Most Useful Plane Not Produced

[tomo pauk]

I hate it t be that guy, but question is about an aircraft being most useful. The earlier it is available = better usability. If it matters in key war theter of ww2 (Europe) = better usability.
USAF/USN have had a 'good' air war (not to disparage the sacrifices of the servicemen), and no change in their inventory, especially not after winter of 1943/44, will matter a lot. Especially against Japan.

Contrary to that, the Luftwaffe having a vast numbers of the aircraft that can trash RAF during the BoB can have a major impact on ww2. Or, WAllies having a LR fighter that performs, in good numbers, by early 1943, can really hurt Germany proper and start the downward spiral wit regard to production of fuel and other war material for the key Axis country.

 

[NevadaK]

In my opinion the last thing the RAF needs in 1942 is another plane powered by the Sabre engine. excerpt from the report on the crash of the MB 3

"...engine failure due to a broken sleeve drive crank in the engine "

having a cost effective airframe with an outrageously expensive, troublesome engine doesn't gain you very much.

Greetings Shortround6,

I agree and that is why I put in parentheses the MB-4 which was a Griffon re-engined MB-3. If the flying qualities of the MB-3 were as positive as are often reported then switching power plants should have led to a front line fighter that could have contributed positively to the war.

Kk

 

[Admiral Beez]

Definitely. But it fits the OP's "Missed Opportunity" criteria.

Indeed, the Curtiss Hawk could have been the Northrop F-5 of its age, sold to or license built by financially squeezed nations friendly or beholden to the US.

Edit: I am off-criteria a bit as Wildcat and Hawk were clearly 100+ example aircraft...

To split that hair, I'm referring to the British built, Cyclone-powered Mohawk of which there were 47 examples, and not the USA produced P-36 Hawk.

 

[spicmart]

Fw 187. A potent fighter/fighter-bomber able to hold its own against or best single-engined fighters and which thus does not need escort protection like the Me 110. It also had enough fuel to loiter above enemy soil long. Could have made a difference in BoB.

 

[pbehn]

Instead of Spitfire MkIIIs the British decided to have many more Hurricanes and Spitfires. The modifications that were the MkIII were just introduced more slowly

 

[tomo pauk]

Instead of Spitfire MkIIIs the British decided to have many more Hurricanes and Spitfires. The modifications that were the MkIII were just introduced more slowly

Production of Spitfire III (or other Spitfire mark) have had no influence on tempo of production of Hurricane.
There was a lot of dead wood to trim down (the Spitfire III being just the opposite), if one wanted even more Spitfires and/or Hurricanes. Modifications that were on Mk.III took 2-5 years to introduce, indeed very slowly, and not on Hurricanes.

 

[pbehn]

Production of Spitfire III (or other Spitfire mark) have had no influence on tempo of production of Hurricane.
There was a lot of dead wood to trim down (the Spitfire III being just the opposite), if one wanted even more Spitfires and/or Hurricanes. Modifications that were on Mk.III took 2-5 years to introduce, indeed very slowly, and not on Hurricanes.

The Spitfire Mk III had the XX engine, it was decided that the Hurricane needed whatever XX engines were available for the Mk II Hurricane to keep it somewhere near competitive. The Mk V used the RR 45 and also the many MkI and II airframes already made at the time.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Spitfire Mk III had the XX engine, it was decided that the Hurricane needed whatever XX engines were available for the Mk II Hurricane to keep it somewhere near competitive.

Exactly. Adoption of Spitfire III as-is influences quality of Hurricanes (no superior engines for them, so they must use, say, Merlin XII), not quantity as per your post.

The Mk V used the RR 45 and also the many MkI and II airframes already made at the time.

Yes, they did so in 1941, and were devoid of nip & tuck that made, along with engine, the Mk.III so fast already in 1940.

 

[pbehn]

Exactly. Adoption of Spitfire III as-is influences quality of Hurricanes (no superior engines for them, so they must use, say, Merlin XII), not quantity as per your post.



Yes, they did so in 1941, and were devoid of nip & tuck that made, along with engine, the Mk.III so fast already in 1940.

I specifically mentioned the Hurricane MkII, if sending uncompetitive planes across the channel is the aim you can use anything.

 

[tomo pauk]

I specifically mentioned the Hurricane MkII, if sending uncompetitive planes across the channel is the aim you can use anything.

