What aircraft (any side) would you develope further

An F2A-3 with 1350 hp (or better, 1450 hp) R-1820 engine would have compensated for the added weight, bringing performance back to F2A-2 levels, and also had a 2-speed supercharger for better altitude performance. (the 1300 hp SL-rated version produced 1000 hp at 17,500 ft with supercharger at high-speed setting) The F2A-3 would have had about the same power load with a 1300 hp engine as the F2A-2 did with its 1200 hp engine did (at both normal and maximum weights) so more hp should have put performance above that of the F2A-2. Though Brewster still had management troubles which limited production quantity, punctuality (keeping to dedlines), and (to a lesser extent) quality. The stability of Grumman was probably the biggest advantage of the F4F over the F2A (the only other being durrabillity/survivabillity) and Brewster probably would have been best off with outsoursing to suplement production.

A P-36 with 1300hp(87 octane)-1450hp(100/130 octane) P&W R-2000 would have brought performance to P-40 standards0 and with a P-42 configuration (with proper fan cooling) performance would likely surpass that of even later P-40s (like the Kittyhawk and Warhawk). I beleive the R-2000 had a 2-speed or 2-stage supercharger too, which would greatly improve altitude performance compared to the V-1710 rated for 13,000 ft. It also had the added durrabillity of a radial engine. The 1300-1450 hp Wright R-1820 engine mentioned above would also have such an effect. And may have been a better choice as the R-2000 was still developmental in 1942.

I would say the F8F Bearcat. I will admit that Grumman is my favorite plane maufacturer, and that coming from a Navy family I am a little biased. This I freely admit, but i also think the Bearcat would have been more than formidable!

From Wikipedia-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F8F_Bearcat

"Designed for the interceptor fighter role, the design team's aim was to create the smallest, lightest fighter that could fit around the Pratt Whitney R2800 engine (carried over from the F6F Hellcat). Compared to its predecessor, the Bearcat was 20% lighter, had a 30% better rate of climb and was 50 mph (80 km/h) faster. In comparison with the Vought F4U Corsair, the initial Bearcat (F8F-1) was marginally slower but was more maneuverable and climbed faster. Its huge 12' 4" Aero Products four-bladed prop required a long landing gear, giving the Bearcat an easily-recognized, "nose-up" profile. For the first time in a production Navy fighter, an all-bubble canopy offered 360-degree visibility."

"The Bearcat's design was influenced by an evaluation in early 1943 by Grumman test pilots and engineering staff of a captured Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighter in England.[1]After flying the Fw 190, Grumman test pilot Bob Hall wrote a report he directed to President Leroy Grumman who personally laid out the specifications for Design 58, the successor to the Hellcat, closely emulating the design philosophy that had spawned the German fighter. The F8F Bearcat would emanate from Design 58 [2] with the primary missions of outperforming highly maneuverable late-model Japanese fighter aircraft such as the A6M-5 Zero[3], and defending the fleet against incoming airborne suicide (kamikaze) attacks.[4]"

"The F8F prototypes were ordered in November 1943 and first flew on 21 August 1944, a mere nine months later. The first production aircraft was delivered in February 1945 and the first squadron was operational by 21 May, but World War II was over before the aircraft saw combat service."

"Postwar, the F8F became a major US Navy fighter, equipping 24 fighter squadrons. Often mentioned as one of the best (if not the best) handling piston-engine fighters ever built, their performance was such that they even outperformed many early jets. Its capability for aerobatic performance is borne out by the choice of the Bearcat for the Navy's elite Blue Angels in 1946, who flew it until the team was temporarily disbanded in 1950 (during the Korean War). The Grumman F9F Panther and McDonnell F2H Banshee largely replaced the Bearcat in USN service, as their performance and other advantages eclipsed piston-engine fighters."

"An unmodified production F8F-1 set a 1946 time-to-climb record (after a run of 115 feet) of 10,000 feet in 94 seconds. The Bearcat held this record for ten years until it was broken by a modern jet fighter (which could still not match the Bearcat's short takeoff distance)."

Although the writing was on the wall eventually with the advent of jet powered fighters, had the war gone on long enough for the Bearcat enter combat, it would have been interesting to see waht effect it would have had.
Also if the war had gone on long enough for the Bearcat to have been improved on, maybe have its range improved, speed increased, etc. This is one of my favorites.

kool kitty89 said:

You're correct insufficient thrust was the only problem that a fix hadn't been found for. (...)
Overall the Nene/J42 would probably be the best solution.

