Too bad Supermarine did not pursued for the leading-edge radiators, when developing a basically new wing for latest Spitfires. Ought to add some speed, plus the wing was a renown fast profile already, add some fuel and you have a capable pre-1950s fighter, without going through the expenses of designing the all-new airplane.
From Innovative to Obsolete.
- Thread starter Njaco
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
davebender
1st Lieutenant
I disagree. Britain and Germany both developed new fighter designs after 1936 and several entered service.
Meanwhile Me-109 and Spitfire remained in production to the end because they still worked just fine. A testimony to excellence of these mid 1930s designs.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
A tale of two planes, the B-52 and the T-38. The B-52 was built to carry dumb A and H bombs into hostile, non-SAM airspace, a long way away and became operational in 1952. To do this it had to be big and powerful. This made the airframe adaptable. As enemy defense improved it had the growth to carry countermeasures. Weight increases was off set by substantial power increase of 42% as engines developed. Avionics advanced allowing terrain following. Because it was big and powerful it could be adapted to drop convention bombs, lots of them. Also, new weapons like SRAM, cruise missile, and JDAMs extend the usefulness of the big bomber. But it did become obsolete in its original mission, flying downtown enemy cities and dropping bombs, first by the FB-111, then the B-1 (maybe), and finally by the B-2. The B-52 remained effective because it was adaptable to different missions.
The T-38, which became operational in 1961 was designed to a specific task, provide advanced capability to AF pilots who are transitioning to newly evolving high performance jet fighters. While marginally adaptable with a slight increase in power and upgrading avionics, the T-38 still outstandingly performs the same mission over 50 years later.
These two aircraft, both with over 50 years front line operations maintain relevancy for two different reasons, the B-52, an excellent design, which was adaptable to a changing battlefield and missions, and the T-38, also an excellent design, which performs its rather straight forward unchanging mission in such a manner that there has been little competition to replace it.
The T-38, which became operational in 1961 was designed to a specific task, provide advanced capability to AF pilots who are transitioning to newly evolving high performance jet fighters. While marginally adaptable with a slight increase in power and upgrading avionics, the T-38 still outstandingly performs the same mission over 50 years later.
These two aircraft, both with over 50 years front line operations maintain relevancy for two different reasons, the B-52, an excellent design, which was adaptable to a changing battlefield and missions, and the T-38, also an excellent design, which performs its rather straight forward unchanging mission in such a manner that there has been little competition to replace it.
Things developed or changed fast during the war. What was ideal at the start of the war, was not so great in a couple of years, or what was ideal before the war was not so great at the beginning. Most aircraft were modified or upgraded as needed. Some turned out really well and are now considered legendary, others not so well.
The 109, yes it was an old design, but it worked and was considered a serious threat till the end. Same goes with the Spitfire.
The 109, yes it was an old design, but it worked and was considered a serious threat till the end. Same goes with the Spitfire.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
The P-40 did have potential but it never went as far as it could go. So I suppse it went obsolete.
Concorde is obsolete. Ain't that just nuts. 60,000 feet mach 2 rocket ship!
Concorde is obsolete. Ain't that just nuts. 60,000 feet mach 2 rocket ship!
meatloaf109
1st Lieutenant
I was struck by the writings of some of the aces in the first world war, when they refered to old and tired craft, aviation was just less than ten years old at the time of the start of the war. Old is a state of terminology and progressive technology. This is shown no better than the difference than between 1914 and 1918.
buffnut453
Captain
Surely the definition of obsolete is that the aircraft is no longer competitive in its operating environment? Fighters must remain able to compete with likely adversaries. The Me109 and Spitfire were able to remain competitive right through WWII simply because they had growth potential. Other designs lacked that growth potential were bypassed - simply no point strapping a 2000hp engine on a 1930s vintage biplane 'cos the improvement isn't worth the investment.
Similarly, bombers that were no longer survivable were removed from service. The early RAF bombers, with the exception of the Wellington, were largely removed from front-line service because they lacked bombload and range compared to the new generation of 4-engine heavies which, in turn, were made obsolete by fast, high-flying jet bombers...and then that role was nullified by the proliferation of SAMs.
The same definition for obsolete can even be applied to commercial aircraft. For Concorde, it certainly wasn't obsolete in outright flying performance but it was obsolete from a cost-effectiveness standpoint.
Similarly, bombers that were no longer survivable were removed from service. The early RAF bombers, with the exception of the Wellington, were largely removed from front-line service because they lacked bombload and range compared to the new generation of 4-engine heavies which, in turn, were made obsolete by fast, high-flying jet bombers...and then that role was nullified by the proliferation of SAMs.
The same definition for obsolete can even be applied to commercial aircraft. For Concorde, it certainly wasn't obsolete in outright flying performance but it was obsolete from a cost-effectiveness standpoint.
GregP
Major
Yah, the same can be said for 1939 to 1944. Sorry to disagree with a lot of folks, but the Bf 109 didn't seem to me to age as well as the Spitfire did. The Bf 109 of 1944 was nowhere near as dangerous to a recent contemporary as was the Bf 109 of 1939 - 1940. Just my opinion and I know it flies in the face of some, but is't not intended as a snipe, just what I think.
