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

[nuuumannn]

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.

 

[OldSkeptic]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

And so had the Luftwaffe.

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

 

[Shortround6]

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]

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.

 

[RCAFson]

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]

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

 

[stona]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Glider]

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