Click to expand...

But that would have meant the fighter would not have been available before 1947. So you're basically talking about a Cold War fighter.
But wouldn't there have been better designs available by then, incorporating the German lessons and technology?

Kris

The bearcat was alittle late though, and it came at a time when interceptors were somewhat unnecessary. We were on the offensive, we needed tough, high-performance, long-range escort and penetration craft. The fact is that the F4U probably would have been much more useful to the US. The armament was impressive with its M3 machine guns (despite having only 4), but the late model Corsairs were being armmed with 4x 20mm cannons. The F4U-5 would probably have outperformed the F8F too.

As for other interceptors and early jets, the FH Phantom would have been better. Though it only had 4 M3's, the nose-mounted formation concentrated firepower. Though slow for a jet, the Phantom had a none too shabby 479mph top speed at sea level. It was flying in January of '45 and was able to take off on a single underdeveloped XJ30 engine (~1200 lbf) as the second wasn't ready. It had very low wingloading, high powerload (thrust/weight of .32 @ normal weight). It was also quite light with a loaded weight scarsely over 10,000 lbs! Normal range was a decent 695 mi and max range was 980 mi. It was the first all American jet fighter built (the Westinghouse J30 was referred to as the "Yankee" as it was an independent design, though there was one thing British about it as the Whittle-based shell-combustors and flame-cans used by GE replaced the troublesome annular one) and also only the second fighter designed by the young Mc Donnell company. (the first being the XP-67 Bat)
It was still in development at the war's end, but had the invasion of Japan gone on as planned it would have certainly seen service before the war's end and production should have been well under way by late '45.

Delcyros, you've said the L133 and L-1000 designs were unworkable, but I'm not entirely sure that's true. The L133 design was obviously too advanced and the cockpit seems crampes. (or at least the canopy seems that way at under 2ft wide) And the complex thruster roll-controll and boundary layer control systems were overcomplex and unnecessary (even by today's standards). But the overall design could have been altered to a resonable level by placeng both the elevator and ailerons in the tail (like in a delta) or using elevons, or using ailerons on the wings and altering the canard to act as an elevator. The canopy could be widened and turned into a buble-type one, and the continuous verticle-fin-canopy airfoil shape would be eliminated. The active boundary-layer control would be removed and boundary layer air-bleeds would be used where necessary. The original desing was supposed to acheive Mach .94 and aven with the alterations it should remain quite high. These developments would be conceivable if the USAAF had requested a simplified version with low-level priorety. Such a design should have been ready for testing shortly after the war. By no means did the AAF make the wrong decesion of producing large numbers of conventional fighters, but a low-level development plan wouldn't have hurt and the L-133 could have developed into a nice Korean-War erra fighter.

The engine, though quite advanced, was not actually a failure. (though development was canceled, it was not due to unworkabillity, but more to its redundancy) The L-1000 was an original development of Nathan Price, and in a way he was the US contemporary of Ohain and Whittle in that he designed the US's first jet engine and started development prior to the outbreak of the war, and did it completly independently of other nations.
From: Air Force Magazine "There were other experimenters contemporary with Frank Whittle and Hans von Ohain. American Nathan Price developed a 3,500-pound-thrust engine, and Clarence "Kelly" Johnson designed an advanced fighter to use it, but the Army Air Corps considered it so advanced that it was unlikely to be completed before World War II was over. The Army Air Corps therefore rejected it."

This engine was probable the most advanced in the world at its time. With overall performance (especially sfc effeciency) never fully matched for an engine of it's thrust range, though it is somewhat heavy. Had the USAAF promoted low-level development in 1940 it might have been useful. However work stopped when the L133 was regected and didn't restart untill after the AAC had accepted the merrit of jets and the I-A engines had flown in the XP-59A. Work continued at Lockheed, but eventualy it was transferred as Lockheed was buisy with aircraft designs. From: Lockheed L-133 by Tom Conte (Scratchbuilt 1/72)
"While the L-133 aircraft was never built, the L-1000 engine was. It was one of the most powerful and efficient engines of its time. Construction was started during the war, but Lockheed gave up on its development testing and permitted the Menasco Engine Manufacturing Co. to continue with it so it could concentrate on other projects. It turned out to be a handful for Menasco and the XJ-37 as it was now called wound up at Wright Aeronautical Corp. for testing until nearly 1950. The engine finally came to rest in a corner of Chino's Planes of Fame museum in California."

