# The almost best fighters that never flew in WWII



## CobberKane (Apr 4, 2012)

Here's a new twist on a perrenial topic - what was the best prop driven fighter to never fly in the Second World War. All the main protagonists had one, the coulda-been contenders left sitting on the tarmac, denied their shot at the title by the passage of history. The piston-engined aircraft that pushed the concept of the fighter about as far as it could go before the jet engine turned it into something else altogether. 
To get the ball rolling, in the RAF corner the DeHavilland Hornet

470mph
4000ft/min
4x20mm cannon


----------



## DonL (Apr 4, 2012)

For the LW 


FW 187 with the planed DB engines! 

First flight 1937!
2 x 20mm cannon and 4 x 7,92mm or 4 x 131.

Estimated performance with 2 x DB 605A

700-710 km/h as pure fighter and 21-22m per sec.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 4, 2012)

Alas, the Fw187 as you describe it never flew, and even if it had it would have been no match for my Hornet. I can think of a few combat ready aircraft that were, but if I named them it would spoil the fun...


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 4, 2012)

Does this include aircraft that were developed during WWII and made powered flight during tests before the close of the war?
If so, the Douglas A-1 Skyradier (322mph @ 18,000ft. - 4 20mm cannon 8,000 lb. bombs/mines/torpedoes/toilets/rockets/gunpods) would be qualified, since it's first flight was in March of 1945 and production began not too long afterwards.

Then there's the P-51H (490mph @ 25,000 ft. - 6 .50 cal. MG 2 1,000 lb bombs) that actually made it to the front lines (PTO - Summer, 1945) but never fired a shot in anger...


----------



## Thorlifter (Apr 4, 2012)

First ones that come to my mind are the F7F and F8F.

For the Luftwaffe, it would have been interesting to see what the Do 335 would have done in numbers.

I like your choice of the Hornet.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 5, 2012)

I think the Skyraider was envisaged more as a ground attack aircraft than a fighter - it would have given away far to much speed to compete in this company. Bearcat, Tigercat and P51H and Do335 are right in the hunt though, What about the La-9 or Spit F22?


----------



## GregP (Apr 5, 2012)

How about:
1. Arsenal VB-10, France, first flight 1947.

2. Boeing F8B, USA, first flight 1944. A great candidate that might have been!

3. Chance-Vought F4U-5, USA, first fligt 1946. Demonstably a great plane that is often overlooked for some reason.

4. Chance-Vought XF5U-1, USA, never flew ... but was completed and ready for flight. Wish it had flown. if it had, it might have been the best or the worst ... we can't say for sure, but the data suggest the best as far as maneuverability and roll go. Top speed was higher than average for piston fighers. Cruise was slower.

5. Commonwealth Ca-15, Australia, first flight 1946, one of the best of the candidates, no question. Go Australia!

6. de Havilland Hornet, UK, first flight 1944 ... but never made WWII, as stated above. Great fighter for a twin.

7. Doflug D-3803, Switzerland, first flight 1947, the "Swiss Mustang." Nobod today knows how good it was because it never fought anything, but the numbers suggest a great plane. I do not have much info on the Saurer engine, but it was Hispano-Suiza-based. Supposed to be a very good fighter.

8. Dornier Do.335 Pfiel, Germany, first flight 1945. A very neat ride, but with somehwat limited turn due to polar moment of inertia versus a conventional fighter. Might roll well, but pitch rate was going to suffer due to engines on both ends.

9. Douglas Skyraider, USA, first flight March 1945, a GREAT candidate, and could turn and fight with ANYTHING at air combat weights, though probably slower. A better attack plane, but a VERY good fighter (without bomb load) that can hold it's own against anything, even today. Well armed!

10. Fiat G.56, Italy, first flight 1944, a great plane that never made it. Very Me-109-like, with Italian craftmanship and maneuverability.

11. Focke-Wulf Ta-152H, Germany, a great plane that didn't live up to potential even though it didn't see much combat. Poor kill ratio, though probably not the fault of the airframe. Probably due to large numbers of Allied fighters in the immediate area versus very few Ta-152's (something like 43 Ta-152's known to have been delivered as operational, as opposed to more than 12,000 Mustangs, a depressing thought for a Ta-152 pilot I'm sure).

12. General Motors P-75, USA, first flight 1944, first effort was BAD, last model was good and a viable fighter.

13. Grumman F7F Tigercat, USA, first flight 1944, a great twin! Still IS. A stock F7F won a Reno Silver Race last year (Rod Lewis) ahead of Mustangs, Corsairs, Sea Furies, etc. Seems faster than claimed in the specs becasue I KNOW it is bone stock except for the added weight of two smoke systems. Of course , it was waxed, too, but otherwise stock with two stock R-2800's (no Nitrous).

14. Grumman F8F Bearcat, very probably the best of the best IMHO. The next best piston, in my opinion, would be the Lavochkin La-9, and it is said by a pilot who had flown both to out-accelerate a Grumman F8F Bearcat. Seems like a probable thing since the weight-to-power rarto of the La-9 (with less power) is very slightly better than the F8F, but not enough to matter in real life (4.08 to 4.26). Both are right there with each other and the Bearcat has a higher ceiling by 2,000 feet or so. Would be a really good fight with the best pilot winning. The wing loadings are within 0.3 pounds per square foot of each other, so the turn would be about the same, with the Bearcat having whatever edge that 0.3 pounds per square foot could give ... not much. I'd say even, period. I pick the Bearcat based on the known reliabilty of the R-2800 versus the Lavochkin's Shvetsov Ash-82FN radial. There are LOT of R-2800's flying today, and very few Ash-82FN's.

If the La-9 got an R-2800, I'd pick it above the Bearcat ... but it didn't, and I wouldn't. Still, I'd fly one anytime against anything from the period.


Only got to Grumman ... but out of time. Will revisit this ...


