drgondog
Major
Parsifal - I need to think about it. The key question is what thrust figures and at which altitudes. The drag estimates are pretty much the same across the board.
1941: the best airframe for a single engined fighter
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
parsifal
Colonel
I understand, but doesnt change the equation at all. Having experienced air crews statistically does not change the enemies loss rates by any measurable amount, except if the qualitative difference is very great indeed. What having experienced aircrew does do is increase their ability to survive.
The majority of BC losses had nothing to do with the efforts of German fighter forces, and I expect the majority of losses for US daylight operations would be similar. For 2 group, operating in an intensely hostile environment, their losses to the two JGs operating near the coast were very limited. far more losses were due to Flak (about 37%), and navigational error or flying accidents (about 35%) with only about 22% ever being lost to the fighters. Similar conclusions can be drawn regarding the fighter forces committed to operations over France in 1941. And the concentrations of German fighters encountered in the coastal regions were far far greater than might be expected over the reich itself in our hypothetical, given the amount of force you are advocating to be diverted (just one JG). historically, in december 1941 there were just two regular day fighter formations deployed in the reich, I/JG-1 and I/JG-3 plus some provisional territorial units flying mostly obsolete types like the Bf 109D which Weisse described in his report at the time as "of questionable value" ( source : "The Luftwaffe over Germany - Defence Of the Reich" john Caldwell ). I have read in total there were about 140 day fighters defending the reich at this time
I am not being overoptimistic given the response you are advocating to the threat and with the forces you are prepred to commit to respond to this threat. You are saying that with 140 fighters (most of them obsolete) plus maybe 60 additional fighters fom just one JG that you are prepared to deploy back to the reich as reinforcements that you can stop a force that in late 1941 could boast a frontline bomber strength of about 600 bombers, plus say 30 squadrons of fighters. If those 30 squadrons were LR mustangs they are going to tear your defences to pieces, unquestionably. Things may be different if there is a wholesale redeployment of LW assets fro the front back to Germany, but you arent advocating that.
The forces you have proposed to commit in response to this threat are nowhere near what you are now advocating. Remember, you are not proposing a redeployment of the experienced frontline formations to deal with this threat. all you have is a maximum of 200 day fighters, perhaps half of which are obsolete, and only 60 of them with frontline super experience. the rest are chaff basically. As for the Night fighters, in December 1941 there were 6 understrength groups with less than 200 aircraft in total, mostly Ju-88Cs with some Me 110s.
Against escorted formations, NJGs used in the day role were massacred, why would that not be the case in this scenario. with only 200 day fighters (half of them inferiior), you are going to be lucky to place any more than 50 at any given point, against a formation of say 400 bombers and say 250 fighters. That is not going to result in any masscre for the allies, the other way around in fact.
Historically 2 group (a force of just 6 squadrons in 1941, eqipped mostly with Blenheims), mounted sustained daylighht operations in france against an enemy with far greater concentration of fighters, and with nothing but elite crews. It suffered nowhere near the losses you are suggesting to fighters, though losses to flak and sheer attrition did push that up. there is no evidence from the historical experience to support the claim that losses would be heavy, particulalry when the numbers of defenders is so thin.
Hardly. in 1941 the Night Bombers of BC were suffering a far heavier attrition rate than the day bombers attacking in France (mostly). if the brits had switched to a day bombing campaign with a decent amount of LR escort, as i am advocating, and they were met by the historical defenders, plus the one group you have deemed as adequate, the result would have been a massacre alright, but not of British aircraft. Losses to british formations if the experienced of 2 Gp are anything to go by would drop from about 7% (the loss rate for the night bombers at this time) per raid, to about 2.5% (the los rates of 2 Gp over France)
Early to mid 1941 I agree, principally because the Reich defences at that time consisted of over 32 frontline squadrons. After June 1941 there is still a short delay but from september on the Brits are typically sending a force of about 300 bombers. If there were a similar number of fighters joining them, and they are resisted by just 200 defenders across the whole of germany (orf indifferent quality), the RAF has virtualkly nothing to fear.
parsifal
Colonel
With regard to the possible daylight operations by the RAF and the likley losses that might be incurred from the historically deployed defenders, plus just one JG we dont really need to speculate as to the likley losses, we can look at actual daylight raids of the period. Ive taken this information from the Air Situation Report for the week see TNA CAB 66/18/17
"The heaviest daylight bombing raid against Germany since the outbreak of war was carried out with considerable success on the 12th August. In this major operation 78 bombers and 485 fighters were employed; the targets were two of the main power stations in the Rhineland—the Goldenburg at Cologne-Knapsack and the Quadrath Fortuna at Cologne.
