British escort fighter--what might it have been like?
- Thread starter BarnOwlLover
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #302
BarnOwlLover
Staff Sergeant
Point I keep making is that a Spitfire or Mustang with full rear fuselage tanks often had CG/trim/direction stability issues if those tanks were full until a certain amount of fuel burned off. I can understand having those tanks full for ferrying or long distance delivery, but if you know that they have handling problems with those tanks full, why fill them full on combat missions? Granted, this IMO wouldn't be an issue if, one, the aircraft was designed with that fuel capacity in mind to begin with, or two, at least remove one of the fuselage tanks (the one that can cause issues on combat ops) or at least not fill it?
IMO, a long range fighter aircraft isn't that useful if it has handling issues so acute as to prevent it from doing what it was designed to do: fight effectively. Which is why I favor either the plane being designed with this in mind, or maybe being one of those designs that had room to grow.
Also, for those of you who are stating facts, that's great and all, but this is a speculative/what if/what could've been thread, where IMO facts don't 100% apply. One fact is that English Electric, prior to getting a license from de Havilland to make Vampires post war (due to DH's main factories being back logged with existing Mosquito and Hornet orders, even with--or maybe because of--post war order cutbacks), they did have a deal with Folland to make the Fo.117 fighter, which was supposed to be a contemporary of the Hawker Fury. So there were people in reality looking to build aircraft, but circumstances, shifting contracts and priorities and such did doom several potentially promising projects in reality.
IMO, a long range fighter aircraft isn't that useful if it has handling issues so acute as to prevent it from doing what it was designed to do: fight effectively. Which is why I favor either the plane being designed with this in mind, or maybe being one of those designs that had room to grow.
Also, for those of you who are stating facts, that's great and all, but this is a speculative/what if/what could've been thread, where IMO facts don't 100% apply. One fact is that English Electric, prior to getting a license from de Havilland to make Vampires post war (due to DH's main factories being back logged with existing Mosquito and Hornet orders, even with--or maybe because of--post war order cutbacks), they did have a deal with Folland to make the Fo.117 fighter, which was supposed to be a contemporary of the Hawker Fury. So there were people in reality looking to build aircraft, but circumstances, shifting contracts and priorities and such did doom several potentially promising projects in reality.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The fuse tank was removed and the mains were reduced in size.
They also removed two Mgs and made several other modifications to get the most out of the Packard or Allison engines (along with various prop configurations).
wuzak
Captain
The solution was to use part of the fuel in the rear fuselage tank prior to combat, so that stability is back to acceptable levels.
Because without them full neither plane would have long range, the aux P51 tanks were called Berlin tanks because without them it couldn't fly escort missions to Berlin. I think you are looking at it without a clear understanding of how they were used, both the Spit and P51 would use the rear tanks first until only 35G in the P51 and 33G in the Spit remained which returned them to normal flying conditions, that fuel was long gone well before combat was initiated.
- Thread starter
- #306
BarnOwlLover
Staff Sergeant
No, I'm seeing it from the stand point of "drop tanks are supposed to get you to the target, internal fuel is for when you get there and after". This wouldn't be an issue if those tanks were either mounted closer to CG or design changes accommodated them better.
I look at it this way: if in war-torn Germany Focke-Wulf can make the design changes needed to convert the FW-190 from BMW 801 to Jumo 213 power, you'd think that North American or Supermarine would've done a better job of accommodating long range tanks, instead of the IMO "screw it, good enough, pilots will adapt" route they took. Same can be applied to Supermarine converting the Spitfire to use the Griffon engine in later versions, or the Mustang being converted to Merlin power. If you're going to make those changes, why not, if you want to extend range, make the changes necessary to fully exploit it?
If you're going to burn internal fuel to get the planes to handle right in combat while needing drop tanks to get to the target as well, wouldn't that mean less time over target in combat conditions?
If you'd want to mount a fuel tank closer to the Mustang's CG, you'd probably have to lengthen the nose, since there's no room between the engine and the cockpit for a fuel tank. For the Spitfire to run wing mounted tanks like on the Mustang, you'd have to relocate the landing gear and maybe the radiators. Each of which also has it's own problems and probably just will lead us back to square one.
This is basically the issue of people in charge of this stuff not thinking that such a thing was possible until after the fact that maybe it should've been realized that it was, vs us who have the benefit of hindsight.
I look at it this way: if in war-torn Germany Focke-Wulf can make the design changes needed to convert the FW-190 from BMW 801 to Jumo 213 power, you'd think that North American or Supermarine would've done a better job of accommodating long range tanks, instead of the IMO "screw it, good enough, pilots will adapt" route they took. Same can be applied to Supermarine converting the Spitfire to use the Griffon engine in later versions, or the Mustang being converted to Merlin power. If you're going to make those changes, why not, if you want to extend range, make the changes necessary to fully exploit it?
