The table kindly posted by glider, our member. Advantage for the Tempest is that it's tanks are all located near the CoG, unlike what was the case for the most of Merlin Mustangs or the Spitfires with rear fuselage tanks. The modification was the installation of a fuel tank in another wing leading edge.
Best Fighter of the war to build Your Fighter Arm around.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #122
drgondog
Major
Tomo - interesting, but a distinction without a material difference. Once recognized, SOP was to burn down ~25 gallons over the first 100 miles of cruise and not a factor with the exception of Very long range missions that the Tempest could not attempt - and even that period of time for which aft cg was an issue was perhaps 5 to 20 minutes depending on throttle setting.
For the Tempest II, the material difference was surely felt when it had 30 imp gals extra. The 'return range' was increased by 150 miles, the same gain when the US LR fighters received increased internal fuel (late 1943-early 1944). The most economical cruise at 20000 ft was done with 285 mph true.
The fuselage aft pilot is still available for the Tempest, if we badly want to increase the range.
The fuselage aft pilot is still available for the Tempest, if we badly want to increase the range.
GregP
Major
Question here.
I thought the premise was to develop your air force around one, single type, not to use real war data to compare anything that actually happened. This is a pure and simple "what-if." If no other fighters had been available, what fighter would you choose to develop your air force around and why? Did I get that wrong?
If all we had was the P-51, we'd have developed the crap out of it. If all the British had was the Spitfire, they'd have developed it even more than they did, and that is pretty well-developed. If all the Germans had was the Ta 152, they'd have developed it into a large-scale, production fighter instead of a few production prototypes.
In fact, the Germans might have done better if they had done less development. The sheer number of prototypes of something like the Ju-88 alone, if the effort expended had been put into production of fewer but operatioal types would have helped to an extent. You can accuse the Germans of not developing prototypes.
If the Soviets had hordes of La-5 FN's at the start of the war, they still might have suffered at the start what with the lack of personal initiative allowed at the time, but they would not have sacrificed so many obsolescent types so ineffectively had the only mount been a good one from the start.
Had the Japanese concentrated on the Ki-84 at the start of the war, things also might have been different.
Naturally, we all assume one of the better fighters.
But what if all we had was the P-40 and the Germans ony had the He-112? If you ask anyone about reincarnation, they mostly assume they used to be the Pharoh or the Queen of Sheeba. Very few think of their potential former lives as a one-eye, hairlipped goat-roper from ancient Saint Louis. So the possibility is there that at least ONE air arm would only have a poor or mediocre fighter with which to conduct the entire war.
Under these conditions, I'm not sure the actual war record is of any import at all.
Perhaps I midunderstood the question.
I thought the premise was to develop your air force around one, single type, not to use real war data to compare anything that actually happened. This is a pure and simple "what-if." If no other fighters had been available, what fighter would you choose to develop your air force around and why? Did I get that wrong?
If all we had was the P-51, we'd have developed the crap out of it. If all the British had was the Spitfire, they'd have developed it even more than they did, and that is pretty well-developed. If all the Germans had was the Ta 152, they'd have developed it into a large-scale, production fighter instead of a few production prototypes.
In fact, the Germans might have done better if they had done less development. The sheer number of prototypes of something like the Ju-88 alone, if the effort expended had been put into production of fewer but operatioal types would have helped to an extent. You can accuse the Germans of not developing prototypes.
If the Soviets had hordes of La-5 FN's at the start of the war, they still might have suffered at the start what with the lack of personal initiative allowed at the time, but they would not have sacrificed so many obsolescent types so ineffectively had the only mount been a good one from the start.
Had the Japanese concentrated on the Ki-84 at the start of the war, things also might have been different.
Naturally, we all assume one of the better fighters.
But what if all we had was the P-40 and the Germans ony had the He-112? If you ask anyone about reincarnation, they mostly assume they used to be the Pharoh or the Queen of Sheeba. Very few think of their potential former lives as a one-eye, hairlipped goat-roper from ancient Saint Louis. So the possibility is there that at least ONE air arm would only have a poor or mediocre fighter with which to conduct the entire war.
Under these conditions, I'm not sure the actual war record is of any import at all.
Perhaps I midunderstood the question.
- Thread starter
- #125
drgondog
Major
See my first comment
GregP
Major
Well then, if we only had one of the best fighters in the inventory and nothing else, I submit the war record is again immaterial since it would have changed drastically from the real war.
All the victories would be by that one type; all the losses, whether operational, combat or otherwise would be from that one type.
So I'm not sure what we are debating here other than my favorite is better than your favorite.
Good luck with it and I'll see what develops.
All the victories would be by that one type; all the losses, whether operational, combat or otherwise would be from that one type.
So I'm not sure what we are debating here other than my favorite is better than your favorite.
Good luck with it and I'll see what develops.
Last edited:
Obviously I chose the P-51H for what U.S. would've used as we needed something with long range...THEY might have chosen it because it would outperform the others you mentioned, except for the 262...
I believe the scenario stated "if it was available"...
Glider
Captain
Comment still stands. As the war was won without the use of the P51H how can winning the war be dependent on the use of the P51H. The use of the P51H would have made little if any difference.
Last edited:
Here is the original question by the OP:
No restrictions. If in 1939 you could pick one fighter out of the following to be your core Fighter, which would it be?
My point stands...