It eventually ended up with Wright who tested it but eventually dropped the design. The L-1000 was a single spool axial-flow engine with a 32 stage compressor and 4 stage turbine designed to produce 3500 lbf dry, 5500 lbf afterburning with amazing fuel efficiency and weighing 1543 lbs. The XJ37 engine tested by Wright produced 3000 lbf dry at .87 [lb/lbf hr] sfc and 5000 lbf afterburning at 1.7 [lb/lbf hr].
The project was cancelled in 1950. The only major advantages over the Westinghouse J34 engine (which had almost identical dimentions, thrust ratings and weight) then in production was a lower sfc, especially afterburning. Both engines were about 25 in dia. and weighed around 1600 lbs with afterburner, but the sfc of the J34 was 1.00 at 3,300 lbf dry and 2.60 at 4,900 afterburning. The J34 used a single-spool system with an 11 stage compressor and a 2 stage turbine. Despite the superiority of the J37 its development was behind and lacked the skill of Lockheed. Had Lockheed continued development, the engine would have been ideal for the XF-90 long-range fighter which had been underpowered with 4200 lbf J34 engines, plus it could have reduced the normal fuel load and weight. (the higher-powered afterburners were developed independantly of Westinghouse, by Mc Donnell and others for their use like with the XF-88) I'm confident that, if work had never halted (even low-level work) Lockheed designers would have had it ready for production by 1950 or shortly after.

Performance statistics from: Military Turbojet/Turbofan Specifications

It should be noted that the engine was designed and in development before the NACA started their jet propultion studies and programs of the early 1940s (including westinghouse, GE, and others. see: ch3 ) and, though the NACA did corespond with Lockheed on the design and it was the NACA project that spurred the return to developmunt in 1942, the engine was an independent project.
Another note should be made that the L-133 should have worked using J34 engines as the performance, sive and weight were all similar; though performance would be somewhat lower and range would be less.)

As mentioned earlier the engine resides at Chino's Planes of Fame. This is amazing, as I had no idea one of these had survived, but I'll admit that I'm not all too surprised it was POF that saved it. If anion it would have been them, as they are one of the best a/c history conservation organizations in the US. It's just amazing: (again from: Lockheed L-133 by Tom Conte (Scratchbuilt 1/72) )
"The engine finally came to rest in a corner of Chino's Planes of Fame museum in California. Back in 1993 while I was wandering around a hanger I came across what appeared to be a large waffle wrapped around a sewer pipe under and behind another display. When I realized this dusty relic's important position in the early history of jet aircraft, I was inspired to learn more about the engine and aircraft, which resulted in a model.

Although the L-133 aircraft was not built does not mean it never contributed to the wealth of aeronautical information. If one notices, it has the same wing outline as the P-80 Shooting Star Lockheed did build a few years later. One reason that the P-80 was able to be constructed and flown so quickly was because the engineers could draw from their previous work on the L-133."

I wonder if it's still working. It would be a great complement and contrast to their YP-59A that's soon to be flying. I wonder if Evanglider knows that POF has the engine.


Comparing Lockheed's P-80A to Bell's P-59A is a far worse comparison than the Me-262 to the He-280, as the 280 at least had good performance, it just lacked proper engines in time. But comparing the L-133 to the P-80 is similar to comparing the Me-262A-1a with the Me-262 HG III with 2x HeS 011 engines. The He-20 was only inferior as an interceptor to the Me-262 and though the Aerodynamics were less the critical mach of .79 is still higher than the Meteor III and equal to the Vampire Mk I.

Honestly, though, the He-280 could have been in production while the 262 was still in development if Ohain had taken a more conservative approach. If he had continued improving on the sucessful HeS 6 deesign instead of working on the troublesome HeS 8, the He 280 could have been test flown immediately with these engines instead of performing glide-tests. This may have allowed some of the flaws of the 280 to be corrected in time to contend with the Me 262, or simple beat it to production as it should have been ready by early 1942 with improved HeS 6 engines. Though due to the He 280's design around narrower engines (HeS 30 according to the below article), the HeS 6 engines could still be mid-mounted (or partially so) in the wings (to allow grownd clearance) with the engine mounted behind the main wing spar and mounted on a strengthened section cut into the wing similar to the Meteor.

