- Thread starter
-
- #61
Burmese Bandit
Senior Airman
- 474
- Dec 5, 2008
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
While its true that the Sabre was liquid cooled horizontal H-type, in practical terms it was very much like a radial engine. The engine as a whole was considerably larger in frontal area than existing, ordinary V-type inlines, and its weight was also akin to that of typical high-performance radial engines (perhaps on the whole even heavier, given that the it would also need radiators, piping and considerable amount of coolant to be carried around, though I have not seen yet figures for the complete Sabre "power egg").
If we are considering bombers then I like the American A-20. It offers a lot of performance for the price.
1941 Prices. Assume 2.5 marks = 1 U.S. dollar.
$106,260. He-111H.
$122,780. Ju-88A.
$136,813. A-20.
$180,031. B-25.
Despite being classified as a light bomber by the U.S. Army Air Corps, the A-20 payload (max weight minus empty weight) is similiar to the B25, B26, Ju-88 and He-111. The A-20 is faster then the competition, providing greater survivability. Why didn't the U.S. Army Air Corps use the A-20 rather then the slower and more expensive B-25?
A20A load (not payload, like your max-empty) 5500 pounds
B25B load (" ") 11000 pounds
B26A load (" ") 11500 pounds
that are for '41 models
An idea - we know that a radial re-engined as an inline gains in weight, but usually has a speed increase and an increase in range. ( XB-38 )
What would have been the performance in speed and range if the 1600 hp radials of the A-20 had been replaced by 1600 Merlins?
That's what I've been wanting to ask you Drgondog - all the facts i can access on the XB-38 say that its efficient cruising speed increased by about 10% and its range by about 20%. Given that the biggest drag factor in the B-17 design were the thick wings and protruding turrets, it seems to me that the main reason for the range increase was not the lesser drag of the smoother inlines, but the fact that the Merlin consumed less fuel per hp output at optimum cruising speed. Am I on the right track?
Newbie here - I just joined but your thread touches on a subject dear to my heart - evolution of weapon platform in wartime - and - increase of unit costs.
In general terms - the US had the P-39 Cobra and the P-40 Warhawk in operational use in 1939 - the P-38 was just arriving in service.
The P-39 and P-40 were both 'inexpensive' designs. These 2 airplanes were used widely - but formed the bulk of the US lend-lease fighter deliveries to the USSR.
Pre-Merlin versions of the P-51 were also in the same cost-per-unit range.
The P-38, P-47 and Merlin-powered P-51 were ALL considerably more expensive planes. And were used widely the the USAAF (and the P-47 by the RAF in Asia).
My point is that the US gave their pilots the best - and did well with it - but the recipients of the lend-lease P-39's and P-40s were able to find ways and means to use them very effectively.
Case in point - the "inexpensive" P-39. The Russians got the bulk of production and the plane continued to evolve to reflect the "client's" needs -- the USSR. Clearly the P-39 served a valued niche role and the platform evolved into the "hot" P-63 Kingcobra. Again the bulk of production gpoing top the USSR.
The US Air Museum in Ohio has a website with great spec sheets of many US-made WW2 aircraft - check it out. Also - the production totals on the Compare Aircraft website is very useful for production stats. #1 - The Il Sturmavik.
I'd love to hear from anyone with P-39 combat experience ... Chuck Yeager included.
Chairs,
MM
Toronto