Best Long Range Fighter of WWII

[FLYBOYJ]

The Ta-152 was designed as a high altitude fighter vs fighter a/c.

And in it's short life it was superb. A real long range fighter, no way.

 

[Lucky13]

Ok Soren, cheers....

 

[Lucky13]

The Mustangs internal fuel capacity was 224 Imp Gallons or 1018 litres with provision for external drop tanks of 75 US Gals (284 litres) 110 US Gals (416 litres) respectively.

Fuel capacity for the Ta 152H-1 was 595 liters with additional 470 liters of fuel in six unprotected bag tanks in the wings, but typically one of these tanks was used to hold the MW 50 methanol-water mixture. So if we say that of these 1065 liters 70 liters was the MW50 mixture, that gives the -D Mustang only 23 more liters of internal fuel. Can't be that much more in range above the 152H-1 can it?
This damn interesting fellas, I learn alot on this forum. Thanks!

 

[renrich]

One useful item to remember as far as external fuel is concerned. The Corsair most economical cruise burned 42 gph. So a 150 gal belly tank added about 3.5 hrs cruise time, right, no wrong. The rule of thumb was 50% of the fuel in the external tank would be used by additional drag and the other 50% added to range so that 150 gal extended the range a little over 1.5 hours. A yardstick range for an F4U4 would be with 230 gal internal and two 150 gal drop tanks would be roughly 6 hrs on internal and 3 hrs on external at 200 mph gives 1800 miles. For a combat radius you would take about 70% of 1800 or 1260 mil and divide by 2 giving a CR of 630 miles. The 70% figure allows for, on an escort mission, warmup, takeoff, climb out to say 25000 feet, cruise to target, 10 minutes of combat, return with a little reserve. Climbout to a higher altitude would take more fuel. Another factor is that (I think) US gallons are larger then Imp. gallons. I don't know the ratio.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I'm making a guess: The P-38 wins the prize for the longest range of all? It's only at 3.51% at the moment, overlooked indeed.

And a question: If the P-47D had been added to the poll, which had a ferrying range of 1,800 miles and a combat range of 800 miles, would anybody have voted for it's experience? The P-47N didn't have that chance.

 

[pbfoot]

3.83 litres in an american gallon and 4.55 litres in an imperial gallon

 

[renrich]

Thank you, I stand corrected.

 

[bigZ]

If its night I will go for the P-61 and beats everything on the list. Suprisingly good turning plane for such a large size. How would it have fared during dayloght hours?

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I suppose it was still too big to fight in daylight but the P-38 did manage it.

This damn interesting fellas, I learn alot on this forum.

Me too.

 

[bigZ]

I suppose it was still too big to fight in daylight but the P-38 did manage it.

Me too.

Did a bit of reading. the P-61 shot down at least 3 FW190's during daylight in 44. Designed to be faster than the P-38 and more manoverable than any single engin fighter. One engine performance was breathtaking.

I think the reason it wasnt used more often in daylight was because of its specific nature and their was only 485 night fighter crews.

 

[renrich]

The P61 had a Vmax of about 365 mph at it's critical altitude and a not very good rate of climb. Hardly in the same league with the P38.

 

[drgondog]

Well - I voted 51D because it DID the heavy lifting along with the 51B/C in the ETO - the highest threat environment. The 47C/D was a great daylight escort but got shut out until the late Ds got more internal fuel.

I didn't vote for the 51H because it didn't do heavy lifting - but it was in production about the same time as the 47N - USAAF began to look forward on procurements and decided to keep the 51H out. But while the 47M and N were great straight line (level or down) fighters at high altitude and would run with a 51H that's all it could do - even the roll of the 47N compared to the roll rate of the legendary 47D simply sucked. So one on one the 51D pretty much out performed the 47N in just nearly every category except top speed at 30K and the 51H was faster than the 47N.

neither 51 could out dive the 47 but if a 51 was on his tail he couldn't accelerate in the dive fast enough...he can't turn or climb with the 51 (in fact can't climb at all until one hell of a lot of fuel is burned off-just joking but not much).. he can't accelerate with a 51 at any altitude so his 'out' with a 51 on his tail is a rolling dive (maybe).

I didn't vote for the Ta 152 - it didn't do long range escort. Period. Coulda done a great job - but didn't and doesn't deserve consideration anymore than the 51H in this poll in my opinion. But stick the Ta 152 in and consider this.


As to ability of Ta152 to fight at 40-46K+ (would it do 50 with a combat load?? would it do 40 with a combat load for escort??), the LW didn't have long range bombers that I am aware of that were carrying loads above 30,000 feet - so it would have been doing battle at that level or whatever level the LW Bomber of Choice that Erich/Dan/Adler want to propose as the Escorteee..

Ar234 with a load wouldn't exactly been the definition for a long range bomber... He 177 would be logical choice for consideration, so where it it fly and fight best? if 30K and below, then

It (Ta152) needs to "escort" down to peak performance territory for P-47N, P-51H, F8F and P-80 territory as interceptors (and the P-80 was delivered operationally before WWII ended). I like the P-80 against the Ta 152 ok.. not quite the difference advantage that a 262 had over the 51 but still significant.

Too much info for why I like 51 but there 'tis.

Regards,

Bill

 

[syscom3]

Well - I voted 51D because it DID the heavy lifting along with the 51B/C in the ETO - the highest threat environment. The 47C/D was a great daylight escort but got shut out until the late Ds got more internal fuel.

