How good a plane was the P-40, really? (5 Viewers)

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

fine speed things up by a year then, First Vampire F.1s were delivered to 247 Squadron in April 1946 at Odiham. So first squadron in April 1945?

They started design work on the Vampire airframe in 1942 and the first mock up was ready Sept 1942.
BTW the early planes used 917 liters of fuel. You have to balance the weight of the fuel with the power of the engine and the power was increasing faster than the increase in piston engines. If you want production aircraft you have 'fix' the design and stop improving things. (P-59 was an example of 'fixing" things a little too early in order to get something into "production").

Don't know precisely how quickly they could have ramped up production of the Vampire and worked out all the issues with the Goblin and / or the Nene engines, but let me come back to that.

The main point is that as soon as the Me 262 was flying combat missions, all the propeller driven fighter aircraft were obsolescent if not obsolete for the fighter mission, though CAS would continue to be relevant for a while yet.

When the Me 262 appeared in the field, it was now the requirement of the Allied military complexes to respond. As it was they forged ahead with their tentative projects like Meteor and P-80, but because there just weren't that many 262s to make a difference, so they decided to 'take the hit' on heavy bombers and fighters and keep going. But from that point all the propeller fighters, no matter how powerful or sexy, were obsolescent.

Getting back to the Vampire, if 262 had been produced in large enough numbers to become a serious problem, IMO they could have increased production of the Vampire simply by making it a higher priority, putting more money and people on it, assigning bigger and better facilities and so on. During the war, De Havilland had their hands so full, (I think mainly with the Mosquito? and maybe the Hornet) that they put production of the Vampire out to English Electric, which added some time due to the technology transfer so to speak.

As valuable as the Mosquito was, if 262 had started to arrive in big numbers, I think that could have been reversed (i.e. let De Havilland focus on the Vampire and farm out ongoing production of the Mosquito and Hornet to other firms).

What is certain is that no amount of Tempest, P-51H, Bearcats, P-47M or other wonder planes would have been sufficient to deal with the Me 262, which did arrive early enough and in some numbers so as to be relevant, though it could have come earlier and in much greater numbers. There were also other jets He 280, He 162, Ar 234 etc. if they had gone into wider production in time... but that's speculative of course.

 

[EwenS]

Vampire production story:-

DH Hatfield built the prototype DH.100 Spider Crab (later Vampire) in its Experimental Dept in great secrecy. Due to pressure of work on the design of the Mosquito in 1942, the Vampire had to take a back seat to some extent.

If production had been kept at Hatfield retraining of the workforce would have been required as only the Vampire fuselage from bulkheads 1 to 4 was constructed in wood. The remainder of the aircraft, the greater part, was metal. The previous metal aircraft built by DH, and their first, was the DH95 Flamingo with 14 built 1938-40. So I doubt that there would have been any time saving retooling and retraining to build them there when compared to subcontracting the whole job to EE who were used to building metal aircraft. The prototype DH.100 flew officially on 20 Sept 1943 with a 2,700lbst Halford H.1 (Goblin 1) engine.

Production contract for 120 F.1 was placed with De Havilland in May 1944. Work was sub-contracted to EE due to DH Hatfield being snowed under with Mossie work and EE's efficiency producing Hampdens & Halifaxes. Work began at the EE Strand Road factory in Preston on 24 May 1944. The first production aircraft flew from Salmesbury airfield on 20 April 1945. But the first 50 were not fitted with the planned pressurised cockpit and the engine in the first 40 was the 3,000lbst Goblin 1 being upgraded to the 3,100lbst Goblin 2 in the last 10 of the batch. As noted 247 squadron converted from the Tempest II to the Vampire F.1 in April 1946.

So no time wasted in subcontracting the work. Retooling the factory and retraining the workforce to produce an entirely new aircraft in the space of 11 months was not bad going in wartime Britain..

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Well, I don't disagree that it was fairly efficient overall, but we will have to agree to disagree that the subcontracting process didn't add any time to the development cycle, or that DH couldn't have done it a bit faster on their own.

Meanwhile, it seems that they were building (about 1,000) Mosquitos in Canada from Summer 1942 and Australia (about 200) at some point, both mainly with Packard-Merlin engines. Once that had been started, it could have been ramped up more, especially in Canada. In the UK subcontractors included furniture companies used to working with wood, and some other factories including Standard Motor Company (1,000 built), Percival Aircraft Company (245), and Airspeed Aircraft (122 built). So the process of farming out production for the Mosquito had already started.

