Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Not much of world beater. The Mustang was about a ton heavier than a 1941 109. Powered by the same engine it would have been in trouble. Good aerodynamics only gets you so far. A power to weight ratio 33% worse than your opponent is a big handicap.
How is that? The P-51A had 1,150hp Allison and made 390mph, IIRC at 18,000ft. With a DB601 she would still not have the vertical mobility of a 109 but she´d be the best US-made fighter by a large margin. And if the Me109F can make 418mph@21,000ft, the heavier but laminar flow wing Mustang would hardly be slower.
Which DB 601 are we talking about?
Claiming a plane would be the best US fighter in 1941 is one thing, claiming that such a plane is a "world beater" is another.
The DB601E, 1,320hp at 16,000ft vs. the V-1710-81 with 1125hp at 14,600. And the 601E ran on 87 octane fuel. An "american" DB601 would get the good stuff with 100 octane and thus also generate more hp. Taking all that into consideration, such a Mustang might be a P-51 C/D equivalent.
Not much of world beater. The Mustang was about a ton heavier than a 1941 109. Powered by the same engine it would have been in trouble.
Which engine are you using for the 109G-6?No. No contemporary P-51 could outclimb 109. Does that mean that the P-51D was inferior to Bf109G-6 ?
Having a superior dive speed helps with fighter survival and chasing down escaping planes but it doesn't really do much for bomber escort or repeat firing passes on bomber interception. A world beating fighter should be making the other fellow dive away.Having a superior level and diving speed gives you the chance to enter and exit combat at will.
German pilots did not have this luxury in 1944.
That DB 601 must have been a wonderful engine. Allison powered Mustangs didn't use drop tanks for quite a while and didn't have rear fuselage tanks. Their range was usually given as around 1100-1200miles at most economical cruise and without combat allowance. Better than many other 1941 fighters but not the numbers you are giving out.Even that was not the most important thing I had in mind. It was the range, the sheer fuel capacity. The capability to combat 750 miles from your base.
Your obsession with the "forged steel crankcase" is a bit funny. As I have said, this is is a "what-if" scenario, not "what was". In market economy , the production will be adjusted to the demand pretty quickly. Mind you, this is not with the war time constraints, but in US peacetime in 1940-1941. If you claim that the Wright would not have to been able to meet the increased demand, I would like to see some proof.
That DB 601 must have been a wonderful engine. Allison powered Mustangs didn't use drop tanks for quite a while and didn't have rear fuselage tanks. Their range was usually given as around 1100-1200miles at most economical cruise and without combat allowance. Better than many other 1941 fighters but not the numbers you are giving out.
Brewster put three(!) additional fuel tanks into the F2A-3, so we can take it for granted NAA could have installed one without much dealy and trouble.
Regarding the DB605´s power at high altitudes, how much was fuel related and how much due to the supercharger.
The Mitsubishi Kasei in my mind was comparable to the Wright R-2600.
Using the Kasei for power, Mitsubishi was able to come up with the J2M Raiden. From what I have read the J2M appeared to be a effective short range interceptor.
Then there is the speculation of 'what if' when Kawanishi was reworking the Kasei powered N1K1 float plane into the land based N1K1-J they had stayed with the Kasei instead of switching to the Nakajima Homare. As I recall, later versions of the Kasei were nearly as powerful on paper as the Homare, and if I believe some of my other reading, the Kasei would have been more or less equal to the Homare in the field.