LUFTWAFEE 1946 (Would Have Happened if ...)

I think they mean once it was in it was never replaced. And one way or the other doesn't change the main argument of "best fighter".
No point talking about different types, the 109 had many more variations.
"This new model offered superior handling with a top speed of more than 400 miles per hour." - no mention of it being "the fastest".
The Ta-152 certainly does count if it was used operationally...which it was.
"This point could be made for the Dora too, as too few too late?" Again, if the argument is "best fighter of WW2" then when it came into service is irrelevant.
"The vast majority of 190s were the air cooled radial type and not effective vs almost any Allied plane of 1942 or later." - Complete hogwash. (thanks for enabling me to use that word). Especially interesting as you keep stating the importance of pilot.
In reference to your dyslexia - I wonder how many times you typed 109 but meaning 190...?

 

Then I think we can take it as read that there in fact was never an intent for a 750 HP Ranger inverted V engine and that although there was a short-lived plan to build an experimental turbocharged V-770 it was never completed and no such engine was ever produced by Fairchild? Good. That only took a week or so.

Joe Baugher's Home Page

 

That seems unlikely if the USAF paid attention to developments in Germany. Luftwaffe pilots complained that the 20-mm gun was a peashooter vs. the Viermot (four-engined bomber). Just follow the progression of larger cannons and rockets on their single and twin-engined fighters, including the Me 262.

The Sparrow missile was developed to defeat larger aircraft like bombers.

Cannon-Armed F-86Fs

 

Australian Sabres had 2 x 30mm cannons...

 

And a more thrusty engine.

 

Yeah RR Avon...

Thrusty Engine...sounds like a name for a band...

 

More like a male pron star...
Featuring Stormy Daniels, Thrusty Engine, and Donald Trump...But I digress.

 

Hmmm...There were no Ruskie long-range strategic bombers when the US Navy switched to primarily cannon in the late-40's.

But, then again, the US Air Farce has always been a little slow on the pickup.

 

Yes, I think most of those planes had flaws, some worse than others. It, the F4F was a carrier based plane, but was hard to land on the heaving deck. The Corsair was the worst of the lot. The P-51 was blind over the nose, had wing mounted guns, and was on the large size for the "to spot" die roll. It could also be taken for an enemy fighter and thus there were some instances of blue on blue. The P-47 had all the same traits, but was tough as nails and had better wing guns than any other single engined fighter of the war. It could be mistaken for a Spitfire with it's semi-elliptical wing and tail, thus suffering fewer Blue on Blue accidents than the -51. The Me-109 was the smallest fighter plane of WW-II, making it the hardest plane to spot. It had nose mounted guns for the most part and a partially slotted wing that let the plane turn harder than most others and gave it a superior AoA. This last is very important because when you are chasing the target around a circle, the extra ~10 degrees of AoA let you do two things, turn inside his circle and shoot 10 degrees more across that circle. This attribute gave the attacker a tremendous advantage in the targets that flushed before coming under fire could not generate enough angle off to avoid the attack. Which went something like this; Swoop down and pull up underneath and close behind before opening up, the if the target tried to evade, the attacker could cross the turning circle for a single low deflection shot at close range, before reversing his turn to climb away for another target. The target pulling 6 Gees and the shooter only pulling four while cutting the corner using that extra ten degrees for a shot at about 50 meters range. Planes with wing mounted guns had a much harder time shooting during the close because their guns were zeroed at 200 to 400 yards range and were guaranteed to miss with the vast majority of their bullets, while the CL nose guns in the 109 made an easy tracking shot the entire time. The only problem being the spinning prop's P factor pushing the point of aim off of the target requiring super coordinated control inputs to maintain the piper on the target. not easy for the average pilot.
Then we have the P-38. It was big, no huge and easy to spot, but at the altitudes it flew, that was not a problem, the contrails made all planes easy to spot. It had nose mounted guns that had a PBR, Point Blank Range, of at least 800 Meters during which flight, the bullets never rose above the top of the canopy, or fell below the belly of the target's fuselage! It also had the only set of Contra-Rotating Props in mass production. Those CR Props made it easy to line up and track any target. Then there are the -38's aerodynamic traits. Large portion of the wing blown by the twin engines prop wash, with optional Maneuvering flap setting which when combined with the blown wing let it turn inside any other plane! Even the vaunted Zero, or early Spitfire! The early model P-38's slow roll characteristics were fixed with hydraulic boosted ailerons giving the P-38 the fastest rate of roll in the world at speeds over 300 MPH! Because of it's unique shape and profile, there were few if any instances of Blue on Blue. The Turbocharged engine let it combat cruise at 375 MPH at 30-33,000' altitude, or faster and higher than any plane on earth save the Nazi jets! At the time, the P-47 which could match that speed with the paddle bladed props. ( The P-38 K also with paddle bladed props was the only non-jet that could cruise at military power continuously at 435 MPH, or 60 MPH faster than all other prop planes in mass production! The few Nazi Do-335s may, or may not match that feet.) All things considered, the P-38 was the deadliest fighter plane of the war.

 

Oh, that's right...They do not fit your highly debatable qualifications for "best."

Odd then, considering the flaws inherent in the 109...

Carrier operations are likely to kill any pilot. However, the F6F was the best carrier-based fighter for any pilot. It was easy to fly and maneuver, had no instability at slow speed, was quite fast, with a good rate of climb, and could give a beating and take one as well.

