- Thread starter
-
- #101
Sorry, but no.
The cards (DB 601, Jumo 211, single row radials if you really want them, MG/FF, MG15, even the MG17) are dealt, you just need to play them well.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Are we allowed to continue RLM funding for the DB603 engine program during 1937 to 1940 rather then cancelling funding as happened historically?
Are we allowed to fund the Genshagen DB601 engine factory @ 50 million RM as originally planned rather then scaling it back to 20 million RM as RLM did historically?
Maybe my message did not went through. A 'designer' can pick an engine, weapon layout, airframe layout, and then 'design' himself some fine fighter. Also, the 'stae of the art' remains - no laminar flow wings, no fan cooled radial engines, etc. - those are out for 1940.
The thread is not about the planes that were around in 1940, that were available for the LW, but how would an ideal fighter looked like if you were in charge.
Are we allowed to continue RLM funding for the DB603 engine program during 1937 to 1940 rather then cancelling funding as happened historically?
Historical 1940 DB601 engine production was barely adequate to support the Me-109 and Me-110 aircraft programs. So this specification means your 1940 German Uber fighter aircraft will be powered by a 1,200 hp Jumo 211 engine.
Mission impossible.
Not going to happen in the historical setting. Ju-88 and Me-109 were the two highest priority German aircraft programs. Me-110 was a favorite of Milch and Goering. Restoring full funding for the DB601 engine and/or DB603 engine would be a much easier sell.
So far so good, but I'm not a designer or engineer. I think I can understand different a/c's with different intentions, but I think we all learned from the real flying a/c's.
Honestly I think you can't create a german "über" fighter at 1940 because one engine had not enough performance for all roles.
The Bf 109E was clearly one of the best air supermarcy fighter of this days, with very good aerodynamics, to my opinion good to average armament, high speed and very good climb performance. The Spitfire was equal in every way but better in turning and on the sticks.
For german missions at 1940 especially BoB the Bf 109 E had it's flaws and to my opinion a Spitfire on the german side and a Bf 109 E on the british side had the absolut total same results as in reality. The kill ratio would be the same the other way round. And we are talking about the two best fighter a/c's of 1940!
Also I think a He 112 is a compromise because it was larger, so it could carry more fuel, perhaps better armament, but would be the performance with the DB 601A enough to be realy better then the Hurricane and equal to the Spitfire? I have my doubts!
Good examples are the P40 and the A6M. The P40 had the same intentions then the Bf 109E and the Spitfire but was significant larger (also larger then the He 112) with a lot more fuel, but to my opinion a Tomahawk has not a single chance against the Bf 109 E or the Spitfire in a real battle over a longer term of time (equal to BoB).
Think you're chosen a wrong example.
The early P-40 (P-40B) was every bit as good as the European duo (and better performer than the Hurricane I?), it was the later versions of the Spit and 109 that left the P-40 in the dust. The P-40B in LW hands means far greater escort/freijagd footprint, than it was possible when using the 109E, even without drop tank used. The P-40B flying at 15-20000 ft has also a significant tactical advantage over the defending fighter trying to gain the necessary altitude, more so since it was a very god diver. The armament of the P-40B is also far better suited for long range jobs, than those of the Emil.
The same goes for the A6M! The Zero would be in real trouble to fight the Spit and the Bf 109 E at Boom and Zoom tactics and at high speed.
Zero was really no diver, but superb combat range would've given RAF some dire moments. The armament issue is also present here (drum fed cannons, a pair of LMGs).
To create a a german "über" fighter for the mission of BoB you are in need for a two engine fighter (at 1940), without BoB the Bf 109E and the Spitfire were the absolute state of the art at 1940 for a short ranged air supermarcy fighter.
Covered above - German allies and Germans themselves were producing far less restricted planes around the DB-601A, then it was case with Emil.
The 109 design should NOT BE TINKERED WITH it should be REPLACED.
For things possible with DB-601A, we can take a look at MC.202 and Ki-61 - even in 1943 those were never listed as easy preys by allied pilots. Even the 109F-0/-1/-2, basically the aerodynamically cleaned-up Emils can show us that better was possible, on about the same engine power.
The 'ideal fighter' should be tailored for the needs of the LW. For an single engined fighter, that includes winning out the air superiority over enemy held teritorry - the task the Emil had problems to do if the airspace of the interest was, say 250 km away.
Think you're chosen a wrong example.
The early P-40 (P-40B) was every bit as good as the European duo (and better performer than the Hurricane I?), it was the later versions of the Spit and 109 that left the P-40 in the dust. The P-40B in LW hands means far greater escort/freijagd footprint, than it was possible when using the 109E, even without drop tank used. The P-40B flying at 15-20000 ft has also a significant tactical advantage over the defending fighter trying to gain the necessary altitude, more so since it was a very god diver. The armament of the P-40B is also far better suited for long range jobs, than those of the Emil.
Zero was really no diver, but superb combat range would've given RAF some dire moments. The armament issue is also present here (drum fed cannons, a pair of LMGs).
And by the way no Bf 109F was operational 1940 the first JG with Bf 109F were at March-April 1941!
T
I would also note that the Spitfire had almost the same drag as a 109F in spite of it's larger wing. This can be seen by comparing fuel consumption figures at various speeds for the MK V ( higher drag than a MK IA or II) and the 109F with the two planes fuel consumption being within a few percent of each other.
.