A Radial Engined Fighter for the Australians to build (and maybe the Chinese and Indians)

[nuuumannn]

Yes but not on merit right? Personally, i don't think that argument holds water either.

Now this is the problem I have because I'm away from the forum a lot these days, but suffice to say, it doesn't have to hold water to you - why should it? That particular statement about nationalism playing a part in my decision making is my opinion (!) and it simply doesn't. What you think of my opinion is irrelevant.

Look, I obviously can't persuade you otherwise, so keep your opinion. Despite having all the references in front of you, you still have not given any evidence that the Hurricane performed "poorly", yet I have provided examples that it didn't do as badly as what is commonly stated. But, okay, dude, whatever...

 

[Farky]

If the RAAF has access to locally made R-1830 engines then the easiest path is to license build a fighter aircraft that's already using this engine.

Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You are right. Here is the thing - Twin Wasps produced in Australia were variant R-1830 S1C3G, equiped with single stage single speed supercharger. Really bad engine for a fighter unless you have turbosupercharger, because it was good only in low altitude (critical altitude for S1C3G without ram was 7500 ft if I remember well). Even engines for Boomerangs (variant S3C4G) were exported from USA. I know only one fighter plane powered by S1C3G variant of Twin Wasp and that was P-43 Lancer. Maybe not a bad choice for RAAF instead of Boomerang, however RAAF will still get Lancers way more later and lack of self-sealing fuel tanks on P-43 is a issue.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Now this is the problem I have because I'm away from the forum a lot these days, but suffice to say, it doesn't have to hold water to you - why should it? That particular statement about nationalism playing a part in my decision making is my opinion (!) and it simply doesn't. What you think of my opinion is irrelevant.

Look, I obviously can't persuade you otherwise, so keep your opinion. Despite having all the references in front of you, you still have not given any evidence that the Hurricane performed "poorly", yet I have provided examples that it didn't do as badly as what is commonly stated. But, okay, dude, whatever...

We can start a whole noher thread on this one, because i can show pages and pages and pages of operational data showing Hurricanes getting slaughtered in air combat and a lot of good pilots getting killed as a result. And certainly at a higher rate per sortie than any other Allied fighter type, in more than one Theater. That isn't opinion it's just fact.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

You are right. Here is the thing - Twin Wasps produced in Australia were variant R-1830 S1C3G, equiped with single stage single speed supercharger. Really bad engine for a fighter unless you have turbosupercharger, because it was good only in low altitude (critical altitude for S1C3G without ram was 7500 ft if I remember well). Even engines for Boomerangs (variant S3C4G) were exported from USA. I know only one fighter plane powered by S1C3G variant of Twin Wasp and that was P-43 Lancer. Maybe not a bad choice for RAAF instead of Boomerang, however RAAF will still get Lancers way more later and lack of self-sealing fuel tanks on P-43 is a issue.

How hard would it have been to produce a two speed or two stage 1830? They couldn't sort that out in a year or two?

 

[Admiral Beez]

You are right. Here is the thing - Twin Wasps produced in Australia were variant R-1830 S1C3G, equiped with single stage single speed supercharger. Really bad engine for a fighter unless you have turbosupercharger

Surely that's a bolt on option that could be sourced from the US until P&W Oz could make them?

 

[nuuumannn]

We can start a whole noher thread on this one, because i can show pages and pages and pages of operational data showing Hurricanes getting slaughtered in air combat and a lot of good pilots getting killed as a result. And certainly at a higher rate per sortie than any other Allied fighter type, in more than one Theater. That isn't opinion it's just fact.

Do it, then. Prove me wrong.

 

[ThomasP]

Maybe if the Aussis had produced the P-43 it would have gotten SSFT? There really was not an over-riding reason that the P-43 could not have been fitted with SSFT, just no interest from the USAAC.

 

[Farky]

How hard would it have been to produce a two speed or two stage 1830? They couldn't sort that out in a year or two?

Well, they were thinking about it of course. Decision was made not to change engine variants because it will cause delays in production and S1C3G was good enough (and needed) for Beauforts. Anyway, estimate on July 7, 1942 was that at least one year is needed until S3C4G can start production ("after June 1943").

Maybe if the Aussis had produced the P-43 it would have gotten SSFT? There really was not an over-riding reason that the P-43 could not have been fitted with SSFT, just no interest from the USAAC.

P-43 got integral fuel tank, make it self-sealing is rather difficult (if not impossible) thing.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Do it, then. Prove me wrong.

