Soren those figures on the Fw-190A-9 don't seem totaly right. (the first chart moreso than the second) It says the BMW 801-F was used and I've read that this was the planned engine (with 2000 hp take-off and 2,400 hp special emergency power) but it was not yet available so the 801-E/S was used instead with 2000 hp takeoff (and 2,200-2,300 hp when special emergency power was available, though I'm not sure if all of these engines could do this)
The A-8 also should have used the same wider chord propeller of the D-9 (which was more efficient for these power ratings). This propeller, along with the increased power, (and only modest increase in weight) should have raised climb rate to at least that of the D-9, certainly if the same armament was carried. (and better than the D-9 w/out MW50) Though it would be slower than the D-9 with MW50 due to the higher drag of the radial engine and the wing and belly racks.
I do agree that the D-9 should turn better though, but some pre A-8 models may have had a (slightly) smaller radius (and about the same as the A-
, while the turn-time for the D-9 would be ~10% better due to better sustained speed in turns. As for roll, I'd expect it to be the same. (though late 190's did have better high-speed roll than early models iirc)
davparlr,
I think the Fw-190A-8 would be a good interceptor to add to that list, as its climb should be similar to the D-9 (at least down low) but could carry 4x 20mm cannon and 2x 13mm nose guns. (though the outer wing 20mm's were often removed)
You also didn't list the Tempest Mk.V
It should also be noted that many of the planes up there could have carried better interceptor gun armaments. (though I've never heard of any operational Me 109s carrying 2x 15mm cannons) The P-51 could (and did) carry 4x 20mm cannons without trouble. The spitfire tried 4x 20mm but this was unsatisfactory. The P-47 couldcertainly cary 4x 20mm abd maby even 6x 20mm guns. The P-38 could likely carry 4x 20mm guns.
Also you didn't consider rocket armaments. The P-38L, for example, could carry 10x 5" HVAR, or 4x rocket launchers each carrying a cluster of 3x 4.5" rockets. The 4.5" rockets were intended for ground attack but could be used as an interception weapon in a pinch. And don't forget the R4M!
I don't think the Me 262 could have ended daylight bombing on its own (maby by psycological affect) even if there weren't engine problems there were plenty of problems with production and development (plus there's training conversion time) to be fielded before mid 1944. The He 280 could have served as an intrim measure and could have been feilded as early as mid 1943 if the wings had been redesignd to accept HeS-6 engines. (the HeS 6 was the only engine with enough thrust that could have been mass produced by 1942, it was an inferior engine of greater weight and diameter than the HeS-8 and would have given lower performance, but it ran in 1940 and produced 550-590 kp, wich the HeS-8 wasn't making untill late 1941 and even then with much other trouble, plus it was still narrower than Whittle's engines)
That said there was an even more effective weapon that was simple, cheap, realitively low-tech, and could easily have been feilded by 1942 if work on (or intrest in) such a device had started sooner. The R4M rocket: simple cheap, easy to build, and very effective. (without the need for a proximity fuse, though one would certainly increase effectiveness, but a simple time fuse was sufficient, just set to detonate at the desired range) It also had the great advantage of having the same trajectory as the Mk 108, so they could be sited the same. Fw 190s could easily have carried these weapons as could the He 280 have. This truely could have stopped daylight bombing before the LW was outnumbered.
chuckn49,
While I mean no disrespect to your brother, diving was one thing the P-38 could not do well, it could not maintain controll in excess of .68 Mach, and even then it needed the dive flaps to remain stable. The P-51 could safely dive to .75 mach (pilots often pushed farther), while the late P-47D could do mach .80 (more with dive flaps) and accelerated much faster than either the 51 or the 38. And the P-47D,M,N and the F4U-4 could out roll the P-38 at all but very high speeds (nearing the P-38's limit) and even then it might not have beaten the P-47N. The P-38L could out-roll a P-51 at evry speed and could out turn most other US fighters (probably not the Hellcat and maybe not the Corsair) especially if independent throttles were coordinated for turns. And it had longer range than any of the others (similar to the P-47N) and had a better chance of getting home and more concentrated firepower than the P-51. The P-38J/L could also out-climb any US or axis a/c that saw servise in the war. The P-38 could aso out maneuver any other USAAF fighter down low, plus there's no diving issue below 15,000 ft. (except maybe for the P-40, but the P-38 has so many other advantages, even down low)
The P-47 was more comfortable to fly in with a large padded "armchair" seat and good heating and (I've read) air conditioning. The P-47 had better high-speed control and stability than almost any other WWII fighter and could out zoom climb almost anything.
The P-51A (the higest performing Allison Mustang) had the V-1710-81 engine with takeoff 1,200 hp, WEP 1,480 hp from 5,000-10,400 ft, and military power of 1,125 hp up to 17,500 ft. (this engine was also used on the P-40M/N and out performed the 1,300 hp Merlin engined P-40F/L at all useful altitudes)
When introduced the P-51A could outperform any other allied fighter (and maby the Fw 190) at medium altitudes. With 394 mph at 5,000 ft in WEP, 415 mph at 10,400 ft, 408 mph at 17,500 ft at millitary, and a decent 395 mph at 25,100 ft with only 836 hp. Though the Spit could out climb it. It could climb to 20,000 ft in ~6.5 min. at 8,000 lbs. (compared to ~7.3 min for the P-40M)
See:
Mustang (Allison Engine) Performance Trials and
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...51a-1-6007.jpg
.
).
Linear Mode
