Ultimate WWII fighter

tomo pauk · Apr 21, 2010

D. 520 with turbo-Allison (glycol radiator (2 pcs) in front of wing roots), 2 x Shvak (one per wing):

delcyros · Apr 21, 2010

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.

drgondog · Apr 21, 2010

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.

tomo pauk · Apr 21, 2010

delcyros said:
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.

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?

tomo pauk · Apr 21, 2010

drgondog said:
...

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.

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

tomo pauk · Apr 21, 2010

Something like this:

drgondog · Apr 21, 2010

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..

Jabberwocky · Apr 21, 2010

billswagger said:
It isn't to say you couldn't design a CPS system for the Merlin that was better at keeping the RPMs in check.

It is probably less a capability issue than a reliability issue. Something that they probably solved with later variants.

Bill

Which they did, in 1940, for the Merlin 20 family.

Which then appeared on all Merlin powered aircraft from mid-1940 onwards...

billswagger · Apr 21, 2010

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

ShopRat · Apr 21, 2010

I would pretty much say that the P-51 and its Rolls Royce V12 was arguably the pinacle of prop fighter technology.....

i would give it a few cannons for extra firepower and call 'er good

MikeGazdik · Apr 22, 2010

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 · Apr 22, 2010

drgondog said:
Tomo - you are having too much fun..

No, I would not think of a radial in the 51 airframe (or the 109)

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).

Would have been interesting to contemplate the Merlin in the original F4U airframe however..

Wouldn't it be too-small an engine in too-big an airframe? How about Griffon?

tomo pauk · Apr 22, 2010

MikeGazdik said:
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 !!

I'll use the P-63 for base (longer hull). 4 x 20mm in/under wings and you're set...

riacrato · Apr 22, 2010

Counting prototypes? NA-73 with DB601 E and 5 x MG151/20.

tomo pauk · Apr 22, 2010

Check out the pic on the previous page (3 cannons only there, though)

tomo pauk · Apr 22, 2010

The Griffon-engined F4U, 4 x 20mm:

tomo pauk · Apr 22, 2010

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...

T Bolt · Apr 22, 2010

That F4U with the Griffon is one mean looking machine!! Someone should kitbash one together! What would it look like from the top?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Apr 22, 2010

I could not see a Corsair with a Griffon engine. Just not right...

tomo pauk · Apr 22, 2010

The F4U with Napier Sabre II would've been able to really rock - say, late 1943 (bug-free by that time) for 2200 HP, 2500 HP for early 1945, or 3000 HP for mid '45?

With R-2800 it was already well powerful, though

Ultimate WWII fighter

Creator of Interesting Threads

Attachments

Tech Sergeant

Major

Creator of Interesting Threads

Creator of Interesting Threads

Creator of Interesting Threads

Attachments

Major

Staff Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Recruit

Senior Airman

Creator of Interesting Threads

Creator of Interesting Threads

Senior Airman

Creator of Interesting Threads

Creator of Interesting Threads

Attachments

Creator of Interesting Threads

Attachments

Colonel

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Creator of Interesting Threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads