1941: the best airframe between the s/e fighters?

[tomo pauk]

I've had the similar thread years before, but perhaps the new people here might give their perspective on topic. Topic being: looking at 1-engined fighters in squadron service, what airframe(s) stand out? So we'd more or less forget the advantage given by engine installed, and look at what tasks the respective airframes were good at:
Payload capability (guns/ammo/fuel), ease of production & maintenace (if that can be quantified/measured), ability to endure harsh field conditions (high or low temperatures, rough/muddy/dusty airstrips etc), pilot's comfort and visibility, ability to easily receive protection updates, all while being structuraly sound and not very difficult for new pilots to understand and use. Not being 'married' to just a single engine type is also a plus. Ability to dive and roll well. Drag & weight - as much as it is related to airframes here - are very important considerations.

Only land-based fighters for this thread, limited to fighters that people were actually using back in 1941. If you think more than one design needs to be on top of the list, feel free to list 2 preferred types instead of just 1.

 

[Vincenzo]

If i remember right the older became a heavy confrontation within Friederich and Mustang, despite the Mustang were delivered to No. 26 Squadron only from January '42.

i reply for following the thread

 

[Dimlee]

My first thoughts:
1. A6M2 - just lacking actual protection in 1941 but not the ability to receive it
2. MC.202 - except the guns, but probably there was potential for field modification?
or
FW 190 A-2 - if we can consider them as 1941 fighter

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Fw 190 would be my vote. It checks all the boxes

 

[drgondog]

NA-73 Mustang I would seem to be the best delivered production fighter airframe. It had the lowest drag airframe/wing combination and largest internal fuel combined with heavy firepower in 1941 timeframe. The 4x0.50 and 4x0.30 caliber armament was in a wing that easily converted to 4x20mm delivered in mid 1943 as Mark IA. Despite the drag of the 4x20's, the P-51 was deemed superior by AAF Flight Test to P-38/39/40 and P-47 below 15000 feet. The extremely low drag gave it performance matching much higher available horsepower airframes - with respect to top speed and range.

It was hugely adaptable in 1942, receiving a Packard Merlin 2S/2S V-1650-3 that increased top speed 30-40mph at 100% internal GW - to 440mph in 1943 at 29,000 feet - giving it unmatched potential as long range air superiority fighter to save USAAF/8th AF strategic bombing doctrine.

That said, the Spitfire and Fw 190 airframes were on a par with the Mustang, and the Bf 109 as well - for the short range footprint - and better for interception role where rate of climb was very important. Only the A6M was on par for range performance - but at the sacrifice of an airframe that had limited growth due to the internal structural design - that sacrificed 'volume' for upgraded armament, armor plate and external wing stores. Could say the same thing to a degree for the Fw 190/Bf 109 and Spitfire

 

[tomo pauk]

NA-73 Mustang I would seem to be the best delivered production fighter airframe. It had the lowest drag airframe/wing combination and largest internal fuel combined with heavy firepower in 1941 timeframe. The 4x0.50 and 4x0.30 caliber armament was in a wing that easily converted to 4x20mm delivered in mid 1943 as Mark IA. Despite the drag of the 4x20's, the P-51 was deemed superior by AAF Flight Test to P-38/39/40 and P-47 below 15000 feet. The extremely low drag gave it performance matching much higher available horsepower airframes - with respect to top speed and range.
...

Bill - I'd agree that Mustang was great, but it does not belong in "1-engined fighters in squadron service, what airframe(s) " for 1941.

 

[pbehn]

Credit must go to the Bf109 and Spitfire, when put into production they had engines well below 1000BHP and fixed 2 blade props. To survive through the war and eventually be fitted with 2000BHP engines and variable pitch props is a credit to the original designs.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The Fw 190 AIRFRAME was quite advanced for the time. The 28v electrical system and components, pushrod control surfaces, relative ease of maintenance with actual forethought put into panel placement, and excellent control harmonization. Not to mention the engine control system, and overall adaptability. It was truly a generation ahead in 1941

 

[tomo pauk]

Credit must go to the Bf109 and Spitfire, when put into production they had engines well below 1000BHP and fixed 2 blade props. To survive through the war and eventually be fitted with 2000BHP engines and variable pitch props is a credit to the original designs.

IIRC Spitfire was always with 1000 HP or more, includin the 1st production aircraft.