Obviously they would still need Mosquitos at least for a while, though eventually the Vampire could probably take over at least some of their missions as well.

In the event that say, 4,000 or 5,000 Me 262s were produced instead of around 1,000, I think this is what they would have done.

That said, the point stands regardless since the 262 and other jets make the late war propeller planes obsolescent or obsolete as soon as they are flying in any numbers operationally.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The Vampire seems to me to be the most viable option for an early, reliable / useful jet fighter, but it was not the only project in the works as we know. Airacomet may have been a dead end, and the P-80 and the Meteor were not very reliable or safe to fly, but they were used in combat, including in the Korean War. The F-84, admittedly another not fantastic design, was flying by April 1946 and eventually became somewhat useful in the Korean War (though I wouldn't have wanted to fly one!).

For all their flaws, the P-80, Meteor, and F-84 were already too fast and could fly too high for piston engine fighters to catch.

 

[EwenS]

Well, I don't disagree that it was fairly efficient overall, but we will have to agree to disagree that the subcontracting process didn't add any time to the development cycle, or that DH couldn't have done it a bit faster on their own.

Meanwhile, it seems that they were building (about 1,000) Mosquitos in Canada from Summer 1942 and Australia (about 200) at some point, both mainly with Packard-Merlin engines. Once that had been started, it could have been ramped up more, especially in Canada. In the UK subcontractors included furniture companies used to working with wood, and some other factories including Standard Motor Company (1,000 built), Percival Aircraft Company (245), and Airspeed Aircraft (122 built). So the process of farming out production for the Mosquito had already started.

Obviously they would still need Mosquitos at least for a while, though eventually the Vampire could probably take over at least some of their missions as well.

In the event that say, 4,000 or 5,000 Me 262s were produced instead of around 1,000, I think this is what they would have done.

That said, the point stands regardless since the 262 and other jets make the late war propeller planes obsolescent or obsolete as soon as they are flying in any numbers operationally.

DH were hard pressed getting production up and running in Canada and Australia in terms of supplying staff, jigs, sample parts and drawings (5 batches of drawings were lost at sea en route to Canada, but such is life in wartime) and adapting the design to local material specifications and equipment while trying to maintain interchangibility with UK production. They were relieved when prospects of US production fell through in late 1941 as they knew that they would not have enough spare engineers in 1942 to manage both projects and everything that was going on back home. And as production ramped up in Canada in 1944, other problems emerged, like temporary shortages of hydraulics and cowlings at various times. So adding more production capacity at new sites in Canada would have been difficult if not impossible.

Annual Canadian production was
1942 - 4
1943 - 88
1944 - 424
1945 (Jan-May) - 371
1945 (June-Oct) - 147 (only 2 after 15 Aug 1945)
Total Canadian production - 1,034

In 1942 it had been planned to produce 1,500 in Canada.

Production was mostly bombers with single stage Packard Merlins. It was March 1945 before production priorities shifted towards the FB versions, again with single stage Packard Merlins.

Getting production started in Australia was an even bigger problem with many components having to be manufactured in Britain and sent out as they couldn't be produced in Australia. Then there were wing production problems in mid-1944 with a subcontractor such that production had to be stopped for a while and 50 wingsets reworked.

Australian production figures:-
1944 (March-Dec) - 27
1945 (Jan-May) - 48
1945 (June - 15 Aug) - 33
Total wartime 108
Postwar - 104
Grand total 212

In late 1944 DH Hatfield sent out one of their managers who had been closely involved in Mosquito production in Britain out to Australia as General Manager of the Aircraft Division at Bankstown, a post he took up in March 1945.

By late war, Leavesden wass concentrating on night fighters, leaving Standard Motors to concentrate exclusively on FB production. Meanwhile Hatfield was building bomber, FB & PR versions as well as taking care of the low production / modifications on the likes of the Mk.XVIII Tse Tse and Highball aircraft.

In Britain, Percival only came into the Mosquito programme in 1944, delivering it first aircraft on 15 May 1944 with production running through to July 1946. It built 195 B.XVI and 50 PR34, all versions with pressure cabins and 2 stage engines which were in high demand in 1944/45.

Airspeed, a DH subsidiary company, only entered the Mosquito programme in April 1945 through to 1947 with the bulk of the orders from it being cancelled.

Postwar DH shifted very late Mosquito production to a Chester factory to free up space at Hatfield.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I have a couple of other classic game manuals, for Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe, Aces of the Pacific, and Aces of the Deep, all of which have good historical sections. Just couldn't get rid of them.

