Best Japanese fighter

[Milosh]

The de Havilland DH 108 was very similar to the Me163.
de Havilland DH 108 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[GregP]

I think of the DH 108 as a flying drop tank ... and have heard it described that way by British test pilots in print.

I wonder if, using today's design software, it is possible to "fix" the DH 108 so it flies without dangerous high speed tendencies. It probably is and we'd probably find the airfoil to be the primary culprit ... the issue was probably where the shock waves started when the critical Mach number was reached. Too bad John Derry and Geoffrey de Havilland had to find out the hard way. They were two of the good guys.

 

[DVH]

I have a soft spot for the ki 61. Most japanese fighters were, in appearance at least, variations on the same theme. No wonder allies referred to the zero in a catch all term.
Seems that the ki 61 broke the mold, even if it was a derivative of a german design. It was a beauty. Shame none are flying today.

 

[Garyt]

I'm responding to some earlier posts regarding the US planes always being heavier than the opposition.

Was it perhaps a question of resources? The US certainly had more to burn than any other country, being economical with their usage of their resources was not as issue.

What was the cost per plane on say a p-47 or p-38, even a p-51 compared to other nation's 2nd generation fighters?

I this regard I think the Germans did great, took the Me109 that was there at the very outbreak of the war and kept it competetive with other designs til the end of the war. Little lost in re gearing production lines. It was also a relatively small craft, I would think not overly expensive on a per plane basis in comparison

But if you have a huge lead in available resources, and you can make a plane that might be 50% more costly in resources, but gives you a 10% advantage in performance, it makes sense.

 

[CORSNING]

The 109 wasn't escorting heavy bombers 500-600 mls. one way.

 

[Shortround6]

I'm responding to some earlier posts regarding the US planes always being heavier than the opposition.

Was it perhaps a question of resources? The US certainly had more to burn than any other country, being economical with their usage of their resources was not as issue.

What was the cost per plane on say a p-47 or p-38, even a p-51 compared to other nation's 2nd generation fighters?

I this regard I think the Germans did great, took the Me109 that was there at the very outbreak of the war and kept it competetive with other designs til the end of the war. Little lost in re gearing production lines. It was also a relatively small craft, I would think not overly expensive on a per plane basis in comparison

But if you have a huge lead in available resources, and you can make a plane that might be 50% more costly in resources, but gives you a 10% advantage in performance, it makes sense.

The US didn't build large fighters because it had resources to burn and thus could be wasteful. You can't repeal the laws of physics just because you have more resources and American designers had to obey the laws of physics ( gravity, airflow/resistance, etc) just like any other countries designers.

P-38 was designed the way it was because the initial specification called for twice the endurance of the P-39 which was built to a different but similar timed specification. If you want the same speed and same climb while carrying the same armament but you want to do it for twice as long you need a lot more fuel which means more weight which means more wing which means even more weight which means more power which means...............

American aircraft often carried a greater wight of armament ( I am not saying better, the .50 cal gun was heavy and it's ammo was heavy) and had more range. The range is understandable given the the size of the US. If you build small short ranged fighters you need a lot more of them to cover the US coast. Which is cheaper, the bigger longer ranged planes or many more smaller planes?

The Germans kept the 109 "competitive" by reducing it to a one trick pony. While it could still do useful work in 1944/45 as a short range/local interceptor (something the Germans did need a lot of) it was a lousy fighter-bomber/strafer by 1944 standards, it would have been a lousy escort fighter, it wasn't even a really good bomber interceptor being too lightly armed in the 3 gun configuration and loosing performance in the 5 gun configuration ( climb and turn).

British '2nd Generation' fighters may include the Typhoon and the Tempest which I doubt were really that cheap.

 

[fastmongrel]

I bet Sabre engines cost a packet you could probably get 3 Merlin 60 series for the same money

 

[DonL]

You can also look at the FW 190 D-9 and Tank 152, they are in the same weight and external dimensions class.
THe FW 190 A is a little in between but clearly larger the a Bf 109.

 

[BiffF15]

I concur with Shortround.

Planes are built to specifications. The F15 was built around the radar, with the add on of carrying 8 missiles. Yes, it's bigger than most but not the biggest. In my opinion the bigger the plane the further it will go, and to some extent the less maneuverable it will be. The smaller it is, the more maneuverable it should be (less mass to move around). However, you couldn't go to Berlin and back with a Spit (or Berlin to London with a 109), but the Mustang could. In modern parlance the Mustang is a Interdiction fighter while 109 is a point defense type of fighter.

