Bomber escort logistics?

I missed that one Greg. Why would you put a plane with roughly the performance of a Spit V on an escort mission in '44?
Whether or not it had the range is irrelevant, it just didn't have the performance to live in that environment at that time.

I'm all for 'thought experiments' and all that (do them myself), but that one seems a bit silly to me.

GregP said:

The challenge is to find a profile by which the F6F could provide escort there and back. If you can't, then you can't. Obviously you and Shortround can't think of a way to make it work, so we'll just say you both decline the mission and we proceed on that basis.

Ah well, war is hell.

Click to expand...

Why don't you show us the flight profile then??

You keep saying we are wrong or can't think out side the box or some other flip phrase/put down.

Come up with a valid flight plane profile. And cruising at 180mph at 5,000ft TO a rendezvous point over land with patches of 37mm AA guns is not a good plan.

What is the fuel burn of the F6F at the Altitudes and speeds needed to do the B-17/B-24 escort mission in Europe?

Or are you going to cast insults/aspersions at us and then hide behind "lets agree to disagree" when we ask you for facts.

Very interesting discussion, just as an aside, StuG3, good info about Trent and 487 Sqn, but a little correction; 487 was not an RNZAF unit, it was a New Zealand unit of the RAF - there is a difference. the Kiwi Article XV squadrons in the 400 series were on the order of battle of the RAF, not RNZAF.

Then why is it always identified as RNZAF? It was an RNZAF unit under operational command of the RAF.

GregP said:

Just got back to this after a long time and noticed Bill's post #26. You sure drip friendliness when you're on, Bill. On the surface, you're a typical nay-sayer. It was already obvious that the standard profile wasn't going to work. How many other profiles did you try to see if it could be done before you started the sarcasm? None?

Ah, Greg are your feelers hurt because I pointed out the obvious and in another thread dealt you the mission parameters that an F6F would have to fly to hang with B-17s in escort role. It is you that avoids putting your brain to work and demonstrate that either Shortround or I misjudged the parameters. If you think the post wasn't 'friendly' or oozed sarcasm I have reposted below for you to revisit.

The only time I flooded you with sarcasm (ooze hard to define) is when you claimed that you had done a drag study on a P-51 canopy while an undergrad at Purdue... Your tendency to BS when you get backed into a corner is only exceeded by your fondness to 'agree to disagree' when so cornered.

Maybe you wouldn't have planned the Yamamoto mission either since it was "out of normal range?"

The Hellcats wouldn't have to cruise at 250 knots and they don't have to match your profile or any profile. My "what if" was to find a profile to make it work because that's all you had to do it with at the time ... and you still don't seem to get that part. We already know it wasn't the case, but that's the way it is with all "what ifs," not just this one.

The Hellcat in high altitude escort missions would have to fast cruise to R/V point just to catch up, then slow down to approximately 220kts if they had the high escort weave position. Here is the Obvious Greg. The Fighters did not cruise at bomber speed if they wanted to catch up, unless they were assigned to RV over, say, the Channel and proceed on from there.

Why don't you put your thought behind escorting B-17s on a course to Emden then along the Trolley Track to Berlin. The B-17s will be doing 200 TAS at 25,000 feet. I stated that SR had nailed you multiple times - as I did - when you complained that we weren't thinking out of the box.

Go for it and display why you have a unique ability to make a.) an F6F perform long range escort for heavy bombers in ETO, and b.) why it could even approach a P-47D-25 as far as range with less fuel at escort altitudes of 26,000-32,000 feet.

The challenge is to find a profile by which the F6F could provide escort there and back. If you can't, then you can't. Obviously you and Shortround can't think of a way to make it work, so we'll just say you both decline the mission and we proceed on that basis.

You have a single minded focus on what We can't do. Apply your knowledge and charm and show us what You can do?

The bombers are on their own. All those Hellcats and nobody can figure out a way to make them useful. Seems like waste of Hellcats to me. Ah well, war is hell.

USN seemed to do pretty well with F6F to support their mission - they didn't have AAF in mind when they spec'd the F6F out.

Click to expand...

To revisit what I said in post 26
Greg - Shortround nailed your 'beliefs' and assumptions to the barn door. I provided a mission profile which was standard ETO method for escorts and invited you to provide fuel consumption for the Hellcat to demonstrate that your assumptions for escort distances were reasonable.