 

Yes, I agree with you but the first generation of jets were not fast enough or have a high enough Specific Excess Thrust to cope with the speed lost of the early cannon armed planes. The Tu-4 Bull was a cloned copy of one of the three interned B-29s that landed in Russia during WW-II and surprised everyone during the May day fly over down town Moscow! Couple that with the Commi's first nuke test in 1949 that was 5-10 years ahead of where we thought they would be made for a rude awaking to all concerned.
IIRC, the Navy changed over to 20 mm cannons during the war so they would not have to have two different calibers of ammo on board their ships? But those cannons were handicapped by the ammunition they used, flat nosed and medium MV to yield low BC and greatly curved trajectory. Making it harder to get hits at longer ranges.

 

AFAIK, the Sparrow, which began development under the auspices of the US Navy in 1946, was intended to defeat any aircraft.

However, the Navy's vision was ahead of the technology back then, and the missile turned into a short-range VFR missile, instead of a medium-range BVR one.

 

Yes, the difference between a good plane and a GREAT PLANE are subtle and some times hard to define, unless you know what to look for. Yes the 109 had serious flaws, but also had three best in class traits that made it great. The F6F was a terrible plane to land on a carrier. It's landing speed was very high and the controls less responsive than it's lighter predecessor, the F4F, which had a very much lower accident rate. The Corsair was so bad it was not cleared for carrier opps until the Brits taught us how to land it in a cross controlled slip! Still not an easy thing to do.
Such small details between great and good planes.

 

You also have the Falcon missile started during the war and in service before any other self guiding A2A Missile.

 

The Navy could have cared less about the ammunition issue...However, the AN-M1 20mm cannon was garbage and the AN-M2 only slightly less so. The problem was a rush to production without thoroughly working up the cannon, and then there were few modifications to known problems. As such, the weapon was very unreliable...Hence the Navy balked at mass use.

After the war was over, the necessary corrections were made, and the gun became quite reliable as the AN-M3.

Has nothing to do with the ammunition...The gun was garbage, because Americans refused to accept British modifications and build to British tolerances. Thus, they produced a gun that was not ready for combat. Improper maintenance did not help the matter either.
Cannons need to go bang when you want them to...Otherwise, you might as well be carrying sticks.

 

Postwar, 1946, contract went to Hughes.

The AIM-7 & AIM-9 were both in service/operational before the AIM-4, but only by some months...However, the AIM-4 was in service about a month before it was withdrawn for further testing, and did not reenter service until mid-58.

Nice writeup on the Falcon family of missiles:
Arming America’s Interceptors: The Hughes Falcon Missile Family

 

Actually no harder to land on a carrier than any other carrier type. In fact, carrier landings in F4Fs could have remarkably better outcomes than landings ashore due to the plane's lurking ground-loop problem. It was said that if you had not yet ground looped an F4F you eventually would, almost to a certainty. Arrestor hooks and carrier decks eliminated that problem.

 

IIRC, Eric Brown called the Wildcat the best "landing on" (British term) aircraft he had flown - and he flew more types of aircraft than anyone else in history.

 

No plane is easy to land on a carrier. What makes you think the F4F was harder than other carrier planes (source pls).

Why? Sources pls.
{quote]...The P-47 had all the same traits, but was tough as nails and had better wing guns than any other single engined fighter of the war. It could be mistaken for a Spitfire with it's semi-elliptical wing and tail,[/quote]
Really? Sources pls.

Except of course for the F3F, Gladiator (except for height), Yak-3, Yak-9U(except height), I-16 (except height), LaGG-1 (except height), LaGG-3, P-26(except height), and SAI-207 (except height) and depending on aspect the F2A, C.200, Mig-1, A5M4, Ki-27, Ki-43, PAL p.7, PZL P.11c, PZL P.24, RE. 2000, Yak-1b, P-66, IK-3, M.S,406, Mig-3, F.K.58, IK-2, D.510, D.520C.1, G.50, P-36A, VG-33, and A.120.

 

Of course they did! The P-38 was huge, but that did not matter at all at >20,000' where contrails pointed to every plane for all to see. This same defect meant that the much smaller Me-109 lost much, if not all, of it's advantage in small size! The P-38 had more advantages than all other planes in this group. Tricycle landing gear, Split flaps with a take off and maneuver setting, Counter rotating Props that blow over a large portion of the high aspect ratio wing and flaps. The only set of hydraulic powered ailerons in the way. This iis a huge advantage in that a rolling scissors could force any other plane out in front, if the pilot knew what he was doing!!! CL guns, also shared with the -109, but none of the others. Best view over the nose, P-38 and best weapons fitment with the most concentrated fire power of the highest MV & BC. Defects, Tail dragger gear on all but the P-38/39. Wing mounted guns, again on the -51 and 47. Low MV/BC on the -109 and low rate of fire of the main gun in the nose. The narrow track landing gear on the 109 kills more pilots than enemy action, or so I've heard. Terrible view out of the 'pit on the 109. No rudder trim tab, forcing the pilot to ride the rudder constantly as the throttle setting changes causing 109 pilots to get "Chrysler Leg". The P-38 P-47 and to a lessor extent the P-51 were tough planes that required a lot of damage to bring down. Not so much on the -109. Huge P Factor on the P-47 and almost as much on the other two single engined types caused huge problems of pointing the weapons. The P-38 is the best weapons platform in the entire war, because of that single fact. The American trio had huge weapon loads, the P-38 was twice as huge as either of the other two Americans, which were much larger than the 109s load. Advantages to the 109's larger displacement engine which could, in a pinch, be run at TO Power for twice as long as the R-R Merlin in the -51, or -47. Although the 109 is the slowest of the bunch, it was faster than the vast majority of it's contemporaries, not counting the other three in this group. One last, but not insignificant detail, the P-38's unique shape and appearance prevented Blue on Blue by both sides, something that can not be said for the rest.