Recent content by Spindash64

Thank you, that genuinely helps explain it. I imagine the tech needed for such escort range COULD have been made ready on the Jugs earlier if the USAAF were willing to find it, but that’s a bit more what if than the original statement I made…

Shockingly, it would seem that forced laborers have both reduced capability and desire to help when compared to trained engineers But seriously, people look so much at the pretty toys every side had (for good reason, mind you), that we tend to forget how stacked the deck was on every OTHER...

for what it’s worth, I actually tried to round the numbers AGAINST the P-47’s case when possible. Iirc, the 47 has an extra 5 to 10 gallons beyond what I estimated for friendly calculations, Mil Gph is slightly lower, Max continuous a bit higher… of course, I can’t argue with the actual internal...

I suppose that's fair. To rephrase what was going thru my head a bit better, I'm just going to make up a plane and scenario: let's say we have a plane with a combat radius of 300 miles with internal fuel load of 300 gallons (again, I'm making these numbers up, they're completely inaccurate to...

If that’s the case, then shouldn’t the vapor return make up for some of that difference anyway?

Genuine question, why can’t the escort drain from the External first?

Yes, you need to drop tanks in combat. But that doesn’t mean it can’t increase combat range: you seem to forget that this allows your fighter to be carrying a full tank of gas at the start of combat. It won’t help if you want to go further than what Internal fuel can get you on the return trip...

And why didn’t they have them?

The P-47 already had those fuel lines, if I recall. I also recall that the US did not use drop tanks in Europe during the summer of 43. If the P-47 could use them, and it gave them the range needed for escort, why not use them?

Greg’s Planes and Automobiles covers another good one: that the main reason bombers flew unescorted over Europe was because of a lack of range, and it wasn’t until the P-51B that a suitable escort was available. This is a half truth: the Mustangs equipped with rear fuel tanks had much greater...

I’m aware of the limitation of propellers. But that alone wouldn’t explain why helicopters use Turbine engines It’s not really important either way, though, because I’m not asking about aircraft performance, just engine performance

WWII era engines needed to run very large safety margins by today’s standards, since fuel can never be perfectly mixed, and it’s entirely possible for a lean spot to ignite prematurely, even if the average is slightly rich While I know that essentially any application demanding more than 1,000...

I honestly don’t see the point of an air cooled inline anymore than a liquid cooled radial: while there are other advantages and disadvantages to a given arrangement, the primary rational for using an engine with inline arrangement IS that you can use liquid cooling for a smaller total frontal...

Iirc, British mustangs were also occasionally running up to 81” manifold pressure/25+lbs boost, when USAAF never cleared for more than 75”. I’d wager Buzz Bomb chasing played a small hand in that difference

P-38 is admittedly a bit of a hard counter to the Zero: significant higher speed, excellent climb, comparable range… it even holds up surprisingly well against the Zero in horizontal maneuvering. Obviously the Zero has a far lower stall speed, but with Fowler Flaps deployed, the 38’s Power OFF...