Most Useful Plane Not Produced

[yulzari]

I too think that the RAF had an opportunity to get large numbers of tactical transports with the Harrow or Bombay. More truly a tactical transport than the Dakota so in a better position to support an airborne operation with air landing support. Very useful in Burma too.

 

[pbehn]

Possibly the Boeing 377?

Sometimes the advances are rather hidden. Building the B-29 gave Boeing leg up in designing large aircraft structures even if the 377 Stratocruiser was something of a commercial dud.
How much they were able to transfer to the B-47 and then to commercial jets I don't know but quite possibly more than The British aircraft industry was able to transfer or build on from their 4 engine bombers.

Are you referring to the R-3350 engines?

All three, Boeing had a design and staff that kept them in the game. In the immediate post war years there were few commercial successes because there were so many surplus aircraft and pilots. Building up or keeping together a design team and company was a major challenge there was only 10-11 years between the 377 and the 707, in that time a huge number of companies went to the wall or were absorbed into others.

 

[swampyankee]

No.
Submarines and eventually Liberators, Lancasters and Lincolns would have done the job.
Most importantly, don't ask USSR to get involved with Japan.
In both cases, sometimes less is more.

How important the USSR was in the surrender is moot, but Japan was afraid of the USSR's land forces. Without that fear, the Japanese army may have been able to move units to the Home Islands, making the likely invasion more expensive.

 

[NevadaK]

Lots of myths being tossed about with that B-29 commemt up there.
First of all, the B-29's Atomic bomb capability was a later bonus and wether or not the B-29 program continued had nothing to do with it.
The B-32 itself had quite a few problems that delayed it's development, including the SAME engines as the B-29.

The high-altitude capabilities of the B-29 were intended both for Europe and Japan, the fact that it entered the war after the Allies were able to provide long-range escort for the European theater does not diminish it's accomplishments in the PTO.

Claiming that "islands had to be taken for it to operate" is is nonsense. Islands had to be taken anyway. Iwo Jima and Okinawa both were major enemy complexes that allowed the Japanese to attack/defend for a considerable distance. And to add to this point, what other bomber currently in Allied service could have reached Japan from the same airfields with the same bombload?

As far as what the B-29 delivered to the Japanese home islands conventionally, the high-altitude bombing was stopped because of a weather anomaly never encountered before in strategic bombing: the Jet Stream. This was the reason for terrible inaccuracy and the same reason the bombing had to be conducted at lower altitudes.

Claiming that the B-29 cost more than the Manhattan Project is apples and oranges.
Every weapon system developed has a cost, so why not compare the B-29 program to the cost of total wartime U.S tank production? That was 64 billion (in modern dollars).
How much did the U.S. Navy spend on aircraft carrier production between 1941 and 1945? Just one Essex class carrier cost 1 billion (in modern dollars) to build.

And for the record, the Manhattan Project total cost for the war, was 20 billion (in modern dollars).
There are some sites on the internet claiming the B-29 cost more, because they are comparing a certain part of the Manhattan projects expenditures in 1945 dollars to the B-29's cost in modern dollars.

So how much did the B-29 program cost? 3 billion in modern dollars for 3,970 airframes built AND it was in service until 1960, long beyond a vast share of other expensive WWII hardware - which means that money used to develop and produce the B-29 was well invested.

Greetings GrauGeist,

Thank you for sharing your post. If you don't mind let me respond as to why I don't believe that I am propagating myths:

1. Atomic Mission - It is true that the B-29's initial design spec didn't include delivering atomic weapons, however, the B-29 was identified in the summer of 1943 as the only possible delivery system for the bomb. Linking the B-29 to the bomb gave significant impetus for the project to move forward despite the technological challenges that were being experienced.

2. The B-32 - The point I was making was that the US was the only country that had the resources to not only take on the development of the B-29, but also a project of similar scope and investment. I make no claims that the B-32 was able to perform as well. The point is targeted towards the original thread that Germany should have developed the He-277.

3. It is true that the B-29 was intended for all theaters of the war as a very high altitude bomber. US military planners were also aware in late 1943, early 1944 that the B-29 would not be available to have an impact on the outcome of the ETO and planning focused on its use in the PTO.

