Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Trying to assess how much stretch an airplane had very early in it's career is just about impossible.
The more powerful engines it will use later in it's career don't exist. In a lot of WW II aircraft the fuel they used late in their careers didn't exist early in their careers.
P-51D running at 9lbs (48in) boost anyone?
German planes were mostly conceived with a minimum of surface (wing) area and had to have the wings enlarged/fuselage lengthened during their evolution whereas the Western Allied planes had often plenty of wing and big fuselages from the get-go.
I wonder if resources were a reason for the Germans to keep their planes' dimensions smaller. They were generally not lighter though than their a Allied counterparts, often even heavier.
Messerschmitt liked to use underwing radiators which required large cut-outs which increased aero-elasticity which decreased manoeuverability and high speeds. And they took away potential space for wing tanks while not being the aerodynamically most sound solution for radiator placement.
How did the fuel affect, specifically, the turbocharged radials used in the B17, B24 and P43?The use of the Mustang as an example was to show that even if they had gone to the two stage supercharger as they did, IF they had not had improved fuel that was better than 1940 fuel then the P-51D might have been limited to around 9lbs of boost (depends on whos 100 octane fuel you are using). The Mustang would still have been a fast plane, just not as fast, but climb and sustained turn would have been dismal.
The thing about the fuel is that allowed some engines, like the Merlin, to make the same power at less weight than a new larger engine would using the old fuel. Some engines could not make as good a use of the new fuels. And yes, many nations didn't have access to 100/130 fuel and were forced to use larger, heavier engines in order to get the required power.
Some aircraft that tried to get a little too tricky with low drag/size/radiator placement did wind up have limited growth potential.
The Mustang may have benefited from the initial armament fit. Two .50 cal in the cowl and a single .50 and a pair of .30 cal guns was fairly heavy armament (weight wise) in 1940 and also required a fair amount of volume.
I really agree with you that the wings of later German fighters were way too small for their weight. The Spitfire Mk. XIV weighed about 3900 kg compared a D-9's about 4300 kg while featuring a 22.5 sqm wing in contrast to the Dora's 18.3 sqm wing. The Ta 152C weighed in at over 5300 kg with 19.5 sqm wing area.
It must have flown like a truck. Same for the Me 309 (16 sqm for 4600 kg).
Imo the only Focke Wulfs capable of tangling with the latest nimble Allied fighters were the late hotrod Doras, especially thanks to their superior roll rate and the Ta 152H thanks to its turn rate. The heavy fighter versions B and C were practically single-engined destroyers.
Wing mounted radiators and manoeuverability do not have a connection I think but high speed does. The British performed postwar tests on drag of various radiator installations. Chin radiators were the worst, followed by underwing radiators iirc. Ventral were the best. Annular/drum installations were surprisingly good.
Focke Wulf preferred large ailerons and fuselage mounted tanks to lessen the inertia in a roll to keep a high roll rate,, though with the latest Ta 152 they used a shortened, 250 kg heavier steel main bar to incorporate additional wing tanks. This should have made them even less capable as dogfighters.
Japanes planes had rather large surfaces as they had to carry a lot of fuel to cover the vast distances of the Pacific Ocean and to provide superior turn performance.
The use of the Mustang as an example was to show that even if they had gone to the two stage supercharger as they did, IF they had not had improved fuel that was better than 1940 fuel then the P-51D might have been limited to around 9lbs of boost (depends on whos 100 octane fuel you are using). The Mustang would still have been a fast plane, just not as fast, but climb and sustained turn would have been dismal.
The use of the Mustang as an example was to show that even if they had gone to the two stage supercharger as they did, IF they had not had improved fuel that was better than 1940 fuel then the P-51D might have been limited to around 9lbs of boost (depends on whos 100 octane fuel you are using). The Mustang would still have been a fast plane, just not as fast, but climb and sustained turn would have been dismal.
The thing about the fuel is that allowed some engines, like the Merlin, to make the same power at less weight than a new larger engine would using the old fuel. Some engines could not make as good a use of the new fuels. And yes, many nations didn't have access to 100/130 fuel and were forced to use larger, heavier engines in order to get the required power.
Some aircraft that tried to get a little too tricky with low drag/size/radiator placement did wind up have limited growth potential.
The Mustang may have benefited from the initial armament fit. Two .50 cal in the cowl and a single .50 and a pair of .30 cal guns was fairly heavy armament (weight wise) in 1940 and also required a fair amount of volume.
I don't believe this is actually an accurate summary. Aircraft such as the A6M and Ki 43 really didn't carry all that much fuel. They were just very economical in their use of fuel. The A6M2 for example only had 535 liters of internal fuel.
Later Japanese aircraft in general didn't carry a particularly large amount of fuel either.
Japanese planes sacrificed everything for range and cruised at 120mph over open ocean to reach those distances, you won't last long doing that in the ETO.