The HeS 6 would have been a far better intrim measure for the HeS-30 than the HeS 8 was. Though larger and heavier than the HeS 3b, the HeS 6 was not much wider (still much smaller than Whittle's W.2 engine; ~37in/.94 compared to ~44in/1.12m for the W.2) as the combustor had been elongated to fit closer around the engine with even more folded infront of the compressor and specific fuel consumption was much improved as it used about as much fuel at full throttle as the HeS 3b but with significantly more thrust. The engine produced 1300 lbf at 13300 rpm by the time work moved to the HeS 8 in late 1939.(thrust that the HeS 8 didn't produce untill late 1941, and only after an axial compressor stage had been added) If Ohain and Max Hahn cotinued on improving the output and efficiency of the HeS 6 (most importantly using turbine alloys to replace the plain steel or using air bleed to cool the then uncooled turbine) such improvements should have allowed the engine to run at speeds closer to the 16,000+ rpm that Whittle was able to acheive with improved turbines. (though whittle needed Nimonic 80 to do this, Ohain's radial turbine was inherently stronger as such turbines suffer from less thermal and mechanical wear than axial ones, so possibly 14,500 rpm)

One quote from [B]Pioneering Turbojet Developments of Dr. Hans Von Ohain—From the HeS 1 to the HeS 011[/B] (see: Cookies Required) is that: " Engine Development for the He 280 Jet FighterShortly after the demonstration of the He 178 to the RLM,Heinkel started development of a twin engine fighter which wasdesignated the He 280. The aircraft could not use engines of theHeS 3B type because of the large engine diameter and low per-formance. At this time, however, the axial flow engine designatedthe HeS 30 that was being developed by Mueller who had arrivedat the Heinkel Rostock plant, was experiencing serious develop-ment problems. Recognizing that this engine would not be readyin time, von Ohain took a gamble in designing a back up solution designated the HeS 8 which would employ a radial rotor similar tothe HeS 3B combined with an axial vane diffuser and a straightthrough flow combustor. Only 14 months were available for this development, as the He 280 airframe was developed much faster than its engines. It is interesting to examine the history of the Mueller engine incontext of von Ohain's work. Mueller had his initial contacts withHeinkel and Dr. von Ohain in early 1939 when he offered to bringHeinkel the Wagner engine and the project team. At this time, Mueller gave the impression that the engine program was well advanced and Heinkel and von Ohain believed that this program together with their own HeS 3 engine would place Heinkel in a leading position as a jet engine maker. Mueller and his team were hired by Heinkel and came over in the summer of 1939. The Wagner engine took on the Heinkel designation of HeS 30. Mueller and his team were incorporated in Dr. von Ohain's propulsion group and given the task to finalize the development of the HeS 30. Dr. von Ohain and Heinkel soon realized that this engine program was nowhere near the advanced stage, implied by Mueller. Heinkel pushed hard for the effort to make this program successful especially as the HeS 30 was to be the propulsion plant for Heinkel He 280 fighter. During contract negotiations with the RLM, Udet, who was supportive of Heinkel and who had recognized that Heinkel needed engine manufacturing capability and skilled manufacturing manpower to compete with the established engine companies, made Heinkel a gentlemen's agreement that if the He 280 succeeded in flying before April 1941 Heinkel could buy the Hirth Motoren company in Stuttgart. By the end of 1939 the HeS 30 progress was very slow and Heinkel, concerned of the adverse impact on the He 280 program, approached Dr. von Ohain to develop a backup solution. Dr. vonOhain's solution, designated the HeS 8A, was a design based onthe HeS 3B but with an axial diffuser and a straight through flow combustor. The engine program was done under a RLM contractgiving the engine the first RLM designation of a German turbojet the 109-001. It was not without risks because the specification ofthe aircraft limited the engine diameter and therefore the axial diffuser function and efficiency together with the straight through combustor became very critical. Luckily for Heinkel, von Ohain's HeS 8 engine managed to meet the minimum requirements andwas ready in time for the first flight of the He 280 which tookplace in late March 1941. The HeS 30 program still sufferedseveral problems including a mismatch between the compressorand turbine. (which resulted in excessive mass flow) Thus, it is thanks to von Ohain's HeS 8 that the He 280 flew on schedule and the RLM allowed Heinkel to purchase Hirth Motoren company which could then give the Mueller team support with the HeS 30 program."

