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

Deleted member 1487

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.
Good point, matching the FW190C with say a supercharger in P-51 configuration would be deadly.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
I read that its guns jammed when attacking V-I rockets. was that a persistent problem?

No, that's the first thing you fix in a combat aircraft in wartime!

All versions of the Meteor available in wartime were chronically underpowered, and the de Havilland Vampire prototype was the same.

Never assume that a 1st generation jet aircraft is intrinsically better than a piston-engined one.
 
Last edited:

Wimble Toot

Banned

We have no way of telling whether the FW190C was a good combat aircraft beyond its (alleged) performance statistics, which can be used to prove anything.

However, we have a wealth of evidence regarding the combat effectiveness of the FW190A, FW190D, Spitfire XIV, P-51B.....et al.

Because they were used in combat

Being good on paper, or on Wikipedia, or War Thunder, isn't good enough.

Let us not forget, the P-51D was used as a combat aircraft for forty years.
 
Last edited:

Wimble Toot

Banned
matching the FW190C with say a supercharger in P-51 configuration would be deadly.

To whom? ;)

How would a mish-mash of two belligerent nations technologies be better than a proven weapon system, that's actually shot down other aircraft down?

How would it be qualitatively 'better' than the Bf109G, for example, in which one pilot shot down 352 aircraft, and another pilot from a different country shot down 58 aircraft?
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

To whom? ;)

How would a mish-mash of two belligerent nations technologies be better than a proven weapon system, that's actually shot other aircraft down?

How would it be qualitatively 'better' than the Bf109G, for example, in which one pilot shot down 352 aircraft, and another pilot from a different country shot down 58 aircraft?
Yes, because the aircraft wasn't specifically the reason for the success of Erich Hartmann. Arguably the 109G was worse than the 109F aerodynamically.
Again the Fw190D was the same aircraft minus the underslung supercharger and a somewhat different engine. The 190D was much faster and more heavily armed than the 109G. In larger part it was the Merlin Supercharger that made both the Spitfire and P-51 the aircraft they were:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercharger#Two-speed_and_two-stage_superchargers
Stanley Hooker of Rolls Royce, to improve the performance of Merlin engine developed two-speed two-stage supercharging with aftercooling with a successful application on the Rolls Royce Merlin 61 aero engine in 1942. Horsepower was increased and performance at all aircraft heights. Hooker's developments allowed the aircraft they powered to maintain a crucial advantage over the German aircraft they opposed throughout World War II despite the German engines being significantly larger in displacement.[18][17] Two-stage superchargers were also always two-speed. After the air was compressed in the low-pressure stage, the air flowed through an intercooler radiator where it was cooled before being compressed again by the high-pressure stage and then possibly also aftercooled in another heat exchanger. Two-stage compressors provided much improved high altitude performance, as typified by the Rolls-Royce Merlin 61 powered Supermarine Spitfire Mk IX and the North American Mustang.
Using a P-51D style intercooler in place of the existing plumbing for the FW190C's supercharger (it would actually be significantly smaller) would help improve performance without adding additional equipment to make it possible, though it would require some modification of the engine layout.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
Yes, because the aircraft wasn't specifically the reason for the success of Erich Hartmann.

And your evidence for that assertion is...what?

For every person who claims the Bf109G was a comparatively poor aircraft, there's ten pilots who shot down more 100 enemy aircraft actually flying it.

And twenty pilots who shot down more than fifty enemy aircraft flying it :)
 

Deleted member 1487

And your evidence for that assertion is...what?

For every person who claims the Bf109G was a comparatively poor aircraft, there's ten pilots who shot down more 100 enemy aircraft actually flying it.

And twenty pilots who shot down more than fifty enemy aircraft flying it :)
Who were they shooting down in droves? The Soviets when they were no where near their full force; the Eastern Front though was always easier in the air than in the West, so 'easterners' could score heavily and survive for a long time, while 'westerners' were getting slaughtered from 1943 on.
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/04/eastern-front-aircraft-strength-and.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Hartmann
He claimed, and was credited with, shooting down 352 Allied aircraft—345 Sovietand 7 American—while serving with the Luftwaffe.

He was posted to Jagdgeschwader 52 (JG 52) on the Eastern Front and was fortunate to be placed under the supervision of some of the Luftwaffe's most experienced fighter pilots. Under their guidance, Hartmann steadily developed his tactics

The Bf109G was fine for shooting down undertrained Soviet pilots. For all the talk about German training issues, the Soviet training command was producing pilots with 10-50 hours of flight training from 1941 on and got 50% of the fuel allocation it needed for even it's abbreviated training schedule. Its no wonder 'high scoring' was primarily an eastern front phenomenon and in the west it basically ended by 1942 and was far less significant from 1939-41.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And your evidence for that assertion is...what?

For every person who claims the Bf109G was a comparatively poor aircraft, there's ten pilots who shot down more 100 enemy aircraft actually flying it.

