# 1000-1200 HP: long range fighter vs. interceptor?



## tomo pauk (Oct 24, 2013)

The thing was raised several times in the forum: long range fighter will be at disadvantage vs. an interceptor, provided they were powered by same generation of engines. 
Wonder if someone can come up with a viable escort fighter on 1000-1200 HP (at 20000-15000 ft of altitude; historical engines only)? How would it stack vs. historical fighters with same power? What weaponry to choose (historically available for the country, of course). How good an escort range? 
What about historical long range fighters with modest power on board? 
Would a long-range fighter force offer enough tactical or strategic advantages vs. the force comprised of short range interceptor?
Obviously, the time of interest would be the 1st years of the war (only for hypothetical fighters).


----------



## Messy1 (Oct 24, 2013)

Would it be similar to comparing a Mustang to a Spitfire or FW-190? 
Or Spitfire vs. BF109?


----------



## DonL (Oct 24, 2013)

@ Tomo

this is also the subject, which we are discussing with the FW 187.
To my opinion you are in need of a two engine a/c as an escort fighter to have a chance against an interceptor at the 1000-1200PS class.

We have discussed this on several issues,
we had a discussion, if a P51A with a merlin XX could do long range fighting 1941/42. I have said not a single chance against a Bf 109 F4 or FW 190 as interceptors, other members have other opinions. The FW 187 as two engined fighter, has to my opinion a real chance against a Spitfire at the 1000-1200PS class, but not any single engined long range fighter, because the P51A was the best on the market ever, as a single engined long range fighter, but with 1000-1200PS she would be a lame duck in the air, especially at any accelaration.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 24, 2013)

The issue is if the LR Escort (LRE for Short) arrives at the point of battle with a similar weight load (or easily jettisonable extra weight) as the possible interceptor, given similar power levels.

So the issue for the LRE is whether it can carry enough non performance affecting fuel for a period of combat and return.
If that extra weight needed is not that great that the performance hit is not significant (say within 5%) then you can have a good performing LRE.

Of course aerodynamic tricks, such as better wing loadings and/or overall drag/etc can help close the gap, of those are significant the they can even provide a better performance for the LRE. Such as the Mustang vs the much lighter 109, which on comparable power was significantly faster.

You can do engine tricks too, optimising the power for the altitude band required for escorting. And so on.

Taking the MK VIII Spit as an example. 96 (UK) gals in the front tanks (bit more than the V or IX) and 26 (28 capacity, 26 usable probably) in the wings. Now for a Berlin mission, 500 miles, and 15 min combat allowance.
We assume it uses the entire rear tank of 66 gals taking off, climb and initial cruise. Then switches to the 90 drop tank for rest of trip, rendezvous and escort until combat, where it drops whatever is remaining.
It now has 122 gals. 15 mins combat leaves 87 gals. Most econ cruise return uses 72 gals, leaving 15 reserve.

Now it needs those 26 gals in the wings, weight approx 320 pounds say for the fuel and the bags. At an all up weight of 7,800 lbs that's only about 4%. That is not going to have any significant affect on performance. Most of the performance tests on the VIII were at that, or close to, weight anyway.

So it really depends on the extra fuel required fraction. If that is not too significant then it is not an issue. Sure if that was 20% of the weight then you'd take a real performance hit.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 24, 2013)

A problem with the late 30s designed fighters is that you not only have to worry about the extra weight of the fuel affecting speed, climb and turn ( and speed is the least of the worries) but about field performance. Most countries were building aircraft to use exiting airfields. Not building/extending airfields to suit higher take-off and landing speed aircraft. The British even had a specified maximum air pressure for the tires of ALL aircraft to avoid putting ruts in the grass fields. Add 3-400 lbs of fuel and you may need a bigger wing, not just to hold the fuel but to keep the take-off and landing speed down. The bigger wing adds both weight and drag. You may need bigger tires to hold the weight at the same ground pressure, maybe only a few more pounds each but it all adds up. If you are designing to an 8 "G" service and 12 "G" ultimate load for a 7000lb fighter and you add 300lbs fuel you now have a 7.67 G service loading and 11.5 ultimate which means beefing up the structure to meet the requirement. 

What governments allowed BEFORE the shooting started and what they allowed AFTER were not the same thing. 

It is this 'creep' that meant that a long range fighter was so hard to design with a 1000-1200hp engine. The long range fighter not only had to try to equal the interceptor in speed and climb, it had to do it carrying near equal armament, carry more fuel, AND take-off in the same distance, land at the same speed, be built to the same stress (G) levels and in some cases , exert the the same ground pressure (pounds per sq in) through the tires. 

Early Spitfire and and Hurricane were around 24-26lb per sq ft of wing area, adding 320lbs of fuel calls for another 12-13 sq ft of wing area. the bigger wing weighs another 40-50lbs which call for another 2 sq ft of wing. beefing up the structure requires ?? pounds. Changing tire size calls for ??

If you can get the Army, Air Force or Navy involved to waive one or more 'standard' requirements you have a better chance.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 24, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> A problem with the late 30s designed fighters is that you not only have to worry about the extra weight of the fuel affecting speed, climb and turn ( and speed is the least of the worries) but about field performance. Most countries were building aircraft to use exiting airfields. Not building/extending airfields to suit higher take-off and landing speed aircraft. The British even had a specified maximum air pressure for the tires of ALL aircraft to avoid putting ruts in the grass fields. Add 3-400 lbs of fuel and you may need a bigger wing, not just to hold the fuel but to keep the take-off and landing speed down. The bigger wing adds both weight and drag. You may need bigger tires to hold the weight at the same ground pressure, maybe only a few more pounds each but it all adds up. If you are designing to an 8 "G" service and 12 "G" ultimate load for a 7000lb fighter and you add 300lbs fuel you now have a 7.67 G service loading and 11.5 ultimate which means beefing up the structure to meet the requirement.
> 
> What governments allowed BEFORE the shooting started and what they allowed AFTER were not the same thing.
> 
> ...



Well yes and no. I mean longer takeoff were not an issue, just a longer field, so what. Landing about the same. 
They had all those issues adding bombs and drop tanks, just did them, maybe pumped up the tyres a bit.......

No need to beef up the structure for that small diff. After all they didn't for the Mustang, even though the D's G limit was well under the A's.

And the Spits wing didn't change from the Mk V with the universal wing until the Mk XVIII, so didn't seem to be a issue.

You can add the P-47 too, look at its weight gain with more internal fuel, external tanks, bombs, rockets...again big deal.

There was a bigger diff in landing between a (say) Mustang than between a Spit I and a Spit XIV....

It is not that big a deal. realistically no pilot is going to note the diff of 5% in weight unless it affects CoG markedly. They weren't that delicate those things.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 25, 2013)

It depends on when you begin work. 

Tomo wanted it for the first year of the war. 

BY August 1940 many of the "rules" had been done away with. 

In August 1938 they had not, in August 1939 some had been. 

How many planes do you want and when do you want them? 
In the Summer of 1939 Spitfires were still being fitted with fixed pitch props, take off to clear a 50ft screen (trees?) was 790yds. Fitting the two pitch prop cut that to 390yds and fitting the constant speed prop cut it to 270yds. Obviously even with 880hp for take-off a Spitfire with a constant speed prop can get more fuel off the ground than the fixed pitch on can. However going to the Merlin XII in Aug/Sept 1940 gives 1175 hp for take-off which makes things _much_ better. 

The 'rules' in peacetime meant that your design/modification could be rejected out of hand for not meeting requirements. There was some arguing back and forth over the tire pressure issue with the Westland Whirlwind and in the end the Whirlwind was allowed to pump up the tires which saved redesigning the rear of the nacelles. 

Curtiss was advertising the Hawk 75 as stressed for 12 "G"s with the Wright 9 cylinder engine. When fitted with the P&W R-1830 it was rated at 11.5 G, with the note that 12 "G"s was available at a slight increase in weight and cost. XP-40 and early P-40s had to be stressed for the 12 "G" ultimate load clean at 'normal' gross weight. P-36 and early P-40s did have an internal fuel tank that was called an overload tank that was NOT filled when making these calculations. But you needed a fuselage big enough to hold a 58 gallon fuel tank. 

Modifying an exiting design and getting into service once the shooting starts is one thing. Having several hundred "escort" fighters available _when_ the shooting starts is quite another. 

A bit like the Navy specifying the plane that replaced the TBD had to land at 70mph while carrying a torpedo. This lead to the Avenger but there were 13 paper designs submitted. If one proposal had said " this is a great design but it lands at 77mph (10% faster than requirement) just beef-up your flight decks and arresting gear to handle it" where do think that proposal would have wound up in the stack?

edit, changed distance for constant speed prop.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 25, 2013)

Thanks for posting out the numbers, SR6.
I do have some remarks, however (as always  ). 1st is that a Spitfire with Merlin X would be taking off with 1070 HP, instead with 880 HP, a 22% increase. The engine was available from 1939 in more than token numbers. Of course, the Merlin X was never installed in a fighter (other than for test purposes?) historically.
Second, Germany did have both constant speed props available, along with engines providing a decent power for take off. 1100 PS for the DB-601A, 1200 for the Jumo 211B. At 5000 m (16130 ft) they were good for 960 and 930 PS, respectively. The engine ratings being 'Erhohte Dauerleistung' ('Increased Continous power' - duration 30 min) and 'Kampf und Steigleistung' ('Combat and climb power' - duration 30 min) for the 601A and 211B, respectively. 
Power was ~1045 PS for the 'pre-Hooker' Merlins (III, VIII, X, XII). V-1710-33 (C series) was good for ~1000 PS at 16000 ft; both engines operating at max RPM boost for that altitude (5 min limit?). The Allison was providing 1055 PS for take off, but, when it became available, the UK and German engines moved on.

From 1939 until BoB, Germany was in position to have a fighter fitted with a drop tank, that would be capable to take off from same airfield the Spitfire I would take off clean? Or, the Spit with Merlin X would take off with a drop tank as fast as the Spit I clean?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 25, 2013)

Yes, the British were a bit behind in the propeller area. 

The other thing to remember is that all the prewar aircraft were having protection (armor) and self sealing tanks fitted. Many US fighters had good range with internal fuel _before_ fitting the protected tanks. The P-40 went from a high of 180 US gallons in the P-40 no letter to 135 gallons in the P-40C. Fuel system (tanks, pipes and pumps) went from 171lbs to 420lbs while 93 lbs of armor and bullet proof glass were added. P-39 went from 200 gallons in the XP-39 to 170 gallons in the YP-39/P-39C to 120 gallons in the P-39D and later. P-39 added 245-265lbs of armor and glass. P-38 dropped from 400 gallons to 300 gallons with self sealing tanks. The F4F didn't drop as bad but went from 160 gallons to 144-147 gallons and added around 160lbs of armor and glass. 

Performance chart for a 109E showing take off to 20 meters (66ft instead of 50):

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109e-handbookcurve.jpg

It doesn't look like the 109 is going to get out off the same sized airfield with a drop tank as the Spitfire will without one once the Spitfire gets even a 2 pitch prop. 

A P-40E (overloaded with it's six .50cal mgs) _clean_ (no drop tank) needs 975 yds to clear a 50 ft screen from a sod runway on a 59-60degree F day. adding 600lbs to the take-off weight adds over 200yds to the distance. 

Earlier P-40s that were lighter would do better. 

Once the shooting started it was a _lot_ easier to take over land, cut down trees and knock down building bordering airfields.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 25, 2013)

Fine points.



Shortround6 said:


> ...
> 
> Performance chart for a 109E showing take off to 20 meters (66ft instead of 50):
> 
> ...



The Bf-109 have had it's limitations, re. short field performance. That should be tied to the small wing - result being a high wing loading. IIRC the LW pilots claimed that British fighter were 'childishly easy to take off and land', no doubt because of their low wing loading.
BTW, the Bf-109E-7 was outfitted with drop tanks, so we can safely conclude that LW did not considered that combination as a problematic one.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 25, 2013)

We might try to consider some real-world long range fighters, and see how they stack vs. short range competition. 
But 1st, let's discount for a moment the P-51 (as too advanced for early war) and Zero (as too fragile). The good contenders might be the D.520 (1540 miles of range*, no drop tanks), Ki-61 (600-650 liters, or 158-172 US gals internally, in protected tanks, according to the 'Bunrin Do' book about it, plus 2 x 200 L drop tanks - 106 US gals; non-protected tanks found in some examples were good for 380+170+200= 750 L, almost 200 gals). I know that Mustang actually predates the Ki-61, but aerodynamics applied to the Ki-61 were less advanced than ones at Mustang.
Then we have Italian fighters. Re.2001 (DB-601Aa license engine) was carrying 540 liters, or 143 US gals, or one imp gal less than Spit VIII. The Re.2002 (Piaggio radial engine) was carrying 600 liters. Both Reaggianes were capable to take off with a 650 kg (1430 lbs) torpedo. The Re.2000 - 640L; the 'G.A.' version (Grande autonomia) was carrying 980 L of internal fuel, capable to take off from 210 m runaway (230 yds, not sure that is with obstacle or without), vs. 170 m for the regular Re.2000. The G.A. model was 10 km/h slower, the climb was hurt more (7 min 45 sec to 6000m, vs. 6 min 10 sec for 'regular' 2000). The MC.202 was carrying 87 imp gals, ie. not that a long range bird - on par with BoB trio.

Neither of the listed, longer ranged fighters was regarded as a easy meat IIRC.

*edited


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 26, 2013)

Amazing what happening pre-Portal and Dowding was still around eh?

Here's your long range 1,000bhp fighter:

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 26, 2013)

Thanks for that.

Anybody wants to estimate what kind of performance one might get from Mustang with V-1650-1 on board?


----------



## stona (Oct 26, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Amazing what happening pre-Portal and Dowding was still around eh?
> 
> Here's your long range 1,000bhp fighter:



Which was being mooted in June 1940 at about the same time as the RAF was desperately trying to develop cannon armament for its fighters as the machine guns were starting to prove inadequate. 
I don't find it at all surprising that as the RAF faced a defensive battle following the fall of France they opted not to develop a tankage system that was incompatible with cannon armament. It is a matter of priorities and in June 1940 longer range Spitfires were not the priority.
In fact probably the most important criteria for intercepting fighters during the BoB was rate of climb, given the limited warning times. This would certainly been adversely affected by a system like that.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 26, 2013)

In General, when something seems too good to be true it probably isn't. 



> The good contenders might be the D.520 (1540 miles of radius, no drop tanks)



Figures I have seen are 1540 _kilomters_ of _range_. and 620 miles miles 'normal' range and 777 miles max range. 

And rem wiki; take as you will: "A self-sealing fuel tank with a capacity of 396 litres (87 imp gallons) was mounted between the engine and cockpit, along with two wing tanks which, combined, carried another 240 litres (53 imp gallons), for a total of 636 litres (131 imp gallons);[14] this was considerably more than the contemporary Bf 109E, Spitfire I and early Italian fighters, each with about 400 litres (88 imp gallons) fuel capacity. The ferry range was from 1,300 km (810 mi) to 1,500 km (930 mi) at 450 km/h (280 mph) which, from June 1940, allowed D.520s to escape to North Africa when France fell.[15] The handling changed according to the amount of fuel carried; using the fuselage tank alone, fuel consumption had no appreciable effect on handling because the tank was at the centre of gravity, but with full wing tanks, directional control was compromised, especially in a dive."

The wing tanks were in the leading edge or at least forward of the spar outboard of the wing guns. The speed given as as a 'ferry' speed seems a little suspect too. The P-40E with about the same amount of fuel total but using only 100 imp gallons for the cruise (23 imp being used for warm-up, take-off and climb) could cover 700 miles at 235mph at 15,000ft. speeding up to 280mph at 15,000 dropped the range to 565 miles. Granted it is a bigger, heavier airplane but NOBODY was using 280mph as a ferry cruise speed. 

Empty and gross weights don't add up either. 
Empty weight: 2,123 kg (4,680 lb)
Loaded weight: 2,677 kg (5,902 lb) useful load 1228lbs
Max. takeoff weight: 2,785 kg (6,140 lb) useful load 1460 lbs

Pilot and chute 200lbs
131 IMP gallons fuel 982lbs (at 7.5lbs per gallon) 
2700 rounds 7.5 ammo 162 lbs?
60 round cannon drum 60lbs ?
oil ____? 

And this is assuming the empty weight is empty equipped weight. 

The Zero had several things going for it, one was it carried a fair amount of fuel to begin with, 120ip gallons in internal tanks in early models. AN engine that would run in extremely lean conditions. Flights were over water and low cruise speeds could be used. early use of external tank. 

As far as far as this goes:



> Here's your long range 1,000bhp fighter:



We are supposed to believe that those two tanks had less drag than the bullet proof windscreen fitted to the Spitfire? (6mph reduction in speed for the Windscreen) 
And even if true (and the 90 gallon slipper tank caused a much larger reduction in speed 14-17mph depending on altitude?) speed is just one aspect of fighter performance. the 90 gallon tank on a MK V with a Merlin 45 engine caused a 18% reduction in climb rate at 1000ft, 19% at 10,000ft, 24% at 20,000ft and 30% at 30,000ft. 
Climb rate is also an indication of the ability to maintain height in a turn.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 26, 2013)

Indeed you're right re. D.520 range being 1540 km; 'radius' was a typo and I will correct the previous post.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 27, 2013)

stona said:


> Which was being mooted in June 1940 at about the same time as the RAF was desperately trying to develop cannon armament for its fighters as the machine guns were starting to prove inadequate.
> I don't find it at all surprising that as the RAF faced a defensive battle following the fall of France they opted not to develop a tankage system that was incompatible with cannon armament. It is a matter of priorities and in June 1940 longer range Spitfires were not the priority.
> In fact probably the most important criteria for intercepting fighters during the BoB was rate of climb, given the limited warning times. This would certainly been adversely affected by a system like that.
> Cheers
> Steve



True. But there was an expectation then that longer ranged missions would be required later and in the other theatres of the war, which was in fact the case ... called 'thinking ahead', Dowding had a bit of a track record of doing that. 

The statement there is that the big tanks were necessary for reinforcement in the Middle East. Though the statement says 'Douglas' the desire would have come from Dowding. who was obviously thinking ahead and on a much bigger scale _and this is in Jan 1940, even before the BoB started._... I rest my case.

Note that after the 'regime change', the RAF didn't send any Spitfires to North Africa until the end of '42 and Malta until March '42. Hundreds of airmen died in their obsolete Hurricanes and P-40s' in that time.
While Douglas, now head of Fighter Command and his side kick Leigh Mallory fought bitterly not to release a single Spit to the Med.. right the the very end. 
Hence the Hurricanes and P-40s going up against 109Fs and even Gs... and dying in droves. 

I suspect that it might just have been just a bit sooner under Dowding and Park. In fact you can speculate that the whole Malta siege might never have happened, or at least been very, very short. Worse than that for the Germans and Italians, Spits of even that range could have ensured the convoys got through.

These early tanks were interesting, basically conformal tanks with much less drag than a normal drop tank, clever thinking. A picture of the 29 gal ones would have been interesting, they would be much smaller than the 70 gals ones, but still added significant range (about a 250 mile combat radius), those with a centre 45 or 90 gal drop tank would have been quite interesting..


----------



## stona (Oct 27, 2013)

I think you are re-fighting the war with limitless resources and aircraft available, and with the benefit of hindsight which is not entirely realistic.

As for Malta, the actual saga of the attempts to fly aircraft in for her defence makes for hair raising reading. It seems impossible that the RAF would embark aircraft along with ferry tanks that didn't fit, but they did. It seems incredible that they would fly off Hurricanes too far away and when they had no chance of meeting their pathfinders (Marylands), but they did. It seem inconceivable that they would allow a shambolic situation to develop in which aircraft were destroyed on the ground before they ever went into action, but they did.

The famous plea for Spitfires ("Malta's need is for Spitfires, Spitfires and still more Spitfires. And they must come in bulk, not in dribs and drabs.") was made by Squadron Leader Gracie on behalf of Air Vice Marshall Sir Hugh Lloyd (the new AOC Malta) in April 1942. It was bad timing, the ships were simply not available. The flight deck of HMS Argus was not long enough to fly off Spitfires with long range ferry tanks and HMS Eagle was undergoing repairs to her steering gear. The lifts on other carriers could not cope with the wingspan of the Spitfire. We know the fates of HMS Illustrious and Ark Royal.

Things in a war are always easier said than done. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 27, 2013)

Is there a reason (technical, not political) that would prevent the arrival of Spitfires at Malta in, say, second half of 1941?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 27, 2013)

Not really, it depends on the risks they were willing to take. How close to get the carriers flying them off to Malta or how many crated aircraft on freighters they were willing to loose. 8 crated planes on each of 6 freighters gets you 24 delivered Spitfires even if 50% of the freighters were sunk. Granted you have to assemble the aircraft rather than just refuel them in order to use them.


----------



## stona (Oct 27, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Not really, it depends on the risks they were willing to take. How close to get the carriers flying them off to Malta or how many crated aircraft on freighters they were willing to loose. 8 crated planes on each of 6 freighters gets you 24 delivered Spitfires even if 50% of the freighters were sunk. Granted you have to assemble the aircraft rather than just refuel them in order to use them.



First which carriers? Those that could launch Spitfires equipped with ferry tanks were few, far between or sunk. The freighters were carrying other essential supplies to sustain Malta and these would have to be removed to make room for a handful of aeroplanes, dribs and drabs. I doubt that you could fit a crated Spitfire in one of the submarines which did such sterling service in the supply of Malta 
The people at the time had to fight the war, not just the Mediterranean campaign, with the limited resources available. Hindsight is a luxury they did not have.

Any Spitfire sent to Malta or anywhere else is one less available for ADGB, Fighter Command's primary responsibility and the reason for its existence. Again people are using hindsight. It was not clear at the time that the Germans might not attempt some kind of renewed assault, aerial or otherwise, on the UK in 1941.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 27, 2013)

From "The Spitfire Story" by Alfred Price.

..............................MK II Spit..............MK II with 40gal tank climb rates.

Altitude-2,000ft...........2,925fpm......................2240fpm
...........5,000ft...........2,925fpm......................2240fpm
.........10,000ft...........2,995fpm......................2,240fpm
.........15,000ft...........2,770fpm......................1,990fpm
.........20,000ft...........2,175fpm......................1,420fpm
.........25,000ft...........1,600fpm......................1,050fpm
.........30,000ft.............995fpm.........................545fpm

Granted the shape of this 'conformal' tank on the port wing was not as good as the ones in the pictures in previous post but the speed loss was 24mph at 15,000ft and 31mph at 20,000ft. Fully loaded weight was 6172lbs for the 'clean' plane and 6,513lbs for the one with the tank. Plane with the tank also had all metal ailerons. Putting the fuel in internal tanks would have restored much of the speed and improved the climb _some._

50 MK IIA Spitfires were fitted with the 40imp gallon wing tank and issued to Nos 66,118 and 152 Squadrons. The version did not find favor in the operational squadrons due to the loss in performance. 

Time from 20,000ft to 30,000ft for the 'clean' plane was 6m 42s, time for the plane with tank was 10m 30s. even if you can shave 2 minutes off of that by using internal tanks it is still a big difference.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 27, 2013)

What kind of assault against the UK would've Germans attempted in second half of 1941? How were the Hurricanes transported at the Mediterranean in those 6 months?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 27, 2013)

stona said:


> The people at the time had to fight the war, not just the Mediterranean campaign, with the limited resources available. Hindsight is a luxury they did not have.
> 
> Any Spitfire sent to Malta or anywhere else is one less available for ADGB, Fighter Command's primary responsibility and the reason for its existence. Again people are using hindsight. It was not clear at the time that the Germans might not attempt some kind of renewed assault, aerial or otherwise, on the UK in 1941.



Tomo asked if there was a _technical_ reason. I don't believe there was. Where tactical (or strategic) considerations fall on the spectrum between _technical_ and _political_ may be different. British may have tried to push closer to Malta with carriers and lost both the carriers and the Spitfires, nothing was guaranteed. A better fighter defense might have meant fewer ships bombed/sunk close to Malta or in harbor leading to more supplies for Malta, it all gets very, very _iffy._ 

British did seem to think that ALL other theaters could be handled by aircraft that they would NOT use defending Britain which seems to show a certain arrogance or disregard of opponents capability.


----------



## stona (Oct 27, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> What kind of assault against the UK would've Germans attempted in second half of 1941? How were the Hurricanes transported at the Mediterranean in those 6 months?



The Germans couldn't launch a serious assault on Britain in 1941, as we now know _with the benefit of hindsight_.

The first flight of 12 Hurricanes to Malta was on 2nd August 1940, guided by two Skuas. All fourteen aircraft took of from the ageing carrier HMS Argus, which, I have already explained, had a flight deck too short for launching Spitfires with ferry tanks.

The second "club run" was on 15th November, again _Argus_ launched 12 Hurricanes but several were lost due to miscalculations in range/altitude and weather.

In early 1941 the Royal Navy was a bit busy conveying 68,000 troops and their equipment to Greece. I keep saying that resources are not limitless and priorities have to be made. It was also giving the Italians a bloody nose at the battle of Cape Matapan.

Nonetheless another 12 Hurricanes were brought to Gibraltar aboard _Argus_ where they transferred to _Ark Royal_ before being flown off to Malta on 3rd April '41. This time they all arrived safely. 

On 21st May '41 48 Hurricanes were flown off _Ark Royal_ and _Furious_ all arrived safely

On 6th June a similar operation safely delivered another 35 Hurricanes.

On 14th June another 47 Hurricanes were delivered, this time from _Ark Royal_ and _Victorious_

This period coincides with the disaster on Crete. The sea route to Malta, was now enfiladed by enemy air bases in Crete and North Africa. Somerville wrote.

"For over twelve months Malta has held out most gallantly against all assaults of the enemy. Until Crete fell we were able to supply Malta from both ends of the Mediterranean, but since then the situation has changed. For the present Malta can only be supplied from the west and this is the task with which we have been entrusted..."

On 5th September 26 Hurricanes were transferred from _Furious _ to _Ark Royal_ by ramp at Gibralter. On the 8th they all flew off successfully to Malta.

On 10th September both carriers successfully launched another batch of Hurricanes to Malta. (not sure exactly how many).

On 11th November 11 Hurricanes were flown of _Argus_ and 26 off _Ark Royal _to Malta. This would be _Ark Royal's_ last contribution before she was sunk.

It is important to put the deliveries of Hurricanes in context. Nobody on Malta was squealing for Hurricanes in 1941. This is largely because the Luftwaffe was occupied elsewhere. As the winter weather closed in Luftwaffe units became available to Kesselring in the Mediterranean. In early 1942 he prioritised Malta. It was only in the last weeks of 1941 that the full implications of German involvement in the Mediterranean began to be felt. The Luftwaffe steadily increased the intensity of air raids from December 1941. Malta's darkest days from February to August 1942 were upon the island.
It was only now, in early 1942, that the Hurricanes on the island became out classed by the Luftwaffe's Bf 109s and only now that Air Vice-Marshall Lloyd first asks for reinforcement with Spitfires. This is probably the principal reason why no Spitfires had been released for the defence of Malta in 1941.

The first attempt to deliver Spitfires was on 27/28th February 1942. Both _Argus_ and _Eagle_ sailed into danger only to discover that the long range tanks dispatched did not fit the Spitfire. The operation was aborted.
Almost as soon as the AOC Malta asked for Spitfire aircraft an attempt was made to deliver them.

The first batch of 16 Spitfires reached the island on 6th March 1942, launched from an almost identical task force as the earlier failed attempt.

The rest is I think well known.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 27, 2013)

Many thanks for the overview, Steve. 
As for the supposed assault against the Britain - you will note that I've twice mentioned the 'second half of 1941' as a time to deliver Spitfires elsewhere. Without hindsight, the British knew that LW did not have assets to defeat, in same time, the Soviets, the Allied forces in the Med (even with RA assets) and the metropolitan UK defenses.


----------



## stona (Oct 27, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> As for the supposed assault against the Britain - you will note that I've twice mentioned the 'second half of 1941' as a time to deliver Spitfires elsewhere. Without hindsight, the British knew that LW did not have assets to defeat, in same time, the Soviets, the Allied forces in the Med (even with RA assets) and the metropolitan UK defenses.



Yes but it might have caused some serious damage. There was absolutely no chance that the government, Air Ministry and RAF would leave any chance of Fighter Command being under strength in the UK in 1941. The Battle of Britain ended for the British in September 1940, but that is not the view of the Germans.

It's a moot point because when the RAF's Hurricanes became outclassed in the Mediterranean efforts were made to supply Spitfires. It proved difficult to do, but that is due to the actions of the Germans and a lesser extent the Italians. The intervention of the Germans in Italy's "Mare Nostrum" only began to be seriously felt on Malta at the very end of 1941. Throughout 1941 the Fleet Air Arm's Fulmars and Skuas had done quite well in fleet defence which gives an idea of the level of opposition.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 27, 2013)

stona said:


> Yes but it might have caused some serious damage. There was absolutely no chance that the government, Air Ministry and RAF would leave any chance of Fighter Command being under strength in the UK in 1941. The Battle of Britain ended for the British in September 1940, but that is not the view of the Germans.



30 Spitfires (against 30 Hurricanes less) would've made quite a difference in the Med in 1941, while 30 Spitfires less (but 30 Hurricanes more) would bee hardly felt as a disadvantage for the RAF FC that already has a 3:1 numerical advantage vs. LW at the West. And, without hindsight, RAF brass knew they have a big numerical advantage vs. LW in second half of 1941. Expecting a 'serious damage' to be dealt by such a force would be too much. 



> It's a moot point because when the RAF's Hurricanes became outclassed in the Mediterranean efforts were made to supply Spitfires. It proved difficult to do, but that is due to the actions of the Germans and a lesser extent the Italians. The intervention of the Germans in Italy's "Mare Nostrum" only began to be seriously felt on Malta at the very end of 1941. Throughout 1941 the Fleet Air Arm's Fulmars and Skuas had done quite well in fleet defence which gives an idea of the level of opposition.
> Cheers
> Steve



Well, everything wee post here is a moot point 
The Germans intervened in the Med as early as April of 1941, and, as you've posted, with fall of Crete, Malta was enfiladed from all sides as early as mid 1941. Malta was attacked by the LW, based in Sicily, from April 1941.
Further, the RAF, CW and Allied units in the North Africa and Greece/Crete (before those fell) could've find good use for the Spitfires, if only they could get any prior mid/late 1942.


----------



## stona (Oct 27, 2013)

The pressure wasn't _really_ on the RAF defenders of Malta until late 1941. You have to put this into the perspective of the entire MTO. The Luftwaffe itself had other commitments through 1941 and only ramped up it's attacks on Malta in December. The release of units from the east helped with this.

I don't know whether the AOC Malta would have got Spitfires in 1941 had he asked for them and never will. When he asked he got. Had the first attempt been better organised he would have got them fairly quickly following his request. There are lots of other things that could have been but weren't done. Plans for a sort of Maltese Coastal Command using Blenheims and other types were rejected for example.

All sides fight with limited resources, we can argue about how those resources might be deployed but we can't increase them! We might feel that too many Spitfire squadrons were retained for ADGB, but the powers of the time clearly did not.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 27, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> 30 Spitfires (against 30 Hurricanes less) would've made quite a difference in the Med in 1941, while 30 Spitfires less (but 30 Hurricanes more) would bee hardly felt as a disadvantage for the RAF FC that already has a 3:1 numerical advantage vs. LW at the West. And, without hindsight, RAF brass knew they have a big numerical advantage vs. LW in second half of 1941. Expecting a 'serious damage' to be dealt by such a force would be too much.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Correct. In both arenas there were clear operational requirements. The excuses given by FC were endless: Spitfires were too delicate for the conditions, needed for home defence (while the Luftwaffe was fully engaged in Russia and the ME), etc. 

The only excuse that was true was that LM was throwing them away by the bucket loads in France, fully backed by Douglas and Portal in their 'leaning towards the enemy' 'strategy'.

Now you have to remember that Malta and North Africa were two of the Allies 'must win' situations (the other was the Battle of the Atlantic). Whoever control Malta controls the Med. And the Allies had to clear the Med to enable shipping to come through the Suez canal thus saving millions of tons of shipping equivalent. No Med, no invasion of France because there would not be enough shipping.

Plus Malta itself payed an essential role in winning North Africa, by hammering German and Italian convoys when it was free from attack itself, as did winning in NA help protect Malta convoys from attack from airbases there. Thus you have to look at them as a single interlinked campaign.

Therefore the reluctance by the RAF to properly equip these theatres defies belief. NA only got some Spits just before the Battle of El Alamein, how many Hurricanes and P-40s did Marseille shoot down again? Shooting fish in a barrel.

But then again it took Roosevelt's personal intervention to get enough VLR B-24s for Atlantic convoy protection.....


----------



## stona (Oct 27, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Plus Malta itself payed an essential role in winning North Africa, by hammering German and Italian convoys when it was free from attack itself, ...



As it did in 1941, without Spitfires and after the fall of Crete. Don't forget that it was on 9th October, following actions by "Force K" that Rommel complained to Berlin that his supply line had been cut and that only 8,093 of his promised 60,000 troops had arrived. 

The Italians indulged in self delusion. Generale Pricolo, the Regia Aeronautica's, Chief of Staff reported that reconnaissance photos of a British cruiser moored near a dry dock in Malta was proof that it had been hit. 
Ciano noted wryly in his diary that this was " equivalent to declaring that a man is probably dead because he has gone to live near the cemetery. Clowns, tragic clowns."
Ciano also presciently wrote "we have no rights to complain if Hitler sends Kesselring as commander in the South." 
Some senior officers did loose their commands (Brivonese and Brisciani I can remember for sure).

It was the commitment of German forces against Malta which really started from the beginning of December 1941 which precipitated the crisis in 1942.
You seem to be unable to place events in a chronological order.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 27, 2013)

Think they were a bit busy in '41 too....

Siege of Malta (World War II) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> This made Malta a dangerous threat to Axis logistical concerns. In response, the Oberkommando der Luftwaffe (OLK or Air Force High Command) sent Fliegerkorps X (Flying Corps Ten) to Sicily, which arrived in January 1941, to strike at naval forces in and around Malta, as well as RAF positions on the island to ease the passage of supplies.[44]
> 
> The British operation should not have been launched: Ultra had informed the Air Ministry of Fliegerkorps X's presence on Sicily as early as 4 January. They did not pass on the intelligence to the Admiralty, who probably would not have sailed within range of the Ju 87s if they had known.[56] The RAF was in no condition to prevent a major German air attack, with only 16 Hurricanes and a couple of Gladiator aircraft serviceable.[57] On 11 January 1941 10 more Ju 87s were sent to sink Illustrious. They chanced upon the light cruisers HMS Southampton and Gloucester. Hits were scored on both; Southampton was so badly damaged her navy escorts scuttled her. Over the next 12 days the workers at the shipyard in the Grand Harbour repaired the carrier under determined air attack so that she might make Alexandria. On 13 January the Ju 87s, now equipped with SC 1000 bombs failed to achieve a hit. On 14 January, 44 Ju 87s scored a hit on the ill-fated after lift. On 18 January, the Germans switched to attacking the airfields at Hal Far and Luqa in an attempt to win air superiority before returning to Illustrious. On 20 January two near misses breached the hull below the water line and hurled her hull against the wharf. Nevertheless, the engineers won the battle. On 23 January she slipped out of Grand Harbour, and arrived in Alexandria two days later. The carrier later sailed to America where she was kept out of action for a year.[58]
> ....
> ...



Only the German Balkan campaign and then the attack on the Soviet Union saved Malta, because there was nothing the RAF was going to do about it.


----------



## stona (Oct 27, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Only the German Balkan campaign and then the attack on the Soviet Union saved Malta, because there was nothing the RAF was going to do about it.



Because there was nothing the RAF HAD to do about it. Malta survived 1941 relatively unscathed precisely because the Germans were engaged elsewhere (even Wikipedia got that bit right) and because the Italians were ineffective, particularly in the air.

The Royal Navy was operating in the Mediterranean and causing all sorts of problems for the axis forces in North Africa. It's why Kesselring prioritised Malta when he arrived in NOVEMBER 1941. Ultimately even he chickened out of a German-Italian invasion suspecting that as soon as the Royal Navy appeared the Italian fleet would bolt for its home ports.

I would disagree with the assertion in that Wikipedia article that the Hurricane could not compete with the Bf 109 E (dash number is irrelevant). It contended quite well in 1940. What the Hurricane was clearly outclassed by was the Bf 109 F which arrived later.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 27, 2013)

Getting back to the original subject with 1100-1200hp there isn't enough power for carrying fuel, armament _and_ keeping good performance. Look again at the spitfire MK II data. Lets assume that they can stick even an extra 30 IMP gallons _inside_ the plane (getting rid of the pesky fixed tank) and rig a 30-45 imp gallon drop tank. The drop tank takes care of forming up and climbing to altitude ( some of these planes could burn 25-35 gallons just getting to 30,000ft). Now you have used some internal fuel for warming up and take-off but you are at combat altitude with over 100 imp gallons of fuel or 30-40 more than an "interceptor" would have. While 5-6% more weight has a negligible effect on speed it does have a fair effect on climb, ceiling, and ability to turn.
Ability to turn is not simply how tight the turn radius is but how how fast speed bleeds off in the turn and how tight or at what rate the plane can turn and maintain altitude, not have to dive to maintain speed. Some of these early fighters can only maintain speed in a hard (4-6 "G") turn by loosing several thousand feet of altitude per minute. 

