# Which airplanes weren't given a fighting chance



## MacArther (Oct 17, 2005)

This is about airplanes that were hindered for whatever reason by their range, speed, armament, or loadout. Which ones do you think were promising, but never got a chance to prove themselves? This goes for all sides of the conflict. If it is an abstract plane please iclude a picture or diagram (/link).

My personal "not given a chance plane" is the XP-40Q2.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 17, 2005)

de Havilland D.H.103 Hornet 

Westland Whirlwind 

HE 100

If anything the Whirlwind looked very cool - I knew a guy who scratched-built one in 1/32 scale!


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 17, 2005)

http://hsfeatures.com/hornetf1_1.htm said:


> If ever an airplane could be described as 'sexy', DeHavilland's Hornet certainly would qualify.


 



She is a beauty!

I haven't got any that I can think off the top of my head, but I will post some when I have got some.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MacArther (Oct 17, 2005)

I hear ya, the wirlwind only had the drawback of unreliable engines, which could have been easily fixed. As for the HE 100, I personally like the HE 100D because It could keep up with the latter fighters from the get go of the war.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 17, 2005)

HE-112 - good in every respect apart from the fact it what slower than the 109. Several served the in Spanish airforce until the end of the war.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 17, 2005)

I believe it was six, but I could be wrong. He-112V1 - V6.


----------



## helmitsmit (Oct 17, 2005)

It is a shame they didn't give the Wirlwind Merlins or Napier Sabres or even Griffon engines. With the handed Griffons it would have done 450mph easily!


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 17, 2005)

P-38K
Hornet

wmaxt


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 17, 2005)

P-38K, He-100, Whirlwind and Fiat G.56.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 17, 2005)

The Blackburn Roc. I mean c'mon, they only sent it on one mission. And it had ALL that potential! They didn't give it a fighting chance.


----------



## Aggie08 (Oct 17, 2005)

The japanese shinden. Also, stretchin it a bit, the b-36. It was supposed to have been finished prior to 1945 but wasn't. It was built to have the capacity to bomb Germany from America.


----------



## MacArther (Oct 18, 2005)

How about the Chain Lightning, the suposed successor to the P38. If memory serves, it never entered service because it appeared too late.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)

MacArther said:


> How about the Chain Lightning, the suposed successor to the P38. If memory serves, it never entered service because it appeared too late.


We spoke about this on another thread - it had potential but was a big leaky monster and there wasn't a role for it (bomber destroyer) unless Lockheed could of sold it to the Luftwaffe!


----------



## evangilder (Oct 18, 2005)

Somehow, I don't think _that_ would have gone over well!


----------



## helmitsmit (Oct 18, 2005)

What about the supermarine spateful or Seafang. those bloody jets ruined it!

What about the landbased furies with Sabre engine that produced 3000hp! That would have been beautiful! It didn't have that bloody chin of the Typoon tempest, thank god!


----------



## helmitsmit (Oct 18, 2005)

I just remembered the Miles M.20


----------



## Aggie08 (Oct 18, 2005)

3000hp eh? Wouldnt'a minded that at all, nosiree!


----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2005)

The Tempest Mk.II didn't have the large 'chin' either. Only the Tempest Mk.V did.


----------



## helmitsmit (Oct 18, 2005)

yeah but the Centuraurs wasn't as potenically powerful and it was a radial so the nose had a slightly bigger frontal area. Whereas the Sabre was very compact for the power it produced.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 18, 2005)

The German JU390 bomber. It was a three engine bomber that the Germans built during 1943 but failed. Only 3 were built.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2005)

The Junkers Ju-390 was six engined. Look:


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)

Well it had 3 engines on one wing!


----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2005)

Oh yeah ...so it did!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)




----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2005)

Enjoyed it that much, did you, Joe?


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 18, 2005)

He better have, otherwise he just *TRIPLE* posted...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)

Oh god I did - Les, where's the Avitar?!?!?!?


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 18, 2005)

Sorry, thats what i meant. 3 engined is a bomber with well...3 engines in my term.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2005)

So, you call a B-17 a two-engined bomber? After all it's got two engines on one wing. What do you call single-engined bombers? That must put you in a tight spot ... I mean ...do you say 0.5-engined bomber? You can't say no-engined bomber, that's just being silly 'cos ...you'd be screwed if a glide bomb was there ...no engine ...what's half of none?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)




----------



## Gnomey (Oct 19, 2005)




----------



## helmitsmit (Oct 19, 2005)

I think P40 that wasn'tused to its potencial because it didn't get the credit that maybe it deserved? Why didn't they give it a Merlin 61? Why did they stop at the merlin 25


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 19, 2005)

the P-40 was used allot and it wasn't developed further as there were better planes already.......


