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

You'd lose.
Air to air the 8th AF Mustang had 3313 vs 322 losses, and 4179 vs 402 for 9th and 8th AF combined. Just over 10 A/C shot down for each one lost.

If that's mediocrity, I'll have a 1000 mediocre Mustangs.

Since most of those American pilots had minimum of 500-600 hours flying and were flying mostly against pilots with 180 flying hours or less, you'd get the exact same result if you swapped the planes. Pilots , nothing to do with planes.
 
Really? That's odd, I've always heard that early examples displayed excellent characteristics, especially relative to the 262, which tended to wallow at lower speeds and was pretty slow in low speed acceleration.
I've read the same thing, its only weak point was literally its rudders.
I'm surprised the Russians couldn't fix that.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
And frankly looking at its rudders, that's pretty understandable. But it should be a pretty straightforward fix
 
Russians tried to make the He-162 work post war, but found it just to difficult to fly and gave up.

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/lw/he162.shtml

Rudders, not particularly stable, and needs a bloody long runway are the reasons given for the Soviets giving up. The former has already been mentioned, the latter wouldn't have mattered to the Wallies who concreted over half East Anglia and a decent chunk of Belgium with nice long runways. It doesn't really read like they made a concerted effort; they had a play around, decided they had little to learn from a relatively simple design, and stopped.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
Really? That's odd, I've always heard that early examples displayed excellent characteristics, especially relative to the 262, which tended to wallow at lower speeds and was pretty slow in low speed acceleration.


The He162 is one of the best fighters in a video game I play, so it can't be ALL badXD :openedeyewink:
 

Archibald

Banned
France got its hands on a handful of He-162s and flew them between 1945 and 1948. Same flaws found
Rudders, not particularly stable, and needs a bloody long runway

the He-162 main flaw was certainly its "pilots" (untrained recruits !) were to be trained on a glider variant of it - no engine.

Visibility from the cockpit was bad, at least the rear angle, and unfortunatelty, in air combat you'd better have all round visibility. Also ejection has potential to turn into a Die Hard 2 situation, with the pilot sucked into the jet.
 
A Hawker T fighter optimised for a Griffon engine would be a pretty good bet.
TempIII_2_LA610.jpg

Didn't fly until November 1944 in OTL, however...
 
TempIII_2_LA610.jpg

Didn't fly until November 1944 in OTL, however...
That's not a Griffon Tempest, that's the Sabre Fury (originally flew with a Griffon in November 44, re-engined with a Sabre VII in 1946)*. Fastest ever Hawker piston-engined fighter (faster than a Centaurus Sea Fury), and perhaps prettier, if that's possible ;)

As the Sabre Tempest prototype flew in 1942, and the Fury wing is basically just the two outer sections of a Tempest wing joined together without the centre section, and the Fw190 that inspired the Tempest > Fury was captured in June 1942, no obvious reason why a Sabre Fury (with an earlier mark engine) couldn't at least have been in development in 1943.

*That photo is it with a Sabre. When it had a Griffon it had contra props and a bigger, ugly, air intake.
 
I'd wager that a standard Bf 109K (which you could absolutely make in 1943) could kick the snot out of a P-51B at any altitude below 25K.

The P-51 was a fantastic escort. But it was a mediocre dogfighter.

The DB 605D (engine of the Bf 109K) was available from late 1944 on. Thus - no 109K in 1943. The DB 605A won't cut the mustard any better than it did in 1943 in OTL.

P-51 was a 'boom & zoom' fighter, and as such it need to be used.
 

Deleted member 1487

The DB 605D (engine of the Bf 109K) was available from late 1944 on. Thus - no 109K in 1943. The DB 605A won't cut the mustard any better than it did in 1943 in OTL.

P-51 was a 'boom & zoom' fighter, and as such it need to be used.
All the more reason for a FW190C. The DB603 worked in 1943 and was fitted to a fighter that accepted it and performed well with it. Dump the dysfunctional turbocharger and still have excellent performance for 1943-44.
 
All the more reason for a FW190C. The DB603 worked in 1943 and was fitted to a fighter that accepted it and performed well with it. Dump the dysfunctional turbocharger and still have excellent performance for 1943-44.