Good performance includes climb and altitude as well as speed. One source gives a late model Japanese KI 61 (two type Ho-5 cannon and two H-103mg) as needing 7 minutes to climb to 16,400ft while a MK II Spitfire can get to 20,000ft in the same time. The Spitfire has nearly 5,000ft more service ceiling. While nobody fights at or near the service ceiling it means that the operational and combat ceilings are probably in the Spitfires favor by 3-4,000ft.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 27, 2013)

stona said:


> Because there was nothing the RAF HAD to do about it. Malta survived 1941 relatively unscathed precisely because the Germans were engaged elsewhere (even Wikipedia got that bit right) and because the Italians were ineffective, particularly in the air.
> 
> 
> I would disagree with the assertion in that Wikipedia article that the Hurricane could not compete with the Bf 109 E (dash number is irrelevant). It contended quite well in 1940. What the Hurricane was clearly outclassed by was the Bf 109 F which arrived later.
> ...





> On 1 March, the Luftwaffe mounted very effective raids. Attacks on the airfields destroyed all the Wellingtons brought in in October. Royal Navy warships and Sunderland flying boats could not use the island for offensive operations. The two main fighter squadrons, No. 261 and 274 Squadrons, were put under severe pressure.[65]
> 
> From 11 April to 10 May, just 111 Axis raids were carried out. All targeted military installations. Most heavy equipment in Grand Harbour was destroyed; the dry-docks could only be operated by hand. Efficiency of most workshops was down to 50 percent, some down to 25 percent.[74]



Note all in 1941. Just a flesh wound, a big firework display, nobody noticed anything.

As for the 109. In the BoB there was the Spit and they were deliberately tasked with attacking the 109s. Without that, those 'tired old puffers' (as the Luftwaffe called them) would have suffered appalling losses. They were giving away 20-30mph, even in brand new or top condition. If they have been hammered and spares are short then that could be lot more.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 28, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Getting back to the original subject with 1100-1200hp there isn't enough power for carrying fuel, armament _and_ keeping good performance. Look again at the spitfire MK II data. Lets assume that they can stick even an extra 30 IMP gallons _inside_ the plane (getting rid of the pesky fixed tank) and rig a 30-45 imp gallon drop tank. The drop tank takes care of forming up and climbing to altitude ( some of these planes could burn 25-35 gallons just getting to 30,000ft). Now you have used some internal fuel for warming up and take-off but you are at combat altitude with over 100 imp gallons of fuel or 30-40 more than an "interceptor" would have. While 5-6% more weight has a negligible effect on speed it does have a fair effect on climb, ceiling, and ability to turn.
> Ability to turn is not simply how tight the turn radius is but how how fast speed bleeds off in the turn and how tight or at what rate the plane can turn and maintain altitude, not have to dive to maintain speed. Some of these early fighters can only maintain speed in a hard (4-6 "G") turn by loosing several thousand feet of altitude per minute.
> 
> Good performance includes climb and altitude as well as speed. One source gives a late model Japanese KI 61 (two type Ho-5 cannon and two H-103mg) as needing 7 minutes to climb to 16,400ft while a MK II Spitfire can get to 20,000ft in the same time. The Spitfire has nearly 5,000ft more service ceiling. While nobody fights at or near the service ceiling it means that the operational and combat ceilings are probably in the Spitfires favor by 3-4,000ft.



But in as escort role, you have burned off most of that fuel so the weight difference in minimal. 
Weight is not everything, the Mustang was much heavier than the Spit, which was itself heavier than the 109. In fact the Mustang and 190 were very similar in weights. Yet despite all that weight the Mustang could hold its own in turning contests with both.

By that logic the supreme fighter was the 109, followed by the Spit and the 190 and Mustang following up as also runs. The P-47 being completely useless.

There is some bit Post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments going on here. Along the lines if: "well they didn't do it because they couldn't do it with Spits. Only the P-47s and P-51s had the magical qualities necessary for MR, LR and VLR escort roles", all the extra fuel and so on had no affect on them whatsoever".

I've just been reading excellent "The Bombing War' by Richard Overy. he makes the point that the RAF simply did not do "counter force" (a more encompassing description than just escorting). It was not part of their dogma, either night or day. What little they did (and despite the propaganda it was very little), was always after the fact and as a response to terrible losses, really to get the politicians off their back and try and preserve some of morale with the crews, as much as anything else.

So these things were not technical in nature, they were deliberate choices that were made. For the RAF this applies to night fighter support as well, what little they applied was pathetic, as many people (in the RAF itself) said at the time.

Note that the USAAF was also initially dead against escort fighters (or counter force to be more exact) too. In fact Eaker was dead against them full stop. It was Hap Arnold that was the pusher (and had endless fights with Portal, all documented too, very interesting reading). 
One of the reasons why Eaker got moved sideways and people like the superb Doolittle were put in (a very unappreciated person, he was the one that created the layered escort and also set them free - within limits of course, the US's Park in my view, a superb air tactician).

Again, as always, Dowding was different. I contend that if he had remained, ideally been CAS, with Park as head of Fighter Command then things would have been very, very different. (at least there would have been no nonsense about Malta and NA, plus there would have been no starving of VLR aircraft for the BoA).

Note Dowding had no issues with improving range whatsoever, in fact it was a priority for him. Correctly reasoning (since he had been responsible for everything that had been done to date, like the Spit, Hurricane, radar, world best C&C and so on) that if you set the requirements then the manufacturers will make it happen and people like Park will create the training and tactics to apply it properly. After all the spec he created for the Spit and Hurricane was science fiction at the time in a RAF ruled by bi-planes.

So, just like today (sadly people never seem to change) a lot of people ended up dying because some prats at the top screws up and have bees in their bonnet about something (like model trains, read RV Jones, my father actually knew him, he was not impressed). 

You can pick many (sadly far too many) examples of this in the years since WW2 and right now (think F-35 for example, the Bolton Paul Defiant of its time).
Talking about that pig, Dowding spent huge amounts of time fending off the Air Ministry about that plane. They loved it, wanted heaps of squadrons dedicated to it, he managed to keep the deaths down fortunately.


----------



## stona (Oct 28, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> As for the 109. In the BoB there was the Spit and they were deliberately tasked with attacking the 109s. Without that, those 'tired old puffers' (as the Luftwaffe called them) would have suffered appalling losses. They were giving away 20-30mph, even in brand new or top condition. If they have been hammered and spares are short then that could be lot more.



Park attempted to engage escorts with Spitfires. This tactic rarely succeeded. Squadrons were tasked to a raid, the composition of which would be unknown until it neared the coast and was seen by the (Royal) Observer Corps, according to state of readiness and geographic position. They were not tasked to a raid depending on which type they were equipped with.

Almost all Luftwaffe fighter pilots claimed to have been shot down by a Spitfire, whereas many had in fact fallen victim to a Hurricane. The most successful squadron to fly in the battle flew Hurricanes. The numbers are out there.

Many eminent and successful Battle of Britain pilots have written that they preferred the Hurricane in 1940 for reasons which belong in another thread.

I am not suggesting that Malta was not targeted during 1941. The supply situation was better until the Germans arrived in force and the Royal Navy was still able to operate from the island. The importance of Malta to the British was not as an airfield but as a naval base.

It was the German reluctance to launch a seaborne assault that led to the attempt to reduce the island, from the air, in 1942. It is hard to over estimate the disdain in which German commanders held their Italian counterparts, rightly or wrongly.
It was to this threat, now largely carried out by much better equipped and determined German forces, that the RAF was reacting when Lloyd asked for Spitfires in early 1942. Unfortunately in January 1942 there was no aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean.

Vice Admiral Ford, one of the true unsung heroes of the Malta campaign realised what was happening in January 1942. He wrote to Cunningham, saying that the enemy was,

"trying to neutralize [sic] Malta's effort and, I hate to say, is gradually doing so.........Malta must be made stiff with modern fighters.......Guns and stores to come in a submarine beforehand.."

He concluded somewhat desperately,

"How I can unload convoys I cannot think."

This, early 1942, was the beginning of Malta's real trials.


As an aside be very wary of Luftwaffe claims. Much better to check allied losses. JG 27 in North Africa is one unit which we know for a fact was making knowingly fraudulent claims. Four of its pilots were busted by their own side doing this. Whilst most pilots on all sides made honest, if "optimistic", claims it would be naïve to imagine that Vogel, Sawallisch, Bendert and Stigler, 4./JG 27's so called "expert schwarm" were the only ones who knowingly inflated their figures.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 28, 2013)

> Almost all Luftwaffe fighter pilots claimed to have been shot down by a Spitfire, whereas many had in fact fallen victim to a Hurricane. The most successful squadron to fly in the battle flew Hurricanes.


Yes 303 squadron composed of the most experieced pilots around...the Poles.

But the rest, the average, tells another story which Stephen Bungay shows quite clearly.



> I am not suggesting that Malta was not targeted during 1941.



It was just a bit smashed, total air supremacy does that to places. It was over for Malta, then it was saved because the Germans went to, first the Balkans, then of course that little battle .. the Soviet Union.

RB Jones had a part to play. The Germans had learned how to jam British radar. He was consulted about this and said "keep doing it and they will believe that the jamming was ineffective". They did and after the war, he got to interview the various players. One of which, forgot his name (get his book) asked him about it , and when he told them what happened looked sheepish ... conned beautifully.


----------



## Greyman (Oct 28, 2013)

stona said:


> I would disagree with the assertion in that Wikipedia article that the Hurricane could not compete with the Bf 109 E (dash number is irrelevant). It contended quite well in 1940.



Keep in mind that these Hurricanes were well-worn, both in engine and in airframe. It's possible that this can go so far as to render an example's performance unrecognizable compared to a factory-fresh machine.

Also, aircraft had to be tropicalized, and Hurricanes were fitted with that big Volkes filter. This exacerbated the Hurricane-Bf 109 performance gap even further.

RAF units in Africa definitely complained about having to use entirely ball ammunition, it's certainly possible the units in Malta had the same problem.
The armour of your average Luftwaffe aircraft had probably improved since the Battle of Britain as well.



OldSkeptic said:


> It was over for Malta, then it was saved because the Germans went to, first the Balkans, then of course that little battle .. the Soviet Union.



The line I enjoy is '_while the ANZACs may have lost Crete, in the process they saved Malta_', the implication being they made the Germans pay so dearly for Crete that they hadn't the stomach for an airborne invasion of Malta.


----------



## stona (Oct 28, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> It was just a bit smashed, total air supremacy does that to places. It was over for Malta, then it was saved because the Germans went to, first the Balkans, then of course that little battle .. the Soviet Union.



No. 303 Squadron did have some experienced veterans but by no means all were No. 303 (Kosciuszko) only came into being on 2nd August 1940 and yet was the 4th highest scoring of all RAF squadrons. This is largely due to the longer training and better experience of those pilots. It has little to do with the aircraft they were flying, though in their hands the Hurricane I was clearly up to the job. Many pilots of the Luftwaffe were equally experienced, having fought three campaigns in some cases (Spain, Poland, France).
Of the 967 Luftwaffe aircrew taken as PoWs between 1st July and 31st October 1940 only TWO had been trained since the war began.

655 victories were credited to 30 Squadrons of Hurricanes, at 22.5 per Squadron, while 19 Spitfire Squadrons were credited with 530, at 28 per Squadron. Those are the official figures and do not support your prejudice.

As for losses, between May and November 1940 the RAF lost 753 Hurricanes and 467 Spitfires (PRO AIR 22/262). These figures have been spun many ways and somewhat loosely ("twice as many Hurricanes were lost"). The percentages of total losses are 61.7% and 38.3%. This does not badly reflect the ratio of Hurricane to Spitfire squadrons. 

Bungay is not the only or best historian of the battle. I am not going to embark on a public critique of a popular historian here.

Here is what P.B."Laddie" Lucas wrote, representing the views of himself and a certain Douglas Bader.

"Subject to height (which was critical), there was not a lot to choose between the Hurricane I, Spitfire I and the Messerschmitt 109 E_ in actual combat_"

His italics in the original. He concluded.

"Pilot quality counted for much - much more than most would credit."

See "Flying Colours" p.95 Lucas.

Let's accept that the Luftwaffe lost about 1200 aircraft between 10th July and 15th September.
221 of that total were shot down by just 17 pilots.
Most pilots never hit a thing and what aircraft type they were flying made little difference. About 15% of all pilots claimed a "whole aircraft",12% scored two and only 7% four or more.

Making one of the "club runs" to Malta, delivering 20-30 Spitfires and the infrastructure to support them, in 1941, would not have made much difference to the islands defences.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 28, 2013)

> But in as escort role, you have burned off most of that fuel so the weight difference in minimal.



That rather depends on how far you want to go doesn't It? A Merlin powered P-51 with 184 US gallons of fuel had a combat _radius_ of 150 miles following the later USAAC standard flight plan. Filling the rear tank got it up to 375 miles. 
Using 184 internal and 150 external go you 460 miles radius. You want to escort bombers to the low countries and north west France then yes, you will have burned off enough fuel to match the the 'interceptors' in weight. Going to the Ruhr of beyond? no, you are carrying more fuel than the interceptors at the point of of interception or you don't get home. 



> Weight is not everything, the Mustang was much heavier than the Spit, which was itself heavier than the 109. In fact the Mustang and 190 were very similar in weights. Yet despite all that weight the Mustang could hold its own in turning contests with both.



Quite right but you have to factor in not just weight but wing loading and co-efficient of lift


> at the angle of attack being used in the turn


 and the power to weight ratio ( or more accurately the thrust to drag ratio at the speed and angle of attack being used in the turn). Trying to compare different aircraft to predict what happens to _one_ aircraft when you change the weight introduces a bunch of variables. 



> By that logic the supreme fighter was the 109, followed by the Spit and the 190 and Mustang following up as also runs. The P-47 being completely useless.



Except we are not using logic in this example are we?

A 109G-6 could weigh 65-6600lbs at altitude after dropping it's tank. A P-47 might weigh 12,500lbs? (if it carryid under wing drop tanks it didn't carry full ammo and it used some fuel for warm up take-off and initial climb before switching to drop tanks as did the 109) so the P-47 weighs about 92% more _EXCEPT_ the gross wing area of the P-47 is 72% bigger. Which does leave the 109 with an advantage but not the one comparing weights would suggest. Now throw in rate of climb at the altitude you are at. The 109 does have an advantage here but it does get smaller as the altitude goes up. As for the Fw 190A, at 25,000ft it's climb is down to about 1500fpm compared to the P-47s 1860fpm or so ( using 56in) which means that while the P-47 might not be able to out turn the 190 for a short period of time the 190 will either loose more speed or be forced to loose altitude to maintain speed than the P-47. At low altitudes this could reverse. 



> There is some bit Post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments going on here. Along the lines if: "well they didn't do it because they couldn't do it with Spits. Only the P-47s and P-51s had the magical qualities necessary for MR, LR and VLR escort roles", all the extra fuel and so on had no affect on them whatsoever".



I am not sure where you are getting this from. The P-47 and P-51 were NOT magic. The extra fuel did have an effect on them. However the P-51 had (with the -3 engine) 1390 hp to get off the late war longer runways and it had 1330hp at 23,000ft to fight with rather than the aprox, 900hp of a Merlin XII engine in a Spitfire II which should help handle the extra weight. Early P-47 clean needed over 3 times the distance to take-off than a clean Spitfire II did. Having an engine that gave 2000hp at 25,000 wasn't "magic", it had to be paid for with weight and bulk, but it did mean that the plane was big enough to hold more internal fuel and to be able to handle drop tanks later when longer runways, better fuel, water injection and better propellers became available. 



> I've just been reading excellent "The Bombing War' by Richard Overy. he makes the point that the RAF simply did not do "counter force" (a more encompassing description than just escorting). It was not part of their dogma, either night or day. What little they did (and despite the propaganda it was very little), was always after the fact and as a response to terrible losses, really to get the politicians off their back and try and preserve some of morale with the crews, as much as anything else.
> 
> So these things were not technical in nature, they were deliberate choices that were made. For the RAF this applies to night fighter support as well, what little they applied was pathetic, as many people (in the RAF itself) said at the time.



Some of the problems were technical in nature. They could be solved but some of the solutions took time. The RAF may have taken longer than it should to institute some changes but you can't have 1944 performance in 1940/41 and blaming the lack of 1944 performance on bad officers does ignore the technical problems.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 28, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Getting back to the original subject with 1100-1200hp there isn't enough power for carrying fuel, armament _and_ keeping good performance. Look again at the spitfire MK II data. Lets assume that they can stick even an extra 30 IMP gallons _inside_ the plane (getting rid of the pesky fixed tank) and rig a 30-45 imp gallon drop tank. The drop tank takes care of forming up and climbing to altitude ( some of these planes could burn 25-35 gallons just getting to 30,000ft). Now you have used some internal fuel for warming up and take-off but you are at combat altitude with over 100 imp gallons of fuel or 30-40 more than an "interceptor" would have. While 5-6% more weight has a negligible effect on speed it does have a fair effect on climb, ceiling, and ability to turn.
> Ability to turn is not simply how tight the turn radius is but how how fast speed bleeds off in the turn and how tight or at what rate the plane can turn and maintain altitude, not have to dive to maintain speed. Some of these early fighters can only maintain speed in a hard (4-6 "G") turn by loosing several thousand feet of altitude per minute.



The 'LR Spitfire II' (or any other LR fighter) will be, assuming it's escorting the bombers, at ~20000 ft. The defender need to climb up in order to fight. That gives the LR fighter the advantage in height. Another disadvantage the defender faces is the target priority - are you going to hit the bombers (the escorts will get you) or you will try to tackle the escorts (the bombers do the damage to your bases/factories/towns etc). 
Further disadvantage is the inability of defenders to concentrate in one area of interest. An attacker that has 1000 fighters can choose where to attack and concentrate the forces accordingly; the defender must spread (as wisely as possible, but still) it's 1000 of fighters in the areas most likely to be attacked. Result - the defender can throw in maybe 1/3 to 1/2 of it's fighters against the attacker. Historically, the 10 and 12 Group were ill able to help out the 11 Group during the BoB, but lack of range for Bf-109 made it impossible for the LW to capitalize on that. Against Germany, the fighters based in one part of it (or other parts of the W. Europe) were unable to deal much of the help to the fighters based in other part of the country once P-51B arrived and used that to it's advantage.
We can also note that radar coverage and professional C&C system were more of an exception than a rule in the 1st half of war. Even with some radads available, the, on the paper far superior Spit Vs needed much time, effort and sacrifice to stop bomb raids on Darwin, escorted by Zeroes. 
Those advantages, the LR fighter provides, should overweight a tad a lower RoC. 



> Good performance includes climb and altitude as well as speed. One source gives a late model Japanese KI 61 (two type Ho-5 cannon and two H-103mg) as needing 7 minutes to climb to 16,400ft while a MK II Spitfire can get to 20,000ft in the same time. The Spitfire has nearly 5,000ft more service ceiling. While nobody fights at or near the service ceiling it means that the operational and combat ceilings are probably in the Spitfires favor by 3-4,000ft.



The version with 2 HMGs and 2 LMGs have had the ceiling of 11000m (35500 ft) on 2950 kg loaded weight. The version with 4 HMGs have had the ceiling of 10000 m (32260 ft) on 3130 kg; Spit II was at 37000 ft (on 2800 kg). The Ki-61 variant with cannons weighted 3470, and was, at 580 km/h. some 10 km/h slower than lighter versions. 
Same 4 HMG variant was to climb to 16400 ft in 5min 30 sec, vs. Spit II 5 min to climb to 15000 ft. The 
So we come to another thing - defender needs good punch (it must kill bombers, not just fighter), while the attacker can do with lighter armament. Ie. the extra weight it must carry due to fuel added is well canceled out by the less guns ammo it must carry. The P-51B vs Fw-190A-7/A-8 and 3 cannon Bf-109s come to mind; the Ki-61 will still be a threat with MGs only. It was also faster than Spit II, ~355 mph vs 360-366 mph.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 28, 2013)

Please remember, it is not just the initial climb to altitude. The rate of climb affects the turning ability of the fighter _at altitude. _ The fighter with the lower rate of climb WILL NOT be able to turn as long or as hard without loosing either speed or altitude or both. This is different than just turn radius or how many "G"s. Most early fighters were doing good if they could pull 3 "G"s at their best altitude and turn speed WITHOUT loosing speed and/or altitude. And the 3 "G" turn was under 250mph. 

once again see;

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn.gif

The Spitfire I can pull 3 Gs at 225mph at a 1200ft radius and maintain altitude at 12,000ft and do a 360 in 23 seconds. It can tighten the turn to 6 "G"S and a 690ft radius and do the turn in about 19 seconds but speed is down to about 160mph. _IF_ you want to pull a 4 G turn at 300mph and the same 23 seconds to complete the 360 at a 1600ft radius you have to point the nose down about 10 degrees. that is to say loose about 50 ft of altitude for every 300ft of forward travel or be dropping 4400 feet per minute. 

Later Spitfires with more power and more weight will behave a bit different as will trying this at a different altitude but I hope you get the idea. The better the climb rate the more 'excess' power you have to _maintain_ altitude in a turn. 

BTW the Spit MK II got some extra 'stuff' that helped kill it's power advantage over the MK I Spitfire. Like the famous 6mph armor glass windscreen and the seldom noted IFF aerials running from the fuselage to the tips of each tailplane. Fitting out the Ki 61 to British 'standards' might have knocked a few mph of the top speed.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 28, 2013)

Thanks for the data. 
I was trying to point out that a slight advantage in performance the defender might have will be pitted with advantages intrinsic to the attacker (height advantage; ability to better concentrate always limited assets; the target 'preference' that might either position the escorts right behind defenders or allow the bombers to do their task; dependence on how well the C&C network works, if available at all). 
What ever the engine power advantage the Spit II have had over the Spit I, it ceased once the fighters were above, say, 10000 ft. The Merlin III and Merlin XII were capable for same 1030 HP at ~16000 ft. It took Hooker's Merlins to improve Spitfire's performance at medium and high altitudes. Indeed, added extras killed much of the speed RoC vs. Spit I.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 28, 2013)

Actually no, the Merlin XII used a slightly higher supercharger ratio. 9.089 instead of the 8.58 in the Merlin MK III. It used pressure water cooling instead of gylcol and since it was intended to use 100 octane from the start was initially rated using 9lbs of boost. 
engine could pull 1140hp at 14,750ft at 9lbs boost. With RAM it could pull 8.8-9lbs at 17,550 ft under test and just over 6lbs at 20,000ft. It was rigged to use 12lbs boost with boost override. 
The increase was not anywhere near what Hooker got with his changes but there was a difference.

edit. a big change was that the engine was rated at 2850rpm and 9lbs boost while climbing for 30 minutes instead of the 2600rpm and 6 1/4lbs the Merlin III was rated at for 30 min climb.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 28, 2013)

Indeed, you're right. 
At those 14750 ft it was making 40 HP more than Merlin III, or some 3.5% more. Combat power was 1280 HP at 10800 at 12 lbs boost, vs. 1300 HP at 9000 HP at 12 lbs for the Merlin III.


----------



## Glider (Oct 28, 2013)

We can chew over the numbers endlessly but there can be no doubt that over Malta the Hurricanes were totally outclassed by the Me109. When the Spitfires arrived things improved, the pilots were trained to a similar level so its the performance that made the difference. The books Malta the Spitfire yeas and Malta the Hurricane years make this very clear and should be read by anyone with an interest in this battle.

As for range, when the Spit was designed the mantra was that the bomber would always get through, a mantra the RAF WENT TO CONSIDERABLE LENGTHS TO DISPROVE. As mentioned earlier the spec for the Spit and Hurricane was almost science fiction when written and the emphasis was on its performance as an interceptor, a role the Spitfire was the plane everyone measured their aircraft against. Its worth noting the Japanese considered the Spit to be the ultimate interceptor during the BOB and they had full access to the Me109. 

If you are talking range then drop tanks obviously help, but you need more internal fuel. Weight has often been mentioned and its important but only up to a point, if the plane is designed for the weight then the impact is reduced. Had the designers been given a spec for a longer ranged fighter then I am confident that they would have succeeded. The Zero is one approach, the P51 another what is noticeable that these are single engine designs . A twin is almost always going to be at a disadvantage if the opposition can match its speed. The Me110 was a great success in the battles before the BOB as it generally had a speed advantage, in the BOB it didn't. The P38 had the speed advantage over most of the Japanese opposition but wasn't nearly as effective against the Germans whose aircraft were generally faster.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 28, 2013)

Something was going on in the 1930s as the Germans had the Bf 110, the French wound up with the Potez 63 series ( and others), The Dutch built the Fokker G1 , The Poles tried to build the PZL P.38 Wilk, and the US toyed long and hard with the Bell Airacuda. The Japanese joined in with the Kawasaki KI 45 Toryu. And perhaps a few I missed. 

Kawasaki Ki-45 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now none of these planes were particularly successful against single engine interceptors but they do show that few, if any, air staffs believed you could build a long range single engine aircraft with the technology of the times (mid to late 30s). It took the cold, bitter truth of actual combat to show that these planes could NOT compete with short range interceptors (much like turret fighters or strapping gun packs under twin engine bombers) and it took either very large single engine fighters or exceptional low drag aircraft with engines that had much better power to weight ratios than late 1930s engines to get single engine escorts to work.


----------



## stona (Oct 29, 2013)

Glider said:


> We can chew over the numbers endlessly but there can be no doubt that over Malta the Hurricanes were totally outclassed by the Me109.



It was outclassed by the Bf 109 F when that arrived, so was the Spitfire I. The "Friedrich" arrived in the MTO in significant numbers in late 1941.

Prior to that the Hurricane could compete with the Bf 109 E over Malta just as well as it had done over England in 1940. There are many tactical reasons why the RAF's Hurricane force was overwhelmed over Malta but simply blaming an aeroplane that had been the mainstay of Fighter Command months earlier and was fighting the same German opponent and mostly inferior Italian opponents just doesn't work.

I have already posted figures showing the comparative performance of the Spitfire and Hurricane in the BoB along with a salient comment by "Laddie" Lucas. I could post another twenty similar opinions _from men who actually flew the Hurricane in combat against the Bf 109 E._ I'll take their opinions (Townsend, Bader, Kain, Orton, Holden, Mould........I could go on for a while) over any of ours every time.

As for Malta's Spitfires, in January 1942 Cunningham's battle fleet had virtually ceased to exist. He had no carrier, Barham was lost and Valiant and Queen Elizabeth were disabled. It was this situation, described by Cunningham as "depressing in the extreme" which allowed the Italians to run operation M43, a convoy to Tripoli on which Ciano wrote rested "hopes for the resistance in Libya". The naval situation was now desperate for the British.
It is impossible to separate the supply of Malta from the situation in North Africa which had now improved for the Axis. In February 1942, after the failure of convoy MW9, Cunningham made it clear to the Admiralty that the further Auchinleck pulled back his defensive line (and deferred a counter-attack) the more difficult the task of supplying Malta became. At the end of February the Chiefs of Staff informed Cunningham that they could no longer replenish Malta from Gibraltar, though "club runs" would be attempted. I already mentioned that of February 27/28 which was aborted because the wrong ferry tanks for the Spitfires had been sent.

Operation SPOTTER delivered the first 15 Spitfires on 5th March. At the same time Force H fell back to Gibraltar and the Italians were able to vigorously re-supply and reinforce Rommel in North Africa. Between 7th and 18th March they pushed through a series of convoys virtually unmolested.

Convoy MW 10 might give an idea of how wide ranging actions were in support of Malta. You cannot just consider one narrow aspect of the campaign (like re-supply of fighters) out of context. In support of MW 10 were not only Cunningham's war ships, including the recently arrived 5th Destroyer Flotilla, but various submarines. The Long Range Desert Group mounted diversionary raids on the Axis airfields at Martuba and Tmimi. RAF and land based FAA aircraft from Egypt bombed Luftwaffe airfields in an attempt to keep its Ju 88s grounded. The RAF's Naval Co-operation Group, No. 201 provided air cover and reconnaissance ahead of the convoy. This is not the place to tell the story of MW 10, suffice to say that of the 29,500 tons of materiel sent only 4,952 tons were landed on Malta.

A lack of fighters on Malta was NOT the most pressing problem that the British faced in the Mediterranean. It was however becoming one. Through February and March Fliegerkorps II was indeed laying waste to the island, flying more than 4,000 day light sorties and dropping about 7,000 tons of bombs.

The 16 Spitfires delivered by Operation PICKET on 27th March didn't make a great deal of difference. By April 1942 the Axis was deploying more than 500 aircraft against the island.

It was now that Churchill cabled Roosevelt saying (slightly inaccurately) that between 20 and 30 British fighters on Malta were ranged against 600 enemy aircraft. He asked if Roosevelt would be willing to allow USS Wasp to make one of the club runs. Churchill noted that "the response was generous."
This was a green light for Operation CALENDAR.

52 Spitfire Vs of Nos 601 and 603 Squadrons were loaded aboard the US carrier. The Spitfires were prepared aboard USS Wasp when it was found that the ferry tanks were defective and leaked copiously, many of the aircraft's guns did not work, three quarters of the aircraft radios didn't work. Not a good start. It only got worse. Eventually, on 20th April, 48 Spitfires were made airworthy and flew off to Malta. They landed at Ta'Quali where they were almost immediately attacked by 300 Luftwaffe aircraft. Within 72 hours not one single Spitfire was airworthy.

A second operation, BOWERY, was now needed. USS Wasp returned to pick up another batch of Spitfires. It became apparent that the ferry tank problem was unresolved. An unimpressed Captain Reeves ordered loading to be stopped until the problem was rectified. He also undertook to "carry out such further repairs as were necessary with his own labour." The Americans were clearly unimpressed with British efforts, something which did not go unnoticed. The flag-officer at Glasgow reported that the situation had been "unsatisfactory, and has unfortunately created a very bad impression."

Preparations for the arrival of the Spitfires were better organised. The fast minelayer "Welshman" was chosen to carry ground personnel and spares, including 100 Merlin engines, to the island.
USS Wasp set off with 47 Spitfires and was joined by the repaired HMS Eagle at Gibraltar with 17 undelivered Spitfires still aboard. 
On 9th April all the Spitfires flew off to Malta. This time they were dispersed to all three air fields. The ferry pilots were relieved by experienced combat pilots. Within half an hour 61 Spitfires were armed, fuelled and ready for action. When the Luftwaffe arrived to repeat their success of 20th April they got a nasty surprise. The Luftwaffe lost 37 aircraft that day. The tide of the air war over Malta was turned by the arrival of those Spitfires. The fighting of 10th May has been called "The Battle of Malta" and the Axis lost it.

Much credit should go to the Americans and it is seldom given. Reeves and his crew were not just a delivery service. It was largely these Americans who rectified the shameful, shambolic, British embarkation procedure.

The victory in "The Battle of Malta" and the salvation of the island was actually abetted inadvertently by Kesselring. Following the Luftwaffe's success on 20th April he reported that Malta was "neutralised". Hitler promptly cancelled the already moribund plans for Operation HERKULES and sent the troops still ear marked for the invasion to Rommel, ensuring that even the outside chance of an invasion was gone. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Greyman (Oct 29, 2013)

stona said:


> Prior to that the Hurricane could compete with the Bf 109 E over Malta just as well as it had done over England in 1940. There are many tactical reasons why the RAF's Hurricane force was overwhelmed over Malta but simply blaming an aeroplane that had been the mainstay of Fighter Command months earlier and was fighting the same German opponent and mostly inferior Italian opponents just doesn't work.



The aircraft were different, however. Over Malta, the Hurricane I was much worse and the Bf 109E only got better.


----------



## stona (Oct 29, 2013)

Greyman said:


> The aircraft were different, however. Over Malta, the Hurricane I was much worse and the Bf 109E only got better.



Would you care to clarify. 

How had the Bf 109 E "got better"? 
The Bf 109 Es committed to the Maltese campaign were essentially the same as those fighting the battle of Britain. Some may have had DB 601 N engines, but given the arguments raging at the RLM about which aircraft should get what engines it would not have been all. Some would have been GM-1 equipped, only relevant above 8,000 metres, but none of this was new in 1941.
The one notable improvement would have been the ability to carry a drop tank on the E-7.

How were the Hurricanes "much worse"?
Hurricane Is but mostly Hurricane IIs were sent to Malta. The Hurricane IIs which were powered by the Merlin XX and were delivered to the RAF from October 1940 could do 342 mph at 17,400 feet, in S gear, just 20mph slower than a Spitfire.

It wasn't the type of aeroplane but the lack that was the problem. Tobruk fell on 22nd January 1941. At that time there was just No. 261 Squadron on Malta (at Hal Far) with a mixture of Hurricanes and Sea Gladiators.
Raids in early 1941 rarely comprised more than 60 Axis aircraft. The failure of the first club run (HMS Argus) left the defences depleted. In desperation 6 Hurricanes were flown from Gazala to Hal Far on 30th January, a considerable feat, led by Flt Lt Charles Wittingham. This was all Longmore could spare. You MUST see the Maltese campaign in the context of the larger conflict in the Mediterranean, it did not take place in isolation.

For example it took until May 1941 before stocks of Hurricanes in the Canal Zone reached more than 100. It was at this period that deliveries of Hurricanes were being made by the club runs I listed a while back. In June a third Hurricane squadron was created at Ta'Qali.
In July 1941, as some contributors here think that Malta needed its Spitfires and the air situation was desperate it became evident that the Luftwaffe was hardly involved in attacks on the island. We know that many units were moved away in preparation for Barbarossa.
Emboldened, far from crying out for Spitfires, LLoyd went on the OFFENSIVE, attacking Italian air bases in Sicily.

An action in Malta on 26th July tells a tale.
The Italians sent 6 fast motor boats and Maachi C.200s to attack Grand Harbour. Hurricanes of Nos 126 and 185 Squadrons were tasked to the raid. They destroyed 4 of the motor boats and the gun runs of Flt Lt Peter Lefevre so unnerved the crew of another that it ran up a white flag. 185 Squadron had driven off the Maachis but Plt Off Winton was forced to bale out of his aircraft. He landed in the sea and swam to the nearest Italian motor boat. He found the entire crew dead and so "captured" the vessel. The squadron retained its flag as a memento.

Jump forward to early 1942, when the Luftwaffe was well and truly back in the fray and the situation is very different. Between December 1941 and February 1942, as the pressure mounted No. 126 Squadron destroyed 34 German and Italian aircraft for the loss of 10 Hurricanes. This included some Bf 109 Fs, an aircraft which was clearly superior to the Hurricane. In the second week of March 1942 there were only 30 serviceable Hurricanes on Malta. These were confronting raids not by 40-60 Axis aircraft but hundreds.

_The Spitfires that were flown into Malta in March 1942 were the first armed Spitfires to be deployed in the Mediterranean theatre_

The defence of Malta did now became a priority and would henceforth be largely undertaken by Spitfires. The contribution of the Hurricane was vital. It was not an obsolete aircraft in 1941, in fact many squadrons were still using Hurricanes well into 1943, some into 1944. When Tedder was appointed Air Commander in Chief, Mediterranean Air Command on 17th February 1943 he inherited 23 Hurricane squadrons and 34 Spitfire squadrons (including 6 of the USAAF)

In two years of fighting to sustain Malta 333 Hurricanes had been delivered from carriers, 62 had been flown in from bases in Cyrenaica (when they were available) and a further 19 had been delivered as deck cargo on merchant ships. The "poor old Hurricane" is consistently under rated and under appreciated. Without it not just the Battle of Britain might have had a different outcome.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Oct 29, 2013)

stona said:


> How had the Bf 109 E "got better"?
> The Bf 109 Es committed to the Maltese campaign were essentially the same as those fighting the battle of Britain. Some may have had DB 601 N engines, but given the arguments raging at the RLM about which aircraft should get what engines it would not have been all.
> 
> How were the Hurricanes "much worse"?
> Hurricane Is but mostly Hurricane IIs were sent to Malta. The Hurricane IIs which were powered by the Merlin XX and were delivered to the RAF from October 1940 could do 342 mph at 17,400 feet, in S gear, just 20mph slower than a Spitfire.



I have no figures on the number of DB601N engines in JG26 at that time either.

As I said before, the Hurricanes during this first Luftwaffe period (against the Bf 109E) were well-worn and forced to equip tropical filters. As far as I can tell most of the Hurricanes during this period (Feb - Apr 1941) were Mk.I aircraft. Reading the countless pilot accounts in 'Hurricanes Over Malta' (Brian Cull and Frederick Galea) it's abundantly clear the Hurricane pilots were very, very troubled by the Bf 109.


----------



## stona (Oct 29, 2013)

Again Malta was prioritised.
On 3rd April 1941 Malta received the first Hurricane IIs (a mixture of IIAs and IIBs) to reach the Mediterranean theatre. Just as later it would receive the first armed Spitfires. Subsequently all Hurricanes delivered to Malta were Mark IIs.
To put this in perspective, it wasn't until July 1941 that even half the squadrons in the Middle East were equipped with Mark IIs, around the time the 300th Hurricane passed through Takoradi..

I would be surprised if the RAF's pilots over Malta were not troubled by the Bf 109 E. It was a very good aeroplane. The fact that it did not significantly out class the Hurricane certainly didn't make it an easy target.
The point is that the Hurricane could and did hold its own against the Bf 109 E throughout 1940 and into 1941.
It is not to be forgotten that at the end of 1940 Hurricane squadrons still out numbered Spitfire squadrons_ in the UK_ by about 3:2. At the end of 1940 Hurricane production still exceeded Spitfire production by a similar ratio.

The Bf 109 F, which was a much improved, if under armed fighter was a late comer to the Mediterranean. Despite being in production for many months previously the RAF in the Mediterranean and Middle East only became aware of it in significant numbers during Operation CRUSADER in November 1941. The "Friederich" had been deployed first in NW Europe and had subsequently gone East.
It's arrival over Malta really was a problem for the Hurricane and led directly to the pleas from Malta for Spitfires in early 1942.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Greyman (Oct 29, 2013)

Roughed out a quick diagram. I know of no test of a tropicalized Hurricane I, so I reduced a standard Hurricane I the same amount as a Hurricane II as an estimate.







Purple - Bf 109E
Green - Hurricane I (temp)
Orange - Hurricane I (trop)

Having a 'worn out' aircraft is quite a nebulous quality, but it can get pretty bad. For example, I have a tests Hurricanes in Squadron service during Battle of Britain, and the difference between the fastest and the slowest at full throttle height was 33 mph.