And twenty pilots who shot down more than fifty enemy aircraft flying it :)

Ah the Luftwaffe Cult of the Super Star

Its almost as if the Luftwaffe allowed their best pilot to fly till they died while the Wallies turned their aces into instructors

There is also the way in which 'kills' were counted/confirmed between different nations which is quite entertaining

The 109 was a good plane but using the 'Cult of the super star' as a metric is disengenuous
 

Deleted member 1487

Pretty good for shooting down American four engined bombers, too

But then, you could do that in an IAR-80, or a Bf110, or a Ju88.
No, not particularly. They had to add all sorts of gun and rocket pods to make it possible to shoot down a heavy bomber.
They primarily used the Bf110 and Me410 for bomber killing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_110_operational_history#Defence_of_the_Reich
he Bf 110 served the Luftwaffe extensively in various roles, though no longer in its intended role as a heavy fighter. Another role the Bf 110 took on was as a potent bomber-destroyer. The extreme power of the Bf 110's weaponry could cripple or destroy any Allied bomber in seconds. Without encountering an Allied escort, it was capable of wreaking immense destruction. When encumbered with a total of four 21 cm (8 in) Werfer-Granate 21 (Wfr.Gr. 21) rocket tubes, with two of these under each outer wing panel, and additional armament, the 110 was vulnerable to Allied escort fighters, partly from the development of a major change in American fighter tactics at the end of 1943, rendering them increasingly vulnerable to developing American air supremacy over the Reich.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109#Armament_and_gondola_cannons
In place of internal wing armament, additional firepower was provided through a pair of 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons installed in conformal gun pods under the wings. The conformal gun pods, exclusive of ammunition, weighed 135 kg (298 lb);[32] and 135 to 145 rounds were provided per gun. The total weight, including ammunition, was 215 kg.[32] Installation of the under-wing gun pods was a simple task that could be quickly performed by the unit's armourers, and the gun pods imposed a reduction of speed of only 8 km/h (5 mph).[32] By comparison, the installed weight of a similar armament of two 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon inside the wings of the FW 190A-4/U8 was 130 kg (287 lb), without ammunition.[33]

Although the additional armament increased the fighter's potency as a bomber destroyer, it had an adverse effect on the handling qualities, reducing its performance in fighter-versus-fighter combat and accentuating the tendency of the fighter to swing pendulum-fashion in flight.[31][34]
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
They had to add all sorts of gun and rocket pods to make it possible to shoot down a heavy bomber.

Which just proves my point. Use what you have.

Alfred Grislawski shot down three B-17s in a Bf109G-6. He wasn't the only one. Walther Oesau shot down a Lancaster and three B-17s in a Bf109F-2

Men, not machines.

Oh hell the Finns managed to get Aces flying Brewster Buffalos against the Russians!

So did the RAAF/RAF against the Japanese.

A good pilot is a good pilot, whatever he is flying. The Russians shot down thousands of German aircraft (including Bf109Gs!) in P-39s, Yak-1s, Hurricanes, P-40s

There were many experienced fighter aces, who transitioned to more 'advanced' aircraft, and killed themselves in the process - Marmaduke Pattle, Pierre Le Gloan, Walther Nowotny, Boris Safonov. Richard Bong, even.

Let's play a game. Spot the pilot who flew Me262 in combat.

barkhorn20_2.jpg


Yeah, he's the one third from left with his face burnt off.

The Bf109G aces look ok, though ;)
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

The Russians shot down thousands of German aircraft (including Bf109Gs!) in P-39s, Yak-1s, Hurricanes, P-40s
That I'd really like to see some sourcing on given the limited numbers of the LL aircraft deployed to the front and the redeploying of the Luftwaffe west by the time they showed up in numbers. The Yak-1s probably did, the others I'd be surprised by.
 
I strongly suspect that the speed of the Meteor has been seriously understated over the years. In 1944 the 8th Air Force borrowed some, with pilots, to teach their fighters how to deal with jet-powered attackers. There'd be no point in doing this if the Meteor was really no faster than a piston-engined aircraft - eg the P47M - so it's likely that the Meteors at this stage would have to be doing ~500 mph to make the whole thing worthwhile.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
That I'd really like to see some sourcing on given the limited numbers of the LL aircraft deployed to the front and the redeploying of the Luftwaffe west by the time they showed up in numbers. The Yak-1s probably did, the others I'd be surprised by.

You've not heard of Alexander Ivanovich Pokryshkin? Nikolay Gulaev? Highest scoring P-39 ace Grigori A. Rechkalov with 50 kills ?

Probably just Soviet Propaganda ;)

Seventeen Soviet aces flew the Hurricane.
 

Deleted member 1487

You've not heard of Alexander Ivanovich Pokryshkin? Nikolay Gulaev? Highest scoring P-39 ace Grigori A. Rechkalov with 50 kills ?

Probably just Soviet Propaganda ;)

Seventeen Soviet aces flew the Hurricane.
Which add up to how many aircraft?
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
There'd be no point in doing this if the Meteor was really no faster than a piston-engined aircraft - eg the P47M - so it's likely that the Meteors at this stage would have to be doing ~500 mph to make the whole thing worthwhile.

Mostly to familiarise Eighth AF Gunners with the size, shape, sound and drawbacks of a twin engined jet, I should think

There were many thing a 1st generation jet fighter couldn't do, that a piston-engine fighter could

Thats why so many Me262s and Ar234s were shot down by slower, so-called "inferior" aircraft like the Mustang, Spit XIV, Tempest, P-47.
 
Top