The day's operations began with a sweep by 84 fighters escorting 6 Hampdens in an attack on St. Omer aerodrome, the object being to draw off the enemy force based in the district ; it is estimated that 150 Me. 109s were engaged in the combats which ensued.
While this operation was in progress 54 Blenheims, escorted by Whirlwinds of Fighter Command, left the coast and, flying low over the sea, penetrated through the mouth of the Scheldt to Antwerp, where the covering Whirlwinds returned to base. Simultaneously, a Fortress bombed De Kooy aerodrome from 32,000 feet, to keep enemy fighters in that area employed.
Meanwhile the Blenheims, flying close to the ground, located and attacked, under favourable weather conditions, the two power stations at Cologne. From reports received, both power stations appear to have been severely damaged in most determined attacks ; 24 tons of bombs were dropped on the turbine and boiler houses and the targets were left with fires blazing.
Heavy A.A. fire was encountered, but only three Me. 109s were seen; further diversions by Fortresses over Cologne and the naval base at Emden assisted in drawing off enemy fighters, which might otherwise have attacked. These Fortresses released their bombs from 35,000 and 37,000 feet respectively.
The Blenheims were met at Antwerp on their homeward journey by formations of Spitfires and, during this withdrawal, a further diversion was carried out by 144 fighters escorting 6 Hampdens to attack Gosnay Power Station, near Bethune; bursts were seen on or around the target. Later, 4 Blenheims with fighter escort bombed the shipyards at Le Trait, near Rouen, hits being obtained on slipways and on a ship alongside.
In this series of co-ordinated operations we lost 12 Blenheims and 10 fighters. Four enemy aircraft were destroyed, 5 probably destroyed and 10 damaged." These last figures are confirmed by Foreman as a further 4 written off immediately and 3 further cannibalised. two were unnaccounted for by Foreman. Thats an exchange rate of 22 a/c to all causes to 11 enemy aircraft, just to the allied fighters. thats not the mark of a one sided victory, or the germans enjoying a runaway qualitative superiority. the reverse actually. just
Breaking down those losses, thats a loss rate of 3.9% of the force structure, using obsolete bombers, and with a large part of the bomb run carried out unescorted. One additional JG, however wel trained it might be, is not going to make any difference, and losses due to enemy fighters unlikley to increase, more likley to decrease because of the ability to provide continuous escort
"The heaviest daylight bombing raid against Germany since the outbreak of war was carried out with considerable success on the 12th August. In this major operation 78 bombers and 485 fighters were employed; the targets were two of the main power stations in the Rhineland—the Goldenburg at Cologne-Knapsack and the Quadrath Fortuna at Cologne.
The day's operations began with a sweep by 84 fighters escorting 6 Hampdens in an attack on St. Omer aerodrome, the object being to draw off the enemy force based in the district ; it is estimated that 150 Me. 109s were engaged in the combats which ensued.
While this operation was in progress 54 Blenheims, escorted by Whirlwinds of Fighter Command, left the coast and, flying low over the sea, penetrated through the mouth of the Scheldt to Antwerp, where the covering Whirlwinds returned to base. Simultaneously, a Fortress bombed De Kooy aerodrome from 32,000 feet, to keep enemy fighters in that area employed.
Meanwhile the Blenheims, flying close to the ground, located and attacked, under favourable weather conditions, the two power stations at Cologne. From reports received, both power stations appear to have been severely damaged in most determined attacks ; 24 tons of bombs were dropped on the turbine and boiler houses and the targets were left with fires blazing.
Heavy A.A. fire was encountered, but only three Me. 109s were seen; further diversions by Fortresses over Cologne and the naval base at Emden assisted in drawing off enemy fighters, which might otherwise have attacked. These Fortresses released their bombs from 35,000 and 37,000 feet respectively.
The Blenheims were met at Antwerp on their homeward journey by formations of Spitfires and, during this withdrawal, a further diversion was carried out by 144 fighters escorting 6 Hampdens to attack Gosnay Power Station, near Bethune; bursts were seen on or around the target. Later, 4 Blenheims with fighter escort bombed the shipyards at Le Trait, near Rouen, hits being obtained on slipways and on a ship alongside.