The 1944 Bf 109 was harder to fly, less well armed, had a much heavier wing loading and, though the speed was up on the top end, the combat speed wasn't up by much if any since it was still a 180 - 320 mph fighter when maneuvering in a knife fight. The competition, meanshile, was comfortable at 430+ mph when fighting, relegating the BNf 109 to fighting at lower sppeds and running at higher speeds. Maybe it ran, climbed, reversed, and attacked, but it still wasn't fighting very much at 430+ mph ... the ailerons and elevator were almost solid and the lack of rudder trim meant the pilot's right leg was pretty tired at that speed.
Now if the Bf 109 driver could get his fighter adversary to slow down and fight, the Bf 109 was still a right tough contender. If he couldn't, he was in some difficulty and was almost certainly outnumbered and low on fuel. Meaning the Bf 109 guy was at a disadvantage in fighter vs. fighter combat by 1944 unless complete surprise was his. He still had a good climb and might still be a good pilot, but his adversary was a much different one than was the case in 1940.
The 1944 Bf 109 was harder to fly, less well armed, had a much heavier wing loading and, though the speed was up on the top end, the combat speed wasn't up by much if any since it was still a 180 - 320 mph fighter when maneuvering in a knife fight. The competition, meanshile, was comfortable at 430+ mph when fighting, relegating the BNf 109 to fighting at lower sppeds and running at higher speeds. Maybe it ran, climbed, reversed, and attacked, but it still wasn't fighting very much at 430+ mph ... the ailerons and elevator were almost solid and the lack of rudder trim meant the pilot's right leg was pretty tired at that speed.
Now if the Bf 109 driver could get his fighter adversary to slow down and fight, the Bf 109 was still a right tough contender. If he couldn't, he was in some difficulty and was almost certainly outnumbered and low on fuel. Meaning the Bf 109 guy was at a disadvantage in fighter vs. fighter combat by 1944 unless complete surprise was his. He still had a good climb and might still be a good pilot, but his adversary was a much different one than was the case in 1940.
Last edited:
Matt308
Glock Perfection
P-40 seems relegated to the Sherman tank legacy. A phenomenal workhorse, mediocre performance and firepower, whose sheer numbers influenced the battlefield. In short a true legend.
GregP
Major
I've always liked the P-40 (and P-36, too ...). Today, a flying P-40 is probably worth more than a flying P-51 because it is more rare. Truly a legend, but not a front-line fighter by 1944 to be sure, unless the front line was far removed from the main bombers stream paths in the ETO.
Shortround6
Major General
for once we agree, at least for the most part
In 1940 the 109 was as good as anything else in the world. It had speed, armament, and in general just about every aspect of performance it's contemporaries did. American planes (early P-40, in 1940 there wasn't much else) might have more range but were lacking in other areas (fire power for one, the six .50s were months away). Arguments will Continue about the Spit MK I until the end of time but they were fairly evenly matched.
By 1944 the 109 was no longer a good all round fighter. It hadn't really gotten much worse, It's just that a lot of new planes ( and one not so new) were a lot better. The 109's performance had improved a great deal but with P-38s, P-47s, P-51s, Hawker Typhoon and Tempests, which hadn't even been a smudge on piece of paper when the 109 first flew, around in large numbers even the much improved 109s were behind the pack. The "hot rod" 109s could still perform a valuable mission but it was no longer an all around fighter but more of a specialist. The Spitfire was also falling a bit behind the leaders but it could still perform more different roles than the 109 or at least be more effective in some roles like fighter bomber/strike aircraft. Double the bomb load of a 109 while caring almost double the guns. Both had crap for range while carrying bombs and the Spit carried 1/2 the bomb load of it's allies but that beats the 1/4 load of the 109. Spit made a better photo recon machine.
The 109 paid the price of it's small size, it wasn't big enough to hold all the needed modifications.
Edit. P-40 wasn't even a first line fighter for a good part of 1943.
- Thread starter
- #32
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
I agree that the Bf 109 didn't develop nearly as far as the Spit but I don't think a Spit was a contemporary of the Bf 109 by 1944. I think it would have been a Yak or LaGG for the Bf 109 while the Spit took on the Fw 190.
yep, the Bf 109 fits in with this thread entirely; innovative then obsolescent. Despite being outperformed late in the war, the design still lingered on; there was still life in it and ironically it outlived the superior Fw 190, being produced in Spain and re-engined in that country and in Czechoslovakia post war. As for the P-40, it might not have been front line equipment in the USAAF, but it most certainly was in the RAAF and RNZAF, both of which used it until the end of the war as their front line fighter.
One design that fits in here and was an advanced concept when it first appeared was the P-39; centrally mounted engine, tricycle undercarriage, heavily armed; it was packed with innovation.
One design that fits in here and was an advanced concept when it first appeared was the P-39; centrally mounted engine, tricycle undercarriage, heavily armed; it was packed with innovation.
