Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
P-39 held more internal fuel than FW190 RELATIVE TO THE DISPLACEMENT/OUTPUT of the engine.Hello P-39 Expert,
What you are stating isn't really accurate.
The FW 190A through the A-7 and even early A-8 series had two fuel tanks as standard.
The Forward Tank was 233 Liters (61,5 USG)
The Middle Tank was 292 Liters (77.1 USG)
The Aft Fuselage Tank which was optional on some models became standard during the A-8 production run and added 115 Liters (33.3 USG).
So.... Early models would have had 138.69 Gallons and Late models would have had 169 Gallons of internal fuel.
Note also that the FW 190 series could carry a lot of external stores or fuel which the Airacobra could not.
- Ivan.
The FW190 (clean) endurance was about 1.4hr at high cruise and 2.1hr at low cruise after reserves.You guys are much sharper than I on these two aircraft. My question is how did they stack up or compare range wise. I'm assuming the radial had a higher gallon per mile covered or greater fuel burn than the inline (V12) of the P39?
Cheers,
Biff
P-39 held more internal fuel than FW190 RELATIVE TO THE DISPLACEMENT/OUTPUT of the engine.
Two planes each hold 150gal, one has a 2000hp engine and one has a 1000hp engine. The 1000hp plane holds more fuel.
The FW190 (clean) endurance was about 1.4hr at high cruise and 2.1hr at low cruise after reserves.
P-39 (clean 120 gal) per manual endurance was about 1.3hr at high cruise and 2.6hr at low cruise at 20k' after reserves (16gal).
Depends on what altitude.
Fw190A-8
1.2hr @ 0.3km @ 2300rpm @ 1.2ata @ 515kph
2.1hr @ 0.3km @ 2000rpm @1.05ata @ 440kph
1.48hr @ 7.0km @ 2300rpm @ 1.2ata @ 580kph
2.18hr @7.0km @ 2000rpm @ 1.05ata @ 495kph
with 300litre drop tank
3.24hr @ 0.3km @ 2000rpm @ 1.05ata @ 415kph
3.1hr @ 5.0km @ 2000rpm @ 1.05ata @ 485kph
P-39 could carry various tanks up to 175gal (660litres) on its center line giving 6.7hr at low cruise of 41gph and 3.3hr at high cruise of 82gph at 20000'. At high cruise at 25000' it was good for 4.4hr. After reserve for takeoff.I wonder how much this changes when each is carrying maximum external tanks.
I believe the P-39 could carry at most one external tank and the FW 190 could carry three.
- Ivan.
How else can you compare fuel load on different aircraft with vastly different engines? Why would you compare an early FW190 (1941) with a late model P-39 (mid '44) when one has 2600CID and one has 1710? One has 1700HP and one has 1150/1325/1200hp depending on model?Hello P-39 Expert,
I believe you are using a rather contrived measurement that is pretty meaningless.
If you want to play with the numbers, then you should look at the early FW 190A that only had about 1450 HP and a late model Airacobra that had about the same amount of power.
How about a comparison between the Daimler Benz DB 605 versus the Merlin or the Allison V-1710?
The power outputs were fairly similar but the DB605 has a lot less supercharger and a lot more displacement.
Here's a good question: When the comparing the FW 190A to the FW 190D, which had more fuel?
The actual fuel volumes are identical, but the inline has more power even though it has less displacement.
This is why I believe your assertion does not hold up well.
- Ivan.
The Mark XIV reverted to 85 imp gallons forward of the pilot. This was due to the relocation of the oil tank from under the engine to in front of the pilot.Was looking for a Spitfire IX data sheet and found this - fuselage tank mods for a long range IX
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire9-fuelsystem-lr.jpg
I think the date is 1945, but I can't tell for sure.
The standard IX had 85 imperial gallons, which is 102 USG. Which is less than the 120USG that some P-39s had, but more than most P-39s had (87USG).
This long range Spitfire had 96 UKG forward of the pilot and 66 or 74UKG behind the pilot, depending if it had the standard or cut down rear fuselage.
MK VIIIs had 96 UKG forward tanks as standard and 13 UKG in each wing, for a total of 122UKG. This carried over to the XIV.
I'm not sure if IXs ever got the leading edge tanks. I suspect not.
In any case, it appears that the Spitfire had more space where fuel could be added, even if that could cause stability issues (eg rear tanks).
The Mark XIV reverted to 85 imp gallons forward of the pilot. This was due to the relocation of the oil tank from under the engine to in front of the pilot.
According to Spitfire by Morgan and Shacklady, late model Mark IXs had two 18 imp gallon Mareng bags in the wings.
How else can you compare fuel load on different aircraft with vastly different engines? Why would you compare an early FW190 (1941) with a late model P-39 (mid '44) when one has 2600CID and one has 1710? One has 1700HP and one has 1150/1325/1200hp depending on model?
3 d/t was unlikely unless they had some extra oil reservoir installed somewhere
How else can you compare fuel load on different aircraft with vastly different engines? Why would you compare an early FW190 (1941) with a late model P-39 (mid '44) when one has 2600CID and one has 1710? One has 1700HP and one has 1150/1325/1200hp depending on model?
I thought war emergency only became available on the P-39K or did the Russians get there earlier on the D-2?Very good point!
Just use the actual volumes. That is pretty hard to dispute.
If you really want to play with some numbers, how about comparing a fairly early (1942) P-39D-2 or P-39K with a V-1710-63 engine?
At low altitude, those engines were putting out well over 1500 HP on War Emergency power which isn't that different from a contemporary FW 190A....
When you start comparing engine designs, there are a lot more characteristics that affect things than simple displacement and power output.
Factor in manifold pressure and RPM and things even out a bit but of course there are consequences to those choices.
- Ivan.