Ultimate WWII fighter

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by herman1rg, Apr 19, 2010.

  1. herman1rg

    herman1rg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,147
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So hypothetically it's 1940 and you want to design the ultimate fighter using parts and technology from ANY fighter available.

    So list what you would use and why.

    (btw I'm going to do another thread about bombers also)
     
  2. Waynos

    Waynos Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,309
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I might ask NAA to put a Merlin in their new design And then maybe four hispanos in the wings
     
  3. BombTaxi

    BombTaxi Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Barnsley, S. Yorks, UK
    I can see this taking a similar direction to your bomber thread to be honest herman, but my 0.02 is that I would design the P-51 - engine from a Spit, with a much superior airframe and armament (most Spits in 1940 were packing 8x .303 or 2x 20mm Hispano that often didn't work). Simply bolting bits of existing fighters together wouldn't give you the best fighter of 1940 - it would give you the best fighter of 1935-37, as that is when most types in combat in 1940 were designed

    EDIT: Wayne, read my mind there... and typed a lot faster :D
     
  4. herman1rg

    herman1rg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,147
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I just think it's an interesting question.
     
  5. BombTaxi

    BombTaxi Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Barnsley, S. Yorks, UK
    It is - but I think it is one that is well-covered historically, and like I say, putting bits of existing designs together won't produce world-beating results. Just look at British defence procurement since about 1600 and you'll see what I mean :lol:

    You need a completely original design to really break the mould and redefine the expextations for a certain type of aircraft or other piece of equipment.
     
  6. herman1rg

    herman1rg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,147
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Supposing Frank Whittle's jet engine had been taken on more seriously and earlier.
     
  7. BombTaxi

    BombTaxi Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Barnsley, S. Yorks, UK
    #7 BombTaxi, Apr 19, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2010
    Germany was flying jets before the war started, so it is possible that they could have employed a combat type earlier than they did. That would have had a dramatic effect on the course of events, but then again there is a natural tendency to shy away from the unknown when you are fighting a total war, and stick with things that work. I suppose the Germans could have strapped MG FF to the Heinkel design and flown it in combat, and the RAF could have put Brownings on the Pioneer and flown that in combat, but I think there were genuine problems with the new technology that would have made it unsuitable for mass production so early on. Piston engines would still have been in widespread use to ensure a fleet of reliable aircraft of known performance to do the majority of the work.

    EDIT: I'm going to try to clarify this because it sounds like I'm trying to have it both ways. There is a difference between groundbreaking design and groundbreaking technology. For example, the P-51 used a known engine and main weapon in an airframe built around known principles. The difference was the way in which these components were arranged gave performance beyond that of other aircraft built with the same core components. What the designers did know from the start, however, was that all of this stuff worked - it had been proven in combat.

    On the other hand, jets were new technology. There were no other combat jets prior to the Me262/Meteor, so no record to judge the design parameters against. It was literally a case of doing the best you could and then seeing what happened. Neither side could afford to take that risk before 1942. After that, the Allies were clearly winning so could afford to experiment, while the Axis was so desperate that it would try anything to win. That is why jets were not in combat in 1940.
     
  8. Waynos

    Waynos Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,309
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I've often wondered idly about this in the past. It languished for 8 years before being given the go ahead I believe? Also weren't the basics of the Metrovick axia jet schemed out in 1926?

    So, just for fun, transposing the real timeline back 8 years we have a first flight in 1933 for the whittle (rearmament, budget, Ten Year Rule, all wilfully ignored - this is the pure version :) )

    This would mean installation for a test flight in, what? The arse end of a bomber I suppose, unless HP still have their monocoque stressed skin HP 21 fighter available for conversion? It does, though, mean that a jet fighter might be specified from F.34/35? The Westland Whirlwind would have almost certainly been a jet though and that is a nice prospect :)
     
  9. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,760
    Likes Received:
    791
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    You kind of have to define what technology is really available.