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Apr 5, 2012)

lockheed P-80 vs Me-262. interesting. I've heard they were quite similarly performing with a slight edge to the Lockheed and the armament punch to the 262.


----------



## jim (Apr 5, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> lockheed P-80 vs Me-262. interesting. I've heard they were quite similarly performing with a slight edge to the Lockheed and the armament punch to the 262.


 
According to the american book Arrow to the future in american trials,with american pilots, the standard Me 262A proved generaly superiorto the P80

My proposition for best fighter that never flew would be Fiat G56. The engine (Db603A)_ was in production since January 43, the airframe from mid 43 ,and the combination start test flying march 43 . For varius reasons did not enter production. But its numbers look amazing
With a normal flying weight of 3850 kgr had a wing loading of just 184 kgr/m2 and power loading of 2,2 kgr/hp ( on 1750hp engine), it had three cannons and excellent agility.Theoriticaly this dird could be in production from middle /late 43!
Using Jumo 213A with Mw 50 of the Dora (serial produstion autumn 44) the results seems top class. Assuming a normal weight of 4000 kgr and 2100 hp results in 189kgr/m2 wing loading and 1,9 kgr/hp . Such numbers look better even than F8F2 Bearcat s. 2,056 kgr/hp and 204kgr/m2 (source F8f in Action). And Fiat also had less drug because of the liquid cooled engine. MW 50 boosted Db603s of 1945 would boost performance even more. Even with DB605DC 1,98 power loading would be still excellent and wing loading even lower. 
Post war flew a version with 360 canopy
Negatives were its time construction requirement and the tendency that germans had to fatten their aircrafts


----------



## Dcazz7606 (Apr 5, 2012)

I agree with Thorlifter. I can see the F7F Tigercat used to it's full potential in the Pacific but... I can see it flying across Europe in AAF colors with the Typhoons and Thunderbolts (flying cover?) doing ground attack with their combo of .50's, 20mm.'s and bombs and rockets. Devastating IMO.


----------



## spicmart (Apr 5, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Alas, the Fw187 as you describe it never flew, and even if it had it would have been no match for my Hornet.



It would have been if it were to be developed continuously until 1945/46, probably even earlier.


----------



## riacrato (Apr 5, 2012)

GregP said:


> 11. Focke-Wulf Ta-152H, Germany, a great plane that didn't live up to potential even though it didn't see much combat. *Poor kill ratio*, though probably not the fault of the airframe. Probably due to large numbers of Allied fighters in the immediate area versus very few Ta-152's (something like 43 Ta-152's known to have been delivered as operational, as opposed to more than 12,000 Mustangs, a depressing thought for a Ta-152 pilot I'm sure).


Where did you get that from?


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Apr 5, 2012)

jim said:


> According to the american book *Arrow to the future *in american trials,with american pilots, the standard Me 262A proved generaly superiorto the P80



I understood (possibly from a post by *GregP* on another forum?) that Yeager evaluated both and while he believed they were about equal, preferred the P-80. There seems to be a lot of dispute surrounding this topic on the web and in literature. I am suspicious that some of it is not based on actual test evaluations of the kind you quote but on an unfounded belief in grossly exagerated claims for the 262. Then there are the political issues that may have influenced the test results summarized by Boyne in *Arrow...*. Described in a detailed comparison provided by our own *davparlr* at:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p-80-v-me-262-v-gloster-meteor-21761-4.html

the perception that the P-80A and Me-262 were pretty close with a very slight edge to the P-80 appears to be validated.


----------



## T Bolt (Apr 5, 2012)

Who couldn’t like a Thunderbolt with a 3000 hp engine?

•	Maximum speed: 480 mph (789 km/h)[1][N 1]/ 387mph (623 km/h at sea level) 
•	Range: 1,200 miles (1,932 km) 
•	Service ceiling: 42,000 ft (12,805 m) 
•	Rate of climb: 5,280 ft/min (26.8 m/s)


----------



## Milosh (Apr 5, 2012)

Did anyone mention the Hawker Fury/SeaFury and the Tempest II?


----------



## woljags (Apr 5, 2012)

what about the vampire


----------



## jim (Apr 5, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> I understood (possibly from a post by *GregP* on another forum?) that Yeager evaluated both and while he believed they were about equal, preferred the P-80. There seems to be a lot of dispute surrounding this topic on the web and in literature. I am suspicious that some of it is not based on actual test evaluations of the kind you quote but on an unfounded belief in grossly exagerated claims for the 262. Then there are the political issues that may have influenced the test results summarized by Boyne in *Arrow...*. Described in a detailed comparison provided by our own *davparlr* at:
> 
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p-80-v-me-262-v-gloster-meteor-21761-4.html
> 
> the perception that the P-80A and Me-262 were pretty close with a very slight edge to the P-80 appears to be validated.


 
I really dont understand what you are saying. You are suspicious on german claims? Okay . But i am saying to you that the trials were conducted on AMERICAN soil(Wright Field),By AMERICAN pilots (Al Boyd among them) ,for the AMERICAN air force.Page 139 "Arrow to the future". 
What makes you suspicion that it was not based on actual tests? FACTS please
What political issues would influenced the test results with germany defeted and at the merci of the America?


the perception that the P-80A and Me-262 were pretty close with a very slight edge to the P-80 appears to be validated.[/QUOTE]

Based On What and by whom??? Facts please! 
Unfounded beliefs about Me 262? The bird was tested to death by Americans,English,Soviets,French , served with Chech air force! What secrets Me 262 has? Eric Brown reports that british tests fully confirmed german tests.
The permament response of the Americans in reports of axis aircrafts with superior performance is" exxagerated claims",no reliable tests etcetera... .Even when your own air force confirms ,still you can not accept it. Every body loves his country but let s try to be objective.