If you're going to burn internal fuel to get the planes to handle right in combat while needing drop tanks to get to the target as well, wouldn't that mean less time over target in combat conditions?
If you'd want to mount a fuel tank closer to the Mustang's CG, you'd probably have to lengthen the nose, since there's no room between the engine and the cockpit for a fuel tank. For the Spitfire to run wing mounted tanks like on the Mustang, you'd have to relocate the landing gear and maybe the radiators. Each of which also has it's own problems and probably just will lead us back to square one.
This is basically the issue of people in charge of this stuff not thinking that such a thing was possible until after the fact that maybe it should've been realized that it was, vs us who have the benefit of hindsight.
People in charge can do the testing, that is far better than 'assuming', 'thinking', or for low of the God, 'feeling'.
If someone of you knows of any civil or military serviceman at the high position that is willing to allow that someone tests a thesis that is opposite than current doctrine or agenda, let me know, that might be an unicorn hiding in the plain sight.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I must be missing something.
How are droptanks not at the CoG, especially belly tanks?
Wing mounted tanks may have had an effect on roll rate, but not CoG.
And even the A6M, with it's remarkable range, still occasionally carried belly tanks.
Now if drop tanks were so detrimental to a fighter's operation, than how is it that they seemed to be ok carrying bombs and rockets?
How are droptanks not at the CoG, especially belly tanks?
Wing mounted tanks may have had an effect on roll rate, but not CoG.
And even the A6M, with it's remarkable range, still occasionally carried belly tanks.
Now if drop tanks were so detrimental to a fighter's operation, than how is it that they seemed to be ok carrying bombs and rockets?
Shortround6
Major General
Basically the Spitfire could do a lot better than it did.
However it was down about 50 Gal (imp) over the P-51 with neither of them using rear tanks. Assuming large front tank on the Spit.
Both planes got the rear tanks and the P-51 could hold a bit more without trouble. Using imp gal the Spitfire will hold a whopping 3.2 gal in back more than the P-51.
But once you get the planes into their "safe zone" the P-51 can hold around 12-13 imp gallons more. depends on test pilots and rule makers
P-51 now has a (rounding down) about a 60 Imp gallon advantage, Spitfire can get some of that back using the wing leading edge tanks. Call it 26 gallons?
The Spitfire can hold a whole lot more than did, but it is going to have about 80% of the fuel of the P-51 at best.
Or barely above the P-51 without the rear tank.
If the Spitfire with the radius of the P-51 without rear tank does the job go for it, I am sure that suitable drop tanks could have been figured out some how.
P-51 still gets a bit better mileage.
However it was down about 50 Gal (imp) over the P-51 with neither of them using rear tanks. Assuming large front tank on the Spit.
Both planes got the rear tanks and the P-51 could hold a bit more without trouble. Using imp gal the Spitfire will hold a whopping 3.2 gal in back more than the P-51.
But once you get the planes into their "safe zone" the P-51 can hold around 12-13 imp gallons more. depends on test pilots and rule makers
P-51 now has a (rounding down) about a 60 Imp gallon advantage, Spitfire can get some of that back using the wing leading edge tanks. Call it 26 gallons?
The Spitfire can hold a whole lot more than did, but it is going to have about 80% of the fuel of the P-51 at best.
Or barely above the P-51 without the rear tank.
If the Spitfire with the radius of the P-51 without rear tank does the job go for it, I am sure that suitable drop tanks could have been figured out some how.
P-51 still gets a bit better mileage.
Internal fuel is what gets you back after you drop the external tanks and go into combat for 15-20 minutes, you cannot go into combat with half filled external tanks. That is how it is calculated. The Spitfire and Mustang dont belong in the same conversation, the standard internal fuel of a P-51B was 180 +85 US gallons. The additional 85 gallons weigh around 531 pounds 240 kilograms without the weight of the tank and plumbing. The decision to have long range escorts was taken in June 1943, the testing of the fuselage tank was extensive, where do you get the "screw it, good enough, pilots will adapt" from? The additional fuel in the fuselage tank weighs around a quarter of a ton, the total fuel is around 3/4 of a ton. That sort of weight creates issues.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
It's amazing what both those planes evolved into from their original designs. They were modified and improved for conditions that didn't exist at the time of their first flights. And all of those planes were needed NOW and there weren't enough. All things considered, good job!
Especially with the Mustang story, so much luck or serendipity was involved. The British had to order it and to order Merlin production in the USA and everything had to happen when they happened, even a small delay to what historically happened would probably have ruled it out as an "escort fighter". The decision to have an escort fighter was taken just around the time the first production P-51Bs were starting to fly.
- Thread starter
- #314
BarnOwlLover
Staff Sergeant
Again, my point of this thread is saying/asking what a British-built escort fighter would've been like. If the RAF/Air Ministry saw a need or want for such an aircraft, the need was realized a lot earlier than it was, and hence no need or wait for the whole deal with the Merlin Mustang to come together. Or if as with the Mosquito and the Mustang itself, a private venture design that looked appealing for the role.
