you go with the OP description no piston engine aircraft even enters into the discussion.

As an example: The XP-80 first flew in January 1944, but all the bits and pieces for the aircraft were available in 1943. The technology existed to plumb wings for drop tanks, doesn't matter if any specific aircraft had the tech installed, all that matters is that it existed. You now have a 500mph level flight fighter with 1,200 mile range (i.e. UK to Berlin and back). As far as I know that is the fastest and best range aircraft using a first Gen engine (in this case the 2,300 ft/pound Goblin 1).

You can also build an aircraft from a clean sheet of paper. The Germans, and independently, NACA had figured out that swept wings would be superior at high speeds (Mach 0.9+) with the Germans having performed much more wind tunnel testing. Both had come up with the ideal 38-45 degree of sweep, neither country USED the knowledge, but it existed, as did the tech to construct the airframe. Build your own design.

As I understand the OP, this is not meant to be a discussion of the best fighter that did exist in 1943, but the best that could be made with the available tech.

Which would mean sweeping the wings on an Me 262 to 38 degrees, with a pair of Rolls-Royce Derwents, instead of Jumo 004's, and 6 Hispano Mk. V's* in the nose?
All available and possible, you just need to fit them together.

(*Better for other fighters, but keep the R4M racks for anti-bomber work)
 
It would need to have this:

e7e0815d4c8800bd6428103233dd7056.jpg
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Which would mean sweeping the wings on an Me 262 to 38 degrees, with a pair of Rolls-Royce Derwents, instead of Jumo 004's, and 6 Hispano Mk. V's* in the nose?
All available and possible, you just need to fit them together.

(*Better for other fighters, but keep the R4M racks for anti-bomber work)
Sure. The de Haviliand Goblin I engine would work as well, better in fact, since it had about 15% more thrust than the early version of RR. No idea of what the top speed or range would be.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Got any preference yourself or is the XP-80 it? Also in terms of taking advantage of swept wings, did the engines even exist to get an aircraft to Mach 1 in 1943?
It is the engine that was in the Vampire. The USAAF had one, but broke it during ground testing, that is why the aircraft didn't actually test until the first week of January 44. Airframe was already available.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
Which would mean sweeping the wings on an Me 262 to 38 degrees, with a pair of Rolls-Royce Derwents, instead of Jumo 004's, and 6 Hispano Mk. V's* in the nose?

Where are you going to put the engines, given the RR Derwent has a diameter of 43 inches? (Compared to the 32 inch Jumo 004) On the wings is not a good move, unless you want to make the resulting aircraft draggy, unmanoeuvreable AND underpowered.
 

Deleted member 1487

It is the engine that was in the Vampire. The USAAF had one, but broke it during ground testing, that is why the aircraft didn't actually test until the first week of January 44. Airframe was already available.
Is that really an engine you'd want to be flying with?
 
Where are you going to put the engines, given the RR Derwent has a diameter of 43 inches? (Compared to the 32 inch Jumo 004) On the wings is not a good move, unless you want to make the resulting aircraft draggy, unmanoeuvreable AND underpowered.
And the Jumo 004 has a greater diameter than the originally planned BMW 003 (27 inches)
And we are re-shaping the wings in line with the available research.
(The wings were originally swept to accommodate the engines anyway)
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Spitfire XIV, or P-51B, then. The Spit XIV (or XII) could, in theory have been available in 1940. The P-51B and the Tempest II in 1941.

'Best' includes reliability, easiness for a pilot to fly, and ease of manufacture too.

By that benchmark, no WW2/1940s jet fighter would make the cut.
Not at all sure I agree.

The jet engine is no more difficult to produce than an advanced internal combustion engine. You need the theory, more importantly you need the materials (one reason the Jumo had such a godawful reliability is that the materials weren't up to the requirements). It took Packard under a year to go from a cold start to full production of the V-1650 Merlin, an effort that required not only conversion from Imperial to SAE measurements (really important issue, especially in fluid measurement, a SAE (U.S.) pint is 16 ounces, an Imperial pint is 20 ounces) and the conversion of what was a hand-built engine to a mass produced one (interestingly that meant dramatically tightening clearances since the RR technicians would literally customize parts to fit each engine, Ford of England ran into the same issue). There is also the fact that U.S. companies had access to pretty much the best of everything, so engine parts were usually exceptional.

An experienced pilot can have problems with the conversion from prop to jet (Dick Bong famously died testing a P-80, something that Chuck Yeager blamed on Bong not reading the manual for the aircraft), but with the proper instruction the biggest difficulty is getting used to the extra speed since it reduces the decision loop.

It comes down to, as was the case during the war, staying with the familiar or not. The difference here is that it isn't a question if it is a sufficient tactical advantage to retool a factory to make a new aircraft with the retraining needed, it is a question of what the "best" possible design would be. With that in mind the extra 100+MPH at altitude and range equal to or greater than piston engine designs (excepting the Mustang, however the P-80 has the range to reach Berlin and back from the UK, so range isn't an absolute stopper).
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Is that really an engine you'd want to be flying with?

That I would like to fly with? Hell I don't much like to fly in 757s (all those parts, all of them made by the lowest bidder) so I'm not exactly the best guy to ask that one. :p

However...

It wasn't the engine that broke, it was the induction cowling on the static test aircraft. The cowling failed and the engine ingested debris.

Honestly I'm not sure that the Jumo, built with top quality materials, would not have been a solid design.
 

Deleted member 1487

That I would like to fly with? Hell I don't much like to fly in 757s (all those parts, all of them made by the lowest bidder) so I'm not exactly the best guy to ask that one. :p

However...

It wasn't the engine that broke, it was the induction cowling on the static test aircraft. The cowling failed and the engine ingested debris.

Honestly I'm not sure that the Jumo, built with top quality materials, would not have been a solid design.
Gotcha. Any clue as to what the development level of the Goblin was in 1943? I know the Jumo 004A was flyable, but lower powered than the Goblin prototype.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_004
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Gotcha. Any clue as to what the development level of the Goblin was in 1943? I know the Jumo 004A was flyable, but lower powered than the Goblin prototype.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_004
As I said, the XP-80 flew with one the first week of January 1944 and hit 502 MPH in level flight with it that month. The engine had to be shipped over from the UK to replace the one that was destroyed in ground testing, so it would appear to be flight ready before the end of 1943. No idea of how many hours it could run between overhauls.
 

Deleted member 1487

When the Soviets tried postwar, still found the Nene and Derwents better
Of course, the Nene was a much more powerful engine design. The Jumo was designed to be put into production ASAP, not develop theoretical power. Not sure why they'd consider the Derwent any better though.
 
Top