----------



## johnbr (Apr 5, 2012)

Me I like the Tempest mk-1 and the MB-5.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 5, 2012)

jim said:


> I really dont understand what you are saying. You are suspicious on german claims? Okay . But i am saying to you that the trials were conducted on AMERICAN soil(Wright Field),By AMERICAN pilots (Al Boyd among them) ,for the AMERICAN air force.Page 139 "Arrow to the future".
> What makes you suspicion that it was not based on actual tests? FACTS please
> What political issues would influenced the test results with germany defeted and at the merci of the America?
> 
> ...



In my analysis, I used German data to support the performance of the Me-262 not allied performance evaluations and I compared all available flight test data on the P-80, looking at the high and low rollers and it certainly appeared to me that the P-80 and the Me-262 had similar performance in airspeed but the P-80 had a significant advantage in climb. As I said data tended to be spotty.


----------



## davebender (Apr 5, 2012)

The He-162 was a great design that had the misfortune to be rushed into mass production only 4 months after the the specification was issued. With another 6 months of development time I think the He-162 would have been a dirt cheap world beater. It would have owned the sky during the fall of 1945.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 5, 2012)

so many of the above not only flew but were deployed - scratch F7F and F8F and 260 and P-80 and XP-72, etc


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 5, 2012)

It never flew apart from on a drawing board but the Hawker Fury with a 3,500 hp Rolls Royce Eagle engine would have been a beast.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Apr 5, 2012)

jim said:


> I really dont understand what you are saying. You are suspicious on german claims? Okay . But i am saying to you that the trials were conducted on AMERICAN soil(Wright Field),By AMERICAN pilots (Al Boyd among them) ,for the AMERICAN air force.Page 139 "Arrow to the future".
> What makes you suspicion that it was not based on actual tests? FACTS please
> What political issues would influenced the test results with germany defeted and at the merci of the America?
> the perception that the P-80A and Me-262 were pretty close with a very slight edge to the P-80 appears to be validated.
> ...



Did you bother to look the forum thread link I posted before you posted your response?

I had two sources for what I posted and I listed both. One was a possible post by *GregP* in another forum (I'll let GregP confirm whether I am off base here rather than post his comments verbatim- 

the other source was a post by *davparlr* in this forum. if either or both of them are wrong then I am wrong. I am just relating to you what I read as were you. I consider my two sources reasonably credible as do you yours. 

The point is, I made my source clear.

Here is another post by *SoD Stitch* from this forum which quotes text from "*American Raiders*", by Wolfgang W. E. Samuel wherin some USAF Pilots claim roughly equal performance and others claim 262 superiority: 

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/me262-vs-p-80-a-562-19.html

One interesting post in this thread by *drgondog* suggests that one reason Yeager may have found the P-80 essentially equal in performance is that the Lockheed aircraft was under continuous development. That seems a likely possibility. 

As to the political aspect of published test results I can tell you from my own experience that such biasing occurs. Whatever the original test results may have been, the quest for funding will surely overrule accurate reporting, as suggested in davparlr's post. To think otherwise is simply naive.

I am not arguing with the basic performance test results of the Me-262 I am sure they were generally accurately reported. The question at issue was how it compared to the P-80. Whatever the test results, there are claims about its design that are unfounded. IMO, the importance of the 262, as impressive as its performance was, has been inflated. That's just my opinion. A recent thread here dealt with the issue of wing sweep which has been frequently mischaracterized as a development primarily due to the Me-262 although quite frankly I can't cite a specific instance off hand. I believe that's a claim that has, over time diminished in the frequency of its occurrence as the history has become more widely understood.

Try this:

http://naziscienceliveson.devhub.com/blog/3359-me-262-wunderplane-or-compromise/


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 5, 2012)

Martin Baker MB-5; mmmmm, yum...


----------



## GregP (Apr 5, 2012)

In another forum we had a long discussion about the P-80 and Me-262. General consensus was that the two were very equally matched with a slight edge to the P-80.

P-80C: 600 mph speed, 46000 feet service ceiling, 4580 fpm climb. P-80A max speed was 558 mph; even with the Me-262. Service ceiling was higher, too. Naturally, rate of roll was better without tip tanks and initial roll breakout was MUCH better ... again, without tip tanks ... as you would expect given that the Me-262 had engines underslung on the wings.

Me-262A-1a: 559 mph speed, 37,565 feet service ceiling, 3900 fpm climb.

There appear to be people who simply don't believe that the P-80 could fly as it did, and we agreed they could disagre and believe whatever they wanted. I will not engage in that argument in here again. If you go research it you'll find that even the first XP-80 was even with the Me-262 and only got better. Yes, the Me-262 could also have gotten better ... but it didn't due to the end of the war, and all the "what ifs" won't change that. The slight wing sweep in the Me-262, while a bit revolutionary, didn't really give as much help as has been popularly believed. The Me-262 was a great plane for WWII, but wasn't better than the P-80 Shooting Star; they were quite even. It is a shame they were never directly compared side by side in performance trials. 

I don't believe it is a shame they never met in wartime except as an intellectual exercise. Wartime usually involves casulaties and a person's life isn't worth fighting two jets to see which one is better.

I CAN say that our T-33 at the Planes of Fame, before we traded it, was faster than a wartime Me-262. We now have a Canadian CT-133, which is considerably more powerful than a stock USA-made T-33. We start the Reno air races (Unlimited Class) in it every year these days.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 5, 2012)

I was waiting for someone to bring up the sea fury! Definately a strong candidtate. In fact, I think we have covered all the suspects I identified before I posted this thread. Remembering that we were looking at piston engined aircraft that were in production at the end of the war or very shortly afterwards, but never saw combat. And they had to be legitimate contenders for the title as they were, at that time:
Lavochkin La-9
DeHaviland Hornet. 
Grumman Bearcat
Grumman Tigercat
P51H
Spitfire f.22
Do 335
Hawker Fury
F4U-5

The only other contender I can think of is The P47N. But did it see combat? If so I guess it misses out on a technicality, Like the Ta152H.
Incidentally, on the subject of jets, one that almost made it into combat but often gets overlooked in these discussions is the Vampire. It would have eated any of the other early jets in a dogfight, or any of the piston engines jobs metioned above I suspect.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 6, 2012)

P-80 factory acceptances
1 october '44 (so YP-80A)
4 december '44 (so YP-80A)
1 february '45 (so YP-80A)
3 march '45 (so YP-80A)
6 april '45 (so 10th/12th YP-80A and first 3 P-80A-1)
13 may '45 so P-80A-1


----------



## davparlr (Apr 6, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> I was waiting for someone to bring up the sea fury! Definately a strong candidtate.