4. Planning for B-29 operations in the Pacific began in 1943. Importantly, the need for Pacific bases for the B-29 influenced overall strategy and resulted in the taking of the Marianas. The Marianas had been considered as part of the Central Pacific Strategy that had been formulated as early as 1929, however, were not a component of the plan as it was being formed in early 1943. The Army Air Force lent weight to the need for the taking of the Marianas to support B-29 operations. For reference, I suggest Phillip Crowl's "Campaign in the Marianas" linked here: https://history.army.mil/html/books/005/5-7-1/CMH_Pub_5-7-1.pdf

5. Iwo Jima and Okinawa - I made no reference to Okinawa. Iwo Jima is more complex as it was invaded for a number of reasons the principal being to use a staging for the invasion of Japan and facilitation of strategic bombing campaign. The island was not-suitable for staging and was used by neither the Army or Navy for such purposes. In the end, the island's principal contribution to the continuation of the war effort was to support the strategic bombing campaign.

6. The Jet Stream - The jet stream had been identified prior to the war, although you are correct that the USAAF was unaware of its strength and seasonality over the Japanese homeland. That aside, the USAAF was aware that the effectiveness of high altitude bombing had been overestimated especially in terms of on target accuracy. Bombing from higher altitudes only exacerbated the inability to hit targets even in good atmospheric conditions. In combination with the seasonal jet stream, the B-29 was ineffective in its intended to role for high altitude strategic bombing. This is to take nothing from the aircraft's accomplishments and adaptability of USAAF leadership in crafting new strategy to make the weapon system effective.

7. Cost - The Manhattan Project Cost $1.9 Billion in 1945 Dollars ($21.3B in 2019) The Costs of the Manhattan Project and Manhattan Project - Wikipedia The B-29 Project Cost $3 Billion in 1945 Dollars ($33B in 2019 Dollars) Boeing B-29 Superfortress - Wikipedia I can find no resource that states this differently although I did find this blog posting interesting: B-29 Super-fortress: An Aircraft Ahead of its Time at the Right Time! | The Business Thinker

I hope this helps explain why I feel I was providing reasoned and sound viewpoints rather than myths in my earlier post. The B-29 is and was a spectacular aircraft. It was a technological challenge that required advances across a broad range of disciplines including material sciences, manufacturing technologies, and electronics. Its development led to the establishment of several industries that are important today. On the other hand, once its development was tied to the Manhattan Project, there was an urgency to keep development progressing and accept technological deficiencies. The need for infrastructure to support operations did influence war strategy and help shaped the Central Pacific thrust of the two pronged campaign against Japan. While it did underachieve in its intended missions, new missions were found that positively contributed to the outcome of the war. It was successful. So much so that it had effectively run out of targets and its most likely new role would have been in direct support of the invasion by delivering bombs capable of destroying Japanese underground defensive installations. Tallboy (bomb) - Wikipedia

Understand, my original post was not a critique of the B-29, but an illustration of how resource intensive the B-29 was and how investing in such weapon systems was possible by only one (or maybe two) nations at that time.

Regards,

Kk

 

[Admiral Beez]

Build the B-33 and build it earlier to have available for replacements of B-17s and 24s for mid 1943 European bomber offensive. Saves about one hour enemy airspace transit time for Berlin mission. Saves lives, maybe many.

The RAF had a high speed, high altitude bomber in the works as well, the Vickers Windsor. First flight autumn 1943. First RAF four engine bomber that's pressurized and flies above 310 mph.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

How about we turn the tables and look at what an Allied aircraft project looked like.

Before the war it was decided that current heavy bombers in service would not have the range and payload for long range raids across the ocean, so the army wanted a bomber that could carry a larger payload over 3,000 miles. In December 1939 the army issued a specification for a SUPERBOMBER that could deliver 20,000lb of bombs to a target 2,667 miles away and at a speed of 400 mph. The big bomber company submitted its proposal in May 1940. It offered full pressurisation and it met the bomb load specs, as well as having remotely operated turrets. IT WAS THE MOST ADVANCED BOMBER IN THE WORLD.