I remember too how the original Red Baron game with a set of printed maps of the Western Front that you could use to navigate when flying in the game.

The RBII manual was well over 200 pages, with most being taken up by a retelling of the air war in its entirety. Well worth reading.

Jane's WWII fighters also featured video interviews on the second disk -- Gabby Gabreski, Gunther Rall, and Bud Anderson as I remember -- that were great.

 

[GrauGeist]

Jane's WWII fighters also featured video interviews on the second disk -- Gabby Gabreski, Gunther Rall, and Bud Anderson as I remember -- that were great.

I recall quite a few former WWII pilots being active in the Jane's WWII Fighters multi-player missions, one of which, was "Monroe", who was an actual P-47 Pilot from the ETO - his plane of choice was (insert drum roll here) the P-47.

We learned alot from him and the others.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Britain:
Hatfield, PR.I, most NF.II, the T.III prototypes, B/PR.IV, FB.VI, PR.VIII, B/PR.IX, F.XV, B/PR.XVI, F.XVIII, Most NF.XIX, PR.32, PR.34, B.35. Mark III from End 1946, taking over from Watford/Leavesden, to October 1948.

Watford/Leavesden, from September 1942, some NF.II, T.III, NF.XII, NF.XIII, NF.XVII, some NF.XIX, NF.30, TR.33, NF.36, with the last mark 36 in March 1947
Standard Motors FB.VI June 1943 to December 1945.
Airspeed FB.VI March 1945 to July 1946, B.35 February 1946 to February 1948, monthly production always single figures.
Percival B.XVI May 1944 to November 1945, PR.34 August 1945 to July 1946.
Chester NF.38 from February 1948 until 1950, plus the 6 TR.37 during 1948.

Peak Mosquito production 300 in March 1945, passed 100 per month in May 1943. Minor note the British mostly count the PR Mosquito and Spitfire as fighters in the published figures.

Canada:
25 VII January to October 1943
245 XX, May 1943 to June 1944
400 B.25 June 1944 to May 1945
3 FB.21 August 1943, October and November 1944
435 FB.26, February to October 1945
4 T.22, August 1944, December 1944 to February 1945
21 T.27, February to June 1945.
total 1,133

To end July 1945 there were 306 FB.26 built, then 58 in August 37 in September and 34 in October. Makes official production 84 in 1943, 424 in 1944, 625 in 1945. Peak production 83 in May and June 1945.

Australia:
A52-1 the first Australian built Mosquito first flight was on 23 July 1943. Then came the problems and delays, makers trials had not begun by late September 1943. Installing the US Merlins took time. Plans to turn some into PR versions caused further delays. In February 1944 "A52-2 to 12, further assembly held up pending radiological examination of 3.5% nickel steel parts." It meant official production began with 2 in March 1944, including A52-1 delivered for trials, then came crashes, A52-12 on 10 June 1944, A52-24 on 21 September 1944, A52-18 on 8 November 1944, then A52-29 on 31 January 1945, causing production delays as they were investigated to see if they had been due to the known wing problems, production finally rose above 2 a month in October 1944, reached 10 in February 1945, peaked a 14 in August 1945. The Canadian DH Chief Test Pilot was sent to Australia in 1943 to help.

Wings: By end June 1944 A52-1 to 4 and 11 had been delivered to the RAAF, others were test flying. The July 1944 production report notes DH was not happy with the glue operations on wings made by the subcontractor, defects were found, all Mosquitoes were grounded, the plan was to modify existing wings while making the changes to the manufacturing process. End July the RAAF notes "Deliveries and acceptance flights delayed pending tests on mainplanes from overseas". The August 1944 production report has 17 delivered wings rejected after inspection, probably the 17 the RAAF reports had already been installed. In February 1945 the RAAF reports "4 aircraft awaiting new mainplanes, 6 awaiting removal of defective mainplanes", in late March with 51 Mosquitoes delivered to the RAAF, "13 mainplanes in batch up to No. 168 inspected, 3 satisfactory, 9 needed major repairs outboard of engines, 1 needed repairs over the complete span." The February 1945 production report states production is controlled by the supply of wings. Additional resources will enable wing production to rise to 4 a week in June, 5 a week in September. Skilled woodworkers were in short supply. "Technical difficulties associated with the manufacture of the wings have not been entirely surmounted and additional safeguards are being imposed by the Directorate of Aeronautical Inspection."

After March 1945 no more comments on wings by either the RAAF or the production reports.

