"Stretch or not strech" of aircraft designs

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Ivan1GFP said:
Hello Dan Fahey,

I seem to remember that was a "Saburo Sakai flying the A6M" feature.
He decided to fly until he ran the tanks dry and glide in for a landing just to see what the actual endurance was.

- Ivan.
Click to expand...
But the Zero was light enough to glide..!
I can see that a good pilot would try stuff like that !
 


Germans could have put a world of hurt on the Russians with Long range fighters and bombers.
Russia would just have moved them further out or under ground.
But then again you would have to ship them.

But then again when you shoot your Engineers because you did not like them.
That caused a bit of anxiety being innovative.

Also having 87 octane and maybe 100 octane as a main fuel supply kind of limited power.


Do have a question...about Fuel in the CBI Theater...
The Brits and USA main focus was to protect Burma Oil and Processing Facilities.
What Octane Fuels did the allies have access to?
Suspecting the British 100/130 octane was used and not the USA 100 Octane.
 
The Germans did cause a lot of mayhem with "long-range" bombers early in the war. They destroyed several important factories, a lot of communications infrastructure (rail, bridges). The Germans could send Ju 88, Do 217, and He 111 bombers on their own to do raids and cause serious trouble in the first year or two of the war. Due to altitude and / or speed, combined with the general chaos of Soviet air defenses they could often evade Soviet fighters. A lot of the early-war Soviet fighters (I-153, I-16, LaGG-3) were hard pressed to catch a bomber flying at say 20,000 ft and 250+ mph. Even the high altitude MiG-3's didn't seem to do very much.

The Soviets scrambled for quite a while to contend with this threat. Eventually (again around the tipping point of 1942-43) and somewhat inconsistently Soviet factories were now further from the front line and harder to get at, and defenses stiffened up, partly with better fighters on the front line (Yak-9 and La 5) which could more easily catch pretty much any German bomber crossing the front lines, partly due the use of more P-40s and later Spitfire Mk IXs for PVO (air defense units), and some Pe-3 and other planes as night-fighters, and partly from radar, and very heavy AAA concentrations like seen at the port facilities of Leningrad which was one of the few Soviet positions the Germans never could crack with their bombing raids.

As the deep side of the Blitzkrieg operation, the Strategic raids worked in the first part of the war. You can similarly see the German attacks on the airplane industry during the BoB.

However in the long term, once the enemy has adapted, I think the effects of strategic bombing decline and the costs increase. One good example is how the British air defense network rapidly adapted and became so efficient by the end of the BoB. Another good example is Korea. Plastered by B-29 raids to even more of an extent than Japan had faced in WW2, North Korea did indeed put their production underground. Their defenses (AAA and interceptor) improved dramatically and losses of heavy bombers went up. It wasn't until Vietnam that the SAM became a serious threat although the basic technology was known in WW2 (and used a little bit by the Germans I think but they never got them operational) SA-2s made B-52 raids quite dangerous.

In WW2 it is debated of course, Speer explained how he distributed production and the Germans were still cranking out a lot of kit almost to the end, but some things like oil couldn't be subdivided into caves and so on.


As for the fuel quality used by Allied planes, my understanding is that they usually did send the good British fuel after a certain date. What fuel the Russians used for Anglo-American lend-lease fighters in particular seems to be a hotly debated topic, some Russian sources I read said they had British fuel, others said they used their own. I'm not sure an Allison would even run on 70 octane fuel but I don't really know, Shortround6 probably does.

Apparently the good fuel did make it to India and Australia, and eventually into the Med, beyond that I am not sure.
 
Last edited:
Schweik said:
Well in the US you had Allison, Curtiss-Wright, Pratt and Whitney and Packard all making piston engines, then Westinghouse and G.E. making jet engines, plus G.E. also making turbochargers. So that's more like 5 or 6 companies.
Click to expand...
Hey, just a minute. The original comparison wasn't how many plants were building engines, it was how many major design/build organisations (or "brands") did each country have in the recip arena. That leaves out all the outfits copying or copying/modifying someone else's design. AFAIK, there was no totally indigenous design US jet engine in WWII that was free from British input.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Looking for a bit more data on MiG-3 I found this, maybe they did ok in PVO