Saw one fly at Chino and it is a magnificent aircraft.




> The only other contender I can think of is The P47N. But did it see combat? If so I guess it misses out on a technicality, Like the Ta152H.



The P-47N was quite successful in combat against the Japanese.



> Incidentally, on the subject of jets, one that almost made it into combat but often gets overlooked in these discussions is the Vampire. It would have eated any of the other early jets in a dogfight, or any of the piston engines jobs metioned above I suspect.


 
I think the Vampire was certainly in the class of the P-80/Me-262. The first Meteors were not. It is a shame it was delayed by the destruction of the engine in a P-80 test.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 6, 2012)

The Vampire maintained the problem nany British fighters had lack of range IIRC correctly when the RCAF was demonstrating the Vampire post war across Canada it required in the neighbourhood of 20 stops for fuel which a logistics nightmare as jet fuel was not available in many areas


----------



## drgondog (Apr 6, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> I was waiting for someone to bring up the sea fury! Definately a strong candidtate. In fact, I think we have covered all the suspects I identified before I posted this thread. Remembering that we were looking at piston engined aircraft that were in production at the end of the war or very shortly afterwards, but never saw combat. And they had to be legitimate contenders for the title as they were, at that time:
> Lavochkin La-9
> DeHaviland Hornet.
> Grumman Bearcat
> ...



The P-47N and F7F were deployed in the pacific - with at least one night figter squadron w/USMC. The P-80 was deployed to Italy at the very end of the war (6?), the P-51H was deployed in squadron levels in April 45 and fully operational in CONUS in June 1945. The Do 335 was being shot at in April 1945 and IIRC the F4U-5 was deployed to CONUS based USMC in mid 1945, probably earlier.

So, confusing change from 'never flew' to 'deployed but never saw combat' to 'never were deployed to combat zones' to 'produced, deployed - but never shot at or fired a shot'?

What are you looking for?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 6, 2012)

"The Vampire maintained the problem nany British fighters had lack of range IIRC correctly when the RCAF was demonstrating the Vampire post war across Canada it required in the neighbourhood of 20 stops for fuel which a logistics nightmare as jet fuel was not available in many areas"

This rather points to why the US pre war fighters were 'bigger' than many European fighters. The range needed just to deploy from one area of the country to another called for more internal fuel.


----------



## Juha (Apr 6, 2012)

Hello GregP
On D-3803. According to Peter Gunti’s article in AE 47, the max speed of the D.3803 proto was 664km/h. Anyway both Saurer engines (YS-2 used in D-3802 and YS-3 used in D-3803) fell critically short in terms of reliability and performance.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Apr 6, 2012)

My list, some flew during WWII but not participated combat.

Martin-Baker MB-5
Hawker Fury
DH Hornet
F8F
La-9
Ta-152C


Juha


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Apr 6, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> P-80 factory acceptances
> 1 october '44 (so YP-80A)
> 4 december '44 (so YP-80A)
> 1 february '45 (so YP-80A)
> ...



Interesting Vincenzo. Evidently the Planes deployed to England (2) and Italy (2) were pre-production YP-80s, assuming wikipedia is correct: 

Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 6, 2012)

Just an observation here, at the beginning of this thread, CobberKane posted:


CobberKane said:


> Here's a new twist on a perrenial topic - *what was the best prop driven fighter to never fly in the Second World War*. All the main protagonists had one, the coulda-been contenders left sitting on the tarmac, denied their shot at the title by the passage of history. *The piston-engined aircraft that pushed the concept of the fighter about as far as it could go before the jet engine turned it into something else altogether*...


So why the argument regarding jets?

There's countless threads (and arguments) devoted just to that subject already...


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 6, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Interesting Vincenzo. Evidently the Planes deployed to England (2) and Italy (2) were pre-production YP-80s, assuming wikipedia is correct:
> 
> Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



is well knewn that that sent were YP-80A. the wiki article is bad writed repeating 2 times the sent of the 4 planes in europe


----------



## windswords (Apr 7, 2012)

Let's not forget the Japanese:


Nakajima Ki-87
433 mph
42,175 ft
2 × 30 mm
2 × 20 mm

Mitsubishi Ki-83
438 mph
1,213 mi
41,500 ft
2 × 30 mm
2 × 20 mm

Tachikawa Ki-94-II (est)
443 mph
48,170 ft
1,305 mi
2 × 30 mm
2 × 20 mm


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 7, 2012)

And I'll put in yet another vote for the Martin Baker MB3 - another great "might have been" from WWII.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 7, 2012)

drgondog said:


> The P-47N and F7F were deployed in the pacific - with at least one night figter squadron w/USMC. The P-80 was deployed to Italy at the very end of the war (6?), the P-51H was deployed in squadron levels in April 45 and fully operational in CONUS in June 1945. The Do 335 was being shot at in April 1945 and IIRC the F4U-5 was deployed to CONUS based USMC in mid 1945, probably earlier.
> 
> So, confusing change from 'never flew' to 'deployed but never saw combat' to 'never were deployed to combat zones' to 'produced, deployed - but never shot at or fired a shot'?
> 
> What are you looking for?