The Fw 190 AIRFRAME was quite advanced for the time. The 28v electrical system and components, pushrod control surfaces, relative ease of maintenance with actual forethought put into panel placement, and excellent control harmonization. Not to mention the engine control system, and overall adaptability. It was truly a generation ahead in 1941

Fw 190 airframe is also my 1st pick. Payload capacity was there both in fuselage and wings, plus what is underslung; well streamlined and compact but not too small, excellent cockpit and undercarriage, excellent rate of roll, good dive ability (climb was also depending on engine power, so I will not mention it). Workmanship seem to be very good, if not excellent until the realities of war intervened.
Spitfire is close second IMO. Payload capacity was good (this is where Bf 109 can't compete well), it could dive but rate of roll was not good, undercarriage and cockpit seem to be better than of Bf 109 but not as good as Fw 190, low wing loading will not intimidate new pilots. Workmanship was not that good in 1941-42. Ability to be up-engined with 2000+ lb (not HP, but lb dry) engines was there (not that it mattered in 1941), same as Fw 190, while Bf 109 required a lot of workaround for that. Excellent choice for wing profile. High man-hour cost for manufacture.
3rd place - Soviet fighters, P-40, P-39, Zero as land-based fighter, Italian fighters, Bf 109.

 

[Juha3]

One excellent point for 109F airframe was its cheapness i.e. easy to produce. IIRC two Bf 109Fs cost about the same as one Fw 190A2/3. Of course 190A had three more cannons, don't know how much of the difference in price came from the cost of the engine.

 

[PAT303]

Mk111 Spitfire, first designed in 1940 and was still the RAF's front line fighter in 1945, nothing else comes close.

 

[MiTasol]

Mk111 Spitfire, first designed in 1940 and was still the RAF's front line fighter in 1945, nothing else comes close.

Except it took massive manhours to build so ease of production is a NO as is ease of maintenance.
Its ability to endure harsh field conditions (high or low temperatures, rough/muddy/dusty airstrips etc) was solved by mid war but early aircraft in Australia and the SWPA had very low engine lives and it did not like the hard dirt and coral strips. The gear and its support structure needed major redesign for carriers as well.
Pilot's comfort was reportedly good and visibility was good after the Malcolm hood though I find it cramped (and I am not large).
Its ability to easily receive protection updates was variable and it was structurally sound if used on hard fields later.
How difficult for new pilots to understand and use depended on what they were trained on. If they trained purely on a British trainer probably not too difficult other than handling the massive increase in power but if trained on a Harvard it would be a very big jump as all US aircraft had all the critical controls in the same place on the left while the Spit has the landing gear control on the right (so you must swap hands during takeoff/climb and approach/landing. The flaps were on the main panel and were full up or full down unlike the Harvard and other American aircraft.

Not being 'married' to just a single engine type was also a criteria and it almost fails there. Fortunately the Merlin had multiple iterations and had a big brother.

Incidentally during ww2 there was a study into why pilots trained on a Tiger Moth took far far longer to transition to the Harvard than pilots trained on the Stearman. Reputedly the final report said the Stearman flys like an aeroplane and the Tiger Moth flys like a Tiger Moth. Much of that comment comes from having all the controls where you expect them to be and working in the way you expect them to work. On US trainers starting with the most basic everything was in the same place except more was added (flaps, hydraulics, retractable gear, variable speed prop, guns and folding wings) as you progressed. I do not know of any British trainer that had controls laid out like the Spitfire but my knowledge of Brit trainers is limited to the Tiger Moth and Anson (that is enough). Given the Brit fighters, trainers and transports I have worked on the Brits had only one constant - the basic six flying panel. The position of everything else was up to the designer.

 

[tomo pauk]

Not being 'married' to just a single engine type was also a criteria and it [Spitfire] almost fails there. Fortunately the Merlin had multiple iterations and had a big brother.

The 1st prototype of Mk.IV (Griffon-engined) flew in November of 1941. Griffon was size and weight of Jumo 213/DB-603. I'd say that Spitfire is in this category deserves a passing grade at least. Bf 109 with BMW 801 needed all new fuselage; not sure how much it took for Jumo 213 bar the new wing and U/C to cater for the much increased wing loading and to cure U/C problems, respectively.
The smallest in-service aircraft with very big engine was probably the MiG-1/3 (the AM-35A was outwards probably bigger than the 1st Griffons), and I-185 and Fw 190V series among the prototype group.

 

[drgondog]

Bill - I'd agree that Mustang was great, but it does not belong in "1-engined fighters in squadron service, what airframe(s) " for 1941.

Agreed Tomo - but it WAS the Best airframe in existence in 1940/1941.... and continued through the P-51H in mid 1945 (squadron/group operations)

If limited to actual operational service it limits discussion to Spitfire, Fw 190, Bf 109, P-38 and A6M. (IMO) Maybe MC 202 in conversation if Aerodynamics is heavily weighted.