Germany:
The Me262 definitely did better than the piston engine Luftwaffe fighters in late 1944 and into 1945 but unlike the transition from biplane to monoplane came with a problem, high fuel consumption and German engines had higher consumption than the allied types and to be safe required high speed. Slow jet throttle response meant a P-51 in particular could give chase knowing the Me262 had limited range and landing options. With the R4M added the ME262 proved it could shoot down bombers in numbers, fighters were harder, maybe a quarter of the Me262 claims. There is a good chance the Me262 loss rate was similar to the Luftwaffe piston engined types but it shot down more aircraft per sortie.

A survey of 490 Me262 losses, 121 bombed, 23 strafed, showing how the Luftwaffe was losing control of its bases, 89 to enemy fighters, 83 crashes, 68 shot down in combat. All up 148 lost to non combat causes. The sample gives losses as around a third on the ground, a third in the air and a third not due to enemy action.

It looks like about half the kills claimed by Me262s are correct. The data on JG7 says it lost 132 Me262s of which 3 were bombed while making 262 kill claims. The losses include to 101 to fighter, enemy aircraft, shot down, failed to return and bomber. So overall JG7 was losing about 1 Me262 per actual shoot down, and in combat around 1 Me262 per 1.3 to 1.4 actual shoot downs.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

By the time the 262 came out, in quite small numbers, it was outnumbered something like 10-1, with Allied fighters over all the air bases. Most of the shoot-downs were when they were taking off or landing.

 

[Shortround6]

By the time the 262 came out, in quite small numbers, it was outnumbered something like 10-1, with Allied fighters over all the air bases. Most of the shoot-downs were when they were taking off or landing.

Which kind of shows that the 262 was not quite ready to take-over from the Piston planes on it's own. Granted piston powered planes would be at a disadvantage when taking off or landing but the jets disadvantage was more marked.
The jets showed a lot or potential but they were rather bug ridden and needed sorting out, on both sides.

One can imagine using jets over Japan in 1945 by the US or Tiger force.

"here are your 12 crated fighters, commander, and their 24 of crates engines (several engines per crate) , and 12 crates of spare parts, and the tanker thirst-quecher will be docking tomorrow with your first two weeks supply of fuel."

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The 262, in my opinion, just came "too-little / too late". Still much more significant to the war than a Ta-152H or a Spitfire 24 or a Bearcat.

But as we know, decisions were made early on which delayed the program. If they had taken some of those He 177 resources and doubled down on the jet, we'd have been in trouble.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

The biggest problems (other than endurance) that early jets had were reliability/durability of early engines (the Jumo 004s on the 262 often had to be replaced or rebuilt after as little as 15-20 hours worth of flight), lack of acceleration/throttle response, which is why they were vulnerable not only on take offs and landings, but in combat when a 262 had to slow down to avoid overshooting a bomber interception. In such a scenario, the 262 lacked the acceleration and maneuverability at those speeds to avoid interception themselves.

And then there's climb. Depending on weight and supercharger boost, a P-51B/D could outclimb a 262. And the P-51H and Spitfire XIVs (especially the P-51H) had rates of climb on WEP/combat power that early jets couldn't match, sometimes by a long way. Even the XP-51F and certainly the G were insanely fast climbing (though probably shouldn't be counted here, since they were prototypes). Basically for the P-51H, you'd have to wait for later versions (IE, post-war) for the Meteor and F-80 and such to be assured of having jets that could outclimb a 2000+ hp prop plane.

Jets were the future in 1944-45, but they did for sure have their problems, let alone the 262 which (as well as the early Meteors and P-80s) exemplified those early issues.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Fair points, but early Fw 190 and early P-51B etc. had fairly poor rate of climb, yet their speed advantages were leveraged to very high success rates.

I definitely agree that speed and firepower aren't everything (my whole thread on the Ki-43 is partly about this), and this depends on the mission.

For the mission the 262 had to do, attacking heavy bomber formations, hit and run attacks at very high speed were hard to do well, but it was the ideal way to attack a heavily armed bomber 'box' formation. They could fly in too fast to track. Gunnery took some practice at that speed but many pilots learned to do it, 4 x 30mm was heavy ordinance.

When enemy fighters are right over your base, no amount of WW2 era climb rate is going to save you. Climbing at 200 mph is really just making yourself a sitting duck for a plane diving down from above. You need to be protected by overhead cover. By mid to late 1944 this was hard for the Germans to pull off. In 1943 say, it would have been a different story.

