Ultimate WWII fighter
- Thread starter herman1rg
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
According to the follwoing primary sources:
EP/HB52/7 -fuel injection pump for Db-601E
D(Luft)T3601E -engine installation manual for Db-601E
which deals with the Db-601E I think so. The document dates to sept. 1940. Altough this engine didn´t saw any (to the best of my knowledge) use in combat units this year.
But neither did the VG-39.
EP/HB52/7 -fuel injection pump for Db-601E
D(Luft)T3601E -engine installation manual for Db-601E
which deals with the Db-601E I think so. The document dates to sept. 1940. Altough this engine didn´t saw any (to the best of my knowledge) use in combat units this year.
But neither did the VG-39.
drgondog
Major
I would be thinking alon the lines of a 51 with either Merlin or DB601 - both scalable as engine performance improves, or a Fw 190 w/DB601/Merlin - arm both with either FF or Hispano 20mm. Redesign the Mustang from the beginning to extend the fuselage (same concept as P-51H) to enable internal fuse tank (ditto the Fw 190 to Fw 190D early on) w/o creating aft cg issues.
Both airframes have room to scale as far as mission, range, high altitude and low altitude performance and more than adequate bomb/external fuel capability - as well as cheap compared to P-38.
I would not pick either the 109 or Spit as they were interceptors with little volume to scale up as mission changed.
The issue of 1940 technology certainly provides for R-2800 to scale in performance so the F4U is hard to ignore - had it been a USAAF bird the high altitude (non turbo charged) R-2800 should have been accelerated. To me it would have been a superior choice over the P-47.
Both airframes have room to scale as far as mission, range, high altitude and low altitude performance and more than adequate bomb/external fuel capability - as well as cheap compared to P-38.
I would not pick either the 109 or Spit as they were interceptors with little volume to scale up as mission changed.
The issue of 1940 technology certainly provides for R-2800 to scale in performance so the F4U is hard to ignore - had it been a USAAF bird the high altitude (non turbo charged) R-2800 should have been accelerated. To me it would have been a superior choice over the P-47.
Yep, AFAIK it was used on the 109F-4 of (mid?) 1941; the F-1 F-2 using 601N (early 1941), while F-0 used 601Aa (end 1940).
Why such a delay?
Offering the long-range escort from day one?
The P-51 with R-2800? Now that would've been the machine....
Back to the M$ Paint
drgondog
Major
Tomo - you are having too much fun..
No, I would not think of a radial in the 51 airframe (or the 109)
Would have been interesting to contemplate the Merlin in the original F4U airframe however..
No, I would not think of a radial in the 51 airframe (or the 109)
Would have been interesting to contemplate the Merlin in the original F4U airframe however..
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Which they did, in 1940, for the Merlin 20 family.
Which then appeared on all Merlin powered aircraft from mid-1940 onwards...
billswagger
Airman 1st Class
- 256
- Mar 12, 2009
The manual i was looking at was referring to the Merlin XII which was used in the Mk I and MK II Spits.
It also refers to the use of a constant speed prop, so maybe it had more to do with the introduction of the reduction gear.
The manual is printed in 1940, and revised in 1941.
I suppose for this thread you could take the Merlin 20s that went into the Hurricanes and make better use with them. That actually might be the better options for my plane instead of using the Allison.
Bill
It also refers to the use of a constant speed prop, so maybe it had more to do with the introduction of the reduction gear.
The manual is printed in 1940, and revised in 1941.
I suppose for this thread you could take the Merlin 20s that went into the Hurricanes and make better use with them. That actually might be the better options for my plane instead of using the Allison.
Bill
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
Hopefully Rollys Royce was working on it in 1940, but now my sick thinking has me wanting a P-39 with a Rolls Royce Griffon !!! It too would be only a interceptor, no extra room for increased fuel consumption. Big ole 2100hp V-12, with contra -rotating props sticking out of the sleek nose! Sweeeeeet!
Tomo Pauk, gotta make me one of these!! Complete with the rocker arm cover "bulges" like the Spits !!
Tomo Pauk, gotta make me one of these!! Complete with the rocker arm cover "bulges" like the Spits !!
Last edited:
109 was perhaps to gentle for an one-ton engine, but not the 51 - I was just mating the best engine with the best airframe (ducks for cover).
Wouldn't it be too-small an engine in too-big an airframe? How about Griffon?
I'll use the P-63 for base (longer hull). 4 x 20mm in/under wings and you're set...
Not unlike the ordinary P-63, this one is with Griffon, contra-rotating props, the dorsal air scoop serves now the inter-cooler*, while supercharger air scoop is about a foot under the front exhaust stub and slightly in front of it. Only 2 cannons depicted here.
*Too bad they didn't bother with Merlin in this layout, for P-39...
*Too bad they didn't bother with Merlin in this layout, for P-39...
Attachments
T Bolt
Colonel
That F4U with the Griffon is one mean looking machine!! Someone should kitbash one together! What would it look like from the top?
I could not see a Corsair with a Griffon engine. Just not right...
for mid '45?