In this series of co-ordinated operations we lost 12 Blenheims and 10 fighters. Four enemy aircraft were destroyed, 5 probably destroyed and 10 damaged." These last figures are confirmed by Foreman as a further 4 written off immediately and 3 further cannibalised. two were unnaccounted for by Foreman. Thats an exchange rate of 22 a/c to all causes to 11 enemy aircraft, just to the allied fighters. thats not the mark of a one sided victory, or the germans enjoying a runaway qualitative superiority. the reverse actually. just
Breaking down those losses, thats a loss rate of 3.9% of the force structure, using obsolete bombers, and with a large part of the bomb run carried out unescorted. One additional JG, however wel trained it might be, is not going to make any difference, and losses due to enemy fighters unlikley to increase, more likley to decrease because of the ability to provide continuous escort
No, this is a thread to discuss the airframes available in 1941, which everyone here seems to be doing.
Either contribute to the discussion, or move to another thread that suits you better. Everyone here seems to be on topic.
Good points, but still He178 flew 2 years ahead of E.28 and paved the way for the next 30 years of Soviet intake design.
He280 solved nose, tricycle gear layout and nacelles, later accepted by Me262.
Finally, 262 featured swept wing of low t/c ratio (a hint of supercritical profiles) and large amount of body lift, something planes like F22 extensively utilize, today.
Also, 262's aerodynamic testing and final layout was done in '41 (V1 had piston engine just for the purpose of actual flight testing), so it wins airframe contest of the age (for the most advanced design), light years ahead of competition.
As far as the piston fighters go, the situation is, well, difficult to assess and this is why I said no such thing as best airframe...
However, think you boys need to get your hands on proper figures before making conclusions, so...
Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance is a site you wanna look for Bf109 actual data.
For the rest you go there > WWII Aircraft Performance
(DISCLAIMER: Not sure if you're already using this, but I see data often being disputed, so this may help solve the problem)
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
The question arose because of the claim that in 1941 the only or best engine available would be the Merlin 45. I initially accepted that as a fact, but just a little research shows that claim to be not entirely true.
According to John Foreman (Fighter Command War Diaries January 1942-June 1943) the merlin 60 series was first bench tested in April 1941, with the intention of fitting it to a high flying version of the Wellington. It was not until July 1941 that the question was first raised as to the possibility of fitting the new engine to the Spitfire airframe. the first Spitfire fitted with a Merlin 60 (which was later redesignated Merlin 61) was fitted to a Spit III that had been modified, with very impressive results....top speeds of over 400 mph. There was then official resistance to its introduction to SE fighters, but eventually a certificate of design was issued April 1942, and the new Merlin 61 entered widespread service in FC from July 1942, principally in the Spit IX, which is generally seen as an effective counter to the FW190.
The decision to marry the Merlin 61 to the Mustange airframe was not taken until July 1942, I understand, and it service deliveries of the first P-51Bs was not until the end of 1942. However, I cannot see why, with a little more foresight and drive, why the Mustang airframe and the brand new engine could not have been developed from the start, entering service from the beginning of 1942. The basic airframe was ready from the beginning of 1941, the engine was ready by Septemeber 1941. If there had been some inspired decisions made more quickly, i cannot see why it would not have been possible for a RAF Mustang/Merlin 60 marriage to have occurred from the beginning of 1942 instead of the end.
Certainly the claim that the only engine available to the Mustang in 1941 is bogus. Potentially a marriage between the two stage Merlin and the basic Mustang I airframe was possible from the middle of 1941. If so, what a lost opportunity....
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
While the Merlin 61 may not have been ready the Merlin 45 was not the best Merlin available, a Merlin 20 series was. The Merlin 45 with a two speed supercharger that offered about another 1000ft of altitude over the Merlin 45 and with the low gear, much better performance than the 45 at the lower altitudes.
It offered 20-30mph in the P-40 over the -39 Allison at 20-25,000ft. The higher the altitude the greater the difference. With the same sort of change to the Mustang the Mustang could have been a very creditable fighter in 1941 even if not the performer it would become in 1943.
It offered 20-30mph in the P-40 over the -39 Allison at 20-25,000ft. The higher the altitude the greater the difference. With the same sort of change to the Mustang the Mustang could have been a very creditable fighter in 1941 even if not the performer it would become in 1943.
drgondog
Major
You might want to assume that those sources are well known and extensively used by this group.
