Advanced French Fighters vs 1942/1943 contemporaries (6 Viewers)

[Shortround6]

Whirlwind was 'medium ranged' by the standards of it's day- it had a range of ~ 800 miles, almost twice the earlier Bf 109, Yaks, LaGG 3 and La 5, Spitfire, Hurricane, MC 202 etc. Because of this it ended up being used over the channel and North Sea quite a bit later in it's sadly all-too-short career.

There seems to be quite a bit of misinformation about the Whirlwind. It held 609 liters of fuel. It had more drag than most of the single engine fighters listed. Expecting twice the range at similar speeds demands a high degree of optimism. Some people in the Air Ministry were not paying attention in physics or didn't have common sense. For a while it seemed to be " it has twin engines, it should be safer to fly over water than a single engine plane."
1. They ignored that the MK Is could not transfer fuel from one side to the other. If an engine went down they only had the fuel on same side as the working engine to get home with while flying in a high drag condition. The Props were not full feathering, how much rudder trim was needed to fly straight?
2. One source (and they vary a lot) claims max range was at 180 ASI ( but height not given). Range at 210mph is 150-200 miles less.
3. Whirlwind had the same radios as the Hurricane and Spitfire and at similar altitudes had the same range, that is not enough at low altitudes.
4, some debate about having a generator on each engine or having dual accessories (air pumps or hydraulic?)
At one point the Whirlwind was 'allowed' to fly about 110miles from shore while the Hurricane and Spitfire were limited to 80 miles (?).
Some early Beaufighters could not maintain height with engine (slow crash). British standards for safety over water were a bit dubious.
The 800 mile range may have been a "paper range", one source claims it includes a 15 minute allowance for take-off and landing.

I like the Whirlwind and the Air Ministry screwed it over. It never got a MK II and even simple things like a cross over valve between the left side fuel tanks and right side were never fitted.

MiG-3, at least the later versions, had exceptionally heavy armament by Soviet standards, 3 x 12.7mm and 2 x 7.62 mm machine guns,

You are basing this on selective basis. The vast majority of Mig-3s had 3 guns, not 5. Yes some got 5 guns, roughly about 1/4, a lot had them removed. it was not popular with the pilots and there was a performance loss. the two wing guns were in underwing pods and the performance loss was enough that the 5 gun planes could not always keep formation with the 3 gun planes, and in soviet fashion they mixed the planes up even in small units.
Planes lost 20-30kph at all altitudes, and maneuver was degraded unacceptably. A lot of planes also had the rear fuel tank reduced in capacity by 80kg of fuel and the center tank by 36kg. Maximum Operational range is given as 720km with the reduced fuel capacity, but speed and height not given.

 

[bada]

In fact, and more to the point, this is also true of the Dewoitine D.520 (strait line range 810-930 miles - with self-sealing fuel tanks and armor mind you), and the MS 406 had a range of 680 miles.

The d520 had this long range(1500km) only when using the wing-tanks (not self-sealing) and those were only used for ferry flight. For all other type of "missions", only the fuselage self sealing tank was used. The wing tanks being placed on the external part of the wing, the plane was a cow in the rolling plane and the CG on the limit when those non self sealing aluminium canisters were filled. Totaly unusable in combat context.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The d520 had this long range(1500km) only when using the wing-tanks (not self-sealing) and those were only used for ferry flight. For all other type of "missions", only the fuselage self sealing tank was used. The wing tanks being placed on the external part of the wing, the plane was a cow in the rolling plane and the CG on the limit when those non self sealing aluminium canisters were filled. Totaly unusable in combat context.

Many WW2 fighters, notably the P-40 and P-51, had overload tanks in the fuselage which made flying precarious. They were used for missions where they were expected to fly a long distance and were reasonably sure not to be attacked during takeoff and the first leg of the mission. They would burn the fuel in the overload tank first, while taxiing, taking off and climbing to altitude. There are always tradeoffs which come with enhanced capabilities.

 

[Shortround6]

Many WW2 fighters, notably the P-40 and P-51, had overload tanks in the fuselage which made flying precarious. They were used for missions where they were expected to fly a long distance and were reasonably sure not to be attacked during takeoff and the first leg of the mission. They would burn the fuel in the overload tank first, while taxiing, taking off and climbing to altitude. There are always tradeoffs which come with enhanced capabilities.

In the case of the P-40 this is mistaken.
In the case of the P-51 it is somewhat exaggerated.
The P-36 had problems when trying to do combat maneuvers with the overload tank (behind the pilots seat) filled.
The P-40s with the longer, heavier engine/powerplant in the nose had no restrictions on maneuvers with the internal tanks filled. They often tested the planes with reduced fuel capacity but their were no actual flight restrictions in the manuals.
Just for accuracy's sake, The P-40F & L wanted around 25 US gallons in the rear tank and the instruction manual says to burn all fuel in the two forward tanks while leaving some fuel in the rear tank for landing and reserve. The Allison engined P-40s used the forward tank as reserve (partial fill) but their was no caution or restricted maneuvers with all 3 tanks full.
P-40 fuel capacity varied a bit but 148 US gallons is about 560 liters.
P-51s without the rear tank held 180 US gal or 680 liters. No restrictions whatsoever.
Post war manuals for the P-51D want about 35 gallons held in the rear tank for CG reasons (perhaps they had newer/lighter radios?) Yes 85 gallons in the tank had problems but at somewhere around 50-55 gallons the P-51 became neutral.

