Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Don't mind Mr Bender on the subject of the German Navy. He seems to have an irrational hatred of the Kriegsmarine which coupled with 20/20 hindsight and the idea that leaders of the time should have been able to see into the Future by 3-6 years which tend to lead him to some rather strange conclusions.
If you will read the parameters and of the thread listed in the first posting you will see that " The P-51 is a '44 plane" does not matter. The point of the thread is determining the criteria for and then making a choice of the best fighter for use under all conditions. Obviously not single aircraft will excel in are areas. The point is to establish what must be considered in making the best compromise of capabilities before making a choice from what was available between 1939-45. Please read the original thread if you need further clarification.
I think the Germans would have loved to have had the P-51 in May 1940. It was exactly what they needed for escort during BOB. During the defense of the Reich P-51s would have been faster and easier to rearm, needed less time refueling between multiple short intercept missions, and would have the range to initiate intercept over the Channel and North Sea from bases deep in Germany far from the harassment of Rodeos.
Back in post #20 you stated "I don't know, I kind of like the idea of dozens of squadrons of Hawker Tempest IIs blasting hapless He 111s out of the sky in the BoB in the summer of 1940." After reading your posts on other topics, you appear to be very knowledgeable so I think I will take a look on what I have on the Tempest. Is the Tempest II what you exclusively choose based on the listed criteria and scenario? Why is it better than anything else?
Any Air Force would have LOVED to have had planes with 1944 capabilities in 1940. Without time travel is wasn't going to happen. There are reasons that 1944 planes had the capability they did and why 1940 planes had the capabilities THEY did. Like 4 years worth of research and development in aerodynamics, different fuel, improved superchargers ( and not just adding a stage), new bearing materials, new vibration dampers, and host of other small but important detail and material changes. Not to mention changes in manufacturing techniques and testing methods.
What may be more interesting would be to compare the Promised performance of the first NA-73 in 1940 to the performance of planes actually flying in 1940 to see what kind of increase in performance there really was. Especially considering that most planes in combat in 1940 had been on the drawing boards in 1936-37 and so, in some ways were 3-4 years behind the Mustang as it was.
I m sorry you are getting frustrated but as far as I can tell all you are asking is what was the best all round fighter in 1945.
You can dress up the conditions all you want but 1944-45 fighters are going to have 1945 engines ( 2 to 2 1/2 times the power of a 1940 engine), 1945 fuel (allowing for higher power to weigh ratios ratios for the engines) , 1945 armament (new guns, new ammo, new gun sights and with those more powerful engines, a much greater weight of armament)*, a much more through understanding of aerodynamics ( the US alone roughly tripled the number of wind tunnels in operation from 1939 to 1945) and a much better understanding of stress analysis and structures.
So, rather obviously, only late/end war fighters are going to have the performance and armament to compete. Now we can discuss cockpit comfort, cockpit space for radar equipment, ease of landing or low speed handling or some other factors not covered by a simple speed, climb, range,armament/payload comparison but lets not kid ourselves that ANY early war aircraft has a chance of coming out on top. Mid/war planes don't have much chance either.
"Obviously Hurricanes and 109Es from 1940 are not the best choice. Also obviously any aircraft available in 1945 is not an equally good choice to other aircraft available in 1945."
* from above, as a for instance of change, in 1939-40 the American .50cal MG had a cycle rate of 600rpm unsynchronized. At some point in 1940 it was modified to increase the cycle rate to a nominal 850rpm and in the spring of 1945 several more years of work resulted in a type approved M3 version going into production with a rate of fire of 1200rpm. So a 1945 F8F Bearcat with four .50s had twice the firepower per second of a 1940 Wildcat with four .50s. This should also be kept in mind when comparing postwar aircraft to WW II aircraft when discussing armament.
P-51 entered service in 1942; the firepower, while not comparable with 4-cannon Typhoons Hurricanes, was sufficient for tasks of RAF USAAC.
The stability problems were encountered only with rear fuel tank having more than 50% of contents.
The Germans would've loved it, no doubt about that.
P-51 in its ground attack version entered service in '42.
As a long range high altitude escort it entered service in final months of '43 ,that's why i say '44.As for the Germans I'm not sure in what capacity it would be of use to them. As an escort for what?
Nobody is kidding themselves. I and probably many others understand the factors you presented. Perhaps it was a mistake on my part to write "1939-45" as it implies someone might choose other than 1945 technology. "1939-45" was written just to designate an era.
You are missing the point. You have to play the game according to the established rules. So far you are acting like a player running around shouting out the obvious rules of baseball while everyone else it trying to play football. You are obviously knowledgeable of WW2 aircraft performance, but I am beginning to think you are using this thread just to broadcast your breadth of common and esoteric knowledge rather than applying it to the stated parameters in the scenario. This saddens me because I really think you could provide something meaningful if you would just play by the rules.
Thank you Tomo, I too have learned from our exchanges as I have done research or reread books to back up my positions. I do appreciate your enthusiasm and admire your skill in photo-shopping those drawings (how-ever you do it) even if if I don't always agree with your conclusions.Our fellow member Shortround6 myself have exchanged many cyberspace barrages, yet I've never felt he was being obtuse. He made me do a lot of research, and I've learned a lot from his posts. You can try, too.
Nope.
RAF's fighter squadrons used P-51/Mustang, in 1942, along with recce units.
P-51 possessed many capabilities, along with long range. Used by Luftwaffe, it would've been faster than any fighter Russians fielded by 1944. Since Eastern front was pretty large battlefield, long range comes to play, too. Germans used their bombers there up to 1945, so there is something to escort. Or, using it to achieve air superiority over Malta. Or, to provide a fighter escort from Siciliy to Tunisia. And that is before we 'Germanise' the initial P-51, by installing the DB-605 some cannons.
Wouldn't the P-47H have a #?US:
Republic P-47H
What engine did it use in '42 ?
What capability did it have in '42?
It would be faster where ? 30.000 feet? Why would the Russians fight in outer space?
Bf109 did all the things you mention.
You seem to be under the impression that the P-51 was some sort of 1940's F-22 superior in every way...
That's not how the world works it was good in some areas not so good in others.
Most of all it was the right aircraft for the USAAF.