Despite issues with its engines, four 2,200hp turbosupercharged radial engines, the bomber entered service in 1943 and proved itself capable of BETTER performance than ANY OTHER BOMBER in service at the time. It carried out long range attacks against the enemy from friendly bases and had a maximum speed of 357mph, cruised at 220mph and a ceiling of 31,850ft and could carry a maximum standard load of 20,000lbs across short distances, but a normal load on 1,600 mile range missions was more like 12,000lbs. It was also capable of carrying a secret ATOM BOMB then under development. With enough of them, it could have reduced cities in enemy countries to waste, and it could have dropped an atomic bomb and brought about the END OF THE WAR.

Yup...

It didn't enter service in 1943. By the end of that year the AAF had accepted 92 and they not suitable for combat. The first combat mission for the B29 was in June 1944.

 

[pbehn]

It didn't enter service in 1943. By the end of that year the AAF had accepted 92 and they not suitable for combat. The first combat mission for the B29 was in June 1944.

Many aircraft had a poor start to their careers, the Typhoon, P-39 and Meteor spring to mind. A plane doesn't have to take part in a combat mission to be in service.

 

[kitplane01]

The RAF had a high speed, high altitude bomber in the works as well, the Vickers Windsor. First flight autumn 1943. First RAF four engine bomber that's pressurized and flies above 310 mph.

View attachment 581842

This looks like a bad joke:

The Windsor used Wallis's geodetic body and wing structure that Vickers had previously used in the Wellesley, Wellington and Warwick bombers. The wing structure had no spars but a hollow geodetic tube from tip to tip, passing through the fuselage truss. To better resist the compression and tension efforts, the elements were assembled at 16 degrees next to the root, reverting to the more conventional ninety degrees on the tips, longitudinal elements locking everything in place. The thicknesses of the elements was also reduced towards the tips. No two joints had the same angle on the wing, an authentic production engineer's nightmare. Instead of doped Irish linen covering used on the earlier geodetic aircraft, a stiff and light skin was used on the Windsor. This was made from woven steel wires and very thin (1/1000 inch thickness) stainless steel ribbons, doped with PVC or other plastic, specially designed to avoid ballooning. To properly fit the skin to the frame, a tuning fork had to be used. The wing was designed so that the tips had a noticeable droop on the ground[citation needed], but was straight in flight, so the skin had to be fitted tighter on top than on the bottom to be evenly tight in flight. Wikipedia ... Vickers Windsor - Wikipedia

 

[davparlr]

[
Been over this a bunch of times.

Yes, we have.

part of the problem is timing.
Grumman built F4F-3As because there weren't enough 2 stage engines being built by P & W in 1940/early 1941.

There were engines that existed and could be manufactured and there were superchargers that existed and could be manufactured. The rest is priorities and dollars. In the pre-war years, there was a shortage of both. But the AAF had a serious weakness in the Pacific and that was that they did not have enough interceptors that could attack high flying Japanese bombers and fighters until the high demand P-38s became available in early '43. If the P-66 could do 340 mph on 1000 hp at 15k ft, it could do over 350 mph at 19k on 1000 hp. That is faster than the P-40 (339 mph) and faster than the F4F (335 mph). And it would have about the same performance in speed, climb and service ceiling (35k+) as the P-43A only without the turbo-supercharger and 700 lbs lighter and a lot simpler. So it would have been worth the effort.

had been rejected by the US Army

It wasn't what they wanted but it was what they needed. The AAF was not interested in the P-51 and would have shut down the production had they not changed the design to the attack version.

and had been rejected by the British when they were offered, although they thought they might do OK as trainers.

Same problem with the non-turbo P-38 and with the P-39 and the P-40. Poor altitude performance for Europe. No comment about ground looping?

FIxing such 'nagging" problems as the weak structure and the propensity to ground loop might not have been so easy. 15 of the 40-50 P-66s used by the 14th pursuit group in California are supposed to have been lost due to ground loops in just a few months.