The tired, old Finnish H75s are another good example. According to their tests an aircraft was 27 mph slower than a brand new Mohawk in British service (very same engine).

It's impossible to really quantify this 'worn' or 'clapped' aspect of the Hurricanes during this period, but it's something that fails to escape constant mention when researching the situation that faced the British pilots.


----------



## stona (Oct 29, 2013)

You need to do the chart for the Hurricane II which was the type used on Malta from April/May 1941 until the Spitfires arrived a year later.

I would also refer you to comments by the men who flew the type. As Lucas said there wasn't much in it _"in actual combat"_......his italics.

Charts and performance figures only tell half a story. If the fighter which was the mainstay of Fighter Command for all of 1939, 40 and into 41 had been so badly outclassed by the opposition the RAF would have been in far deeper doo-doo than the historical record, losses, victory percentages and all the other data that I have already posted would indicate. It would beggar belief that the Air Ministry was still producing more Hurricanes than Spitfires in November 1940.

I've nothing more to add here. I would suggest going back through the thread and reading the data I have posted. I would say that facing the Bf 109 E the success and loss rates of the Spitfire and Hurricane from May to November 1940 are most significant. It's one of the few ways we can quantify the performance of aircraft fighting the same battle in Laddie Lucas' "actual combat." 
Nobody can refute those.

We are all entitled to opinions but none of us can change the facts!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Greyman (Oct 29, 2013)

I was flipping through 'Hurricane Over Malta' and found this telling bit:

_Worse was to follow, for they were taken by bus to Takali where they were informed they were to fly the well-worn, battle-weary Hurricane Is left by 261 Squadron. One of the new arrivals, Flight Lieutenant Tom Neil was not impressed with what he saw, and described the Hurricanes as: "A poor crowd of battered Mark Is - no squadron markings, some with Vokes filters, some not. A variety of propellers etc ..." Another reported seeing tailwheel tyres stuffed with straw due to lack of spares, and the inherited Hurricanes were undeniably in a poor state of repair and serviceability. 

Pilot Officer John Pain agreed with the comment regarding the condition of the aircraft left behind: "By the time we left, aircraft were being repaired with dope-painted linen or cloth from anywhere, and metal repairs were made with the aid of 'Players' 50s tins. And, of course, cannibalization where practicable._

This was 21 May, 1941, just after the final JG26 over Malta (before finishing their move back to North Africa). As far as I can tell the island was operating about 30 Hurricane Is and were down to 2 Hurricane IIs (from the total of 18 that were sent to the island up to that point).


----------



## stona (Oct 29, 2013)

3rd April WINCH 12 Hurricane IIs
27th April DUNLOP/SALIENT 24 Hurricane IIs
19th-22nd May SPLICE 48 Hurricane IIs
These were not old or war weary aircraft and I can't tally the recollections above with the actual club runs made. 84 Hurricane IIs were delivered in April and May.
5th-6th June ROCKET 35 Hurricane IIs
14th June TRACER 47 Hurricane IIs
27th June RAILWAY 1 22 Hurricane IIs
30th June RAILWAY 2 35 Hurricane IIs (eventually, this operation did not run smoothly).

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Greyman (Oct 29, 2013)

The question is what numbers of these stayed in Malta, however.

For example, for 'SPLICE' all 48 Hurricane IIs refueled at Malta and continued on their way to the Middle East.


----------



## stona (Oct 29, 2013)

Really? Where's that from? I can't check now but that would be a bizarre way of moving aircraft to the Middle East.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 29, 2013)

stona said:


> Really? Where's that from? I can't check now but that would be a bizarre way of moving aircraft to the Middle East.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



That was pretty common - this was another strategic advantage, commonly overlooked, that Malta provided to the Commonwealth. Hurricanes over Malta,p.295, states that about 390 Hurricanes arrived at Malta via various means but approx 150 of these flew on to North Africa, for a net total of 250 staying in Malta over a ~24 month period.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 29, 2013)

> Wonder if someone can come up with a viable escort fighter on 1000-1200 HP (at 20000-15000 ft of altitude; historical engines only)? How would it stack vs. historical fighters with same power? What weaponry to choose (historically available for the country, of course). How good an escort range?



Not as easy as we might belive without the use of considerable hindsight and very hard to do without resorting to references of late war escorts, as we've done here. The thing that is overlooked is that no one had an aircraft of the P-51/P-47 class (single seat, single engine long range bomber escort) in service in the first year of the war. Existing designs were largely twins - DonL and Shortround posting examples of what was the mindset of the time. This was partly because of the belief that 'the bomber will always get through' - the British were not the only ones to believe this - and because a sustained bombing offensive of the nature of those that were carried out in WW2 had not been done on quite the same scale and intensity and therefore the problems that were to arise on both sides, those in reciept of the bombing and those conducting the bombing weren't necessarily obvious.

Two choices are available for single seaters; either work with an existing design or conceive something completely new - both of which, if they are to be in service within the first year of WW2 are definitely within the constraints of the thinking of the time; SR6 made this point way back in post #5. Regarding airfield length; this _was_ a big priority and oddly enough, or not so, aircraft _were_ designed to operate from existing fields, which, by comparison to later construction were rather small and limited. The world was not at war 1936 to 1939, so the compulsory purchase of land for expansion of airfields was not going to happen in a hurry just to meet the designs that couldn't perform within spec. The Stirling is a good example of this. When the mini Stirling was tested by the A AEE, it claimed its take off and landing run was too long; Gouge decided that the full size bomber was too far down the line to alter the angle of incidence of the wing, which was recommended, so he lengthened the undercarriage to produce a greater angle of attack to the oncoming airflow on the ground.



> So, just like today (sadly people never seem to change) a lot of people ended up dying because some prats at the top screws up and have bees in their bonnet about something



I see OldSkeptic is Air Staff bashing again.



> Talking about that pig, Dowding spent huge amounts of time fending off the Air Ministry about that plane. They loved it, wanted heaps of squadrons dedicated to it, he managed to keep the deaths down fortunately.



Firstly, the Defiant fits into this discussion because it was designed as a bomber interceptor, _not_ as a day fighter; its clear mission was to take out _unescorted_ bombers flying from Germany, which, as noted earlier, no one had a fighter escort of the kind that we are discussing here prior to WW2. The Defiant did not actually enter service until late 1939 and then only in very small numbers; the hold up being turret supply. There were only two squadrons equipped with it in the Battle of Britain, one of which was knocked out in one action and sent for recouperation before the type was relegated to night fighter only duties. I don't have my figures with me, but there were only about 30 or so Defiants lost between May and end of August 1940, the months that Defiants engaged in combat as day fighters.

From the outset it was recognised that the biggest failing of the type was its speed, but despite this it was placed on the front line. This was a failing of the Air Staff and not of the aeroplane's - it shouldn't have been used as a day fighter, but as a bomber interceptor - and served very well as a night fighter; it being particularly suited to that role. On the subject of night fighting, no one had dedicated night fighters with the sophistication of later aircraft in 1940. There is much criticism of the RAF Air Staff, Dowding in particular for his lack of priority to night fighters, but as I stated earlier, before the war, no one could forsee the realities of bombing by night. The British thought that they could use their day fighter squadrons at night, but this was seriously flawed, but it was based on pre-war ideas. In fact, the Defiant, with all its flaws proved to be the most worthy night fighter the British had until Beaufighters and Mosquitoes came on strength in numbers in 1942. 

It took time to grow tactics and night fighter strategy and without hard experience this wasn't just going to happen 'overnight' - as it was (or maybe it was? ). Remember the German offensive against Europe and then Britain by day and night was the biggest and heaviest bombing campaign to date; the raid on Coventry was the largest concetration of bombers and bombs dropped on one target in history up to that time. It's no wonder there was criticism of Dowding, but it perhaps was not entirely justified under the circumstances.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 30, 2013)

> the British were not the only ones to believe this



True, the Americans believed it, the Germans believed it (fortunately). The Japanese didn't ... and created the finest LR carrier fighter for the first part of the war.

Except that amongst the British, as per my pictures, some did believe that you could trick up a SE plane with longer range and _operational experiments_ were ordered _before _the BoB.

So I am Air Staff bashing, because it could be done. If for no other reason than Dowding and Cotton showed how. 
Which is why I said that it is useful to turn around the problem. If you look at as not about increasing the range of an existing fighter Spit, but as about fitting guns to an already existing MR/LR PR Spit.
When you do that, plus the other experiments, then it seems a much simpler problem. Albeit combined with good tactics and planning of course (even the Mustangs wouldn't have been as good without that).

So there were 2 groups: the "it couldn't be done" crowd, some (but not all) then looked at twin alternatives*. The other was the "yes it could be done" crowd and then went and built them....

Not surprisingly many of the "couldn't be done" crowd were also saying "it couldn't be done" to develop 350pmh fighters with 8 guns.... And go faster than sound or even faster than 50mph on a train..... and so on....

* Funnily enough, not surprising if you are as cynical as I am, some of those 'twin lovers' also ignored the Mosquito at first .... oh well.

Again I say, you are arguing about technicalities, when the real issue was people. If the will had been there it would have been done. Yes compromises would have had to be made, yes good training, tactics and planing would have been required to use them properly ... but it would have been done.


----------



## stona (Oct 30, 2013)

Flying on to North Africa is not quite the same as flying to the Middle East! Air bases in North Africa were within range and there were times that aircraft were needed in North Africa or elsewhere in theatre. This was indeed fairly common practice. The SPLICE Hurricanes went to Nos. 213 and 229 Squadrons in Egypt, which was in Africa last time I looked 

The date of SPLICE falls around the time that the Germans were becoming established on Crete and aircraft may have been needed to cover the evacuation. Everyone has limited resources and the British in the Mediterranean had very limited resources which had to be used where the need was greatest.

Malta was still being prioritised, at least in terms of the aircraft retained on the island. For example the Hurricane IIs delivered in the ROCKET club run stayed on Malta. Pilots of No. 229 Squadron still on Malta were obliged to fly to Africa in older Mark Is which, it was wryly noted, "the resident units gladly released."

The spares situation in the Mediterranean generally was dire, and on Malta desperate. One pilot in North Africa was forced to make a wheels down landing in the desert more than twenty miles from his airfield. On his own initiative he managed to arrange to tow his Hurricane thirteen miles before a main wheel tyre burst. There were no spares and the aeroplane was left where it was.
A tail wheel tyre stuffed with straw seems entirely feasible!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 30, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> True, the Americans believed it, the Germans believed it (fortunately). The Japanese didn't ... and created the finest LR carrier fighter for the first part of the war.
> 
> Except that amongst the British, as per my pictures, some did believe that you could trick up a SE plane with longer range and _operational experiments_ were ordered _before _the BoB.
> 
> ...



This argument is getting old. The old "If the _will_ was there we can repeal the laws of physics" argument. Eight .303s with 250rpg weigh 440lbs which is the weight of 61 imp gallons of fuel without tanks/piping. 

Operational experiments _were_ carried out during and right after the BoB, the pilots didn't like the loss of performance with the single under wing tanks, but what did they know. Proper tactics can make up for loss of climb, ceiling,speed and maneuverability right? Of course British tactics at the time in question were pretty dismal even with aircraft performing as well as they did. 

A longer range Spitfire could have been available in numbers in the summer of 1940. ALL you needed was the _WILL_ to do so. Like the _will_ to build constant speed propellers sooner, the _will_ to swipe Merlin X engines from Bomber Command aircraft (leaving you with fewer bombers to escort) the _will_ to enlarge a number of fighter airfields sooner, the _will_ to perhaps *reduce* the armament carried. The _will_ to train the pilots better in navigation ( the bomber crews had enough trouble finding their way around Europe in 1940). 

The PR planes were NOT expected to fight and could be flown at weights/loadings that would be unacceptable in a fighter aircraft. General instructions for PR recon planes were to return to base if intercepted or opposition (including flak) was too great, save the plane and return for pictures another day. Not really an option if you are escorting bombers.


----------



## stona (Oct 30, 2013)

You can take as an example the long range tanks fitted to a few Hurricanes. They were not popular because quite apart from the detrimental effect on performance the armour plate behind the seat had to be removed and ammunition load reduced to compensate for the weight of fuel (and tanks).
There were other issues as a member of No. 274 Squadron, stationed at Gerawla and with four such Hurricanes on the books, explained.

"There were two additional tanks, one port, one starboard. The port tank emptied first, then the starboard. Air locks were liable to develop owing to bad refuelling or severe bumps in the air and throw the system out of commission. You never knew when the port tank emptied if the starboard tank was going to feed through. If your starboard tank refused to work over the sea, that was the end." 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Greyman (Oct 30, 2013)

stona said:


> Flying on to North Africa is not quite the same as flying to the Middle East! Air bases in North Africa were within range and there were times that aircraft were needed in North Africa or elsewhere in theatre. This was indeed fairly common practice. The SPLICE Hurricanes went to Nos. 213 and 229 Squadrons in Egypt, which was in Africa last time I looked



Egypt is both Africa and the Middle East. But yeah, I should have said Egypt/North Africa for clarity's sake.


----------



## Glider (Oct 30, 2013)

stona said:


> It was outclassed by the Bf 109 F when that arrived, so was the Spitfire I. The "Friedrich" arrived in the MTO in significant numbers in late 1941.
> 
> Prior to that the Hurricane could compete with the Bf 109 E over Malta just as well as it had done over England in 1940. There are many tactical reasons why the RAF's Hurricane force was overwhelmed over Malta but simply blaming an aeroplane that had been the mainstay of Fighter Command months earlier and was fighting the same German opponent and mostly inferior Italian opponents just doesn't work.



As I said earlier we can chew over numbers and peoples thoughts but over Malta the Hurricane was outclassed by the Me109E. Quote from Malta the Hurricane Years p225 '_1 July however saw the departure of 7/JG 26 for North Africa. During its four months in Sicily the little unit - and particularly it commanding officer - had been the scourge of Malta's Hurricanes. The Staffel had claimed at least 42 victories, of which 20 (including one over Yugoslavia) had been credited to Muncheberg whose score now stood at 43. Substantial numbers of aircraft had also been claimed destroyed on the ground (or water). During this whole period not a single operational loss had been sustained. _

I think this says it all. The Staffel were equipped with Me 109E and the Hurricanes were a combination of mk I and II Hurricanes. No doubt there was over claiming, inevitable in any war zone but the RAF lost a good number of aircraft and the Luftwaffe none.


----------



## stona (Oct 30, 2013)

Greyman said:


> Egypt is both Africa and the Middle East. But yeah, I should have said Egypt/North Africa for clarity's sake.



No worries! The airfields of Cyrenaica (Libya) were most certainly considered to be in Africa as were those in western Egypt. The so called "canal zone" seems to have been a sort of imaginary border between Africa and the Middle East in British war time minds. Since the Sinai peninsular was part of Egypt I have to agree with you 

I think in modern times, particularly since the creation of the state of Israel, Egypt tends to get lumped in to the Middle East.

I would like to clarify that I think that the Bf 109 E was a better aeroplane than the Hurricane, particularly the Hurricane I. Nonetheless, in experienced hands the Hurricane could hold its own against the "Emil".

Friday 22nd March 1941 was the day that a Blenheim of No. 55 Squadron made the first report of a Bf 109 E in flight over Axis territory. It was an ominous sign, though not appreciated as such at the time. The Bf 109 had arrived in Africa. Malta's defenders had already experienced the effect of this aircraft in February.

The first Bf 109 loss that I have in my records is none other than Lt Werner Schroer who crash landed his Bf 109 E-7 (W.Nr. 3790) at Gazala, 60% damaged, after air combat. Schroer was not hurt. This was 19th April 1941.

Squadron Leader John Lapsley of No. 274 Squadron gave a reasonably balanced account of the effect the arrival of the 109s had.

"The impact of the Messerschmitt 109s was very great. These aircraft had a very significantly better performance than the Hurricane in climbing, diving and level speed. The manoeuvrability of the two aircraft was comparable. Our results against the Italians had been so good that perhaps we were a little over confident and had not sufficiently absorbed the tactical lessons of the war in Europe. This all combined to give us a very rough time for the first few weeks after the Messerschmitts arrived." 

It should be remembered that Lapsley was tangling in Hurricane Is with I./JG 27 who were far from mugs. They came to Africa with nearly 100 victory credits. Flying against experienced pilots like Neumann (9), Redlich (10), Gerltz (3), Homuth (15), Fransizket (14),Kothmann (7 victories, 1 over Malta), Forster (6) et alter was never going to be easy.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 30, 2013)

> Again I say, you are arguing about technicalities, when the real issue was people. If the will had been there it would have been done. Yes compromises would have had to be made, yes good training, tactics and planing would have been required to use them properly ... but it would have been done.



Yep, it sure is getting old. Like I said, _no one_ had a single engine long range bomber escort in the first couple of years of the war. No one. You are applying hindsight to the thinking of the day, which amounts to nothing but a skewed and inaccurate perspective of what might have been, and which is divorced from the reality of the time. Why is it, Old Skeptic that you feel it is necessary to criticise the Air Staff for not developing such a thing?

Let's look at the facts. The only long range bomber escorts that existed in service 1939/1940 were twins that were designed before the war when military needs of the era were not entirely certain without actual combat experience that was to follow. The twin engined escort proved less than satisfactory against single engined interceptors in 1940, as we all know. By the end of 1940 Bomber Command had switched to a predominantly night offensive owing to recent experience and no one during the war designed a purpose built long range night bomber escort.

The RAF Air Staff could be criticised for many things during the war, but not producing a long range bomber escort is not one of them.


----------



## stona (Oct 30, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> The twin engined escort proved less than satisfactory against single engined interceptors in 1940, as we all know. By the end of 1940 Bomber Command had switched to a predominantly night offensive owing to recent experience ........



And so had the Luftwaffe.

Steve


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 30, 2013)

> And so had the Luftwaffe.



...who also did not put a long range single-engined bomber escort into service within the same timeframe.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 30, 2013)

Just because an escort fighter was possible in 1943 does not mean it was possible in 1940. The Merlin offered 880hp for take-off in 1939 in single speed version and 1075hp from the two speed Melrin X but Bomber Command hogged all of those engines. The Merlin XII shows up in the the summer of 1940 with 1175 hp for take off (or less depending on 9 or 12lbs of boost) and the early Merlin XXs are not far off as they are limited to 9lbs boost, not the later 12lbs or more. By 1941 Merlins are available that offer 1275-1300hp for take off and very little change in weight. Even discounting the Merlin III that is a 19% increase in take-off power over the 87 octane Melrin X and about 9% more than the 12lb boost MK XII. The Merlin 45 also offers almost 20% more power 2,000ft higher up than the Merlin III did. 
With 20% more power for only a couple dozen pounds more power plant weight the long range (or at least medium range) fighter starts to look feasible. The British added 40-50% to the installed weight of the armament at this time so there is a potential weight saving of over 200lbs if the armament is kept to the eight .303 guns. 

Further improvements in fuel and engines brought the two stage Merlin with a massive increase in power at altitude for around 800-900lbs of increased aircraft weight. 

Total weight of the powerplant in the Spitfire MK was 2035lbs with the wooden fixed pitch prop, out of a 5875lb airplane. 

total weight of the powerplant of a P-51B was 3566lbs out of a 9075-9100lb airplane. However a few differences are 483lb for the propeller vs 132lbs for wooden prop and hub and 320lbs worth of protected fuel tanks (no rear tank/s) vs the 57lbs of the _unprotected_ fuel tanks in the early MK I Spitfire. The P-51B was also carrying about 50% more weight in guns and ammo. 

The change in the power to weight ratio of the power plant, especially if you take out the weight of the fuel tanks, is what allowed the escort fighter to happen. 

All the "will" in the world wouldn't speed up the introduction of new fuels and new engines although it might have allowed swapping a few around.


----------



## Glider (Oct 30, 2013)

The Zero is obviously the best long ranged fighter of the early stages of the war. This proved it was possible to produce an effective long range fighter on 1000 hp. There were risks involved but it could be done and no fighter (I think) started the war with armour and self sealing fuel tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 30, 2013)

Glider said:


> As I said earlier we can chew over numbers and peoples thoughts but over Malta the Hurricane was outclassed by the Me109E. Quote from Malta the Hurricane Years p225 '_1 July however saw the departure of 7/JG 26 for North Africa. During its four months in Sicily the little unit - and particularly it commanding officer - had been the scourge of Malta's Hurricanes. The Staffel had claimed at least 42 victories, of which 20 (including one over Yugoslavia) had been credited to Muncheberg whose score now stood at 43. Substantial numbers of aircraft had also been claimed destroyed on the ground (or water). During this whole period not a single operational loss had been sustained. _
> 
> I think this says it all. The Staffel were equipped with Me 109E and the Hurricanes were a combination of mk I and II Hurricanes. No doubt there was over claiming, inevitable in any war zone but the RAF lost a good number of aircraft and the Luftwaffe none.



It doesn't say how badly outnumbered the Hurricanes were, nor does it say that the Hurricanes shot down many other Axis aircraft during this period. The fact that one ace claimed about half the Me109E kills is also noteworthy, as is the fact that the Hurricanes were at a very low ebb in terms of reinforcement during this period and that the majority of the Hurricanes active during the first 5 months of 1941 were still the Mk1. Of course total Hurricane losses to the 7/JG 26 were less than their claimed amount (about 1/2 IIRC).


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 30, 2013)

Everyone seems to have forgot about the incomparable Fairey Fulmar, which was a purpose built SE escort fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Oct 30, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Everyone seems to have forgot about the incomparable Fairey Fulmar, which was a purpose built SE escort fighter.



It was built as a fleet defence fighter which isn't quite the same thing 
It had good range though, a valid point. Wasn't it derived from an old bomber specification?
Cheers
Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 30, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Just because an escort fighter was possible in 1943 does not mean it was possible in 1940. The Merlin offered 880hp for take-off in 1939 in single speed version and 1075hp from the two speed Melrin X but Bomber Command hogged all of those engines.



Two things appear here. 1st, Germany was not, in 1939, dependent on engines that would offer only 880 HP for take off, they have ~1100 PS engines (take off power); they also have constant speed props in good numbers even then. 2nd, the fact that BC will not give away the Merlin X engines does not nothing to prove that a Spitfire with such engine would be unable to take off with, say, drop tank attached, it proves that BC have had a 1st call on these - no more, no less.



> The Merlin XII shows up in the the summer of 1940 with 1175 hp for take off (or less depending on 9 or 12lbs of boost) and the early Merlin XXs are not far off as they are limited to 9lbs boost, not the later 12lbs or more. By 1941 Merlins are available that offer 1275-1300hp for take off and very little change in weight. Even discounting the Merlin III that is a 19% increase in take-off power over the 87 octane Melrin X and about 9% more than the 12lb boost MK XII. The Merlin 45 also offers almost 20% more power 2,000ft higher up than the Merlin III did.



The Spitfire V was able to take off with 170 imp gal slipper tank, and 29 gal fuel aft the pilot. That would be over 1430 lbs of additional fuel alone, at 1185 HP for take off. Seems that Spit II would have no problems to take off with, say, 1000 lbs of additional fuel?
The Spitfire with Merlin XX should have less problems to take off from a carrier on bigger loads, too.
BTW, if it's not a problem, would you please check out the TO power for the 1940 Merlin XX, the charts kindly provided by Neil Stirling give 1280 HP for TO, at 12 lbs boost as a provisional rating, as well as for the 'RM2SM' engine.



> With 20% more power for only a couple dozen pounds more power plant weight the long range (or at least medium range) fighter starts to look feasible. The British added 40-50% to the installed weight of the armament at this time so there is a potential weight saving of over 200lbs if the armament is kept to the eight .303 guns.
> 
> Further improvements in fuel and engines brought the two stage Merlin with a massive increase in power at altitude for around 800-900lbs of increased aircraft weight.
> 
> ...



Agreed with pretty much what you said, quirk is to build a plane with modest power to perform well on longer ranges. IMO, far more depended on current doctrines mantras, than on capabilities of that or this design bureau/manufacturer. As seen with Zero, Ki-61 and Regianne fighters (leaving the P-51 aside).



> All the "will" in the world wouldn't speed up the introduction of new fuels and new engines although it might have allowed swapping a few around.



If there were a will to attach a drop tank at Bf-109E, it would've made the BoB far more a challenge to the RAF; the 'proper' drop tank installation on P-47 in 1943 would see an earlier/bigger attrition of the LW in the ETO. 
If the Spitfire was outfitted with Merlin XX, it would've been able to take off from a smaller carrier with greater load of fuel, and make it to Malta, but this you have covered.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 30, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Everyone seems to have forgot about the incomparable Fairey Fulmar, which was a purpose built SE escort fighter.



Which rather points, in an extreme way, to the problem of a low performing escort fighter. It worked against bombers fairly well if the bombers were not escorted. Turn it around and try to use the Fulmar against land based fighters over land (their own) while escorting bombers. Granted you don't need the second seat, larger fuselage and wing but.........


----------



## stona (Oct 30, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> If there were a will to attach a drop tank at Bf-109E, it would've made the BoB far more a challenge to the RAF;



And it could be done. 

The first aircraft equipped with the relevant plumbing, reported by the British, was an E-4 which came down in October 1940, just outside the accepted period of the BoB, at least from a British perspective.

There are two substantial reports on "White 11" W.Nr. 4900, a Bf 109E-1 flown by Fw.H.Schmidt of 6./JG 53 which force landed at Wheelstead Farm, Old Romney on 30 November 1940. It was equipped with plumbing for a drop tank as well as an extra oil tank of 2 gallons capacity. No drop tank was found with the aircraft but one was found in the countryside. The tank, familiar to us now, was described as metal and streamlined.

"The capacity of this tank is approximately 90 gallons (the tank is damaged and the capacity cannot be definitely ascertained). This would give an extra range to the aircraft of about 450 miles at normal cruising speed, or rather more than double the usual range. A further report will be issued if and when a tank is found in situ."

300 litres is close to 80 gallons in fact.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Oct 30, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> It doesn't say how badly outnumbered the Hurricanes were, not does it say that the Hurricanes shot down many other Axis aircraft during this period. The fact that one ace claimed about half the Me109E kills is also noteworthy, as is the fact that the Hurricanes were at a very low ebb in terms of reinforcement during this period and that the majority of the Hurricanes active during the first 5 months of 1941 were still the Mk1. Of course total Hurricane losses to the 7/JG 26 were less than their claimed amount (about 1/2 IIRC).



Of course there are many good reasons why the RAF were at a disadvantage but, before the 109's arrived the Hurricanes more than held their own, after the 109's left again the Hurricanes did well, when the 109F's arrived then it was game over for the Hurricane. However to go four months in combat and not lose a single aircraft on operations is by any standards a notable achievement. There is no doubt that over Malta for whatever the reason, the 109E dominated the skies.

The majority of the german claims were supported by RAF records, not all of them but the majority. 22nd March the Luftwaffe claimed 7 Hurricanes and the RAF admitted losing five, no 109's were lost. 28th March the Germans claimed two, in reality one was shot down and another crash landed. 11 April the Germans claimed three and the RAF lost two with two more crash landed no 109's lost. You get the picture.
l


----------



## Glider (Oct 30, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Everyone seems to have forgot about the incomparable Fairey Fulmar, which was a purpose built SE escort fighter.



Its a good point. A Fulmar reduced in size with a single pilot and a couple of drop tanks could have been useful


----------



## stona (Oct 30, 2013)

Glider said:


> Its a good point. A Fulmar reduced in size with a single pilot and a couple of drop tanks could have been useful



Like a Hurricane witha drop tanks, but a lot slower 

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 30, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Two things appear here. 1st, Germany was not, in 1939, dependent on engines that would offer only 880 HP for take off, they have ~1100 PS engines (take off power); they also have constant speed props in good numbers even then. 2nd, the fact that BC will not give away the Merlin X engines does not nothing to prove that a Spitfire with such engine would be unable to take off with, say, drop tank attached, it proves that BC have had a 1st call on these - no more, no less.



Which is why, in part, I try to use the MK II Spitfire as a base. The Problem with the MK is that the addition of the constant speed prop, while it helps a lot added around 200lbs, armor and self-sealing tanks upped the weight some more and new windscreens, canopies, and radio gear cut the performance of the MK II to near what the MK I had, _without_ adding hundreds of pounds of internal fuel. 





> The Spitfire V was able to take off with 170 imp gal slipper tank, and 29 gal fuel aft the pilot. That would be over 1430 lbs of additional fuel alone, at 1185 HP for take off. Seems that Spit II would have no problems to take off with, say, 1000 lbs of additional fuel?



In some cases they accomplished this by pulling not only the ammo but the guns or a majority of the guns. *NOT* a good solution for an escort fighter. The Plane, like other planes could not fight with the tank/s attached. And that is part of the problem with the escort fighter, it needs more _internal_ fuel, not just drop tanks. 

I don't have the fuel consumption for the earlier engines but a Merlin 45 burns 2 1/2 gallons a minute at 16lbs boost and about 1 1/2 gallons a minute at 9lbs boost. SO you need about 32 gallons for combat, 10 gallons for start, warm up and take-off before switching to drop tanks, 10 gallons reserve (20 minutes flying time) for finding the home airfield leaving you with about 35 gallons for the "flight" home. A Spitfire V was good for about 263 mph true at 20,000ft burning 36 imp gallons an hour at 2200rpm and -1 3/4lbs 'boost' (yes, negative boost) 7.3miles per imp gallon 
It doesn't matter what kind of drop tanks you use, you need more internal fuel, it is 256 miles from Cologne to Canterbury and with just 20 minutes reserve you may just see a lot of planes ditch in the Channel. No allowance made for prevailing winds out of the west. 
Increasing flight speed to 300mph at 20,000ft kicks the fuel burn to 46imp gallons an hour (6.5 mpg) and any higher speed just makes it worse. 






> Agreed with pretty much what you said, quirk is to build a plane with modest power to perform well on longer ranges. IMO, far more depended on current doctrines mantras, than on capabilities of that or this design bureau/manufacturer. As seen with Zero, Ki-61 and Regianne fighters (leaving the P-51 aside).



The Ki-61s extra range is debatable as is it's performance. We know how the Zero got it's range and part of the "solution" is unacceptable to western nations. another part is that not only was the construction "weak" from taking damage but it's construction limited it's dive speed. Later versions just used heavier wing skinning (heavier structure) to increase the max permitted dive speed. 





> If there were a will to attach a drop tank at Bf-109E, it would've made the BoB far more a challenge to the RAF; the 'proper' drop tank installation on P-47 in 1943 would see an earlier/bigger attrition of the LW in the ETO.


Very true but the biggest drop tank in the world won't see a 109 to get to Belfast. The 109 faced a similar problem, it needs around 50 gallons (give or take) for initial, take-off, combat and reserve leaving around 40 gals or less for the trip home. Putting on a drop tank of much more than 40 gallons doesn't buy you much. The standard Luftwaffe 300 liter tank allowed for forming up, climb to altitude and probably as much penetration distance as the 109 could get itself back out of once the tank was gone. An extra 100 liters inside would be worth a lot more than extra fuel outside. 

While the escort fighter doesn't need bomber destroying armament it needs enough guns to be effective and enough ammo so that it isn't sitting there with fuel but no ammo after a few bursts. 




> If the Spitfire was outfitted with Merlin XX, it would've been able to take off from a smaller carrier with greater load of fuel, and make it to Malta, but this you have covered.



In some of these "special ops" tricks were used that would NOT be used in every day operations. The Spitfires (MK Vs with Merlin 45 engines) would be allowed 12lbs or more boost for take-off while wooden wedges were used to prop open the flaps. Using 'combat' power settings that required extra maintenance for 'routine' missions is NOT the way to go.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 30, 2013)

> Shortround6 said:
> 
> 
> > Which is why, in part, I try to use the MK II Spitfire as a base. The Problem with the MK is that the addition of the constant speed prop, while it helps a lot added around 200lbs, armor and self-sealing tanks upped the weight some more and new windscreens, canopies, and radio gear cut the performance of the MK II to near what the MK I had, _without_ adding hundreds of pounds of internal fuel.
> ...


----------



## stona (Oct 30, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> > Interestingly enough, the 109 was well able to receive a 'consumable' tank (GM-1, 350 kg? or MW-50 tank) behind it's fuel tank without much trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 30, 2013)

Glider said:


> Of course there are many good reasons why the RAF were at a disadvantage but, before the 109's arrived the Hurricanes more than held their own, after the 109's left again the Hurricanes did well, when the 109F's arrived then it was game over for the Hurricane. However to go four months in combat and not lose a single aircraft on operations is by any standards a notable achievement. There is no doubt that over Malta for whatever the reason, the 109E dominated the skies.
> 
> The majority of the german claims were supported by RAF records, not all of them but the majority. 22nd March the Luftwaffe claimed 7 Hurricanes and the RAF admitted losing five, no 109's were lost. 28th March the Germans claimed two, in reality one was shot down and another crash landed. 11 April the Germans claimed three and the RAF lost two with two more crash landed no 109's lost. You get the picture.
> l



The 109Es shot down 20-30 Hurricanes over a 4 month period ( approx one-two days production), or 5-6/month - Hardly dominating or crippling losses if the Hurricanes had been reinforced adequately during those 4 months. Hurricanes also engaged other Axis aircraft, including other Axis SE fighters so not all Hurricane losses were to 109s. Surprisingly the Hurricane had a better kill loss ratio against the 109F than against the 109E which points to the fact that 7/JG 26 was using hit and run tactics, which they could get away with because of the huge overall Axis numerical advantage. If 7/JG 26 was the only axis fighter unit involved it would not have been able to employ the same tactics and would have inevitably suffered much higher losses while inflicting fewer kills.

Reviewing past posts, it seems that 7/JG 26 was credit with about 27 Hurricane kills by Shores and Co. during the 4 month period in early 1941.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 30, 2013)

> Fair points.
> The 20-30 imp gals of added internal fuel would've added 144-216 lbs, plus whatever the tanks are weighting - another 50-60 lbs? Total ~200-280 lbs, on 6170 lbs for the Spit II ready for combat, or 3.5-4% increase in weight.



go back to post #22 where I gave the climb rates for a standard MK II and a MK II with a single 40 gallon under wing tank. Also please figure that a Merlin running at 2650rpm and 6lbs boost was burning 70 gal an hour and 3000rpm and 9lbs was 88 gallons an hour. What is was at 2850rpm and 9lbs??? If the plane with 40 extra gallons takes 20 min to get to 30,000ft it has burned 27 or more gallons just getting there ( not including take-off). It is still ahead of the standard capacity fighter on fuel though. 
The standard fighter can climb at 995fpm at whatever weight it is with the fuel left on board. The plane with the extra _external_ tank is climbing at 545fpm. About 55% of the climb rate. this compares to the 2,000ft rate of climb which had the heavier fighter climbing at 76% the rate of the lighter fighter. 

This is part of the problem with the low powered escort fighter plan. At high altitudes ( over 20,000ft) even somewhat small changes in weight can have big changes in rates of climb. Putting the fuel inside and saving on drag will help some but how much of a loss in climb (excess power) can you take? it was this that screwed up the 109 gun boats. Loss of speed was not much, but the loss of 1.5-2meters/sec in climb carried through all the way up. The difference at sea level may have been under 10%, over 25,000ft the difference in climb percentage wise was much greater. 



> Thanks for the effort to find crunch the numbers.
> The extra internal fuel of just 18 imp gals would've increased 'flight home range' for some 130 miles then, or up to 390.



Well, that 'assumes' I had the right amount of fuel for warm-up, taxi and take off and you are happy with just 20 minutes reserve. It also assumes 263mph is a safe transit speed ( fast enough to keep bounces to a minimum and fast enough to allow a timely response). It also doesn't figure in any fuel used in formation flying. The US used over 300mph at 25,000ft a few years later but then the 1940/41 German fighters aren't quite as fast. 



> Not sure from where this come from. The 'Bunrin do' book about the Ki-61 states internal fuel as being either 650 or 750 liters (143 or 165 imp gals), this document pretty much agrees with that (199 US gals). With 2 x 200 L (= 105 imp gals) of external fuel the range was phenomenal. The speed listed at the document is 580 km/h, 361 mph, again the book agrees.



It comes from the variable performance depending on armament fit ( another hint that small changes in weight may have big impacts on performance other than speed) and one source claiming range clean was 360 miles but speed was not stated. 



> Zero have had it's weaknesses, not just the ones you've mentioned. The good protection was not a wide spread thing in most of pre-1941 fighters, though.



even in the summer of 1941 the Americans considered planes without armor and self seal tanks to be training planes. The British were not far off and the Germans had been fitting protection since late 39 early 40. 1940-41 protection migh tnot be up to 1943-44 standards but few countries aside from the Japanese who had the ability to do so were flying unprotected combat planes after 1940. 




> I'm sure that nobody was expecting for a 109 to be turned into Mustang, once drop tanks are fitted. There were plenty of closer targets, than N. Ireland, where LW bombers would've welcomed escort, though.
> Interestingly enough, the 109 was well able to receive a 'consumable' tank (GM-1, 350 kg? or MW-50 tank) behind it's fuel tank without much trouble, CoG wise - one wonders whether there was a potential for LR 109?



Which 109s? the DB601N picked up about 65-75kg over the earlier DB 601 engines and the DB501E and DB 605s were even heavier. Bolt a bit more armor under the oil cooler too? 

You can get the the range but can you fight (and succeed) at that range? Again, the 109E may not have been the best platform to try this with. The F with it's lower drag can give more range for the same fuel and is a much better candidate. Sticking several hundred pounds more weight in the 109 may bring it's performance down enough that it has more trouble with Hurricanes. 




> By the time Merlin XII and XX arrived, the 100 oct fuel and associated +12 lbs boost were well known commodity in the RAF (along with maintenance needed), unlike the time when Merlin III and X were arriving in combat units. I'm not suggesting running those earlier engines at higher boost where the manuals don't say the same.