If you are fighting close to home the point defense fighter is preferred, it's usually more of a hotrod from the pilots perspective. Key word is "defense". If you are going deep (on the offense), the Mustang / Lightning (w/drop tanks) would be choice as you can take the fight to his capital, fight for a while, then come all the way back home.
My opine only...
Cheers,
Biff

 

[Garyt]

A lot has been said stating the reason for larger American planes was due to the need for range. To counter this, look at the Japanese planes. Great range, light planes by american standards. So no, it's not just the need for range. There would be ways of keeping the planes smaller and still having good range.

"The Germans kept the 109 "competitive" by reducing it to a one trick pony. While it could still do useful work in 1944/45 as a short range/local interceptor (something the Germans did need a lot of) it was a lousy fighter-bomber/strafer by 1944 standards, it would have been a lousy escort fighter, it wasn't even a really good bomber interceptor being too lightly armed in the 3 gun configuration and loosing performance in the 5 gun configuration ( climb and turn)."

I agree here with it's limited role, but as you say that is what they really needed at the time. With the 30mm and to 12.7's, it was more formidable against bombers of course, but lost a bit against other fighters. And the 5 gun packed a heck of a lot of firepower - and if it could limit it's opponents to enemy bombers it's climb and turn would not be a huge issue. Of course, that's a perfect world for the 109, but I would think the 5 gun 109's would be focusing on bombers.

And really, for other roles the ME109 could have been modified for larger drop tanks. Agreed, it's small frame would not work well as a fighter bomber, and it would not be great at carrying ordinance. But in the air to air role, it went from 1939 to 1945 and was still competitive in 1939. That's not something that can be said by the P40, P39, Wildcat, Buffalo, Hurricane, Claude, Oscar or Zero.

But still, I don't think anyone has answered the question as to the costs of the various planes. I'd think 2 Me109's, given the Germans needs at the time, would be far superior to having say 1 P51. And this is not even including the costs of refitting to produce a new line of aircraft.

 

[GregP]

The cost of US warplanes varies greatly depending on when you bought it,

Let's take a snapshot in 1944:
1) P-51: $51,572.
2) P-38: $97,147.
3) P-47: $85,578.
4) P-61: they didn't buy any in 1944. It was $649,584 in 1941 but had dropped to $180,711 in 1943.
5) P-80: $109,471.
6) A B-17 was $301,221 in 1941 but was $187,742 in 1945. In 1944 it was $204,370.

I have some German data for 1941:
1) Bf 109E: 85,970 RM. This converts to $34,388 USD.
2) Bf 110C: 210,140 RM. This converts to $84,056 USD.
3) Ju 88A: 306,950 RM. This converts to $122,780 USD.

In 1941 we didn't HAVE a P-51, but:

1) P-38: $134,284,
2) P-40: $60,562.
3) P-47: $133,246.

So the Germans could field 3.9 Bf 109E's for every P-38 we had in 1941 (by cost, anyway) … but we could not fly any mission with a Bf 109 that the P-38 flew other than training missions. The Bf 109 simply didn't have the range, so it was never going to be an Allied option.

The Bf 110 was not anywhere NEAR the fighter that the P-38 was, but the Germans could by 1.6 of them for every P-38 we had. The Ju 88 was about a wash, close to 1 for 1.

In the end, the Germans had a great little plane in the Bf 109, but it would not have been possible for the British or the USA to use it for very many missions due to limited range, so it would never be an option for us … but it WAS cheaper by long shot.

 

[DonL]

In the end, the Germans had a great little plane in the Bf 109, but it would not have been possible for the British or the USA to use it for very many missions due to limited range, so it would never be an option for us … but it WAS cheaper by long shot.

Where was the Spitfire much different from the Bf 109 from the outer dimensions and the general design, design goals and especially the range?

 

[GregP]

Hi DonL,

You are correct, I was thinking of the missions the Americans were flying.

For home defense of Great Britain, it would have done just fine. In fact, the Spitfire and the Bf 109 were interchangeable in short-range, point defense missions.

But neither was going to suffice for bomber escort, deep interdiction (as in Britain to Germany and back), weren't much use in the MTO except for short missions, and were hopeless for the PTO except in point defense fighter missions. We had a few of those, but not many in the PTO. One place where they would have done fine was support of armor in North Africa. The forward airfields could easily have been close enough for the Bf 109 and the Spitfire to have supported ground actions.

By the way, the Zero managed long range by eliminating all the pilot protection and aircraft armor, not something we were going to do, so the larger size of American fighters was necessitated by requirements.

 

[tomo pauk]

Spitfire was definitely bigger. The wing area was 242 sq ft, vs. 173 sq ft. P-51 was at 235 sq ft.
Big wing will enable more benign flight characteristics, and will be an asset in high altitudes. It might allow for more room to shuffle new stuff inside, like increased armament, fuel, engines's accessories. Shortcoming is that bigger wing means bigger drag (less speed), provided both wings are of about same generation and thickness.
We can compare the italian % series of fighters, to see how the bigger of them can carry more, but the smaller perform better. All on same engine.