I don't know what ruggedness problems they had. Could be losing panels on rough landings or wings coming off, not likely. I read that the Chinese flew the planes on quite a few missions but reports on all Chinese flight activity does not give one confidence in their competency. I also read of one Chinese pilot used a P-66 to great accomplishments.

I must admit that I do not know much about ground looping but it sounds more like a training problem. Pilots may have been fresh out of pilot training. When I was fresh out of pilot training I got into a serious problem as I was upgrading to the C-141, On landing in a brisk crosswind I relaxed my controls on touchdown. Immediately, the aircraft windmilled about 10-15 degrees off runway heading and the upwind wing raised significantly to the point that I was alarmed. The nose wanted to go left and the wings wanted to go right. The instructors took over and straightened the aircraft. He then gave me a lesson I would never forget "Don't stop flying the aircraft, even on the runway!" I can't see how an aircraft's design affects ground looping, especially one that looks like all the competing aircraft in this era. Maybe gear too close together but the P-66 has pretty wide gear, or maybe cg is critical. Don't know.

Sticking the two stage engines into existing airframes may not have been easy either.
Experimental P-40 with P & W two stage engine.

We don't really have a clear breakout of the P-66 but it does have cockpit placed at the back edge of the wing ala the amazingly similar F4U. It looks like there is plenty of room for maybe fuel and intercooler installation. I suspect that it would be no more difficult than putting a turbo-supercharger on an XP-41 to make the P-43. Note difference between P-36 canopy placement and the P-66. The P-36 pilot seat is approximately one third the distance from the wing trailing edge to front edge, in the P-66 pilot seat is just about the trailing edge of the wing. Both aircraft are same length, 28.5 ft.

View attachment 582098

There was a comment that the P-66 was just too late. This is probably a cause, another, probably more important, was that it was an orphan with no one looking at its potential, or recognizing a need. The plane was a good design and faster than other designs with equivalent engines. The designer was the same guy who designed the record breaker Hughes H-1.

 

[pbehn]

Yes, we have.



There were engines that existed and could be manufactured and there were superchargers that existed and could be manufactured. The rest is priorities and dollars. In the pre-war years, there was a shortage of both. But the AAF had a serious weakness in the Pacific and that was that they did not have enough interceptors that could attack high flying Japanese bombers and fighters until the high demand P-38s became available in early '43. If the P-66 could do 340 mph on 1000 hp at 15k ft, it could do over 350 mph at 19k on 1000 hp. That is faster than the P-40 (339 mph) and faster than the F4F (335 mph). And it would have about the same performance in speed, climb and service ceiling (35k+) as the P-43A only without the turbo-supercharger and 700 lbs lighter and a lot simpler. So it would have been worth the effort.


It wasn't what they wanted but it was what they needed. The AAF was not interested in the P-51 and would have shut down the production had they not changed the design to the attack version.



Same problem with the non-turbo P-38 and with the P-39 and the P-40. Poor altitude performance for Europe. No comment about ground looping?


I don't know what ruggedness problems they had. Could be losing panels on rough landings or wings coming off, not likely. I read that the Chinese flew the planes on quite a few missions but reports on all Chinese flight activity does not give one confidence in their competency. I also read of one Chinese pilot used a P-66 to great accomplishments.

I must admit that I do not know much about ground looping but it sounds more like a training problem. Pilots may have been fresh out of pilot training. When I was fresh out of pilot training I got into a serious problem as I was upgrading to the C-141, On landing in a brisk crosswind I relaxed my controls on touchdown. Immediately, the aircraft windmilled about 10-15 degrees off runway heading and the upwind wing raised significantly to the point that I was alarmed. The nose wanted to go left and the wings wanted to go right. The instructors took over and straightened the aircraft. He then gave me a lesson I would never forget "Don't stop flying the aircraft, even on the runway!" I can't see how an aircraft's design affects ground looping, especially one that looks like all the competing aircraft in this era. Maybe gear too close together but the P-66 has pretty wide gear, or maybe cg is critical. Don't know.