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
Wow, there is a lot to talk about in this. Great topic! First, I think in today's world, economics more control the obsolescence of an aircraft than anything. Just the B-52 for a subject. A better plane that performs everything it does can be made, but nobody will (or needs to) pay for it.
I agree with those that say the BF 109 didn't age as well as the Spitfire. Not that is wasn't dangerous, but the Spitfire did seem better towards the end of the war whereas in the beginning they were more evenly matched. My beloved P-40 was never up to the caliber of the Spitfire / 109 from the outset. (at altitude) It was replaced by better designs, which was a gift I don't think the British or Germans had.... Or maybe they weren't needed, because the airframes were adapted far beyond their original design.
Several of these planes lasted longer than maybe they should have because "better" wasn't made. Look at the P-47 for example, in the bomber escort role. If the P-38 was "the answer" and had been made in numbers, or IF the P-51 was available earlier, would the Thunderbolt even had been ever employed as an escort fighter for as long as it was?
Actual use, theatre of combat, and economics all play a role.
I agree with those that say the BF 109 didn't age as well as the Spitfire. Not that is wasn't dangerous, but the Spitfire did seem better towards the end of the war whereas in the beginning they were more evenly matched. My beloved P-40 was never up to the caliber of the Spitfire / 109 from the outset. (at altitude) It was replaced by better designs, which was a gift I don't think the British or Germans had.... Or maybe they weren't needed, because the airframes were adapted far beyond their original design.
Several of these planes lasted longer than maybe they should have because "better" wasn't made. Look at the P-47 for example, in the bomber escort role. If the P-38 was "the answer" and had been made in numbers, or IF the P-51 was available earlier, would the Thunderbolt even had been ever employed as an escort fighter for as long as it was?
Actual use, theatre of combat, and economics all play a role.
GregP
Major
Pretty good points, Mike, and tough to disagree with. I think there was some interest in the USA of keeping Republic, North American, Lockheed, Curtiss, Grumman, and Vought all in the game.
It is generally better to keep innovative people in the game rather than let the talent go down the drain and lose it ... especially in wartime.
It is generally better to keep innovative people in the game rather than let the talent go down the drain and lose it ... especially in wartime.
Last edited:
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
On the button there dave
GregP
Major
Hey Shortround, good that we agree on something! I still like the Bf 109, but just feel that it didn't quite age as well as the Spitfire, and I think you are right ... its size detracted from its ability to be developed and modified to keep current with the best. Was it still dangerous in 1944? You bet, but so were all the competition in 1944.
Over in the "Battle of Britain: Order of Battle" thread, we found out the entire Luftwaffe was down to under 600 serviceable Bf 109's in December 1940. Too bad that could not be taken advantage of at the time. The war might have been a LOT shorter ... or not, depending on the success of the attempt.
Anyway, I think the P-39 should have either been given the turbo or should have been discontinued by Bell once the higher-altitude nature of combat in the ETO was known. The P-40 should have gotten a trubo, too, since it was an Allison machine except for the F model, which only got a single-stage Merlin ... and wasn't an improvement over the single-stage Allison. If it has gottena 2-stage Merlin OR Allison, I think it had great potential ... but that's just my opinion. I've heard stories of a single P-40 that got a turbo and could give a Mustang all it wanted at high altitude, but they aren't substiantiated as yet by any authoritative documents that I believe.
I simply feel the entire non-turbo line of fighters could have been discontinued and they could have concentrated on the P-38 or a newer or possibly modified turbo fighter to give us more high-altitude capability.
Over in the "Battle of Britain: Order of Battle" thread, we found out the entire Luftwaffe was down to under 600 serviceable Bf 109's in December 1940. Too bad that could not be taken advantage of at the time. The war might have been a LOT shorter ... or not, depending on the success of the attempt.
Anyway, I think the P-39 should have either been given the turbo or should have been discontinued by Bell once the higher-altitude nature of combat in the ETO was known. The P-40 should have gotten a trubo, too, since it was an Allison machine except for the F model, which only got a single-stage Merlin ... and wasn't an improvement over the single-stage Allison. If it has gottena 2-stage Merlin OR Allison, I think it had great potential ... but that's just my opinion. I've heard stories of a single P-40 that got a turbo and could give a Mustang all it wanted at high altitude, but they aren't substiantiated as yet by any authoritative documents that I believe.
I simply feel the entire non-turbo line of fighters could have been discontinued and they could have concentrated on the P-38 or a newer or possibly modified turbo fighter to give us more high-altitude capability.
stug3
Staff Sergeant
It was in Italy well into 1944. Not to mention CBI PTO.
snowmobileman
Airman
I remember reading in Franz Stigler's book, "A Higher Call", about his whole flight getting destroyed by some P-40s in Italy....it seems like the P-40s were still somewhat relevant in the right circumstances.
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
That is why I put "theatre of combat" at the end of my post. The P-40 when used at the altitudes the Allison performed well, was certainly a capable fighter. Not a better fighter , but capable. Much like the P-38 with its record in the Pacific vs the ETO.