Just pointing out that special operations in desperate circumstances do not really point the way for day in day out use.


----------



## Glider (Oct 30, 2013)

_The 109Es shot down 20-30 Hurricanes over a 4 month period ( approx one-two days production), or 5-6/month - Hardly dominating or crippling losses if the Hurricanes had been reinforced adequately during those 4 months. Hurricanes also engaged other Axis aircraft, including other Axis SE fighters so not all Hurricane losses were to 109s. Surprisingly the Hurricane had a better kill loss ratio against the 109F than against the 109E which points to the fact that 7/JG 26 was using hit and run tactics, which they could get away with because of the huge overall Axis numerical advantage. If 7/JG 26 was the only axis fighter unit involved it would not have been able to employ the same tactics and would have inevitably suffered much higher losses while inflicting fewer kills.

Reviewing past posts, it seems that 7/JG 26 was credit with about 27 Hurricane kills by Shores and Co. during the 4 month period in early 1941. _


Clearly we have to agree to disagree. Its my view that if you have a situation that over a four month period, whenever Hurricanes went into action against Me109E's they lost and they never inflicted any losses, then the Me109s dominate the sky. 

To believe that the Hurricane is comparable to the Me109E when the losses in air to air combat are 27 to 0 isn't something that I agree or understand. The Hellcat had a lower kill rate against the Zero but I doubt that you would consider the Zero to be as good as the Hellcat, in fact it would be difficult to find any combat situation over four months when any air combat unit in any airforce had such a success rate.

Malta didn't have 27 Hurricanes to spare and the Luftwaffe didn't have any Me109's to spare as this was the only 109 unit in combat at the time in the area. To say its only a couple of days production of Hurricanes is a distraction as I don't believe the Me109E was in production at the time. 

Re the situation with 109F's vs Hurricanes I do not know the details but Shores does say that in the whole of 1941 2 Me 109's were lost. If these were due to fighters or AA fire I simply don't know.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 30, 2013)

This thread has mentioned the Fw 187 as a possible escort fighter using (2 x) 1200hp engines.

What about the proposed Supermarine Type 324 327?

The 324's max speed was estimated at ~450mph, the 327's at ~465mph. These were about the size of a Typhoon, but with two 1200-1250hp Merlins. FWIW, the top speed of the Typhoon was also estimate at ~460-470mph.

324 and 327 still had small fuel tanks and not much range.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 31, 2013)

Out of existing single-engine fighters, the Mitsubishi Zero certainly fits the criteria in terms of performance and range and just meets service in 1940, but like Tomo said, its structural strength would be an issue to the Allies. Whilst the Fulmar demonstrated an ability to hold its own against the enemy in the Mediterranean, the story might be somewhat different over a heavily defended German target.

Instead of a modified Fulmar, I suggest a better alternative that fits in with a pre-war timescale for development and does not divert from existing RAF expansion plans, i.e. using either the Spitfire or Hurricane; the single-seat Defiant. In 1936 the prototype K8310 without its turret fitted and despite being physically larger demonstrated superior performance to the Hurricane. Granted, that with fixed forward firing armament and fuselage fuel tanks, its performance would drop, it would be an ideal choice for conversion, as it was considered easy to fly and to carry out aerobatics in by the test pilots at the A AEE even with a turret fitted. Any thoughts?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 31, 2013)

Nuuumann, the British had only one plane that was equal to the 109 in 1940, the Spitfire. There was nothing else. Nobody had anything else.
Therefore it was entirely an issue about, for MR/LR attacking (either as escort to bombers, fighter sweeps over France , reinforcement or protecting Med convoys, or...) getting some more range out of the Mk Is, IIs and bit later Vs.

Strategically the British needed a combat radius of 350 miles for that 41/42 period, though even 250 would have been very useful. 
Not for every mission of course and for those longer ones, layered approaches would have been necessary. 
Layered means that you use shorter ranged fighters first (they could be Spits with less fuel for example, therefore more capable within that range area), then medium ones, then the LR ones for the final legs. 
Yes, for say fighter sweeps, you could have fighters protecting fighters for parts of the mission, or more exactly sweeping ahead.
Then the LR ones, having burned off their excess fuel are now competitive again for their leg.

Yes, for those sort of mission it does require a lot of fighters, so that is an issue. For the initial late 43 USAAF missons, Spits did the short stuff, )-47s the medium stuff then the, at that time limited in numbers, P-51s did the final legs, with P-38s filling in as well in the MR/LR parts.

For the British in that 41/42 period they *needed* to be able to hit Luftwaffe targets in France. Protect Malta, but also protect Malta convoys well out. In North Africa they needed to meet the 109s attacking RAF bombers as they attacked well behind the lines at logistic targets. In NA the RAF were lucky, because Marsaille and his crew (and the others in the theatre copied him) ignored the bombers and ran up scores against the Hurricanes and P-40s. But that was lucky, because the Luftwaffe in 41 and 42 could have slaughtered the RAF bombers on those missions if they wanted ... instead of having a bit of a lark (though not such a lark for the Hurri and P-40 pilots of course).

Therefore, in multiple strategic areas, they needed more Spit range.

This was known by Dowding at the beginning of 1940, hence the experiments, including ordering (memory) 602 squadron to trail the 29 gal wing tanks. Cotton squeezed fuel in everywhere, 20 gals under the seat, behind the seat, in the leading edges, etc. With careful attention to detail (polish, fitting, etc) they actually got more speed out of them than production fighters, despite the extra weight.

Those pictures I posted showed early attempts at what is now called 'conformal tanks'. As per now (and no one calls a F-15 with those .. slow) done carefully you can have minimal speed impacts, though, when full they will impact climb. But in those sort of missions, you have the safe space to do a slower and more fuel efficient climb.


----------



## stona (Oct 31, 2013)

Air defence of the Royal Navy and Malta convoys was carried out by FAA aircraft (the entire point of the FAA's existence as my father, an ex FAA pilot, fulminated as British warships were struck by Argentinian aircraft in 1982...and he didn't mean just close range defence of the ships) and land based RAF Blenheims and Beaufighters. Reconnaissance was often performed by Marylands and Gibraltar based Sunderlands. They had an important role to play in keeping the ULTRA decrypts secret, appearing as if by chance over Italian units that the British already knew full well had put to sea. This motley band, including the much despised Fulmars, did alright against the Italians and later shot down some German bombers.
The Malta based fighters were for the defence of Malta, though they did sortie to cover the convoys as they neared the island.
The Bf 109 had limited range too, even with a drop tank.

Sholto Douglas nicely summed up the British defensive mind set and definition of air superiority in 1938.

"Our objective is not to prevent enemy bombers reaching their objectives, though it would be nice if we could, but to cause a high casualty rate among enemy bombers, with the result that the attack will dwindle rapidly to bearable proportions."

No mention of fighters, and in December 1940, after the BoB he reiterated this position.

"The best, if only way of achieving air superiority is to shoot down a large proportion of enemy bombers every time they come over.........I would rather shoot down fifty of the enemy bombers after they had reached their objective than shoot down only ten before they do so."

The Royal Navy lowered the bar. They were content to break up enemy formations thus preventing accurate bombing of their ships. This the FAA did rather well prior to the arrival of the better equipped and better trained Luftwaffe in the Mediterranean. 

Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (Oct 31, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> With careful attention to detail (polish, fitting, etc) they actually got more speed out of them than production fighters, despite the extra weight.



But these aircraft were no longer fighters once armour and armament had been removed.

What an F-15 has got to do with this I have no idea 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Oct 31, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Without that, those 'tired old puffers' (as the Luftwaffe called them) would have suffered appalling losses.



I knew I recognised that phrase. It was not the Luftwaffe that called the Hurricanes that but a fighter pilot of 5./JG 51, a Leutnant Ernst Oskar Lessing, given name Hans-Otto. 

You forgot to mention that on the day after he wrote the phrase in a letter to his parents he was shot down and killed, on 18th August 1940, by an "old puffer".

Incidentally I believe that he had four, not five, victories when he was killed, a Potez 63, a Spitfire and two "old puffers".

You might also have mentioned that his much admired Staffel commander, mentioned in the letter, was also killed that day. Hauptmann Horst "Jakob" Tietzen, an immensely experienced pilot and veteran of the Spanish Civil War, the fourth Luftwaffe pilot to amass 20 victories, was also shot down by an "old puffer". He may have been a victim of Squadron Leader Peter Townsend of RAF No. 85 Squadron.

It may just be that Lessing's arrogant analogy proved less than accurate.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 31, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Then the LR ones, having burned off their excess fuel are now competitive again for their leg.



Even 350 a mile radius requires more fuel in the tanks when the drop tanks are let go than the local interceptor has at take off. 






OldSkeptic said:


> This was known by Dowding at the beginning of 1940, hence the experiments, including ordering (memory) 602 squadron to trail the 29 gal wing tanks. Cotton squeezed fuel in everywhere, 20 gals under the seat, behind the seat, in the leading edges, etc. With careful attention to detail (polish, fitting, etc) they actually got more speed out of them than production fighters, despite the extra weight.



While the cameras weighed something Cotton also left out part or all of the guns. Going back to four .303s may not be what you want to do. 



OldSkeptic said:


> Those pictures I posted showed early attempts at what is now called 'conformal tanks'. As per now (and no one calls a F-15 with those .. slow) done carefully you can have minimal speed impacts, though, when full they will impact climb. But in those sort of missions, you have the safe space to do a slower and more fuel efficient climb.



You can call them what you like, hanging big wacking tanks under each wing is going to slow the airplane down. 







These are F-15 tanks and depend, in part, on the airflow being disrupted by the large air intakes. They actually help smooth the airflow down the side of the plane. 

Not the same thing as hanging a 70imp gallon tank under a wing no matter how pointy you make it or how well it follows the bottom contour of the wing. 

I can't fins an on line picture of the real 40 gal tank used on the Spitfire II but here is a picture of model. 






It may not be very pointy but it conforms pretty well to the wing. The rear end tapers. 

You keep missing the point about climb. The Allison P-51s were fast, very fast. But were NOT air superiority fighters because they could NOT climb. It isn't about having a safe area to climb to altitude, it is about STAYING at altitude once the fight starts and/or being able to regain altitude during breaks in the fighting. Plus fast climbing fighters can break by climbing. Usually a climbing turn and since turning, even gently, reduces the climb rate a poor climber doesn't have that option and can't even follow a plane that does.


----------



## stona (Oct 31, 2013)

We seem to be suffering from tank confusion.

The two 70 gallon tanks pictured in post #12 were only ever mock ups and never went into production. It was the 29 gallon tank, usually referred to as a 30 gallon tank which was expected to cause a reduction in speed of 3 mph (very optimistic in my opinion).
Only one tank was fitted to the port wing. A prototype was tested on P9565 and looked like this.






The handling characteristics of the aircraft thus equipped were reported as "poor" and diving at over 350 mph the ailerons became very heavy, "considerable force" being needed to hold up the port wing. Unsurprisingly the system never saw service.

The next effort was to fit a single 40 gallon tank under the port wing of Spitfire II A P8036.






This time things went better, largely due to the metal ailerons now fitted. The report reads,

"On take off the control column must be held well over to the right side to keep the aeroplane level, but as the aeroplane accelerates it can be moved nearer the central position.
Whilst extra weight on the port wing can be felt, it does not seriously affect the flying qualities of the aeroplane and this particular aeroplane is considered pleasant to fly. The metal ailerons have brought about a marked improvement in lateral control since the report on the Mark Iwith under wing fuel tank was issued. This aeroplane is considered satisfactory as a fighter."

Satisfactory, maybe, but forget 3mph. 
At 15,000ft this aircraft had a top speed of 321 mph. That is a full 24 mph slower than a "normal" Spitfire IIA at 345 mph and a serious reduction in performance. 
Time to climb to 15,000 ft was increased from 5 minutes (@2,770 ft/min) to 6 minutes and 48 seconds (@1,990 ft/min). 
Maximum speed at 20,000 ft fell from 351 mph to a mere 320 mph. 
Time to climb to 25,000 ft went from 9 minutes and 36 seconds to 14 minutes and 6 seconds. 
The estimated service ceiling of the tank equipped version was nearly 4,000 ft lower at 33,900 ft.

This is not the sort of degradation in performance that some here are anticipating. Those are the real figures from Boscombe Down's official reports on the two aircraft. 

Despite this aircraft thus modified went to Nos. 66, 118 and 152 Squadrons. They were used on extended range escort and patrol missions. Fighter Command was hardly going to instigate a change on the Spitfire across the organisation which so reduced the performance of its premier fighter.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 31, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Out of existing single-engine fighters, the Mitsubishi Zero certainly fits the criteria in terms of performance and range and just meets service in 1940, but like Tomo said, its structural strength would be an issue to the Allies. Whilst the Fulmar demonstrated an ability to hold its own against the enemy in the Mediterranean, the story might be somewhat different over a heavily defended German target.



Actually, SR6 mentioned the structural issues 1st 



> Instead of a modified Fulmar, I suggest a better alternative that fits in with a pre-war timescale for development and does not divert from existing RAF expansion plans, i.e. using either the Spitfire or Hurricane; the single-seat Defiant. In 1936 the prototype K8310 without its turret fitted and despite being physically larger demonstrated superior performance to the Hurricane. Granted, that with fixed forward firing armament and fuselage fuel tanks, its performance would drop, it would be an ideal choice for conversion, as it was considered easy to fly and to carry out aerobatics in by the test pilots at the A AEE even with a turret fitted. Any thoughts?



Seem like you are not aware of 'my' Defiants; I've modified some existing drawings to get them  The pilot's compartment is moved back (like they did for serial F4Us), so the fuel tank is between pilot and engine.
Though, I'm not sure that performance levels would've been on par with Spitfire on same engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Oct 31, 2013)

Whatever long range fighter is hypothetically developed it won't be from one of the interceptor fighters developed by the British in the 1930s.

Spitfire Vs were delivered to Malta from Gibraltar starting in October 1942. This was a flight of over 1,000 miles. To do it a 29 gallon fuel tank was fitted behind the pilot, an enlarged oil tank was fitted beneath the engine and a 170 gallon ferry tank fitted beneath the fuselage. The armament was reduced to a token two .303 machine guns.
On arrival on Malta the ferry equipment was removed and normal armament and tropical filters fitted.
This is hardly a practical long range fighter!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 31, 2013)

Thank you. 

to add to it. 

Fitting the fuel internally would not have caused quite as much performance drop but the penalty would still be substantial. The loss of 3,000ft or more of _operational_ altitude (which is always 3-5,000ft below the service ceiling) was especially troubling at the time. Combats had _started_ at 30,000ft and above during the BoB. One side or the other diving from that height even if the combats ended thousands of feet lower. It turned out that the the altitudes combat occurred at went up very slowly due to a number of factors ( needed better oxygen equipment for one) but people were anticipating a much quicker move to high altitude combat than occurred. Putting fighters into production that could NOT fight at the same altitudes as existing fighters wasn't going to happen right away. The low flying Spits were an expedient that worked because there WERE _high flying_ Spitfires covering them in many cases.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 31, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Seem like you are not aware of 'my' Defiants; I've modified some existing drawings to get them  The pilot's compartment is moved back (like they did for serial F4Us), so the fuel tank is between pilot and engine.
> Though, I'm not sure that performance levels would've been on par with Spitfire on same engines.



The main trouble I have with single seat Defiant's is that the 360mph speed was an estimate, that doesn't seem to have anything to back it up. The original Defiant was flown as single seater, with the turret position faired _over_ but not _out_.
That is to say the canopy was continued back and the hole for the turret covered up but a dummy turret or structure the width of the turret was not fitted even though ballast was. Maybe accounts exist somewhere but no great change in speed seems to have been noted when the turret _was_ fitted. BP didn't do that good a job fitting the Merlin XX either. Speed only increased about 8-13mph due to the larger radiator creating more drag. How the plane was supposed to pick up over 40mph by deleting the turret has never been really explained. 
Perhaps B-P was listening to the same guys that were telling Sidney Camm that thick wings wouldn't be a problem on the Hawker Typhoon?


----------



## stona (Oct 31, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> How the plane was supposed to pick up over 40mph by deleting the turret has never been really explained.



Sholto-Douglas was told by someone (during efforts to remove Dowding) that removing a Blenheim's mid upper turret would increase its speed by a more modest 15 mph, though there is no clear evidence for this. This, Douglas suggested, in combination with 100 octane fuel, for which its engines were not modified and which was anyway reserved for Spitfire and Hurricane aircraft at this time, would enable it as a night fighter.

Douglas, like armchair Air Marshalls today, glossed over the details of the conversion, its effect on the aircraft's CoG etc, all points raised by Dowding in his reply.

This is why places like Boscombe Down exist!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 31, 2013)

There is a problem about max speed achieved by Defiant II. The 315 mph was achieved at 16500 ft, a figure that might correspond with Merlin III full throttle heigh (plus a little ram), but not with Merlin XX, that have had 2nd gear FTH at 18500 ft on +9 lbs boost. The maximum speed would be at altitude higher than that, due to ram, as attested by Hurricane II and P-40F. They were fastest at 20-22000 ft. 
Of course, a speed graph for the Daffy II would be good to have.
At +12 lbs boost, the Defiant I was capable for 310 mph at 10000 ft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 31, 2013)

Well, there _could_ be discrepancies due to the airborne radar antenna and perhaps the the flatblack finish. But nobody is claiming 330-340mph speeds for a Defiant II and the idea that a Defiant II (single seater) would be 20mph or _more_ faster than than a Hurricane II with the same engine takes a _lot_ of faith.


----------



## Greyman (Oct 31, 2013)

stona said:


> Sholto-Douglas was told by someone (during efforts to remove Dowding) that removing a Blenheim's mid upper turret would increase its speed by a more modest 15 mph, though there is no clear evidence for this. This, Douglas suggested, in combination with 100 octane fuel, for which its engines were not modified and which was anyway reserved for Spitfire and Hurricane aircraft at this time, would enable it as a night fighter.



Evidence was probably from A&AEE tests of Blenheim L1348 where they tested just that modification (among other things).

As far as I can tell, the Blenheim I's Mercury VIIIs required modification to allow the jump from +5 to +9 boost, but the Blenheim IV's Mercury XVs were good to go from the start. I have no hard data but reading correspondence and publications from the time, it seems to me that the Blenheim was using 100 octane fuel before any other plane in British service.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 31, 2013)

Thanks Tomo, for posting those. Very nice.



> The main trouble I have with single seat Defiant's is that the 360mph speed was an estimate, that doesn't seem to have anything to back it up. The original Defiant was flown as single seater, with the turret position faired over but not out.



It was; the prototype was never altered in any way except to fair over the turret. The only way the Defiant could have been able to reach such speeds is if the internal structure is lightened since the bulk of the turret is not required. This doesn't mean it would not have had a creditable performance if such alterations were made. With such measures it would have been able to match at least the Hurricane, if not better the Spit. It is worth remembering that in the mid 1930s, a service fighter that could reach, let alone better 300 mph was considered _fast_.

The Defiant was quite advanced structurally for a mid 1930s design, yes it had a thick wing, but BP undertook measures to reduce skin friction as much as possible. The innovations carried out on it might not be so new to us today, but at the time were very advanced and in some cases had not been done in the British industry before. Its entire exterior cladding was fastened with countersunk rivets and each panel was carefully trimmed to produce as clean a fit as possible. Its undercarriage was completely enclosed, with fairings fitted to the gear doors to cover gaps and produce a clean fit. On production aircraft the small 'D' shaped door that enclosed the wheel was removed, presumably to save weight. Early on, Defiants, just like Spitfires, were also polished to keep their exterior clean (this is not a new idea), although photos of war weary aircraft show a decidedly rough finish.

Construction wise the Defiant was very strong and toughly built and was designed for ease of construction and maintenance in mind; it was simpler to build than other British fighters and was designed as modular sub assembles that would be built then mated together. The wing centre section contained the radiator/oil cooler assy and u/carriage, to which would be fitted the outer wings, which contained fuel tanks. The centre fuse was from the firewall to aft of the turret, with the rear fusel bolting on to that, to which was fitted the empennage, tailwheel and radio equipment. Its wing comprised a two spar arrangement; its main spar was comprised two 'T' sectioned spar caps with corrugated webs between. The rear spar was the same, but with 'L' section spar caps.

Defiants were also modified for the carriage of external tanks, although these were Mk.IIs; the Daffy was also considered for the Army Co-op role and were fitted with pylons for the carriage of external stores. Hard points were built into its wings.

There's no reason that a modified Daffy single-seater couldn't be a good long range escort. The airframe is big enough and it doesn't encroach on existing production plans.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 31, 2013)

> Whatever long range fighter is hypothetically developed it won't be from one of the interceptor fighters developed by the British in the 1930s.



Of course, you are absolutely right, Steve. Why would the RAF interrupt its existing plans and requirements for something it did not perceive it needed? Despite Supermarine carrying out modifications to the Spitfire by fitting external tanks, no official requirement was issued for such a modification, nor was a long range Spitfire even set in concrete as a need for the RAF. These were experiments carried out by Supermarine at the behest of senior staff who had discussed the idea, but no official statement was issued for production of such a thing.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Nov 1, 2013)

Oh yes they were. Those photos I posed showed that 602 squadron was picked to trail them and 30 aircraft were suppose dot be fitted, in June 1940. Then the BoB happened and obviously it was shelved. 
Then Dowding was given the boot and the whole idea collapsed ... basically forever.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Nov 1, 2013)

stona said:


> A
> 
> Sholto Douglas nicely summed up the British defensive mind set and definition of air superiority in 1938.
> 
> ...



Which Park totally disagreed with in the BoB or later. His idea was to stop the bombers dropping AND shoot them down. 
When he took charge in Malta he did it by separate squadrons, one for the escorts, one straight at (head on attack) at the bombers and the other (if available) to sweep up the remaining, now split up and retreating, bombers.
The bombing on Malta ended real fast... The he went on the attack and was the first to put bombs on Spits (I always until recently thought North Africa did the first bomb carrying Spits but I was wrong) including dropping the racks which meant performance was the same.
He did that to get the Luftwaffe up, if they didn't come up the Spits bombed their airfields. Mixed groups of bomb carrying and non carrying ones of course.

The Malta defence was hampered by that idea, plus they used 'big wings' (later on when they had enough Spits), which as usual took too long to form up and were vulnerable to fighter attacks.

Park's idea was strategically, tactically and psychologically sound. 
On the attack, even if you are taking heavy losses, if you believe you are making an impact then you will carry on. 
If the bombers dropped their bombs (roughly) on target, even though they took bad losses, then they will probably continue on, at least for good while. 

Human psychology being what it is, the most optimistic interpretation tends to hold for a long time (look at Bomber Command and the USAAF). 
_"Yes we are taking bad losses, but we are bombing the heck out of them, so lets continue, they will fold before we do" _... and that sort of thing (_cognitive dissonance_ is the syndrome and no military organisation wants to think that all those lives expended and resources used are all for nothing).

But if they are not even doing that, they will give up far faster, since they are taking losses for zero achievement (unless they counted killing lots of fish as an achievement).


----------



## Aozora (Nov 1, 2013)

Greyman said:


> Evidence was probably from A&AEE tests of Blenheim L1348 where they tested just that modification (among other things).
> 
> As far as I can tell, the Blenheim I's Mercury VIIIs required modification to allow the jump from +5 to +9 boost, but the Blenheim IV's Mercury XVs were good to go from the start. I have no hard data but reading correspondence and publications from the time, it seems to me that the Blenheim was using 100 octane fuel before any other plane in British service.














Roy Feddan (chief design engineer for Bristol engines) and F.R Banks were agitating for 100 Octane fuel to be adopted throughout the RAF as early as 1937 fuel consumption | compression ratio | fuel | 1937 | 0077 | Flight Archive , and Feddan designed the Mercury XV, and all later Bristol engines to use 100 Octane from the outset. Rolls-Royce displayed Merlins using 100 Octane fuel at the 1938 Paris Salon:

Paris Salon 1938 | 3453 | Flight Archive :






View attachment Flight_March28_1940_Fighter_Station.pdf


----------



## Glider (Nov 1, 2013)

Re stopping the bombers before they dropped their bombs the RAF went to considerable effort to making this happen. The pre war spec for a four cannon armed fighter had this task in mind.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Nov 1, 2013)

Glider said:


> Re stopping the bombers before they dropped their bombs the RAF went to considerable effort to making this happen. The pre war spec for a four cannon armed fighter had this task in mind.



Exactly. That was the Dowding 'idea' and the Park tactics. Hence the 'eight gun fighter'. the performance, the C&C system and all the rest..


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 1, 2013)

A question: anybody knows how much fuel the Martin-Baker MB-2 fighter was carrying?


----------



## stona (Nov 1, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Oh yes they were. Those photos I posed showed that 602 squadron was picked to trail them and 30 aircraft were suppose dot be fitted, in June 1940. Then the BoB happened and obviously it was shelved.
> Then Dowding was given the boot and the whole idea collapsed ... basically forever.



You have posted images from "Spitfire the History" so you obviously have a copy.
Fighter Command received this from the Air Ministry.

"As a result of investigations by the Air Ministry, it has been decided to manufacture 100 wing tanks of 29 gallon capacity. This will provide just over 200 miles additional range at most economical cruising speed. The tanks will be self sealing and Supermarine estimate that the tank should not result in a loss of more than 3 miles per hour at maximum speed. The first tank will be available by about the middle of June and you will decide which squadrons will be fitted with the tank."

Dowding replied on 17th June.

"Arrangements are being made to fit 602 Squadron with the long range tank in the first instance. The installation, however, cannot be fitted in conjunction with the Hispano cannon Spitfire, and owing to the extensive nature of the modification it is necessary to confine the fitting of Hispano guns to new production aircraft and the present intention is to produce 30 of this aircraft type. The tank can be fitted to standard Spitfires retrospectively."

There are problems apart from the incompatibility with cannon armament. The reduction in speed was not 3 mph but 20+mph, Supermarine was quite wrong. The tank installation added 440 lbs to the all up weight of the aeroplane with all the penalties that incurred. The aircraft was difficult to fly at high speed with the tank fitted and it's handling characteristics were described, by Boscombe Down as "poor". It required almost constant aileron input, tightened in turn to port and if the control column was pulled back the port wing dropped throwing the aircraft into a spiral dive. I've already mentioned the heavy ailerons and need for "considerable force" to hold up the port wing at speed. Of course you could always fly around slowly (like your tired old puffers) but that rather negates the advantages the Spitfire had. What is the point of getting to a fight if in doing so you have thrown away some of your advantages in that fight?
An aeroplane that the test pilots of Boscombe Down struggled with was not suitable for squadron service.
This why the system was shelved. 

Metal ailerons were first tested in November 1940. In September 1941 an under wing tank was tested on a Spitfire IIA and the handling was now found to be acceptable. The degradation in performance compared with a standard Spitfire IIA (already slower than the lightly equipped early Mk Is due to the extra weight of the Merlin XX, IFF set, armour and the drag of the IFF antennae) I have already demonstrated from the Boscombe Down reports on P7280 and P8036.
The Spitfire IIs performance was reduced by the fitting of the wing tank to something barely better than a Merlin XX powered Hurricane II.
This is why the system only saw limited service with a few squadrons. 

It doesn't matter what Park thought was the best method of dealing with bombers. His bosses at the Air Ministry shared Douglas' view both prior to and after the BoB. Park was an Air Vice Marshall commanding one Group of Fighter Command. He did not make nor implement British air defence policy. He had some latitude of action in a tactical sense. He carried out his orders to the best of his ability which, luckily for all of us, was considerable.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 1, 2013)

Hello, Steve,



> The degradation in performance compared with a standard Spitfire IIA (already slower than the lightly equipped early Mk Is due to the extra weight of the Merlin XX, IFF set, armour and the drag of the IFF antennae) I



Merlin XII was aboard, not the XX. Unfortunately, if I may add.


----------



## stona (Nov 1, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Hello, Steve,
> Merlin XII was aboard, not the XX. Unfortunately, if I may add.



Correct. I misread or mistyped. The rest still stands though.
Thanks
Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 1, 2013)

Indeed, as does wast majority of what you post here.


----------



## stona (Nov 1, 2013)

Greyman said:


> Evidence was probably from A&AEE tests of Blenheim L1348 where they tested just that modification (among other things).
> 
> As far as I can tell, the Blenheim I's Mercury VIIIs required modification to allow the jump from +5 to +9 boost, but the Blenheim IV's Mercury XVs were good to go from the start. I have no hard data but reading correspondence and publications from the time, it seems to me that the Blenheim was using 100 octane fuel before any other plane in British service.



Dowding asked, specifically, on 7th September.

"How long would it take to remove a Blemheim turret and install a blister?"

"What effect would this have on its [Benheim] centre of gravity?"

"How much time would it take to modify the Blenheim's Mercury engines to take the improved fuel?" 

The version of Blemheim and engines are not specified. If the tests had been carried out at this time Dowding was clearly not aware of them.

The Blenheim, or some of them, may have been able to use 100 octane fuel but they weren't at this time as it was reserved for Spitfires and Hurricanes

It is also relevant that earlier, on 28th August, Dowding had written that he considered the Beaufighter to be Britain's only realistic hope of an effective night fighter. All this was going on at the height of the day battle.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Nov 1, 2013)

Glider said:


> Re stopping the bombers before they dropped their bombs the RAF went to considerable effort to making this happen. The pre war spec for a four cannon armed fighter had this task in mind.



The pre-war specification for an 8 gun fighter was designed to shoot down bombers. When exactly this would happen has nothing to do with the specification.

We owe the eight gun fighter to Squadron Leader Ralph Sorley of the DTD who worked out the need for this weight of fire in 1933/4. He passed over the cannon armament as he considered it "super sensitive" to rigidity of mounting and difficult to mount in wings.

In April 1935 the AM Specification called for "as many guns as possible" which was a bit vague, despite a suggestion of eight. The .303 Browning was the machine gun now envisaged.

F7./35 did require a fighter armed with four 20mm cannon. This resulted in the twin engine "Whirlwind". The AM didn't think it was feasible in a single engine type and Hawker's formal submission of a cannon armed Hurricane in 1936, which would have somewhat pedestrian performance, both confirmed this and sowed the seeds for something better.
It wasn't until 3rd March 1938 that Hawker received a contract for four prototypes, built to Specification F.18/37, which eventually led to the "Typhoon" and then "Tempest".

It would always be ideal to intercept bombers before they bombed, as Douglas conceded, but this was not practically possible. Official figures are hard to find, but reference to memoirs and individual pilot's log books would indicate that roughly 6 out of 10 sector controlled interceptions were successful.
All Douglas wanted to do was shoot down as many bombers as possible, whenever that was possible, which seems eminently sensible to me.

Park's sensible plan to engage primarily bombers and not tangle with escorts (with either Spitfires or Hurricanes) was of course at the mercy of German tactics. One of the inadvertent effects of the Luftwaffe's change in tactics around 24th August was that it became virtually impossible to avoid the escort fighters, even though they were now flying in a less advantageous state.

The MB.2 had a fuel capacity of 83 gallons stored in two fuselage tanks.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Greyman (Nov 1, 2013)

Air Publication 1530B - September 1939 (Revised October 1939)
Pilot's Notes
The Blenheim IV Aeroplane
Two Mercury XV Engines






Dowding had a lot on his plate, and I'm sure he wasn't aware of every single wheeling and dealing in the RAF/RAE/A&AEE/etc.



stona said:


> The Blenheim, or some of them, may have been able to use 100 octane fuel but they weren't at this time as it was reserved for Spitfires and Hurricanes.



Do you have evidence for this?

Some great documents from wwiiaircraftperformance.org
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/AASF-Fuel.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/RAF-Component-15may40.pdf


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 1, 2013)

"Merlin XII was aboard, not the XX. Unfortunately, if I may add."

I think you just answered your own question. 

If the Merlin XII isn't good enough at 1175hp for take-off and 1140hp at 14,750ft (at 9lbs boost) in the low drag (for the time) Spitfire carrying 440lbs(200kf) of guns and ammo, then what kind of engine or airplane do you need? 

Having a plane that is fast isn't the answer. It has to be able to _fight_ even if not tight dog fight in the traditional sense. The Bf 110 was faster than the Hurricane I and that didn't work out so well.

The MB.2 is a dead end. The Defiant is a dead end. ANY existing fighter with under 1200hp is a dead end. And a new design has to give up what? protection? Armament? 

For an escort fighter the British needed plane that could fight the 109 on _near equal_ terms and do it about 300 miles from it's bases just to hit the Ruhr. Depending on route home (Essen to Burge=165miles, Cologne to Dunkirk is 200miles) a considerable period of time/distance is spent in enemy controlled air-space which means cruise speed must be kept high. 

For the Germans it is 114 miles from London to Derby (add to radius) and 178 miles from London to Liverpool, forget Northern Ireland. 258 miles from Arras to Derby. SO the Germans have the same problem. The need to be able to beat the Hurricane and come close to the Spitfire but do it at a radius 100-175 miles further than they were doing it. It is 67 miles from London to Dover. 

These distances just get you out of AA range, pursuing fighters are another matter.


----------



## stona (Nov 1, 2013)

It was Douglas who said in his minute of 28th August 1940 that 100 octane "hitherto reserved for Hurricane and Spitfire aircraft" should be made available to Blenheims.

I have had a quick look into this and I think he was mistaken. It _appears_ to me that 100 octane fuel was being made available to all aircraft in Fighter Command and that this would include Blenheims. This might be a whole other argument though! I haven't looked at those in Bomber Command.

I would hazard a guess that this may have led Dowding to ask about "modifications".

The confusion is probably because between October and December 1939 there was much correspondence concerning the approval of the use of 100 octane fuel in Spitfires, Hurricanes and Defiants, all Merlin powered and requiring some adjustment. The Blenheim was not mentioned, maybe because its engines could easily use the higher octane fuel.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Greyman (Nov 1, 2013)

The need for modification makes sense, as I don't think Fighter Command had any Mk.IVf Blenheims at this time, unsure though. I think they were all the Mk.If type. At least the majority were. I think Coastal Command and the Desert ended up with most of the IVf models.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 1, 2013)

> Shortround6 said:
> 
> 
> > "Merlin XII was aboard, not the XX. Unfortunately, if I may add."
> ...


----------



## davparlr (Nov 1, 2013)

In my opinion, and disregarding ancillary impacts, it would be possible technological wise to field a capable escort fighter in 1939-40 that was capable of handling enemy point defense fighters using a current 1200 hp engine. First mandatory thing is to start off with is a very aerodynamically clean aircraft. And, of course, cleanest of the clean was the P-51. I think the P-51 or a P-51-like aircraft could have been started earlier than 1940. The technology that made it so good was pretty well defined by 1939. Both the (almost) laminar wing and the Meredith effect radiator application were known. Also, detail attention to aerodynamic efficiency was also known as was demonstrated by Howard Hughes on his H-1 racer. It did take an out-of-the-box thinker, like North American seem to have, to apply them. Let’s take the earlier P-51.

1. Design it to British stress levels. This should save several hundred pounds, maybe as much as 500lbs.
2. Install the latest Spitfire Merlin. This plane should always be faster than the Spitfire, and, just about any other contemporary fighter, and be more maneuverable (at the same power setting) than the P-51/A/B/D due to its lighter weight.
3.	Keep the four fifties. Maybe later install two 20mm instead (preferred?).
4. Because of the lighter weight and less powerful engine (lower airspeed), less fuel would be required, maybe not even an extended range tank would be needed (maybe not as long a range as a P-51B but quite useful to penetrate well into Germany). That would save another couple of hundred pounds of weight, or accept the weight and include it. 

So basically, the early P-51 could be like a several hundred pounds lighter P-51A with the latest Merlin engine instead of the Allison. It would be fast, even at altitude, with excellent range and with effective armament, especially with the twin 20s. And I think it could easily have flown a year earlier or more.

Now all the ancillary impacts as brought up by many previous posters would have, and did, prevented this from occurring, but, technologically, I think it was reasonably possible.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 1, 2013)

> Merlin XII was enough for two things -.................. The take off power is also down some 100 HP - that might prevent a Spitfire, at ferry weight, to take off from a carrier? The power between SL and 10000 FT is also smaller, provided same boost levels are used.



Your original question was for a 1100-1200hp engine. The Merlin XX is a 1200-1300hp engine to start with and becomes a nearly 1500hp engine when 14-16lbs or boost are allowed. 





> Disagreed with these two claims. A faster Spitfire was a better Spitfire, despite weight growth. Merlin XX would've enabled it also to climb better, above 15000 ft. Nobody in ww2 clamored 'give me slower aircraft', either.



It is not a claim, some people have been fixed on the slight loss in speed (which might be acceptable) due to the extra weight _without_ considering the loss of other performance. It is the loss of climb performance, and by extension, the loss of turning ability that is the real problem. The 110 was faster than the Hurricane but not only couldn't it out turn it ( more of a defensive move) but it could not out climb it, which means the Hurricane may be able to evade by climbing and turning instead of diving and turning. Once the Hurricane has a height advantage it can dive and turn the height advantage into a speed advantage. 






> Depends what one does with MB-2. Retract the U/C and install back-facing exhausts and it's as fast/faster than Hurricane I. Stick a Merlin on it and it's fast as Spitfire? The fuel tankage is low, however, despite ample distance between pilot and engine.



This obsession with taking obsolete and/or not too good aircraft and trying to turn them into war winners is fun but not practical. 

The Martin Baker prototype was about 340lbs lighter than the Spitfire prototype. But then it didn't have about 300lbs worth of liquid cooling system either. By the time you stick a Merlin in it, fit it with armor, self sealing tanks, a constant speed prop, retracting landing gear, etc it will go faster and climb better than the prototype but it will be just as heavy as the Spitfire. It smaller wing means higher wing loading. 




> The really new fighter might start with, say, a Merlin XX, 120 imp gals of fuel, with leading-edge radiators and better choice of high-lift devices.



well, starting with a 1300-1400hp engine does give you advantages that an 1100-1200hp engine doesn't have 





> The Spit with M.XX was feasible in 1940; it would trump any 109E, and be equal to 109F-1/F-2.



