If you had an airforce...

[Soren]

Bill,

If its props only then my previous list with this would be my choice:

Air superiority fighter: Ta-152H-1 Fw-190 D-13
Interceptor: Ta-152H-1 Fw-190 D-13
Fighter bomber, carrier fighter: F4U-4
Bomber heavy: He-277
Night fighter: Ju-388J
Recce: Ju-388L
Medium bomber: Ju-388K
Transport heavy: Ju-252

Took advantage of the new 6 a/c restriction

That should answer your question as well Vincenzo

 

[drgondog]

Bill,

If its props only then my previous list with this would be my choice:

Air superiority fighter: Ta-152H-1 Fw-190 D-13
Interceptor: Ta-152H-1 Fw-190 D-13
Fighter bomber, carrier fighter: F4U-4
Bomber heavy: He-277
Night fighter: Ju-388J
Recce: Ju-388L
Medium bomber: Ju-388K
Transport heavy: Ju-252

Took advantage of the new 6 a/c restriction

That should answer your question as well Vincenzo

It does, and good choices

- so all your torpedo and carrier based dive bombing attacks will be F4U?

You seem a bit over loaded on high performance fighters - even with nice load capability.. but range restrictions carrying say a torpedo for the F4U reduces your offensive footprint at sea to below the attacker with TBF or SB2C with more range coupled with the bombload? In other words they can launch sooner and perhaps get to your carrier before you locate them and retaliate?

 

[Soren]

To be honest I was thinking more about national safety and land based offensives than cross continental offensives. But it might be an idea to just settle with the Ta-152 and swap the D-13 for a TBM cause the Ta-152 is better anyhow, so no loss.

As for torpedo attacks, the Ju-388 is excellent at this so that would be one of its roles.

Btw I hope we don't have go back to that two engine manufacturer restrictment

PS: I'll try to get a hand on some detailed drawings of the Ju-390 Ju-290 for you but I can tell you that the fuselage of the Ju-390 is 6 meters longer and that the extra fuel tanks were all fitted inside the much larger wings.

 

[drgondog]

To be honest I was thinking more about national safety and land based offensives than cross continental offensives. But it might be an idea to just settle with the Ta-152 and swap the D-13 for a TBM cause the Ta-152 is better anyhow, so no loss.

As for torpedo attacks, the Ju-388 is excellent at this so that would be one of its roles.

Btw I hope we don't have go back to that two engine manufacturer restrictment

PS: I'll try to get a hand on some detailed drawings of the Ju-390 Ju-290 for you but I can tell you that the fuselage of the Ju-390 is 6 meters longer and that the extra fuel tanks were all fitted inside the much larger wings.

Nah won't hold you to it - did you reverse engineer the Pratt and build without a license or arrange for direct shipping from CT to GY- payment COD?

I knew the Ju 388 was versatile, which carrier did you have in mind for take off and landings for any naval engagements?

Just kidding - from my perspective you are taking an approach of defending Germany and creating offensive capability within 1000 miles of your occupied bases - why fool with Corsair and just go with Fw series which includes all of them - in my mind including the Ta 152. It was less 'completely different' from 190D series than a 51H was from 51D.

Using that logic the Ju 88 series (including 388) gives you your medium, attack, recce and night fighter options. Destroyer for daylight not such a good choice - 190D/Ta 152 better all around interceptors in my mind even, and especially for daylight incursions.

 

[Soren]

Fully agreed Bill.

However I like the idea of having an air strike capability long out to sea, so I need the F4U TBM, and having the Ta-152 means I really don't need the D-13. The only thing which would change the picture entirely would be removal of the jet restriction

 

[drgondog]

Fully agreed Bill.

However I like the idea of having an air strike capability long out to sea, so I need the F4U TBM, and having the Ta-152 means I really don't need the D-13. The only thing which would change the picture entirely would be removal of the jet restriction

Yeah, but in my definition of best prop planes, I tend to think that evolutionary series which are changed materially but still have large commonality of Bill of Materials - Fw 190A, D and to a degree Ta 152 fit the profile of one named airplane - all from same manufacturer, very simlar to same structure, even if an engine change occurs. So in my world you would have Destroyer, Interceptor, Air superiority, and Fighter Bomber in 'one' with variants - so you wouldn't have to swap F4U for FW unless you need carriers in your world.