 

[BiffF15]

A lot has been said stating the reason for larger American planes was due to the need for range. To counter this, look at the Japanese planes. Great range, light planes by american standards. So no, it's not just the need for range. There would be ways of keeping the planes smaller and still having good range..

Yes, there is more to it than range. Think of it as a min equipment list for the US aircraft. Two way radios, naviagtion radios, armor, IFR capable, guns w/good to great loadouts, self sealing fuel tanks, high dive speeds, and also manufacturers were new to "modern" construction techniques (and probably rounded up on anything of question adding more weight). The Japanese replacement for the Zero was the Reppu, and the Germans with the Fw-190D which both had/have weights that were within an RCH of the Mustang.

To make products that are comparable (able to do the same mission), engineers regardless of their country of origin come up with almost the same product. Look at the F-15 Eagle compared to the Su-27, and the F-18 compared to the Mig-29 (point is it still occurs to this day).

The Germans kept the 109 "competitive" by reducing it to a one trick pony. While it could still do useful work in 1944/45 as a short range/local interceptor (something the Germans did need a lot of) it was a lousy fighter-bomber/strafer by 1944 standards, it would have been a lousy escort fighter, it wasn't even a really good bomber interceptor being too lightly armed in the 3 gun configuration and loosing performance in the 5 gun configuration ( climb and turn).".

As was previously stated the 109 attributes make it a short ranged / point defense fighter.

And really, for other roles the ME109 could have been modified for larger drop tanks. Agreed, it's small frame would not work well as a fighter bomber, and it would not be great at carrying ordinance. But in the air to air role, it went from 1939 to 1945 and was still competitive in 1939. That's not something that can be said by the P40, P39, Wildcat, Buffalo, Hurricane, Claude, Oscar or Zero.

The P-39, 40, Wildcat, Buffalo, Hurricane did not enjoy the focus of improvements that the Me-109 did. The Spitfire grew in both performance and size by a large amount over it's lifespan, with the late Mk 14's being both leggy and fast. I can't speak to the Claude or Oscar, but the Zero did get improvements over it's lifespan with the 52 being the high point (IIRC). However, (and I'm not an engineer) the Zero was built in the WW1 "maneurvering over all else" mentality and to make it as fast AND as long ranged as the US stuff would have required A LOT of work (hence the Reppu).

But still, I don't think anyone has answered the question as to the costs of the various planes. I'd think 2 Me109's, given the Germans needs at the time, would be far superior to having say 1 P51. And this is not even including the costs of refitting to produce a new line of aircraft.

It's my opine that the Germans needed a better pilot training pipeline, established MUCH earlier in the war, to feed it's aircraft production capability as well as it's attrition. They started the war with the most experienced / best fighter pilots and didn't build on that. The US pilot production was the opposite. However they used a constant improvement process over the life of the war (and it's still in use today) to deliver a much better product to the front line.

 

[tomo pauk]

...

The P-39, 40, Wildcat, Buffalo, Hurricane did not enjoy the focus of improvements that the Me-109 did. The Spitfire grew in both performance and size by a large amount over it's lifespan, with the late Mk 14's being both leggy and fast. I can't speak to the Claude or Oscar, but the Zero did get improvements over it's lifespan with the 52 being the high point (IIRC). However, (and I'm not an engineer) the Zero was built in the WW1 maneurvering over all else mentality and to make it as fast AND as long ranged as the US stuff would have required A LOT of work (hence the Reppu).
....

The Spitfire did not grew in size by large amount over it's lifespan. Wing remained of about same size, the fuselage remained in the ballpark. Only the vertical tail grew, to enable more cotrol against the increased engine power torque. The Spit 14 was fast, but was not rangy. The predecessor, Mk. VIII, was rangier.

 

[BiffF15]

Tomo,

I will defer to you. I thought I remembered reading that the late Mk14's had pretty good range.

I probably didn't use the best choices of words regarding growth. There is roughly a 20% increase in weight from the Mk5 to the Mk14.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[GregP]

Sort of lost the wonderful handling along the way. None of the Griffon-powered Spits were as sweet to handle as the Merlin-powered Spits, according to the pilots, but were climbing fools with power to spare.

 

[parsifal]

relative to its contemporaries, however, even the griffon engined spits were always manouverable. relative to earlier, less powerful and less heavy aircraft, they were not so manouverable

 

[GregP]

True, parsifal. I think the Mk. IX was the best of the bunch for all-round handling and power, but it was outperformed in speed and climb by the Mk. XIV and other Griffon units. But if you were GOING to get into a dogfight, I'd take a Mk. IX over a Mk. XIV.

Just a personal choice, not a knock on the XIV. At least I'd be less likely to nose-over a Mk. IX by long shot.