According to the Wiki - Me 262 had "20 m/s (3,900 ft/min) at max weight of 7,130 kg (15,720 lb)" That is actually quite good rate of climb y WW2 standards, and if they have a few minutes to climb to altitude without being attacked, they will be at altitude very quickly. If they care climbing at 200 mph underneath descending enemy fighters P-51H or Spit XIV are going to be just as much dead meat.

 

[Shortround6]

The 262, in my opinion, just came "too-little / too late". Still much more significant to the war than a Ta-152H or a Spitfire 24 or a Bearcat.

But as we know, decisions were made early on which delayed the program. If they had taken some of those He 177 resources and doubled down on the jet, we'd have been in trouble.

The biggest problems (other than endurance) that early jets had were reliability/durability of early engines (the Jumo 004s on the 262 often had to be replaced or rebuilt after as little as 15-20 hours worth of flight)

I keep bring this up.

XB-48 bomber, first flight June 22nd 1947. Used up 14 engines (J35-GE-7) in the first 44 flights.
They wound up building over 14,000 J35-GE engines and they did get over 1000 hours out of them by about 1950, but 1950 was not 1945-46-47.

Everybody could see the potential of jets. Getting them to actually work for more than a dozen flights took a few years (think sleeve valve in 1939

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Well, this is true, but I think out of context. It bleeds into another subject that I want to open a whole thread for, because it goes very deep.

Jet fighters (and bombers) were very hit and miss in terms of both reliability and overall merit even when they were working. There was a whole new set of advantages with jets, but also a whole new set of problems. And there were indeed many problems. One of the biggest, aside from flameouts (which continued to be an issue well into the 1960s and 1970s, which is one reason why so many jet fighters had two engines), was the huge rate of fuel burn, which combined with the large amount of internal space required for jet engines, contributed to a very low range and endurance.

Those early supersonic fighters were particularly bad about this - once the afterburners come on, flight endurance and mission length can now be measured in minutes, not hours. This is still true to this day. But over time everyone learned to put huge external fuel tanks on jet fighters, to do air-to-air refueling etc. That took a while to work out. There is just no escaping the fact that a high performance jet engine, especially with afterburners on, is like a firehose of fuel.

This is not unique to the Me 262, in other words. It's all jet fighters currently flying, except maybe the A-10.

Right now I think some US firms (GE?) are experimenting with an new type of engine that can switch from flying like an airliner engine to flying like a fighter engine, but that is still very much in the testing stage.

In the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and all the way to the end of the 20th Century, a jet fighter, in particular whatever was the faster tier for a given moment in time, was a very short-lived asset before it had to go home. This is one reason why there was vast niche for propeller fighters in the Korean, Vietnam, Suez "crisis", Malay "crisis" etc., because they could loiter a while. That Mirage III or early F-4 Phantom, let alone an F-104 or something like that, was basically a match you light, it flares up, and then it goes out. Pretty quick.

That prop fighter niche is supposed to have been taken over by helicopter gun ships but that didn't really work out for several reasons. Maybe drones are filling it now.

Nevertheless, these fast jets were still worth using, obviously. That much of a speed and performance advantage, especially with radar and fire & forget missiles etc. could mean in that 20 minutes of combat, or whatever it was, many or most enemy aircraft are destroyed, bombs are delivered on ground targets or ships, and etc.

 

[33k in the air]

The 262, in my opinion, just came "too-little / too late". Still much more significant to the war than a Ta-152H or a Spitfire 24 or a Bearcat.

But as we know, decisions were made early on which delayed the program. If they had taken some of those He 177 resources and doubled down on the jet, we'd have been in trouble.

To quote Chuck Yeager, "It's the man, not the machine."

More Me 262s means little unless you have the skilled pilots to fly them. The Me 262 was a high performance jet fighter which required a skilled pilot to make the aircraft combat effective. By mid-1944 Germany did not have enough skilled pilots nor the means to train enough of them.

 

[Shortround6]

A lot of this is timing and I would be very careful about extending time lines very far.

Jets went through several stages of evolution and by the mid 50s were burning about 70-80% the fuel per unit of thrust that the late 40s engines were, with out after burning. A mid 50s engine might be burning about 60% of the fuel per unit of thrust that the German WW II engines were.

By the very early 50s the better western jet engines were lasting several times longer than the best WW II piston engines. Post War Piston engines were also lasting longer.