I didn't vote for the 51H because it didn't do heavy lifting - but it was in production about the same time as the 47N - USAAF began to look forward on procurements and decided to keep the 51H out. But while the 47M and N were great straight line (level or down) fighters at high altitude and would run with a 51H that's all it could do - even the roll of the 47N compared to the roll rate of the legendary 47D simply sucked. So one on one the 51D pretty much out performed the 47N in just nearly every category except top speed at 30K and the 51H was faster than the 47N.

neither 51 could out dive the 47 but if a 51 was on his tail he couldn't accelerate in the dive fast enough...he can't turn or climb with the 51 (in fact can't climb at all until one hell of a lot of fuel is burned off-just joking but not much).. he can't accelerate with a 51 at any altitude so his 'out' with a 51 on his tail is a rolling dive (maybe).

I didn't vote for the Ta 152 - it didn't do long range escort. Period. Coulda done a great job - but didn't and doesn't deserve consideration anymore than the 51H in this poll in my opinion. But stick the Ta 152 in and consider this.


As to ability of Ta152 to fight at 40-46K+ (would it do 50 with a combat load?? would it do 40 with a combat load for escort??), the LW didn't have long range bombers that I am aware of that were carrying loads above 30,000 feet - so it would have been doing battle at that level or whatever level the LW Bomber of Choice that Erich/Dan/Adler want to propose as the Escorteee..

Ar234 with a load wouldn't exactly been the definition for a long range bomber... He 177 would be logical choice for consideration, so where it it fly and fight best? if 30K and below, then

It (Ta152) needs to "escort" down to peak performance territory for P-47N, P-51H, F8F and P-80 territory as interceptors (and the P-80 was delivered operationally before WWII ended). I like the P-80 against the Ta 152 ok.. not quite the difference advantage that a 262 had over the 51 but still significant.

Too much info for why I like 51 but there 'tis.

Regards,

Bill

No comments about the P38's?

After all, they flew the longest fighter missions of the war.

 

[HealzDevo]

I went P-38L Lightning. I consider it a fact that a lot of the fighting in the European Theatre of Operations was done where there was the ability to land, whereas the Pacific Theatre Of Operations was another kettle of fish. There was a lot of water and islands to be taken. It was into this environment that the P-38 Lightning came, with two engines to increase chances of getting back to base, canons to blast away at the opposition and a large amount of fuel. All good attributes for a long-range fighter.

 

[Jank]

Could the P-51D outclimb the P-47N?

.
.
.

 

[drgondog]

Jank - yes the 51 could out climb, out turn, out accelerate and usually out run the 47N at any altitude which is why the USAAF elected to go next gen with 51's. 51 decidely less survivable than ANY 47 (or F4U)on the deck in Fighter Bomber role.

The 38J thru L was on heckuva fighter - but each variant came too late to do what needed to be done as high altitude escort in Europe - too many Allison blew up at 25000 feet and the absence of dive brakes meant the Squareheads could escape by diving until the 38J arrived in Theatre - which is why the 20FG and 55FG and 364 FG were close to 1:1 when 51 groups were 8:1 to 12;1 in air to air combat with Luftwaffe.

Having said that the 56 FG had the best pure air to air ration in ETO with about 12:1.

Regards,
Bill

 

[Jank]

What was the P-51D's climb at:

S/L -
10,000ft -
20,000ft -
30,000ft -

 

[Jank]

Is this data correct for P-51D climb at WEP? If so, I do not see it's advantage over the P-47N.

P 51D Performance Test

WEP climb chart for P-51D

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342-climb.jpg

 

[drgondog]

Is this data correct for P-51D climb at WEP? If so, I do not see it's advantage over the P-47N.

P 51D Performance Test

WEP climb chart for P-51D

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342-climb.jpg

Jank - I believe the data you posted is correct for the 51D. However if you want an apple to apple comparison you ought to compare the 51H as it was delivered to operational units (US) in March 1945 about the same time the N went to Pacific?

Anyway for full ammo, full wing tanks and partial fuse tank the 51D
Vmax= 442mph at 26K (where most escort took place in Europe)
V0 = 375mph at SL

Climb rate (from graphs)
SL 3550
5K 3600
10 2950
20 3200
30 1750

FYI - the 47N was absolutely faster at 30,000 feet and would still out roll the 51 even with the increased fuel storage in wings and would out dive the 51. And it would fly farther with full fuel load than a 51... if you had enough runway to take off.

You probably have read all the test reports on the D, M and N on the same site. It was an impressive airplane above 25,000 feet. From a WWII standpoint 30,000 feet wasn't as useful to judge performance as the Jug rarely went into escort above 26-28K (escorting B-17s) and 4,000 feet lower with B-24s.

When the N came into Pacific the B-29s switched operational strategy from 30K and daylight to 6-9K at night rendering the N's usefullness a little less than planned for when it was on drawing board.

It was probably a better airplane than the 51D at 30,000 feet and above but what did it fight at that altitude over Japan? I suspect that the Mission and personal preference would have a lot of influence on which one a pilot would want - but the Air Force decided on the 51 for post war (and maybe regretted decision mid way into Korean War)

Regards,

Bill

 

[Erich]

P-51D, the track record proves it, the TA 152H ws to be a short range defense of the homeland fighter, none of them were fitted with drop tanks, even when they did escorts for their own JG 301 collegues