Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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
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.
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
"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
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.
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
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.
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 said: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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.