We don't really have a clear breakout of the P-66 but it does have cockpit placed at the back edge of the wing ala the amazingly similar F4U. It looks like there is plenty of room for maybe fuel and intercooler installation. I suspect that it would be no more difficult than putting a turbo-supercharger on an XP-41 to make the P-43. Note difference between P-36 canopy placement and the P-66. The P-36 pilot seat is approximately one third the distance from the wing trailing edge to front edge, in the P-66 pilot seat is just about the trailing edge of the wing. Both aircraft are same length, 28.5 ft.

View attachment 582101
View attachment 582098

View attachment 582093

There was a comment that the P-66 was just too late. This is probably a cause, another, probably more important, was that it was an orphan with no one looking at its potential, or recognizing a need. The plane was a good design and faster than other designs with equivalent engines. The designer was the same guy who designed the record breaker Hughes H-1.

It isn't said oft enough how much the effort you put into your posts is appreciated, well by me anyway.

 

[GrauGeist]

The plane was a good design and faster than other designs with equivalent engines. The designer was the same guy who designed the record breaker Hughes H-1.

Dick Palmer also designed the BT-13.

 

[Shortround6]

There were engines that existed and could be manufactured and there were superchargers that existed and could be manufactured. The rest is priorities and dollars. In the pre-war years, there was a shortage of both.

One would think that had P & W been able to the build the engines in 1940-41 then Grumman would have built all F4F-3s and not the 65 castrated F4F-3As that they did build. All or just about all of the F4F-3As were built in 1941 which is an odd period for the US, It is before Pearl Harbor but after large contracts had been placed for large numbers of aircraft and also for new factories. F4F-3s and F4F-4s got different engines even if both had two stages. P & W didn't have the two stage engine fully sorted out in 1940-41.

It wasn't what they wanted but it was what they needed. The AAF was not interested in the P-51 and would have shut down the production had they not changed the design to the attack version.

It is a bit more complicated than that. The P-66s were impounded aircraft built for Sweden that the US embargoed. How much the US was going to pay Vultee for the aircraft I don't know but the US didn't get involved with using them for quite a number of months, from Joe Baugher's web site.

"Before any production aircraft could be delivered to their Swedish customer, the US government placed an embargo on the export of military aircraft to Sweden, fearing that they might fall into Axis hands. Although the British had earlier rejected the Vultee fighter for their own use, they agreed to take over 100 of these aircraft under Lend-Lease as Vanguard Is. RAF serials BW208 through BW307 were assigned to these aircraft. The Vanguard I was considered as being unsuitable for combat use by the RAF, but it was considered appropriate for advanced training use by units based in Canada.
In early 1941, Chiang Kai-Shek's Nationalist Chinese forces were being hard-pressed by Japanese air attacks, and were in desperate need of more combat aircraft. So dire was their need that they were willing to accept just about anything that had wings. On May 19, 1941, the British government agreed to release its Vanguards for supply to Chiang Kai-Shek's Nationalist Chinese forces. The 144 Vanguards were given the USAAC designation P-66 and were assigned the serial numbers 42-6832 thru 42-6975.

Following the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, there was complete panic on the west coast of the USA. The Japanese fleet was expected to show up off Santa Barbara at any moment. In anticipation of a Japanese attack, some forty to fifty P-66s originally intended for China were hastily impressed into USAAC service and issued to the 14th Pursuit Group for use in the emergency defense of southern California. "
So basically the Vanguard had been rejected by the British twice.

Same problem with the non-turbo P-38 and with the P-39 and the P-40. Poor altitude performance for Europe. No comment about ground looping?

British were rejecting them in spring of 1941 (for the 2nd time). The P-39s would not show up in England until around Sept of 1941 and the first P322 Lighting doesn't get to England until Dec of 1941. The difference in timing and difference in British needs had changed considerably.

There was a comment that the P-66 was just too late. This is probably a cause, another, probably more important, was that it was an orphan with no one looking at its potential, or recognizing a need. The plane was a good design and faster than other designs with equivalent engines. The designer was the same guy who designed the record breaker Hughes H-1.