----------



## MacArther (Oct 19, 2005)

I feel the same about the P40, it was a good plane that could have lasted the whole war if the upgrades were instituted. Instead, Curtiss shunned the upgrades because they could save money by just producing minorly improved models to sell to the military. Here is a model picture of what the P40 could have been developed into.

P.S. regarding a previous post, the P40's final model would have had 4 *20mm* guns _or_ 6 50 cals, not the 4 50 cals stated by someone else.

http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=PD104


----------



## helmitsmit (Oct 19, 2005)

Excellant picture. I'm glad you agree with me. I've always liked the P40 I don't know why it just liked better than it performed.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 19, 2005)

MacArther said:


> I feel the same about the P40, it was a good plane that could have lasted the whole war if the upgrades were instituted.



They were used throughout the war. The last of the P-40s were retired from USAAF service in 1948. An order was placed for 1,000 P-40Ns in June of 1944, although it was later reduced to 220. The last one off the production line was in November of 1944. So they were in use throughout and still ordered into late 1944.


----------



## ollieholmes (Oct 19, 2005)

i would say most of the madcap german designs, mainly the fw226 flitzer.
the me262, if it had been introduced when planned.
can i add the dh108? i know it was not ww11 but.


----------



## Glider (Oct 19, 2005)

Going to the other end of the war I would have liked the Fokker G1 to ahve had a better chance. Its battle lasted days and most of them were just off the production line. If it had been in numbers then who knows.


----------



## Aggie08 (Oct 19, 2005)

I love the p40, it's too bad it never got the teardrop canopy. If it had ever gotten the armament it deserved from the beginning such as 6 .50's or 4 20ml cannons, or maybe the engine it deserved from the beginning... And you are right Curtiss just gypped the hell outta the hawk, they generally they got rid of whatever wasn't requested for no matter how useful it may have been.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 21, 2005)

You have a point. The P-40 was in dire need of the 6 .50 and 20mm guns. It would have been very worthy in combat.

I still think the Junkers 390 deserved a figthing chance because at the time it was the largest bomber made. Hilter in the beggining of the war had a chance to produce 4-engined bombers including the elusive 6-engined bomber. 

They would have been useful at the Battle of Britain.


----------



## jrk (Oct 23, 2005)

the westland welkin high performance fighter.too few and not enough patience with it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 23, 2005)

it wasn't needed though..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 23, 2005)

Re-2007


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 23, 2005)

the Avro York Gunship..........

ok there's no such plane but it's a nice thought


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 23, 2005)

Did you not see the one with 75mm cannon, and 2x 20mm cannons, as well as 4 Hellfires under the port wing?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 23, 2005)

quite what the hell that black box is supposed to be i'm not sure..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 23, 2005)

Hellfires, numbnuts


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 23, 2005)

it's a bloody black box!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 23, 2005)

Its a dark blue box with black circles actually


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 23, 2005)

no- it's a black box!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 23, 2005)

Dark Blue with black circles and grey outlining...can you not see it ?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 23, 2005)

no- it's a black box with grey/blue outlines!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 23, 2005)

Whatever you say 

Heres an AS.14


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 23, 2005)

Awesome! Oh and nice sig and avatar CC.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 23, 2005)

Thanks, Heres another...Caproni Ca-405


----------



## Aggie08 (Oct 24, 2005)

Mmm, hellfires...


----------



## MacArther (Oct 24, 2005)

The Bell P-63 King Cobra. Sure, it saw Russain use, but why did we only use it as a target tug?


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 24, 2005)

Thats a good question. We gave alot of them for the Russians to use during the Lend-Lease act and the US that built them never really used them that much!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2005)

MacArther said:


> The Bell P-63 King Cobra. Sure, it saw Russain use, but why did we only use it as a target tug?



By the time she came into the game the P-38, and -47 were on scene and there was a lot of bad press about the P-39, some warrented, other just folklore - it was decided to just sell the -63 to Russia, the same thing happened to the Martin Baltimore and Maryland (They went to the Brits, some were supposed to go to the French). The P-63D had a sliding canopy and in my opinion was one of the best looking WW2 fighters.

Apparently the P-63 offered little improvement (although the D model was as fast as a Mustang), so some in the AAF thought....


