Dec 1941. Long range day fighter.

[davebender]

P-38E
The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: P-38E Lightning, U.S. Fighter
390 mph
2,880 fpm climb (48 feet per second)
1 x 20mm cannon.
4 x .50cal MG.
All weapons are mounted in nose. Hence superior accuracy.
230 – 310 gallons of fuel.

A6M2.
The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: A6M "Zero", Japanese Carrier Fighter
332 mph
3,180 fpm climb (53 feet per second)
2 x 20mm cannon. In wings.
2 x 7.7mm MG. In engine cowling.
183 gallons of fuel internal.

Me-110F2. 2 x 1,350 hp DB601F engines.
WW2 Warbirds: the Messerschmitt Bf 110 Zerstrer - Frans Bonn
351 mph
?? fpm climb.
2 x 20mm cannon.
4 x 7.92mm MG
All weapons are nose mounted.
279 gallons of internal fuel.

Fw-187F. 2 x 1,350hp DB601F engines.
If only it had been placed into mass production.

 

[drgondog]

I don't know why the P51-1/Mark I would not be considered.

The Mark I with Allison 1710-39 had 4x50 cal, 4x30 cal, 170 gallons of internal fuel, 382mph at Crit Altitude of 13,700 and 328mph fully loaded at SL in 1941 - and in full scale production. The P-51-1 or (F-6/Mk IA) had 170 gallons w/4x 20mm Hispanos.

 

[tomo pauk]

No Beaufighter in the list? The Fw 187 with Db 601F was never produced? The Zero never held more than 155 gals of fuel internally?
Toss in the Re.2001 and Ki 43. The P-40 and P-39C also have very useful internal fuel (170-180 gals), but no drop tanks yet.

 

[wuzak]

Is that a record for the time between an OP and the 2nd post? 6 1/2 years!

drgondog, I think the P-51/Mustang I would fit in this time line. What was its range?

 

[soulezoo]

Mission drives the equipment. It isn't enough to simply say "long range day-fighter".

What, specifically, is the mission tasking? That would drive the discussion. Especially when considering whether high/low altitude tasks.

I wouldn't want the P-39 at 25,000 ft. I wouldn't want the Me110 at 5000...

 

[davebender]

What, specifically, is the mission tasking?
Escort bomber aircraft to typical mission distance and back plus 1/3rd fuel reserve for aerial combat. That implies good aerial performance @ typical bomber operational altitudes.

 

[eagledad]

Wuzak,

From Tactical Planning, 20 Nov 1943,

A P-51 with the -39 engine has a max range at 10,000 feet of 1,000 miles or an endurance of 4.5 hours, based on 180 gallons of fuel.
A P-51A with the -81 engine has a max range at 10,000 feet of 1,000 miles or an endurance of 5 hours based on 180 gallons of fuel.
The same plane with 2x75 gallon drop tanks has a max range at 10,000 feet of 1,550 miles or an endurance of 7.6 hours based on 330 gallons of fuel.
The range number makes allowance for warm-up, test, taxi, take-off and landing. Also includes fuel consumed in climb with distance covered and time for climb included in the range and endurance numbers. Finally, 10% of net ideal range is allowed for differences in aircraft, pilot technique, equipment, and atmospheric conditions.
However, no allowances are made for wind, combat, formation flight or combat.

Eagledad

 

[IdahoRenegade]

December '41 really limits the choices. There were no P-51As in the US inventory for what, another year or so? RAF Mustang Is weren't in service yet, only a few were being acceptance tested. Even then, both it and the A had the early Allison's, with severely lacking high altitude capability. Did the Mustang I even have provisions to carry drop tanks?

At that time the A6M had not just the functional capability but also was available in decent numbers, with experienced pilots, ground crews and leadership. For that reason I'd pick it. While in many ways inferior to the P-38E, that bird was only available in very limited quantities, at least until mid '42, and not in high volume even then.

Still, the OP is vague. What misson? Bomber escort? Ground support? Fighter sweep? Dive/skip bombing?

 

[parsifal]

maybe pull some from left field

Grumman Xf5W skyrocket (380 mph, range about 1200miles)
Arsenal VG 39 Bis (388 mph range about 750 nm on internal fuel, possibly about 1200 miles with a drop tank)

neither of these entered production, so we will never know final performance, but they were at prototype March-June 1940. possibly available in quantity by December 1941

 

[tomo pauk]

The XF5F Skyrocket will not attain 380 mph without a good sized rocket in it's tail (pun intended); talk 350 mph instead, and even that is before armament, self sealing tanks, racks, and pilot protection is added. The fuel carried is 277 gals max, internally, or about same per engine as Wildcat. Eg. the P-40B offers more fuel per engine.