In my world the F4U-4 and -5 for example would be at a disadvantage against a Ta 152 (and a severe one above 30,000 feet) but it is 'good enough' to defend well as a long range escort where the guy that spots the other guy first has a huge advantage - and then pilot skill would have additional bearing on the outcome. To me a good analogy would be a P-51A battling a 109G-6 at 20,000 feet..where the 109 would have a distinct and multiple advantage in climb and dash speed but a lot of parity otherwise.

So the F4U for me gives me as good or better a fighter bomber than a P-47, but much better ACM on deck, nearly as good an air superiority fighter as a Mustang, with shorter but good range, at 25000 feet and more reliability with the air cooled engine, and it's carrier qualified. I see the two of them as a toss up in mid altitudes - particularly a P-51B with 1650-7 and 44-1 fuel.

But the 51 wasn't a legitimate carrier a/c because there was never a production series for that purpose.

So I went with one fighter that would be servicable as a night fighter, CAS, Recce, Interceptor, bomber destroyer and Air Superiority, with mods and versions for either all those roles or very adaptable.

 

[kool kitty89]

Soren, do you include the short winged variants of the Ta 152 or just the H?



And Bill, the P-47N would have a longer combat radius than the P-38L.

"America's Hundred-Thousand" by Francis Dean. On pages 599 and 600 there are AAF pictogramas depicting the combat radius of the P-38, 47 and 51.
For the record at 25,000 feet, with 5 minutes at WEP and 15 minutes at full military power, 30 minutes
reserve:

Internal fuel only
P-38 J/L 410 gallons 275 miles
P-47 D 305 gallons 125 miles
P-47 D 370 gallons 225 miles
P-47 N 556 gallons 400 miles
P-51 B/C 184 gallons 150 miles
P-51 B/C/D 269 gallons 375 miles

Internal + external fuel
P-38 J/L 410+330 gallons 650 miles
P-47 D 305+300 gallons 425 miles
P-47 D 370+300 gallons 600 miles
P-47 N 556+440 gallons 1000 miles
P-51 B/C 184+150 gallons 460 miles
P-51 B/C/D 269+150 gallons 700 miles

Internal fuel with 2000lbs Bombs
P-38 J/L 410 gallons 200 miles
P-47 N 556 gallons 300 miles
P-51 B/C/D 269 gallons 350 miles

 

[Soren]

Yeah, but in my definition of best prop planes, I tend to think that evolutionary series which are changed materially but still have large commonality of Bill of Materials - Fw 190A, D and to a degree Ta 152 fit the profile of one named airplane - all from same manufacturer, very simlar to same structure, even if an engine change occurs. So in my world you would have Destroyer, Interceptor, Air superiority, and Fighter Bomber in 'one' with variants - so you wouldn't have to swap F4U for FW unless you need carriers in your world.

In my world the F4U-4 and -5 for example would be at a disadvantage against a Ta 152 (and a severe one above 30,000 feet) but it is 'good enough' to defend well as a long range escort where the guy that spots the other guy first has a huge advantage - and then pilot skill would have additional bearing on the outcome. To me a good analogy would be a P-51A battling a 109G-6 at 20,000 feet..where the 109 would have a distinct and multiple advantage in climb and dash speed but a lot of parity otherwise.

So the F4U for me gives me as good or better a fighter bomber than a P-47, but much better ACM on deck, nearly as good an air superiority fighter as a Mustang, with shorter but good range, at 25000 feet and more reliability with the air cooled engine, and it's carrier qualified. I see the two of them as a toss up in mid altitudes - particularly a P-51B with 1650-7 and 44-1 fuel.

But the 51 wasn't a legitimate carrier a/c because there was never a production series for that purpose.

So I went with one fighter that would be servicable as a night fighter, CAS, Recce, Interceptor, bomber destroyer and Air Superiority, with mods and versions for either all those roles or very adaptable.

I definitely understand what you're saying, and considering the logistical side your choices are great.

The reason I didn't choose the F4U-4 for the fighter interceptor role is mainly that it is at a disadvantage in maneuverability (esp. in the horizontal) and performance compared to the Ta-152H, and esp. at high alts. Also I prioritize national safety and landbased offensive strength, for which I need a fighter unrivalled in performance agility and with long range.