 
To clarify, I was thinking of prop driven planes that were in opperation at or shortly after WWII but didn't fire a shot in anger, air to air (so far as anyone knows). So the Tigercat, P51, Bearcat etc are in. I vote for the Do335 too, because while it might have been shot at I never heard of it scoring a kill. I would have liked to have included tha P-47M but it scored a few kills - about 15 I think. Hmm, the' Lightweight Thunderbolt' - maybe not he greatest fighter of WWII but a strong contender for the greatest oxymoron!


----------



## krieghund (Apr 8, 2012)

jim said:


> I really dont understand what you are saying. You are suspicious on german claims? Okay . But i am saying to you that the trials were conducted on AMERICAN soil(Wright Field),By AMERICAN pilots (Al Boyd among them) ,for the AMERICAN air force.Page 139 "Arrow to the future".
> What makes you suspicion that it was not based on actual tests? FACTS please
> What political issues would influenced the test results with germany defeted and at the merci of the America?
> 
> ...



Based On What and by whom??? Facts please! 
Unfounded beliefs about Me 262? The bird was tested to death by Americans,English,Soviets,French , served with Chech air force! What secrets Me 262 has? Eric Brown reports that british tests fully confirmed german tests.
The permament response of the Americans in reports of axis aircrafts with superior performance is" exxagerated claims",no reliable tests etcetera... .Even when your own air force confirms ,still you can not accept it. Every body loves his country but let s try to be objective.[/QUOTE]

If memory serves in Chuck Yeager's book he mentions that Howard Hughes requested from the USAAF a Me262 so he could try to set a speed record with it. They flat refused. He relates that the USAAF wanted to put the Me262 to bed and there is inferred a possible controversy that the USAAF higher ups did not want the Me262 to outshine the then P-80.


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2012)

Hi Juha,

I have benn able to find very little information on the D-3803 other than the engine, dimension, and general specs. There appear to be only a few pics, too, and I wish tehre were a few more. The same can be said for the Swiss P-16 jet fighter (from which teh original Learjet was made) ... just a few lics and general specs, but not much else.

Anyway, The Doflug was built in both tyrtledeck and bubble canopy versions. I simply wish for a bit more data on the type.

I can't even fing but a few lines about the Saurer engines. I understrand they were based on the Hispano-Suiza, but that is about all I can find on them.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 8, 2012)

The Saurer engines were based on the Hispano-Suiza. After WW II there were at least three different developments of the Hispano "Z" series. One was French, one was Spanish and the other was the Saurer. How much inter action or sharing there was between the three programs I have no idea. Depending on exact model of each there were differences in superchargers, supercharger drives (one speed, two speed, and variable drive) and different fuel injection units. These engines may have no connection with the late model Russioan engines that started off based on the Hispano. 

There are a few entries in late 40s editions of "aircraft engines of the world" by Wilkinson.


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 8, 2012)

I read a USAAF report that stated the Fw-190D could outroll all AAF fighters except the P-38L and P-80. Just food for thought on the P-80 vs. Me. 262. Vampire was excellent also....but back on topic: My choice would have to be the F8F...at this time (subject to change). My studies, at this time, are on the Bell aircraft. Mike Williams (bless his heart) has one of (best in my opinion) the best WW2 aircraft information sights on the web. ww2Aircraft.net has THE BEST informative discussion sight on WW2 A/C. Where was I...?...oh yea, P-63. Its major fault was the lack of internal fuel. It had a ferry range of over 2,500 mls. but once it dropped its exterior tanks it was time to head home. It had structural faults until October (?) 1944. BUT, It had extremely excellent handling qualities. From what I have read to date, It was a dream to fly. (Just printing what I've read). The P-63D had excellent visibility for the pilot. The stats that Mike has recently posted were most (pleasantly) surprising:
S.L. 388mph/4970fpm
1Km 395mph/4600fpm
2Km 405mph/4540fpm
3Km 410/4410
4Km 426/4280
5Km 435/4120
6Km 444/3860
7Km 451/3470
8Km 447/2980
9Km 441/2560
10Km 433/2120
11Km 425/1680

Combat Ceiling (1,000fpm): 41,000ft.
Wing Area: 255sq.ft.
At a weight of 8,740 lbs.

Specs are fairly awesome, but, I'm sticking with the F8F at this time.

Had to edit: The P-63 had excellent rolling qualities at any speed.


----------



## cimmex (Apr 8, 2012)

CORSNING said:


> I read a USAAF report that stated the Fw-190D could outroll all AAF fighters except the P-38L and P-80. Just food for thought on the P-80 vs. Me. 262. Vampire was excellent also....but back on topic: My choice would have to be the F8F...at this time (subject to change). My studies, at this time, are on the Bell aircraft. Mike Williams (bless his heart) has one of (best in my opinion) the best WW2 aircraft information sights on the web. ww2Aircraft.net has THE BEST informative discussion sight on WW2 A/C. Where was I...?...oh yea, P-63. Its major fault was the lack of internal fuel. It had a ferry range of over 2,500 mls. but once it dropped its exterior tanks it was time to head home. It had structural faults until October (?) 1944. BUT, It had extremely excellent handling qualities. From what I have read to date, It was a dream to fly. (Just printing what I've read). The P-63D had excellent visibility for the pilot. The stats that Mike has recently posted were most (pleasantly) surprising:
> S.L. 388mph/4970fpm
> 1Km 395mph/4600fpm
> 2Km 405mph/4540fpm
> ...




Do you really believe those numbers, for me these are fantasy numbers. Every source I found says max speed 410 m/h and 2500 f per min climb
cimmex


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 8, 2012)

There was only one P-63D that was loss in a incident. idk if that were test speed or calculated (estimed) speed but nothing too strange for a 1945 prototype

i just read best the docs all but 1st configuration (P-63A 8168 lbs) are calculated value


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 8, 2012)

uh...yes, I believe these numbers are closer than anything published so far. 8,800 lbs., 1800 hp+, 1943-44 ability. Yes, I do.