It was _feasible_ in late summer of 1940 to _start_ production and issue. In service _squadrons_ avaialbe in the fall of 1940 and numbers enough to really do anything in the winter? 
And unless you can pry a few hundred engines out of Bomber Commands tight little fists it means NO Hurricane IIs which means your super Spits will really bear the brunt of the work. 





> All fine. A tidbit: pursuing fighter need range, too, to really pursue a retreating fighter.



Depends doesn't it 

German fighter unit returning from Derby gets bounced by Spitfire squadron based south east of London? German unit has already dropped tanks and fought one fight 150 miles further back. Now it is facing another fight and another 100-150 miles to home. 

Or flip it. MR Spits dropped tanks and fought over Dusseldorf and get bounced (engaged) by fresh German Squadron over/near Rotterdam (110-115miles) . It is another 136 miles to Harwich and the English coast. 

That is the problem with escort fighters in Europe. They are not facing ONE fight but the possibility of several fights on the way back. 

The short range interceptors can attack in relays too.


----------



## stona (Nov 1, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The short range interceptors can attack in relays too.



Which, whilst slightly off topic, is precisely why Dowding/Park used the Squadron as their basic tactical unit and allowed them to be controlled at Group level rather than by Fighter Command HQ. The enemy formation could, when everything worked well, be engaged almost continually in and out with units arriving from different directions, making life very difficult for the escort.

A somewhat similar system proved very effective for the Luftwaffe later in the war, though having more time they could assemble larger formations, particularly against the deep penetration raids that proved so costly for the USAAF.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 1, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Your original question was for a 1100-1200hp engine. The Merlin XX is a 1200-1300hp engine to start with and becomes a nearly 1500hp engine when 14-16lbs or boost are allowed.



My original question was : _Wonder if someone can come up with a viable escort fighter on 1000-1200 HP (at 20000-15000 ft of altitude; historical engines only)?_

Merlin XX was able to make 1270 HP at 15000 ft, but only once boosts above +9 lbs were allowed; before that it was ~1100 HP. At 20000 ft it was good for 1070 HP. It's not a long stretch for it to fit in this thread. Merlin III and XII were also 1300 HP engines, but not above 15000 ft, hence they fit in this thread. 




> It is not a claim, some people have been fixed on the slight loss in speed (which might be acceptable) due to the extra weight _without_ considering the loss of other performance. It is the loss of climb performance, and by extension, the loss of turning ability that is the real problem. The 110 was faster than the Hurricane but not only couldn't it out turn it ( more of a defensive move) but it could not out climb it, which means the Hurricane may be able to evade by climbing and turning instead of diving and turning. Once the Hurricane has a height advantage it can dive and turn the height advantage into a speed advantage.



Well, I'm not among those fixed on the slight loss of speed - faster is better in my eyes  Or, if you are a tad slower, than you better be a good climber - so either on tries to equal Mustang, or Zero. I've already said here that it would be hard for the Defiant to really attend those claimed 360 mph as a single seater with Merlin XX.




> This obsession with taking obsolete and/or not too good aircraft and trying to turn them into war winners is fun but not practical.







> The Martin Baker prototype was about 340lbs lighter than the Spitfire prototype. But then it didn't have about 300lbs worth of liquid cooling system either. By the time you stick a Merlin in it, fit it with armor, self sealing tanks, a constant speed prop, retracting landing gear, etc it will go faster and climb better than the prototype but it will be just as heavy as the Spitfire. It smaller wing means higher wing loading.



All fair. I was mostly thinking about the possible fuel load at the position similar to what F4U had, but 83 imp gals is even under Bf-109 and Spit capacity.




> well, starting with a 1300-1400hp engine does give you advantages that an 1100-1200hp engine doesn't have



Covered above  



> It was _feasible_ in late summer of 1940 to _start_ production and issue. In service _squadrons_ avaialbe in the fall of 1940 and numbers enough to really do anything in the winter?
> And unless you can pry a few hundred engines out of Bomber Commands tight little fists it means NO Hurricane IIs which means your super Spits will really bear the brunt of the work.



Doh, Super Spits 
The Hurricanes can have Merlin XIIs and 45s once they become available.

Depends doesn't it 



> German fighter unit returning from Derby gets bounced by Spitfire squadron based south east of London? German unit has already dropped tanks and fought one fight 150 miles further back. Now it is facing another fight and another 100-150 miles to home.
> Or flip it. MR Spits dropped tanks and fought over Dusseldorf and get bounced (engaged) by fresh German Squadron over/near Rotterdam (110-115miles) . It is another 136 miles to Harwich and the English coast.
> That is the problem with escort fighters in Europe. They are not facing ONE fight but the possibility of several fights on the way back.
> The short range interceptors can attack in relays too.



Again, fair points. The quirk with having MR/LR fighters is that you have more options to hit the enemy, than without such fighters. Especially once LW starts deploying it's fighter assets elsewhere. The MR Spit will be really an asset once deployed in the Med and Asia/Pacific, but that was not so well until the war was more or less decided.

added: I've found two internet sources claiming the MB.2's speed was 515 km/h - 320 mph (here and here). Anyone can confirm or refute this?


----------



## wuzak (Nov 2, 2013)

According to Buttler, _British Experimental Combat Aircraft of WWII_ the top speed of the M.B.2 wa 305mph (491km/h) @ 9250ft.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Nov 2, 2013)

stona said:


> It would always be ideal to intercept bombers before they bombed, as Douglas conceded, but this was not practically possible. Official figures are hard to find, but reference to memoirs and individual pilot's log books would indicate that roughly 6 out of 10 sector controlled interceptions were successful.
> All Douglas wanted to do was shoot down as many bombers as possible, whenever that was possible, which seems eminently sensible to me.
> 
> Park's sensible plan to engage primarily bombers and not tangle with escorts (with either Spitfires or Hurricanes) was of course at the mercy of German tactics. One of the inadvertent effects of the Luftwaffe's change in tactics around 24th August was that it became virtually impossible to avoid the escort fighters, even though they were now flying in a less advantageous state.



When the Luftwaffe moved to huge amounts of escorts for the bombers for various attacks (4:1, even 6:1 at times) he peeled them off by hitting them with Spit squadron attacks at the escorts. This broke up the escorts, caused them to use up fuel, use ammo, lose altitude and opened gaps. Then the bomber killers were sent in. So he constantly changed his tactics according to the situation. Fighter sweeps were just ignored.

So the primary t6arget was always the bombers, but how that was achieved varied on the situation at the time.

When the bombers were attacked, before they dropped their bombs, even when they got through their formations were disrupted and their accuracy dropped, often considerably as it is a bit hard to aim well when being shot up. This was important since they were hitting airfields, not such an issue as it is hard to take them out, but they were also going for the aircraft manufacturers, which were all within 109 range at that time. That was one of the nightmare scenarios facing the British.

So the idea of 'letting them though' and then hammering them on the way out was fraught with danger, which was in inevitable consequence of the 'big wing' concept. You had to start hammering them on the way in. In fact they were hit on the way in, at their targets and on the way out... so there was no rest.

This was another advantage of the 'head on' attacks he favoured. Not only devastating in terms of the crews being hit but it disrupted their formations .... damn scary when a squadron of fighters are heading right at you.
Disrupted formations also made the escorts jobs a lot hard too therefore making it a lot easier for follow on attacks later.
You have to give the Luftwaffe credit, they constantly changed tactics, trying to find new ways through. They were very innovative (particularly Kesselring), sadly for them they had met their match in Park.


----------



## Aozora (Nov 2, 2013)

Greyman said:


> Air Publication 1530B - September 1939 (Revised October 1939)
> Pilot's Notes
> The Blenheim IV Aeroplane
> Two Mercury XV Engines
> ...



Blenheim IVs of Bomber Command were using 100 Octane fuel from the start of the war, albeit using the outer wing fuel tanks:







which led to tricky engine/flight handling problems for the pilots:














From pages 130, 99-100:





However, Graham Warner was wrong to state that there was a shortage of 100 Octane fuel; Britain had its own supplies of 100 Octane fuel, plus there was a steady supply from America. Pre-war planning was based on building up 800,000 tons of 100 Octane stocks while taking into account the possibility that America would invoke the Neutrality Act and refuse to supply Britain with 100 Octane fuel. Hence the stipulation that Blenheim IVs would use only the outer tanks, with priority of supply going to Fighter Command.

As events proved, there were no problems with supply of 100 Octane and stocks built up steadily: 263,000 tons by 18 April 1940










404,000 tons by August 1940; peaking at 527,000 tons in February 1941:






versus an average monthly consumption of 12,200 tons June 1940-October:






Thus, on 7 August 1940, 100 Octane fuel was allocated to all RAF Commands:


----------



## stona (Nov 2, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> So the idea of 'letting them though' and then hammering them on the way out .....'



Who had that idea? At no point in the quotes I gave for Douglas is there any suggestion of letting the bombers through. The first was written when EVERYONE, with the possible exception of Dowding, assumed that the bomber would always get through.
Dowding had said in a speech in Coventry of all places, on 14th February 1939.

"I am not one to minimise air raid precautions, particularly in the matter of fire services, but I think the politicians have allowed the nation to get altogether the wrong idea about modern air war. I believe the fighter has sixty to four the best of the bomber."

Douglas wrote. 

"Our objective is not to prevent enemy bombers reaching their objectives, though it would be nice if we could, but to cause a high casualty rate among enemy bombers, with the result that the attack will dwindle rapidly to bearable proportions."

The second quote, after the BoB when Douglas is frankly stating the obvious.

"The best, if only way of achieving air superiority is to shoot down a large proportion of enemy bombers every time they come over.........I would rather shoot down fifty of the enemy bombers after they had reached their objective than shoot down only ten before they do so."

The "Big Wing" wasn't supposed to intercept the raid on the way out either. It just took too long to assemble. The actual time was still causing acrimony in the 1970s to my certain and personal knowledge. Bader was still accusing 11 Group of ordering the Duxford Wing into the air too late. 11 Group was still accusing Leigh Mallory and 12 Group of failing to cover its airfields.

This became a bone of contention at the time. Park, as you rightly say, was keen to get to raids before they bombed and harass them in and, if possible, out. 

On 17th September Leigh Mallory wrote a report to Dowding on his wing patrols. Five had taken place and they claimed 105 aircraft destroyed plus another probably destroyed and eighteen damaged. These claims are simply fantastic and many copied in to the report, including Douglas, Dowding and Park must have know it. Tellingly, on Park's copy, a note reads.

"Did these Wings engage before targets were bombed?" 

Leigh Mallory, like Douglas, thought that defence of targets should be left to ground forces and a concentrated fighter attack made on the enemy formation, if necessary after it had bombed.

I have never seen any evidence, apart from one comment by Park, that Fighter Command tasked specific squadrons to specific _elements_ of a formation. This may well have been Park's intended tactic but is entirely dependant on the local tactical situation and in no small part the reaction of the enemy. The reasons why this could rarely be done in reality I have already mentioned. A look at the types credited to the various Hurricane 'aces' would tend to confirm this. Tietzen (who was lying fourth in Signal Magazine's unofficial league table behind Galland, Molders and Wick) was not the only senior Bf 109 pilot to fall victim to a tired old puffer.

Both Dowding and Park (and others) wrote, said and emphasised that the primary target for _all_ Fighter Command aircraft was the enemy bombers. They had to keep reiterating this point because in all the scenarios for which Fighting Area and then Fighter Command had exercised before the war the bombers were unescorted.

At a meeting of the Air Fighting Committee on 12th February 1940 Dowding said that he,

"wished to emphasise the point that the primary job of fighters was to shoot down bombers, not to fight other fighters."

It was a point reiterated by both men (Park and Dowding) throughout the summer of 1940.

Again there were some, particularly kicking their heels at 12 Group, who disagreed.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Nov 2, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Blenheim IVs of Bomber Command were using 100 Octane fuel from the start of the war, albeit using the outer wing fuel tanks:



That doesn't surprise me!

It is clear that stocks of 100 octane fuel were adequate and substantial throughout 1940. It is also clear that most if not all squadrons within Fighter Command were operating with the fuel throughout 1940. There are dozens of extant documents in the National Archives to support this. Nonetheless, for some reason, probably based on a misinterpretation of an earlier document, this has been contentious over the years.

Given the state of reserves and supply it does not seem unreasonable that the Blenheims of Bomber Command should be operated with the fuel, assuming it was available at their operational airfields.

Why Douglas thought that the fuel was reserved for certain aircraft I have no idea. I can only conjecture that he may have been under a misapprehension or he may have considered Fighter Command at the time to be effectively "Spitfire and Hurricane aircraft."

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Milosh (Nov 2, 2013)

But, but there was only 16 squadrons of fighters using 100 octane fuel during the BoB.  That is according to some so called aviation experts.


----------



## Glider (Nov 2, 2013)

No 2 group were also authorized to use 100 octane with fighter command so the Blenheim's would have been so equipped.

Milosh, go and wash your mouth out with soap and water


----------



## Aozora (Nov 2, 2013)

stona said:


> That doesn't surprise me!
> 
> It is clear that stocks of 100 octane fuel were adequate and substantial throughout 1940. It is also clear that most if not all squadrons within Fighter Command were operating with the fuel throughout 1940. There are dozens of extant documents in the National Archives to support this. Nonetheless, for some reason, probably based on a misinterpretation of an earlier document, this has been contentious over the years.
> Cheers
> ...



I know there was some extensive discussion on this a couple of years ago - I got the impression there were only one or two people who refused to believe that all Fighter Command squadrons were using 100 Octane in 1940. Evidence shows that several squadrons at the very least started using the fuel in 1939.


----------



## stona (Nov 2, 2013)

Milosh said:


> But, but there was only 16 squadrons of fighters using 100 octane fuel during the BoB.  That is according to some so called aviation experts.



I know that you're joking, but it is a view vigorously supported by some in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I believe that the confusion arises from a meeting held on 16th March 1939 in which it was decided that INITIAL delivery of 100 octane fuel would be to sixteen fighter and two twin engine bomber squadrons.
Subsequently the word 'initial' has either been misunderstood or ignored by researchers pushing their own agenda.

It hasn't helped that a report of the meeting appears in "Spitfire the History" meaning that it is often read and misquoted.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Milosh (Nov 2, 2013)

Glider said:


> Milosh, go and wash your mouth out with soap and water



Sorry Glider, couldn`t help myself.  

Steve, you mean people like Crumpp and Kurfurst.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 2, 2013)

Milosh said:


> Steve, you mean people like Crumpp and Kurfurst.



They are by no means the only ones 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Nov 3, 2013)

Tomo's post seems to be fairly limiting for considering western options:

_*Long range fighter *will be *at disadvantage vs. an interceptor*, provided they were powered by same generation of engines. 
Wonder if someone can come up with a *viable escort fighter on 1000-1200 HP *(at *20000-15000 ft of altitude;* historical engines only)? How would it stack vs. historical fighters with same power? What weaponry to choose (historically available for the country, of course). How good an escort range? 
*What about historical long range fighters with modest power on board*? 
Would a long-range fighter force offer enough tactical or strategic advantages vs. the force comprised of short range interceptor?
Obviously, the time of interest would be the 1st years of the war (only for hypothetical fighters)._"

The escort fighter doesn't have to have all the performance of the interceptors because the latter's primary mission is to take out the bombers. Also, speed is an important attribute but perhaps a bit more so for an interceptor that an escort fighter. even an interceptor's speed disadvantage can be overcome if other attributes are strong. Allied examples: RN-FAA Fulmar, FAF B-239/F2A-1, RAF and FAA Gladiator. 

That being said, I think a single seat Fulmar derived design is a contender for an effective long range escort. 

However, I also believe, that a fighter in the 1939-1940 time frame possessing the range, firepower and performance attributes necessary to carry out offensive missions could be derived from designs based on land-based variants of either the F2A-2/3 or the F4F-3 Wildcat which themselves possessed combat radii of between 300-500 miles (range ~800+ to 1,600 miles) _*without drop tanks*_.
I'd expect the design to be equipped with 4 x .5" or 6 to 8 x .3" guns. with an internal fuel capacity of 150 to 160 gallons of internal fuel with accommodation for a 50 gallon drop tank. I'd imagine a narrow 48" P&W 1,200 HP Wasp with a single stage, two-speed supercharger. I'd expect it would have a max speed at 15,000-20,000' of about 335 mph and a range with drop tank of something over 300 miles. The closest operational aircraft I can think of to this model would be the presumably heavier F4F-3A or a Martlet I, first appearing in late Spring of 1940.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 3, 2013)

I need bacon  (though I'd need Lucky 13 to explain this new feature to me)

In the meantime: West does not have that much of a disadvantage. UK can use Merlin, and match or better what Germans have had, at least from 1940 on. USA can indeed use R-1830, but I think that V-1710 will be better choice. Actually, the P-40 was there about fuel-wise, while offering a speed better than those 335 mph wanted.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Nov 3, 2013)

Reading accounts of P-40E long range missions in early 1942 in SE Asia during the PI campaign and the defense of Java, it looks like combat-loaded P-40s with drop tanks could manage one-way ranges approaching 550 miles without combat and with little reserve. I'd expect the range of the earlier and lighter B C marks to exceed that distance. That would seem to put the P-40B C in the ballpark of 1940-41, contemporary F4F ranges and probably something a bit less than the lighter, lower-performing F2A-1 -2.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 3, 2013)

Hmm... the P-40B + Merlin III/X/XII/XX = our best candidate?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 3, 2013)

Wasn't the Zero doing this on 950 hp? Didn't the Zero handle all Allied fighters in a 1v1 fight including the Spitfire and Hurricane up until the Hellcat, Corsair and P38 arrived?


----------



## Glider (Nov 3, 2013)

I don't know the range of the Machi 202 but I do know that it could carry drop tanks and was operational in 1941. It had a good performance, was very agile and I personally would back it against a P40B. Does anyone know about its range with drop tanks?


----------



## Aozora (Nov 4, 2013)

Looks like there's going to be a rasher of baconed posts, with members egging one another on and generally hamming it up, leading to pork quality threads - it just isn't kosher!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 4, 2013)

I was able to find the range on internal fuel only. The latest series were outfitted with 2 x 33 imp gal tanks. The 551 lbs of fuel amounts to ~77 imp gals, ie. less fuel than Spit. The wing of the MC.202 is as good as unused, re. armament and fuel.









pinsog said:


> Wasn't the Zero doing this on 950 hp? Didn't the Zero handle all Allied fighters in a 1v1 fight including the Spitfire and Hurricane up until the Hellcat, Corsair and P38 arrived?



Indeed, Zero was able to provide useful service as a long range fighter. It's successes show that an air defense fighter must be a part of well 'designed' and led air defense network, if it's to be successful; if not, the LR fighter has most of advantages.
We can note that Spitfires were able to forestall the attacks at Darwin, once some technical issues were rectified, and it took some time for the air defense network to work properly (giving enough time for the Spits to climb and form the units). It probably took time for Spitfire pilots to employ slashing attacks (boom and zoom) vs. IJN planes, without entering into turning fights with Zero.
The Darwin example also shows that a defending fighter need to have decent amount of fuel, in order to chase down the retreating intruders.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Nov 4, 2013)

Strangely enough the P-40E began to show some very modest air-to-air success as an interceptor over Darwin in the late Spring and early summer of '42. USAAF pilots were working out tactics and there is some circumstantial evidence that some flights of defending fighters appear to have thrown armament and ammunition overboard to reduce their weight and improve aspects of their a/c's performance. How widespread this practice became is unknown (and may be unknowable, unless there are any surviving pilots or armorers from that period). But it seems to have amounted to a whittling away of the Zeros reputation of invincibility after the initial shock of its appearance. 

That seems to have been the start of the battle of attrition the lightly armored and armed A6M couldn't win. 

Especially with the advent of the F4F-4 in the Fall of 1942, which, for all its many performance deficiencies as a fighter and interceptor, could climb to high altitude without the significant loss of performance of the P-40E. The battle of attrition apparently reached its climax on October 18, 1942 over Guadalcanal when CO of the VMF-212, Lt. Col. Harold 'Joe' Bauer exhorted his pilots that "_When you see zeros dogfight them_" Apparently he recognized or intuited that the quality of IJN Pilots was slowly declining with losses fighting so far from their bases or that the sturdiness of the F4F and improved tactics allowed it to go head-to-head with the better performing A6M…. Of course, the USMC USN pilots had the home team advantage of fighting over generally friendlier geography: Veteran pilots being relatively irreplaceable compared to their aircraft.

However until that time, and until the arrival of the Spitfire, F4U and P-38, the A6M certainly remained a formidable opponent. Not that it wasn't after they appeared but ruling the air combating the new generation of allied a/c wasn't in the cards.

But certainly in 1940-41 it was the most effective long-range escort of its time taking the allies by nearly total surprise and who were only able to respond with obsolescent inadequately performing interceptors unable to counter its attacks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## OldSkeptic (Nov 4, 2013)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> T
> The escort fighter doesn't have to have all the performance of the interceptors because the latter's primary mission is to take out the bombers.



Precisely. Provided good tactics are used by the escort fighter they will always have a tactical advantage over the interceptor. Apart from anything else they will have a height advantage, which they can have reached well before they head over enemy territory (and in a nice fuel consumption minimisation way).

Therefore they don't need (though it always useful) the climb rates of the interceptor. The example of the P-47, especially the early ones, comes to mind. Good speed of course, but it only has to be competitive (again being superior is a bonus).

Therefore back to a MR/LR Spit as an example. Even with (for a MR version) an extra 350 lbs in internal fuel it will still outclimb anything in 1940/41 except a 109.
Careful attention to the cleanness of the planes (taking a leaf out of the PR boys book) can ensure that the speed impact is minimal. Dropping the tank holders as well as the external tanks helps too*.

Careful planning means that the escort fighter is at a good fighting weight and height and running off the drop tanks during the main danger period for escort (lower loaded ones can cover the earlier parts, both going and returning). Therefore taking the Spit on a 300 mile combat mission, the main danger area escorts are only carrying maybe as little as an extra 200-300lbs (and diminishing). That's not enough to close the gap in performance given the escort fighter is already at altitude. 'Boom and zoom' are the primary fighting tactics by escort fighters (at least for the 1st pass), the idea is to break up the interceptors and make bomber attack difficult.

A bunch (of varying in number of course) interceptors trying to form up and get into position for an attack run have a much harder job if they have to look over their shoulder all the time to avoid being bounced by the escorts.

Again to be fair clever tactics by the interceptors can help minimise that (for example full bore head on attacks in the first pass, covering attacks on the escorts first and so on) but it is difficult to beat escorts (again with them following good tactics) without taking significant losses.But then we are into attritional warfare again and if you can outproduce the other side in fighters (and pilots) then you will win over time. 
As happened in both the BoB and the Air Battle of Germany.

In the Bob, despite being controlled by the finest air tactician of the war, the RAF still suffered serious losses against the escorts and the bombers themselves. But it could take it, the Luftwaffe couldn't either in escort fighters or in bombers, therefore it lost.

In the ABoG the bombers and the escorts suffered serious losses too, but again the USAAF could take it, while the Germans couldn't (poor German tactics didn't help of course). In that battle the early P-47s suffered serious performance disadvantages, with poor climb and poor level acceleration, but because they had the tactical advantage (height basically) they could still inflict serious attrition on the interceptors, so much so that the defence withdrew attacking the bombers in areas where the escorts could reach (which was actually a serious tactical mistake by the Luftwaffe).

I use the Spit as an example for this period because I cannot see any other alternatives at all in the west at that time (40/41). A P-40, with even a Merlin XX (which wasn't really available then anyway), simply would have inferior performance to a similar engined Spit that carried extra fuel. Before you even put a drop of fuel into the thing it is already much heavier. So I fail to see the logic of saying a fueled up Spit cannot do the job (at least for MR stuff), while an already heavier (and aerodynamically inferior) P-40, which also has to carry the same amount of fuel as well, will somehow be better?

All these depend on good planning and tactics. If the escorts use poor ones then their loss rates will be much heavier (as well as the bombers). If the defenders use poor ones then the escorts job will be much easier. If they both use good/poor ones at the same time then the odds are closer. In all cases we are just changing the attrition rates.


* I mention the racks, because when you look at the P-51s you see the bomb/fuel racks on the wings, these were semi-permanent fittings. These cost it 10mph, which it could afford though other planes couldn't of course, but the alternative was to have droppable racks (as per the Malta Spits for bombs) therefore returning full performance (allowing for the extra fuel weight).


----------



## stona (Nov 4, 2013)

The problem for the RAF's interceptors during the BoB was time. They didn't have enough time to reach the ever increasing altitudes at which the Germans arrived. It took much longer for a Spitfire to reach 25,000 ft than for a Luftwaffe formation to fly from Cap Gris Nez to Dover, even if it took off as the raid left the French coast. They almost invariably struggled to gain sufficient altitude.
This wasn't a problem for the Luftwaffe later in the war when the USAAF made deeper penetration raids and they made the Americans pay for it.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 4, 2013)

Hi, Old. Agree with pretty much you're said, but these two:


OldSkeptic said:


> ...
> I use the Spit as an example for this period because I cannot see any other alternatives at all in the west at that time (40/41). A P-40, with even a Merlin XX (which wasn't really available then anyway), simply would have inferior performance to a similar engined Spit that carried extra fuel. Before you even put a drop of fuel into the thing it is already much heavier. So I fail to see the logic of saying a fueled up Spit cannot do the job (at least for MR stuff), while an already heavier (and aerodynamically inferior) P-40, which also has to carry the same amount of fuel as well, will somehow be better?...



There were P-40s and then there were P-40s. The P-40, P-40A and P-40B were pretty light weight; later models got overweight. The P-40B was featuring the armament weight of the Spitfire I II/Hurricane Is (give or take), the fuel tanks were self-sealing, armor was installed, all while weighting 6835 lbs when 120 US gals was carried (100 imp gals). On that weight, it was capable for 352 mph at 15000 ft. Spit II was good for 345 mph at 15000 ft, on 6172 lbs. 
Sick a Merlin III/XII on it and it will be around 360 mph between 15-20000 ft*. And it can be fueled up to 160 US gals (133 imp gals) internally.
BTW, aerodynamic superiority/inferiority involves not just a basic wing shape (Spit was perhaps the world champion in that), but also the layout of cooling system, how good/bad the wheels were covered when retracted etc. - in those things Spit have had space for improvement.



> * I mention the racks, because when you look at the P-51s you see the bomb/fuel racks on the wings, these were semi-permanent fittings. These cost it 10mph, which it could afford though other planes couldn't of course, but the alternative was to have droppable racks (as per the Malta Spits for bombs) therefore returning full performance (allowing for the extra fuel weight).



The racks at P-51C and earlier were 'stealing' 12 mph, from P-51D and further only 4 mph.

added: at ~17000 ft, those Merlins were making about 1000 HP, vs. V-1710-33's ~950 HP.


----------



## Glider (Nov 4, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Hi, Old. Agree with pretty much you're said, but these two:
> 
> 
> There were P-40s and then there were P-40s. The P-40, P-40A and P-40B were pretty light weight; later models got overweight. The P-40B was featuring the armament weight of the Spitfire I II/Hurricane Is (give or take), the fuel tanks were self-sealing, armor was installed, all while weighting 6835 lbs when 120 US gals was carried (100 imp gals). On that weight, it was capable for 352 mph at 15000 ft. Spit II was good for 345 mph at 15000 ft, on 6172 lbs.
> ...



But at the same timescale as the P40B the RAF were introducing the Spit V, the Germans the 109F both of which had a seriously better performance.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Nov 4, 2013)

Thanks Glider, about to post that. By that time 1,200bhp was fading memory for the Spits and 109s.

More ever, basic to escort/interceptor tactics. the optimum coverage was basically 3 groups of escorts (the Germans experimented with this in the Bob and used it successfully at times, hence Park's need to 'peel' off the escorts).

High cover, at least, preferably more, 10,000ft above the bombers (assuming they are coming in about the 20,000ft mark), forward sweep and 'loose close' cover (ie not too close, but as a reserve if nothing else).

The sweep is to break up interceptors forming up (ideally below them), the high cover to swoop down on those that get through, the L/C cover for the remainder and to get those who pass, reform and attack again.
Takes a lot of escort fighters (back to the numbers game again) of course (more so when you have staged escorts). But it presents the defenders with the hardest possible options.

The high cover has to be attacked, or at least disrupted before you can really hammer the bombers. But to do that means gaining even more height and having to get through the sweeps. The timing has to be really good to feed through the anti-escort fighters first, before the bomber killers get there. Even if the defenders have a performance advantage at all those altitudes, it is not going to be that much and not enough to push the kill/loss ratios up enough to really punch through the escorts without taking significant losses (attrition again).

Of course you can also play with clever tricks, sneeking in smaller (thus harder to see) groups of defenders (flight/squadron sizes) which will take a toll on the bombers. Vectoring in from different angles also helps, since it disrupts the escorts and makes their job a lot harder (ideally you hit the bombers from all sides with small'ish groups of defending fighters). Full bore frontal attacks (ideally from a shallow dive) on the bombers and so on.
This may not be optimum way to hammer the bombers, but it is the optimum way to hammer _escorted _bombers.

That is where the Luftwaffe failed in the ABoG. It's tactics were unimaginative and fragile. Plus they even repeated the RAF's 'big wing' mistakes (and if anyone should have know better it was them) where the sweeps had a field day.
They never tried to disrupt the escorts at early stages (ideally making them drop their tanks too soon). That was one weakness of the staged escort approach. The arriving escorts were vulnerable to being bounced on their approach, not so much to suffering significant losses, but to having to dump their tanks early, before they rendezvoused with the bombers.
Even squadron level attacks would have put real pressure on the escorts (basically cause them to have to increase their numbers significantly as you would need escorts for the escorts, for those approach phases).

They were too dependent on their poorly performing twins (basically 110s), when they were taken out (and the escorts had a field day with them) their successful '43 tactics collapsed (hence their victory at that time was very fragile).

They became bomber obsessed and seemed to be unable to adjust to the new escorted phase, where you need to disrupt and inflict attrition on the escorts too, before you can successfully hammer the bombers.

So in '43 the Luftwaffe won the attrition war, but after that they lost it. Note that it wasn't just the P-51, it was also significant changes in escort strategy and tactics (that great Doolittle again another brilliant air tactician). At the strategic level, their fighter and pilot production was too low to take that attrition, while the Americans could (though at times just) manage it.

So, using my previous post's point, by the Mid 44 period the USAAF escorts had superior tactics and could handle the attrition (their better equipment was a bonus, but of the Mustang was 20 or even 30mph slower it would have not made much of a difference). The Luftwaffe used poor tactics (which accelerated its attrition) and couldn't. So it lost.
To be fair, even with better tactics, their production levels were too low to win, but they could have strung it out longer and inflicted greater losses. 

For them to win it would have taken the correct decisions to be made in '42 to build sufficient production and training capacity, numbers and develop the C&C systems and tactics.
They didn't, so their only remaining hope was to hammer the Americans enough in the early stages for them to lose their will to fight, which they partially achieved for a short time, but it was betting high on a pair of twos, the odds were well against them.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 4, 2013)

I have made this proposal:



> Hmm... the P-40B + Merlin III/X/XII/XX = our best candidate?



Historical P-40B, with 100 imp gals aboard, was performing as the SpitI/II/Bf-109E. The BoB fighters received the uprated engines and more weight, the P-40 received mostly more weight. The P-40D grossed at 7740 lbs clean, ie. 900 lbs more than P-40B, since it was now carrying 148 US gals of fuel (123 imp gals, 3 more than Spit VIII). The P-40E received 2 more HMGs ammo, with other models following suit. Clean it went to 8290 lbs.
The Spit V with 4 cannons was at 6917 lbs, the ones with 2 cannons were a tad lighter. Comparing it with P-40F (= 364.5 mph at 19,270) , it was some 7-10 mph faster, but RoC was way better for the lighter Spitfire.
The Bf-109 was both more powerful,lighter and smaller, while featuring improved aerodynamics vs. the 109E. No wonder it was able to outperform the P-40 easily. 

In case the Merlin XX or 45 is mounted at the P-40B as-is, the weight difference will remain much closer, so the performance will be better. And the plane has much more internal fuel than SPit or 109, making it better for long range work.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Nov 4, 2013)

Waste of a good engine. A compatible Spit V against a P40F was 10-30mph faster at all altitudes, 500-1000fpm+ better climb rates at all altitudes, higher ceiling ... and was only a single speed engine.. and at 12lb boost, the numbers look even worse with 16lb. The P-40 was a generation behind in aerodynamics.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 5, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Historical P-40B, with 100 imp gals aboard, was performing as the SpitI/II/Bf-109E. The BoB fighters received the uprated engines and more weight, the P-40 received mostly more weight. The P-40D grossed at 7740 lbs clean, ie. 900 lbs more than P-40B, since it was now carrying 148 US gals of fuel (123 imp gals, 3 more than Spit VIII). The P-40E received 2 more HMGs ammo, with other models following suit. Clean it went to 8290 lbs.
> The Spit V with 4 cannons was at 6917 lbs, the ones with 2 cannons were a tad lighter. Comparing it with P-40F (= 364.5 mph at 19,270) , it was some 7-10 mph faster, but RoC was way better for the lighter Spitfire.
> The Bf-109 was both more powerful,lighter and smaller, while featuring improved aerodynamics vs. the 109E. No wonder it was able to outperform the P-40 easily.
> 
> In case the Merlin XX or 45 is mounted at the P-40B as-is, the weight difference will remain much closer, so the performance will be better. And the plane has much more internal fuel than SPit or 109, making it better for long range work.



And the P-40B had crap for armament. A P-40B had two .50 cal in the cowl (with waaaaay too much ammo) and four .30 cal in the wings. It could carry 160 US gallons total inside but the protection of the fuel tanks is doubtful, better than the earlier P-40s but not as good as the "C" Which had tanks that weighed 165lbs more while holding 25 gallons less. Perhaps _only_ the wing tanks were protected? 

A. can you fit synchronizers on the Merlin engine? or how much trouble is it?
B. can you _keep_ the cowl mounted .50s with the higher thrust line of the Merlin engine? (prop raised about 6in over the needle nose P-40s) 
C. Merlin is about 150-160lb heavier. Prop may be 50lbs heavier. 

Of course if you ditch the fuselage .50 cals you can save 370lbs 

BTW, "AHT" gives 7352lbs for a clean P-40B and that is with 114lbs of fuel in the rear tank and not the full 342lbs. 

Unfortunately it doesn't really appear that the early planes were ALL that much lighter than the later ones considering the "stuff" added to the later ones. Even a "plain" P-40 (no letter) went 6807 lbs with 120 US gallons of fuel (100 imp gal) NO armor, No protected tanks, one .30 cal in each wing and 100lbs worth of .50 cal ammo (?) 166rpg (?) and minimal radio gear (60lbs less than E and up models). Filling the rear tank brought you to 7173lbs.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Nov 5, 2013)

Can't help but wonder about the performance of the 49th FG _Base Fighter_ modified Group I II, P-40E (_number 48_) which was nearly 900 pounds lighter than the standard P-40E with 2 HMGs removed, reduced ammo to 190 RPG and carrying only 87 gallons of fuel with some wing tanks removed. Gross weight was in the vicinity of ~7,200 (according to the USAAF documentation) or ~7,400 lbs (if I assume Empty Weight was AHT's 6,070 lbs). Group III A/C had an additional ~350 lbs (!!!) removed (radio and other furnishings, armor???, SST???) reportedly had a maximum ceiling of 32,000 ft. Would a Merlin have been wasted on the Group I II A/C (or would it have been a game changer? With its 52 gallon belly drop tank, it would have much of the stock P-40E model's endurance restored. I think the Group III notion was discarded after one combat trial.

Late edit, added _Useful Load_ for Group I II a/c: 1,348 lbs. above _Empty Weight_ of either 5,861 lbs (USAAF doc) or 6,070 lbs (AHT).


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 5, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Waste of a good engine. A compatible Spit V against a P40F was 10-30mph faster at all altitudes, 500-1000fpm+ better climb rates at all altitudes, higher ceiling ... and was only a single speed engine.. and at 12lb boost, the numbers look even worse with 16lb. The P-40 was a generation behind in aerodynamics.



Don't know where to start from. 
I've already stated/agreed that Spit V was 7-10 mph faster at ~20000 ft than P-40F. If the altitudes and engine power used is not stated, lumping the so-many-mph difference does mean nothing, least for aerodynamics comparison. The difference in supercharger is more of the academic point - it is the horse power what counts here. There is no much point in comparison of the RoC between a planes that were apart in weights by some 30%, on about the same HP - the fat P-40E grew another 450 lbs when 'became' the 'Merlin P-40'. 
Again: stick the Merlin 45 in 6800-7600 lbs light P-40B (instead in the 8050-8300 lbs heavy P-40E) and then compare speed RoC vs. 6450 lbs Spit V. Further, install, in the Spitfire V, a protected tank (100-120 lbs?) for 35 imp gals (another 252 lbs; total ~6800 lbs now) and then compare performance. 
If the P-40 was a generation behind in aerodynamics, how come P-40/P-40A/P-40B were as fast as Spit I and II above 15000 ft - despite ~50 HP deficit there, and bigger weight?



Shortround6 said:


> And the P-40B had crap for armament. A P-40B had two .50 cal in the cowl (with waaaaay too much ammo) and four .30 cal in the wings.



We're trying to envision a long range fighter, and that fighter will not need to kill bombers - that job is for interceptors mostly.
It's armament was far better than what most of pre-1944 Japanes fighter were carrying, it's not that much worse than what RAF used during the BoB, and it is certainly better than what Italian pre-5-series fighters had. For fighter-type targets of 1940-41, it was at least as good as what Bf-109E and 109F1/2 carried.