Now regarding the Ju-388 Zerstörrers, they will ofcourse be accompanied by Ta-152's when'ever bomber formations with escorts were the targets. Without escorts a bomber formation would quickly be decimated by the Zerstörrers who feature extreme firepower.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Wells here's a list from wwii planes.

Defensive Homeland Fighter: Spitfire (and Hurricane, if I could have two)

Offensive Escort fighter: P-51

Ground attack: P-47 or FW 190A?

Heavy Bomber: B-17 (for durability, not for biggest bomb load)

Medium Bomber: Ju-88

Light bomber: Il Sturmovik

Carrier fighter: Hellcat or Corsair (really can't decide)

Carrier bomber: Fairey Swordfish (if I couldn't get a TBF Avenger or Dauntless)

Trainer: Gloster Gladiator

Seaplane: PBY Catalina

Transport, (troops, supplies): C-47

Special Operations Figher or Recon: P-38 or Mossie?

Nightfighter: Black Widow

Top gun ace plane: Bf 109

 

[smg]

well this is my list:

Defensive Homeland Fighter:Yakovlev Yak-9

Offensive Escort fighter: p-51

Ground attack:Hawker Typhoon

Heavy Bomber:Stirling

Medium Bomber:He 111

Light bomber:Junkers Ju 87

Transport, (troops, supplies): C-47

Nightfighter: DH.98 Mosquito

Top gun ace plane:ME 109

 

[kool kitty89]

For the US, I'm thinking:

Early war:

USAAF:

Fighter: Updated P-36/P-42 (with upgraded armament -4/6 .50's- and 2-stage R-1830 similar to F4F's) superceded by land based F4U when available. (probably with continued improvement and production of the Hawk as a supplemental a/c possibly re-engined with R-2000)

Tactical Fighter/Bomber (and Dive-Bomber): F4U when available.

Medium Bomber/Attack/Recon: B-25

Heavy Bomber/High-alt recon: B-17

Escort Fighter: F4U (possibly improved P-36 as intrim/supplemental)

(note: all further developments of F4U for AAF will retain, if not improve, the fuel capacity of the F4U-1, and self-sealing should be added for the wing tanks)

Light/Short Range Transport: C-47

Medium/long-range Transport: C-46

USN/USMC:

Fighter: F4F-3/FM-1 to be succeded by F4U when available. (again, continuing Wildcat improvement as supplemental a/c and for use with escort carriers)

Fighter-Bomber/Dive Bomber: F4U when available

Dive Bomber/Recon: SBD (later suplemented as bomber by F4U)

Torpedo Bomber: TBF

Long range Photo Recon: F4F-7 (possibly superceded by recon variant of F4U)



--------

Mid-Late War:

USAAF:

Fighter/Fighter-Bomber/Escort Fighter: F4U-4

Medium-Bomber/Attack/Recon: B-25 -> being superceded by A-26 when avaiable.

Heavy Bomber/High-Altitude Recon: B-17 -> being superceded by B-29

Very long range escort Fighter: P-47N

Nightfighter: P-61

Transports: C-46, C-47, C-54(or possibly C-69)


USN/USMC

Fighter (for escort carriers): F4F-8/FM-2, and later F8F

Fighter/Fighter-bomber: F4U-4

Dive Bomber/Recon: Updated SBD (supplemted by F4U)

Torpedo Bomber: TBF

Long Range Photo-recon: F4F-7 (possibly F4U)

 

[davparlr]

Bill,


The complete list:

Air superiority fighter: Ta-152H-1 Me-262A-1a
Interceptor: Ta-152H-1 Me-262A-1a
Carrier fighter: F4U-4
Fighter bomber: F4U-4 Fw-190 A-9
Night fighter: Ju-388J Me-262B-1a/U4
Recce: Ju-388L Ar-234B
Zerstörrer (Destroyer): Ju-388 (Do-335 is a possible candidate)

Bomber heavy: He-277
Bomber medium: Ju-388K
Ground attack: Hs-129B-3

Transport heavy: Ju-390
Transport medium: Ar-232B
Transport light: C-47

Seaplane heavy: BV-222 (Or the BV-238 )
Seaplane medium: PBY Catalina

Good list, omitting the jets. I really couldn't identify other aircraft that were significantly better to consider these not acceptable (Do-335 seems weak in high altitude performance). However, I do question your selection of the He-277 over the B-29A and the Ju-390 over the C-97. Both seem to come up short in performance (I do have limited data). What is your rationale for these?

