Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What about something like Fw 190 airframe with DB 601, possible with slight fuselage extension to pack larger fuel tanks.
It could have an engine cannon + the two in the wing root.
Thank you for the effort to list out the numbers from that source.Which reference indicates the Bf110 more than held its own in fighter combat over Britain in 1940?
A side elevation of the 2-seater Ta 152 might've helped to illustrate the point? Although I'd suggest that the cockpit is moved much more forward, so the visibility over the nose is substantially improved.What about something like Fw 190 airframe with DB 601, possible with slight fuselage extension to pack larger fuel tanks.
It could have an engine cannon + the two in the wing root.
All causes,Thank you for the effort to list out the numbers from that source.
On the another thread in this forum (link), Christer Bergstrom ("The Battle of Britain, an epic conflict revisited" book) paints a different picture, with Bf 110 having an even greater kill/loss ratio than I've stipulated.
Sikorsky Flying Boats.-W built a total of 39 R-2600s in 1938. What they were sticking them I don't know.
An odd thing was that the Japanese thought that their interceptors ought to be tough and heavy airplanes while everyone else visualized interceptors as light and fast climbing. They had a "heavy fighter" version of the Ki-61. In contrast, everyone else thought that escorts should be large, heavily armed airplanes while the Japanese used the incredibly lightweight Zero to great effect in that role.
The Mustang Mk I was quite possibly the first fighter to be designed around the "right" size. It was large enough to be able to carry enough fuel for much longer range, and the RAF pilots' first thought was that the thing was too big to be a fighter. And thanks to double supercharging it had enough power and high altitude performance to get the job done without having an even larger airframe and larger displacement engine. Note that the Merlin had fewer cubes than the WWI Liberty engine, and was the smallest displacement first rate front line engine of the entire war.
I recall in his book Patton's Gap a Mustang MKI RAF pilot said that they considered the Mustang huge, bigger than the Spit and Hurri. Of course that long nose and wide tracked landing gear may have conveyed size that was not entirely there.Hurricane was a bigger aircraft than the Mustang, so perhaps we should not believe the stories?
Here are some aircraft sizes from my collection of Profiles...Japanese Navy wanted the heavy fighter for the long-range escort, and was willing to pay for the J1N - a 2-engined fighter size of Bf 110 (and of the much worse performance). Eventually, J1N was never used it that role.
Hurricane was a bigger aircraft than the Mustang, so perhaps we should not believe the stories? Typhoon was even bigger, and much heavier.
Mustang was size of the Spitfire, whose generous internal volume was not packed with fuel tanks because the customer was not asking for it. Spitfire was also a great fighter with the double S/C on the Merlin, both of the fighters starting out with more humble superchargers.
| Aircraft | Version | Wingspan | Length | Weight empty | Weight loaded |
| Hurricane | IIc | 40ft | 32ft 2in | 5,658lb | 7,544lb |
| Spitfire | IXc | 36ft 10in | 31ft 1in | 5,634lb | 7,900lb |
| Mustang | D | 37ft | 32ft 3in | 7,125lb | 10,100lb |
| Typhoon | IB | 41ft 7in | 31ft 10in | 8,280lb | 11,700lb |
If the RLM cannot use two engines, they need one big engine.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....
"Make it work" might be easier said than done.If the RLM cannot use two engines, they need one big engine.
Make the DB606 work, helping out the He177 program while they are at it. In theory, you get double the power, without the frontal area and friction drag of two engine nacelles.
If the RLM cannot use two engines, they need one big engine.
Make the DB606 work, helping out the He177 program while they are at it. In theory, you get double the power, without the frontal area and friction drag of two engine nacelles.
Rather than thanks then move on, I would prefer something along the lines of why the different figures from Bergstrom, why they contradict all the established literature about Bf110 day fighter effectiveness and which set of figures is more credible.thank you again for the figures.
Beyond the well known Luftflotte 5 raids how many Luftwaffe Battle of Britain day raids were done beyond Bf109 range? I would not be surprised once the close escort orders were made that Bf110 drew that duty more than Bf109 due to the Bf110 greater range and the need to cruise at bomber speeds, not optimum Bf110 speeds.One of the things that might've put the Bf 110s in disadvantage was that, once past the Bf 109 radius (assuming no drop tank, since the drop tanks appeared almost at the end of the battle), they were the only fighters providing the escort. That put them in a numerical disadvantage, and there was no performance advantage to negate that.