For 1941 versatility, performance and range I would go A6M (carrier/land role) and P-38E with pylon kits, Next Fw 190 and Spit, with edge to Fw 190. Howver, the Spit and Bf 109 and A6M did not have operational maintainability issues - but those were system rather than 'airframe' issues for the Fw 190 and P-38

The question should have some more specific criteria, however. Like Best for what? Aerodynamics? Low Parasite drag and Induced Drag combined? Then Spitfire and Fw 190? Mission growth? P-38 and Fw 190. Fighter vs Fighter maneuverability combined with Performance envelope based on engine and future engine. Versatility? - Initially A6M, then Spitfire and Fw 190.

Best 'airframe' or best 'fighter' criteria for judgement? Points for 1941 current 'innovative systems'? Fw 190 hands down.

 

[pbehn]

IIRC Spitfire was always with 1000 HP or more, includin the 1st production aircraft.



.

By the time war was declared Spitfires had Merlin MkII engines and the Mk III was starting to come into service, but the first Spitfires couldn't have been fitted with MkIIs because they didn't start getting delivered until 1938 this is when the Spitfire went into squadron service but it was obviously produced before. My point was actually about available power with fixed blade props. With a fixed pitch prop take off climb and top speed depend entirely on the prop chosen, because the prop is "stalled" at max revs on the ground the engine had to be throttled back such that only about 650BHP was available.

 

[tomo pauk]

By the time war was declared Spitfires had Merlin MkII engines and the Mk III was starting to come into service, but the first Spitfires couldn't have been fitted with MkIIs because they didn't start getting delivered until 1938 this is when the Spitfire went into squadron service but it was obviously produced before. My point was actually about available power with fixed blade props. With a fixed pitch prop take off climb and top speed depend entirely on the prop chosen, because the prop is "stalled" at max revs on the ground the engine had to be throttled back such that only about 650BHP was available.

The 1st production Spitfires were powered by Merlin II. Merlin I was also 1030 HP engine.

 

[pbehn]

The 1st production Spitfires were powered by Merlin II. Merlin I was also 1030 HP engine.
View attachment 603295

When I said put into production I meant when it was ordered, that is what it had to perform with to win a contract. It may have been and was foreseen that power would increase but that is never guaranteed, they could have had problems like they had with the Vulture. 1030BHP appears regularly on power outputs of the Merlin, maybe something to do with the testing equipment. However a power output of "all out level flight" for a Spitfire is of little import, what power did it have for take off and climb? My post was based on what I understood to be its continuous output maximum of about 850-900 BHP. The Spitfire got the later engines because Supermarine were so chronically slow in producing Spitfires, so slow they almost lost the contract completely.

 

[tomo pauk]

When I said put into production I meant when it was ordered, that is what it had to perform with to win a contract. It may have been and was foreseen that power would increase but that is never guaranteed, they could have had problems like they had with the Vulture. 1030BHP appears regularly on power outputs of the Merlin, maybe something to do with the testing equipment. However a power output of "all out level flight" for a Spitfire is of little import, what power did it have for take off and climb? My post was based on what I understood to be its continuous output maximum of about 850-900 BHP. The Spitfire got the later engines because Supermarine were so chronically slow in producing Spitfires, so slow they almost lost the contract completely.

Is it that hard to accept that Merlin was a 1000+ HP engine?

 

[pbehn]

Is it that hard to accept that Merlin was a 1000+ HP engine?

Not at all, it was in 1938 for a short time, in 1940 for as long as you wanted but it wasn't in the years before when the Spitfire was designed and first flew. It would have been great if they told Mitchell that the Merlin will have 1100 BHP so design your plane around that, but that is what happened with the Typhoon and Tornado and the engines took years to get right. My point is really that Mitchell and Supermarine had to win a contract between 1934 and 1936. Wiki says this "On 5 March 1936,[15][nb 2] the prototype (K5054), fitted with a fine-pitch propeller to give more power for takeoff" The prop doesn't give more power it makes the power more useable, that is my point, things were on very fine margins at the time.

 

[tomo pauk]

Not at all, it was in 1938 for a short time, in 1940 for as long as you wanted but it wasn't in the years before when the Spitfire was designed and first flew. It would have been great if they told Mitchell that the Merlin will have 1100 BHP so design your plane around that, but that is what happened with the Typhoon and Tornado and the engines took years to get right. My point is really that Mitchell and Supermarine had to win a contract between 1934 and 1936. Wiki says this "On 5 March 1936,[15][nb 2] the prototype (K5054), fitted with a fine-pitch propeller to give more power for takeoff" The prop doesn't give more power it makes the power more useable, that is my point, things were on very fine margins at the time.

We're all entitled to opinions. However - denying what is a reasonable proof and moving goal posts to prove an opinion? C'mon.