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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

As far as my original post, it seems that it wasn't really 100% practical for a single seat, let alone single engine, escort fighter anywhere until at least 1942. That was mostly because the allies could have access to 1500-2000+hp engines to lift the fuel armament, armor and such required of such an aircraft, as well as improvements in aero and such. And the big thing that helped there was two stage supercharging and everything that made that possible.

However, I should note that going from single stage to two stage usually wasn't a simple drop in job. Why did the Spitfire IX/VII/VIII run symmetrical underwing radiators? Why did the two stage Mosquitoes grow under propeller intakes similar to the Merlin P-51's supercharger intake? Speaking of which, why did the Merlin P-51s get a deeper, more pronounced radiator intake vs the Allison powered versions? Two stage supercharging makes more power, but needs more cooling to handle/use that power. Probably an oversimplification, but that's the simple crux of it.

Hence, even if the Mustang used the Merlin from the start, it would've needed a similar redesign to make the most of the two stage Merlins.

As far as something that did get made, what about maybe the Martin-Baker MB5 as a possible British escort fighter? It had the range and performance, but it wasn't a reality until 1944-45, by which time there was the Merlin Mustangs, the Hawker Tempest, and the Hawker Fury/Sea Fury and DH Hornet. Not to mention that though I like it overall, the MB5 was a bit outdated as far as construction (tube frame instead of a monocoque) and, like the Merlin Mustangs that were most produced/used, a bit heavy for the engine power being used. Of course, for the Mustang that was due mostly to outdated US stress and loading standards, for the MB5, I'd argue that using a monocoque fuselage would've saved weight due to better strength to weight ratio.
 
BarnOwlLover said:
As far as my original post, it seems that it wasn't really 100% practical for a single seat, let alone single engine, escort fighter anywhere until at least 1942.
Click to expand...
Japanese didn't get the memo, and made the Zero before 1942.


Certainly not a drop-in job, but not the major problem, either. A lot of Spitfire IXs started a life as Mk.Vs.
 
tomo pauk said:
Japanese didn't get the memo, and made the Zero before 1942.



Certainly not a drop-in job, but not the major problem, either. A lot of Spitfire IXs started a life as Mk.Vs.
Click to expand...
Remember what was said here and elsewhere. The Zero operated in areas where cruising at low speeds was permissible. Between that and it's lack of armor and self sealing fuel tanks, it wouldn't have lasted long in Europe.

And as far as the Spitfire goes, that's true, but it still took some significant modifications to the cooling system, not to mention that the nose on the IX was longer than the V due to the longer engine due to the second supercharger stage. Changing the Ki-100 from the K-61 (radial engine conversion) required new engine mounts, and ballast changes due to engine weight and CG shift. Same applied to the Spitfire and Mustang as well as cooling changes. Of course, such changes were incorporated more "seemelessly" into the Mustang, because time was able to be taken to do so, instead of the Spitfire IX being a necessary expedient, and NAA wassn't based in the UK, which was within range of German strike aircraft.
 

Data says no. Sorry about that.
Packard didnt even out produce RR until 1944, which (as you can see) was only because RR were already ramping down
production as the end of the war was in sight and they were moving towards turbojet.

Virtually all RR Merlin production was not over 14 years, but 7 years.

 
BarnOwlLover said:
Remember what was said here and elsewhere. The Zero operated in areas where cruising at low speeds was permissible. Between that and it's lack of armor and self sealing fuel tanks, it wouldn't have lasted long in Europe.
Click to expand...
Nobody said that Zero was a perfect long range fighter.
For another angle wrt. long-range fighters on 1939 aerodynamics and engine technology, we can take a look on the Ki-61. It also sported protection for fuel and pilot.
 
The Mk IX required more cooling and an additional radiator for the intercooler, but this is probably easier to set up on the P-51 than the Mk IX, it has more space.
 
tomo pauk said:
For another angle wrt. long-range fighters on 1939 aerodynamics and engine technology, we can take a look on the Ki-61. It also sported protection for fuel and pilot.
Click to expand...