 

[parsifal]

I see. Im just relying on the commonly published figures. Whilst i accept the standard wisdom that aircraft performance goes down as an aircraft weight for operations is added, except perhaps the FW 187, whose balmy army of supporters seems to think it would improve, the X5F looks very much like an unfinished design to me. I think its problem is that it didnt have a lot of development capability, a bit like the CW21 or perhaps even the P-43.

In terms of concept, i dont see a lot of difference between this a/c and something like the early P-38s

 

[tomo pauk]

The data sheet for the Skyrocket (and plenty, plenty of US aircraft & rockets, at least those used by US Navy) can be downloaded here: Standard Aircraft Characteristics Arcive
Other 2 articles, available on that site, discussing the Skyrocket are also worth the look.
The data for Fw 187 is reasonable with Jumo 210 engines on board - 330 mph. Lets recall that Whirlwind, a smaller aircraft with more engine power, did 360 mph. So obviously the Fw 187 will need the DB 601/605 if it wan't to compete, not just against Whirly but also against/with Bf 109 or Spitfire. With something like twice the power, the DB-ised Fw 187 would've been quite a performer.
Similar situation is with Skyrocket: until/unless it acquires more powerful engines, it won't do it's costumers any good.

BTW - I'd again politely ask the members to rectify the speed figure in Wikipedia entry about Skyrocket, since it does not reflect a proimary source

 

[Shortround6]

I would note that the FW 187 may very well have been designed to take DB 60x engines of some sort but was fitted with Jumo 210s because, like many other German prototypes, the DB engines were not ready/available at the time.

The F5F had a similar but reversed problem, conceived around smaller diameter 14 cylinder R-1535 engines (quite possibly with two stage superchargers) it was redesigned to use the larger 9 cylinder R-1820 engines after P&W pulled the plug on the R-1535 development. P & W seeing a rather limited market for the R-1535 as planes grew larger. Unfortunately the F5F may have been a bit too small to upgraded again to the next size larger engines.

 

[parsifal]

I was relying on good old Wiki for the X5W performance numbers

Grumman XF5F Skyrocket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wonder why ther is such a huge difference in the published figures

 

[Shortround6]

A lot of the books/websites use the estimated performance numbers for the F5F.
Lets remember that initial estimates for the Beaufighter called for 370mph top speed and Typhoon was over 400mph.

 

[pinsog]

XF5F actual performance based on flight tests at 10, 892 pounds, 1,000 hp sea level to 4,500 feet. 900 hp 7,300-14000 feet

10,021 pounds

Sea level 312 mph
4,500 ft 326
7,300 ft 324
14,000 ft 346
17,300 ft 358
time to climb 10,000 4.2 minutes
time to climb 20.000 9.3

10,892 pounds

Sea level 311 mph
4,500 ft 325
7,300 ft
14,000 ft 345
17,300 ft 357
time to climb 10,000 ft 4.6 minutes
time to climb 20,000 ft 10.5

Approximately equal in performance to a Spitfire II in mid 1941 even while using the crappy Wright engines

Faster than an F4F4 by 30 mph at all altitudes

Virtually identical performance to the Whirlwind

 

[tomo pauk]

Unfortunately, no armament, no protection what so ever
Data sheet: link
Two interesting reports can be read here.

 

[pinsog]

4 50 BMG installed with 400 rounds per gun should be around 525 pounds. 150 pound armor plate behind pilot seat. Not sure about the fuel tanks. Add

Even with the Wright engines it still has 1,800 hp at 14,000 ft. With P&W it could have 2,000 hp at 19,000 feet. With Wright or P&W turbocharged engines it could have 2,400 hp at 25,000 feet

Add the armor, guns and ammo, self sealing tanks and extra weight of different engines, lets say it totals 2,000 pounds. Then You have a 12,000-12,500 pound fighter with 2,400 hp at 25,000 feet(with the turbo chargers) which is somewhere in the range of the F6F, F4U or P47 and a lot lighter than a P38.

I would take it (actually I would take the more streamlined version with a nose and lengthened nacelles) any day of the week over an F4F4

 

[GrauGeist]

...Approximately equal in performance to a Spitfire II in mid 1941 even while using the crappy Wright engines...

The XP-50 was actually faster, using the "crappy" R-1820-67 instead of the R-1820-40

And those "crappy" R-1820 radial engines were used in aircraft like the B-17, SBD, P-36, DC-2, DC-3, SC-1 and Russian aircraft like the I-16 and Li-2 (license-built M25) as well as service with the Imperial Japanese military.

 

[pinsog]

Re-read 2nd paragraph, last sentence. Crappy 1820 engine with no turbo 900 hp at 14,000 ft, becomes very good 1820 engine with turbo 1,200 hp at 25,000 ft.