Your only response seemed to be ad hominem flailing regarding our 'inability' to 'think out of the box'.

It is a simple math problem Greg and one every pilot knows by heart if planning a long IFR flight - which BTW is the Easiest of flight planning when compared to the escort problem.

So man up - dive into your references on R-2800-10W cruise speed fuel consumption with minimum 250KTS at 26000 feet. You can't use the Navy Flight Handbook simply because they didn't 'do' 26000 and probably would wonder why anybody would fly that profile in a Hellcat. Further, as it has been pointed out, the optimal cruise for the F6F was around 170kts for long range... at 12000 feet. You can't use that data or profile for this comparison against P-47 ops in ETO.

I would be delighted if you could just show near partity with P-47D prior to the -25.

As Tomo Pauk pointed out, you have a distinct tendency to shy away from solid sources for your imaginative assumptions.

Then why is it always identified as RNZAF?

Click to expand...

Because those who do identify it as RNZAF unit don't understand the relationship between the RNZAF and the Article XV squadrons.

This from the RNZAF's own website:

"Many New Zealanders served in the seven "New Zealand" RAF Squadrons Nos. 485– 490, established under Article XV of the BCATP Agreement, to ensure a continued linkage of airmen with the nations that formed the British Commonwealth."

This is slightly incorrect; there were only six.

RNZAF - RNZAF in World War II

It was an RNZAF unit under operational command of the RAF.

Click to expand...

No, it was not. It was an RAF unit. 487 was one of the Article XV squadrons of the British Commonwealth Air training Plan.

This from the Wiki entry on 487 Sqn, which is incorrectly titled 'RNZAF':

"Administratively the "Article XV squadrons" were an integral part of the RAF, with all command appointments being made by the RAF."

...and:

"There is some debate about the naming conventions of the New Zealand Article XV Squadrons. Some authors such as Bill Gunston have used designations like "485 Squadron RNZAF", because that is how it is presented on their unit crests, but others believe that this is misleading as the Article XV Squadrons were part of the RAF. Gerard Morris has stated that the anomaly "...carried over into the naming of the six New Zealand squadrons...It was impractical, for operational and administrative reasons to establish and maintain RNZAF squadrons in Britain. So, although the squadron badges carried the name Royal New Zealand Air Force, the squadrons were in fact receiving their pay cheques from the British government and official records such as the Operations Record Book acknowledged this. For example, 485 Squadron was referred to informally as 485 (New Zealand) or 485 (NZ) and never as "485 Squadron, RNZAF"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._487_Squadron_RNZAF

The Hellcat would have been a failure as a high altitude bomber escort. It was designed for naval aviation mission profiles and nothing else. It was good at what it was built for, so leave it at that.

Syscom - by definition any idea or concept that Greg is passionate about is a 'good idea'. It is dolts like you, Shortround and me that can't see it because we can't think out of the box..

I suppose Greg will finally decide that 8th AF had it all wrong and needed to focus on 12,000 altitude, 150mph TAS, to adapt to the F6F best cruise specs. Having said that, the first mission is likely to encounter a large force of very good aircraft with a 200+ mph speed and altitude advantage, and if the remaining F6F's goes all the way to Berlin, none of them come back. Surviving naval aviators captured somewhere between Dummer Lake and Osnabruck.

Problem solved. Next up, F4F.

stug3 said:

Then why is it always identified as RNZAF? It was an RNZAF unit under operational command of the RAF.

Click to expand...

Ditto nuuuumann - the true RNZAF squadrons were either based in NZ or the Pacific: RNZAF - RNZAF in World War II the distinctions between the two can be hazy to "foreigners" and even to many New Zealanders, but it is very clear - the article XV squadrons were RAF units with New Zealand personnel: same applies to Australian 450 - 460 series squadrons in the RAF (so 450(Aust) Sqn.) and Canadian 400 - 430-440 series squadrons.

The Article XV RAF units were:

400 to 443(Canadian) Squadrons;
460 to 467(Aust) Squadrons;
485 to 490(NZ) Squadrons.