    Both the Napier Sabre and the Bristol Centaurus were flying in 1940 but neither was ready for squadron service for several more years. Design work on both had been started around 1936 or so.

    Are they 1940 technology?

    The Hispano cannon was also several years old in 1940 but the only installation that worked well for most of 1940 were in fuselage mounts with drum feeds.

    So if you start with an idea in 1935-37 and have a working prototype in 1940 you may have the engine/gun/airplane in service by 1942-43.
     
  10. Markus

    Markus Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    With the benefit of hindsight I´ll put an inline engine behind the cockpit so there is room for a short 37mm cannon and one or two 12.7mm machine guns in the nose. Two additional heavy machine guns go in the wings, who like the entire airframe are as small as possible. I guess it won´t take more than one or two hits with such voluminous Minengeschoss-shells to shoot down a B-17. :twisted:
     
  11. timshatz

    timshatz Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,441
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    MGR
    Location:
    Phila, Pa
    Figure out a way to put a couple of merlins on a whirlwind. Not going to be the ultimate, but it would be a pretty good fighter.
     
  12. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    P-38's with Merlins, a 4 bladed prop and dive brakes.
     
  13. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,185
    Likes Received:
    2,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    If you're going to go shopping with available technology and parts in 1940, then I'd put my money on Heinkel's He280. If anything, that would have forced new fighter design/technology far sooner all across the board.
     
  14. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Entered service at the end of 1940. Excellent performance compared to contemporary fighter aircraft. Dirt cheap to mass produce. Good potential for additional performance improvements as the DB601 / DB605 engine was rapidly increasing in power output.
     
  15. Mustang Driver

    Mustang Driver New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Occupation:
    Education
    Location:
    Southwest U.S.
    #15 Mustang Driver, Apr 19, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2010
    I'm with the Merlin P-38 idea. Way cool.
     
  16. Mustang Driver

    Mustang Driver New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Occupation:
    Education
    Location:
    Southwest U.S.
    Just checking to see if my pic comes up with my post. Hi, y'all.
     
  17. MikeGazdik

    MikeGazdik Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    531
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Ohio
    #17 MikeGazdik, Apr 20, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2010
    Put a P-51 type wing on a Bf 109. Slightly smaller in area than the P-51, around the same or a little more than the Bf 109. But most importantly the internal layout, with wing tanks and useful landing gear.

    Since the Luftwaffe favored cannons, 2- 20mm wing guns and two machine guns in each wing. Delete the engine mounted cannon. Use the "F" type fuselage to eliminate the horizontal tail struts, and tuck in that tail wheel! All of this combined with arguably the best V- type engine of the war. One killer package !

    It would change the air war dramatically !
     
  18. Timppa

    Timppa Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Finland
    -Mustang airframe with DB601 engine; significantly better high altitude performance. GM-1 could be fitted later.
    -Armament would be 4 MG FF/M cannons; most firepower with least weight. These would be replaced later with MG151/20.
    -Original canopy would be replaced with bulged Spitfire -canopy (Malcolm -hood)
     
  19. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,987
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    83
    #19 tomo pauk, Apr 20, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2010
    Not really 1940, but 1941 (sorry for this :) ): the Bf-109 without the vices/issues. Wings attached to the 'wing plugs', with a cannon in each plug, making for three cannons total (without convergence issues), no hull MGs (fuel tank instead those ammo), wide-track undercarriage, slightly increased wing span vs. the 109F.
    Akin to Bf-109H, but more compact simple.
    Sure enough, P-51 with DB-601N would've been a world beater in 1940 (easy 650 km/h?, with great range); I'd mount 4 x Shvak 'stead of 4 x MG/FF though. Heck, I'll draw it :)

    added: The Merlin XX was also available for the time frame - 1300 HP for take off, vs. 1175 for the 601N...
     

    Attached Files:

  20. renrich

    renrich Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,542
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    real estate
    Location:
    Montrose, Colorado
    Substitute four 50 BMGs in the wings of the Spitfire for the eight 303s.
     
Loading...

Share This Page