Advanced French Fighters vs 1942/1943 contemporaries (7 Viewers)

[ThomasP]

re the MiG-3

The MiG-3 carried a lot of fuel for its size - initial production had 640L (169 USgal), while later production had 530L (140 USgal).

In my notes I have it without SSFT, but receiving an exhaust based purging system on the production line beginning in mid-41 - with the exhaust gases/exhaust pressure being used to reduce/replace the available O2 in the fuel tanks.

Does anyone know if the MiG-3 was ever fitted with SSFT?

 

[Shortround6]

Who says you want a B-25? How about a slimmer French equivalent of the A-20 That might actually be a lot better.

I am using the B-25 as a sort of generic stand-in. Not a standout at any one thing but pretty good at a number of things.

B-25C-D operated at around 33,000lbs and offered much more that 24-25,000lb Amiot 351/354 or the 25,000lb LeO 451could offer.
The French bombers could offer either bomb load or range but not a lot of either at the same time. Aside the 20mm gun on top the other defensive armament sucked. Not much better than WW I. Economical cruising speeds of around 220-230mph so high speed dashes are possible but further restrict bombload/range.
They did very well for under 1200hp engines but game had passed them by without major updating/changes.

French had a love of small, cheap aircraft. That or a major bribe in the purchase of 700-800hp radial engines.
The French bought 5 different prototypes and service designs of 2-3 man aircraft powered by the GR-14M engines. Including a carrier-based torpedo bomber.
They also bought one prototype of a 4 engined medium bomber using 4 of the small engines. They decided not to buy it when the war broke out in Sept 1939 to avoid complicating the production problem since they already had two twin engine medium bombers.
They were also looking at several multi seat aircraft powered by two 500hp V-12 Renault engines.
Small is not always good but it seemed to be a religion in the French Aeronautic industry/Air Ministry. Price per plane, not price for capability.

French had trouble (low powered engines) making a decent medium bomber. Trying for French A-20 is possible
The Bloch 175 B3 used a slightly enlarged bomb bay over the Bloch 174 but this required a lot of redesign to space the wing spars out by 15%.
Plane could hold three 441lb bombs, four 220lb or eight 110lb bombs. Range at 85% power with three 441lb bombs was 993 miles.
Max speed with GR 14N 48/49 engines was 335mph at 17,000ft.
Normal weight was 17,170lbs

 

[Shortround6]

re the MiG-3

The MiG-3 carried a lot of fuel for its size - initial production had 640L (169 USgal), while later production had 530L (140 USgal).

In my notes I have it without SSFT, but receiving an exhaust based purging system on the production line beginning in mid-41 - with the exhaust gases/exhaust pressure being used to reduce/replace the available O2 in the fuel tanks.

Does anyone know if the MiG-3 was ever fitted with SSFT?

This system was used on a number of Soviet aircraft.
some books say the Mig-1/3 had tough cord fabric helping protect the fuel tanks. No mention is made of coating/treatment although some sort of glue (?) would seem to have been used.
Mig-3 production stopped pretty much in Dec 1941, with about 30 built in 1942 from left over parts. While the Soviets continued to use them in 1942 and into 1943 in some areas I doubt there was much of a refit program going on and any Soviet aircraft that were fitted with western style self-sealing fuel tanks got them much later than Dec 1941/Jan 1942.

 

[Shortround6]

There is no such thing as a free lunch. If people want a do-all Soviet fighter, the relatively light M-105 engine will not cut it.

Very true but one reason for this Soviet sidetrack is some people keep bring up the soviet fighters with their 600kg 1260/1180hp engines to say how well French fighters would do once they replace the 490kg 1100-100hp (or lower) HS engines with the ??? kg H-S 12Z of 1200-1600hp at ????? altitude.
Soviets did use their "fighters" for lots of things that maybe they shouldn't have if they had more of the proper type aircraft.

Nobody is asking them to repeal the laws of physics. The MiG-3 with two cannons was made in small series.

It was, how effective it really was is unknown. More effective yes, but one 20mm ShVAK weighs as much as two ShKAS and one UB put together. Ammo weight is unknown.
Also unknown (by me anyway) is the firing rate when synchronized by most of these guns. The UB is often credited with 800rpm firing through the prop disk. The ShKAS is credited at 700-800rpm through the hub (or in wing?) The 1800rpm ShKAS may have been good for 1500rpm firing through the prop? Less?
LA-5 didn't have any good options.
LA-5/7 didn't get 3 guns until they got the lighter B-20 guns.
French 20mm gun was about 60kg without the drum. French could have/would have had belt feed had the war gone on. Now add 5-8kg for the belt feed system.

t is a darned fighter. Do not even think on the bombs and ground-attack rockets on a fighter before you have at least the air parity.

Assumes you have decent ground attack planes. Which, without major changes, the French do not have.

Yes, the drop tanks need to be of useful size, preferably so that drop tankage equals the internal tankage.

Well, they almost got that one right with the two 97-100 liter fuel tanks on the I-16 to help the 255l internal fuel. Also used (?) on the I-153
Now do the Soviets standardize or use bespoke drop tanks for each fighter
Soviets need to do a number of other things on their fighters before they worry about drop tanks. Mig-3s didn't even have a fuel gauge.
French standard of equipment (instruments and radios) could have/would have been higher in 1941/42.
Worring about blind flying may be important before worrying about 3-5 hour flights.

The Do-217 was a cheeky way to get a lot from just two engines invested in.

Yes, another case it not sidelining the DB 603 for several years. A 1600-1750hp DB 603 powered Do 217 would have been a bit tougher opponent in 1941-42.

French have a real problem, They are not going to get a 1600-1700hp version of the HS 12Z for years or without a major change in the engine. (still years), The GR 14R was almost vapor ware in 1940. What they could have done in 1941-42 debatable.
One problem for French engine development is that 1940 100 octane fuel is not going to be a magic wand. The US and British had not standardized yet. Are the French going to get 100/100 or 100/115 or 100/130 fuel? British for most of 1940 didn't know they had 100/130 fuel, it was 100/115+, they didn't have a way to measure it.
For engine development how much cylinder pressure you are making affects how strong you make the parts. Adding 100/130 fuel to engines designed to use lower octane fuel and boosting the pressure is going to lead to a lot of broken parts/engines or a lot of cooked engines (not enough cooling). French can get there. But some of the development work done in 1940 may need to be redone.
R-2800 is a case in point. The B-series engines were developed to make 2000hp on 100/100 fuel. They never made more that 2000hp on 100/130 fuel unless they got water injection.

 

[Airborne2001]

French Fw 187 would've been just the ticket. Or the French Ki-45, but as a bomber. The tactical bomber need to be small and zippy.
The Mosquito with the G&R 14R engines would've been just fine.

Actually, France did have a rather strong heavy fighter/ground attack project in the works with the CAPRA R40:

View: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2219850264895329/posts/3711865475693793/

Sadly, the mockup got destroyed during the Battle of France, and the whole project died with the armistice.

 

[bf109xxl]

Does anyone know if the MiG-3 was ever fitted with SSFT?

There are some discrepancies in the sources - some state that even the first production MiG-1 was equipped with self-sealing fuel tanks (the "Anazot" sponge), but then, for some reason, they state that SSFTs first appeared on the improved MiG-3 in March 1941 (serial numbers 2107 and 2115). Later, an engine-exhaust inerting system was installed.