Not mentioned but perhaps relevant is that during 1940/41 Vultee was getting more and more contracts for the BT-13/SNV trainer and had started work on the Vengeance dive bomber.
Perhaps relevant is a comment about the BT-13 series (over 11,000 built in total)
" The BT-13 was not without its faults. The tail was held on with only three bolts and after several in-flight failures, the Navy restricted the aircraft from aerobatic and violent maneuvers. The Navy declared the SNV obsolete in May 1945 and replaced it in the basic training role with the SNJ (T-6). The Army also replaced the BT-13 with the AT-6 before the end of the war."

The BT-13 and the P-66 share a common ancestry as Dick Palmer had schemed a family of aircraft using common components. The BT-13 may have been the most basic. A version with the larger R-1340 engine and retractable landing gear had competed against the NA AT-6 and lost.

 

[gjs238]

Dick Palmer also designed the BT-13.

From Vultee P-66 Vanguard - Wikipedia

The Vultee Vanguard was the product of an idea conceived in the late 1930s by the Vultee Aircraft Division of the Aviation Manufacturing Corporation of developing four aircraft designed for different roles from a set of common wings and aft fuselage and tail assemblies. The company assigned four model designations: V-48 to a single-seat fighter, BC-51 to a basic combat trainer, B-54 to an advanced trainer, and BC-54D as a basic trainer. Eventually, the BC-51 would become the Army Air Corps BC-3 and the BC-54D, the BT-13.

 

[RW Mk. III]

This looks like a bad joke:

The Windsor used Wallis's geodetic body and wing structure that Vickers had previously used in the Wellesley, Wellington and Warwick bombers. The wing structure had no spars but a hollow geodetic tube from tip to tip, passing through the fuselage truss. To better resist the compression and tension efforts, the elements were assembled at 16 degrees next to the root, reverting to the more conventional ninety degrees on the tips, longitudinal elements locking everything in place. The thicknesses of the elements was also reduced towards the tips. No two joints had the same angle on the wing, an authentic production engineer's nightmare. Instead of doped Irish linen covering used on the earlier geodetic aircraft, a stiff and light skin was used on the Windsor. This was made from woven steel wires and very thin (1/1000 inch thickness) stainless steel ribbons, doped with PVC or other plastic, specially designed to avoid ballooning. To properly fit the skin to the frame, a tuning fork had to be used. The wing was designed so that the tips had a noticeable droop on the ground[citation needed], but was straight in flight, so the skin had to be fitted tighter on top than on the bottom to be evenly tight in flight. Wikipedia ... Vickers Windsor - Wikipedia

But why is that a bad joke? The geodetic structure worked. Was very robust (just because it was unusual doesn't mean it was bad), and Vickers was already set up to manufacture in that manner.

Everything I've ever read indicates the main problem with the Windsor was cost. Which to be fair, was the B29's big issue too.

Britain was not in need of a very expensive superbomber that quite possibly wasn't going to come online in numbers in time to influence the outcome in the ETO.

The Americans were producing results with their super-expensive superbomber(s). Why throw good money after a seemingly covered problem? Especially when it's money you don't really have.

 

[Shortround6]

But why is that a bad joke? The geodetic structure worked. Was very robust (just because it was unusual doesn't mean it was bad), and Vickers was already set up to manufacture in that manner.

Everything I've ever read indicates the main problem with the Windsor was cost. Which to be fair, was the B29's big issue too.

Britain was not in need of a very expensive superbomber that quite possibly wasn't going to come online in numbers in time to influence the outcome in the ETO.

The Americans were producing results with their super-expensive superbomber(s). Why throw good money after a seemingly covered problem? Especially when it's money you don't really have.

A few more pictures.

Performance figures in WIki seem to be rather disappointing, perhaps they are in error?

 

[RW Mk. III]

A few more pictures.
View attachment 582118
View attachment 582117
Performance figures in WIki seem to be rather disappointing, perhaps they are in error?

It was never going to be a B29 with 4x Merlin's. I don't have data but I imagine it must have been designed with Griffon or Centaurus as avenues.

 

[pbehn]

A few more pictures.
View attachment 582118
View attachment 582117
Performance figures in WIki seem to be rather disappointing, perhaps they are in error?