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 25, 2005)

The Russians and their *tactics* are what made the P-39 and P-63 so effective over the Russian countryside...

Read up on Alexandr Pokryshkin... The man was a genius, as well as a killer...
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/pokri/pokri.htm


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 25, 2005)

Many many many planes


But I am Only going to give you guys a vague list


----------



## MacArther (Oct 25, 2005)

We are talking about WW2


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> The Russians and their *tactics* are what made the P-39 and P-63 so effective over the Russian countryside...
> 
> Read up on Alexandr Pokryshkin... The man was a genius, as well as a killer...
> http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/pokri/pokri.htm



Yep - again I think he and many other Russians who flew the P-39 showed that tactics made everything - so many "Bad Stories" and folklore about the P-39 in the Pacific and look what this guy did with it....


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 25, 2005)

MacArther said:


> We are talking about WW2



Oh, I should learn to read the fine print.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 26, 2005)

well it wasn't particularly fine, it was rather obvious


----------



## MacArther (Oct 26, 2005)

Yes, PAINFULLY OBVIOUS


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

Rub it in why dont ya, anyway I dont think the Me-262 was given such a good chance but then again thats a good thing for us.


----------



## MacArther (Oct 27, 2005)

Welllll, if you insist........ naw just kidding. Yeah, supposedly the 262 (or was it the volksjager) was far ahead of the thundercomet or whatever jet we used early on in Korea before the F-86s arrived.


----------



## book1182 (Oct 27, 2005)

I would say the He-100 from Germany, the Wirlwind for England, and the P-39 from America. These all could have been the best fighters ever produced. 

I have read accounts of the He-100 being faster and having an equal if not better turn radius of the Me-109.

Like said earlier the Wirlwind just needed better engines. It had the speed, range and armament of other twin engine fighters but lacked the reliabilty in the engines.

And we all know of the P-39 and it's fire power!!! I think it's fault was it radical design with the engine in the middle of the airplane. That gave it different spin qualities than what the pilots of that time were used to.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 27, 2005)

Some of the late italien fighter planes should be mentioned, also.
A very bad thing that the soviets didn´t give a chance to their radial engine modified Mig-3 variant ( a few performed in late 42 excellently).
The P-80 and the He-162 shouldn´t bee forgotten, too. (just a mind)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 28, 2005)

i do like the He-162 and perhaps with more capable pilots and better construction it would've worked........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 28, 2005)

As well as more fuel and ammo for them to fly...the projected production figures for the Volksjager were incredible, around 3000 a month.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 28, 2005)

Who knows? The A-6 subtype with V-tail (prototype M 49) looks fine. Get a BMW-003 D instead of a BMW-003 E and you increase the poweroutput by 30% with almost the same weight (and reduced specific fuel consumption). 580-585 mp/h may be possible. You may also attend drop tanks or a stronger (3-4*MG151/20?) weaponry. 
I would like the design. The problems with bad production quality and low pilot training would render the plane to a lower possible efficiency. 
The production lists shows the "whishes", not the facts. Around 1200-1800 units may be possible, not more (think of the engines).


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i do like the He-162 and perhaps with more capable pilots and better construction it would've worked........



yeah thats just like the Me-163, it was so fast and manouvreable and didnt have the acceleration problems that the ME-262 had, but it killed more of its pilots than it did ours, and the plane had a tendancy to explode if sitting idle for too long.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 28, 2005)

It wasnt so much the engine that was the problem, it was the fuel, far too volatile to be practical. I can only imagine what it was like for the few pilots who them airborne, climbing at a ferocious rate, spedding around out manoevering everything, and then just exploding. Quite funny I should think  It was a potentially good plane though.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 28, 2005)

And it was a good aircraft. It was extremly fast and could climb to the height of Allied bombers in less than a few minutes. But like mentioned, it just had "suicide" spelled on the side of it!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 28, 2005)

P38 Pilot said:


> And it was a good aircraft. It was extremly fast and could climb to the height of Allied bombers in less than a few minutes. But like mentioned, it just had "suicide" spelled on the side of it!



Actually it could climb higher,

The idea was to load the planes up with rockets then they would get as high above the bombers as posible, go into a ferocius dive halfway towards the bombers and let the rockets go, that would cause the formation to break up and the Fw-109's could attack the bombers individually without having to endure consintrated firepower, and to cause mass confusion so the bombs were misdropped.