"reasonably sure not to be attacked during takeoff and the first leg of the mission"
Well this true but somewhat over blown. Climb chart for P-51D when climbing at 46in (normal power, not military) and carrying either two 500lb bombs or two 75 gallon drop tanks says that on a climb to 25,000ft the plane will cover 91 miles in 24 minutes and use 52 gal of fuel. If we say that the start, warm up and take off-take 20 gal (manual says 15) and we take that fuel out of the wing tank as per manual, we are down to 55 gal or a bit less in the rear tank when the plane levels off at 25,000ft. Assuming that the planes circle a bit while forming up and don't start flying towards Belgium or Holland as soon as they leave the runway getting attacked in the first part of a 8th air force bombing escort mission seems to pretty unlikely.
Granted flying in Italy or from bases in France gets a bit iffier but then they don't need to fill the rear tank as much.
Post war manual gives climbs for both military power and normal power for a number of take-off weights. and give distance traveled, time needed and fuel burned at 5,000ft increments.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Performance Tables of British Service Aircraft, Air Publication 1746, dated August 1939 but data includes 1940/41 aircraft, fuel is 87 octane, 7.5 pounds per imperial gallon.

Maker	Bristol	Westland
Name	Beaufighter I	Whirlwind
Engine Number	2​	2​
Engine Make	Hercules	Peregrine
Engine Cooling	Air	Liquid
Power: Horse Power	1,240​	885​
Power: At Height (feet)	16,000​	15,000​
Span (feet, inches)	58'	45'
Length (feet, inches)	41'	32'
Height (feet, inches)	15' 6"	9' 6"
Wing Area (square feet)	451​	231​
Crew	2​	1​
Armament: Forward Fuselage	4x20mm	4x20mm
Armament: Forward Wings	6x0.303"
Armament: Rounds Per Machine Gun	1,000​
Armament: Rounds Per Cannon	240​	60​
Tare Weight (pounds)	13,918​	8,040​
Normal Weight (pounds)	19,816​	9,980​
Take Off (Over 50 ft) (Yards)	790​	630​
Landing (Over 50 ft) (Yards)	940​	750​
Climb to Height (feet)	15,000​	15,000​
Climb to Height Time (Mins)	8.8​	5.6​
Service Ceiling (Feet)	29,700​	30,500​
Maximum Speed (m.p.h)	323​	356​
Max Speed Height (Feet)	14,400​	15,000​
Endurance (Max Power, hrs)		0.59​
Cruising Speed (m.p.h)	257​	306​
Cruise Speed Height	15,000​	15,000​
Range (15 mins allow.) (miles)	900​	340​
Endurance (15 mins allow.) Hrs	3.49​	1.11​
Fuel (for range, pounds)	2,310​	645​
Fuel (for allowance, pounds)	510​	240​
Fuel (Total, pounds)	2820​	885​
Fuel (Total, Gallons)	376​	118​
Miles per 100 pounds fuel	39​	52.7​
Maximum Fuel Capacity (Gallons)	550​	136​
Overload Weight (pounds) (Max Fuel)	21,120​	10,115​
Take Off (Over 50 ft) (Yards)	940​	580​
Climb to Height (feet)	15,000​
Climb to Height Time (mins)	9.2​
Service Ceiling	29,000​
Speed (m.p.h)	256​	306​
Height (feet)	15,000​	15,000​
Range (15 mins allow.) (miles)	1,400​	410​
Endurance (15 mins allow.) Hrs	5.46​	1.34​
Fuel (for range, pounds)	3,615​	780​
Fuel (for allowance, pounds)	510​	240​
Fuel (Total, pounds)	4125​	1,020​
Fuel (Total, Gallons)	550​	136​
Miles per 100 pounds of fuel	38.7​	52.7​
Speed (m.p.h)	200 - 210	190​
Height (feet)	15,000​	15,000​
Range (15 mins allow.) (miles)	1,620​	590​
Endurance (15 mins allow.) Hrs	7.55​	3.1​
Fuel (for range, pounds)	3,615​	780​
Fuel (for allowance, pounds)	510​	240​
Fuel (Total, pounds)	4125​	1,020​
Fuel (Total, Gallons)	550​	136​
Miles per 100 pounds of fuel	44.8​	75.7​

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Nobody ever said that the range of a Whirlwind compared to the range of a Beaufighter.

Regarding fuel tanks on the D.520, there is still a factor of unprotected and / or aerdynamically challenging fuel tanks being a feature on many aircraft, (including the forward tank on the Spitfire and Hurricane which wasn't self-sealing). The F4U-1 and -1A Corsair for example also had unprotected non self-sealing fuel tanks in the outer wings, holding 62 gallons. Also not ideal for maneuvering. But these were not only used for ferry flights, whether they were intended for such or not. It's too useful for operations. They would just follow the usual protocol of using this fuel first.

P-40 pilots did have issues with the rear tank and were wary of it, though I concede the precise details varied by engine and variant. P-51 pilots often complained about the effect of a full rear tank as we well know.

The Armee de L'Air and French Navy didn't just operate in France, incidentally, they had colonies in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

It's also not at all inconceivable to me that French aircraft could takeoff from airfields in Central or Western or Southern France and make for longer ranged operational targets within Germany or Italy in a Battle of France scenario. Flight at altitude usually burns less fuel thank takeoff and climb, so that's a good use for the overflow tank.