BarnOwlLover said:
I thought the Ki-61 wasn't designed until 1941, and didn't enter service in numbers until 1943?
Click to expand...

The Ki 61 didn't use anything from either aerodynamics or engine technology that didn't exist in 1939/40 in the west. No trick airfoils or magic flaps on the wings.
Engine was a licensed DB 601 and not even the one the Germans were building in 1941.

However the Ki 61 was also only armed to a 1939-40 standard and the Japanese were playing catch up for a good part of it's career, this is as a much a supply problem as a design problem but a K-61 built to western standards in 1941-42 might have been a bit heavier.
 
Shortround6 said:
Not sure you want to use a 1938 DB600-601 in a 1941-42 fighter
Maybe my books are old but the Japanese seem to have gotten around 100hp more out of the engine at 4200meters than the early German versions got?
Click to expand...
You are right. Bunrin-Do book about the Ki-61 gives 1100 CV (PS) at 4200m, this should be comparable with later 601As (1940?) with improved S/C. So not this, but more like this.
About the using of 1938 DB 601 on a 1941-42 fighter - Japanese used less capable engines on a lot of Ki-43s and Zeros in 1941-42.

Shortround6 said:
Or they are counting RAM air?
Click to expand...

I believe those are the 'proper' figures, ie. no ram effect accounted for. Ki-61 speed maxed out at 5800-6000m.
 
BarnOwlLover said:
There was the Ha-140 engine, which was a DB601 improved independent of DB by Kawasaki. Much like the Ha-40, it wasn't particularly reliable.
Click to expand...
It was closer to the DB 605 but yes, it stretched the Japanese manufacturing capability a bit beyond it's capacity of the time.
How much of that was shortages of raw materials showing up in 1943 and 1944 I don't know or if the methods used to increase the power level to DB 605 levels were not compatible with the engine. While peak rom may not be that different the engine was running a bit faster, they use of higher compression was a bit lower than the newer German engines but Japanese fuel may not have been a good match for German fuel and the Japanese resorted to water injection to get the numbers they wanted?
 
tomo pauk said:
About the using of 1938 DB 601 on a 1941-42 fighter - Japanese used less capable engines on a lot of Ki-43s and Zeros in 1941-42.
Click to expand...
Yes they did, and they paid for it in 1942, at least in the last 4 months or so. The Japanese were starting to loose the edge they had from Dec 41 through the summer of 1942.

They were playing catch up for the rest of the war.
 
Shortround6 said:
Yes they did, and they paid for it in 1942, at least in the last 4 months or so. The Japanese were starting to loose the edge they had from Dec 41 through the summer of 1942.
Click to expand...

While can put a part of the blame on the engine choice, there is a lot of blame to be laid in front of other parts of Japanese military.

Shortround6 said:
They were playing catch up for the rest of the war.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%.
 
BarnOwlLover said:
Two stage supercharging makes more power, but needs more cooling to handle/use that power. Probably an oversimplification, but that's the simple crux of it.
Click to expand...
From what I can remember the P51 had four different radiator designs before they got it right, the Spit was the same, other members will know more.
 
GrauGeist said:
Only the early (pre-war) Merlins had some hand-fitted components.

Later, especially once WWII started, Rolls-Royce and Ford manufactured the engine by assembly line.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure we all know this and the myth of the 'mericans showing the British how mass production works has been debunk numerous times but alas the rumour still persists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

BAR 2.0 - how light might it went?
Replies
14
Views
988
tomo pauk
A
Empire fighter program?
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
MiTasol
A
What does the IJN look like if war delayed six months?
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Shinpachi
A
British Aerial Ordnance Exotica
Replies
2
Views
899
Shortround6
S
P-39-style fighter by other people?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register