> It could carry 160 US gallons total inside but the protection of the fuel tanks is doubtful, better than the earlier P-40s but not as good as the "C" Which had tanks that weighed 165lbs more while holding 25 gallons less. Perhaps _only_ the wing tanks were protected?


 
Guess you're right here - the more/better/thicker protection, the less fuel is inside. The -C received drop tank capability, canceling out the loss of internal fuel. 



> A. can you fit synchronizers on the Merlin engine? or how much trouble is it?
> B. can you _keep_ the cowl mounted .50s with the higher thrust line of the Merlin engine? (prop raised about 6in over the needle nose P-40s)
> C. Merlin is about 150-160lb heavier. Prop may be 50lbs heavier.



A, B - don't know; the HMGs might go into wings
C - Merlin XX - 125 lbs heavier than V-1710-C15. Merlin 45 (actually, 50M) - 60 lbs heavier (pg. 322, Vee's for victory; all numbers are dry weights).



> Of course if you ditch the fuselage .50 cals you can save 370lbs



Not an option 



> BTW, "AHT" gives 7352lbs for a clean P-40B and that is with 114lbs of fuel in the rear tank and not the full 342lbs.



The P-40B, the test of which is available at Williams' site, is stated at 6835 lbs - the good deal might be a difference in ammo weight (what might be considered normal vs. maximum). The P-40 (no suffix) carried 165 lbs of ammo, vs. 345 lbs for the P-40B - 180 lbs differnce. But we still don't know where from the remaining ~350 lbs are emanating from. 
This document states indeed 7326 lbs as 'normal gross weight' vs. 6835 lbs being 'design gross weight'. The 'normal fuel' was stated as 120 gals.



> Unfortunately it doesn't really appear that the early planes were ALL that much lighter than the later ones considering the "stuff" added to the later ones. Even a "plain" P-40 (no letter) went 6807 lbs with 120 US gallons of fuel (100 imp gal) NO armor, No protected tanks, one .30 cal in each wing and 100lbs worth of .50 cal ammo (?) 166rpg (?) and minimal radio gear (60lbs less than E and up models). Filling the rear tank brought you to 7173lbs.



The stated 6835 lbs of weight indeed appear an overly optimistic figure for the P-40B, I admit. I've offered the greatest weight here, too, so the comparison is, hopefully, as realistic as possible.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 5, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> We're trying to envision a long range fighter, and that fighter will not need to kill bombers - that job is for interceptors mostly.
> It's armament was far better than what most of pre-1944 Japanes fighter were carrying, it's not that much worse than what RAF used during the BoB, and it is certainly better than what Italian pre-5-series fighters had. For fighter-type targets of 1940-41, it was at least as good as what Bf-109E and 109F1/2 carried.



Comparisons are hard because the American .50 cal had a truly dismal rate of fire when synchronized. Somewhere between 400-500rpm. A big reason why the US wanted to stick them out in the wing. The Japanese Ho-103 12.7mm fired at 900rpm until late in the war ( late war guns had a number of problems) and while that is the _unsynchronized_ rate of fire their gun didn't suffer the big drop the American gun did, more like a 10-15% loss in rate of fire. While the Ki 43 carried crap for armament the KI 43 and Ki 61 with two Ho-103s and two 7.7mm mgs weren't _that_ far behind the early P-40s. The Italian 12.7mm guns were supposed to cycle at 700rpms, actual synchronized rate??? Both Italians and Japanese used exploding bullets which ups the effectiveness of their ammo a bit. Perhaps the P-40s needed the extra wing guns a bit more? And are the two _sllooww_ firing .50s really worth the 4 extra .303s the British planes carried? 



> A, B - don't know; the HMGs might go into wings
> C - Merlin XX - 125 lbs heavier than V-1710-C15. Merlin 45 (actually, 50M) - 60 lbs heavier (pg. 322, Vee's for victory; all numbers are dry weights).



I have no idea _why_ the Packard Merlin V-1650-1 weighs 60lbs more than than a British Merlin XX but it is there. Not a deal breaker. But 1510lbs vs 1350lbs (about ) for the V-1710-33. And the later P-40s used heavier propellers. 



> Not an option



Loosing 360-400 rounds of ammo should be (120lbs?) Fitting synchronizers to the Merlin is NOT impossible but not something you want to do in the field without factory support. A lot of times synchronizers were driven by the camshafts which means drilling a hole in the cam cover, fitting a mounting pad for the sychronizer and fitting the drive system to the end of the camshaft. A factory would design a different cam cover and just block off the the port/s for installations that _didn't_ use synchronizers. And we still have the question of if the raised prop will clear the guns.

Fitting one .50 and one .30 in each wing might be a better option. 

But you are designing with the benefit of hind sight. YOU KNOW both the Japanese and Italians dropped the ball when it came to better armament. You KNOW the Germans had problems with early 109F armament. 

There is no reason (except production capacity) that the Ki 44 couldn't have had four 12.7mm mgs almost from the start. Same for the Ki 61. Germans had been fooling with engine mounted cannon since about 1936. Getting one that _worked_ took until the 109F-4.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 5, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Comparisons are hard because the American .50 cal had a truly dismal rate of fire when synchronized. Somewhere between 400-500rpm. A big reason why the US wanted to stick them out in the wing.



Well said.



> The Japanese Ho-103 12.7mm fired at 900rpm until late in the war ( late war guns had a number of problems) and while that is the _unsynchronized_ rate of fire their gun didn't suffer the big drop the American gun did, more like a 10-15% loss in rate of fire. While the Ki 43 carried crap for armament the KI 4*4* and Ki 61 with two Ho-103s and two 7.7mm mgs weren't _that_ far behind the early P-40s. The Italian 12.7mm guns were supposed to cycle at 700rpms, actual synchronized rate??? Both Italians and Japanese used exploding bullets which ups the effectiveness of their ammo a bit. Perhaps the P-40s needed the extra wing guns a bit more? And are the two _sllooww_ firing .50s really worth the 4 extra .303s the British planes carried?



It's "Ki-44 and Ki-61" you mean? Agreed, their main punch came from HMGs.
The British battery will score more hits once burst hits target, the P-40B might actually pierce some armor when the burst hits target - might help out negotiate the seat/head armor better, or armored widshield? 




> I have no idea _why_ the Packard Merlin V-1650-1 weighs 60lbs more than than a British Merlin XX but it is there. Not a deal breaker. But 1510lbs vs 1350lbs (about ) for the V-1710-33. And the later P-40s used heavier propellers.



I've checked out the engine tables found in the AEHS. The V-1710-33 is at 1340 lbs there, vs. 1520 for the V-1650-1. The Merlin 45 is at 1385 lbs, I've checked 3 sources  All dry weights.



> Loosing 360-400 rounds of ammo should be (120lbs?) Fitting synchronizers to the Merlin is NOT impossible but not something you want to do in the field without factory support. A lot of times synchronizers were driven by the camshafts which means drilling a hole in the cam cover, fitting a mounting pad for the sychronizer and fitting the drive system to the end of the camshaft. A factory would design a different cam cover and just block off the the port/s for installations that _didn't_ use synchronizers. And we still have the question of if the raised prop will clear the guns.
> Fitting one .50 and one .30 in each wing might be a better option.



Yep, will save a bit of weight, while relocation of the HMGs will cancel out the firepower lost when a pair of LMGs is deleted. 



> But you are designing with the benefit of hind sight. YOU KNOW both the Japanese and Italians dropped the ball when it came to better armament. You KNOW the Germans had problems with early 109F armament.



If the fighter armament is tailored according to the perspective target, then hindsight is not needed - a fighter that will contest enemy fighters at enemy airspace will need lighter punch, than a fighter that will contest enemy bombers over own territory. 
The Germans did not have problems with 109F-1/F-2, the 15mm cannon worked well. 



> There is no reason (except production capacity) that the Ki 44 couldn't have had four 12.7mm mgs almost from the start. Same for the Ki 61.



Agreed. 



> Germans had been fooling with engine mounted cannon since about 1936. Getting one that _worked_ took until the 109F-4.



Until F-1?


----------



## stona (Nov 5, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Yep, will save a bit of weight, while relocation of the HMGs will cancel out the firepower lost when a pair of LMGs is deleted.



Any evidence for that assertion?

The reasons for the RAF's eight gun armament were very carefully worked out in the mid thirties, both theoretically and experimentally. I very much doubt that Ralph Sorley would have agreed with your contention. 

If you go with an interrupter system then you are also going to end up with different propellers on mid/late war fighters. It's one of the reasons that the Germans stuck with a three bladed propeller system.

The MG 151/15 did NOT work perfectly. Under certain flight conditions the belt jammed and blocked the ammunition feed. A temporary fix was made by front line armourers inserting small wooden blocks but the problem was never completely solved until the advent of the MG 151/20. You could say that the cannon armament worked reliably from about mid 1941.
I think rather more serious issues with wing skin wrinkling, wings coming off, empennages detaching at frame 9 and other problems with the elevators have somewhat overshadowed problems with the armament  

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 5, 2013)

stona said:


> Any evidence for that assertion?
> 
> The reasons for the RAF's eight gun armament were very carefully worked out in the mid thirties, both theoretically and experimentally. I very much doubt that Ralph Sorley would have agreed with your contention.



Not sure that assertions need evidences, maybe my command of English language is not that good I often think it is 
At any rate, I'm increasing the rate of fire of the P-40B's BMG for about 1/3rd, by relocating it in the wings. The price to pay it is the loss of a LMG, so instead of two HMGs + 4 LMGs, we now have a pair of each per plane. The side effect is that weight will be lower, and few mph are to be earned.
OTOH, the 6-8 LMG battery for the perspective LR fighter does not look out of place either.



> If you go with an interrupter system then you are also going to end up with different propellers on mid/late war fighters. It's one of the reasons that the Germans stuck with a three bladed propeller system.



I've already agreed that Merlins and gun synchronizers seem not to mix well. The 1000-1200 HP LR fighter for 1943 and beyond is a no-go anyway.



> The MG 151/15 did NOT work perfectly. Under certain flight conditions the belt jammed and blocked the ammunition feed. A temporary fix was made by front line armourers inserting small wooden blocks but the problem was never completely solved until the advent of the MG 151/20. You could say that the cannon armament worked reliably from about mid 1941.
> I think rather more serious issues with wing skin wrinkling, wings coming off, empennages detaching at frame 9 and other problems with the elevators have somewhat overshadowed problems with the armament
> 
> Cheers
> ...



Thanks for additional info.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 6, 2013)

An interesting comparison can be made between the 6,965 lbs worth of Spitfire V and 7413 lbs worth of P-40N (the 1st, lightweight examples, with 100 imp gals of internal fuel in just two tanks and 4 HMGs). Both airspeed and RoC is in the ballpark.
The bulk of P-40Ns was, however, reverted at 3 fuel tanks and ~125 imp gals internal fuel and 6 HMGs, the weight went back up at 8300 lbs, and the speed was back at ~350 mph at best altitude.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 6, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> An interesting comparison can be made between the 6,965 lbs worth of Spitfire V and 7413 lbs worth of P-40N (the 1st, lightweight examples, with 100 imp gals of internal fuel in just two tanks and 4 HMGs). Both airspeed and RoC is in the ballpark.
> The bulk of P-40Ns was, however, reverted at 3 fuel tanks and ~125 imp gals internal fuel and 6 HMGs, the weight went back up at 8300 lbs, and the speed was back at ~350 mph at best altitude.



Spitfire was ballasted to represent four 20mm cannon. Weight difference of about 240lbs from a standard MK V. although other test MK Vs are even lighter. 

P-40 not only lost a fuel tank and two machine guns but had restricted ammo 235rpg. It also had aluminium radiators and oil coolers, unlike ALL previous P-40s. Magnesium wheels, no electric starter for the engine and a much smaller battery for the electric system ( some sources say NO battery but that is a bit hard to believe.) Also the wing bomb racks were deleted. 

The wing racks and drag for machine gun barrels and ejection slots probably have as much to do with the reduction in speed of the later P-40Ns as the weight increase. Weight gets blamed a lot for speed changes when other things were added/subtracted from aircraft that affect drag as much as they do the weight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 6, 2013)

Indeed, the lighter Spit Vs (eg. the one tested at 6525 lbs, 2 cannons and 4 LMGs) were better climbers, with some 20% better RoC, and the speed difference was some 5 mph.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 6, 2013)

And there is part of the problem with the long range fighters, even 400-500lbs can have a significant impact on climb performance and ceiling. The speed doesn't change much but the planes ability to operate at altitude does. Cobber Kain's first victory was against a Do-17 photo recon plane at 27,000ft in Nov 1939. Since nobody actually _knew_ what altitudes most of the fighting would be done at in 1941-42 let alone the rest of the war OK'ing production of fighters you KNOW are going to be at a disadvantage at altitude (20-30,000ft) is a little suspect. 
It is all very well to talk of tactics and tactics are important but the methods used by certain forces don't always apply to others. The Flying Tigers did well with poor climbing, poor turning fighters compared to the Japanese BUT they had a very considerable speed advantage, a very considerable dive advantage. They had an early warning system, not radar but ground observers often gave them 20-30 minutes warning. The Japanese having to fly over occupied land with a telephone system instead of water. There "mission" was a bit different too. Cause as much damage to the Japanese as possible while minimizing their own losses. Resupply was almost non-existent. The Chinese air force was almost totally non-effective so one or two good firing passes be each fighter per raid was actually doing pretty good. No disrespect or minimizing the situation intended. The Flying Tigers (and their ground crews) did an amazing job in difficult circumstances. They were also, on average, _very_ experienced pilots and trying to provide some sort of defense over the long haul. A few big battles might have seen them wiped out so a slow battle of attrition was more suited to their situation even if the people on the ground suffered. 

But turn it around. Even with more fuel and lighting the P-40s by several hundred pounds, could the Flying Tigers have escorted a Chinese (if it existed) bomber force or allied bomber force hundreds of miles into Japanese air space successfully with the Japanese having 20-40 minutes warning they were coming?


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 6, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> And there is part of the problem with the long range fighters, even 400-500lbs can have a significant impact on climb performance and ceiling. The speed doesn't change much but the planes ability to operate at altitude does. Cobber Kain's first victory was against a Do-17 photo recon plane at 27,000ft in Nov 1939. Since nobody actually _knew_ what altitudes most of the fighting would be done at in 1941-42 let alone the rest of the war OK'ing production of fighters you KNOW are going to be at a disadvantage at altitude (20-30,000ft) is a little suspect.



The weight difference can originate from other sources than fuel alone. 
We might consider the Spitfire II with 8 LMGs and 100 imp gals of internal fuel + 45 imp gals in drop tank (MR/LR fighter) , going against Spitfire II with 2 cannons and 4 LMGs and 85 gals (interceptor with punch good enough to kill bombers). The extra 15 imp gals of fuel + additional protected tank will add maybe 120-130 lbs. The replacement of 4 LMGs with 2 Hispanos will add circa 150 lbs, too. So our MR/LR Spitfire II does not weight an ounce more than a Interceptor Spitfire, and it is at least good streamlined. The MR/LR Spit can cover 100 miles more on internal fuel (doing 6-7 mpg, at 300-260 mph), on the other hand.




> It is all very well to talk of tactics and tactics are important but the methods used by certain forces don't always apply to others. The Flying Tigers did well with poor climbing, poor turning fighters compared to the Japanese BUT they had a very considerable speed advantage, a very considerable dive advantage. They had an early warning system, not radar but ground observers often gave them 20-30 minutes warning. The Japanese having to fly over occupied land with a telephone system instead of water. There "mission" was a bit different too. Cause as much damage to the Japanese as possible while minimizing their own losses. Resupply was almost non-existent. The Chinese air force was almost totally non-effective so one or two good firing passes be each fighter per raid was actually doing pretty good. No disrespect or minimizing the situation intended. The Flying Tigers (and their ground crews) did an amazing job in difficult circumstances. They were also, on average, _very_ experienced pilots and trying to provide some sort of defense over the long haul. A few big battles might have seen them wiped out so a slow battle of attrition was more suited to their situation even if the people on the ground suffered.



Agreed completely.



> But turn it around. Even with more fuel and lighting the P-40s by several hundred pounds, could the Flying Tigers have escorted a Chinese (if it existed) bomber force or allied bomber force hundreds of miles into Japanese air space successfully with the Japanese having 20-40 minutes warning they were coming?



The perspective opposition for the P-40 in the 1st half year after the Pearl would be the Nate and Oscar fighters. Nate would be a toast for the P-40 that is not at height disadvantage, and whose pilot does not want to engage in slow, turning fight. Nate is unable to withstand a burst from a P-40, unlike vice-versa.
Same things hold true for Oscar, though a speed difference is less pronounced here. 
In case the Japanese have height advantage, the P-40 can dive and then zoom climb, the Japanese are ill able to follow the dive of it. The Japanese need to achieve full surprise if they're to succeec, and that also depends how a cooperative the P-40's drivers are.
Of course, if the Japanese are after P-40s, that means the bombers P-40s were escorting are free to do their job. 
The early P-40 will exhaust maybe 1/3rd of it's internal fuel before entering the combat, so the weight would not be the problem.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 6, 2013)

You can't dive and zoom climb to gain _more_ altitude than you had to begin with. That smacks of perpetual motion 

The P-40s on defense could use speed and altitude to dive into/through the defenders and get to the bombers then could then use speed and/or dive to evade the defenders ( break the engagement) get out of range and then climb back up to altitude for another attack after catching the enemy formation while flying at the higher altitude. The climb back up is going to take a number of minutes. 

On offence (bomber escort) you really can't use that tactic too well. While being tied too close to the bombers doesn't work well, speed alone doesn't give a lot of options. You can turn into the attackers for a head on pass. Just remember even a gentile (somewhat) 2 "G" turn will bleed off speed and a 2 "G" turn at high speed is going to be thousands of feet across. This is just to turn into an attack, not a circling dog fight. The tighter the turn the more speed that is bleed off. IF (repeat _IF_) the P-40 winds up with a Japanese fighter on it's tail it can dive and break away but if it does so it is out of the fight for a number of minutes. You don't loose the Japanese fighters by diving a few hundred feet. Take a look at even the P-40N charts again. Max climb is just under 2000fppm at 20,000ft and 1400fpm at 25,000ft. It takes 3 minutes to climb the 5,000ft using military power (plane won't give WEP at that altitude) and you wind up at 25,000ft doing about 190 mph, granted you can use the zoom climb to cut some of that time off but you will wind up at around 190 mph and climbing at 1400fpm near the end. It will now take you around 1 1/2 to 2 minutes to accelerate back up to max speed (flying straight and dead level) once you reach 25,000ft. Or use a shallower climb that gains high slower but allows for more horizontal speed. 

The Japanese fighters, with a P-40 on their tail can try a quick turn ( they can turn tighter) and bleed of speed but watch the P-40 go by on the outside of the turn. The Japanese can try breaking up, turning and climbing. P-40 misses the shot, Japanese fighter winds up going slow but has altitude advantage and can dive to quickly regain speed while staying near the height of the bombers. 

It's bit like the early P-47s. Certainly better than no escorts but many P-47s found themselves well below were the action was after the first engagement and would need a number of minutes to regain position. 

If the P-40 has used 1/3 of it's internal fuel before combat it is in trouble. After combat allowance and a 30 minute reserve it has about 44 US gallons for the return trip. About 160-260 miles depending on cruising speed and the 260mile range is at a way to low air speed for safety.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 7, 2013)

Expecting from an airplane to have all the cards is unrealistic, and a P-40 pitted against eg. CR.42 has some shortcomings. It's up to the commanders to order the pilots to play to own strengths, not to the enemy's. In this case, once in the airspace where enemy is expected to appear, the P-40s need to step up their cruising speed (using max continuous power now?), so their airplane is well into 300 mph range, and start essing so the bombers don't start to lag too much. Bombers should also step up their speed (B-25s were capable to cruise at 260 mph). That relegates Ki-27 (Nate) into a bay-stander, a lucky pilot might be able to hit something on head-on pass, but his luck my run out once it receives a bullet or two into fuel tank.
The Ki-43 I might also be in trouble if it does not have a favorable position and surprise is not achieved. It maxes out at 308 mph @13125 ft, barely faster than P-40B in fast cruise (307.5 mph were achieved with 725 HP at 15175 ft; 697 HP is max cruise, 930 HP is max continous; 335 mph was achieved on 910 HP used). So if the P-40s are flying at reasonable height (18-20000 ft) and speed (300-320 mph), the IJA fighters will be ill able to have their say about them.

The Japanese fighters that went after P-40s (though I'm not sure that would likely be the case, unless P-40's driver wants to give Japanese the chance) are not available to kill the bombers. Even in case they succeeded to drive away the escorts, will they be able to catch bombers? They have used maximum power to chase the escorts, they need to use lower setting now for 10-15 min, or the engines will overheat? Once they catch them, how good are their 7.7mm to kill them? The return fire is maybe greater than what they can fire.

The 160 US gals of internal fuel can enable good range, but I agree that it would took more to turn a P-40 into a better escort. The P-40C went for 187 gals, 52 gals being in drop tank.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 7, 2013)

Even the Mustang didn't hold all the cards, it just held enough or close enough that it had a number of options. The P-40 only held a few cards, the Ki 43 only held a few, but very different cards. 

A P-40D/E used about 85 gallons an hour at just under 300mph at 15,000ft ( no need for 25-30,000ft cruises as the bombers don't have turbo chargers and don't fly as high as the B-17s.) I doubt the earlier ones burned much less. 
But some of your escorts do need to fly in at least in the lower 20s to keep the formations from being bounced. 

See : http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-40/P-40FOIC.pdf

The 28 gallons for warm up and take-off, climb to 5,000ft may be a bit excessive but may be part of the "reserve". it would be done (mostly) on internal fuel. the switch to the drop tank might take place at less than 5,000ft but NOT right after wheels up. 
Of course you do have to form up your formations and rendezvous with the bombers. 

See: http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-40/P-40TOCLC.pdf

Use the 8100lb line, about 40 gallons or a bit more for take-off and climb to 20,000ft ( in winter conditions, summer or tropics will need a bit more). An Allison could burn 135-140 gallons hour at the 1125hp military rating. and at Max continuous it burned 109 gal/hr for 1000hp at 2600rpm/ 39.2 in. Or about 38.5 gallons for 5 minutes at Military power and 15 minutes at max continuous for combat. It burned in the lower 30s for most economical flying so 16-18 gallons reserve for 30 minutes? 

85-90 gallons used not included flying to target and back and 45 or more gallons after you drop the tank. 

Basically even with the 52 gallon belly tank and 187 gallons total you have a 175 mile radius (at best). If you can fit a bit bigger belly tank it might help as you are going to burn close to 40% of the belly tank just climbing to altitude. 

And again, the P-40s strengths (cards if you will) make it a better "interceptor" in spite of it's poor climb. It's high speed and good dive enable it to make high speed passes on the enemy escort fighters and break through to the bombers. It can't make many passes in one flight, however. This Strength doesn't work so well as an escort though.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 8, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Even the Mustang didn't hold all the cards, it just held enough or close enough that it had a number of options. The P-40 only held a few cards, the Ki 43 only held a few, but very different cards.
> And again, the P-40s strengths (cards if you will) make it a better "interceptor" in spite of it's poor climb. It's high speed and good dive enable it to make high speed passes on the enemy escort fighters and break through to the bombers. It can't make many passes in one flight, however. This Strength doesn't work so well as an escort though.



The things P-40 had as an interceptor vs. Ki-43 would imply that Ki-43 was not that a good interceptor itself. The level and dive speed were inferior than what P-40 had, the weak armament meant that more than one pass will be needed to actually kill a decent bomber, the return fire is likely to criple it in case it hits etc. In 1942, the Ki-43 was a slow fighter, compared with P-40. So we have a less-than-ideal escort vs. less than ideal interceptor. In case both are at cruise speed engine rating at 20000 ft, the P-40 is going 280-310 mph, the Ki-43 is at maybe 250 mph. 
If the adversaries meet head-on, and Ki-43 plays it's strong card (climb maybe a thousand feet, so it can dive at P-40s), that means it's very likely it's about to loose the bombers. How well are the Ki-43s to coordinate it's attacks, since there was no radios aboard? (here, scroll down) The P-40s can help out each other, can the Ki-43, in a timely matter? 



> A P-40D/E used about 85 gallons an hour at just under 300mph at 15,000ft ( no need for 25-30,000ft cruises as the bombers don't have turbo chargers and don't fly as high as the B-17s.) I doubt the earlier ones burned much less.
> But some of your escorts do need to fly in at least in the lower 20s to keep the formations from being bounced.
> 
> See : http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-40/P-40FOIC.pdf
> ...



The V-1710-33 (for P-40C and earlier) have had 1040 HP at 13800 as mil power, using 115 gal per hour (9.6 gals for 5 min), max cont was 900 HP with 90 gals per hour (22.5 gals for 15 min) - for 20 min of combat, it would make 32.1 gals. Part of internal fuel was used for warm up, taxiing, take off and climb until drop tank can be engaged (P-40B was without a drop tank, of course) - 10 gals? So these two parts of flight will use some 42 gals. In the P-40C, that would leave the 'return home fuel' to 135-42=93 gals. Leave 17 gals for reserve (30 min), we're now at 93-17= 76 gals. At 75% of power (698 HP, making 306 mph at 15000 ft), the P-40B will consume 59 gals/hr, the really good mileage can be achieved with 202 mph, only 24 gals/hr. Of course, the further we're of friendly airspace, the higher speed need to be used; not too fast, that would mean bombers are left without defense. here and here
The 52 gals in drop tank can give maybe 1 hour at 67% of rated power, giving some 200-250 miles of ingress range? Again, a 75 gal tank will be of better use.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 8, 2013)

> But certainly in 1940-41 it [the Mitsubishi Zero] was the most effective long-range escort of its time taking the allies by nearly total surprise and who were only able to respond with obsolescent inadequately performing interceptors unable to counter its attacks.



I agree. In the timeframe we are discussing there was no better suited alternative that existed without extensive modification. Not the P-40B, not the Spitfire, not any other fighter. The Zero had the range in spades, its performance was sufficient to take on any existing fighter at the time and come off on top (depending on pilot experience - of course). As for its so-called structural weakness, I think we make more of this than as it actually served as a 'weakness' at the time. The Zero was a carrier based fighter; it had structural strength enough to withstand the rigours of sustained carrier operations - I know of no instance where the Zero's structure failed as a result of conventional carrier operations (although please correct me if there is such an example), so just because it displays a tendency to fall apart when struck by enemy gunfire doesn't constitute a weakness in combat. This is not how the Japanese saw this aeroplane; to them it was a master stroke of design and that structure we criticise enabled that aeroplane to be as good as it was, and let's face it, there was no better aircraft carrier fighter or land based fighter that the Zero was going to encounter that it could not defeat, not until the appearance of later aircraft outside of the scope of this discussion.

It was tactics, training and better awareness of the aircraft's strengths and wweaknesses that led to the erosion of its superiority (as opposed to its perceived invincibility) and this took time. It didn't happen overnight. We tend to dismiss the Zero because of the performance of fighters such as the F4U and F6F, but remember that these aircraft are of a different generation to the Zero with bigger, more powerful engines and different design philosophies. But it was supreme in the first year of the Pacific war in terms of pound for pound performance and capability and it carried out astonishing feats of endurance that Western fighters could not match, because of their design philosophies.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 9, 2013)

Fine post there.
I've looked a bit at fuel tanks data of the P-40B and -C. Here are capacities in US gallons, B and C:
-front wing: 40 vs. 34
-rear wing:61 vs. 52
-fuselage: 57 vs. 50

Total 158 vs. 136; the 52 gal tank ups the total fuel for the -C at 188 US gals.

The Zero's ranges need to be put into a context. 1st, the altitude - the 1500 ft. Second - the speed - 152 mph (clean, 156 US gal ) or 147 (with 87 US gal drop tank attached; 243 gals total). In other words, not a flight regime one wight want to excercise over, say, German-held Europe, but certainly fine for many parts of Pacific/Asia. Ranges being 1130 or 1640 miles (with DT); mileages 7.7 or 6.75 mpg. Combat range, with drop tank, 476 miles, under conditions unknown to me. here Question to the knowledgeable - how good the Zero was when cruising at 15000 ft?
Let's see how P-40B fares: on 202 mph and at 15000 ft - between 805 and 1010 miles with 120 US gals aboard. Mileage 8.4 or 6.7 mpg. here Fill it full (+38 gals) and it will go some 30% further - 1050 to 1300 miles. Should beat the clean Zero, at least those that are not killed by light AAA  The P-40C with 75 gal DT could equal the range of Zero that has drop tank attached?


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 9, 2013)

Doh 
What have I did wrong, Steve?


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 9, 2013)

A few things the Zero had going for it were the light weight armament (heavier than a Ki 43s but lighter than an early P-40) and the Sakae engine which was able to run for long periods of time at extremely lean conditions, some sources say 190 grams fuel per hp.hour. One source says 160 grams but that is really far from from the norm. 
Against it are the lack of protection and the light construction. Adding protection to western standards might have added 200 (unlikely) to 400lbs ( more likely?). While we don't have reports of the Zero breaking while operating from carriers we do know it had a restricted diving speed (improved in later models) due to strength (early Hurricanes had a restricted dive speed). The controls becoming heavier at high speed may have prevented the pilots from over stressing the airframe too.

While adding 300-500lbs might have only cost 3-8mph (?) the loss of climb performance would have hurt much more. 
later Zeros with more powerful engines had very modest increases in performance (at times lost performance) due to increased weight and drag caused by increased protection and armament.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 9, 2013)

Thanks for the like Tomo 



> The Zero's ranges need to be put into a context. 1st, the altitude - the 1500 ft. Second - the speed - 152 mph (clean, 156 US gal ) or 147 (with 87 US gal drop tank attached; 243 gals total). In other words, not a flight regime one wight want to excercise over, say, German-held Europe, but certainly fine for many parts of Pacific/Asia.



SR makes a good point about the Sakae engine; it was very reliable, not only that, but if the Zero was your only option over Germany, then you'd send it. In hindsight it is easy to state that "we wouldn't want to send that aeroplane over there; it'd get shot to pieces...", but the RAF was sending bombers into German territory from the day the war began until its very end, on the whole _without_ escort and most, to begin with were terribly vulnerable and were butchered as a result. Whatever the Brits had to do the job they wanted, they'd use.

Having given this a bit more thought, I still believe, despite protestations to the contrary that the British firms _would_ have developed aircraft based on existing designs for their long range fighter, although it is highly likely that a similar path to what was developed to F.18/37 - a Spitfire/Hurricane replacement, would have been developed. Supermarine tendered the twin engined Type 324 and derivatives, up to the Type 327 that Wuzak mentioned earlier, Boulton Paul would have developed yet another Defiant derivative, as they did with so many of their entries to official requirements and Hawker might have pursued a Tornado/Typhoon derivative.



> Against it are the lack of protection and the light construction. Adding protection to western standards might have added 200 (unlikely) to 400lbs ( more likely?). While we don't have reports of the Zero breaking while operating from carriers we do know it had a restricted diving speed (improved in later models) due to strength (early Hurricanes had a restricted dive speed). The controls becoming heavier at high speed may have prevented the pilots from over stressing the airframe too.



I once spoke to a fella (warbird pilot) who had flown one of the Zeroes in the States, also a F6F and F8F as well as other types including a P-51; he commented about these aspects of the Zero; it was by far the slowest fighter of all, but in fairness it had less powerful engines than these machines; the Zero was a pre war design (in my assessment equivalent in philosophy to the Hurricane as a bridge between old ideas and new), but he also commented on its dive speed, not because of structural weakness, but because it just would not go any faster. He did, however state that there was nothing that could outmanoeuvre it, possibly the F8F, although the Zero was much slower and as a result this was the biggest limitation on it. Structural strength was never, if I can recall (waiting for confirmation of examples of this) an issue encountered by the Japanese. The Zero's structure was not 'weak'; it was light, but strong enough for the rigours of day-to-day operations - there is a difference.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 9, 2013)

The American Navy had a requirement during the 30s (if not before) that it's aircraft had to perform a "terminal velocity dive". That is a vertical dive from a high enough altitude that a speed was reached at which the aircraft could *NOT* go any faster, Thrust and gravity equaled drag. This was a good test for biplanes and some early (high drag) monoplanes that enough drag to keep them from going so fast they got into trouble. They did break a few planes doing this and this was usually one of the last tests done ( if not the last) before acceptance. In some cases a special test pilot was hired for this test. The Brewster Buffalo and Grumman Wildcat may have been the last fighters "designed" for this test as speeds were getting high enough to introduce new problems unrelated to the strength of the aircraft, like compressability and mach tuck. Plus the Altitude needed for pull out was starting to get rather large. I could be wrong but I think the F4U Corsair was the first Navy fighter NOT required to pass this test. 

Like the Hurricane ( which limited it's dive speed or VNE) that changed with the fitting of the metal covered wings, the Zero had it's VNE speed changed at least once, if not twice from the originals "limit" has heavier wing skinning was used and/or other changes made. This does not mean the Zero could dive like a late model American plane, just that it could dive at a faster speed than an early Zero, it might not have gained speed much faster. 

Now one of our members who is an engineer may correct me if I am wrong but the forces acting on the wing go up with the square of the speed so a 10% increase in speed results in 21% for force acting on the wing and a 20% increase in speed results in 44% more force. going from 400mph to 450mph increases the forces acting plane/wing by 26.5% ANd that doesn't count things like local airflow separation causing disrupted airflow and introducing flutter or other problems. 
If the Zero was flown _within_ it's limits there was no problem, exceed them and ????

To be fair a number of Mustangs were reputed to have been "bent" with the coming of the American "G" suit which allowed the pilot to withstand more "G"s than the airplane could. Planes were claimed to be landing with several more degrees of dihedral than they took off with. I don't know if this is true or just a tall tale, but Mustangs were not noted as being "flimsy". Exceed design limits and you are in trouble in any airplane. 

I would note that a model 21 Zero was only a few hundred pounds (300?) lighter, both empty and normal gross (no drop tank)than the Spitfire prototype and while that might not be quite fair comparing service plane to prototype it shows that the Zero was not quite the "light weight" it is often portrayed as.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 10, 2013)

Looking at the document posted before (and here), the Ki-61 is a champion of the single engined fighters - more than 2000 miles @1500 ft with full internal fuel and 100 gals in drop tanks (299 US gals total), combat radius of 640 miles. The combat radius figures stated at that document are probable much closer to the USN requirements (involving lower altitude and speed) than USAF requirements (P-51D combat radius was 450 miles at 10000 ft altitude, on just internal 269 gals).

Now if only Mike Williams might find and post the document(s) connected with that table...


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 10, 2013)

I would hazard a guess that much of the performance figures range from tests of captured aircraft to estimates based on limited testing to "WAGS" 

Under remarks for the Frank we see that the dimensions let alone the performance are "subject to revision" and for the Jack "may be operational".

The Ki 61 was a low drag airplane (compared to some), it was lighter than some and it used a higher aspect wing ratio than most other fighters which helps efficiency (unknown if some other aspect of the plane cancels out the wing advantage).

However near miraculous range must be viewed with suspicion. 

then compare the weight of armament for the Ki 61 to the possible weights of armament for other nations fighters. The Japanese Ho-103 gun weighing 6kg less than the American .50 cal per gun and it's ammo was enough lighter that 250 rounds (without links) weighs about what 183 rounds of US .50 cal weighs. the 6kg difference in gun weight is worth another 53 rounds of .50 cal ammo (without links) First Ki 61s had about 1/2 the weight in wing guns/ammo compared to a P-40B/C.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 10, 2013)

> while that might not be quite fair comparing service plane to prototype it shows that the Zero was not quite the "light weight" it is often portrayed as.



More evidence if needed that the Zero was not structurally weak. Granted it could not withstand as much punishment as your average Grumman built fighter (there weren't many that could!), but bursting apart after attack is not necessarily a sign of structural weakness. Regardless, although roughly the same size, the Zero being shorter by a few inches with a bigger wingspan than the early Spitfires (I to V) the Zero was generally speaking lighter than the Spitfire and yes; it seems a bit pointless to compare the Spit prototype with a production aircraft, why not choose a Spit I or II? Loaded weight (as opposed to MTOW) of an A6M2 Model 21 was (according to Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War by Rene Francillon) 5,313 lbs compared to the Spit I's 5,784 lbs or the Spit II's 6,527 lbs. Compare with the Grumman F4F-4 at 6,100 lbs.

Regarding the Zero's diving speed the chappie I talked to, can't remember his name explained that the Zero redlined (VNE) at 300 kts, but he had never got the aircraft to that speed; in a dive, like you stated, SR, its controls became too heavy, but he could not get it to fly any faster than about 270 - 280, if I can remember. Saburo Sakai confirms these speeds in his book Samurai. This book also gives ample evidence that the Zero could and frequently did withstand a considerable amount of punishment without flying to pieces. Sakai recounts on one combat op that he and his colleagues returned with their aircraft riddled with .50 cal bullet holes.



> the Ki-61 is a champion of the single engined fighters - more than 2000 miles @1500 ft with full internal fuel and 100 gals in drop tanks (299 US gals total), combat radius of 640 miles.



That's pretty impressive in anyone's books. Here's a passage from Samurai, where Sakai discusses the Zero's range and how the pilots learned to extend it:

"Clark Field was 450 miles away from our own air base and Nichols Field... ...was 500 miles distant from Tainan. That meant, considering the factors of still air range, fuel for fighting and fuel for reserv, that we would be required to fly nonstop for some 1,000 to 1,200 miles! No fighters had ever flown on such combat missions before, and there were vehement arguments among the air staff as to whether the Zero was capable of this performance."

"From then on we flew literally day and night to stretch the range of our planes. Apart from its range, the Zero was designed to remain in the air on a single flight for a maximum of six or seven hours. We stretched this figure to from ten to twelve hours and did so on mass formation flights. I personally established the record low consumption of less than seventeen gallons per hour; on the average our pilots reduced their consumption from thirty five gallons per hour to only eighteen. The Zero carried a normal fuel load of some 182 gallons."