I might have developed the Lancaster quicker. By putting merlin 61 or griffon 61 and replacing the turrets with 20mm or 0.50. or both. Extenting the bomb bay and you've got a decent day bomber with high altitude and high speed performance. I would also put a vental turret (a copy of the dorsal turret upside-down) just behind the bomb bay. Because I think we should have made some effort in the day bombing. However, I wouldn't use such a close formation as the Lanc could maneovour well! Oh and retract the bloody tail-wheel!

I also would've been keen to make the Westland Whirlwind with merlins 20s. All you need to do is redesign the nuscles and add a bit of cooling. I don't think the peregrine could have been developed more unless u put two stage superchargers on it, afterall it was effectively a uprated kestral which had already been in service for 7 years! I had some ideas for the Manchester too! It could have been our standard medium bomber. With two Griffon IV just entering service in 1942 we could have had a decent medium bomber. I would have decrease the bomb bay a bit. Remove the nose turret and put a streamlined nose with a few forward firing guns. Again retract the bloody tail-wheel! I hate it when we made a good plane but make it look flimsy by leaving the tail-wheel down!

I would have liked to have seen more of this

I just think it's cool that a piston engine aircraft held the time to climb record for 10 years, and in those 10 years many jet aircraft have become operational with the US military. I bet it was a blast to fly.

Yep, it was a nice aircraft, though the Meteor soon beat this climb with its 7,000 ft/min climb, and the Rolls-Royce Avon testbed meteor holds the world record today iirc. From: The Gloster Meteor
"The F.8 proved popular as a test and trials aircraft. F.8s were used to test airborne radar for the Fireflash missile, midair refueling schemes, and engine fits. A heavily modified F.8 experimentally fitted with Armstrong-Siddeley Sapphire 2 engines set a world climb-rate record in August 1951. One test rig was fitted with the Armstrong-Siddeley Screamer rocket engine, fitted under the fuselage. Another was fitted with Rolls-Royce Soar mini-jet engines on the wingtips, while retaining its Derwents, making it the only four-engine Meteor."

The He 100 was a good plane, and better in almost all characteristics than the Bf 109. The problem was a weak armament of only 1x 20mm MG FF cannon and 2x 7.92 MG 17 guns. Though this could probably been improved with use of MG 151/15 or MG 151/20 cannons.


And Civettone, I missed your post earlier. Perhaps licensed Nene engines would be too far in the future, as would be powerful US axial-flow engines. (except maybe the J35, but it was heavy and much better matched to single engined craft like the XP-84 which used its streamling quite to its advantage).

Perhaps Bell should have used a somewhat smaller design with a normal loaded weight of ~16,300 lbs, and max takeoff of ~20,000 lbs. They could use the J36 Goblin engines which by this time were much further along and nearing production at an uprated 3000 lbf thrust; these engines only used ~1.15 [lb/lbf hr] of fuel compared to the 1.24 [lb/lbf hr] of early J33s. This would lower the necessary fuel load. (fuel load for this plane should be around 70% of the XP-83's) Such a craft would have good power load and weight and size low enough to make a good fighter. Thrust/weight would be ~.37 normal and .30 at max weight, quite good for the time. Such a design would allow improved streamlining and performance. Speed probably nearing that of the P-80A (probably around 540 mph max) with a range still around 2000 mi. The armament could still use the 6 powerful .60 cal guns proposed (based on the MG 151/15 iirc, though with a higher rof)

Comparing such a design with the P-80 would be somewhat like comparing a P-38 with a FW-190. Whereas the XP-83 is more like a Mossie.