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 9, 2012)

cimmex, Your right. Most published figures (Ray Wagner, William Green...etc.) do state the P-63 at 410mph. They also state the P-51D at 437 and P-51B at 440. The D was capable of 448 for US service and the B was capable of 450+ in interceptor form. Think about the most published figures. P-63A 410 and P-63 later As and Cs with water injection at 410mph. Yea, right. I haven't seen any published books stating amount of boost used. This and the fact that a lot of military tests were done at the weights that the AAF intended to use the aircraft. Not at the weights they would have been if they were going to be in interceptor mode. If you want to get a good idea how one aircraft performs against another in pure interceptor form, you must deck them out that way. Then let the games begin.


----------



## Juha (Apr 9, 2012)

Hello GregP
There was a article on D-380x planes with some photos and drawings in an old Air Enthusiast and also in another issue on P-16.

Juha


----------



## davparlr (Apr 9, 2012)

CORSNING said:


> cimmex, Your right. Most published figures (Ray Wagner, William Green...etc.) do state the P-63 at 410mph. They also state the P-51D at 437 and P-51B at 440. The D was capable of 448 for US service and the B was capable of 450+ in interceptor form.


I have never seen any test reports showing the P-51B/D doing 450+. Please show your source. 



> Think about the most published figures. P-63A 410 and P-63 later As and Cs with water injection at 410mph. Yea, right. I haven't seen any published books stating amount of boost used. This and the fact that a lot of military tests were done at the weights that the AAF intended to use the aircraft. Not at the weights they would have been if they were going to be in interceptor mode. If you want to get a good idea how one aircraft performs against another in pure interceptor form, you must deck them out that way. Then let the games begin.



It is true that many publications do not reflect the latest high octane performance so you may be correct. I don't think it was particularly fast though.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 10, 2012)

cimmex said:


> Do you really believe those numbers, for me these are fantasy numbers. Every source I found says max speed 410 m/h and 2500 f per min climb
> cimmex


 


Vincenzo said:


> There was only one P-63D that was loss in a incident. idk if that were test speed or calculated (estimed) speed but nothing too strange for a 1945 prototype
> 
> i just read best the docs all but 1st configuration (P-63A 8168 lbs) are calculated value


 


CORSNING said:


> uh...yes, I believe these numbers are closer than anything published so far. 8,800 lbs., 1800 hp+, 1943-44 ability. Yes, I do.



We have a misunderstanding here.
The only P-63 available in 1943 (1st delivery Oct 1943, 'weak airframe' - stated by the Soviets, so it received reinforcements in 1944) was P-61A. It was able to make 410-417 mph (wing guns attached), all without using the water injection (ADI) in WER. With ADI, the plane clocked 420-430 mph (differnt charts show different values)
The P-63C was slightly faster (step-up ratio for auxiliary stage was incerased, adding to the FTH some 2600-2700 ft). Max speed circa 435 mph, WER + ADI. Availability? 1945.
The engine's carburetor of the P-63Ds and P-63Es was located between the supercharger stages, and equipped with crankshaft having 12 counterweights. Net benefit being further increase in full throttle height, FTH being at 28000 ft this time (nor ram effect for all FTHs). The max speed on WER + ADI was some 450 mph at 27-28000 ft. Availability? Around VE day; the P-63D was built as single prototype.


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 10, 2012)

WWII Aircraft Performance
Mustang Mk.III FA.953 with V-1650-3 at 67" boost and 9,200 lbs.=450 mph./28,000 ft. I believe 5-10 mph. more at 72" and 75" is not unreasonable. There is another test showing 455 mph. with a Merlin 100, but I do not know if this engine was ever used in a production Mustang. 
The P-63A-10 was not as fast as the mustang over all but it held its own in climb:
Height (Km)....Speed(mph)/climb(fpm)
Sea Level........383/4980/----
1,000............394/4825/-.6 minutes
2,000............407/4625/-1.4
3,000............415/4350/-2.1
4,000............421/3950/-2.9
5,000............423/3450/-3.9
6,000............422/2950/-4.9
7,000............412/2525/-6.1
8,000............407/1960/-7.6
9,000............394/1500/-9.4
10,000...........376/1025/11.8 minutes.

The P-63C-1 could reach 434 mph./6,000 km.

tomo pauk is pretty much dead on the nail head right.


----------



## spicmart (Apr 10, 2012)

In Axel Urbanke's Book "First in Combat with the Dora 9" it is stated that a P-63 was able to escape from a Dora-9 by climbing.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 10, 2012)

Interesting. Could you please post a tad more about that - was that a post-war testing?


----------



## spicmart (Apr 10, 2012)

No, it was no post-war testing. The book deals with the german fighter squadrons JG 54 and JG 26 which were the first to receive the Fw 190 D-9 and is a comprehensive account of the action the pilots of those squadrons went through with this aircraft late-war. Some comparisons with allied fighter aircraft were stated among them this incident with a P-63. E.g. the Yak-3 was superior in vertical and horizontal turns, but was outclimbed by the german machine (is that true?).
Also soviet late war fighter pilots were not afraid to engage in a dogfight even when they were outnumbered and in a disadvantageous position (like their predecessors) showing their confidence in their new mounts.
The general consensus is that the D-9 could hold its own against the latest marks of allied fighters.
It is also said that while the longnose Focke Wulfs seemed to have an almost legendary reputation as a top-tier fighter plane, its combat record was not that outstanding which might also be influenced by the rookie pilots who were thrown into combat with hardly enough experience to fly it and being easy meat for enemy pilots thus causing a very high mortality rate among them (I guess you all know this already).
But first and foremost this book is about the pilots of those JGs and their fates.
A read to be recommended..
I


----------



## Juha (Apr 10, 2012)

How they knew that it was a P-63, there is no sure info that Soviet used P-63s in VVS units operating against Germans.

