Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That photo tells exactly what I was trying to say. And much better than I said it.
This point, like almost every other point has been answered by people with better knowledge than I on this thread, more than once. The range of a fighter is determined by how far a fighter can fly on internal fuel after dropping its external tanks and being in combat on WEP (or its equivalent) for 15 mins (or whatever the maximum is decided). Looking at the chart (previously posted) below it adds up to not very much and puts you in combat with more fuel than the 90 in most tests, don't worry though, it wlll soon be burned down.
The consumption at 25000' is 62gph at 2600rpm (max continuous). 210 net gallons divided by 62gph = 3.4hr, deduct 15min combat and 20 min landing reserve and you have 2.8 hrs of cruising. Period. Now how far have you gone? You have flown faster than the bombers but you are weaving to keep from passing them. So your forward progress is at their speed of 230mph. So 230mph x 2.8hrs = 644mi divided by 2 = 322mi radius TO ESCORT BOMBERS. On a ferry mission you would use your TAS.
Yes but it is commonly referred to as the reserve tank in the manual, and it's know as the reserve tank on the fuel tank selector. We're talking about the same thing.
No it doesn't, it just says how far you can go on your imaginary mission. from the moment you are on station escorting the bombers your consumption is in gallons per hour for the time you are in contact at the consumption rate at the height and speed you weave at, that is the speed given previously, and like every other post you ignore. The "range" is how far the bomber group is away from your base at the time you have to head home.
The P-39 obviously could carry a variable amount of fuel. Let's assume that if we're talking about escort duty then we would carry the maximum internal available. Pretend we got one of the kits and put the 33gal tanks back in the wings, or that we had one of the first ones with 120 gallons internal.I will agree to your unsubstantiated claim concerning the drop tank when you also agree that "at least some" carrier-based Hellcats were equipped with the ADI jets used during the combat power testing we discussed a few days back. And in reality only the first 166 P-39Ns had the larger internal fuel capacity. ALL P-39N-1s (which is what the test aircraft was) had 33 less gallons available. There's really no wiggle room there. Sorry.
The spitfires maximum internal fuel load reached 164 gallons, and it could carry a 174 gal, external tank all imperial measures.
If you read the pilots manual this is how they tell pilots to plan a mission. The consumption rate at 25000' is 62gph at max continuous power from the manual. It is constant throughout the mission, same power setting, same altitude. After reserves you have 2.8hrs to escort. You must use the bomber speed because although you fly faster than them, because of weaving you never pass them. If the escort speed is used, then 2.8hrs x 281mph = 787mi or a radius of 393mi, which is even farther (71mi) than using bomber speed.
If you knew anything about wartime operations you would know a pilot didn't plan a bomber escort mission, neither did his C/O neither did his group commander, it was an operation involving thousands of aircraft at the most and tens of thousands of people. The idea that you think a pilot just made a plan and waddled off on his own private mission shows how little an "expert" can know before calling himself an "expert".
I'm not dismissing anybody, my wild ass claims are straight from the official performance tests. There were other Hellcat tests in the Hellcat section that show basically the same climb rates as your experimental tests. So production Hellcats were climbing at your experimental rate. I just don't think those particular parts could have been used in that time frame.I have no proof that they were or were not used but the main reason I brought it up is to prove your bias and how quick you are to dismiss others. But your wild-ass claims are not to be challenged, even by those who have a far greater knowledge than you on the subject.
Do you have any proof that they were not used or is that only an assumption on your part? You also assume that only experimental jets were used. Show me the part number and specs of the actual jets fitted to a standard ADI system for the R-2800-10W and then maybe we can clear this up once and for all.
Just calm down and stop attacking everyone here who's trying to help you see the flaws in your theories. It will be an enriching experience for you and one you will eventually be thankful for, I promise.