Well, feel free yourself. You already said things like "a hurricane is faster than a Kittyhawk" etc. which are patently false. Really easy to verify. If you really want to argue that the Hurricane was "Just FINE!" start another thread and I'll go scan pages from a few books and upload them. I don't think we should derail this one any further with that kind of nonesense.

 

[ThomasP]

I bet they would have figured out how to install SSFT if thy got the go-ahead, maybe even redesign the wing structure.

 

[Farky]

I bet they would have figured out how to install SSFT if thy got the go-ahead, maybe even redesign the wing structure.

For sure, you can do a lot. It comes with a prize however, time and resources. Let's say we don't care about time and/or resources - Lancer may look like interesting option for RAAF fighter.

I still do not know if self-sealing "wet wing" was even possibility around 1942, if someone knows please let me know.

 

[ThomasP]

I was thinking they could use flexible fuel cells similar to the ones used in the P-39? It would of course reduce the internal fuel load, but with DTs it might not change the effective range to much.

 

[don4331]

Lancer looks interesting at 1st blush, but how much heavier will it be after you have added SSFT and armour? It's already 600lbs (~10% heavier). And its record with Chinese Air Force versus Zeros would lead me to want to fly in it.

And will USA allow export of turbochargers in '41 to Australia include in your fighter design. Can Australian industry build the turbocharger (all American production is going into B-17s, B-24s, and P-38s).

 

[ThomasP]

I am also liking the P-43.

We would have to assume that CS could import the turbos from the US, in addition to whatever other bits and pieces they imported.

I did a quick study of the P-43. If we figure that the SSFT will reduce the fuel load by ~30% (as in the P-39 when it went to SSFT), then the maximum fuel load for the P-43AUS would be ~153 USgal (218 x .7 = 153). Based on the usual weight of about 1 lb/USgal for good SSFT, you would actually save around 237 lbs due to the reduced fuel load. If we count the weight of armour we want to add at ~175 lbs then we actually save a small amount of weight. Even if we just break even? This may not be totally realistic but at least it gives us a starting point relative to weights.

According to the range charts for the P-43A, the maximum still air range with 145 USgal is ~950 miles at 180 mph TAS at 5,000 ft, decreasing to ~600 miles at 250 mph TAS at 25,000 ft. A couple of small DTs would make up for the lost internal fuel. So it just depends on how much fuel you figure is required for TO and climb to altitude + combat + reserve.

If we figure about 15 USgal for TO and climb to 5,000 ft and 36 USgal for 15 min at Mil for combat, then we have 102 USgal for range. At an average ROC of 2500 ft/min it takes a total of 8 min to 20,000 ft and ~15 USgal additional to climb from 5,000 to 20,000 ft. So after reaching 20,000 ft we still have 87 USgal for range.

Figuring at least 4 AMPG - on internal fuel - that gives us a still air range of ~400 miles at 5,000 ft, decreasing to ~340 at 20,000 ft.

Subtract however much fuel needed for a reserve and you have your effective ROA with DTs for the required amount of fuel to reach the max ROA.. Make sense?

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The RAAF ended up with 8 P-43, using them for reconnaissance. Note the persistent brake problems.

ADF Serials - Republic Lancer

See also Australian Archives Series A11093 control symbol 452/a56, 13 pages on the P-43

13 YP-40 September 1940 to April 1941, 54 P-43 May to August 1941, 205 September 1941 to April 1942. If I understand things correctly the first 80 P-43A did not have self sealing tanks, which is production until December 1941. Australia would need to import the supercharger to make a fighter design the US had already decided to discontinue in favour of the P-47. Plus cope with any differences in the version of R-1830 fitted to the P-43 and built in Australia. It is a non starter, at best coming into production after the US version had gone out of production and asking for a scarce resource, the supercharging, and 356 mph at 20,000 feet was comparable to a Boomerang with the same arrangement.

RAAF tests of P-43, report for week ending
14-Oct-42 Fuel consumption tests in progress. (SD&P flight)
21-Oct-42 Position error, fitting tachometer to turbo supercharger for engine handling data. (SD&P flight)
28-Oct-42 Modification for carriage of two 250 pound bombs has been completed on the prototype aircraft. Flight test held up due to hydraulic trouble.
28-Oct-42 Fuel consumption tests delayed owing to faulty operation of flow meter. (SD&P flight)
4-Nov-42 Tests on bomb installation held up due to unserviceability of aircraft. A 30 gallon auxiliary tank of panel steel has been designed, plywood tanks could not be obtained due to present lack of workshop capacity.

