Most Manoeuvrable Superprop Fighter/Interceptor Possible

[JoblinTheGoblin]

"Superprop" in this case means any aircraft with maximum level flight speeds over 730 km/h (454 mph) at altitudes above 3000 m (~10000ft), though that is, in my humble opinion, a rather generous definition. I am thinking of aircraft that can easily exceed 750 km/h (466 mph) in level flight.
The aspects of "manoeuvrability" I am most interested in are climb, roll rate, and turning radius. High speed or low speed, it doesn't matter, the aircraft simply needs to approach the manoeuvrability achieved by biplanes or early Japanese monoplane fighters. Ideally, its acceleration should be as high as possible. On a side note, it would be desirable for the aircraft's range to be, at minimum, 1000 km (621 miles) or 1600 km (1000 miles), and for both its weight and its take-off distance to be as low as possible given the aforementioned requirements. Its armament should be as powerful as possible, with calibres close to, or even exceeding, 20mm or 30mm. It should be able to carry rockets.
1930-49 (interwar, wartime and the immediate postwar) technology and, to some degree, methodology only. It can be any aircraft configuration so long as it remains a fixed-wing design, and the engines can be any type. It would be a bonus if this hypothetical aircraft could have plausibly been produced and put in service by any particular nation during the war itself, but that's not strictly necessary.

 

[PAT303]

Your not going to get 450mph with the turn radius of the Biplane or Oscar, simple physics.

 

[JoblinTheGoblin]

Your not going to get 450mph with the turn radius of the Biplane or Oscar, simple physics.

the aircraft simply needs to approach the manoeuvrability achieved by biplanes or early Japanese monoplane fighters

Really, the question is, how manoeuvrable can you make a superprop (or similar, given that I mentioned jets as well)?

 

[tomo pauk]

Griffon Spitfires with the stiffer wing, Fowler flaps and boosted controls?

 

[PAT303]

Really, the question is, how manoeuvrable can you make a superprop (or similar, given that I mentioned jets as well)?

The faster you go the less maneuverable you are

 

[PAT303]

Griffon Spitfires with the stiffer wing, Fowler flaps and boosted controls?

Spiteful Mk16 with rear 75G internal tanks and a 100G drop tank.

 

[Shortround6]

"Superprop" in this case means any aircraft with maximum level flight speeds over 730 km/h (454 mph) at altitudes above 3000 m (~10000ft), though that is, in my humble opinion, a rather generous definition. I am thinking of aircraft that can easily exceed 750 km/h (466 mph) in level flight.
The aspects of "manoeuvrability" I am most interested in are climb, roll rate, and turning radius. High speed or low speed, it doesn't matter, the aircraft simply needs to approach the manoeuvrability achieved by biplanes or early Japanese monoplane fighters. Ideally, its acceleration should be as high as possible. On a side note, it would be desirable for the aircraft's range to be, at minimum, 1000 km (621 miles) or 1600 km (1000 miles), and for both its weight and its take-off distance to be as low as possible given the aforementioned requirements. Its armament should be as powerful as possible, with calibres close to, or even exceeding, 20mm or 30mm. It should be able to carry rockets.
1930-49 (interwar, wartime and the immediate postwar) technology and, to some degree, methodology only. It can be any aircraft configuration so long as it remains a fixed-wing design, and the engines can be any type. It would be a bonus if this hypothetical aircraft could have plausibly been produced and put in service by any particular nation during the war itself, but that's not strictly necessary.

You are running into physics.
Weight is the enemy of climb rate and turn radius.
Now you can conquer climb rate with a high powered engine and a low drag (small ) wing.
But turn rate requires a large wing or at least low wing loading, (small wing means very light airplane, no high powered engine).

Your speed requirement is also a problem. Those high speeds were usually done at altitudes above 20,000ft (or between 25,000 and 30,000ft) where the air is thinner (less drag) but that requires engines that make good power at those altitudes, usually engines with 2 stage superchargers (large and heavy) or very large single stage engines. Which means turn radius is going to suffer.

Range is also a problem, Even a plane that gets 6mpg in fast cruise needs 380lbs of fuel (not including tanks) to cover the difference between 620 miles and 1000 miles. Depending on plane that could be 2-400fpm of climb and and an extra 1.6lbs/sq/ft in wing loading on a Mustang sized plane. Just about 4% increase in wing loading on a 9600lb Mustang.

All planes are a compromise. You can't have everything. The High speed planes sacrificed maneuverability. There was no way to get it back without sacrificing something else.

 

[PAT303]

I'm still going with the Spiteful Mk16 with increased internal fuel and a dropper.