By about 1960-62 the best jet engines were burning about 1/2 the fuel per unit of thrust that the late 40s engines were in cruise. Early jets drank fuel almost regardless of throttle settings. If you throttled back you lost power/thrust much faster than the fuel consumption dropped. With these low compression engines the engine was getting a significant portion of the the compression from the ram effect of the forward speed. Once they had engines that offered 10 or 12 to 1 compression instead of around 4 to 1 air speed became a lower part of fuel economy.
Yes after burners suck fuel.

Jets, even in the early days, offered a much greater power to weight ratio than any piston engine.
An Allison engine would give around 1415hp with a low set of supercharger gears from 10,000lbs of air per hour. That is about 2.77 lbs per second.
A 1500lb weight DH Goblin II Jet engine could move 60lbs of air per second through the compressor, for 3,000lbs of thrust.
over 20 times the airflow.
Jumo 004 B4 could move 43lbs/sec.

By 1956 (or earlier) and P&W J-57 of 4200lbs (dry) weight could move 170lbs/sec of air and managed a compression ratio of 12.5 to 1.
This was the engine that made the B-52 and 707 airliner possible.
The prototype J-57 engine ran in 1950 but was not announced publicly right away, or at least details were not given out.
But that is sort of the fast pace timing of jet engines.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

A lot of this is timing and I would be very careful about extending time lines very far.

Jets went through several stages of evolution and by the mid 50s were burning about 70-80% the fuel per unit of thrust that the late 40s engines were, with out after burning. A mid 50s engine might be burning about 60% of the fuel per unit of thrust that the German WW II engines were.

By the very early 50s the better western jet engines were lasting several times longer than the best WW II piston engines. Post War Piston engines were also lasting longer.

By about 1960-62 the best jet engines were burning about 1/2 the fuel per unit of thrust that the late 40s engines were in cruise. Early jets drank fuel almost regardless of throttle settings. If you throttled back you lost power/thrust much faster than the fuel consumption dropped. With these low compression engines the engine was getting a significant portion of the the compression from the ram effect of the forward speed. Once they had engines that offered 10 or 12 to 1 compression instead of around 4 to 1 air speed became a lower part of fuel economy.
Yes after burners suck fuel.

Jets, even in the early days, offered a much greater power to weight ratio than any piston engine.
An Allison engine would give around 1415hp with a low set of supercharger gears from 10,000lbs of air per hour. That is about 2.77 lbs per second.
A 1500lb weight DH Goblin II Jet engine could move 60lbs of air per second through the compressor, for 3,000lbs of thrust.
over 20 times the airflow.
Jumo 004 B4 could move 43lbs/sec.

By 1956 (or earlier) and P&W J-57 of 4200lbs (dry) weight could move 170lbs/sec of air and managed a compression ratio of 12.5 to 1.
This was the engine that made the B-52 and 707 airliner possible.
The prototype J-57 engine ran in 1950 but was not announced publicly right away, or at least details were not given out.
But that is sort of the fast pace timing of jet engines.

Sure but I mean...

F-104

Lockheed F-104 Starfighter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Top speed 1,528 mph, combat range 420 mi

Mirage IIIE

Dassault Mirage III - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Top speed 1,460 mph, combat range 750 miles

MiG 21

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Top speed 1,351 mph, combat range 410 - 493 miles

F-4E Phantom II

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Top speed 1,470 mph, combat range 420 miles

Ok let's do the math.

So it goes 1470 miles in an hour (and that is top speed / max afterburner), cruising speed is 575 mph, and the range is 420 miles. If they fly a patrol and don't get into any combat, maybe they can fly 45 minutes. If they get into combat and turn on that afterburner, that might be more like 10-15 minutes or less.

 

[EwenS]

I can imagine using jets over Japan in 1945 by the US or Tiger force.

The 412th FG converted to the P-80A starting Feb 1945. It was preparing to deploy to the Pacific when the war ended.

Another 30 P-80A were sent to the Philippines in summer 1945 but unfortunately without tip tanks and batteries. By the time these showed up the war was over. The recipient was supposed to be the 414th FG which seems a bit odd as it was on Iwo Jima at the time with P-47N.

The plans for RAF Tiger Force kept changing from the time of its original conception, right up until the final planning document dated 26 July 1945. Fighters were eliminated altogether around the end of Feb 1945, after the US decided RAF long range fighters would not be needed.

 

[MIflyer]

In the book "German Jets Versus the USAAF" they list ever single verified kill made by the USAAF against German jet and rocket aircraft, including the name of the USAAF victor and usually the name of the Luftwaffe pilot.

I found the number is rather startling: 175. Many if not most does not seem to be while the jets were taking off or landing.