British escort fighter--what might it have been like?

[Admiral Beez]

I've read that A6M Zeros would fall out of the sky because their pilots collapsed from exhaustion. Was the cockpit and controls of the Zero particularly demanding, or the flights just so much longer?

Per Wikipedia, the Zero's ferry range was 3,102 km (1,927 mi, 1,675 nmi), and cruise speed of 333 km/h (207 mph, 180 kn). Combat range was 1,870 km (1,160 mi, 1,010 nmi). So, about 9.5 hours on ferry flights, and 5.5 hours on regular sorties.

 

[GrauGeist]

It was the length of flights that often led the pilots to fall asleep at the controls.

American pilots suffered from this to a degree, too, but radio chatter helped keep the American pilots alert, unlike their Japanese counterparts who for the most part, did not have radios.

The IJA also had this issue, especially in flights between New Guinea and the Philippines. One reason for these flights, was because there was no advanced service facility in the area for the IJA's aircraft, forcing them to fly the long distances for support.
Which doesn't make sense, as the IJA agreed to back up the IJN's operations in the Solomons but the IJN did not make their local aircraft service facilities available to the IJA.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Eric Brown said "but it was not easy to fly on instruments; indeed, the all-weather variants were fitted with the Patin PKS 12 course-steering autopilot" but what did he know.

This is why I detest references to AI that I see pop up here on occasion. Users know it makes errors, but repost it anyway.

 

[pbehn]

As I understand it, it may have been helpful at times for some device to keep the plane flying straight and level for a time, but planes like the P-51 and others were so "skittish" the pilot had to be fully aware of what was going on to arrive where he intended. As many bombers at night found out, maintaining a bearing and speed didnt guarantee anything at all, and they had dedicated navigators.

 

[Admiral Beez]

As I understand it, it may have been helpful at times for some device to keep the plane flying straight and level for a time, but planes like the P-51 and others were so "skittish" the pilot had to be fully aware of what was going on to arrive where he intended. As many bombers at night found out, maintaining a bearing and speed didnt guarantee anything at all, and they had dedicated navigators.

Considering that RAF bomber raids occurred at night, perhaps the ideal long range escort fighter is a twin seat, radar-armed aircraft. Such as a Mosquito night fighter.

 

[SaparotRob]

Both would have IFF, correct? The Lancaster gunners might not react well at night to a twin engined "what's that?"

 

[wuzak]

Considering that RAF bomber raids occurred at night, perhaps the ideal long range escort fighter is a twin seat, radar-armed aircraft. Such as a Mosquito night fighter.

They did do that mid to late war.

But they also refrained from using the models equipped with the latest AI radar until even later.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Both would have IFF, correct? The Lancaster gunners might not react well at night to a twin engined "what's that?"

True. I wonder how many Mustangs got shot down by B-17 and B-24 gunners even in daylight raids, especially if visibility is low due to weather.

 

[SaparotRob]

True. I wonder how many Mustangs got shot down by B-17 and B-24 gunners even in daylight raids, especially if visibility is low due to weather.

Too many?

 

[Admiral Beez]

I wonder what a German or Soviet long range single engined, single seat fighter would look like. Both countries built fighters with tiny ranges. The Bf 109 E's maximum range on internal fuel was 660 km (410 miles). The Yak-3 was not much better at 820 km (510 miles). The Bf 109 would eventually get drop tanks and later variants increased their range, but there was no German or Russian equal to the P-51. Of course neither Germany or Russia had long range, four engined bombers to escort.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

I wonder what a German or Soviet long range single engined, single seat fighter would look like

It might look something like the Yak-9DD.
According to wiki, had a max range of 1420 miles

 

[Admiral Beez]

It might look something like the Yak-9DD.
According to wiki, had a max range of 1420 miles

Anything named Double D had better carry a lot of sustenance.

 

[Shortround6]

Russia had a few problems. They could design things, they could not build them.
The Yak-9DD got Aluminum spars instead of wood and this not only saved a few hundred pounds, it meant more space in the wings between the spars which had been filled up with wood. (not all the space but........) Later LA aircraft got similar but not as great, improvements.

A lot of people/designers could come up with ideas. Turning them into working, production/service aircraft was often constrained by other factors (like materials).

 

[Admiral Beez]

Russia had a few problems. They could design things, they could not build them.
The Yak-9DD got Aluminum spars instead of wood and this not only saved a few hundred pounds…

I would have liked to have seen what the Soviets would have come up with for aircrsft for ex-Graf Zeppelin. The Yak-9 Double-D with its endurance, robust undercarriage and modern construction might have made a contender. It sure beats some British attempts at naval fighter design, like the M.39B Libellula.

Getting back on topic, what do we think of this bird for British long range escort fighter?

 

[PAT303]

I think any German fighter coming across one would have trouble taking it seriously, I can just imagine a FW190 pilot pulling up along side it and pissing himself laughing.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Miles M.39B was a test bed and never intended to be anything else, much like the Armstrong-Whitworth AW.52 of a few years later.

 

[SaparotRob]

I think any German fighter coming across one would have trouble taking it seriously, I can just imagine a FW190 pulling up along side it and pissing himself laughing.

Do pilots of BV-141s have a say?

 

[PAT303]

Do pilots of BV-141s have a say?

I actually like what BV did, it's a practical way of increasing all round vision.

 

[tomo pauk]

Russia had a few problems. They could design things, they could not build them.
The Yak-9DD got Aluminum spars instead of wood and this not only saved a few hundred pounds, it meant more space in the wings between the spars which had been filled up with wood. (not all the space but........) Later LA aircraft got similar but not as great, improvements.

A lot of people/designers could come up with ideas. Turning them into working, production/service aircraft was often constrained by other factors (like materials).

The brick wall in front of the Soviet long-range escort fighter was doctrine (just like it was the case with the RAF, the Italians or the French). Without a doctrine, nobody will bother to make such fighters, if only because there will not be a factory devoted to the production of such fighters; what the different designers did for prototypes is another ball game indeed. Even in the late war, just having drop tanks o Soviet-made fighters was as rare as hen's teeth.
They were certainly able to build/produce the LR fighters, after all they were producing aircraft in greater quantities than Germany between 1935 and any time until 1945 (no point in comparing aft that point). They have had proper engines, they were making metal aircraft from 1930s, and there is no pressing need for an escort fighter to be a tiny A/C after all.

 

[don4331]

I wonder what a German or Soviet long range single engined, single seat fighter would look like. Both countries built fighters with tiny ranges. The Bf 109 E's maximum range on internal fuel was 660 km (410 miles). The Yak-3 was not much better at 820 km (510 miles). The Bf 109 would eventually get drop tanks and later variants increased their range, but there was no German or Russian equal to the P-51. Of course neither Germany or Russia had long range, four engined bombers to escort.

Germans/Russian might not have had an identical plane to the P-51, but they had long range escort fighters.

The Bf.110 ranged ahead of the Luftwaffe bombers destroying Polish/French/Russian fighters before they could intercept. Time and technology e.g. RADAR put paid to Germany's heavy fighter, but it happened to P-51 too i.e. jet engine. Bf.110 had several advantages over P-51 - cannons, 2nd engine (plus and negative), 2nd crew men (ensured the pilot stayed awake).

Russian's had the Zveno project - which was probably better solution to bringing fighter to combat zone - no need to make a long range Spitfire - just tack one under each wing of your Halifax. Regular Spitfire would have enough range when released from altitude to make it back home (it's only one way trip). Your fighter can also be used as fighter bomber to strike pin point targets as I-16s were used.

My point really being that there are other solutions to the problem than a British designed P-51.