Most Useful Plane Not Produced

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

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.
 
Last edited:

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
 
RW Mk. III said:
Definitely. But it fits the OP's "Missed Opportunity" criteria.
Click to expand...
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.
RW Mk. III said:
Edit: I am off-criteria a bit as Wildcat and Hawk were clearly 100+ example aircraft...
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
pbehn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
pbehn said:
I specifically mentioned the Hurricane MkII, if sending uncompetitive planes across the channel is the aim you can use anything.
Click to expand...

I have no intention in sending any Hurricanes across the channel past Battle of France.
 
pbehn said:
Not only France, Malta and N Africa too.
Click to expand...

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.
 
tomo pauk said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
pbehn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
G.56



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


tomo pauk said:
Fw 190 with DB 603A engine for the Germans (despite the DB 603A not being that reliable in 1943).
Click to expand...

AFAIK, Me410 was on a mission in 1943. IMHO DB603 was guaranteed at least enough reliability for combat.
 
Admiral Beez said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

D
What aircraft is that plane and which nation? Not Germnay for sure.
Replies
5
Views
232
Dr.Mabuse
D
P
Cool plane names
Replies
4
Views
659
Greyman
G
B
63 Fighter Squadron plane
Replies
4
Views
599
Snautzer01
Amelia Earhart's plane
Replies
13
Views
2K
GrauGeist
W
Mass produced HS-123s
4 5 6
Replies
100
Views
8K
nuuumannn
Menu
Log in
Register