Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
There is only so much you can do with a certain size engine.And just at that time, while we were developing our two-seater He 112 fighter, we saw that someone had overtaken us in the concept, developed it, and sold it to a customer. Namely ... Alexander tried to sell the two-seater SEV-2XP back in 1935 at the tender for a new USAAF fighter regardless of the fact that it is a two-seater. (and later only the pilot remained and he renamed and converted the plane into a P-35). One of these 2PA-B3 versions (which Seversky was literally rebuilding on request) was purchased by Japan for missions specifically ordered by Tom. Fighter protection for bombers deep in enemy territory (in China).
As a conclusion of the success of the plane/concept, I will only say that some examples were sold for civilian use.
Well, Willi got his mitts on an R-1830 for Bf.109 V.21, so there were obviously ways...Not quite. Very early R-2600s were offering 1500hp to take-off and 1200hp at 5400ft. These were single speed engines and showed up in spring of 1937.
There is also some confusion as to just what fuel they needed. Legend says they were the first to use 100 octane fuel (US 100 octane not British 100 octane).
They may have been able to run on 90 or 95 octane fuel. They were used in the first 6 Boeing 314 Clippers which first flew in 1938. First commercial flight in Feb 1939 (?)
These early engines ran at 2300rpm for take-off and 2100rpm "normal".
The later A-314s got an improved R-2600 that offered 1600hp for take-off at 2400rpm and 1350hp at 5000ft at 2300rpm "normal".
This later batch (6) of aircraft were a bit delayed after the first batch and the British bought 3 of them after Pan Am cutback/canceled trans-Atlantic flights to Europe because of WW II and especially after the fall of France.
C-W built a total of 39 R-2600s in 1938. What they were sticking them I don't know. The First B-23 was completed in mid 1939.
By late 1938 the chances of exporting much of anything much more advanced than Piper Cubs to Germany was pretty much over.
This sounds a lot like a Fairey Fulmar.Let's say that RLM/LW by some time of 1935 is open to the attempt to fulfill the requirements for the 'destroyer' aircraft (that, by that time, do not include the gun turrets and bomb load) by an 1-engined aircraft. Requirements still include the long range ( so it can serve in it's primary task, that of bringing the fight to the enemy fighters above the enemy territory), crew of 2, as well as suitable guns' armament.
Companies mostly respond, by 1936, with a fighter powered by the DB 600C engine with the 'beard' radiator, A/C being kinda-sorta 'big fat Bf 109', or something that is sized between the future British fighters (Hurricane and Spitfire). Wing profile of the winning design - let's call it the Bf 113 - is 2R1 16 at root (vs. the Bf 109's 2R1 14.2 and 110's 2R1 18.5). Fighter is of modern looks, with cantilever wing, retractable U/C, while the radioman can also operate the defensive MG, fuel carried is 650L in the internal tanks. At 1st, the firepower is 4 LMGs and two MG FF cannons. By late 1938, DB 601A is the engine installed.
Thus the questions:
- how much this scenario is worse for the LW than the Bf 110 historical scenario from 1939-1942?
- where is this 113 scenario better than the 110 scenario, apart from the obvious (= almost a double number of aircraft is possible for the same resources spent)?
- plausible future upgrades, improvements, new tasks?
The R-1830 was around 5-6 years older than the R-2600, depending on exact milestones. Commercial export had started before things heated up quite so much in Europe.Well, Willi got his mitts on an R-1830 for Bf.109 V.21, so there were obviously ways...
And you really don't gain much.And you only need 1 or 2 for prototypes, then you put the pressure on BMW/DB to supply a German engine.
-P-51D airframe, canopy extended for rear gunner with single MG 81Fighter is of modern looks, with cantilever wing, retractable U/C, while the radioman can also operate the defensive MG, fuel carried is 650L in the internal tanks. At 1st, the firepower is 4 LMGs and two MG FF cannons. By late 1938, DB 601A is the engine installed.
This sounds a lot like a Fairey Fulmar.
For a fast, single-engined multi-seat aircraft, how about the Nakajima C6N "Myrt"? This was armed only with one defensive rifle calibre machine gun, and it probably was not stressed for aerobatics. It was light and fast, and it made an excellent reconnaissance aircraft.
If you must compromise the performance of your aircraft by adding seats and gadgets, you need to get it all back be leaving out other stuff, like heavy guns.
Fuselage fuel tank?I understand a two-seat P-51 Mustang flew over the D-Day beaches. What equipment was removed to make room for Dwight Eisenhower?
I think we have established that the heavy fighter needs to be bigger than a single seat 'normal' fighter and we see that the only way to carry about that more weight is to increase the power over that of the 'normal' one and the only way to do that in the short term is to use two engines. Once there is a more powerful engine it will go into the 'normal' single seater. Thus the Whirlwind.
Nah.