"From Moscow to Leningrad, Sevastopol to Karelia, MiG-3s were used all across the Eastern Front in the summer and fall of 1941. MiG-3s were rolling off Zavod No. 1's assembly line at an increasing pace, and pilots were being trained specifically to fly the high-speed fighter. In the skies over Moscow, MiG-3s played a crucial role in defending the former capital from German bombers and reconnaissance aircraft. From the start of the war, the PVO's 6th IAK, equipped with MiG-3s and other fighters, were tasked solely with air defense of the Soviet capital. With its rate of climb and good performance at high altitudes, the MiG-3 was considered to be the best fighter for the task, though Luftwaffe reconnaissance crews would come to learn that Soviet interceptors, including the MiGs, could not reach higher altitudes. Consequently, experienced German crews would simply fly their reconnaissance missions above 8,000 meters, beyond the range of the PVO's interceptors. MiG-3s were similarly used during the defense of Leningrad in the north, where the fighters were tasked with intercepting German bombers and reconnaissance aircraft. The 7th IAK, which was comprised of Polikarpov I-153s and I-16s in addition to the MiG-3s, was heralded for repeatedly preventing the penetration of German Ju-88s into Soviet airspace in the summer of 1941. "
 

From what I gather, the British designs were ultimately adopted, but G.E. for example was still trying to make it's own designs through the war, which is the point / context

GE Aviation - Wikipedia

As to whether Packard counts, it's true they adapted Rolls Royce engines but weren't they doing their own engine research and variants of the engine (for example with marine engines)? Maybe it's a stretch.

Does modifying someone else's design rule you out?

I think the Soviet and French and maybe some British inline engines were originally based on older Hispano Suiza designs for example...
 
Dan Fahey said:
But the Zero was light enough to glide
Click to expand...
ANY airplane is light enough to glide! It's a function of L/D, and weight doesn't change it. The kicker is that the speed (and hence, sink rate) at which optimum L/D is achieved by such bricklike objects as an F104 or F4 makes for a pretty dicey landing (think Space Shuttle) that the landing gear may not withstand. OTOH, there've been, I believe, at least two instances of F16s making dead stick landings, one of them in night IMC.
Cheers,
Wes
 

Wes,

You are correct that F16s have made deadstick landings, and I believe the number to be well above two. Watched the video of a night dead stick into an unlit airfield under combat conditions (carrying live ordinance) using the Lantern Pod for night vision.

If only those Viper guys would have done just a touch better at Pilot Training then they to could have got a fighter with two engines instead of one...



Cheers,
Biff
 
Schweik said:
As to whether Packard counts, it's true they adapted Rolls Royce engines but weren't they doing their own engine research and variants of the engine (for example with marine engines)? Maybe it's a stretch.
Click to expand...
Packard had their own indigenous V12 design for marine use, to which they adapted some Merlin technology, making the PT boats into fast movers. And they had fooled around with V12 aero engines and superchargers in the 20s and early 30s, working on a follow-on to the Liberty engine of WWI. But AFAIK, they never produced an in-house designed V12 aero engine after that.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Stig1207 said:
I am not saying it was ineffective, I am saying that it's record may not be quite as spectacular as it's purported to be, as a consequence of overclaiming.......if you have aspirins would you mind PM'ing me one?
Click to expand...
I think that's a fair statement. Certainly not unreasonable
Once read a pilot discribe the glide characteristics of a Phantom as that of an anvil. He may have been using a bit of hyperbole.............but maybe not too much.
 
michael rauls said:
Once read a pilot discribe the glide characteristics of a Phantom as that of an anvil. He may have been using a bit of hyperbole.............but maybe not too much.
Click to expand...
The Phantom's Martin-Baker seats, which were zero-zero rated and would preserve your posterior if you punched out sitting on the flight line, wouldn't save you if you did it in a steady state dead stick glide below 3000 feet. The sink rate would put you outside the seat's envelope and you wouldn't get enough separation to avoid the aircraft's point of impact.
There's a reason for the notation on the NATOPS departure from controlled flight recovery diagram:
"IF CONTROLLED FLIGHT NOT ACHIEVED DESCENDING THROUGH 10,000 FEET EJECT.
Cheers,
Wes
 

Ok deeply wounded by the accusation I was cherry picking, and in the undoubtedly forlorn hope of putting a particular myth to rest, I went through MAW II and MAW III page by page (due to the miserable insufficiency of the index in both brick-like books) and found two more, though still not the one I was looking for from mid 1942. I did book end that year though with the following Axis Orders of Battle:

Feb 1942 Axis Fighters
The following is actual on-hand strength

Italian (This is from Shores MAW II pp. 32-33

1° Stormo - MC.202 (38)
3° Grupo Autonomo CT - CR.42 (26)
12° Gruppo Autonomo CT - G.50 (36)
150° Gruppo Augonomo CT -MC.200 (25)
160° Gruppo Autonomo CT - CR.42 (35)
8° Gruppo Autonomo CT MC.200 (20)

So 38 modern fighters, 81 second-string, and 61 biplanes which I think were already relegated to fighter-bomber duties by then (having been bested by the Hurricanes), 180 fighters total plus about 150 bombers of which only the ~ 25 x operational SM 79 torpedo bombers and ~ 10 CANT 506 seaplanes were operational.

J.G.27 and a Bf 110 group and some German bombers were also operational at this time and very active but he doesn't give their numbers for February here.

Nov 1942 eve of Torch landings (from MAW Vol III pp. 41-45)

German
Again no numbers here but the following units / types are listed:

II./JG 51 - Bf 109G-2
Stab JG 53 - Bf 109G-2
II./JG 53 - Bf 109G-4
II./ZG 1 - Me 210A1-
II./JG 2 - Fw 190A-3
I./JG 53 -Bf 109G-2
III./ZG 2 -Fw 190A-5
II./JG 27 - BF 109F-4/G-2
Stab JG 77 - Bf 109G-2
I./JG 77 - Bf 109G-2
III./ZG 26 - Bf 110F-2/Ju 88C-6
I./SchG 2 - Bf 109F-4
4.(H)/12 - Bf 109F-4

This is seven squadrons so roughly 80-100 fighters not counting command units, consisting of half of two Jagdeschwader (roughly, fighter wings) of front line Bf 109 fighters: JG. 77 which was moving into the region, and JG 53 (two squadrons), plus squadrons from three more wings: JG. 27 (elite but being phased out due to casualties / battle weariness), JG 2 (elite Fw 190 wing), and JG 51 (elite Bf 109), plus heavy fighters, Fw 190 Jabos (ZG II) some other miscellaneous Bf 109 units (I'm not sure what 4.(H)/12 means).

Italian
In Sicily and Southern Mediterranean Islands:
51° Stormo CT - MC 202 (23)
377° Squadriglia Autonoma Int -mixed Cr 42 (8) / MC 200 (2) / MC 202 (1)
22° Gruppo Aut CT - Re - 2001 (21)
17° Gruppo Aut CT - MC. 202 (33)
153° Gruppo CT - MC 202 (21)
20° Gruppo CT - MC 202 (11)
24° Gruppo Autonomo CT - mixed G.50bis (26) / Cr 42 (25) / MC 202 (2)

In North Africa specifically:
4° Stormo CT MC.202 (28)
3° Stormo CT MC.202 (20)
2° Stormo CT MC.200 / 202 (18)
15° Stormo Assalto - Cr.42 (17)
50° Stormo Assalto - CR.42 (11)
5° Stormo Truffatori - CR 42 (11)

So that is:
Med Islands: 91 MC. 202, 21 Re 2001, 2 MC.200, 26 G.50bis, and 33 CR.42, for a total of 112 modern, 28 second string, and 33 biplanes.
North Africa: ~ 55 MC.202, ~ 10 MC.200, 39 CR.42

Total in the operational area is: 146 MC.202, 21 Re 2001, 12 MC.200, 26 G.50bis, and 72 CR.42 which again were used for bombers.

For example I broke down the whole operational history of Oct 1942 and in that month the CR.42s were only operational on one day, as part of one bombing massive raid, losing 6 planes.

If you look through the books for 1942 or 1943 (up to the Italian surrender) you'll notice the vast majority of Italian claims and losses are of MC.202


So to go back to my original comment debunking the claim about Axis opposition in the Med, in early 1942 there may be some truth to that, certainly by the end of 1942 (when the US units were just ramping up with Torch) there was a formidable array of front line German fighters (Fw 190, Bf 109G-4, G-2 and F-4) and 146 MC.202 available, with relatively few of the older planes available (and even fewer in actual sorties)
 
Last edited:
I believe the Lockheed J37 was started prior to the arrival of the British technology, but was essentially a DOA program.
 