 

[Soren]

I chose the He-277 over the B-29 because of the He-277's much higher ceiling, equal bombload and equal speed.

I chose the Ju-390 because of its rear loading ramp, range and unmatched loading capability (Except for the Me-323).

As for the C-97, it wasn't a WW2 a/c davparlr, it first entered service in 1947.

 

[drgondog]

I chose the He-277 over the B-29 because of the He-277's much higher ceiling, equal bombload and equal speed.

I chose the Ju-390 because of its rear loading ramp, range and unmatched loading capability (Except for the Me-323).

As for the C-97, it wasn't a WW2 a/c davparlr, it first entered service in 1947.

Yep - the C-97 was a B-50 (B-29B) derivative. As a young kid I was homebound twice from Japan in late 1950 on the C-97 and had two serious engine fires. Mom booked a boat for the traip home after the last one.

I remember it well.

 

[davparlr]

I chose the He-277 over the B-29 because of the He-277's much higher ceiling, equal bombload and equal speed.

The B-29 had a 9,000 lb lifting advantage (empty to max TO weight) over the He-227, an extra a-bomb might come in handy. The B-29A-57 was significantly faster than the He-277, although I do not know if the -57 engine was use prior to the end of the war (I believe production stopped at wars end) however the B-29B was a bit faster at 364 mph. The B-29 was a warplane that went on to affect foreign policy for years to come. The B-29 was a proven design, with proven bomber performance, and proven growth capability. The He-277 never flew as a production plane. The B-29 was low risk and proven performance, the He-277, not past the prototype stage, was unproven and a high risk with some possible advantages and some disadvantages. And, if you want to use prototypes, a B-29 flew in May, 1945 with the P&W 4360 engine, thus a prototype of the B-50, which is a much superior aircraft.

It does, indeed, have an impressive ceiling of which I have no doubt. However, ceiling and bomb carrying altitude can be quite a difference. The B-1 has a ceiling of 60000 ft, but with full weapons load, I have heard that it will only do about 25K.

Many aircraft had successful prototypes only to fail in application.

But, it is your selection.

I chose the Ju-390 because of its rear loading ramp, range and unmatched loading capability (Except for the Me-323).

As for the C-97, it wasn't a WW2 a/c davparlr, it first entered service in 1947.

My research has generated only two J-390 prototypes actually flying and these were bombers. No prototype or production model of the cargo version was found. The C-97, on the other hand, did have a flying prototype which flew in December, 1944. In January, '45, the C-97 prototype flew from Seattle to Washington D.C., averaging 383 mph carrying 20,000 lbs of cargo, setting a record. In addition, the bomber version, the B-29, had been flying for quite a while. It seems to me that the C-97 has a much better WWII pedigree than the J-390. In addition, it is much faster, 383+ mph to 317 max, and, throw into that, 50% more engines, parts, repair times, etc.

Also, the C-97 had a built-in ramp and hoist.

Yep - the C-97 was a B-50 (B-29B) derivative. As a young kid I was homebound twice from Japan in late 1950 on the C-97 and had two serious engine fires. Mom booked a boat for the traip home after the last one.

I remember it well.

The C-97 was originally derived from the B-29 (it first flew in Dec. 44, long before the B-50 came into being). For production, the B-50 engines were used. The B-50 evolved from the B-29D to XB-44, not the B, which was a lightened up B-29A.

One of my buds from pilot training, who was in the Texas Guard, went home to fly the KC-97 in 1969. Quite a backwards jump from a T-38 to a KC-97. This was about the time the President was flying the Dagger there.

 

[Catch22]

Since most of you guys have made your lists, you may as well start throwing in the jets for some fun!