The Aussies and Canadians had different identities and maintained their own loyalties far stronger than the Kiwi Article XV squadrons; the Canadian Article XV squadrons were units of the RCAF under RAF control; indeed, the Canucks had their own Group in Bomber Command, but the Aussies and Kiwis did not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_XV_squadrons

Some of the Aussie units were also formed in Australia and were also RAAF squadrons under British jurisdiction, like the Canadian units, but the New Zealand units were distinctly RAF units and all, with the exception of 488 and 490 - in Jui North West Africa, were formed in the UK. 488 Sqn, although formed in Wellington recived its aircraft in Singapore, RAF Brewster Buffaloes; the RNZAF never operated the type. Once Singapore fell, the remaining squadron personnel returned to New Zealand and requested that the squadron be reactivated, but the British stated that 488 was an RAF unit and that number could not be used. 488 was reformed on Beaufighters in the UK in 1942.

JHust to add fuel to the fire and to ask the question, which seems to have eluded some people, why would you use a aircraft carrier based naval interceptor to carry out long range escort of bombers over Europe, when there were far better suited aircraft with better performance in theatre to do that job? Its like stating that the Avro Anson made a good fighter because one shot down two Bf 109s and damaged a third (I've used this example before, but it's entirely fitting, I think).

It has been demonstrated in people's mind that it was certainly possible and that it could be done, but the question has to be asked, why would you?

As far as Hellcats and such goes in the ETO...

If the Allies thought that a certain type of aircraft would be superior for bomber escort/protection, they would most certainly use it and not waste time/lives/assets experimenting.

As it turns out, they found the correct aircraft and used those aircraft to the fullest of extent of thier capabilities.

Obviously, the Hellcat wasn't one of them...

This also gets back to the scans of RAF strength Neil posted recently, and why some Mossies and Spits (among others?) appear unaccounted for in Australia. There were Mosquitos in the Far East under direct RAAF control (for example No. 1 Attack Squadron), which were in a chain of command quite distinct from RAF control over squadrons like 456 and 464.

Drgondog and Shortround, first, here is a,link: http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f6f-5.pdf

I see Drgondog is as polite as ever above, so here goes:

Berlin is 580 air miles from London. So, round trip is twice that or 1,160 miles.

Attached above is a document about the F6F Hellcat. It is accurate. According to the document, the F6F-3 and -5 have clean ranges of 1,090 and 1,130 miles respectively. So, with NO reserve the Hellcat falls 30 miles short. With a 160 gallon centerline tank, the range goes to 1,590 miles and 1,650 miles respectively. That covers it all by itself with combat range, no problem.

However, note later in the document that the combat range with a single 150 gallon centerline fuel tank is 950 nautical miles or 1,093 statute miles. So it is really VERY simple. Launch with two or more external tanks and you have the range as long as you can get 200 -300 miles in before dropping one of them. At ANY point in the mission, you can drop tanks are return even with combat allowances and fight most of the way back.

To preclude the possibility of failure, launch with more Hellcats than you need and if they have to drop all tanks before 200 – 300 miles, then THEY fight the first attack wave and return home. The rest follow behind and continue the escort at best range cruise speed. I guarantee the B-17's would rather cruise at the Hellcat's best cruise speed than do without escort. If they don't want to do that, order them to do it. Simple, effective, and possible.

If they upped the manifold pressure a bit and dropped the RPM like Lindberg did with the P-38's in the Pacific, I bet they could do it without the second tank.

You guys are so negative and so opposite can-do that it is comical. It just isn't that tough.

Of course, we didn't deploy Hellcats to the ETO in any numbers (that happens in a what-if), but it COULD have been made to work if there were no alternatives.

Since we can't seem to have a polite "what if" or, indeed, polite almost anything, I won't ask you to engage further in what ifs. That's a shame since we could have some fun if only you could find a way to be civil.

For some reason, you just don't want to play nicely in the sandbox. If you get around Chino, drop in and we can be nasty face to face while we tour the museum. Maybe share a beer afterwards.

Cheers.

GregP said:

Drgondog and Shortround, first, here is a,link: http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f6f-5.pdf

I see Drgondog is as polite as ever above, so here goes.....

Click to expand...

Precisely. What a lot of people don't get is that the combat range depends on how much fuel is left after external tanks are dropped (and CoG affecting rear tanks emptied) and you have combat and an escape. Fairly reasonable to assume you return basically unaffected (if you want) at a high altitude at most economical cruise.
For shorter missions, and you haven't shot off all your ammo, then you can shoot up things on the way home too.