4-Nov-42 Fuel consumption tests delayed owing to brake unserviceability. (SD&P flight)
11-Nov-42 Carriage of 100 and 250 pound bombs successfully flight tested, buffeting on the ailerons barely noticeable. Manufacture of prototype auxiliary tanks well in hand.

11-Nov-42 Fuel consumption tests completed, figures of level speeds and fuel consumptions will be available shortly. (SD&P flight)
25-Nov-42 Live 250 pound bombs successfully dropped, prototype auxiliary tanks successfully flight tested, producing no ill effects on the flying characteristics. Four aircraft still have to have an auxiliary fuel line introduced and an attempt is being made to incorporate the Boomerang type fuel selector valve.

3-Feb-43 During a preliminary flight test the undercarriage folded up, now awaiting spare leg.
24-Feb-43 Received at SD&P flight, ground run and flights tested, partial climbs completed.
24-Mar-43 No useful tests done due to continual trouble. Aircraft has flown at least 240 hours but this does not appear in its log book.
31-Mar-43 Further brake and spark plug trouble. Aircraft ready for tests.
7-Apr-43 Several attempts at level speed runs at 25,000 feet but each time trouble with waste gate regulator, which is now being replaced.
14-Apr-43 High altitude manifold pressure below normal, ducts and their joint seals in poor condition. Tachometer fitted to turbine.
21-Apr-43 Further engine trouble. After several days in the hangar brakes give trouble requiring replacement of washers.
28-Apr-43 Unserviceable. Further engine trouble.
5-May-43 Continued unserviceability due to faulty turbo duct system.
12-May-43 Turbo duct system found to leak badly at rivets and joints, complete removal and repair nearly completed.
19-May-43 Serviceable and ready to continue tests. Turbo duct repair shown marked improvement on operation.
26-May-43 No flying due to low priority
9-Jun-43 Waste gate regulator controls being modified to give small changes of manifold pressures for larger movement of control.
16-Jun-43 No flying Waste gate regulator controls being modified.
7-Jul-43 Flight tests carried out

 

[Shortround6]

How hard would it have been to produce a two speed or two stage 1830? They couldn't sort that out in a year or two?

Surely that's a bolt on option that could be sourced from the US until P&W Oz could make them?

P & W managed to build two speed single stage engines. However it seems to have been the 4th type of R-1830 that P & W built.
They started with the single stage single speed engine and did that a number of years in the 1930s. At the US Army fighter trials in Jan 1939 there were at least one turbo charged R-1830 and two (?) R-1830s with two stage superchargers.
These were like the Navy R-2800s that came later.
There was a single stage supercharger driven by a gear drive with one speed.
Behind it (but bolted to it) was a 2nd supercharger with gear box that had neutral, low and high gears. At low altitude the AUX supercharger ran in neutral with the impeller just windmilling. ALL boost came from the single speed supercharger. At a certain altitude the Aux gear box was set to low gear and the impeller compressed the air and then sent it to one or more intercoolers (the F4F used two intercoolers, one on each side of the engine) and once the aux supercharger could not handle the desired airflow the gearbox was set to high and the impeller speeded up.
At the same time P & W was working on getting the GE turbos to play nicely with the P&W R-1830 engine for the P-43 and other applications. There were several Dozen early B-24s or "Liberator MK Is" that did NOT have turbos.
The R-1830 that had a single stage supercharger with two speed drive was the last supercharger set up to get into production.

The more complicated you make the supercharger the less it is a "bolt on" option. The Early F4F two stage engines were not quite what was wanted. I don't know what the difference but there was some sort of mis-match between the 1st (aux) stage and the 2nd stage (or it could have been in the intercooler/ducts?) that caused rumbling in the ducts. Air flow was not smooth and their were very rapid pressure variations in the ducts. These had the effect of stalling out the 2nd (main) impeller and having a supercharger impeller spinning at over 21,000rpm with air flow stalling out it going to lead to some problems real quick. It seems to have been fixed on the -86 engines.

As far as the Engines for Australia goes, it appears the Beaufort Is (Aust) got single speed engines and the Beaufort IIs and the Boomerang got two speed engines.
One clue on the Boomerang is that max speed is given at 15,500ft which would be consistent with an engine having a FTH (no ram) 13,100. If the Boomerang was getting that speed out of single speed supercharger, to would be possible, but you weren't going to get 1200hp out of the engine for take-off.