Juha


----------



## MacArther (Apr 10, 2012)

I'm a bit biased (understatement)...but the P40 Q seems a good plane...


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 10, 2012)

I believe the USAAF never really looked at the P-63 because they had no use for it - there was nothing the Kingcobra could do that couldn't already be done by the existing fighters in the ETO and Pacific theatres. It was realised from the outset that the USSR was going to be the major user and the plane was tailored accordingly as a low to middle altitude fighter. I think one of the conditions of delivery of the P-63 was that the Soviets not deploy it on the Eastern Front but its generally assumed this proviso was ignored.
I guess in many ways the P-63 was the machine the P-39 should have been, a case of a sound design denied development through circumstance and short-sightedness, which finally came into its own only to find itself matched or bettered by later competition.
Re the Fw190D, Eric Brown rated it a slightly better dofighter than the P-51D and slightly inferior to the Spitfire XIV. It's high loss rates were undoubtedly due to poor pilot quality and the fact that it was simply overwhelmed by greater numbers of Allied aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 10, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> I guess in many ways the P-63 was the machine the P-39 should have been, a case of a sound design denied development through circumstance and short-sightedness, which finally came into its own only to find itself matched or bettered by later competition.



Not Quite. The P-63 showed the limits of the basic design concept. A bit too much was compromised to get the 37mm cannon into the plane. Putting the engine on the center of gravity may have helped agility but it limited available volume for consumables (like fuel) near the center of gravity which resulted in a rather short range. Perhaps not bad for the original specification or for certain nations but a liability for a US fighter and it only got worse as the "fronts" expanded and called for even more range.


----------



## Dcazz7606 (Apr 10, 2012)

On anothe rforum i asked about the use and combat record of the p-63 as I had seen many photos of the plane in Alaska in Russian colors but never heard a thing about it's combat record. The answer that came back was that it only flew in far eastern Russia and had one kill, a Frank Ki-84. Any more info would be interesting.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 11, 2012)

What I don't really understand are the wings of the P-63. 
Despite being of area comparable with P-51, and at least as tick, they housed only some 70% of the fuel aboard the P-51's wings. The HMGs needed to go out of the wing (only one per wing side), with 250 rpg carried. The whole part of the wing between the HMGs and radiator intakes was 'free' (not containing the fuel, undercarriage, armament), yet the designers overlooked the possibility to install the fuel tanks there. That part of the wing was housing the water/methanol for the engine needs (ADI), but still a better part of that was 'free'. 

The fuel tanks are red outlined (both for smaller (P-39) and bigger (P-63) wings*), HMG ammo is blue outlined, the never-installed fuel tank is cyan-outlined in the 'free' part of the wing. So instead of having 200+ gals available, the P-63 was stuck with cca 140 gals internally - won't take it much further, if further at all, vs. the P-39 on internal fuel alone. 
Or we might ditch the wing guns, meaning even more fuel (the leading-edge fuel tank now looks as cloned outboard tanks from P-38J/L), go for belt-fed 20mm 'stead of the 37mm, with staggered fuselage HMGs (for more ammo)...

*in the front half view of the P-63 the red rectangular is for the never-installed tanks


----------



## davparlr (Apr 11, 2012)

CORSNING said:


> WWII Aircraft Performance
> Mustang Mk.III FA.953 with V-1650-3 at 67" boost and 9,200 lbs.=450 mph./28,000 ft. I believe 5-10 mph. more at 72" and 75" is not unreasonable. There is another test showing 455 mph. with a Merlin 100, but I do not know if this engine was ever used in a production /QUOTE]
> 
> Must have been a top 1% aircraft as the USAAF tested the P-51B at 67" with a top speed of 442 mph. At 75" the P-51B with -7 engine did 444 mph.
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-24771-level-blue.jpg


----------



## MacArther (Apr 11, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> What I don't really understand are the wings of the P-63.
> Despite being of area comparable with P-51, and at least as tick, they housed only some 70% of the fuel aboard the P-51's wings. The HMGs needed to go out of the wing (only one per wing side), with 250 rpg carried. The whole part of the wing between the HMGs and radiator intakes was 'free' (not containing the fuel, undercarriage, armament), yet the designers overlooked the possibility to install the fuel tanks there. That part of the wing was housing the water/methanol for the engine needs (ADI), but still a better part of that was 'free'.
> 
> The fuel tanks are red outlined (both for smaller (P-39) and bigger (P-63) wings*), HMG ammo is blue outlined, the never-installed fuel tank is cyan-outlined in the 'free' part of the wing. So instead of having 200+ gals available, the P-63 was stuck with cca 140 gals internally - won't take it much further, if further at all, vs. the P-39 on internal fuel alone.
> ...



I did wonder about that "open" space on the P-63....maybe flight testing showed bad characteristics when those items were added into the wing?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 11, 2012)

I gather you mean the space I stated as 'free'? It was mostly vacant, and no 'items' were added there, apart from two 12,5 gal tanks for water-methanol mixture (ADI) for engine. The P-63s with ADI were not that frequent during the ww2, though; I'd really like to know the 'amount' of the wartime P-63As with the ADI equipment vs. those without that.


----------



## Mike Williams (Apr 11, 2012)

davparlr said:


> CORSNING said:
> 
> 
> > WWII Aircraft Performance
> ...


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 11, 2012)

The Swedish J21/J21R?


----------



## wuzak (Apr 11, 2012)

CORSNING said:


> WWII Aircraft Performance
> Mustang Mk.III FA.953 with V-1650-3 at 67" boost and 9,200 lbs.=450 mph./28,000 ft. I believe 5-10 mph. more at 72" and 75" is not unreasonable.