I have no intention in sending any Hurricanes across the channel past Battle of France.

 

[pbehn]

I have no intention in sending any Hurricanes across the channel past Battle of France.

Not only France, Malta and N Africa too.

 

[tomo pauk]

Not only France, Malta and N Africa too.

There were no Hurricanes II at Malta or N. Africa in 1940.
For 1941, stick the Merlin 45 on them.

I was under impression that 'across the channel' means France and Belgium for RAF.

 

[pbehn]

There were no Hurricanes II at Malta or N. Africa in 1940.
For 1941, stick the Merlin 45 on them.

I was under impression that 'across the channel' means France and Belgium for RAF.

There would have been no Spitfire Mk IIIs either, it was a substantial change from the MkI and II so there would have been fewer Spitfires and uncompetitive Hurricanes, that's why they produced the Mk V Spitfire and Hurricane Mk II.

 

[tomo pauk]

There would have been no Spitfire Mk IIIs either, it was a substantial change from the MkI and II so there would have been fewer Spitfires and uncompetitive Hurricanes, that's why they produced the Mk V Spitfire and Hurricane Mk II.

Spitfire III shared fuselage, tail and wing with Spitfire I. Different were tail wheel, internal BP glass was installed vs. external, and U/C cover was covering the wheel well completely now, as in prototype.
But yes, installing of Merlin XX on the Hurricane was the only way for it to be competitive.

 

[pbehn]

Spitfire III shared fuselage, tail and wing with Spitfire I. Different were tail wheel, internal BP glass was installed vs. external, and U/C cover was covering the wheel well completely now, as in prototype.
But yes, installing of Merlin XX on the Hurricane was the only way for it to be competitive.

I thought the issue was the engine fitment (happy to be corrected) The Merlin 45 could be put in a MkI or II frame with no problem, The Merlin XX needed modifications which although not huge took time and in 1940 they had lots of MkI/II airframes so switching to the MkIII meant a loss of a lot of fighters both Spitfire and Hurricane overall

 

[gomwolf]

G.56



Earliest performance chart was written in 27 Sep 43. IMHO, it's prototypes are likely to have been made before June 1943.

Fw 190 with DB 603A engine for the Germans (despite the DB 603A not being that reliable in 1943).

AFAIK, Me410 was on a mission in 1943. IMHO DB603 was guaranteed at least enough reliability for combat.

 

[nuuumannn]

The Spitfire is not a good place to start. Unless the warp prone frame and access panels can be addressed, along with the weak, narrow and bouncing undercarriage and short endurance

They made the Seafire work with no trouble, the FAA already has a long range fighter in Fulmar. As for the things like its undercarriage etc, I guess it can be accepted oewing to its excellent performance. The Seafire's rate of climb made it ideal as a short range interceptor. Also remember that the Hurri and the Corsair had less than ideal deck handling characteristics.

 

[nuuumannn]

Fw 187. A potent fighter/fighter-bomber able to hold its own against or best single-engined fighters and which thus does not need escort protection like the Me 110. It also had enough fuel to loiter above enemy soil long. Could have made a difference in BoB.

I agree that it was an excellent aircraft and it would certainly have been formidable in its original guise, but as soon as you start modifying it to become a Bf 110 equivalent it loses its potency. If it stays as a single-seat fighter then it would have been useful during the BoB, but I doubt the result would have been any different. The Germans lost as a result of tactics and missed opportunities more than deficiencies in individual aircraft design.

Agree on it being a formidable machine, but the argument then becomes one of what does Fw not build, if the Fw 187 goes into production? The Fw 190? In that case the LW loses significantly- the Fw 190 was arguably a more formidable fighter and more useful in the long run.

 

[kitplane01]

The Harrow is one of my favorites. Looks like it can handle any conditions

Hard to imagine what this plane can do that the DC-3 cannot do better.

 

[kitplane01]

Fw 187. A potent fighter/fighter-bomber able to hold its own against or best single-engined fighters and which thus does not need escort protection like the Me 110. It also had enough fuel to loiter above enemy soil long. Could have made a difference in BoB.

I'n curious more about this plane. I've read wikipedia. Is it a better fighter than the Me-110? Could it actually survive the skies over Britain against early Spits and Huricanes, because that seems like a lot to ask of any twin engine fighter.