Speaking of the J36 goblin engine, what if Bell had improved the P-59 with smaller, thinner wings (scaled down to 88% of the originals, reducing area to ~300 ft2 compared to the original 386 ft2) and improve the wing-intake junction (if the smaller wings already didn't already solve this) and fit 2x 2700 lbf (they didn't reach 3,000 lbf until early 1945 iirc) and improve fuel capacity, armament (either P-38's or 5x .50 cal with 300+ rpg), and streamline the canopy and improve range of vision. Not necessarily a bubble-type but less framing and a smoother shape with larger rear windows)

Such improvements should allow for a top speed of 530+ mph with a thrust/weight of .40+ (assuming loaded weight increases to ~11,700 lbs) and .33+ at a max load of ~14,000 lbs. Assuming internal fuel is increased to ~420 gallons from the original ~214 gallons (the P-59B had already been increased to ~370 gal), which should increase normal combat range to ~450 mi, and ~730 mi with 2x 125 gal tanks. (with ferry range increased to well over 1000 mi) There would also be some range gain with the higher efficiency of the Goblin engines, though, at high throttle it would be somewhat less. Climb would be dramatically increased and overall performance would likely be similar to the Meteor Mk 4. Of course, these improvements would only be useful if bell had continued development in early 1943, and it should have been ready before the P-80 was. (probably late 1944, though it probably wouldn't see service any earlier than the Meteor III)

The I16 Rata...hands down.

Where do you get your information on the L-1000 from? It doesn't tally with any of the other information I've ever seen on this. Most sources go like this;

In 1943 the Army did support the engine as a long-range project called XJ-37. Like so many projects, it combined great promise with complexity and severe problems, so in October 1945 Lockheed handed the whole effort, including Price, to Menasco. This company in turn passed it to Wright, which eventually gave up.

From Jet and Turbine Engines by Bill Gunston

Those specs off that website must be design figures. A pressure ratio of 25? (my other soruces say 17) with a 32! stage compressor and 4-stage turbine? And this engine is meant to weigh in at 1543lb? Either those stats are completely wrong or its indicative of why the engine wouldn't work. When you consider the surge problems experienced with the Avon with a p.r. of 6.50, this, a single spool compressor with a far higher p.r. would be almost impossible to start. Thinking about it, the boundary layer buildup through the compressor would make the efficiency plummet. Thats without mentioning that they'd have to build the compressor out of stainless steel or Inconel as its too early for titanium.

It used 2 16-stage contra-rotating units (similar to the DB 007) If it had been handed to GE or Allison, it might have had more success.... I read more in "The Jet Race and the Second World war" and it seems it was a 2-spool system. See: The Jet Race and the Second World War - Google Book Search

I think the individual compressor stages were relatively small, so the dimentions were similar to the 11-stage J34. Though I doubt the engine would have been successful until the mid '50s, it might have done better in the Hands of a company like GE... And the 25.0 pressure ratio seems odd too, maby not everything on the site is correct. (as the 2000lbf J31-GE-5 of the P-59B is listed as 1550 lbf...)

It's still the US's first jet-engine design to be developed, albeit they may have bitten off a bit too much to start with... And it's interesting that the Prototype exists. As said, it would be an interesting contrast to the very conservative J31 and PYP-59 they have on display. Perhaps it would have been best to simlify the engine down to a single-spool 16 stage 2 turbine design with simpler opperation. Or maby 8-stage single turbine...

kool kitty89 said:

It used 2 16-stage contra-rotating units (similar to the DB 007) If it had been handed to GE or Allison, it might have had more success.... I read more in "The Jet Race and the Second World war" and it seems it was a 2-spool system. See: The Jet Race and the Second World War - Google Book Search

Click to expand...

Wow! A 2-spool core? That's pretty advanced for 1940's technology; a reliable 2-spool core wasn't developed until the 1950's. We're just now developing reliable three-spool cores.

The Jumo 004H and 012 were 2-spool systems (though not contra-rotating) if I have my termiology correct: a 2-spool system uses 2 seperate turbine stages to drive 2 separate compressor stages right?

As for contra-rotating single-spool designs of the war, the DB 007 was one (made 2,500lbf, but was overcomplex to be practical in the timeframe) The Meterovick F.2 also used contrarotating stages iirc.