Without changing the supercharger the higher boost would be achieved at a lower altitude. IIRC 67inHg is equivalent to +18psi. Higher boost required higher grades of fuel and/or ADI. Though higher boost pressures would be achieved at lower altitudes, making the aircraft faster at those altitudes, the boost pressures at the previous FTH would be much teh same, as would speed.


----------



## CORSNING (Apr 16, 2012)

Excellent post Mike. Thank you, Jeff.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 17, 2012)

Three aircraft, two of which were Australian, and only one of the thjreee that entered series production during the war

1) Commonwealth Aircraft CA-13 Boomerang 

CA - 13 Boomerang Actual Data 
Quantity (all marks) 250 
Wingspan 36ft 
Length 25ft 6in 
Engine 1,200hp Pratt Whitney Radial 
Weight Empty 5,373lb 
Weight Loaded (combat) 7,699lb 
Max Speed 304mph TAS 
Rate of Climb 2,150fpm at 5k 
Climb to Height (10k) 
Armament 2x 20mm + 4x .303 Guns 

The thing about the Boomerang is that, except for British intransigence and obstinance concerning engine manufature, the type could have been in production from July 1940, instead of September 1942 (perhaps with an all MG armament) . Australia would hjave been immeasurably better off with several hundred of this type instead of the few dozozen buffaloes that were actually provided for local defence (and these invariably ended up in malaya anyway).

hen Australia suddenly found itself in the front line, in December 1941, it had no modern fighters save a few Buffaloes supplied to the RAF in Singapore. To try to produce a stop-gap quickly the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation at Fishermen's Bend, Melbourne, decided to design and build their own. But the design team, under Wing Commander Laurence J. Wackett, was severely restricted. The new fighter had to be based on the familiar North American trainer series, which since 1938 had served as the basis for the excellent Wirraway general-purpose combat machine and trainer, of which 755 were made by CAC by 1946. Moreover the only powerful engine available was the 1,200hp Twin Wasp, judged by 1942 to be much too low-powered for first-line fighters elsewhere. Despite these restrictions the resulting machine was tough, outstandingly manoeuvrable and by no means outclassed by the Japanese opposition. Wackett's team worked day and night to design the CA - 12 in a matter of weeks and build and fly the prototype in a further 14 weeks. Testing and production went ahead together and, as there were no real snags, with most of the first 105 CA -12s soon flying with 2 OTU Mildura. There followed 95 CA- 13s 1 CA-14 with a turbo charger and a squared off fin. Finally 49 CA -19s with minor changes to the CA-13s were built. Boomerangs did not carry bombs but often marked targets for "heavies" and undertook close support with their guns. 

2) CAC-15 kangaroo

CA-15 Kangaroo Actual Data 
Quantity (all marks) 1 
Wingspan 36ft 
Length 36ft 21/2in 
Engine 2,035hp Griffon 61 V-12 
Weight Empty 7,540lb 
Weight Loaded (combat) 10,764lb 
Max Speed 447mph TAS 
Rate of Climb 4,990fpm at 5k 
Climb to Height (10k) 
Armament 6x .50in Guns 

Only 1 example of the CA-15 was ever built before the jet age caught up with the CAC builders. It would have been an outstanding fighter, infact the fastest piston engined fighter of all time with a top speed of 502.2mph in a speed test over Melbourne. She was designed as a long range fighter for the RAAF and first flew in march of 1946. Originally designed with the Pratt and Whitney R-2800 radial engine in mind, the design had to be changed in 1944 when the R-2800 was no longer being made available to the RAAF. Instead the Griffin 61 V12 engine (which was later found to perfectly suite this airframe) was chosen as a replacement untill the new Griffon 120 V-12 was made available to the RAAF. This change plus offical disinterest delayed the production of the CA-15 which could have entered service in 1944/45. The CA-15 Kangaroo was an outstanding aircraft and proved that australian designers could design aircraft to world standards. It was primarily still borne because the P-51D was nmade available very cheaply, with some local content

3) Hawker Sea Fury FB11

The Sea Fury could have been in service from 1944, but was delayed for a number of reasons. Its delay was effectively an "own goal" for the RN. It would have been a fomridable wartime caqrrier borne fighter IMO. A number of MiG shoot downs were achieved with the type during Korea, and it was an exceptional fighter bomber. Post war it has been the mount of choicee in many air races because of its exceptionally high speed and good manouverability

The Sea Fury FB.11 was armed with the same four 20mm cannon as the Mk.X. It could carry two 500lb or 1,000lb bombs, twelve 3in rockets or four 180lb Triplex rockets under the wings, as well as two 45 or 90 gallon fuel drop tanks. Despite the increase in loaded weight performance was similar to that of the basic fighter versiuon of the Mk.X. 

The FB.11 entered service with No.802 Squadron in May 1948, and eventually served with Nos.801, 802, 803, 804, 805 (RAN), 807 and 808 (RAN) Squadrons. There was also extensive foreifn usage of the type, and the type was able to operate from the decks of smaller carriers without difficulty. It saw service throughout the Korean War, but was withdrawn soon after the end of the war. 

Engine: Bristol Centaurus XVIII
Power: 2,550hp
Crew: 1
Wing span: 38ft 4 ¾ in
Length: 37ft including tail hook, 34ft 8in without
Height: 15ft 10 ½ in
Empty Weight: 9,240lb
Loaded Weight: 12,500lb
Maximum Weight: 14,650lb
Max Speed: 460mph
Time to 30,000ft: 10.8 minutes
Service Ceiling: 35,800ft
Range: 700 miles with internal fuel, 1,040 miles with underwing drop tanks
Armament: Four 20mm Hispano Mk 5 cannon
Bomb-load: Two 500lb or 1,000lb bombs, twelve 3 inch rockets or four 180lb Triplex rockets (it could also pggy back sonabouys for the Firefly AS6 ASW aircraft)


----------

