Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
They may be later in timing but there is no change in the laws in the laws of physics or aerodynamics that would have prevented them from being developed earlier.
And by that logic, I see no reason Germany could not have fielded the Me 262... no, the Eurofighter Typhoon... in 1940.
What is this for an argumentation at 1940?
Wether the Ki61 nor the MC 202 could be compared the Bf 109 E3/4 at 1940!
The Ki 61 had no DB 601 A from 1940 with no water pressure cooling and at the Macci had the worst armament and was as short legged as the Bf 109E3/4!
Oh realy?! Sorry for the sarcasm but the enemy fighter was the Spitfire what is at the defensive role and only the performance of the Spitfire counts, all other fighter a/c's are none to less important at 1940 if we compare to BoB as the most important battle!
No I have choosen exactly the right example, because the P40 has the requirements you are thinking should be needed for a german fighter, but to my opinion a 1940 Mai to June produced Tomohawk would be toast; minced meat; etc to both the Bf 109 E and Spitfire in every role and especially if the Spit and Me are at the defensive role.
The JG 27 had the Bf 109 E7 till September 1941 at the desert and weather the Tomohawk or the Kittyhawk could realy match with the JG 27! All other claims are myths, please read sources which has done researches on the officialy loss lists. An April 1940 produced Tomohawk had no single chance to be a succeed escort fighter against this two birds!
I think that a A6M Model 11 would be toast too at August 1940 over England against the Bf 109E , Hurricane or Spitfire.
The A6M was worst at the sticks above 400 km/h where the Spit and Me had there best performance. And you should think about the reality that german fighters always to favor boom and zoom tactics, because no single fighter of germany at WWII was a turn fighter!
The Zero would be out speeded out climbed and attacked from altitude the same as the P40 with no realy chance to have an adaquared answer. The air war at ETO at 1940 was totaly different and in a totaly other leage as the war at pacific at the same time or one year later!
Your whole argumentation based on 1941 but not on 1940!
And by the way no Bf 109F was operational 1940 the first JG with Bf 109F were at March-April 1941!
OK, it took me a while to find the old post; #243 in the "Was the corsair as good a fighter as the spitfire or the FW?" thread.i've a digital copy of pilot notes for Spit V (i think is not all, too few page) is reported 67 galls for hour at setting for max rich continuos (+7 lbs and 2650 rpm) and 84 galls for hour at setting for climbing (1 hour limit, +9 lbs and 2850 rpm)
Germany had no pre-war plans to fight Britain. So why would they design aircraft for that purpose during 1937?
Contingency plans prove nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if the USA still has contingency plans to invade Canada. That doesn't mean we intend to execute those plans. They are for emergency (or retaliatory) use only.
Sorry, I do not understand the whole sense of this thread. Why in 1940 Germany should want a new fighter. The Bf109E was one of the best planes in the world. The design of the F model is already finished and production is already prepared. Please try to imagine a view of 1940 and not from today.
cimmex
OK, it took me a while to find the old post; #243 in the "Was the corsair as good a fighter as the spitfire or the FW?" thread.
I doubt the MK V Spit was lower drag than the MK I or II while we know that the 109F had lower drag than the 109E.
Granted this is more a measure of the total propulsive efficiency of the planes than a true measure of drag but I figure the work done ( fuel used ?) averaged over a large enough set of conditions should come somewhat close.