British bomber development in regards to long range fighters.
- Thread starter Shortround6
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #82
Shortround6
Major General
It was for a light bomber that carried four (count em, FOUR) 250lbs bombs (same as a Battle or Blenheim) and in fact the first 10 production bombers (which were not the first 10 production aircraft) were only rated for the same four 250lbs bombs to start with. With 500lbs that had cropped or telescoping tail fins the bomb load went to 2000lbs.
This was in very late 1941 or very early 1942 which is a bit late to plan a massive production schedule and bomber campaign around.
Hindsite that includes the use of the 4000lb bomb (first used in late 1943 or early 1944) is truly a wonderful thing.
APQ72 and AWG10 in various versions of the F4. Remember, it was designed as a fleet defense interceptor to counter stand-off missile equipped attackers and be able to operate with little or no airborne or surface radar support. I locked up a P3 at 100+ miles from an F4J at 25K ft while he was at low level over the Dry Tortugas, and I'm not a trained operator, just a simulator tech.
Admittedly a fighter at 150 miles is an elusive target which could break lock easily with ECM, or sometimes just by going silent, presenting a head-on profile, and reducing Vc.
Part of the reason there were no flight controls in back was because the radar set was so huge. Even with the scope in the stowed position, there wasn't room for adequate control stick travel or a full panel of flight instruments and engine controls. Plus, of course, you couldn't see jack sh- - forward from that hole. The squadron had a one-off dual control trainer up at Oceana which all the nuggets got their FAM-1 ride in, but for sure, landing that from the back seat was an act of faith.
Cheers,
Wes
Not having read any of this thread yet, your opening gambit did make me think that perhaps "they" were a bit too particular about defining the particulars, leading to a number of Specifications for sometimes rather narrow pigeonholes. There is also, of course, the problem of rapid evolution- consider for a moment having the Air Ministry's task of needing to get the replacement for your last dream bomber rolling before the prior dream bomber has even (potentially) flown.
Nevertheless, there's something to be said for laying it out more like, "Look, we need it to carry about this much, we'd like it to cruise at least this fast, and we need at least this much range. Oh, and survive the trip. Now, how do you see solving that equation?"
As for long range fighters, both the British and the Americans (to say nothing of other countries) made the mistake of approaching the problem with the mindset that a "normal" fighter simply couldn't do it. As Churchill replied to Portal later, "That closes many doors."
If your "normal fighter" is a short range British interceptor it certainly won't do it, no matter how many of its hard points are plumbed for fuel.
As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, you can't carry more dropable fuel than internal if you expect to make it home from every mission. So turning a 150 mile radius fighter into a 300 mile escort bird still leaves a lot to be desired.
Cheers,
Wes
On this train of thought did the Mustang require loaded external tanks in order to put fuel in the fuselage tank?
I'm interested in what allowed the Mustang to be able to carry so much fuel as compared to its contemporaries. I understand the lower drag allowed for higher cruise speed and better MPG.
Cheers,
Biff
It started with a bigger standard fuel tankage, then it could carry a fairly large extra rear internal tank, then it could also carry (eventually) a huge external load. But even that isn't the secret to its success, its lower drag while cruising meant it needed less fuel than a Spitfire for any given range. For a Spitfire to match a Mustang on range it needed to be made of petrol with no pilot lol. The P-47 was much bigger and carried much more fuel but also used much more.
P-51 didn't needed external tanks in order to have fuel in fuselage tank.
What allowed carrying that much fuel was a combination of factors. Size, for example - for a ww2, V12 powered fighter, P-51 was a reasonably big fighter. Wing construction was not intersected with wheel wells or radiator wells, a 2-spar wing offered most of the volume between the spars for fuel tankage + armament. Now while same location has been used by Soviet and Italian fighters to house fuel, their small and thin wings directly led to much smaller fuel tanks. Use of new airfoil meant that low drag of wings can be achieved even with a thick airfoil (16% TtC ratio at root) - again a good thing for wing fuel tanks; laminar-flow wings are thickest at the middle 1/3rd of the chord, again exactly where fuel tanks will be.
All of this leaves fuselage (apart from fuselage/wing junction area) to house fuel tanks, if it can be achieved with regard to the CoG. With Merlin Mustangs, the heavier engine in the front made this task easier, even though flying with fuselage tank more than half full was dangerous unless that was done in level and straight fashion.
