Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
But then it wouldn't be a Zero, the Zero got all it's performance by not having all of the equipment the European/American/Soviet fighters had, like I posted on the other thread the British could have got a MkIV PR Spit, put the guns back in with aux tanks and hey presto a Euro Zero, but they wanted pilot protection, workable radio's and survivability. People seem to ignore the fact the Zero got it's range by having lots of fuel in unprotected tanks and flying low and slow over open ocean or impenetrable jungle, none of that will work over airspace defended by an integrated air defence network which is exactly what was in place on both sides of the channel in 1940 onwards. Lets go further into this, if the Americans or RAF had Merlin engined P51's in 1941-42 they wouldn't have made it to Berlin either, the Luftwaffe fighter groups across the channel were every bit the equal of the RAF with better aircraft, trying to get to Berlin in a fuel laden P51 was suicide, the combination of 190's low down and 109's above means you have no advantage anywhere, and if you did fight your way through they are all waiting for you on the way back fueled up and armed with hours of time to position themselves to hit you, the reason I would have Spits with the range to go the the Ruhr only until P51's and P47's numbers are built up, any further and the balance swings into the Luftwaffe's favour.There is no practical engineering reason why various improvements could not be implemented, including more powerful engines, armour, SSFT, more efficient armament, etc. The only reason the Japanese did not implement more of these improvements during (or earlier in) the war was due to the pressures of war-time manufacturing. I think it is safe to assume that if the Germans had adopted the A6M airframe they would have introduced the needed improvements.
Your escort fighter has to use 1938 technology, it must have large, heavy gas tanks, and it must be superior to the Bf109E in combat. 1938 means you have had time to manufacture lots of your escort aircraft. The Bf109E was a world class fighter aircraft that the lightweight, short ranged Hurricanes and Spitfires had difficulty with.I know that there'll be some variables here, namely time period and such, but what if the British had their own long range escort fighter? Naturally, it can't really be a Spitfire or a Hurricane since they're too short legged early war (and Spitfire for most of the war). But, from say 39-42, 42-45, what would a single seat, long range high performance escort fighter be like? The biggest thing as far as spec is enough fuel internally to have a 700-800 mile range, and the ability to use drop tanks. It also has to be heavily armed for the period (which from 42-45 basically means 4x20mm cannons), and be a great dogfighter per tactics of the period. This will address one of the few shortcomings of the P-51, given that it was a bit heavy due to being built to outdated USAAF load requirements (largely resolved with the H variant, but that doesn't really count here).
So I'll open the floor to the forum members to discuss.
1938-39 engines were closer to 1000hp than they were to 1200hp. The British get the 1200hp engines in the middle of 1940, So do the Germans,, The US was still working on the 1040-1090hp engine for production, the Zero had 950hp at altitude.
How about the Westland Whirlwind? Increase internal fuel, add external tanks, add bypass valves so that either engine can use any fuel tank. We also need more internal ammunition, which means seepentine belts rather than drums for the four 20mm cannons. What do we think of a large central drop tank vs. or along with drop tanks under each wing? Can the Peregrine be supercharged or tuned for efficient high altitude use?
Another really good point, it's pointless trying to gain air superiority over a large area with only 9 seconds of cannon ammunition, you either stick to RCMG's or develope belt feed cannons, as well as internal tanks, two stage two speed engines, gyro gunsights all 2-3 years before it actually happened.We also need more internal ammunition, which means seepentine belts rather than drums for the four 20mm cannons.
We do have to be careful about what altitudes we are talking about.British have the 1300 HP Merlin III by some time time of 1939, an certainly in the beginning of 1940.
there were a lot of changes between 1939 and 1940. There were certainly things going on in the test houses but actual 1200hp engines in service were pretty rare in 1939.Americans do get 1200 HP engines in form of R-1830 and R-1820 in some time of 1939, and again certainly in 1940. They also can count on the help of turbochargers, imperfect as they are back then. From Joe Baugher's site:
9 seconds is generous. If the cannon fire at 540rpm you only get about 7 seconds. 9 seconds would give a cycle rate of 400rpm.Another really good point, it's pointless trying to gain air superiority over a large area with only 9 seconds of cannon ammunition, you either stick to RCMG's or develope belt feed cannons, as well as internal tanks, two stage two speed engines, gyro gunsights all 2-3 years before it actually happened.
There were several twins that could have been developed if the Air Ministry foreseen the need for a long range escort and the submissions for F.11/37 would have been the best candidates.How about the Westland Whirlwind? Increase internal fuel, add external tanks, add bypass valves so that either engine can use any fuel tank. We also need more internal ammunition, which means seepentine belts rather than drums for the four 20mm cannons. What do we think of a large central drop tank vs. or along with drop tanks under each wing? Can the Peregrine be supercharged or tuned for efficient high altitude use?
The Whirlwind used a smaller wing than the Hurricane. There were a number of things that could have been done to improve it. However trying to turn it into a long range fighter was a real waste of effort.How about the Westland Whirlwind? Increase internal fuel, add external tanks, add bypass valves so that either engine can use any fuel tank. We also need more internal ammunition, which means seepentine belts rather than drums for the four 20mm cannons. What do we think of a large central drop tank vs. or along with drop tanks under each wing? Can the Peregrine be supercharged or tuned for efficient high altitude use?
Pretty clueless until some Brit told them what to build eh?
I'm pretty sure we all know this and the myth of the 'mericans showing the British how mass production works has been debunk numerous times but alas the rumour still persists.
That is two years late, the war started in 1939, which is why you had sod all except a flag to wave, far from a generation ahead you were 2years behind and still made rubbish like the P-39.Nope, US production engineering and manufacturing was at least a generation ahead of the rest of the world in 1941.
That is two years late, the war started in 1939, which is why you had sod all except a flag to wave, far from a generation ahead you were 2years behind and still made rubbish like the P-39.
Your escort fighter has to use 1938 technology, it must have large, heavy gas tanks, and it must be superior to the Bf109E in combat. 1938 means you have had time to manufacture lots of your escort aircraft. The Bf109E was a world class fighter aircraft that the lightweight, short ranged Hurricanes and Spitfires had difficulty with.
The P-51 Mustang was a successful escort fighter because it used the advanced laminar flow wings, 100/130 octane fuel, and two-stage superchargers. The German's failure to develop this stuff more than made up for the Mustang's large, heavy fuel tanks.
Was it? Where did you make that up? I mean read? I knew the P-39 was rubbish, do we add the P-51 to this lamentable list of tripe?And always forgotten that until it burned off a fair chunk of its huge fuel load, a Mustang was a dangerous beast that killed plenty of unwary pilots in take off accidents.