In my LR Spit calcs I assumed 15 mins combat at max power, then economical cruise for return home after that and got to Berlin easily with a rear tank (plus a reserve). The same is for true any other plane.

The Mustang was no different, except in that, even with the rear tank empty it had a lot of fuel and an efficient engine (plus low drag of course), hence it was really a VLR fighter (if you define LR as Berlin and onwards as VLR).

As for that 15 mins, that is a lot of combat time at full power. Even in combat full power (and maximum consumption) was used only sparingly. Thus the actual combat time could have been longer, with much of it at more reduced power settings. Basically you would have ran out of ammo fairly quickly as well.

GregP said:

Drgondog and Shortround, first, here is a,link: http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f6f-5.pdf

I see Drgondog is as polite as ever above, so here goes:

Berlin is 580 air miles from London. So, round trip is twice that or 1,160 miles.

Attached above is a document about the F6F Hellcat. It is accurate. According to the document, the F6F-3 and -5 have clean ranges of 1,090 and 1,130 miles respectively. So, with NO reserve the Hellcat falls 30 miles short. With a 160 gallon centerline tank, the range goes to 1,590 miles and 1,650 miles respectively. That covers it all by itself with combat range, no problem.

However, note later in the document that the combat range with a single 150 gallon centerline fuel tank is 950 nautical miles or 1,093 statute miles. So it is really VERY simple. Launch with two or more external tanks and you have the range as long as you can get 200 -300 miles in before dropping one of them. At ANY point in the mission, you can drop tanks are return even with combat allowances and fight most of the way back.

To preclude the possibility of failure, launch with more Hellcats than you need and if they have to drop all tanks before 200 – 300 miles, then THEY fight the first attack wave and return home. The rest follow behind and continue the escort at best range cruise speed. I guarantee the B-17's would rather cruise at the Hellcat's best cruise speed than do without escort. If they don't want to do that, order them to do it. Simple, effective, and possible.

If they upped the manifold pressure a bit and dropped the RPM like Lindberg did with the P-38's in the Pacific, I bet they could do it without the second tank.

You guys are so negative and so opposite can-do that it is comical. It just isn't that tough.

Of course, we didn't deploy Hellcats to the ETO in any numbers (that happens in a what-if), but it COULD have been made to work if there were no alternatives.

Since we can't seem to have a polite "what if" or, indeed, polite almost anything, I won't ask you to engage further in what ifs. That's a shame since we could have some fun if only you could find a way to be civil.

For some reason, you just don't want to play nicely in the sandbox. If you get around Chino, drop in and we can be nasty face to face while we tour the museum. Maybe share a beer afterwards.

Cheers.

Click to expand...

In that report, it states the combat radius as 340nm with 150g drop tank, and combat range of 950nm. Both at a 15000ft altitude.

This is off topic but I am curious.

The talk of the Hellcats being used in Europe has made me wonder.

If the war for some reason ended in the Pacific quickly do to pure brilliance on the part of the allies and incompetence of Japan or I guess the Japanese see the writing on the wall and come to terms. What happens to all this naval airpower?

You have the pilots and planes. Do you have more carriers than are needed for Europe with the Pacific war complete? Do some of the Naval assets become land based? Clearly from what I have read they are not going to do the long range escort but there might be plenty of jobs they could do?

Now this is going to piss some people off, but realistically none of the US carrier planes were competitive in the European theatre on a like by like basis.
Translated it is no use comparing a Bearcat vs a '42 109, because they were years apart.

Therefore it would be a Hellcat vs a late 43/44 109 or 190 ... they would be slaughtered. A Hellcat had basically the same performance as a Spit V .. and it was obsolescent in 42...

So, apart from some CAS stuff, which the Allies had heaps of anyway with the Typhoon, -47 and so on what could they do?

By their very nature carrier planes have lower performance than land ones. They have to be heavier (arrester equip, stronger construction for the landings and so on) therefore they will be slower.
They have a requirement for a slow landing speed, which means a low wing loading and hence (unless you are really clever, like for the Spitfire) draggier.

The combination of all those (and this applies even now) means lower performance. You go for sheer performance and then you get the issue with the early Seafires (the later ones were far better), too delicate.

Take an example from the time (it is a good one because there were direct comparisons), the DH Hornet vs the DH Sea Hornet. Same plane, same engines, but configured for carriers it was 20mph slower and lot heavier. (hence lower climb rate as well). A land Hornet version would have ran rings around a Sea Hornet version.