I dont know if that was tested at all, but I can say that it probably would have worked, and a nice thing for the 163 pilots to know that they dont have to stick around once the rockets were launched


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 28, 2005)

> could attack the bombers individually without having to endure consintrated firepower, and to cause mass confusion so the bombs were misdropped.


Wow. That seemed like a really good plan for the pilots to use! Causing confusion in bombing and then shooting down the bombers. Again, wow!


----------



## Sal Monella (Oct 29, 2005)

How about the P-47M or the P-51H? Those would have been pretty hot ships.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 29, 2005)

They were, and this makes me think about what the section is about...

Planes that were potentially good but not used for political reasons or whatever, or planes that were used but didnt see much service due to the wars end?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 29, 2005)

i think the name of the thread more implies planes that were in time to see allot of serivce but were stopped from doing so by political reasons etc..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 29, 2005)

Thats what I think...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 30, 2005)

because planes towards the wars end were either given the chance to fight for a couple of months at the end of the war or could've seen post war service..........


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 30, 2005)

Yeah. But here's an exanple of an aircraft that didnt see the service it would've at the end of WWII but saw action in Korea: The P-51 Twin Mustang.

Infact, it was the Twin Mustang that shot down the first north korean aircraft in the korean war!


----------



## evangilder (Oct 30, 2005)

The twin Mustang was a P-82, later called the F-82.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 6, 2005)

The B-36 Peacemaker. Never got to fly in its intended role as a bomber. The B-109Z- a double varient of the Bf-109 never flew. The He-117 Grief- if they redesigned the engines it could really have worked as a long range bomber!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 6, 2005)

It wasn't that the B-36 wasn't given a fighting chance, she did she post WWII service but she was too late to see any action in WWII and the inter-continental bombing role wasn't needed by the end of the war, although it was useful in the cold war, and the He-177 was given a fighting chance, but as you said the engines were a problem, she was still given a fighting chance though, that's like the saying the manchester would have been a good plane if they'd put 4 merlins in it, oh, no wait


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 6, 2005)

The He-277 and -274 werent given a fighting chance - mainly because the He-177 was so bad that the RLM forbid Heinkel to make them


----------



## strezahuzum (Nov 10, 2005)

The Romanian IAR-80/81 fighter never had the chance to take on mid or late-war Allied fighters with anything like even odds...
Because the stupid Luftwaffe commanders refused to supply the IAR factory with BMW-801 engines or provide some of the necessary tools for licence production , this Romanian -built fighter had to finish the war with virtually the same engine it started : IAR K14 ( 1040 horsepower at best ), a locally produced version of the French Gnome-Rhone 14M radial engine ...

Had the IAR-80/81's beend refitted with the BMW-801 they might have stood a fighting chance against the Russian La-5, or the American P-38's and P-51's it faced in 1944...


----------



## delcyros (Nov 10, 2005)

Good point. 
I always liked the IAR 80/81 airframe. However it remains questionable how good the plane could be with a BMW 801. Nice idea.


----------



## strezahuzum (Nov 11, 2005)

delcyros said:


> Good point.
> I always liked the IAR 80/81 airframe. However it remains questionable how good the plane could be with a BMW 801. Nice idea.



Think about this : a fighter that could achieve a top speed of maximum 505 km/h ( 316 mph ) gave quite a good acount of itself in the air battles of summer 1944 against the 15th USAAF, when IAR-81/80 squadrons claimed close to 100 confirmed heavy bombers.

Former engineers considered that with the BMW 801 the IAR-80 could have exceeded the Bf-109G6 i!!


----------



## V-1710 (Nov 12, 2005)

What of that 4 engine Japanese heavy bomber? Or the Consolidated B-32 Dominator?


----------



## delcyros (Nov 12, 2005)

There are several questionable points: The rumanian claimed 100 heavys shot down in 1944? 
A) What are the sources saying to this (official US loss reports)
B) What planes did they fly
C) How many (of the?) claims contributed to german units there

Then the Bf-109 G6: It is very easy to say so, because you will find (surely) a version which has low performance (G6/R6) but also the better ones? G6AS? In clean fighter configuration? I don´t think so.
What remains is the point that the IAR had the potential to be an excellent fighter with a better engine but further redesignings would cost time, which simply wasn´t avaiable. However it is a wild looking plane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 12, 2005)

V-1710 said:


> What of that 4 engine Japanese heavy bomber? Or the Consolidated B-32 Dominator?



We have a thread on the B-32, look in the archives...


----------

