- Thread starter
-
- #141
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The last is a common misconception. If your climb rate at 20,000ft or so is significantly worse than the defenders it means you get one firing pass at them and then you are out of the fight. It is also a misconception because it assumes that the defenders have a limited amount of warning time and are struggling to reach combat altitude as the bombers and escorts arrive.
It is 165miles from Dover to Birmingham, over 45 minutes at the cruising speed of many bombers. Granted the defenders may not know which target/s the raid is going after but even without radar, deep penetration raids are going to find interceptors in the air and above them.
And like I keep saying, climb rate is an indicator of how well a plane can maneuver and fight at a given altitude. Many countries figured you needed a climb rate of 500 fpm just to fly in formation, let alone fight. Squadron of planes does a 180 degree turn at 25,000ft and above, outside planes have to speed up to maintain formation, using more power, all planes loose lift as they bank and need more power just to hold altitude as they turn. To actually engage in combat might require a climb rate of 1000fpm and a tight turn (anything around 2-3 Gs depending on altitude) will cause you to loose either height or speed.
I don't care if the quality was the same, I do care if we are comparing planes with self sealing tanks to planes without them, And the P-40C gained a lot of weight (and lost fuel) with it's self sealing tanks which were hardly of a 1944 type. Adding several hundred pounds of self-sealing tanks to some of these planes will affect their performance, climb and turn.
Thank you, apparently the Bf 109 was a real dog when it came to aerodynamics as it is about the same speed as a D.520 despite having around 20% more power. The D.520 carried more armament (weight) and more fuel for greater range too. Good thing for the Germans not many got into service.
Problem with the P-40 is that it gained weight, via installation of heavier armament, protection, structure and fuel system, while there was no gain in engine power. We cannot blame only the heavier fuel system for what it lost in the RoC vs. the lighter predecessors.
The European counterparts gained, sometimes, armament weight, a bit of protection, but they received more engine power every year, if not half a year, like sometimes the Bf-109 received. The Spitfire V with two cannons and 4 Brownings (= interceptor) should weight more than a Spit V with Brownings only and an empty self-sealing 30 imp gal rear tank (= longer range fighter), and would be also a bit draggier.
Wasn't the first shipments of 100 octane fuel the Brits got suppose to go to the French? But, then the French were over run and capitulated.
PLease, please, please......
Did the D.520 even have self sealing tanks? without them your escort fighters could be on a one way trip from only a few 7.6-8mm bullet holes. Performance for the D.520 is all over the place due to different engines, different power quotes even for the same engine. Very little data that has solid support and a lot of wild speculation on the web and from old books ( like this in wiki: "the 12Y-45 and -49s fitted to production D.520s used either 92 or 100 octane fuel.")
Now where the French were going to get 100 octane fuel is not mentioned. Nor is there any mention of what performance improvements there might be, and the Hispano design was getting pretty close to maxed out. The engines in the D520 may have require 91 octane fuel not the 85-87 octane of some of the earlier Hispano engines. ( most of the 860hp engines used a 5.8 compression ratio and ran on 85 octane, most of the over 900hp engines used 7:1 compression ratio and needed the 91 octane) The Hispano company had a lot of prototype engines or very low production number engines during the summer of 1940 and trying to figure out which airplane had which engine resulting in what for performance numbers is rather difficult.
And just so we are all on the same page here:
View attachment 276164
US 55 gal drum, 208 liters. 55 US gallons of fuel is about 330lbs or 150kg.
I am pretty sure that the French Airforce didn't have any 100 octane fuel. It only started to be used by the RAF in France in May 1940 and I do know that the French were asking to access it in April/May. I cannot be certain but I doubt that they would have had time to acquire, test and distribute it before the Germans rolled over everything in Europe.
Aircraft | Engine | Fuel |
D.520 (1st 2nd prototypes) | 12 Y 25/29 | 85/100 octane |
D.520 (2nd 3rd prototypes) | 12 Y 31 | 85 octane |
D.520 (1940 production) | 12 Y 45 | 92/100 octane |
D.520 (1942 production) | 12 Y 49 | 92/100 octane |
D.523 (1 prototype) | 12 Y 51 | 100 octane |
SE 520 Z (1 prototype) | 12 Z (2) | 92 octane |
The RAF was using it before then. Heck, the first RAF fighter kill in the war (Oct 30, 1939) was achieved with +12 boost.
The operational limitations of Merlin engines when run on 100 octane fuel must be strictly observed.
The RAF were using it before then I agree but not in France. Hurricane Squadrons in France started using 100 octane in May, No 1 Sqd starting on the 18th May at Berry-Au-BacThe RAF was using it before then. Heck, the first RAF fighter kill in the war (Oct 30, 1939) was achieved with +12 boost.
On a slightly different note but I would be interested to know which unit had the first kill in Oct 1939 using 100 octane.
The Merlins couldn't run at +12 lbs boost until they were equipped with modified cylinder heads and boost cut out controls and , although they were capable of using 100 octane fuel.
Is it possible the late 12-Y series engines were being modified to use 100 octane fuel, but had not yet been able to realise their full potential without more (possibly pending) modifications that were stymied by the surrender? It may well be the French had access to enough 100 octane to at least test the Hispanos, but not enough to use operationally.