davebender
1st Lieutenant
I cannot think of a single BMW801 powered aircraft that wouldn't perform better powered by DB603 engines.
Heavy fighter: you are in charge
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
While that may be so it might also depend on wither the plane is powered by 1942 BMW 801s or 1944/45 DB603s. It might be interesting to speculate on what a 1940/41 DB603 would actually give for power in production versions.
Like 1445PS at 3700meters at 2400rpm being roughly equal to a DB601Aa.
Or 1542PS at 4900 meters at 2600rpm being roughly equal to a DB601N.
Or 1730PS at 4800 meters at 2700rpm being roughly equal to a DB601NE.
But then the DB 603 didn't really run much over 2500rpm did it? and large cylinders rarely equaled the power per liter of smaller cylinders of the same time period (months).
Like 1445PS at 3700meters at 2400rpm being roughly equal to a DB601Aa.
Or 1542PS at 4900 meters at 2600rpm being roughly equal to a DB601N.
Or 1730PS at 4800 meters at 2700rpm being roughly equal to a DB601NE.
But then the DB 603 didn't really run much over 2500rpm did it? and large cylinders rarely equaled the power per liter of smaller cylinders of the same time period (months).
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Historically the DB603 engine program wasn't funded during 1937 to 1940. Three years of missing research and development. We can only speculate what a properly funded 1941 DB603 engine will look like but it would certainly be superior to the historical model. For that matter the DB601 would be more advanced too if it receives 50 million RM as originally proposed rather then the historical 20 million.
- Thread starter
- #45
The layout of the Kawasaki Ki-64 seem like no-brainer for the USA - back engine of the E-series V-1710, front from F-series. Counter-rotating prop at front. The 'combined' engine (made of two close relatives of the DB-601A) from the Ki-64 was developing 2350 HP @ 12600 ft (static alt), max speed 430 mph @ 16100 ft. The corresponding US engines were developing 1150 HP @ 11-12 kft in 1942, or @ 14,5 - 15,5 kft in 1943. No turbo here, of course.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
For general performance.
For the 39-42 time frame, I would select the P-38 with better heater and perfected cooling and turbo system, maneuvering flaps, speed brakes, and possibly spoilers instead of ailerons ala P-61. For armament I would have two 20 mm (brit) and two 50s.
The Fw-187 seems no better than the contemporary Whirlwind, both would most likely have to add weight to make usable. All in all, both would be similar to the P-38, except in high altitude performance.
The standard F4U-1 would be my selection had it been produced earlier. Well, since this is a day dream, I would develop the F4U-1 earlier. It would be my selection for heavy fighter. The F4U-1 was capable of 417 mph and climbed at 2890 ft/min and had a range of 1015 miles.
For the '43-'45 time frame, the selection is pretty easy. I would develop the XP-72 earlier and mount four 20s (brit), and expedite the -19 engine, 3600 hp.
Top speed 480 mph, possibly approaching 500+ mph with counter rotating props and/or upgraded engine.
ROC 5280 ft/min
Range 1200 miles
Engine R-3369-13, 3000 hp growth to 3600
Ceiling 42k ft.
Single engine reliability, maintainability and cost.
Grade per Elmas
Interceptor A+
Long range escort A
Air superiority A
Night fighter C
Fighter-bomber B
All-purpose fighter A
Europe theater A
Pacific theater A
For the 39-42 time frame, I would select the P-38 with better heater and perfected cooling and turbo system, maneuvering flaps, speed brakes, and possibly spoilers instead of ailerons ala P-61. For armament I would have two 20 mm (brit) and two 50s.
The Fw-187 seems no better than the contemporary Whirlwind, both would most likely have to add weight to make usable. All in all, both would be similar to the P-38, except in high altitude performance.
The standard F4U-1 would be my selection had it been produced earlier. Well, since this is a day dream, I would develop the F4U-1 earlier. It would be my selection for heavy fighter. The F4U-1 was capable of 417 mph and climbed at 2890 ft/min and had a range of 1015 miles.
For the '43-'45 time frame, the selection is pretty easy. I would develop the XP-72 earlier and mount four 20s (brit), and expedite the -19 engine, 3600 hp.
Top speed 480 mph, possibly approaching 500+ mph with counter rotating props and/or upgraded engine.
ROC 5280 ft/min
Range 1200 miles
Engine R-3369-13, 3000 hp growth to 3600
Ceiling 42k ft.
Single engine reliability, maintainability and cost.
Grade per Elmas
Interceptor A+
Long range escort A
Air superiority A
Night fighter C
Fighter-bomber B
All-purpose fighter A
Europe theater A
Pacific theater A
Shortround6
Major General
That depends on what you mean by "missing research and development". Engine development did not exist in a vacuum. What a company ( or even a nation, or allies, or even the world in general) learned about one engine, manufacturing technique or fuel was often applied to other models or brands of engine which shorten up some research and development considerably. For instance the bearings used by one model of P&W engine were not only rapidly spread to other P&W engines but to Wright and perhaps Packard and so on. The DB 600-601 went through 4 if not 5 different impeller designs for it's supercharger by the time it made it do the "E" model. When work started back up on the 603 DB could use everything it learned on the 601-605 up till that time. Running parallel programs might have speeded things up a bit but would have been much more costly with much duplication of effort. You also might have had blind alleys like a DB 603 equivalent of the 601N using C3 fuel. The 180mm stroke of the 603 would have pretty much limited it's rpm to 2500 without a lot of work or the relaxing of some standards (like overhaul life?). Limits the Germans may have been willing to live with in 1943/44 but not willing to put up with in 1939/40.