Here is what was expected or achieved from Fw 190s with different engines: link
Basically, the armed Fw 190 powered by DB 603A (vs. non-armed prototype) was expected to do about the same turn of speed as the Fw 190D-9 above 7 km, and around 10 km/h slower under that altitude. That would meant almost no disadvantage vs. the P-47D, and less of a disadvantage vs. Merlin Mustang once it is deployed than it was the case with the Fw-190A-7 or A-8. But still almost a 30 mph disadvantage above 8 km vs. P-51B/C, the DB 603E is needed to decrease that, and that is 1944 engine.
 

Deleted member 1487

Here is what was expected or achieved from Fw 190s with different engines: link
Basically, the armed Fw 190 powered by DB 603A (vs. non-armed prototype) was expected to do about the same turn of speed as the Fw 190D-9 above 7 km, and around 10 km/h slower under that altitude. That would meant almost no disadvantage vs. the P-47D, and less of a disadvantage vs. Merlin Mustang once it is deployed than it was the case with the Fw-190A-7 or A-8. But still almost a 30 mph disadvantage above 8 km vs. P-51B/C, the DB 603E is needed to decrease that, and that is 1944 engine.
How many P-51B/Cs were in service in 1943? Given that the competition for the most part was the P-47D in 1943, seems reasonable. Also wasn't the DB603AA available in 1943?

Also that is why I suggested if we could mix and match I'd add the Merlin 1943 supercharger to the DB603 and replace the turbocharger with the P-51's cooling system.

Edit:
I also forgot about the MW/GM systems which could be added.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM-1
GM-1 was developed in 1940 by Otto Lutz to improve high-altitude performance. It could be used by fighters, destroyers, bombers and reconnaissance aircraft, though its first use was in the Bf 109E/Z fighter. Originally, it was liquified under high pressure and stored in several high-pressure vessels until it was found that low-temperature liquefied nitrous oxide gave better performance due to improved charge cooling. It could also be stored and handled more conveniently and was less vulnerable to enemy fire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FBKampfer

Banned
The DB 605D (engine of the Bf 109K) was available from late 1944 on. Thus - no 109K in 1943. The DB 605A won't cut the mustard any better than it did in 1943 in OTL.

P-51 was a 'boom & zoom' fighter, and as such it need to be used.

Irrelevant, the thread is about "best of", and the 605D was just an overboosted, overcompressed 605A using 100 octane C3 fuel (available in 1939 right off the jump) and MW 50 injection off the 1942 BMW 801D.


And the 109 excelled in the vertical, climbed hand over fist like satan himself l was shoving a red hot iron up it's ass, and accelerated like a banshee. In other words the absolute worst target for a BnZ style of fight. The only other fighter that might have been a worse target for a P-51 would have been a Spitfire 14, since it's a touch more maneuverable than the 109K.

Given pilots of equal skill, the P-51 gets two passes before the 109's leveled the playing field.
 
How many P-51B/Cs were in service in 1943? Given that the competition for the most part was the P-47D in 1943, seems reasonable. Also wasn't the DB603AA available in 1943?

Also that is why I suggested if we could mix and match I'd add the Merlin 1943 supercharger to the DB603 and replace the turbocharger with the P-51's cooling system.

I'd removed the rear fuel tank (install two fuel tanks in wings to compensate for that) so the cooling system can be mostly burried in the fusealge, like it was the case with P-51 and a number of ww2 aircraft. The 2-stage S/C from Merlin will indeed give a fine hi-alt performance to the DB-603, though the 2-stage S/C from Griffon to cater for the needs of a bigger engine.
I don't know when the 603AA was produced from.

Irrelevant, the thread is about "best of", and the 605D was just an overboosted, overcompressed 605A using 100 octane C3 fuel (available in 1939 right off the jump) and MW 50 injection off the 1942 BMW 801D.

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.

And the 109 excelled in the vertical, climbed hand over fist like satan himself l was shoving a red hot iron up it's ass, and accelerated like a banshee. In other words the absolute worst target for a BnZ style of fight. The only other fighter that might have been a worse target for a P-51 would have been a Spitfire 14, since it's a touch more maneuverable than the 109K.

Given pilots of equal skill, the P-51 gets two passes before the 109's leveled the playing field.

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.
 
Top