(the Ki-61 and later Italian fighters also took advantage of all of the above, though they carried less; G.55 and Regiannes much less than Merlin Mustangs)
- Thread starter
- #89
Shortround6
Major General
The Mustang started with 180 US gallons in the wing tanks, perhaps a legacy of trying to build a better P-40 (about 160 gallons in the version being built when pencil was put to paper in designing the P-51) , as Tomo has said, a lot of this had to do with size and shape of the wing (and putting the landing gear forward of the front spar).
Even if the plane was not really flyable (hard maneuvers) with 85 gallons in the rear tank it certainly was with 30-55 gallons.
Now the Mustang were not operating from the 500-750 yard pea patches many prewar fighters were operating from which allows for long take-offs and climb outs.
The change in supercharger gears on the engines used in the Ds allowed for 1490hp at take-off vs the 1380hp of the B & C.
SR6,
Thanks for the reply. If I'm to understand you the P51 BCD models could takeoff without drop tanks but with a full fuselage tank? I'm trying to determine fuels effects on C/G, or allowances.
Also why did the Mustang have so much room for fuel as compared to its contemporaries on either side?
Cheers,
Biff
Size, layout, and propulsive efficiency which required less fuel to begin with. North American managed to corral all the variables into a "sweet spot", a knack which they displayed repeatedly in those days prior to their post-Hun decline. Somehow the Vigilante, the Bone, and their various forays into General Aviation never quite captured the simplicity, elegance, and efficiency of their earlier efforts. (Bob Hoover's Shrike Commander excepted!)
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
Not sure what point you are trying to make here, SR. Quite puzzled. My mention of the Mossie was to emphasise the fact that Basket mentioned high speed was the useful trait for bombers, so I mentioned the development of the Mossie was initially saddled with a tail turret! Nowt to do with bomb load at all!
Actually, the "bombing the whoever into submission" was integral part of the Soviet military doctrine for quite long time. Massive fleet of TB-3 have been built not just for parades. Strategic bombing force of the USSR has been probably the largest in the world until the WWII. Articles, books and movies of 1930s entertained the ideas of large bombing raids deep into the enemy territory.
Kevin J
Banned
Followed by the Spanish Civil War and the realisation that it wouldn't work.
Well...not exactly. While regional wars have brought new experience to consider, military doctrine was influenced by new priorities in foreign policy. Not a besieged fortress anymore but a force ready and willing to conduct lightning fast operations. No need to bring destruction in the areas which you plan to occupy soon. Therefore, more attention to ground support and to dive bombing with subsequent changes in orders given to construction bureaus and factories.
Last edited:
Yup, wot they said about fuel tankage and also this. The designers got data from both NACA and the RAE to influence their design. Despite all this P-51 stuff, it's worth remembering that the Mustang was not specifically designed as an escort fighter for the RAF, but a replacement for NAA being tasked with building the P-40 for the British Purchasing Commission.
Last edited:
The question I have is, did all the design choices that resulted in less drag, effective cooling thrust, more fuel volume availability, better compressibility performance, etc, result from a coherent attempt to build a better P40, or were they a string of happy coincidences, where one choice more or less led to the next? The last, of course being the right engine for the eventual role.
Also, how much American input was there to the basic design principles, (other than pulling them together into a single package) vs concepts developed from British R&D?
(Stand by, this should be fun!)
Cheers,
Wes
You know Wes, you could make a whole new thread on that last question alone! There are quite a few threads on this site that will answer those prickly Mustang questions for you. But to summarise, the airframe design was pretty much all NAA; no British input (apart from separate papers acquired from Farnborough) at all, except that it was to have an Allison engine in common with the P-40. The NAA engineers carried out much research through the RAE at Farnborough and NACA, including the oft mentioned Meredith Effect, so it was no happy coincidence. When it came to the choice of the Merlin for the Mustang, Rolls-Royce had a significant impact, being the first to install a Merlin into a Mustang I airframe and there was even talk about building the airframe in the UK with Merlins by Rolls-Royce from Derby, although Packard and NAA did finalise the Merlin (V-1650) installation in the production examples.
There was talk about expediting production of the Mustang by fitting Merlin 28s, already in production by Packard, for the Mustang, but it was sensibly decided to allocate the high altitude Merlin to Packard for the P-51.
There was talk about expediting production of the Mustang by fitting Merlin 28s, already in production by Packard, for the Mustang, but it was sensibly decided to allocate the high altitude Merlin to Packard for the P-51.