Fulmar is/was too big and thus too draggy, there is no need for this fighter to be navalized (adds the unnecessary complexity and weight), no fuel tank between the crew members (adds to the length of the fuselage = heavier & draggier than needed), and no low-altitude engine (use the 'normal' engine so the altitude performance is not hurt more than needed). Think a bit bigger 2-seat P-40, but with German engine, metric measurements, early availability etc.
Myrt was certainly interesting, trick is that the German lookalike will need a BMW 801 to mimic it, and that means 1941 and on. The not-110 is needed already in 1939, so the V12 engine is a must. So the not-110 will be looking much more like the D4Y Judy, with a bit thinner belly (that will contain fuel tanks, not a bomb bay), again without any bit required for navalization, can do without the dive brakes, and does not require the Fowler flaps. So a much simple aircraft to make than the Judy (let alone than the Bf 110). As once can note, a lot of the stuff is left out.
Wings - place for guns & ammo, and perhaps for very small fuel tanks. Add the bomb racks and drop tank facility by 1940.
Once BMW 801 is available, by all means it should've been considered as one of engine choices, perhaps for the tasks of ground attack, as well as for mid-1942 to late1943 when the DB engines have serious reliability problems. Being bigger and heavier than the Fw 190, it might've been a good platform for two big 30mm cannons. The air-cooled BMW 801 with it's armored oil cooler has an appeal on the ground pounder. When compared with Myrt, the cockpit is smaller (2 crew vs. 3), no double-slotted Fowler flaps - Myrt was possibly and A/C with one of the most advanced set of wings that saw service in ww2 - and no navalization; again, we left a lot of stuff out.
Obviously, Germans will add protection both for crew and fuel system already by 1939-40, unlike the Japanese.
Did they do laminar flow wings in 1938? The P-51D did 437mph at 25,000ft, in thin air way above the critical altitude of the DB601A.-P-51D airframe, canopy extended for rear gunner with single MG 81
- rear fuselage tank removed, 180gals=680 litres still left
- 2 to 4 MG/FF wing cannons
- DB 601 instead of heavier V-1650
- not heavier than actual P-51D
Speed about 380 mph
A British fighter that was at the top of the game, and thus worthy of taking a look is a Spitfire. So I'd rather have a 'fat Spitfire', that does 330+ mph (vs. Spitfire I doing 360, and vs. 109E doing 350), with the range to fly escort to the bombers and can be had in useful quantities, unlike the Bf 110.The Fulmar had lots of fuel to achieve long range, a man in the back seat to do all sorts of useful stuff, and all sorts of kit to make it carrier ready. It did 265mph under ideal conditions. Sacrifice some range and make the gas tanks smaller. Make the rear cockpit less capacious. Lose the carrier hardware. Make the wings smaller and thinner, and the radiator more efficient. Maybe you do 300mph. Don't fly into airspace that has Spitfires in it.
The good Japanese engines were radials, so they used radials.
Was the Kawasaki Ha64 a good engine?Pilots that flew the Ki-61s and many D4Y-1 and -2s would've been very much surprised on the suggestion that what they had under the hood was a radial engine.
The "fat" Spitfire would fly missions deeper into occupied Europe than the "skinny" Bf109Es did over Great Britain. Werner Molders and Adoph Galland need to work out tactics to exploit the Bf109E's superior speed and climb to avoid the escorting Spitfires.A British fighter that was at the top of the game, and thus worthy of taking a look is a Spitfire. So I'd rather have a 'fat Spitfire', that does 330+ mph (vs. Spitfire I doing 360, and vs. 109E doing 350), with the range to fly escort to the bombers and can be had in useful quantities, unlike the Bf 110.
The "fat" Spitfire would fly missions deeper into occupied Europe than the "skinny" Bf109Es did over Great Britain. Werner Molders and Adoph Galland need to work out tactics to exploit the Bf109E's superior speed and climb to avoid the escorting Spitfires.
The 88mm flak would be effective in daylight against British bombers at 15,000 to 18,000ft.
The Spitfire_Is and Bf109Es were very close in performance. If one of them had been grossly superior, they could add stuff to create a long range zerstorer.
What aircraft flew with the Kawasaki Ha 64 in the nose?Was the Kawasaki Ha64 a good engine?
This radial versus "inline" dispute is a load of crap. We use the best engine available.
"Thin" Bf109s were closely matched in performance by "thin" Spitfires. Your "fat" Bf109 needs to stay away from "thin" Spitfires somehow.I've used the reference of the 'fat Spitfire' (as well as 'a little bigger 2-seat P-40', or a big fat Bf 109', or the 'German D4Y, but early') as something the Germans might've made, as per the premise of the thread.
"Thin" Bf109s were closely matched in performance by "thin" Spitfires. Your "fat" Bf109 needs to stay away from "thin" Spitfires somehow.
Which reference indicates the Bf110 more than held its own in fighter combat over Britain in 1940?Bf 110s were not shy to enter an air combat during the BoB, and came from it with a positive kill/loss ratio, that was between the ratios of Spitfire and Hurricane. That is despite the disadvantage in raw performance vs. Spitfire, and the modest number of 110s used when compared with with how many 109s were used.