Again, please remember that the world fuel situation was rapidly changing in 1937-40. They knew better fuel than 87 octane was coming but they didn't know when or even what it's limits might actually be. British and American 100 octane fuel at the time having rather different limits since they were NOT the same fuel. Octane rating being just performance measurement of fuel and not a fuel specification by any stretch of the imagination.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Vought F4U Corsair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Earlier then June 1942? Will there be enough R2800 engines and were they reliable during 1941?
R-2800 engine production.
17. 1940.
1,733. 1941.
11,840. 1942.
23,726. 1943.
45,259. 1944.
Earlier then June 1942? Will there be enough R2800 engines and were they reliable during 1941?
R-2800 engine production.
17. 1940.
1,733. 1941.
11,840. 1942.
23,726. 1943.
45,259. 1944.
Shortround6
Major General
They were reliable, they were just 1850hp for take-off 2 speed single stage engines, not the 2 stage engines used in the F4U.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
If you can dream German engines could be advanced, I can dream American engines could be advanced.
brewerjerry
Senior Airman
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Only if historical development was delayed due to the government cutting engine program funding. Was that the case for the R2800 engine?
Shortround6
Major General
We don't know what the delay in the DB 603 program affected or by what time line.
We do know that the Griffon program was put on the back burner for a while. Does that mean we can claim faster development of the Griffon? Including the igher boosts needing better fuel?
How about the fact that the Wright R-3350 was "paused" in development for a while. In fact the engines that powered the B-29 shared little more than the number of cylinders and the bore&stroke with the early engines. How about wright drops the Tornado engine and gets the later R-3350 done a year or two early?
We do know that the Griffon program was put on the back burner for a while. Does that mean we can claim faster development of the Griffon? Including the igher boosts needing better fuel?
How about the fact that the Wright R-3350 was "paused" in development for a while. In fact the engines that powered the B-29 shared little more than the number of cylinders and the bore&stroke with the early engines. How about wright drops the Tornado engine and gets the later R-3350 done a year or two early?
wuzak
Captain
It had a delay (work suspended during BoB IIRC) and a redesign when someone came up with the idea of a Griffon engined Spitfire.
The Griffon is an excellent example of what you were saying earlier SR - its design and development benefitted greatly from Rolls-Royce's experinces with the Merlin.
Things like the end to end lubrication system were on the Griffon from the start, the Griffon drove all its accessories and supercharger fron the front of the engine (later verisions had teh supercharger drive from the rear), no external oil lines, two piece block and heads, etc.
Bf 110 did fairly well during the Battle of France, also against Hurricanes, during the BoB it was more a question of wrong tactics, 110 was not a good close escort type because of its large turning circle and poor acceleration. After BoB 110 fought a draw against Hurri Mk I(Trop.) in North Africa and did well in SU in 41. IMHO it was better day fighter than Beau. The latter was better strafer because of its heavier armament and radial engines. The 370mph 110G-2 was a day fighter, 342mph G-4 was the night fighter version of 110G. It was not much faster than contemporary 333mph Beau VIF night fighter and in fact Beaus did fairly well at first in intruder ops, got some top LW night fighter pilots, even if the intruders were handicapped by the decision that they could only be equipped wwith older model radars, so that the newer radar types would not end into hands of Germans. After all Beau was almost as fast as 110G-4 and faster than almost all Ju 88Cs. I agree that both 110 and Beau were acceptable night fighters but late in the war 110G-4 became overburdened by all those ever more numerous electronics, that's why Ju88G became the main NF of LW during late 44. Beau became too slow against Ju 88S, 410 and 190 fighter bombers. But as I wrote earlier, 110, when rightly used, was dangerous to SE fighters at least from 39 to 42, Beau less so.
I agree that the smaller fuselage TE fighters didn't have enough internal volume to be effective night fighter during WWII. Do 217 and P-61 were probably too big for optimal NF and as smaller heavy fighters, IMHO something like Tempest or P-47N could do what P-38 or Fw 187 could but with only one engine.
Juha
Juha
2700rpm
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
To use an existing late war aircraft what about that P-61?. Eliminate a large portion of the fuselage decreasing weight and drag. Shrink it down to only house the pilot. No upper turret. Keep the 4 belly 20 mms, and in the nose replace the radar dome and nose area with 4 .50 cals. Yum.
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
You mean like the P-61E or F-15 Reporter?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/P-61_aka_F-15A_bw.jpg
http://aerofiles.com/north-p61e.jpg
The P-61E was to be a heavy day fighter.
Hello Wuzak
IMHO P-61E only shows that Riacrato's opinion, that why bother to design a heavy twin fighter, why not design a twin or Zwilling a la P-/F-82 Twin Mustang, has a good point.
Juha