Why don't you propose your selection criteria and conclusions?
parsifal
Colonel
I agree, but its delay does not appear to be due to any technical difficulty. it was due Air ministry resistance. To me it looks like it could have been in production from the end of 1941
also whilst the Merlin 61 was not in production until the latter part of 1942, I am not sure about its immediate forebear, the Merlin 60, which from what little Ive read appears to virtually the same engine and had begun to be installed into aircraft like the Lancaster from early 42. I will stand corrected if wrong, because I am not 1005 sure. What is certain, however is that engine intended for SE Fighter installtion, the merlin 61 was delayed by bureacracy, not technology
Ok, then...it's just that I saw some inaccurate figures here f.e.:
So, I figured original documents my prove to be useful.
Well, you can't really do that.
To this day, I'm not aware of a design that beats the competition in every aspect.
So, IMO the discussion would be more fruitful, should it address separate items (wing, fuselage, engine, etc...), separately.
i never read of 2 stage merlin on Lancaster except the merlin 85 series, you talking of test planes?
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
At SL, the Bf-109F-4 was capable of 327 mph (per Kurfurst)
At SL, the P-51B pulling 67" was capable of 372 mph without racks (I guess I was wrong, it is only 45 mph faster)
At SL the P-51B pulling 75" (150 octane), post May '44, was capable of 388 mph without racks, or 61 mph faster.
From AAF test as shown in Spitfireperformance
Max Speed at SL, P-51B
67" with wing racks 364 mph
75" with wing racks 380 mph
75" without wing racks 388 mph
parsifal
Colonel
Thanks Vincenzo, as i said I will stand corected, but doesnt alte that one of the reassons for the delayed introduction of the merlin 61 was official stubborness by the air ministry
drgondog
Major
If the discussion is Airframe, not armament, not engine, not fuselage - but the totality of the airframe and its capacity to evolve - then pick your own criteria. It would be just like picking Jim Brown over Johnny Unitas or Jordan over Magic - take a stand.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Bf-109
Kurfürst - Mtt. AG. Datenblatt, Me 109 G - 1. Ausführung
Fw-190
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-climb-speed-26-11-42.jpg
Spitfire Mk-II
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p7280speed.gif
P-51A (note: I took the data showing 1150 hp to equalize it with the other aircraft, as much as possible)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/P-51A-1-43-6007-Chart-1400.jpg
Please show me the data you have that indicates that these are wrong.
wuzak
Captain
Not sure about the Melin 60, if it existed at all.
The two stage Merlin was originally intended for the high atitude Wellington variant. But someone (Lord Hives?) suggested that would be a waste and it should be put in the Spitfire.
The delay may have been due to tooling for the changeover - remember that the single stage engines in production at the time had the troublesome single block/head arangement, the two piece design being held back in UK production until the two stage engine went into production.
parsifal
Colonel
According to foreman, it existed, at least in prototype form, and was tested in the spitfire airframe (a spit III) in late september 1941. According to foreman this installation, but he also says that there was considerable resistance to its introduction, with type certification not given until the following april. thats a delay of 8 months for reasons i do not understand. Tooling for series production did not commence until certification was granted In april, and the first mass produced versions of the merlin 61 appeared from July. The 8 months delay that preceded the issue of the type certification cannot be explained by 'tooling up arguments. it may have occurred as a result of technical issues but unlikley given the results of the test flights carried out in September.
Last edited:
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
No.
In comparing airframes, what is important is the hp used verses airspeed attained. I used this chart because it had a distinct power setting test for the P-51 of about 1150 hp which very close to the Bf-109F hp of 1165. The airspeed of the Spit looks quite small so I am suspect that the hp may be wrong. However, even the much more powerful IX top speed at SL is only about 330, quite a bit lower than the max shown by the chart for the P-51A.
For any given hp and altitude, the P-51 airframe will substantially out perform the other three aircraft in airspeed. The P-51 airframe is the most aerodynamically efficient airframe of any major propeller fighter of WW2. The Fw-190D-9 is a close second.
In comparing airframes, what is important is the hp used verses airspeed attained. I used this chart because it had a distinct power setting test for the P-51 of about 1150 hp which very close to the Bf-109F hp of 1165. The airspeed of the Spit looks quite small so I am suspect that the hp may be wrong. However, even the much more powerful IX top speed at SL is only about 330, quite a bit lower than the max shown by the chart for the P-51A.
For any given hp and altitude, the P-51 airframe will substantially out perform the other three aircraft in airspeed. The P-51 airframe is the most aerodynamically efficient airframe of any major propeller fighter of WW2. The Fw-190D-9 is a close second.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
