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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.
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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.



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.

Click to expand...

I agree that the Germans were technologically superior to the Soviets but didn't they lose?

Kevin J said:

I agree that the Germans were technologically superior to the Soviets but didn't they lose?

Click to expand...

You tell me.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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!

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.

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!

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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!

Click to expand...

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?

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.

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.

Click to expand...

You want a navy all weather fighter then its a Fulmar

Click to expand...

Pretty fair call

a night fighter then definitely a Defiant.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

I'd suggest the P-40 (no letter) + drop tank for 1940. For 1941, P-40B + Merlin 45 + bigger drop tank.

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!

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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).

tomo pauk said:

Some radial engines have had the 'huge drag problem', some others did not.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.)