Different engines required different things to be fitted with a two speed supercharger. Wright claimed they could refit an existing engine (Cyclone 9) with a two speed drive.
RR built single speed engines in one factory and two speed engines in a different factory.
Allison didn't come up with a two speed drive until just about the end of the war as it would have required a different block casting.
Both RR and Allison used part of the block casting for either part of the supercharger housing or for housing part of the gear drive to the supercharger.
And with a aircraft supercharger requiring several hundred horsepower to drive all of the drive components have to made very well and set up just so. (You want that over 20,000 impeller that is almost a foot in diameter running even a fraction of an inch out of true? )

 

[Farky]

@ ThomasP - funny enough, RAAF tested range of Lancer and also modified them for locally produced drop tanks. According to RAAF trials "radius of action is 443 miles safe" for clean aircraft (no DT). "Safe" means with 20% fuel safety margin for combat, navigation errors etc. Locally made drop tank have capacity of 30 Imperial gallons (36 US gallons), Lancer got 2 of them.

The RAAF ended up with 8 P-43, using them for reconnaissance. Note the persistent brake problems.

ADF Serials - Republic Lancer

See also Australian Archives Series A11093 control symbol 452/a56, 13 pages on the P-43

13 YP-40 September 1940 to April 1941, 54 P-43 May to August 1941, 205 September 1941 to April 1942. If I understand things correctly the first 80 P-43A did not have self sealing tanks, which is production until December 1941. Australia would need to import the supercharger to make a fighter design the US had already decided to discontinue in favour of the P-47. Plus cope with any differences in the version of R-1830 fitted to the P-43 and built in Australia. It is a non starter, at best coming into production after the US version had gone out of production and asking for a scarce resource, the supercharging, and 356 mph at 20,000 feet was comparable to a Boomerang with the same arrangement.

...

I agree, not worth it to produce Lancer instead of Boomerang.

Note: none of the P-43s have self-sealing fuel tank as far as I know.

 

[Shortround6]

The last P-43A-1s were supposed to have gotten self sealing fuel tanks.

But here you run into a timing problem.
March 1939----------13 YP-43s ordered.
Sept 1940------------1st YP-43 delivered.
Late 1940------------54 P-43 ordered
April 1941-----------last YP-43 delivered
May 1941-----------1st P-43 delivered
??????????-----------80-P-43As ordered
June 30, 1941------125 P-43A-1s ordered (for China)
Aug 28, 1941------ last P-43 delivered
Sept of 1941--------1st P-43A delivered
????????????-------- Change from P-43A to P-43A-1
March 1942---------Last of the P-43A-1s delivered.

So when do you order the P-43s or try to arrange for building them under license and which version/s are you ordering?
The YP-43 and P-43 had a single .30 in each wing, not a big change, and two .50 cal guns in the fuselage. No protection of any kind.
Early engine and turbo charger are only good for 1100hp at 20,000ft.
The later planes got the four .50s, protection was added (?) and better engine and turbo were rated for 1200hp at 25,000ft.

There is nothing that could not be modified later but since you are are weeks if not several months away from US suppliers whatever shows up in Australia is going to be months behind what the US was doing. It may be better, it may not be, but it sure won't be done any sooner (squadron service) that the Boomerang.
Australia got six P-43A-1s (four P-43A-1a and two P-43Ds) in Aug of 1942 and two more (P-43Ds) were added in in Nov 1942.

I am not going say how well the P-43 self sealing tanks actually worked.
The P-43A-1 went over 7400lbs at normal gross weight and could hit over 8400lbs max load.

 

[Farky]

The last P-43A-1s were supposed to have gotten self sealing fuel tanks.

Some sources are saying that. However, RAAF documents on Lancer do mention lack of self sealing tanks and they have P-43A-1. Well, they were P-43A-1 modified in USA for reccon so they were actually version P-43B.

There is nothing that could not be modified later but since you are are weeks if not several months away from US suppliers whatever shows up in Australia is going to be months behind what the US was doing. It may be better, it may not be, but it sure won't be done any sooner (squadron service) that the Boomerang.

You are absolutely right, I agree. Like I wrote before, you will be lucky if fighter different than Boomerang do reach operational squadrons at the begining of 1944. If we assume that the decision to manufacture this aircraft will be made at the same time like in case of Boomerang of course (let's say January 1942).

Different "home made" fighter for RAAF (P-36 for example) make sense only if we ignore timeline and decision is made long before war with Japan. Than we must also ignore RAAF fighter policy at that time (we need only few fighters and ideal for Australia is twin engine two seater).

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Does anyone have a summary of the operational history of the 80 P-43A-1s in China? Did these have armor and SS tanks?