Quote:
For farious unexplaned reasons teh US never had constructed a functional inline engine, where other nations did, especially Germany.
You seemed to have forgotten the engine that powered the P-40...an Allison V-1710, versions of which were used in the long service history of this aircraft.
There is a difference between an 'interceptor' and an 'air superiority fighter'. For this reason, the Me-262 answer was an excellent one. Few WW2 aircraft were better at the interception mission than it. The Ta-152H would be another good choice. While these two aircraft were too late for the war, the P-51H and F8F Bearcat were well designed as interceptors. Ironically, the one US purpose built interceptor in the WW2 time frame was the P-39, but the decision to remove its supercharger ended its usefullness in that role.
Interceptors were required to have high rates of climb, high speed, and significant hitting power. Range was an issue that varied with the country of origin. Spitfires and Hurricanes, for example, were designed as bomber killers for use over the UK...hence their short range but heavy (for the time) armament.
Other countries built these aircraft to project power, not to protect the homeland. This was true of the US in the 40s and is still true today. The last true interceptor built for the USAF was probably the F-104. As a 'power projection' fighter, however, it was sub-standard.
As for piston engine types, the pro and con arguments were well known. In-line engines were preferred when minimum drag was a primary design parameter...their use resulted in fast, relatively light aircraft. But in-line engine systems that required an external means of cooling were more complicated and more prone to combat damage...for this reason, the P-47 was much more preferred for low altitude attack missions than the P-51.
But it's a fool's game to try to say that one engine type was better than another...there are far too many examples of each in successful designs to attempt that.
