Glider
Captain
Plus if I remember correctly, it depended on which factory made them due to a shortage of the cannons. A good proportion (which I do not know) only carried 2 cannons of a different type
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Plus if I remember correctly, it depended on which factory made them due to a shortage of the cannons. A good proportion (which I do not know) only carried 2 cannons of a different typeOnly after Jan '45 did the La-7 have 3 cannons.
This is all hind sight in terms of what happened and technical development. In 1939/40 who had a s/e fighter with 1000mile range, or a competitive twin engine fighter. Who had commissioned one and for what? If the Germans could choose any engine in service anywhere in 1939 which one would give them their fighter with 1000+ mile range?Of course at truly extreme range you probably would revert to aircraft which weren't fighters at all. But the British Isles would have been much more vulnerable it the Germans had fighters with a 1,000+ mile range.
This is all hind sight in terms of what happened and technical development. In 1939/40 who had a s/e fighter with 1000mile range, or a competitive twin engine fighter. Who had commissioned one and for what? If the Germans could choose any engine in service anywhere in 1939 which one would give them their fighter with 1000+ mile range?
People don't but machines go up and down in size and weight, they get bigger and heavier until a re design using smaller fittings like radios, radar and guns and stronger materials more compact engines. The Lancaster was designed as the Manchester medium bomber but carried more, further and higher than the Stirling designed as a heavy bomber. In fact the bomb bays are about the same length and the defensive armament is the same, the Stirling just carries a huge amount of redundant metal and space.I used to be a light fighter, but now I'd surely be classified as a heavyweight. Does this count?
Things evolve with time, that's how it is. Like people, they hardly get lighter, though.
The 3 gun fighters carried 170 rpg instead of the 200rpg of the 2 gun fighters due to ???? weight? space?
So which one is going to revolutionise the LW campaign in 1940?Well I don't think the engine mattered that much. It was more a factor of how much fuel they could fit in the airframe without harming flying characteristics, and how much they could reduce drag while retaining good lift. But I can think of several early-war aircraft which had quite long range.
The A6M zero and Ki-43 both had a 1,000 mile range and I believe that was indeed part of the design requirement.
The Fairey Battle, though not successful, had a 1,000 mile range.
The Beaufighter (first flight 1939, first confirmed kill 1940) eventually had a 1,600 mile range and long range was also a design requirement for that aircraft.
The Dutch Fokker G.1 had almost a 940 mile range, and had development continued it probably would have exceeded 1,000 miles.
The Pe-3 (heavy fighter derivative of the Pe-2, developed in 1941) had a range of 930 miles
The P-38 lightning didn't get into production until 1941 but it's first flight was 1939. It achieved a 1,300 mile range.
The F2A Buffalo (operational 1940) had a range of 965 miles which is in the ball park.
Some of the aircraft listed above, other than the Zero may not initially have had a 1,000 mile range, most took some tweaking to get to that point, but they eventually got there (by mid-war in most cases) and the long range was clearly a design goal. I could probably come up with a few more examples if I really needed to.
As for P-40s, a more apt comparison would be a P-36 to a P-40L or N. But even that isn't quite as radical of a difference as an early Merlin Spt vs. a Griffon Spit,
So which one is going to revolutionise the LW campaign in 1940?
What's the big difference was there between the Spitfire I and XII, or even the XIV?
And why is that a bigger change than going from a radial engine to an in-line engine?
Those max. ranges were possible when using drop-tanks for the A6M2 onward and KI-43-II onward.The A6M zero and Ki-43 both had a 1,000 mile range and I believe that was indeed part of the design requirement.
All twins and has been discussed earlier, have the ability to carry more fuel/weight than a S/E fighter.The Beaufighter (first flight 1939, first confirmed kill 1940) eventually had a 1,600 mile range and long range was also a design requirement for that aircraft.
The Dutch Fokker G.1 had almost a 940 mile range, and had development continued it probably would have exceeded 1,000 miles.
The Pe-3 (heavy fighter derivative of the Pe-2, developed in 1941) had a range of 930 miles.
The P-38 lightning didn't get into production until 1941 but it's first flight was 1939. It achieved a 1,300 mile range.
Did you mean the Grumman F7F Tigercat?
Those max. ranges were possible when using drop-tanks for the A6M2 onward and KI-43-II onward.
All twins and has been discussed earlier, have the ability to carry more fuel/weight than a S/E fighter.
When were drop tanks fitted to P-51s? Was it late 1940 or early 41?So what? Plumbing for drop tanks and working out the details of using them are part of what made a long range fighter. Same for Mustangs or P-38s. Or Corsairs, Hellcats, P-47s etc. A6M's also could and did sometimes fight with their drop tanks still attached.
The private charging the machine gun nest on D Day (or any day) had more to complain about than any fighter pilot. I get tired of hearing how hard done by fighter pilots were. They were soldiers and soldiers have to do things that might not be good for them but are good for others on the team. If a Hurricane shoots down a 109 instead of a 111 that's a win for the Germans.German pilots in North Africa hated flying escort missions though and complained bitterly about it.
Ok, let's discuss the "so what?" factor, then.
The A6M and KI-43, were lightly armed and did not have self-sealing tanks. Once these were installed in later variants, their range took a hit.
There has to be a trade off at some point. The Luftwaffe wasn't looking to travel long expanses of ocean to patrol/engage enemy A/C. Their short-coming was certainly range, but the Bf109's wing and fuselage was designed more as a performance-oriented type and left little in the way for additional fuel capacity.
And as it happens, the more robust He112 had perhaps the best range of all the Luftwaffe fighters in 1940/41
-
The private charging the machine gun nest on D Day (or any day) had more to complain about than any fighter pilot. I get tired of hearing how hard done by fighter pilots were. They were soldiers and soldiers have to do things that might not be good for them but are good for others on the team. If a Hurricane shoots down a 109 instead of a 111 that's a win for the Germans.