Jerry W. Loper
Airman 1st Class
- 121
- Oct 2, 2007
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The P-39 could climb all over the Bf109EBut that's only if one of it's primary roles was bomber defense. If we are talking about using it primarily as a air superiority or a dog fighter, it's absolutely the P-40.
If we are allowed to use only the real planes, P-39 would've been my choice.
If we are allowed to modify (in a realistic way) either design, I'd go with P-40.
The engine position allows for non-problematic engine change (Merlin 60 series would've been no-brainer, but we can consider Bristol Hercules, R-2600, R-2800 etc), it would have been easily lightened, version with just 4 x 0.50in would've had enough fire power for fighter's job, it was regarded as a sturdy plane, and the combat range was decent.
"Merlin 60 series would've been no-brainer"
It would have required a considerable amount of work. Perhaps more than was available at the time.
Australia would have to make this decision at the end of 1941?
Merlin 60 series is still on the bench. Merlin 60 is heavier than the Merlin XX in the 40F and needs an inter-cooler stuffed somewhere in the plane. It could be done, see P-40 Q but you need an awful lot of redesign with the enemy knocking on the door. And then you are stuck with the P-40 airframe. You are stuck with it anyway in this thread but why put first rate engines in a second rate airframe?
Bristol Hercules does no good at this point in time.
Engines come from England (you can forget license manufacture) and they don't have enough (unless you can kill bomber Harris).
We are already going over your 3rd engine choice and the 4th is even worse.
Have the Aussies demand P-40Fs and have done with it.
Japanese planes may be light but cutting your bomber interceptors to 4 guns doesn't seem to be the answer.