But Lockheed would have needed to work on a simplified design if it was to be ready before the war's end. Simpify the engine to one using similar compressor and turbine design but for lower efficiency, thrust and weight. Single spool 16-stage compressor 2-stage turbine engine of similar diameter but shorter and somewhat lighter. Or maby even an 8-10 stage single turbine engine scaled up to twice the original scale produce realitively more power. (up to ~35 in diameter so ~200% the area)

Maby somewhat similar to the J30 engine... Use a simplified airframe too. (probably along the lines of the P-80 but with twin-engines)

How about the Fw-187? Out of any fighter that could have been available in significant numbers in time for the BOB the 187 probably had the most potential on influencing the outcome of the BOB. (the He 100 probably being second in this respect, though it mavy have had just enough range to make an effective escort; the Bf 109 certainly didn't, particularly in a close formation escort where fuel wasn't used as efficiently, and even worse with head-winds)

With the original single-seat configuration with 2x DB 600 engines it was an incredible plane for its time, and even with the poorer Jumo 210 engines and 2-seat arrangement later forced upon the design it was still a decent a/c (far better than the Bf 110) and would have been a nasty surprise for the British...

Definately have to agree with you on that one Kool Kitty. Two 20mm and four 7.92mm guns (I think it was 4 mgs, but correct me if I'm wrong) is about the same fire power that the early Bf110s had, but it was all facing forwards. Added to this was the fact that the plane regularly clocked in excess of 330mph. Finally, the prototypes and pre-production models that were actually used in combat (Norway, I think) were highly praised for their handling and such by their pilots.

The He 100 was a good plane, and better in almost all characteristics than the Bf 109. The problem was a weak armament of only 1x 20mm MG FF cannon and 2x 7.92 MG 17 guns. Though this could probably been improved with use of MG 151/15 or MG 151/20 cannons.

Click to expand...

Really? All my books list it with two or more cannons.

I've always seen 2x 20mm MG-FF and 4x 7.92mm MG-17 for the Fw-187, though stronger armaments could probably be fitted later on (with MG-131's and MG-151/20's or maby some 30mm cannons, though 30mm's could certainly be mounted externaly)
And the 330-340 mph figure is for the forced (and unnecessary, as the second crewman was little more than a radio operator) 2-seat version (and preproduction craft) that used the 670 PS (about the same as HP) Junkers-Jumo 210G wich was forced on the design even though the Bf-110 was allowed to use the DB-600 and 601. (and progressive models) In fact, the 210 powered version managed to live up to the origial projected speeds for the 1000 PS DB-600 powered version!(though climb and service ceiling would be less)
However, Focke-Wolf went ahead and tested with DB engines anyway and managed an amazing 636 km/h (395 mph) with 1000 PS DB-600s! As said these figures are similar to those acheived by the P-38 with the same engine power, though several years later. At such speeds, along with climb and dive performance better than the 109 and ~1000 mi range it would have been virtually unstopable in the BOB and it was nearly as maneuverable in the horizontal as the 109, and moreso in some circumstances. (as it had lower wing-loading, though lacked the LE slats, though it probably retained energy better) Comparing this performance to the Hurricane Mk.1's performance is like comparing the P-51 to the Me 262 in many ways, except the Fw 187 would have better acceleration than the Hurricane as well and good low-speed handeling.

Info is based mostly from: Focke-Wulf 187 archive file


The He 100's armament I sited is for the pre-production He-100D-1, which was the only one to see any actual service iirc, the 2x 7.92mm and 2x 20mm I'm not sure about (though the He 112B-2 used it iirc), but the He 100C was to carry 4x MG 17 and 2x MG FF. (the same armament as the early Fw-190As) That would have been a devestating armament for a single-engined fighter to carry in the 1940-1941 timeframe. Plus the He 100 had considderable longer range than the Bf 109 at 560-650 miles normal range (compared to just over 400 miles with the Bf 109E, inless equiped for a drop-tank), this would have given it at least twice the loiter time of the 109 in the BOB. (the 109 having scarsely 15 min once reaching London)

Info from: Heinkel He 100 archive file

One limitation of the 187 would be the narrow fusalage which, though allowing plenty of room for fuel and weapons (especially as a single-seater), wasn't large enough to contain radar internally (except for some compact radar units available very late in the war).

However the P-38 had similar limitations (even moreso than the 187 with the difficulties of containing a second crewman) and it was possible to get around these as seen in the P-38 pathfinders and the P-38M nightfighter with external radar packs slung under the nose. (though the M didn't see service)