And, again, this is a speculative thread about something that didn't actually exist. Like with other speculative threads about aircraft that didn't exist, didn't exist in that form, or aircraft that didn't either make the cut, or make it in time for the war.
I fell that this thread has drifted away from what I wanted to do with it, much of which is probably my fault. I wonder now if it's in my best interest to just drop it, or hope that I can steer it back in the direction in envisioned.
And, again, this is a speculative thread about something that didn't actually exist. Like with other speculative threads about aircraft that didn't exist, didn't exist in that form, or aircraft that didn't either make the cut, or make it in time for the war.
I fell that this thread has drifted away from what I wanted to do with it, much of which is probably my fault. I wonder now if it's in my best interest to just drop it, or hope that I can steer it back in the direction in envisioned.
Greetings BarnOwlLover,
All threads in this forum have a way of wandering and ending in places that the original poster didn't anticipate. It is one of the forum's joys. That said, I think the assumption that the RAF was looking for a long-range escort fighter early in the war is problematic. Both the RAF and USAAF were firm in the belief that long range fighters weren't feasible or needed. If any of WW2's combatants would have been looking for a long range escort fighter early in the war it would have been Germany following the Battle of Britain. The RAF pretty quickly moved to night operations and it wasn't until the USAAF began daylight operations that the real impetus for an escort fighter occurred.
From my perspective, the P-51 is the plane you are proposing as it solves a number of challenges found in your original post:
1) The design is in response to a British, not American, requisition.
2) The design, by being developed outside of normal requisition constraints, was able to incorporate a number of technological advancements that led to its success.
3) It did not compete for existing and limited production capacity - this to me is extremely important as Britain was maxing out production to meet need.
4) It was available when needed (and when leadership realized it was needed).
If you are dead set on this being a British produced aircraft, then I think this goes back to which British aircraft company is positioned to develop a design that meets the performance criteria established by the Mustang in terms of fuel efficiency, load, speed? I don't believe that an extended range Spitfire is the solution. It is not as fuel efficient as the Mustang and its most economical cruise speed does not give it the same mobility during escort as the P-51. I still think you are looking at a smaller manufacturer who has been thinking about an ideal fighter plane for a while.
Compared with a lot of other threads, this one pretty 'straight' IMO
BTW - do you have a firm figure for a combat radius (not range) the British LR escort should be doing? 450, 500, 550, 600 miles, more?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Martin Baker MB.3 *might* fit the bill as a native designed fighter with good speed, good firepower as well as range.
So if Martin Baker had pressed harder on it's development after receiving the F.18/39 order, it may have been ready sooner.
The only issue would be the engine. Stay with the Sabre or try and convince the Air Ministry that it should compete for precious Merlin resources.
So if Martin Baker had pressed harder on it's development after receiving the F.18/39 order, it may have been ready sooner.
The only issue would be the engine. Stay with the Sabre or try and convince the Air Ministry that it should compete for precious Merlin resources.
I dont know that the British were firm in that belief, throughout 1941 and into 1942 the best Spitfires couldnt compete over France against the best LW fighters so it was impossible to contemplate escorting bombers to Germany. Until the two stage Merlin and even higher octane fuels were available it wasnt feasible but was wanted, it is very difficult to need something you can't have. As soon as Mk IX Spitfires were in service, they were used to escort bombers in daylight as were P-47s and P-38s.
- Thread starter
- #319
BarnOwlLover
Staff Sergeant
MB-3 was too big for the Merlin, which is why (as well as Sabre durability worries) the MB-5 used a Griffon.
- Thread starter
- #320
BarnOwlLover
Staff Sergeant
Again, nice thought but even though the Spitfire IX had the performance, it didn't have the range. The Spitfire was designed around a 500 mile or so range when it was first designed, and in terms of actual combat, never really got much better. Even the Griffon Spitfires only had enough fuel increases to keep the range to about 500 miles on typical combat missions.
So I ask the question: if the RAF wanted it, and by 1942 it was viable, why didn't they pursue it? Again, it almost seems that they didn't think a domestically produced aircraft of that type was viable, either though concept or being able to be built in England, or even if it was thought possible, no one was readily available to make it or design it.
In fairness to Britain, they did have smaller land mass than the US, less raw materials, fewer factories and a smaller population vs say the US. So that was probably part of the issue (industrial infrastructure). Of course, hindsight being 20/20, even in England there were underworked companies or those that were producing designs that weren't picked up (Boulton Paul, Westland, Airspeed, etc), but even those companies were also doing important subcontractor work for the RAF and RN.
It's almost like the Heinkel He-100 thread. It did, in altered form, almost make it into production. But in much modified form, and you'd have to wait for the Junkers Jumo 213 and Daimler-Benz DB603 engines to be produced in quantity That wasn't until 1944, and by then other designs and such took priority over the Heinkel P.1076..
