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

All things considered, I'm surprised the Me-262 was as good as it was. I doubt any other nation in the same circumstances that Germany was in could have done better.

When Britain was on the ropes in late 1940 she responded by virtually stopping all 'Nice to have' projects (6 pounder and Griffon and slowed down stuff that was now a lower priority such as battleships for example) and focusing purely on building stuff she knew whot worked in as large numbers as possible as quickly as possible.

Russia did like wise - despite having 25% of Germanys Steel and Energy in 1943 managed to build 4x the AFVs by focusing purely on what was required - they built the T34/76 when they could quite easily have built the far better quality T34M

Germany when things started looking grim on the other hand focuses on things like King Tigers, ME262 and V2 - the enemy of the Good enough is perfection!
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
All things considered, I'm surprised the Me-262 was as good as it was. I doubt any other nation in the same circumstances that Germany was in could have done better.

All the technology the Nazis had that enabled them to conquer most of Europe and vast tracts of the USSR was developed in the 1930s,

All the technology that enabled them to LOSE all that territory was developed or entered service post 1942

As Cryhavoc101 states, the Third Reich needed to rationalise and produce vast quantities of stuff that actually worked just to keep up with Britain, then the USSR, then the USA.

Thankfully for humanity they chose the 'baroque arsenal' route to defeat.
 
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.

Oil system was laready changed when they went with DB 605AS and ASM engines, outwards the bigger oil cooler is the most recongnisable detail.
Bf109G-3? It didn't shoot down any significant number of Allison Mustangs, the Merlin Mustangs were 10-20 mph faster under 25000 ft than Allison Mustangs.

All the technology the Nazis had that enabled them to conquer most of Europe and vast tracts of the USSR was developed in the 1930s,

All the technology that enabled them to LOSE all that territory was developed or entered service post 1942

As Cryhavoc101 states, the Third Reich needed to rationalise and produce vast quantities of stuff that actually worked just to keep up with Britain, then the USSR, then the USA.

Thankfully for humanity they chose the 'baroque arsenal' route to defeat.

Nazis conquered due to many factors, ranging from attacking without decalration of war, fielding bigger and better airforce and army in many cases, up to inability of adversary governments and armed forces to act properly to the modern warfare. They lost beacuse they were out-numbered, their allies were weak, and Axis countries were starved from several key resources as the war dragged on. Low-tech wepon systems of 1944 - Fw 190, Bf 109, StuG-III, Pz-IV were second best when compared what allies deployed.
Allies many times designed and produced big, heavy, complicated and expensive pieces of equipment - P-47, P-38, B-17/24/29, Lancaster/Halifax, Matilda and Churchill tanks, KV and IS tanks, before we go to aircraft carriers, radars and atomic bomb. Nothing resembling 'baroque arsenal'.
 

Deleted member 1487

All the technology that enabled them to LOSE all that territory was developed or entered service post 1942
Technology didn't lose them the war, strategic leadership and choices made in 1940-41 did.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
Coupled with the illusion of technological superiority, and the mistake that it would somehow make up for being massively outnumbered.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
IE, a fighter that uses only existing technology but can use said technology without any care for nationality or procurement politics or anything like that. What would the best possible fighter, either single or double engined look like at the time? IE what engine, armament, etc. Also I'm wondering if this belongs here or in ASB?
... Somewhat astonished noone came up with the Heinkel He-280 so far, here's also another link.

First flown in September 1940, "sidelined" due to Goering having "troubles" with the personality of Heinkel, outflying a Fw-190 in a mock battle in late 1941.
With just a wee bit more development could have been the No.1 killer in the air in early/middle 1941, founding a whole early jet fighter family already then.
 
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.


Their was a 1946 American article reviewing Me-262 and as I recall it stated they built Jumo-004B with heart resistant metals and it survived several 500 hour bench tests and they estimated it should have 150 hour service life compared to a couple of 100 hour bench test and 35 hours for LW Ju-400B - by the book.

I will look but I fear it was hard drive ago.
 

Deleted member 1487

... Somewhat astonished noone came up with the Heinkel He-280 so far, here's also another link.

First flown in September 1940, "sidelined" due to Goering having "troubles" with the personality of Heinkel, outflying a Fw-190 in a mock battle in late 1941.
With just a wee bit more development could have been the No.1 killer in the air in early/middle 1941, founding a whole early jet fighter family already then.
Yeah, but is OP letting us use hypothetically developed technologies or just technology as it already is as of 1943?
 

Deleted member 1487

Their was a 1946 American article reviewing Me-262 and as I recall it stated they built Jumo-004B with heart resistant metals and it survived several 500 hour bench tests and they estimated it should have 150 hour service life compared to a couple of 100 hour bench test and 35 hours for LW Ju-400B - by the book.

I will look but I fear it was hard drive ago.
Maybe this?
http://www.stormbirds.com/project/technical/technical_3.htm

JUMO
The Junkers Jumo 004 is often remembered as a temperamental and failure-prone powerplant. Despite its advanced design, engine life was only between 10 and 25 hours, with the mean being at the lower end of this range. These failures were anticipated to some extent and the Me 262 was designed to permit extremely rapid engine changes.

Contrary to popular belief, the 004A was a fairly sound performer when premium steels were used, and early versions were known to achieve a 200-250 hour service life. However, the diversion of critical materials into U-boat production and other projects late in the war forcedJunkers to produce the 004B model with only 1/3 of the high grade steel that had been used in the 004A. It was to be a disastrous concession for the Me 262.

The introduction of inferior metals compounded an already problematic situation with the turbine blade design. These blades were rigidly mounted, contributing to severe root stress relief problems. The weaker metals simply could not withstand this kind of abuse and regular compressor failures were an inevitable consequence.

Or this?
http://legendsintheirowntime.com/LiTOT/Me262/Me262_draft.pdf
 
...
The argument between boost and compression overlooks the overall efficiency of the engine, which requires a balance of all factors and cannot be discussed in a meaningful fashion without great complexity, but carry on anyway. One might still look for the reason DB603s had different compression ratios left and right. Germans used motor-cannon which limited induction efficiency, while Rolls purposely ignored the feature to cater to better induction flow. Allison ignored the cannon and the best induction routing.

I've tried to make a meaningful comparison between similar, in weight and in construction, some German and Anglo-American engines. With same fuel used, the DB-601N comes second best after the Merlin 45 (and Mk.XX) in both power and reliability.
DB 605 and 603 have had slightly different compression ratios on the opposite banks because the intake manifold, leading from the supercharger, was not going exactly through/above/under the engine centreline - at least this is what I've read many times. Supposedly it was better re. reliability, making both banks equaly stressed when engine was working.
 


thanks WIKING , the first link is good, but second one doesn't appear to work. I will look some more.


http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19451101
but you must subscribe.

If this figure of 200-250 service hours is seen as bench tests , then 80 hours service in the field sounds about right and makes building the JU-004A a absolute must.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
really????
Shocking, I know.

Amazing what happens when you chase a virtual who's who of 20th Century science out of the country and then start a war with the countries they fled to.

I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
 
Shocking, I know.

Amazing what happens when you chase a virtual who's who of 20th Century science out of the country and then start a war with the countries they fled to.

I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
Sounds like you need to read more German history and less Hitler history.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The history of WW-II begins after WW-I in the early 1920s - not when Hitler took power in the early 1930s.
Actually I would argue that WW II started in 1919 when the Entente doubled down on failure in Both Germany and in Revolutionary Russia.
 
Top