Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
From what I remember the USAAC had looked into the idea at several different periods: First, they started with a single-engined design (with a rear gunner); then they went to a modified variant of the Martin B-10 in 1935; then they went to the YFM-1Who proposed an escort and when?
I didn't know the F6F-3 and F6F-5 were almost the same in weight
Plus, a lot of proponents of long-range fighters had some bizarre ideas of what they wanted in an escort.
- Multi-crew
- At least two, which included a gunner: The idea was a gunship that could rove over the bomber formation and add to the defensive firepower
That's interesting, I thought the P-51D was cleaner.
the 110 and 165's were how they were able to escort the B-29?
And I guess this was because a really long belt of ammo would jam too easily?On the Bf 110 the rear seater was also part of the loading mechanism for the 20mm cannon.
I guess later on with the P-38J, P-51, and P-47N's that this had been worked out with technological changes?Building long range fighters than cannot talk to (or morse code key) their bases or bomber formations in order to set up a rendezvous puts some severe limitations on their usefulness.
Seems like a valid point.Full fraction is an interesting number from a design point of view but only if you are comparing aircraft of similar timing (year/s of design) and requirements.
It can fly further with 2 x 150 gallon tanksFor somethings it is near worthless. A P-47D-25 could have 305 gallons on fuel on board for a fuel fraction of 13%, filling the internal tanks to 370 gallons gives a fuel fraction of 15.4% and adding a pair of 150 gallon drop tanks gives a fuel fraction of 25.6% but what does that tell you?
That's how cruise speed is determined on aircraft? Regardless, the P-51 typically, on long-ranged missions, flew around 300 mph. Probably above the optimum cruise speed.at Cruise where Induced drag as the same as Parasite drag
I remember being told that the B-29's cruised at around 310-320 mph, and the P-51's cruised around 300-305 mph. My guess was part of the range increase was that the P-51's didn't have to S-weave. I figured either the bombers flew slower, or they somehow increased range.The P-51Ds in Pacific used the 165s
This post seems to want to get a P-51B/C or D into service earlier. Most planes are designed around an engine and then they go into an airforce structure. When the P-51 was designed the Merlin two stage engine didnt exist and neither did the fuel it used, neither did the bomber force, or the concrete airfields or indeed the few thousand extra pilots needed to take part in a bomber offensive from Europe.If we rid these specifications from things, it would have been way easier to achieve. The point, was simply a fighter that could do all the stuff a fighter could, and fly very far, and that probably would require two engines if we didn't want to go the way of the A6M.
That's all entirely correct. That said, a twin-engined aircraft with turbochargers could potentially muster adequate range. The Beaufighter could do around 1750 miles, correct?This post seems to want to get a P-51B/C or D into service earlier. Most planes are designed around an engine and then they go into an airforce structure. When the P-51 was designed the Merlin two stage engine didn't exist and neither did the fuel it used
It is because, when the design work started on many of these airplanes the 20mm guns didn't have belt feeds. They were drum feed guns and the drums were simply large magazines.And I guess this was because a really long belt of ammo would jam too easily?
I think, for a twin engine design with turbos, a single seat twin boom design would be best, something like the P-38 for example.That's all entirely correct. That said, a twin-engined aircraft with turbochargers could potentially muster adequate range. The Beaufighter could do around 1750 miles, correct?
When did they start featuring them?It is because, when the design work started on many of these airplanes the 20mm guns didn't have belt feeds.
I did not know that...Let's remember that the Browning .50 cal had some real problems in 1939-41 with feeding it's belt.
That's to make it easy to mount the turbo and everything?I think, for a twin engine design with turbos, a single seat twin boom design would be best, something like the P-38 for example.
In part but you need the minimum frontal and surface area, you could advocate for a whirlwind type configuration with the turbos and landing gear in the nacelles. What you cant do is advocate a sort of Beaufighter as a long range escort, it is just a plane that would be shot down from UK to Berlin. When in a close escort role the Bf 110 was easier to shoot down than a bomber. As I said in a previous post a long range fighter has to be competitive with the opposition where it can reach, simply covering the miles was not enough.That's to make it easy to mount the turbo and everything?
Less than a P-38 but better dive performance.What speed do you think a design like this could do?
View attachment 570822
2 x V-1710, 1-2 crew.
Also, what would you think of a design that had a redesigned tail, a contra-propeller, and engines mounted in the mid-fuselage, with a ventral fin to keep the prop from hitting the ground?
Still wouldn't turn and burn with an ME or FW, and if built in USA wouldn't have the climb performance to get on top for a vertical fight, at least not with the engines available.Less than a P-38 but better dive performance.
So with the tractor arrangement (as drawn), you'd probably guess somewhere from 330 to 350 mph? As for dive performance, would that be in terms of acceleration rate in the dive or actual mach limit as well?Less than a P-38 but better dive performance.
Makes sense, even if its stall speed was lower, it'd have more control forces to make them happen?Still wouldn't turn and burn with an ME or FW, and if built in USA wouldn't have the climb performance to get on top for a vertical fight, at least not with the engines available.
It is a drawing!So with the tractor arrangement (as drawn), you'd probably guess somewhere from 330 to 350 mph? As for dive performance, would that be in terms of acceleration rate in the dive or actual mach limit as well?
?
Generally a shape would give some insightIt is a drawing!
Compare to a Mosquito or Hornet.Generally a shape would give some insight
The mosquito and Hornet are less plump, so...Compare to a Mosquito or Hornet.
They aren't, you need to find someone with experience of compressibility and plastic flow on sketches.The mosquito and Hornet are less plump, so...