"To conserve fuel we cruised at only 115 kts at 12,000 ft altitude. Under normal full power conditions the Zero was capable of 275 kts and when overboosted for short emergencies, could reach its maximum speed of about 300 kts. On our long-range flights we lowered propeller revolutions to only 1,700 to 1,850 rpm and throttled the air control valve to its leanest mixture. This furnished us the absolute minimum of power and speed and we hung on the fringe of losing engine power at any time and stalling."


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 10, 2013)

WAGS - wives and girlfriends? 



> Under remarks for the Frank we see that the dimensions let alone the performance are "subject to revision" and for the Jack "may be operational".



That would point out that document is a result of data available at early 1945?



> The Ki 61 was a low drag airplane (compared to some), it was lighter than some and it used a higher aspect wing ratio than most other fighters which helps efficiency (unknown if some other aspect of the plane cancels out the wing advantage).
> 
> However near miraculous range must be viewed with suspicion.



Don't know. With drop tank, it featured twice as much fuel as a clean Zero, and it was surely a less draggy plane than Zero. The range was achieved on 1500 ft altitude (supercharger uses just a tad of power to turn?), the speed was 148 mph - all the ingredients for the superb range are here. OTOH, the P-51D was flying at 10000 at 210 mph IAS - that would mean 250 mph TAS, and supercharger is using more power there than at 1500 ft. The P-51D was using 59 gals per hour when flying 260 mph TAS at 10kft (range of 1500 miles on 269 gals - all internal), and, for same range on same fuel, it was using 39 gals per hour when flying at sea level at 220 mph. 

Sure thing that other countries have had slightly lighter weaponry with no loss in firepower. The 8-LMG P-40s, anybody?


----------



## stona (Nov 11, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Doh
> What have I did wrong, Steve?



I don't know! I didn't intentionally "dislike" your post. I will "undislike" it.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 15, 2013)

> What have I did wrong, Steve?



Your grammar for a start!  That's a joke, Tomo!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 18, 2018)

In order not to clog another thread, here are engine powers at 20000 ft (~ 6km) for some widely-used engines in 1939-41 time frame; no ram effect:
Merlin III: 890
Merlin X: ~925
Merlin XII: ~945
Merlin XX: 1060 (similar for Mk.45)

DB 601A: 800 (similar for Italian and japanese copies; over-revving to 2600 and later to 2800 improved this figure for 601A)
DB 601N: 1020
DB 601E: 1030 (improved to 1130 from late 1941 on)
BMW 801C: 1200

V-1710-33: 860 (similar with -39)

1941:
V-1710 turbo: 1150
R-1830 and R-1820 turbo: 1200

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Dec 18, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> In order not to clog another thread, here are engine powers at 20000 ft (~ 6km) for some widely-used engines in 1939-41 time frame; no ram effect:
> Merlin III: 890
> Merlin X: ~925
> Merlin XII: ~945
> ...



The military rating on the R-1830 (F4F-4) was 1040hp at 18400ft

Merlin XX output was 1175hp at 20500ft (Hurricane IIA)


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 18, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> ...
> Merlin XX output was 1175hp at 20500ft (Hurricane IIA)



I've seen that figure on some docs (Hurri II and Beaufighter II data sheets), IMO those reflect the 'provisional ratings' given by manufacturer. Courtesy of Neil Stirling:





Later charts for all the Merlin 20 series should be more reliable data: chart. The V-1650-1 also follows that chart.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 18, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> In order not to clog another thread, here are engine powers at 20000 ft (~ 6km) for some widely-used engines in 1939-41 time frame; no ram effect:
> Merlin III: 890
> Merlin X: ~925
> Merlin XII: ~945
> ...



Was looking at the P-40F manual and saw a few numbers that bear on this. for instance take-off of our hypothetical fighter.

A clean P40-F at 7500lbs ( I have no idea ho you get it that light and still have a functional warplane 0on a cold day and running light can clear the 50 obstacle from a hard runway in 1850 ft (zero wind) 
at 9300lbs and with the drag of an under fuselage store you need. 3950ft from the hard runway. You need another few hundred feet from sod or soft surface
At 8500lbs it needs 10.6 minutes and 39 gallons of gas to get to 20,000ft
At 9300lbs it needs 17.5 minutes and 51 gallons of gas to get to 20,000ft if the extra weight is a drop tank or bomb/ 
At 9300lbs but clean it needs 13.3 minutes and 44 gallons of gas to get to 20,000ft. 

Adding hundreds of pounds to 1000-1200hp fighters could affect take-off (can't use existing fields) and initial climb out to the extent you aren't going to get the range increase you might think?


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 19, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Was looking at the P-40F manual and saw a few numbers that bear on this. for instance take-off of our hypothetical fighter.
> 
> A clean P40-F at 7500lbs
> ...
> ...



Problem might be that you are using one of the heaviest V12 powered mid-war fighters as base. 
We can start from Re.2001, for example. It carried 140 US gals of fuel on total weight of 3267 kg (7200 lbs). Extra 150 gals (if we aim for 300 gals total fuel; 50 gals of that being internal) is 900 lbs, plus weight of fuel tanks, racks and plumbing. 1200 lbs extra? remove two LMGs, suplant with two HMGs & ammo = 100 lbs extra? Adds up to 8500 take off weight.
Or, Spitfire III with wing tanks a-la Mk.VIII + rear fuselage tank as used on Spitfire Vs: 99 + 25 + 29 gals = 153 imp gals = 183 US gals. Drop tank of 90 imp gals = 110 US gals. All-up weight of Spit III (= with guns, ammo, fuel, pilot etc) was 7550 lbs; take off run of 250 yds - 750 ft? 200 US gals extra is 1200 lbs + plumbing and tanks themselves, so we're at 8800 lbs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 19, 2018)

What I was trying to get at is disproportionate increase in take-off distances and times to altitude (and fuel used to get there) that is caused by a 24% increase in weight (7500lbs to 9300) or even a 9.5% increase in weight (8500-9300lbs) and that is with the most powerful engine in the group and using 100/130 fuel.
clean the increase in weight of 9.5% meant 12.8% more fuel used and 25% more time for the P-40F
With the drop tank (one) the same weight now means 30% more fuel and 65% more time.


for the engines involved it also helps to the take-off power and the climb power.


.........................................take-off...................climb......................power at 20K
Merlin III..........................880..................990/12,000ft.............................. 890
Merlin X: .......................1065................1035/2250ft..................................925
Merlin XII:.......................1175.............NP +9 2850rpm............................945
Merlin XX: ......................1280.............1125/9,500 MS............................1060 (similar for Mk.45)

DB 601A: ......................1100...............910-990.(30 min) ........................800
clones............................1175.................??????.............................................850?
DB 601N:........................1175..............1020-1050................................... 1020
DB 601E:.........................1375..............1000-`1040.................................. 1030/1130 


V-1710-33:....................1040..................930................................................. 860 (similar with -39)
V-1710-39.....................1150..................1000................................................860?
1941:
V-1710 turbo: ..............1150.................1000..............................................1150
R-1830 and 
R-1820 turbo: .............1200..................1000..............................................1200

Open to correction. Climb ratings are either 30 minute or continuous and are sea level through medium (in this case 10-15,000ft??) altitude. 

Merlin III, X DB 601s (except N) are with 87 octane. American engines are with 100/100. later British engines are with 100/115-120 or 100/130 fuel. 

why was the early P-47 (no drop tank) such a lousy escort? Because it burned 90 gallons of it's 305 gallons just getting to 25,000ft. 

heavily loaded fighters are going to need big airfields and burn some of their extra fuel just getting to the desired altitudes. 
Performance at altitude may be much poorer (or a greater difference) than comparing times to altitude might suggest.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 19, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> What I was trying to get at is disproportionate increase in take-off distances and times to altitude (and fuel used to get there) that is caused by a 24% increase in weight (7500lbs to 9300) or even a 9.5% increase in weight (8500-9300lbs) and that is with the most powerful engine in the group and using 100/130 fuel.
> clean the increase in weight of 9.5% meant 12.8% more fuel used and 25% more time for the P-40F
> With the drop tank (one) the same weight now means 30% more fuel and 65% more time.



Weight, or wing loading, was a killer when it is about take off, the increase of take-off power was able to cancel that just by that or this percentage. We have Spitfire V with 1185 HP for take off, yet it can took off from aircraft carries when it was overloaded with fuel for ferrying.



> for the engines involved it also helps to the take-off power and the climb power.
> .........................................take-off...................climb......................power at 20K
> Merlin III..........................880..................990/12,000ft.............................. 890
> Merlin X: .......................1065................1035/2250ft..................................925
> ...



On 100 oct fuel, Merlin X was good for ~1280 HP for take off (no jiggery-pokkery, manufacturers values).
Italian copy of DB 601A was supposedly good for 1050 PS at 4.5 km, vs. DB 601A (the one with better S/C) was good for 1020 PS at 4.5 km. At 20000 ft, the respective powers are perhaps 820 HP vs. 800?



> heavily loaded fighters are going to need big airfields and burn some of their extra fuel just getting to the desired altitudes.
> Performance at altitude may be much poorer (or a greater difference) than comparing times to altitude might suggest.



Fighter with plenty of fuel can switch to drop tanks at 10000 ft, thus not draining it's internal tanks too much.


----------



## Timppa (Dec 20, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> -Wonder if someone can come up with a viable escort fighter on 1000-1200 HP (at 20000-15000 ft of altitude; historical engines only)
> -Obviously, the time of interest would be the 1st years of the war (only for hypothetical fighters).



Depending what the vague "1st years" means, my choice would be:
Early P-51, but with the DB601 and 3xMG151/20


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 20, 2018)

Timppa said:


> Depending what the vague "1st years" means, my choice would be:
> Early P-51, but with the DB601 and 3xMG151/20



First 24 months, perhaps - until Sept 1st 1941. 
That rules out P-51 as base due to being too late, and MG151/20 is around just last 3 months. We also have a ting of what to carve out the fuselage just aft the engine in order for engine cannon & ammo to fit, and make DB 601 not to mess with engine cannon operation as it was the case with DB 601A for most of it's life (or ever at all?).


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 20, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Weight, or wing loading, was a killer when it is about take off, the increase of take-off power was able to cancel that just by that or this percentage. We have Spitfire V with 1185 HP for take off, yet it can took off from aircraft carries when it was overloaded with fuel for ferrying.



Well, you could get a P-40 off of a carrier deck to, it just had to be light and the carrier had to doing 25knots into whatever wind there was. If you could arrange your escort fighter fields so that
1. There was ALWAYS a 20-25mph wind blowing down the field.
2. There was a 50-60ft cliff at the end of the runway for the plane to drop into to trade altitude for speed instead of climbing 50ft over trees./buildings then you could use much smaller airfields. 





> On 100 oct fuel, Merlin X was good for ~1280 HP for take off (no jiggery-pokkery, manufacturers values).
> 
> Yes it could, but that brings us back to when you start the design, The British had annouced at the Paris Air show in Nov 1938 that they expected to get 1300hp from the Merlin VIII for take off on 100 octane, and 1145hp at 16,750ft in high gear on the Merlin X.
> Italian copy of DB 601A was supposedly good for 1050 PS at 4.5 km, vs. DB 601A (the one with better S/C) was good for 1020 PS at 4.5 km. At 20000 ft, the respective powers are perhaps 820 HP vs. 800?
> ...


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 20, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Yes it could, but that brings us back to when you start the design, The British had annouced at the Paris Air show in Nov 1938 that they expected to get 1300hp from the Merlin VIII for take off on 100 octane, and 1145hp at 16,750ft in high gear on the Merlin X.
> Italian copy of DB 601A was supposedly good for 1050 PS at 4.5 km, vs. DB 601A (the one with better S/C) was good for 1020 PS at 4.5 km. At 20000 ft, the respective powers are perhaps 820 HP vs. 800?



I'd start the design of a long-range fighter when the 1st Merlin is available. The engine was, after all, capable to make the 10000 lb Battle fly. By that time, Germans don't even have Jumo 210 in production.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 21, 2018)

If you want a long range fighter then the Whirlwind would have been okay if the engines had a better high altitude performance or it could take Merlins without too many mods, so that leaves you the Gloster F9/37 which was powered by either Taurus or Peregrines. The advantage of the Gloster over the Whirlwind is that it has lots of wing area to support Merlins and extra fuel. The Germans have the Fw 187, the Americans the Lightning.


----------



## Timppa (Dec 21, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> First 24 months, perhaps - until Sept 1st 1941.
> That rules out P-51 as base due to being too late...



Again, you must be more specific. First flight of the prototype, first production , introduction to service, first combat, what ?


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 22, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> If you want a long range fighter then the Whirlwind would have been okay if the engines had a better high altitude performance or it could take Merlins without too many mods, so that leaves you the Gloster F9/37 which was powered by either Taurus or Peregrines. The advantage of the Gloster over the Whirlwind is that it has lots of wing area to support Merlins and extra fuel. The Germans have the Fw 187, the Americans the Lightning.


 Much as I like the Whirlwind and think it got a bad deal, but it was never going to be a long range fighter. It was two small an airframe for two engines and enough fuel to fly long ranges.
flying 20-50 miles further than an early Spitfire is one thing, flying 300-400mile radius bomber escort missions is another thing altogether.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 22, 2018)

Timppa said:


> Again, you must be more specific. First flight of the prototype, first production , introduction to service, first combat, what ?



Service date, in case one wants to mix & match historical A/C and parts (engines, armament, hi-lift devices etc) together.


----------



## Timppa (Dec 24, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Service date, in case one wants to mix & match historical A/C and parts (engines, armament, hi-lift devices etc) together.



OK;
A6M2 fits the bill pretty much at is was.
But let's tune it a little bit:
- Engine: Two stage R-1830
- Armour: Seat and head armour plate, 10mm, armour glass in front
- Self sealing rubber bag tanks.
- Armament: 2xMG151/20 cowling guns.

Heavier, yes, but faster and much more survivable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Dec 24, 2018)

Made this comment on a earlier post about the Zero and Hayabusa ….
Both were structurally very strong planes.
They easier to Train in losing less pilots toward becoming a competent Fighter Pilots than US planes...
Both shooting down more allied aircraft that our historians give them credit for.

In every book I have read...
Japanese pilots did not have the accident rate US pilots (P40), German(Me109) and British( Spitfire) had especially landing.
The Japanese Radial seemed more reliable requiring little maintenance and looked easier to work on. (OF course Need more Information for proof)
Japanese logistics and living and field conditions were horrible compared to US. 
So this was critical putting up a working Fighter.

One recent take historical away was that the Japanese Army and Navy did not collaborate and share its fuel stocks with each other.
The Navy used a better octane than the Army.

YET despite being overtaken by more Modern Allied Planes the Zero and Hayabusa improvement kept them dangerous!


----------



## The Basket (Dec 25, 2018)

If the Japanese had more powerful engines for the Zero then they wouldn't have designed the Zero.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 26, 2018)

Some ideas, for different time periods:
-before Sept 1939: Merlin III engine, chin radiators, as good prop as historically available, airframe from either Hurricane (but with thinner wing) or from P-36, 150 US gals internally, one 100 US gal tank, 6x LMGs in wings with 400 rpg or 4x Breda 12.7mm with 300 rpg
-Sept 1939 - Sept 1940: Merlin X, leading-edge radiators, fuselage from Spitfire I, wings similar as on Spitfire, 4x Belgian 13.2mm with 400 rpg
-Sept 1940 - Sept 1941: Merlin XX, again LE radiators, airframe based on Spifire III, 4x 13.2mm with 450 rpg


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 26, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Some ideas, for different time periods:
> -before Sept 1939: Merlin III engine, chin radiators, as good prop as historically available, airframe from either Hurricane (but with thinner wing) or from P-36, 150 US gals internally, one 100 US gal tank, 6x LMGs in wings with 400 rpg or 4x Breda 12.7mm with 300 rpg
> -Sept 1939 - Sept 1940: Merlin X, leading-edge radiators, fuselage from Spitfire I, wings similar as on Spitfire, 4x Belgian 13.2mm with 400 rpg
> -Sept 1940 - Sept 1941: Merlin XX, again LE radiators, airframe based on Spifire III, 4x 13.2mm with 450 rpg



You've forgotten the old maxim 'no changes to the production line' in times of crisis. 

Armstrong Whitworth put a laminar flow wing on a Hurricane post war https://forum.keypublishing.com/filedata/fetch?id=3616885&d=1272136194 but considering that the Tempest with laminar flow wing didn't fly until 1942 then an earlier Hurricane with a laminar flow wing seems a bit unlikely. As for the P-36, I think you'll find that developed into the P-40 and morphed into the P-60 so I think they covered all the angles. The Spitfire, well the Air Ministry considered cancelling it in 1939 because of production difficulties, had problems producing the Mk II before Beaverbrook took over, then built the Mk III but decided to port some of the changes into the Mk Vc to minimise changes on the production line. 

So I think that really only leaves us with the Vultee Vanguard with the two stage P&W R-1830 except these engines were in short supply and needed for the Wildcat. Originally the Vanguard was meant for Sweden, then as an advanced trainer for Canada. The USAAF used 50 as emergency fighters but lost 15 in accidents. The remainder were sent to China who tried them out unsuccessfully then put them in storage. 

Alternately there is the Miles M20 with its fixed undercarriage and 1280 hp Merlin. Twice the fuel and bullets of the Hurricane. It might have been okay over in S.E.Asia and the Pacific. It had a top speed competitive with the Hayabusa and Reisen, but being made of wood probably didn't have a max dive speed let alone a top speed that would have made it competitive in either the ETO or MTO. No idea how manoeuvrable it was, nor turning circles nor roll rates. The engine was installed as a power egg, so assume a P&W R-1830 radial could have replaced it easily.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 26, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Some ideas, for different time periods:
> -before Sept 1939: Merlin III engine, chin radiators, as good prop as historically available, airframe from either Hurricane (but with thinner wing) or from P-36, 150 US gals internally, one 100 US gal tank, 6x LMGs in wings with 400 rpg or 4x Breda 12.7mm with 300 rpg
> -Sept 1939 - Sept 1940: Merlin X, leading-edge radiators, fuselage from Spitfire I, wings similar as on Spitfire, *4x Belgian 13.2mm with 400 rpg*
> -Sept 1940 - Sept 1941: Merlin XX, again LE radiators, airframe based on Spifire III, *4x 13.2mm with 450 rpg*









Performance figures are back in post #22

.............................................MK II Spit..............MK II with 40gal tank climb rates.

Altitude-2,000ft...............2,925fpm......................2240fpm
..................5,000ft...............2,925fpm......................2240fpm
................10,000ft...............2,995fpm......................2,240fpm
................15,000ft...............2,770fpm......................1,990fpm
................20,000ft...............2,175fpm......................1,420fpm
................25,000ft...............1,600fpm......................1,050fpm
................30,000ft...................995fpm.........................545fpm 

WHile the drop in speed would be solved (mostly) by internal tank/s instead of external the change in rate of climb would still be greatly affected even though not quite to the extent shown here. 
2 squadrons were equipped and operated these aircraft, at least for a short period of time. They were disliked due to the loss of performance. They had metal ailerons and roll was not really a problem (but then the majority of Spitfires in service may have had fabric ailerons?) 

As for the Belgian 13.2mm guns.
400 rounds of ammo per gun (_with no guns_) weighs 50% more than the eight .303 gun battery _with_ ammo in the Hurricane and Spitfire. 
with guns it is 80kg _more_ than the standard 20mm/.303 fitted to the MK Vc. 
Adding 50rpg adds 27-28kg. 

The four Breda-Safats with 300rpg are going to be lighter but still over 210kg. 

Leading edge radiators on the Spit are going to improve speed but they shift the weight of the radiators and coolant from behind the CG to in front of it. Of course that might help balance the fuel tank behind the pilot?


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 26, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> You've forgotten the old maxim 'no changes to the production line' in times of crisis.
> 
> Armstrong Whitworth put a laminar flow wing on a Hurricane post war https://forum.keypublishing.com/filedata/fetch?id=3616885&d=1272136194 but considering that the Tempest with laminar flow wing didn't fly until 1942 then an earlier Hurricane with a laminar flow wing seems a bit unlikely. As for the P-36, I think you'll find that developed into the P-40 and morphed into the P-60 so I think they covered all the angles. The Spitfire, well the Air Ministry considered cancelling it in 1939 because of production difficulties, had problems producing the Mk II before Beaverbrook took over, then built the Mk III but decided to port some of the changes into the Mk Vc to minimise changes on the production line..



I'm afraid that Spit V incorporated close to zero improvements from Mk.III, bar for the versions with clipped wings.
Thinner wing Hurricane need to be designed instead of historical Hurricane, there is plenty of theoretical and practical knowledge in UK proper that thinner wings work better already in 1920s. As for the production diffculties, whether real or perceived, let's cut the deadwood that is just about to be produced in late 1930s.
BTW - my proposal is not strictly aimed for RAF, but more of an excercise in using the available 'ingredients' and knowledge of military A/C around the world. For example, Merlin is probably the best bet in late 1930s/early 1940s to make a LR fighter.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 26, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm afraid that Spit V incorporated close to zero improvements from Mk.III, bar for the versions with clipped wings.
> Thinner wing Hurricane need to be designed instead of historical Hurricane, there is plenty of theoretical and practical knowledge in UK proper that thinner wings work better already in 1920s. As for the production diffculties, whether real or perceived, let's cut the deadwood that is just about to be produced in late 1930s.
> BTW - my proposal is not strictly aimed for RAF, but more of an excercise in using the available 'ingredients' and knowledge of military A/C around the world. For example, Merlin is probably the best bet in late 1930s/early 1940s to make a LR fighter.



With the Spitfire Vc, it was minimal changes and keep the production lines producing more and more fighters, with the Hurricane it was get some fighters quickly using tried and trusted construction methods. I agree that the Merlin is the best bet for a long range fighter but something will have to be compromised to get that range. The Miles Kestrel trainer did 297 mph on 745 bhp, so perhaps we need Miles producing the M20 fighter earlier than it did. The compromises, a fixed undercarriage allowing for more space for fuel in the wings and a low dive speed. If you're the escort then you need to stay with the bombers to defend them so is high speed really that essential?


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 26, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm afraid that Spit V incorporated close to zero improvements from Mk.III, bar for the versions with clipped wings.
> Thinner wing Hurricane need to be designed instead of historical Hurricane, there is plenty of theoretical and practical knowledge in UK proper that thinner wings work better already in 1920s. As for the production diffculties, whether real or perceived, let's cut the deadwood that is just about to be produced in late 1930s.
> BTW - my proposal is not strictly aimed for RAF, but more of an excercise in using the available 'ingredients' and knowledge of military A/C around the world. For example, Merlin is probably the best bet in late 1930s/early 1940s to make a LR fighter.



The problem with the "thinner wings work better already in 1920s." is that very thin wings had been used on Biplanes even in WW 1.

Unfortunately many of the thin wings, while low in drag, were also low in lift per sq ft and had vicious stall characteristics. Which is why Handley Page and Lachmann (came up with his initial idea in a hospital bed after a stall related crash) developed leading edge slats/slots. Nobody was really flying that fast in the 1920s except for a few racers and most race planes were very difficult to fly. Small wings, high torque in some cases vestigial vertical stabilizer and rudders. Basically accidents waiting to happen. 
The thicker wings offered more lift per sq ft, stronger structure for the same weight (especially after the biplanes started to go away) and sometimes ( but not always) a gentler stall or at least not so abrupt which meant that slats (and royalties to HP and Co.) could be avoided.

Since the Merlin is the best bet that means any country without the Merlin was really up the creek without a paddle and explains the some of the weird and wonderful twin engine planes that tried (unsuccessfully) to fill the long range escort role.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 26, 2018)

According to the thread
*Questions about the VG-33 and Miles M.20*

the Miles M20 was more manoeuvrable than the Hurricane and was test dived at 450 mph; range is twice that of a Hurricane, speed is the same.
It looks perfectly adequate to me as a long range escort especially in the Far East and the Pacific at least up until about 1944, in the ETO, I imagine it would have struggled a bit after the Bf 109F was introduced but who knows as I don't think it was pitted against a Bf 109F in testing. Certainly its speed was comparable to the early Yak-1's and they seemed to survive better that than any other Soviet aircraft in 1941. As for the Spitfire Vb in the 1941 Channel Air Offensive, it seems to me that they got shot from the skies, so would an M20 have been any worse?


----------



## Timppa (Dec 26, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Some ideas, for different time periods:



I would guess that the reasonable combat radius for escort fighters starts from about 500 miles.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 26, 2018)

Timppa said:


> I would guess that the reasonable combat radius for escort fighters starts from about 500 miles.



I'd disagree here, certainly in the opening phases of the daylight air war in the ETO, we should be looking at about 450/500 miles max i.e. how far the Blenheim could go on a mission. A miles M20 with two 90 gal drop tanks would have been able to escort Blenheims on those long range missions where they got shot from the skies.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 26, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> the Miles M20 was more manoeuvrable than the Hurricane and was test dived at 450 mph; range is twice that of a Hurricane, speed is the same.



this claim, often repeated, seems a bit dubious or they were comparing the Miles M. 20 to a Hurricane I with a Merlin III

.
*M.20/4)......................................................Hurricane IIA*


*Crew:* one pilot.............................................................................one pilot
*Length:* 30 ft 8 in (9.35 m)......................................................31ft 5inft
*Wingspan:* 34 ft 7 in (10.54 m).............................................40 ft
*Height:* 12 ft 6 in (3.81 m).......................................................10ft 6in
*Wing area:* 234 ft² (21.74 m²)................................................258 sq ft
*Empty weight:* 5,908 lb (2,685 kg)......................................5,559 lb*
*Max. takeoff weight:* 8,000 lb (3,629 kg).........................7,397 lb*/***
*Powerplant:* 1 × Rolls-Royce Merlin XX V12 inline engine, 1,260 hp (940 kW)
*Performance*


*Maximum speed:* 333 mph (290 knots, 536 km/h),,,,,,,,,,326mph*
*Range:* 920 mi (800 nmi, 1,481 km)......................................... 500 mi. **
*Service ceiling:* 32,800 ft (10,000 m)........................................35,900 ft*
*Climb to 20,000 ft (6,100 m):* 9 min 36 s.............................8 min 30 s*

* weights , speed. ceiling and climb to 20,000ft are for a Hurricane IIB with twelve guns.
** range is from the Data card for the II a with eight guns.
Please note the speed on the data card for the IIa was 342mph but as we all know the speeds varied somewhat from plane to plane and please note the IIb was somewhat used aircraft having been used for trials concerning underwing fuel tanks before being converted back to standard for the performance trials. Its finish may not have been of the highest standard?
*** a Hurricane IIa with eight guns used to finish the handling trials weighed 6558lbs as tested.

Edit: from the Hurricane IIa data card the service ceiling was 37,000 ft and the climb to 20,000ft was 8.2 minutes.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 26, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> I'd disagree here, certainly in the opening phases of the daylight air war in the ETO, we should be looking at about 450/500 miles max i.e. how far the Blenheim could go on a mission. A miles M20 with two 90 gal drop tanks would have been able to escort Blenheims on those long range missions where they got shot from the skies.


 See above.

The Blenheim is a weird case. The MK I was good for about 1000 miles of range or about 400 miles radius (take one hour out of the range for "reserve" and allowances (forming up, climb etc) The MK IV got extra fuel tanks in the outer wings and was good for about 1400 miles of range (at most economical) so 500 to 600 mile radius? 

I am not at all sure the M.20 should have been trying to play long range escort. Knocking 250lbs of the weight of the M-20 as given (100lbs of fuel and 150lbs of ammo/300rounds per gun) you get a wing loading of about 33.1lb sq/ft compared to the 12 gun Hurricanes 28.7 lb/sq/ft. Wing loading isn't everything but the Hurricane has 87% of the wing loading not 3-5% difference. The Hurricane is hundreds of pounds lighter using the same engine. The Hurricane climbs 13% quicker to 20,000ft. 
If the Hurricane can't escort the bombers at short range why do we think the M.20 is going to work at long range?


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 26, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> this claim, often repeated, seems a bit dubious or they were comparing the Miles M. 20 to a Hurricane I with a Merlin III
> 
> .
> *M.20/4)......................................................Hurricane IIA*
> ...



I think it depends on what is meant by manoeuvrability. It did have shorter wings than the Hurricane and the same sort of weight, so maybe we're talking about roll rate here as the Spitfire's rate of roll improved with clipped wings. Dive speed was definitely better, 450 as opposed to 410 mph.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 26, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> See above.
> 
> The Blenheim is a weird case. The MK I was good for about 1000 miles of range or about 400 miles radius (take one hour out of the range for "reserve" and allowances (forming up, climb etc) The MK IV got extra fuel tanks in the outer wings and was good for about 1400 miles of range (at most economical) so 500 to 600 mile radius?
> 
> ...



The point is that it has double the range on internal fuel as the Hurricane, so it could take twice the drop tank size. I think you'll find that the longest Blenheim missions were at about 450 to 500 miles and usually they were suicide missions as no escort was available. The Miles M20 available earlier would have been a great help.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 26, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The point is that it has double the range on internal fuel as the Hurricane, so it could take twice the drop tank size. I think you'll find that the longest Blenheim missions were at about 450 to 500 miles and usually they were suicide missions as no escort was available. The Miles M20 available earlier would have been a great help.




That is not quite how it works. You do have to get the plane off the ground and into the air with the desired fuel load. 
180 imperial gallons (two 90 gallon drop tanks) weighs 1350lbs not including weight of the tanks and any racks/fittings needed. 
think the later 90imp/108 us gallon tanks. 

You don't have to double the internal fuel load to get a significant increase in radius. climbing to operational height took a lot of fuel for the US fighters trying to escort turbocharged bombers but the British bombers, especially the early ones didn't fly anywhere near that high. 
The Blenheim was a lousy bomber to conduct long range bomber missions with as the bomb load was just a bit above the nuisance level. 
M.20s provind escort might have save some but you are going to lose a bunch of M.20s and the tonnage of bombs delivered just wasn't worth it. 
A Hampden could easily deliver about 4 times the bomb load over most ranges as could the Pegasus powered Wellingtons. 

The Blenheim crews were brave men who were sacrificed by higher command to no good purpose but providing M.20 escorts may not have changed the situation much.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 26, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> That is not quite how it works. You do have to get the plane off the ground and into the air with the desired fuel load.
> 180 imperial gallons (two 90 gallon drop tanks) weighs 1350lbs not including weight of the tanks and any racks/fittings needed.
> think the later 90imp/108 us gallon tanks.
> 
> ...



I'm sure that M20 escorts would have helped save a lot of Blenheim crews lives, but I think that's the only use for an M20. As soon as the Blenheim goes, the M20 goes. The Hampden just had too long a range to be escorted over; the solution to the Hampden's vulnerability problem was to replace it with the Mosquito. As for the Wellington and Whitley, I'm sure that they were best employed as night bombers. Its like the Fairey Battle problem, the solution is in fact the Il-2.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 26, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Its like the Fairey Battle problem, the solution is in fact the Il-2



The Fairey Battle problem was multi-faceted. 
It started by trying to use a not very good strategic bomber (1000 mile range for a tactical bomber?) for tactical duties ( only a few other single engine "bombers" used a bombardier with a bombsight. In part because the tactical aircraft tasked by the RAF for tactical support were even worse (Westland Lysander). Which means the crews didn't have a lot of training, the planes may have been ill equipped (no low altitude bomb sight?) nad combined training with escorting fighters had rarely, if ever been done and the escorting fighters often were based out of different airfields so just joining up was major problem. 
Operating in a role it was not intended for, by crews who had only rudimentary training in the that role ( yes , they may have made some practice dives or a few low altitude bomb runs in training) in the face of the best AA defence in Europe at the time (let alone the Luftwaffe) by a high command who didn't yet understand timing or co-ordination the whole thing was doomed to failure.
You could have given the British crews 1942 IL-2s in 1940 in France and the results wouldn't have been much different.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 26, 2018)

I take it by disagreeing with me you Believe IL-2, operating without fighter escort, could have destroyed the German Bridges over the Muse and other targets in France in 1940 without catastrophic losses?


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 26, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I take it by disagreeing with me you Believe IL-2, operating without fighter escort, could have destroyed the German Bridges over the Muse and other targets in France in 1940 without catastrophic losses?



Not at all. The Yak-1 was designed as an escort fighter for the Il-2. You need both, a short range escort fighter and a heavily armed assault aircraft.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 26, 2018)

Any bomber of the 1930s like the Battle or the Blenheim is going to struggle in 1940. Blenheim in 1934 was super dooper so I have to say that it was perfectly adequate for its time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 26, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Any bomber of the 1930s like the Battle or the Blenheim is going to struggle in 1940. Blenheim in 1934 was super dooper so I have to say that it was perfectly adequate for its time.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 26, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Not at all. The Yak-1 was designed as an escort fighter for the Il-2. You need both, a short range escort fighter and a heavily armed assault aircraft.


 Well, in France, the Hurricanes that were _supposed_ to escort the Battles seldom showed up on time (or in the right place) leaving the Battles pretty much on their own. 
The Battles also tended to be used in dribs and drabs, seldom were large numbers of planes organized for even important raids. But the bulk of the Battles lost were lost trying to take out the Bridges at Sedan. After Sedan there weren't enough left to send out out in numbers, 

From wiki and bit disjointed. The fight was pretty much one day. 
May 14th
" No. 103 Squadron and No. 150 Squadron RAF of the RAF Advanced Air Striking Force (AASF) flew 10 sorties against the targets in the early morning. In the process they suffered only one loss in a forced landing. Between 15:00–16:00, 71 RAF bombers took off escorted by Allied fighters. The impressive escort was offset by the presence of German fighter units that outnumbered the Allied escort fighters by 3:1.[59] No. 71 Wing RAF lost 10 Fairey Battles and five Bristol Blenheims. No. 75 Wing RAF lost 14–18 Battles and No. 76 Wing RAF lost 11 Battles.[59] Out of 71 bombers dispatched, 40–44 bombers were lost, meaning a loss rate of 56–62 percent.[59] The AASF lost a further five Hawker Hurricanes.[59] The AASF flew 81 sorties and lost 52 percent of its strength. No 2 Group RAF also contributed with 28 sorties.[60] The bombing results were poor, with three bridges damaged and one possibly destroyed.[59] "

later
"The Allied bombers received mostly poor protection. Only 93 fighter sorties, (60 by the French) were flown.[46] The French lost 21 fighters in the operation.[46] The German air defence was soon reinforced by _Jagdgeschwader 26_ and _Jagdgeschwader 27_ (Fighter Wings 26 and 27).[60] One of the premier German fighter units responsible for the heavy loss rate was _Jagdgeschwader 53_ (Fighter Wing 53), who later engaged French bombers who tried to succeed where the AASF failed. The attacks failed as they were uncoordinated. Along with fighter aircraft, the Germans had assembled powerful flak concentrations in Sedan. The FlaK battalions of the 1st, 2nd and 10th Panzer Divisions numbered 303 anti-aircraft guns.[67] This force was built around the 102nd FlaK Regiment with its 88 mm, 37 mm, and rapid fire 20 mm weapons.[5] So heavy was the defensive fire that the Allied bombers could not concentrate over the target. Allied bomber pilots called it "hell along the Meuse".[67] On 14 May, the Allies flew 250 sorties, the French losing 30 (another source states 21)[46] and the RAF losing 20 fighter aircraft.[9] Another 65 were heavily damaged.[9] Out of 109 RAF bombers dispatched, 47 were shot down.[9] This meant 167 aircraft had been lost against one target.[9] Bruno Loerzer called 14 May "the day of the fighter"

The Battles and Blenheims may have been using 250lbs bombs against the bridges (four per aircraft?) although the Blenheim could carry a pair of 500lbs as an alternative. 

IL-2s usually carried 50kg (110lb bombs) and sometimes 100kg bombs (220lb) which would be the weapon of choice against bridges. The Russian cannon/ machine guns and rockets are not likely to make a major impression on a bridge. 

Perhaps somebody can correct that but I will stand by saying swapping IL-2s for Battles would not have changed things much (somewhat fewer losses perhaps but perhaps even less damage to the Bridges?

and 303 AA guns (even if some are 7.9mm machine guns ) was a very high density of guns for most ot the early part of the war.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 26, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, in France, the Hurricanes that were _supposed_ to escort the Battles seldom showed up on time (or in the right place) leaving the Battles pretty much on their own.
> The Battles also tended to be used in dribs and drabs, seldom were large numbers of planes organized for even important raids. But the bulk of the Battles lost were lost trying to take out the Bridges at Sedan. After Sedan there weren't enough left to send out out in numbers,
> 
> From wiki and bit disjointed. The fight was pretty much one day.
> ...



For every bomber or attack aircraft built, the Soviets built 2 fighters. Their experience in Spain told them that Strategic bombing was ineffective so there very few strategic bombing raids. Go look at the British and American figures for comparisons and remember it was the 110 million Russians and Central Asian Turks that defeated the Master Race in Europe. The Western SU comprising 40% of the population was occupied by the Axis. So they must have got it right.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 26, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The problem with the "thinner wings work better already in 1920s." is that very thin wings had been used on Biplanes even in WW 1.
> 
> Unfortunately many of the thin wings, while low in drag, were also low in lift per sq ft and had vicious stall characteristics. Which is why Handley Page and Lachmann (came up with his initial idea in a hospital bed after a stall related crash) developed leading edge slats/slots. Nobody was really flying that fast in the 1920s except for a few racers and most race planes were very difficult to fly. Small wings, high torque in some cases vestigial vertical stabilizer and rudders. Basically accidents waiting to happen.
> The thicker wings offered more lift per sq ft, stronger structure for the same weight (especially after the biplanes started to go away) and sometimes ( but not always) a gentler stall or at least not so abrupt which meant that slats (and royalties to HP and Co.) could be avoided.