XBe02Drvr said:
Did it fly? Did it fight? DQ.
Click to expand...
Nope, like a myriad number of other engines, protracted development, and lack of a patron killed it. But according to Kay design work started in 1938.
And there was also the Westinghouse 19A, with the official US Navy kickoff on 7 Jan, 1942.
 
On the subject of Russian/Soviet engines.

according to WIki the M/KV-105 went through at least 4 models.
the M-105 of 1939 at 1100hp
the M-105P of 1940, first mass produced version of 1050hp (?)
the M-105PA of 1941 at 1200hp
the M-105PF of 1942 at 1260hp
the M-105PF-2 of 1944 (?) at 1300-1360hp (?) used in the Yak-3

adjust as you see fit, however

the M-106 engine which was started in 1938/39 was supposed to be a 1250/1350hp engine at some point in it's development. and was in small scale production in 1942. It's failure in 1940/41 forced the continued use of the M-105 series.

The M-107 likewise overlaps the M-105 with work starting in 1939 and 2000 engines scheduled for production in 1941. At this point in time it was a 1300/1400hp engine and one can see how, had it worked, the Soviet Lagg and Yak fighters would have been much more capable aircraft. BUT failures of connecting rods, pistons and crankcases kept it out of service (in any numbers) even though 686 engines were built in 1941/42.

The Soviets were NOT building planes that were just good enough on purpose. They were building lightly armed planes with short lived engines because they didn't have much choice.
The Planned better engines were not working and their alternative was to over boost the existing engine, accept the shorter engine life and restrict armament (weight) to keep up performance.
 
For the Americans you had 3 companies designing major aircraft piston engines, Packard pretty much built Merlin's under licence.

Packard's chief aircraft engine designer had died in 1931 (?) in an an aircraft crash. The PT boat engine was derived from the larger of the old V-12 aircraft engines (and was of 2500 cu in ).


The US did have slew of other engine makers/designers but lets face it. Air Cooled Motors (Franklin), Continental, Jacobs, Lycoming, Kinner, Fairchild (Ranger), and a few others never developed an engine that saw use in a 1st line combat aircraft. Designing 50-350hp engines that ran on low grade fuel was hard to transition to over 1000hp engines running on 100 octane and up.
Many other countries also had engine makers that built light engines. England had De Havilland and Blackburn making inline fours and sixes for instance.

But for piston engines that counted in combat aircraft the numbers of design teams were pretty much as given.

Some of the light engine makers did get development contracts for Jet engines as most of the big companies were stretched to the max working on piston engines.
For the US some weird notion of secrecy prevented Jet engines being developed at major engine companies.
 
Well I'm certainly not suggesting that if they could have doubled horsepower in 1942 they wouldn't have done so. What I am saying is the following:
  • Every nation decided how much money to allocate in their defense budget
  • Some went to R&D, some to production, some training, some to logistics
  • Of course the Soviets were working on better aircraft designs, better engines, things like rockets and so on.
  • But I suspect the Soviets probably put a bit more emphasis on production than on R&D, across the board.
  • They did support and push the design efforts, but by the time their factories were working, they got what they needed and didn't ramp it up to another level. This is what I mean by 'just enough'.
If you are arguing that they were at the absolute maximum investment they could have made in engine development in terms of money, logistical resources, people, infrastructure, political cover and so on, then I think you are mistaken.

In the US, the UK, Japan and Germany R&D was partly private and partly corporate, but my understanding is that even Soviet design bureaus also had some leeway to develop projects (of course, you could end up in the Gulag if it didn't go well...)

The Soviets came up with surprising innovations (even if they were often hacks of foreign designs) during the war, the katyusha rocket, the PPsh submachine gun, the T-34.

With aircraft the improvement was more gradual, but it was pretty steady after the great factory move of 1941/42. By 1944, with the arrival of the Yak-3, I think they had the best low altitude fighter of the war, I think a low altitude fighter was definitely a thing, and I believe there was no other fighter which would have been as good on the Russian Front.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
1939-1942 FAA: Better aircraft or more aircraft?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
1K
ThomasP
T
S
Adherent or Mafia?
Replies
6
Views
811
Shortround6
S
What (or what would) make a good tactical recon aircraft in World War II
Replies
10
Views
1K
ColFord
France airforce FAF Order of Battle
Replies
3
Views
411
Barrett
B
Menu
Log in
Register