Take the turrets off the a Lancaster and put those engine housings on and how much better is it than a Lancaster in a time when WW2 is ending and jets are the way to go.

 

[Shortround6]

It used the same engines as the Avro Lincoln. It seems, like many other British planes, that development took too long and it was passed by. The account in "The British Bomber" by Mason goes into some of the troubles. Like ballooning of the wing fabric in dives with the 2nd prototype, an attempt to avoid this resulted in the heavy weight wire backed fabric perhaps described earlier(?) however that is supposed to have reduced the speed by 25mph.

 

[Kevin J]

From Vultee P-66 Vanguard - Wikipedia

The Vultee Vanguard was the product of an idea conceived in the late 1930s by the Vultee Aircraft Division of the Aviation Manufacturing Corporation of developing four aircraft designed for different roles from a set of common wings and aft fuselage and tail assemblies. The company assigned four model designations: V-48 to a single-seat fighter, BC-51 to a basic combat trainer, B-54 to an advanced trainer, and BC-54D as a basic trainer. Eventually, the BC-51 would become the Army Air Corps BC-3 and the BC-54D, the BT-13.

IIRC the Vanguard with a single stage engine did 340 mph, with two stage 358 mph, but without bullet proof glass, armour protection or self sealing fuel tanks. I see no signs of a rear view mirror either Let's take a Conservative view of its performance with these essential battlefield mods and reduce performance by 5%. Its not so hot now is it? Service ceiling of under 30,000 ft for the single stage engine variant so that's inadequate. Performance of tropical Kittyhawk II is 354 mph at around 18,500 ft, service ceiling 36,000 feet IIRC. Now that's a more than adequate performance for not only the Med but also anywhere tropical opposing the Japanese. We need more Merlins in Kittyhawks so Packard needs to start producing them in 1940 not 1941, or Ford USA needs to also. Ford UK delivered its first engine in June 1941, the last in March 1946, total built 30,428. Just imagine every Warhawk could have been powered by a Merlin.

 

[Koopernic]

The aircraft that the Luftwaafe could have had, with very little difficulty are:
1 Ju 89 or Do 19 4 engine bomber. The Ju 290 did come out of the Ju 89 program and proved what could have been done. Instead they lacked an aircraft that had a genuine 1000 miles armed operational radius able to defend itself at sea. The Luftwaffe poorly supported the German Navy.
2 Fw 187: a long range high speed fighter that could have been in service by 1939 providing the Luftwaffe with a long range escort during the BoB and to support the U-boats and maritime bombers such as the Ju 89. Other roles including high speed reconnaissance and a two seater version as a radar equipped night fighter at a time the Mosquito was nearly impossible to intercept at night.
3 Arado 232 or Ju 252. The Luftwaffe relied on the Ju 52 and it was awfully inefficient due to its short 650 mile range and low speed and high fuel burn. Luftwaffe was forced to put Ju 52 bases within Soviet Fighter range. The Ju 252 could have operate directly from Berlin to Stalingrad, over 1000 miles away. The Ar 232 was much faster and due to the loading ramp much better load/unload cycles. A DC3 would have been much better.
4 Me 109K1. Better aerodynamics for the Me 109 in 1943 instead of October 1944 when the Me 109 K4 came into use. Retractable tail wheel, faired over gun blisters, retractable wheel covers. The P51 had these basic features Probably good for 16-20 mph extra speed at altitude without the new water methanol engines.

The Me 109G0/G1 could achieve 400.5mph on 1.3ATA boost. The Me 109G6 had lost about 10-13 mph and was down to 388mph at 1.3ATA. The smoothed over gun bulges and retractable tail wheel would have restored most of this loss and the wheel covers regained about 10km/h. Hence in January 1941 the Me 109G6 at 1.42 ATA boost would have been capable of 416-420mph instead of 400. A hypothetical Me 109K1AM and Me 109K1ASM much more and maybe close to the 440mph the P51 could do.

All of these aircraft flew as prototypes, some like the Ju 252 and Ar 232 even had low scale production. They would have filled huge gaps in the Luftwaffe's capabilities.