The Rolls Royce Vulture supposedly was two Peregrine engines stuck together. They probably could have got it working if they had kept at it, but other things were working and needed more development to get maximum performance. Everybody's resources were finite.In practice, the DB 606 was two 601s clamped together
So, a German P-47 Thunderbolt. High speed, stable firing platform, long range, six heavy guns with large magazines, air cooled, well armoured and able to accept enormous damage and return home.Let's say that RLM/LW by some time of 1935 is open to the attempt to fulfill the requirements for the 'destroyer' aircraft by an 1-engined aircraft.
Rather than thanks then move on, I would prefer something along the lines of why the different figures from Bergstrom, why they contradict all the established literature about Bf110 day fighter effectiveness and which set of figures is more credible.
Beyond the well known Luftflotte 5 raids how many Luftwaffe Battle of Britain day raids were done beyond Bf109 range? I would not be surprised once the close escort orders were made that Bf110 drew that duty more than Bf109 due to the Bf110 greater range and the need to cruise at bomber speeds, not optimum Bf110 speeds.
Alfred Price indicates there were 25 bombers and 150 Bf109s in the first raid on 15 September 1940, the second raid was 340 Bf109s, 20 Bf110s and 117 bombers. That is 6 fighters per bomber in the first raid and around 3 fighters per bomber in the second raid. The bombers took unacceptable losses. That suggests a major problem for the Luftwaffe, if three fighters per bomber was not good enough then how could it bomb the UK by day?
The Bf109G-6 carried a 115 litre MW50 tank. Your 1939 update, Bf109E with the aerodynamic clean up seen in the F, plus fully enclosed main undercarriage, the armament and cowling of the G-10, with the 30mm cannon option, changing the MW50 tank to fuel would up range by around 50%, or to Bf110C range. Find a way to add a couple of wing tanks if further range is required, then add the 300 litre or more external tank. The aerodynamic clean up compensating for the extra weights.
Given knocking Britain out of the war was a prime objective firstly expand Bf109 production using the historical Bf110 resources at say 1.5 Bf109 to 1 Bf110, the DB601 released are better used by the Luftwaffe unless you are sure the 1940 operations will leave Britain fighting.
The one time I managed to have an extended close up look at a Spitfire and Mustang side by side I was struck by how much bigger the P-51 fuselage looked volume wise. That big radiator housing mostly.
Could we consider the Fulmar as a single-engine destroyer fighter? It's slow, large, heavily armed and stable. When it comes to twin-seat, single-engined fighters was there anything better than the Fulmar through 1941?This sounds a lot like a Fairey Fulmar. The problem with any long range fighter is that it must be bigger and heavier than the interceptor, air superiority, and/or dog fighters it must face in combat. The extra crewman only makes things worse. The concepts only work if you have some technological advantage like two-stage superchargers, high octane fuel, bigger engines, or an enemy who still uses biplanes. Two engines provide decent power loadings to big, heavy aircraft.
The Rolls Royce Vulture supposedly was two Peregrine engines stuck together. They probably could have got it working if they had kept at it, but other things were working and needed more development to get maximum performance. Everybody's resources were finite.
If you are going to load more stuff in your aircraft, you need more power, somehow. The British and Americans who developed 2000HP engines made a good call, even if these weren't ready for 1939.
.. it is generally best to pick one solution to a problem, accept that it's not perfect, concentrate on it exclusively, and begin producing and developing it as soon as possible. Unless the concept provides a generational step-change, such as the jet engine, any avant-garde idea will probably require so much development that during the no doubt limited time available, your competitors will have developed themselves ahead of you. This was precisely what occurred with every novel engine of WWII, from the British sleeve-valve Sabre and Centaurus, to every single one of the American entrants into the US Army Air Corps 'Hyper-engine' programme, and the multitude of exciting German experimental engines such as the BMW 802, the DB 628, and the Jumo 222.
...
The simple conventional engines, such as the Merlin, V-1710, DB 601, and P&W R-2800, were the great successes of the war. .... The much-lauded Merlin is a plain and unremarkable engine in most fundamental respects.