So they would have effectively, except for some niche operations, useless.

OldSkeptic said:

Now this is going to piss some people off, but realistically none of the US carrier planes were competitive in the European theatre on a like by like basis.
Translated it is no use comparing a Bearcat vs a '42 109, because they were years apart.

Therefore it would be a Hellcat vs a late 43/44 109 or 190 ... they would be slaughtered. A Hellcat had basically the same performance as a Spit V .. and it was obsolescent in 42...

So, apart from some CAS stuff, which the Allies had heaps of anyway with the Typhoon, -47 and so on what could they do?

By their very nature carrier planes have lower performance than land ones. They have to be heavier (arrester equip, stronger construction for the landings and so on) therefore they will be slower.
They have a requirement for a slow landing speed, which means a low wing loading and hence (unless you are really clever, like for the Spitfire) draggier.

The combination of all those (and this applies even now) means lower performance. You go for sheer performance and then you get the issue with the early Seafires (the later ones were far better), too delicate.

Take an example from the time (it is a good one because there were direct comparisons), the DH Hornet vs the DH Sea Hornet. Same plane, same engines, but configured for carriers it was 20mph slower and lot heavier. (hence lower climb rate as well). A land Hornet version would have ran rings around a Sea Hornet version.

So they would have effectively, except for some niche operations, useless.

Click to expand...

I was guessing that the naval planes would be given a ground attack role.

Is it remotely possible (inter service problem maybe) that many of these trained naval aviators would get a transfer to the Air Corps and be put into land based aircraft? Seems like a faster way to get the trained pilot body count up in Europe. Maybe able to slow down recruiting and training new pilots as there could be a surge in new aviators.

GregP said:

Drgondog and Shortround, first, here is a,link: http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f6f-5.pdf

I see Drgondog is as polite as ever above, so here goes:

Berlin is 580 air miles from London. So, round trip is twice that or 1,160 miles.

True. But let me point out to the uninformed that the route for escort is never a straight line until the IP and bomb run. Let me also point out that the only straight line for an escort fighter is to the R/V point and from the Break RV point (more or less) back to base.

Attached above is a document about the F6F Hellcat. It is accurate. According to the document, the F6F-3 and -5 have clean ranges of 1,090 and 1,130 miles respectively. So, with NO reserve the Hellcat falls 30 miles short. With a 160 gallon centerline tank, the range goes to 1,590 miles and 1,650 miles respectively. That covers it all by itself with combat range, no problem.

That is a wonderful statistic for straight line course at best cruise and altitude, 10,000 feet under their assigned bomber moving at the same speed as the B-17s above them. Look up the same statistics for a P-47D-23 which could not go to Berlin despite having 305 internal and 300 external gallons AND lower had lower profile drag and higher max L/D than the Hellcat.

Also ponder that the fighter Essing over the bombers are flying perhaps 50% more linear miles than the straight line bombers below them?


However, note later in the document that the combat range with a single 150 gallon centerline fuel tank is 950 nautical miles or 1,093 statute miles. So it is really VERY simple. Launch with two or more external tanks and you have the range as long as you can get 200 -300 miles in before dropping one of them. At ANY point in the mission, you can drop tanks are return even with combat allowances and fight most of the way back.

Greg - the planners had to a.) factor in the normal Take off to Cruise altitude, Fast Cruise to R/V, Medium cruise for escort leg at 26-32000 feet, 20 minutes of combined War Power/Military Power for combat (@approximately 360 gallons/hr for the R-2800, 240 gallons/hr for the Merlin 1650-7), return from any position with only the internal fuel available, Let down and have at least 30 minutes reserve. Note that if the pilot is astute enough to drop externals, that 20 minutes of fighting drains 120 gallons. Say the Hellcat with a very stiff tailwind actually got close to Berlin and had the fight. He has at best 130 (assuming all fuel from S.E. through climb and cruise is external fuel) gallons at 3 miles per gallon cruise to go home. Looks like he gets close to the German border and goes to Jail for the rest of the war.

To preclude the possibility of failure, launch with more Hellcats than you need and if they have to drop all tanks before 200 – 300 miles, then THEY fight the first attack wave and return home. The rest follow behind and continue the escort at best range cruise speed. I guarantee the B-17's would rather cruise at the Hellcat's best cruise speed than do without escort. If they don't want to do that, order them to do it. Simple, effective, and possible.