 

[Soren]

The B-29 had a 9,000 lb lifting advantage (empty to max TO weight) over the He-227, an extra a-bomb might come in handy. The B-29A-57 was significantly faster than the He-277, although I do not know if the -57 engine was use prior to the end of the war (I believe production stopped at wars end) however the B-29B was a bit faster at 364 mph. The B-29 was a warplane that went on to affect foreign policy for years to come. The B-29 was a proven design, with proven bomber performance, and proven growth capability. The He-277 never flew as a production plane. The B-29 was low risk and proven performance, the He-277, not past the prototype stage, was unproven and a high risk with some possible advantages and some disadvantages. And, if you want to use prototypes, a B-29 flew in May, 1945 with the P&W 4360 engine, thus a prototype of the B-50, which is a much superior aircraft.

It does, indeed, have an impressive ceiling of which I have no doubt. However, ceiling and bomb carrying altitude can be quite a difference. The B-1 has a ceiling of 60000 ft, but with full weapons load, I have heard that it will only do about 25K.

Many aircraft had successful prototypes only to fail in application.

But, it is your selection.

The He-277 could carry just as much as the B-29 (Don't go after the number on Wiki, it's wrong), was just as fast and had a much higher ceiling. Btw, German figures are with combat load, as is all German figures for the their a/c.

Btw, take a look at the cruising speeds, the He-277 is much faster.

My research has generated only two J-390 prototypes actually flying and these were bombers. No prototype or production model of the cargo version was found. The C-97, on the other hand, did have a flying prototype which flew in December, 1944. In January, '45, the C-97 prototype flew from Seattle to Washington D.C., averaging 383 mph carrying 20,000 lbs of cargo, setting a record. In addition, the bomber version, the B-29, had been flying for quite a while. It seems to me that the C-97 has a much better WWII pedigree than the J-390. In addition, it is much faster, 383+ mph to 317 max, and, throw into that, 50% more engines, parts, repair times, etc.

Also, the C-97 had a built-in ramp and hoist.

I disagree, the Ju-390 is a WW2 aircraft, the C-97 is not.

 

[davparlr]

The He-277 could carry just as much as the B-29 (Don't go after the number on Wiki, it's wrong), was just as fast and had a much higher ceiling. Btw, German figures are with combat load, as is all German figures for the their a/c.

Btw, take a look at the cruising speeds, the He-277 is much faster.

I disagree, the Ju-390 is a WW2 aircraft, the C-97 is not.

What is you number for Max TO weight of the Ju-390.

So, you are saying that a prototype or production cargo version of the Ju-390 actually flew in WWII? The protype C-97 did fly.

However, I would really rely on the C-54 for heavy lifting, rather than either the C-97 or Ju-390. I am firm believer that a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush and both the C-97 and Ju-390 were birds in the bush. As was the He-277. The C-5 was three times as large as the C-141, but in the 1973 war, the large brunt of the airlift was done by the C-141 not the C-5. Reliability and maintainability was the key as it was when C-54 saved a city a few years later.

You always project prototype/paper German aircraft as the same status as full production, effective aircraft.

 

[drgondog]

The C-97 was originally derived from the B-29 (it first flew in Dec. 44, long before the B-50 came into being). For production, the B-50 engines were used. The B-50 evolved from the B-29D to XB-44, not the B, which was a lightened up B-29A.

One of my buds from pilot training, who was in the Texas Guard, went home to fly the KC-97 in 1969. Quite a backwards jump from a T-38 to a KC-97. This was about the time the President was flying the Dagger there.

You are right about the derivative being the D - brain fart

 

[kool kitty89]

Like the Ju 90 and 290 the Ju 390 had been designed as a transport, the trans-Atlantic heavy bomber concept was an afterthought.

Junkers Aircraft of WWII

The Ju390 was intended as a widebody transporter Ju390A and long range surveyer aircraft Ju390B. Another purpose was a long range bomber aircraft Ju390C for missions to the United States (New York Bomber). It is reported that two aircraft flew from France to New York in 1944, but this seems to be wrong. The bomber version should have been able to pick up Henschel rocket bombs. Another Ju390 design saw a Mistel construction, where a Messerschmitt Me328 should have been put on the top of the Ju390. Probably at the beginning of the development of the Ju390, Lufthansa seemed to be interested in this design as well for long range air traffic after the war.

But for the more viable (or a/c that actually saw use), in addition to the C-54 there would be the Ju 290 as well.