If 1920s are too early, by mid-1930s there is plenty of aerodynamical knowledge available to the designers, both in theory and practice, where thick wing profiles are shown to have ever greater drag than thinner wings as speeds encrease. I did not suggested small wings, both Spitfire and Hurricane were already with far bigger wings than any monoplane 1-seat fighter developed anywhere in Europe or Japan. There was no ban on use of Fowler flaps beyond USA.



> Since the Merlin is the best bet that means any country without the Merlin was really up the creek without a paddle and explains the some of the weird and wonderful twin engine planes that tried (unsuccessfully) to fill the long range escort role.



Then it looks like RAF is in best postition to acquire long range fighter 
Other countries can either weep, or fool themselves that their bombers will always get through and/or preach that escort fighters don't work and/or decline to work-out co-operation between bombers and fighters (after all, we are not as funky as those Japanese*), or bite the bullet and use best engines for the job.

*who, aparently, were not informed that one can't make long range fighter on 2nd rate engine.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 26, 2018)

Not quite what we talking about is it? 

"Its like the Fairey Battle problem, the solution is in fact the Il-2" 

The Battle was _never _intended to be an "assault" aircraft or close support or even tactical. 

It was pressed into that role by the RAF being woefully short of any other aircraft they could throw into that role. Or rather they had ten Squadrons of Battles sitting in France that couldn't attack Germany (not that they would have done much good) due to the French restricted actual bombing during the Phoney war. When the Germans attacked there weren't enough of anything else to try and stop them with without using the Battles. 

Look at the descriptions of the Battle for Sedan again. 

81 Battles sorties, 10 in the morning and 71 in the afternoon with about an hour from first take-off to last. From different airfields. Number over the target/s at any one time? 
The "impressive" escort may have 30-33 fighter sorties by the British (with up to 20 of the fighters shot down?) A number of Blenheim sorties thrown in.

Now the question I was posing was would 81 IL-2 shorties fared much different in losses or target effect if strung out in time like the British (and french) attacks or destroyed any more of the bridges? 

It doesn't matter what the Il-2 did in Russia or if the Russians defeated the Germans with minimal (or major) help from the western allies. That is not the question.
The Battle ceased to be a front line combat aircraft for any type of mission (except perhaps in NA for a few more months?) after the fall of France so the British (and the allies) had solved the "Battle Problem" one way or another. 

Now Please note that the Fairey Fulmar was developed from a prototype _tactical _bomber that was built after the Battle was designed and placed in production, It had a smaller wing, a shorter fuselage, only two crew members instead of three and 1/2 the range. The Battle was not Fairey's or the RAFs idea of a tactical bomber.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 26, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> Perhaps somebody can correct that but I will stand by saying swapping IL-2s for Battles would not have changed things much (somewhat fewer losses perhaps but perhaps even less damage to the Bridges?
> 
> and 303 AA guns (even if some are 7.9mm machine guns ) was a very high density of guns for most ot the early part of the war.



Several things need to go well for the attackers, so that (or other) bridge is destroyed for a reasoneble price in men & aircraft. Someone has to do Flak supression, not just for killing and damaging guns & crews, but also to draw theor attention on themselves and from the actual bombers. Slow bombers won't work, fighter/bombers might do (but there is few if any in Allied inventory in 1940). Bombers will have more chances with bigger bombs, 500-1000 lbs at least, 1500-2000 lbs if possible. These bombs need to actually hit targets - use dive bombers? Shortcoming - Allies dive bombers (Skua, Late 298) are mostly deployed well away from the perspective frontline in May 1940. Good escort need to be provided, but neither theory nor practice are there.
So, unfortunately, bridges will stay.



Kevin J said:


> For every bomber or attack aircraft built, the Soviets built 2 fighters. Their experience in Spain told them that Strategic bombing was ineffective so there very few strategic bombing raids. Go look at the British and American figures for comparisons and remember it was the 110 million Russians and Central Asian Turks that defeated the Master Race in Europe. The Western SU comprising 40% of the population was occupied by the Axis. So they must have got it right.



Soviets were not fighting the war alone, their allies were far more powerful coutries than allies of Germany. Allied war cause was immensely helped by strategic and operational blunders made by Germans.
Despite having two Soviet A/C here (my avatar and sig pic), I'll still mantain that Germans made much better fighters and aero engines than Soviets.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 26, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Several things need to go well for the attackers, so that (or other) bridge is destroyed for a reasoneble price in men & aircraft. Someone has to do Flak supression, not just for killing and damaging guns & crews, but also to draw theor attention on themselves and from the actual bombers. Slow bombers won't work, fighter/bombers might do (but there is few if any in Allied inventory in 1940). Bombers will have more chances with bigger bombs, 500-1000 lbs at least, 1500-2000 lbs if possible. These bombs need to actually hit targets - use dive bombers? Shortcoming - Allies dive bombers (Skua, Late 298) are mostly deployed well away from the perspective frontline in May 1940. Good escort need to be provided, but neither theory nor practice are there.
> So, unfortunately, bridges will stay.
> 
> 
> ...



I agree that the Germans were technologically superior to the Soviets but didn't they lose?


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 26, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> I agree that the Germans were technologically superior to the Soviets but didn't they lose?



You tell me.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 26, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> If 1920s are too early, by mid-1930s there is plenty of aerodynamical knowledge available to the designers, both in theory and practice, where thick wing profiles are shown to have ever greater drag than thinner wings as speeds encrease. I did not suggested small wings, both Spitfire and Hurricane were already with far bigger wings than any monoplane 1-seat fighter developed anywhere in Europe or Japan.



The British needed the high lift wings (either thick airfoil or large area or both) to get their fighters out of their rather small fighter fields. Especially using those WW I tech level propellers 
British in 1934-28 were planning to use or using the highest weight of installed armament. 





tomo pauk said:


> Then it looks like RAF is in best postition to acquire long range fighter
> Other countries can either weep, or fool themselves that their bombers will always get through and/or preach that escort fighters don't work and/or decline to work-out co-operation between bombers and fighters (after all, we are not as funky as those Japanese*), or bite the bullet and use best engines for the job.



Well, the Germans did build the Bf 110 even if not strictly an "escort" fighter and the French and Italians were fooling around with twin engine fighters with longer range than the single engine fighters. 




tomo pauk said:


> *who, aparently, were not informed that one can't make long range fighter on 2nd rate engine.



Well, it all depends on the year doesn't it?  

How many Ki 43s available in 1939? or 1940? 
and with a whopping two 7.7mm Vickers machine guns, shades of the Sopwith Camel  
(ok they fired faster) 

Early Ki 43s use as single speed engine that gave 970hp at 11,155ft. When the British were fitting Merlin X engines into bombers. 
Different theaters of war and different enemies called for different levels of performance. Long over water fights or long flights over China/South east asia land areas involved very few AA guns except at the target, few, if any intermediate fighter fields along the route and an early warning system that might include telegraph operators along an existing railroad or a sparse and not well connected telephone system. Being able to fly just slightly higher than the bombers (until you get to the target area) at a low speed and not essing above them can do wonders for the range of escorting fighters. It just doesn't work in Europe without taking big losses. 

you can make long range flights with 2nd (or even 3rd) rate engines, just don't expect to fly at the altitudes and speeds that the people using 1st rate engines are. 
Or expect to escort bombers using 1st rate engines. Even the Japanese had changed from under 1000hp engines in the Ki-21 I bomber to 1500hp engines in the Ki-21 II
by late 1941.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Dec 26, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The Spitfire, well the Air Ministry considered cancelling it in 1939 because of production difficulties, had problems producing the Mk II before Beaverbrook took over, then built the Mk III but decided to port some of the changes into the Mk Vc to minimise changes on the production line.



The Spitfire Mk V was literally a Mk II airframe with a Merlin 45 engine.

Minimal change to production lines, as you have said.

The Spitfire Mk III used the Merlin XX, had the clipped wings, revised radiator ducts, retractable landing gear. So, quite a bit of change.

The Mk III was used to test the Merlin 61 as a prototype for the IX, VII/VIII. The IX went into production basically as a Mk V with the Merlin 61, while some of the features of the III (such as retractable tail wheel) went into the VII/VIII.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Dec 27, 2018)

The British pretty much made every fighter combination possible with 1,000bhp or there abouts in the 1930s.
Spjtfire, Hurricane, Defiant, Fulmar, Henley, F5/34 so if you want range follow the Fulmar and if you want speed, follow the Spitfire.

The armament on the Hayabusa gives pause for thought especially as the Zero was better. 

Why only 2 guns? Certainly cheaper and lighter and also many 1930s aircraft were no better such as early 109 and the myriad of biplane fighters and early Italian fighters.

2 guns were certainly the norm.

Here is an excellent engineering nonsense idea of trying to make a 1,000bhp go 400mph. Any single engine fighter is going to be absolute garbage. Even if it was possible!

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 27, 2018)

The Basket said:


> The British pretty much made every fighter combination possible with 1,000bhp or there abouts in the 1930s.
> Spjtfire, Hurricane, Defiant, Fulmar, Henley, F5/34 so if you want range follow the Fulmar and if you want speed, follow the Spitfire.
> 
> The armament on the Hayabusa gives pause for thought especially as the Zero was better.
> ...



If you want range follow the Miles M20, if you want speed follow the Spitfire, although if you want general ruggedness that will allow you to operate anywhere in the World then follow the Hurricane until the Spitfire Vc turns up. You want a navy all weather fighter then its a Fulmar, a night fighter then definitely a Defiant. Such a shame that Miles didn't fly the M20 much earlier as then we could have had a long range escort for daylight bombing missions for up to about 450/500 miles if it had had under wing drop tanks, but then the bomber would always get through with the power operated gun turrets that bombers had and there were no drop tanks before 1941.

If you want a dive bomber then it has to be a Fairey Battle, I know you think it should be a Henley, don't you? You're wrong. The Battle held its bombs within the wings which were then lowered on hydraulics then dropped which meant more accurate bombing than a bomb in a bomb bay like the Henley. I guess we really needed the Stuka with its heavier bomb load and controlled dive. The army at the time thought that the Lysander was perfect for the job of directing ground based artillery instead.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 27, 2018)

The Basket said:


> The British pretty much made every fighter combination possible with 1,000bhp or there abouts in the 1930s.
> Spjtfire, Hurricane, Defiant, Fulmar, Henley, F5/34 so if you want range follow the Fulmar and if you want speed, follow the Spitfire.
> 
> The armament on the Hayabusa gives pause for thought especially as the Zero was better.
> ...



Henley was not a fighter. There was no long range 1-seat fighter either.
Who is trying to make a 1000 bhp 400 mph fighter here?


----------



## The Basket (Dec 27, 2018)

Indeed there was no single engine single seat long range British fighter of the 1930s that I am aware of. 2 reasons, range was not important and it was beyond the state of the art at that time.

The Westland Whirlwind was a better bet for cannon and range and the Fulmar was built to Royal Navy specifications which are long range, 2 seats and poor top speed!

Miles M.20? That was a prototype fighter which although interesting was hardly indicative. Martin-Baker MB 2 fits a more 'what if' narrative. 

1,000bhp were only around until 2,000bhp so only fills a small although crucial role at an important juncture in human history.

The Miles M.20 was a day late and a dollar short. To build a totally new fighter in 1941 with little stretch and performance lesser than a Spitfire was pure fantasy. The Japanese and Italians followed that to it's logical conclusion and paid the bill for it.

By 1940 any new off the drawing board fighter was 400mph and getting up to around 2000bhp. Otherwise you going to fall behind.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 27, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> If you want range follow the Miles M20, if you want speed follow the Spitfire, although if you want general ruggedness that will allow you to operate anywhere in the World then follow the Hurricane until the Spitfire Vc turns up.





> You want a navy all weather fighter then its a Fulmar


Pretty fair call



> a night fighter then definitely a Defiant.


This is more dubious, it gets a lot of credit as a night fighter and certainly equipped a fair number of squadrons but actual claims/kills during the 1940/41 night blitz are a bit lacking (as they were for every other night fighter the British used until March/April). 



> Such a shame that Miles didn't fly the M20 much earlier as then we could have had a long range escort for daylight bombing missions for up to about 450/500 miles if it had had under wing drop tanks, but then the bomber would always get through with the power operated gun turrets that bombers had and there were no drop tanks before 1941.


The Miles may have had range, what it didn't have was any better speed than a Hurricane II (and may be worse) using the same engine and it had worse climb. Unfortunately the M.20 would not have been facing 109Es had it been used as an escort but 109Fs. 




> If you want a dive bomber then it has to be a Fairey Battle, I know you think it should be a Henley, don't you? You're wrong. The Battle held its bombs within the wings which were then lowered on hydraulics then dropped which meant more accurate bombing than a bomb in a bomb bay like the Henley.



The bomb cells in the wing of the Battle held 250lbs bombs, two to a side, each it it's own cell. it was quite capable of carrying a pair of 500lbs bombs but they had to be carried below the wing, cutting into speed and range. 
Still dropped from outside the prop arc and not bothered by the propwash though. The Battle happened to have been built strong and many a pilot/crew practiced simulated diving attacks (often without even practice bombs) without breaking it but it was huge airplane, same wing span as a Grumman Avenger. The Battles had no dive brakes and unless conducting experiments, no dive bomb sight although that is the easiest thing to fix. 



> I guess we really needed the Stuka with its heavier bomb load and controlled dive. The army at the time thought that the Lysander was perfect for the job of directing ground based artillery instead.



Actually the Lysander was THE close support plane of the RAF, it was just terrible at it and was binned from the job before many (or any?) went off to North Africa and the whole fiasco in France was swept under the rug. 
This is my _opinion_ and may not be other peoples but consider a few facts as they stood in 1939/early 1940. 
The Lysander had a bomb rack attached to each landing gear leg, this rack could hold 4-6 light bombs ( as used by earlier aircraft to "police" the frontier/s), it could also be used to hold a 250lb on each side or a pair of 116lbs bombs. Rather heavy bomb load for an artillery spotter. US "O" series aircraft had no official bomb load. German Hs 126 (and the planes it replaced) carried a much smaller load. Hs 126 could carry six 10kg (22lb) bombs or a single 50 kg (110lb ) bomb and were used for ground support at times in Poland and France. Please note the Lysander could carry about the same bombload as the German Hs 123 dive bomber. Then we have the guns, not many compared to later planes but somewhat interesting at least in 1939/40. Two .303 Brownings, one in each landing gear leg/housing which is twice the number of forward firing guns in the HS 126, twice the number of forward firing guns in any US "O" sereis (very few of which actually saw service) and twice the number of guns as any bomber version Blenheim, Battle, or early Hampden. Why was the Lysander given twice the firepower of these other so called tactical bombers? Self defense in it's artillery spotting mission? Very few Lysanders seemed to get twin guns in the rear cockpit? Please note it is the same firepower as the HS 123 and the JU-87 up until the D series. 
The Lysander had much more offensive capability than any other airplane of it's type/class in 1939/40 despite what they called it. Unfortunately they still stuck it with all the other duties/requirements you could do with a Hart biplane. Like pick up messages using a string and hook, land and take-off from small spaces for "liaison" (transporting officers short distances) and so on. Time spent training on actual close support duties may have been minimal with all the other demands for training in the other roles. 

You also had the political aspect to consider. Both in service and inter-service. The RAF higher ups believed it wasn't their job to entangled in the land battles (or sea battles) and their job was to bomb the enemy factories so acting as flying artillery was contrary to doctrine. Lower level officers might have had different opinions and tried to slide a few things through. 
Somewhere along the line the Army got shorted any real improved heavy artillery over what they had in WW I. Wither by design or cheapness in Parliament. WHy pay for artillery and bombers both? 

I am not sure the true story will ever be known but a lot of stuff just doesn't add up.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 27, 2018)

When we get into this type of discussion the Japanese fighters are often brought into it to show that it could be done. However we seldom have any figures to shed any light on this.
I do have some figures for both the Ki 43 I and the Ki 43 II from an old book by William Green & Gordon Swanborough and these figures are not sourced back to original documents so the light they give may filtered through either rose colored glasses or grey tint depending on your own point of view or other sources.

......................................................Ki 43 I.........................................................................Ki 43 II...................
Engine
Nakajima
Ha-25.type 99
1700 cu in
27.9 liters
take off...................................990hp/2700rpm.....................................................1,150hp/2800rpm
1st altitude...........................970hp/2600rpm/11,155ft....................................1,100hp/2800rpm/9,350ft
2nd altitude .................................... NA.....................................................................980hp/2700rpm/19,685ft.
Prop.........................................2 blade/two pitch.....................................................3blade/constant speed.
Internal fuel cap..........................125 imp gal..............................................................125 imp gal
drop tanks..........................................?????..................................................................two 44imp gal
speed at SL.....................................274mph....................................................................289mph
speed/13,125ft..............................305mph....................................................................329mph
speed/16,400ft...............................306mph.....................................................................NA
speed/21,650ft..................................NA...........................................................................320mph
normal cruise.............................236mph/8,200ft.................................................274mph/16,405ft.
Ranges on max
internal fuel..............................746miles/217mph/NA.........................................1006miles/247mph/NA
and.............................................808miles/202mph/NA.....................................................NA
Range with
two 44imp
drop tanks...............................................NA....................................................................1864miles/248mph/NA

The NAs in the cruise numbers means the altitude was not given.
The Ki 43 I may not have had armor or self sealing tanks, the Ki 42 II did.
We have been over the armament or lack thereof before.

Radial engine fighters in the first few years of the war had a huge drag problem.
Please note that the Ki 43-I was using around 930hp (est) to go 306 mph at 16,400ft
A P-40B could do 310mph at 15,000ft on 720hp to give an illustration on the difference in drag.
granted a 2 pitch prop was not exactly state of the art in late 1940 or 1941 but the ability of the Ki 43 _if these figures are accurate, _to operate as an escort fighter in European airspace in 1939/40/41 would be highly suspect.

Again please note the P-40B was _claimed_ in the official performance summary http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40B_Official_Performance_Summary.jpg
to have a _practical range _of 805 miles at 202mph at 15,000ft on 120 US gallons burning 30 gal an hour and an optimum range of 1010 miles at the same speed and altitude buring 24 gallons an hour. Also note that the the P-40B could hold 160 US gallons internal and not the 120 gallons used for the range figures, the 120 gallons was needed to get the plane to designed gross weight.

Nobody has ever seriously suggested using P-40B & C s as escort fighters in Europe in 1941/42.

Edit. Please note the range/s for the P-40B are 'Yard stick" ranges and take *absolutely* no account of the fuel need to take-off and climb to altitude or to descend and land after the fuel runs out. 
I don't know if that is the case for the figures for the Ki-43 but consider that the Ki 43 held about 25% more fuel internal (difference between US and Imperial gallons + 5 extra gallons) but needed about 25% more power to go just over 300mph. The difference may not be as marked at just over 200mph but I would tend to doubt the the Ki 43 I could fly the distances given and have used up most of that extra capacity taking off and climbing to altitude and allowing for 20-30 minutes reserve at the end.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 27, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> When we get into this type of discussion the Japanese fighters are often brought into it to show that it could be done. However we seldom have any figures to shed any light on this.
> I do have some figures for both the Ki 43 I and the Ki 43 II from an old book by William Green & Gordon Swanborough and these figures are not sourced back to original documents so the light they give may filtered through either rose colored glasses or grey tint depending on your own point of view or other



These figures are in good agreement with the Japanese 'Famous aircraft of the world' book about the Ki-43.



> Radial engine fighters in the first few years of the war had a huge drag problem.
> Please note that the Ki 43-I was using around 930hp (est) to go 306 mph at 16,400ft
> A P-40B could do 310mph at 15,000ft on 720hp to give an illustration on the difference in drag.
> granted a 2 pitch prop was not exactly state of the art in late 1940 or 1941 but the ability of the Ki 43 _if these figures are accurate, _to operate as an escort fighter in European airspace in 1939/40/41 would be highly suspect.



Some radial engines have had the 'huge drag problem', some others did not. 1st group might include Cyclone 9 and 14, the other group might include Sakae and Zuisei. However, if an aircraft has V12 engine, but employs lousy carburetor of float-type and it's radiator is of 'let's toss it into slipstream' type, much of it's stremlining just gone down the drain.
We know that Zero (A6M2), on basically the same engine, was good for 320-330 mph, so we might also take a look at the thick wing of Ki-43 - 18% TtC at root, vs. 15% at Zero = no wonder Zero was faster.



> Nobody has ever seriously suggested using P-40B & C s as escort fighters in Europe in 1941/42.



I'd suggest the P-40 (no letter) + drop tank for 1940. For 1941, P-40B + Merlin 45 + bigger drop tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 27, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Indeed there was no single engine single seat long range British fighter of the 1930s that I am aware of. 2 reasons, range was not important and it was beyond the state of the art at that time.
> 
> The Westland Whirlwind was a better bet for cannon and range and the Fulmar was built to Royal Navy specifications which are long range, 2 seats and poor top speed!
> 
> ...



That 'range was not important' (for a fighter) was opinion of Air Ministry, problem with that opinion is that it was wrong. No worries, that was not the only mistake they made, and other peoples' air ministries made their fair share of mistakes; granted, air ministries made a lot of good or excellent decisions.

Westland Whirlwind's fuel system needed to feed 1770-2000 HP, compared with 1030-1300 for Spitfire I/II or Hurricane I. Since the Whirly had no more fuel per HP than those two, I don't think that Whirly was a good candidate for LR fighter.
M.20 used the best British engine, and was a waste of that engine. When Japanese and Italians used their best engines, the resulting fighters were exellent.
By 1940, the 2000 HP engines were far from a done deal in all of aircraft-producing countries. People managed to fly prototypes of 400 mph aircraft on 1200*-1600* HP; 2000** HP was ought to give at least another 20 mph.

*low alt power; hi-alt power was 1100-1350 HP for those
**lo alt power; hi-alt power of 1600-1700 HP


----------



## The Basket (Dec 27, 2018)

You don't need long range to defend British airspace so there was no requirement other than to cross the airfield fence.

I don't know any operational fighter on 1,000 bhp that did 400mph. 1,200bhp yeah on paper at least. Bf 109F is an example. Roughly. 

My gist is that the Spitfire was only going to phased out by something demonstrably better. Aircraft like the Hawker Tornado was a better future bet than the Miles M.20.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 27, 2018)

The Basket said:


> You don't need long range to defend British airspace so there was no requirement other than to cross the airfield fence.



I'm not suggesting defending British airspace with long-range fighters, but to escort British bombers. Even though the RAF fighters could use longer range/endurance when in defence.



> I don't know any operational fighter on 1,000 bhp that did 400mph. 1,200bhp yeah on paper at least. Bf 109F is an example. Roughly.
> 
> My gist is that the Spitfire was only going to phased out by something demonstrably better. Aircraft like the Hawker Tornado was a better future bet than the Miles M.20.



I don't know the 1000 bhp/400 mph fighter either, and I say, for the n-th time, that M.20 would've been a waste of good engines (and pilots and other resources).


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 27, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Some radial engines have had the 'huge drag problem', some others did not.



If a P-36 (R-1830) has 22% more drag than a long nose P-40 (and/or doesn't use exhaust thrust as well) then I think we can safely say that few, if any early war radials (FW 190 aside) were low drag, some are worse than others but unless the V-12 guys make real hash of the installation they should have an advantage. 





> I'd suggest the P-40 (no letter) + drop tank for 1940. For 1941, P-40B + Merlin 45 + bigger drop tank.



Well, let's take a look. The P-40 (no letter) has,
two .50 cal guns with 200rpg.
two ,30 cal guns with 500rpg
total armament weight 370lbs.
It has no armor
it has no bullet proof glass
it has no self sealing tanks (which is a good thing for this exercise)

It's performance numbers are for a gross weight of 6782-7lbs. and that includes 120 US gallons of fuel.

Internal tanks will hold 181 gallons in overload condition. but let's remember the French crashing a few Hawk 75s with full rear tanks before we get too excited. 

In any case, using a modified version of the USAAF "rules" for radius we have
1. 5 minutes at "normal"power (930hp, 2600rpm ) 90 gal a minute for 7.5 gallons
2. 6 minutes climb at "normal"power to 15,000ft (est) for 9 gallons
2a. 9 minutes climb at "normal"power to 20,000ft (est) for 13.5 gallons
3. 15 minutes at "military" power fir combat 115 gal/hour for 29 gallons. 
4. 30 min reserve to find home airfield at 30 gal an hour for 15 gallons. 

so that is 60 gallons gone from the 120 (or 181) in the internal tanks. yeah, I know the engine was only rated for 5 minutes military but everybody keeps saying how much you can over boost an Allison by  

And trying to say you can only use 5 minutes of combat power on an escort mission from England to across the Rhine (300 miles one way) seems a bit unrealistic.
I also picked 15,000ft to eliminate the escort B-17 problem. Everybody else was flying their bombers a lot lower most of the time and trying to force 1940-41 planes with 1940-41 engines/superchargers and fuel to "fit" the B-17 mission profile is just too hard. 

back to the example, your P-40 (no letter) has a speed of 304mph at 15,000ft using 56.4 gallons an hour (SFC 0.49) at optimum settings or the same speed at 70.5 gal/hr (SFC 0.615)

for ranges of about 320 miles (radius 160) or 222miles (radius 111miles ) with 120 gallons at take off. Double those distances if taking off with 181 gallons I have done little rounding here and there so I don't want to hear about 3 or 5 mile differences. 

If you fly a bit slower you might be able to do a bit better, The P-40B could cruise at 286mph on 600hp (46.5 gallons an hour?) 

But the P-40B was porking up a bit, 600lbs of armament but 108lbs of that 230lb increase was extra .50 cal ammo. 93lbs of armor and the primitive self sealing tanks that dropped internal capacity to 160gallons. 

For England and German the Fall of France made for a considerable change in the strategic air situation. Britain lost any opportunity for forward bomber bases and forward fighter bases to strike Germany from or stage escorting fighters out of. Germany on the other hand gained bases right on Britain's doorstep and eliminated the reason for specialized escort fighters (although drop tanks for the 109 would have been handy even if not game changers) 

The thing is for everybody except the US and Japan, up until the summer of 1940 a radius of 400 miles would have more than covered the vast majority of the strategic targets most countries could hope to hit (Russia was so big that hitting it's major centers from the 1939/40 border was beyond most peoples bombers let alone escort fighters.)


----------



## The Basket (Dec 27, 2018)

Eh? I am not saying the Miles M.20 is any good. Quite the opposite. That's Kevin J pitch not I.

The Beaufighter can be also included as a long ranger fighter. Remember that in the 1930s bombers didn't need escort and it probably was not going to go up against an organised air defence network. Bombers in the Spanish civil war or Japanese bombers in China had no real issues. 

British bombers were mainly for the bombing of empire subjects who didn't understand that the bombing was to teach them the import of civilization.

I remember reading that Blenheims were stuffed by Hurricanes and Spitfires in war games in the late 30s but it was too late and boy I bet it sucked. What works in 1934 gets no free rides in 1940.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 28, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Eh? I am not saying the Miles M.20 is any good. Quite the opposite. That's Kevin J pitch not I.
> 
> The Beaufighter can be also included as a long ranger fighter. Remember that in the 1930s bombers didn't need escort and it probably was not going to go up against an organised air defence network. Bombers in the Spanish civil war or Japanese bombers in China had no real issues.
> 
> ...



I'm saying that if the Miles M20 had first flown 2 years before with a Merlin X, the first production Merlin X was delivered Dec 5th 1938, then we have the basis for a single engine long range fighter to work with which could have escorted RAF bombers up to 200 miles without the use of drop tanks. Nb Germany is just across the border from France which was our ally. Later drop tanks can be added to extend its range. Unfortunately the RAF believed that the bomber would always get through. Flown in 1940 it becomes irrelevant as it has arrived to late. If you want a long range fighter in 1940 then you have the Mustang to work with and develop. The Miles M20 is only ever going to be a long range escort powered by a two speed Merlin probably only useful for the 1939/43 time period. After that, I guess you use them as bomb trucks like the P-40N, maybe even for teaching our natives the benefits of our Western civilisation after the Japanese had gone.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 28, 2018)

Why would the RAF need a long range fighter in a 1930s scenario?
This is from a country in which the Folland Gnat was designed!!! Range was purely optional.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 28, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Why would the RAF need a long range fighter in a 1930s scenario?
> This is from a country in which the Folland Gnat was designed!!! Range was purely optional.


Agreed, but it would have been a good idea.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 28, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The Miles M20 is only ever going to be a long range escort powered by a two speed Merlin probably only useful for the 1939/43 time period.


The M.20 is a dead duck against the Bf 109F and FW 190 in the Summer/Fall of 1941.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 28, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The M.20 is a dead duck against the Bf 109F and FW 190 in the Summer/Fall of 1941.


Wasn't every other fighter plane in the World a dead duck too at this time against an Bf109F-4 and of course the Fw 190A, except of course the I-16, if you believe what the Russians had to say.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 28, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Wasn't every other fighter plane in the World a dead duck too at this time against an Bf109F-4 and of course the Fw 190A, except of course the I-16, if you believe what the Russians had to say.




There is the enemy having the edge or an edge on you and being totally outclassed. A Spitfire V may not have been a dead duck but it needed a good pilot and good tactics, The British had given up trying with Hurricane II going up against the 109F and FW 190 over NW Europe Trying to use plane that was slower in level flight and slower in climb than a Hurricane II was not going to end up better.

As far as the I -16 even leaving out propaganda, The Russians themselves looked at combat results for a number of months in 1942 regarding the I-16, It had the fewest losses per sortie than any of their fighters at that time, it also shot down the fewest German planes and did the least damage to ground targets. 
Keeping from being shot down is not winning the air battle, you have to shoot down enemy planes or at least prevent the enemy planes from performing their mission/s.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 30, 2018)

Take a P-39D/F, remove the .30 caliber wing guns (and the 100# nose armor plate) and there's your interceptor at 7100#.

Put fuel tanks for 50gal (25gal per wing) where the .30 caliber wings guns were, add a drop tank (75-110gal) and there's your escort fighter at 7400# with 170gal internal and 8000# with external tank. Same plane.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 30, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> There is the enemy having the edge or an edge on you and being totally outclassed. A Spitfire V may not have been a dead duck but it needed a good pilot and good tactics, The British had given up trying with Hurricane II going up against the 109F and FW 190 over NW Europe Trying to use plane that was slower in level flight and slower in climb than a Hurricane II was not going to end up better.
> 
> As far as the I -16 even leaving out propaganda, The Russians themselves looked at combat results for a number of months in 1942 regarding the I-16, It had the fewest losses per sortie than any of their fighters at that time, it also shot down the fewest German planes and did the least damage to ground targets.
> Keeping from being shot down is not winning the air battle, you have to shoot down enemy planes or at least prevent the enemy planes from performing their mission/s.



I think using the Blenheim as a bomber over Western Europe was suicide, maybe Spitfire Vb's escorting Hurricane IIb fighter bombers was the only way, but outside Europe in the MTO or South-East Asia there's still some scope for a while for the Miles M20 to escort the Blenheim. In the Pacific it was Beauforts and Kittyhawks, which worked as far as I know. The Miles M20 with drop tanks needed to be in service in 1939, by 1940 its too late.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 30, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Take a P-39D/F, remove the .30 caliber wing guns (and the 100# nose armor plate) and there's your interceptor at 7100#.
> 
> Put fuel tanks for 50gal (25gal per wing) where the .30 caliber wings guns were, add a drop tank (75-110gal) and there's your escort fighter at 7400# with 170gal internal and 8000# with external tank. Same plane.



I agree that using the Cobra as an escort between 7000 and 8000 feet would be ideal, maybe even as an interceptor up to 12000 to 15000 feet.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 30, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Take a P-39D/F, remove the .30 caliber wing guns (and the *100# nose armor plate*) and there's your interceptor at 7100#.
> 
> Put fuel tanks for 50gal (25gal per wing) where the .30 caliber wings guns were, add a drop tank (75-110gal) and there's your escort fighter at 7400# with 170gal internal and 8000# with external tank. Same plane.




Hmmmm, P-39 with empty ammo boxes is so spin prone that instructions as stenciled on the ammo boxes says that ballast is to be carried if live ammo is not in the boxes for routine flights.

Yet the answer to improving the performance is to remove a hundred pounds from a point in the aircraft about 4 feet in front of the ammo boxes? 
54% further away from the CG than the ammo boxes? 

On the P-39Q the armor was 71 lbs The Q (and models right before it) used a larger, heavier prop than the Ds.
Possible the "armor" was a somewhat easy way to adjust the CG for different equipment? 
If you need 70-100lbs of ballast as far forward in the nose as you can get it it is pretty clever to at least use it for _something._ 

Lets see,

P-39D-2 goes 7697lbs with full .30 cal ammo and only 104 gallons of fuel in the tanks, and that is with a 140lb pilot and 20lb parachute. 

Yanking 95lbs worth of guns, 260lbs worth of ammo and 100 lbs of armor magically gets you down to 7100lbs? another 142 lbs of "stuff" just magically disappeared from the plane? 

splitting the difference between the 160 pilot allowance and the 200lb pilot allowance adds back in 20lbs, adding back in 16 gallons of fuel adds another 96lb s back in.

I really do love the part about cutting a hole in the wing to put the fuel in and running a few gas lines to connect the new 25 gallon tank in each wing to the rest of the fuel system at zero weight. Fuel tanks, even ones that are not self sealing do weight something. Thin/flat self sealing tanks weigh a lot for the amount of fuel held inside. 

empty 75 gallon sheet metal drop tank weighed 46lbs. 

Please note than many P-39s were operated with 300rpg for the .30 cal wing guns and saved about 180lbs that way while keeping the wing guns. so leaving the guns (95lbs) and 300rpg (78lbs) only costs 173lbs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Dec 30, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Hmmmm, P-39 with empty ammo boxes is so spin prone that instructions as stenciled on the ammo boxes says that ballast is to be carried if live ammo is not in the boxes for routine flights.
> 
> Yet the answer to improving the performance is to remove a hundred pounds from a point in the aircraft about 4 feet in front of the ammo boxes?
> 54% further away from the CG than the ammo boxes?
> ...


According to the paper attached no one who weighed more than 160 lbs would be accepted for training as a fighter pilot. Also they had to be between 64" and 69" in height. Other pilots could be up to 76" and 200 lbs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 30, 2018)

Reluctant Poster said:


> According to the paper attached no one who weighed more than 160 lbs would be accepted for training as a fighter pilot. Also they had to be between 64" and 69" in height. Other pilots could be up to 76" and 200 lbs.



That maybe so, but the weight allowance of the P-39 (at least in the early models) of 160lbs* included *a *20 pound* parachute. While P-39 pilots in the South Pacific may have flown in shorts, a short sleeved shirt and low cut shoes that wasn't going to work in other climates. Throw in the Mae West life preserver and your 160lb pilot (in his skivvies ) dressed, ready to go in a cold area could come close to 200 lbs with the parachute. The 20lbs for the parachute was included in the later 200lb pilot allowance so even in a hot area you weren't officially going to get a 200lb pilot

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 31, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Hmmmm, P-39 with empty ammo boxes is so spin prone that instructions as stenciled on the ammo boxes says that ballast is to be carried if live ammo is not in the boxes for routine flights.
> 
> Yet the answer to improving the performance is to remove a hundred pounds from a point in the aircraft about 4 feet in front of the ammo boxes?
> 54% further away from the CG than the ammo boxes?
> ...



See above for the CG solution and weight of fuel tanks.

The P-39D/F (not the D-1 or D-2) weighed 5462/5409 empty. Add 1700# load (pilot 200#, oil 70#, remaining armor plate and glass 130#, fuel 720# for 120gal, guns/ammo 580# for a 37mm cannon, 2x.50cal MGs and gun sight) gets you to 7162#/7109# for the D/F. Climb and operating heights are greatly improved at this weight.

Shouldn't be too hard to design fuel tanks to replace the wing guns/ammunition for the long range model.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 31, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> See above for the CG solution and weight of fuel tanks.
> 
> Shouldn't be too hard to design fuel tanks to replace the wing guns/ammunition for the long range model.



it is not hard to design fuel tanks to fit in the gun/ammo spaces in the wing. it is very hard designing/building such tanks to be weightless. 

The Fuel _system_ in the early Airacobras went about 290lbs for the 120 gallon tanks with self-sealing. The system would include tanks, lines, drains, fills, valves and such. 

In the Airacobra there were 6 interconnected heavy rubber fuel cells in each wing. On the 87 gallon models they left out two bags in each wing. They just didn't not fill the two out outer tanks/bags. They were trying to reduce the weight of plane by not only reducing the weight of the fuel but by reducing the empty weight of the plane. 

Empty weight of the tanks out in the wings in the machine gun bays could be 100lbs or more, or the weight of the .30 cal you want to take out. 

Please note that on the P-40L they took out a 37 gallon (?) tank and saved about 100lbs. Flat thin tanks weigh more per gallon of contents. 

Since it appears the whole idea of the extra wing tanks is to give the P-39 extra endurance/range _after the drop tank is gone_ and to have that extra endurance the tanks have to have fuel in them (150lbs in each tank if full) and the fuel weighs more than the ammo you took out (way more if the planes were flying with 300rpg) I have trouble figuring out why we should use the lighter figure of no guns when estimating this "escort fighters" performance. 

AS for the gear box armor, why did it stay when they took out all kinds of other stuff?

About the only time they took it out was an experimant with a really stipped P-39 at the Bell factory where they saved just under 1300lbs. Great performance but they took out not only the gear box armor but the oil tank armor, the radios, the oxygen equipment most of the flight instruments (the left the airspeed indicator, the altimeter and some engine gauges) half the fuel cells, all ballast, etc.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 31, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> it is not hard to design fuel tanks to fit in the gun/ammo spaces in the wing. it is very hard designing/building such tanks to be weightless.
> 
> The Fuel _system_ in the early Airacobras went about 290lbs for the 120 gallon tanks with self-sealing. The system would include tanks, lines, drains, fills, valves and such.
> 
> ...



See above.


----------