Herr General - you are sooooo verrry clever! I have a mental image of your Excellency decreeing such orders to Eighth AF commanders like Curtis Lemay.. thank you for the image

If they upped the manifold pressure a bit and dropped the RPM like Lindberg did with the P-38's in the Pacific, I bet they could do it without the second tank.

You guys are so negative and so opposite can-do that it is comical. It just isn't that tough.

Greg - you keep throwing the handbook our way with SOP mission planning for the standard USN profile at fuel burn rates for 200mph at 15000 feet plus 20 minutes of Combat and MP combined, then cruise back from end point at 200mph and descend with fuel reserve for landing. Now you are babbling about three external tanks (Did F6F ever do such missions?) and have Zero clue how that affects cruise speed at 15,000 much less 26-32000 feet.

Of course, we didn't deploy Hellcats to the ETO in any numbers (that happens in a what-if), but it COULD have been made to work if there were no alternatives.

The USN didn't have Hellcats in the Pacific but two months before P-51B's in the ETO

Since we can't seem to have a polite "what if" or, indeed, polite almost anything, I won't ask you to engage further in what ifs. That's a shame since we could have some fun if only you could find a way to be civil.

Read your own writing Greg and define 'civil' - ask yourself how many in a two way conversation have to be polite for the conversation to be civil?

For some reason, you just don't want to play nicely in the sandbox. If you get around Chino, drop in and we can be nasty face to face while we tour the museum. Maybe share a beer afterwards.

Cheers.

Click to expand...

Greg - your scholarship and analytical approach to this question is pedantic. You find the standard USN data on the Internet which does not include really important data for the following:
1. Fuel consumption for boost and rpm for different cruise speeds at different altitudes.
2. Fuel consumption for Take off, orbit for formation assembly and climb to 25000 feet
3. Fuel consumption for WEP and MP at any altitude.
4. Cruise speeds for clean and for external stores as a function of altitude

You are pedantic at pointing to tabular range radius tables which do not reflect real life for US bomber escort in the ETO.

Here is food for thought. The Brits did a combat range calc for 20,000 feet but didn't state the speeds... suspect the speed is around 244mph which is quoted as 'best/most economical" cruise speed to get 420 miles.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/hellcat-II-ads-b.jpg


If you have the energy to at least look at one set of CALCULATED comparisons using .5gallons/HP for cruise, Oswald factor=.85, propeller efficiency = .8 - INTERNAL Fuel only for all a/c compared. The data also assume no take off or climb, no combat, and uses best cruise speeds at best altitudes. These calcs also assume start at altitude, mid air refuel to top off tanks and fly until you drop out of the sky..using Brequet equations to calc weight loss due to fuel consumption.

From Tables 98 and 99, page 598 America's Hundred Thousand

A/C -------Fuel (Gallons)----Range miles (NOT Radius)
P-47D-25 370 ----------------1135
P-47D-5 305-----------------1020
P-51D-10 269-----------------1443
F6F-5---- 250-------------------849

Note: The P-47D-5 had the R-2800-21,with same SFC, at same throttle/rpm as the F6F-5 R-2800-18

BTW - the P-47D-25 had approximately 7% better max L/D and 7% less profile drag than the F6F-5 and it Could Not be assigned to escort to Berlin with 26% more internal fuel than the F6F-5

As a side note go look up the P-47D-1 through -23 which had 55 gallons more internal fuel, cruised efficiently at faster speeds at any altitude and operated efficiently at 30,000 feet. The tables in America's Hundred Thousand, for example, place the P-47D-25 with 370 gallons internal and 300 external at 670 mile combat radius (with no altitude or cruise speed stated) and yet no P-47s went to Berlin until February 1945 with the P47M.

A last note - from the same reference. Where Combat Radius tables are prepared with the assumptions for takeoff, climb, best cruise to target, combat, return at best cruise have a 30 minute reserve, the P-47 and P-51 both had 7% better radius at 10,000 feet than at 25,000 feet.


The specific fuel consumptions for the R-2800's used in the P-47 and F6F were the same

The P-47D-25 with 370 gallons internal and no external tank had a combat radius of 225 miles in the same table.

Once again Greg - trot out real data relevant to ETO conditions and show us what ya got.