michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Very interesting. Personally I enjoy reading pilots interviews and accouts more than probably anything else.
"Stretch or not strech" of aircraft designs (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter spicmart
- Start date
The P-40 was getting faster throughout its history.
You missed that I mentioned the Bubble Canopy would have been a big help..for SA - Situation Awareness
Still Curtis built them without the better engine which would have given it a wider improved flight profile.
Fact that the Mustang was faster is not relevant as most of that speed was at high altitude.
The new engine would have made the P-40 25-30 mph faster and climb better at all altitudes.
The P-40 was a better dog fighter at altitudes under 20 k where most of the fighting took place.
Interesting the Russians and Italians also fought at the lower altitudes where most of the targets were.
On the P-63 lots of information on French use in Africa and Vietnam. Look it up!
Had better range than the P47's, more nimble and used unimproved fields.
It was better than the F6F, F8F and the few Corsairs given to them.
The French used the left over Japanese planes like the Ki-43 and remaining bombers.
I love them too, but I also really like the whole design angle and have wasted enjoyed many hours of reading wikipedia articles, profile specs and long winded, overly detailed production histories of various aircraft. For me it's probably about 50/50
For evaluating different aircraft, we have sources from:
Much more recently we have been getting data originating from items 7-10 and I think that is changing our perception somewhat, as they challenge the earlier sources. But the new information emerging especially in the form of (11) and (12) is hard for a lot of people to digest even though it's probably a more realistic picture of the reality. But the picture is still emerging so it may be a bit early to start drawing new conclusions. At the very least though, it gives the opportunity to re-examine some of the older tropes, like the idea that the P-39 was only used by the Soviets for ground attack.
For evaluating different aircraft, we have sources from:
- high level overview from military bureaucracies (mostly 1950s),
- from higher level military commanders (1940s - 50s),
- the war-journalists (1940s-50s),
- the more purely civilian journalists (1940s-60s),
- biographies of the pilots (50s-60s),
- postwar enthusiasts and fanboys (60s-70s),
- squadron and fighter / bomber wing histories,
- detailed logistical records and government test memos and so on,
- systematic interviews with the pilots like those Russian ones and the ones Australian War Memorial has done,
- personal letters, flight / log books, and private journals from pilots,
- Aggregation websites (wwiiaircraftperformance.org, pacific victory roll, ciel de gloire, Len-lease.ru and so on) which collect 8-10
- New wave of comparative analysis books based on items 8-10.
Much more recently we have been getting data originating from items 7-10 and I think that is changing our perception somewhat, as they challenge the earlier sources. But the new information emerging especially in the form of (11) and (12) is hard for a lot of people to digest even though it's probably a more realistic picture of the reality. But the picture is still emerging so it may be a bit early to start drawing new conclusions. At the very least though, it gives the opportunity to re-examine some of the older tropes, like the idea that the P-39 was only used by the Soviets for ground attack.
On my list of "what ifs" is: what if, when Martin added the top turret to the B-26, instead of sticking it back by the tail, they had put it just behind the cockpit, or between the radio operator/navigator's position and the bomb bay? They would have needed to stretch the fuselage about four feet or so, but the center of gravity would have been moved forward. Without making any other changes, the extra length in the fuselage, plus the relocated CG would have made the plane more stable. (Of course, they still could have lengthened the wings and increased the size of the vertical stabilizer, as they did.) That might have saved a few lives, and it sure would have given that top gunner a wider field of fire.
I've always thought the B-26 was an interesting case. A lot of people like it but the service record is decidedly mixed. The early war Martin 167 "Maryland" and 187 "Baltimore", built solely for export (to the French I think originally) gave excellent performance, had good handling. Both managed close to 300 mph, the 167 was so maneuverable that it was sometimes used as a long range fighter. There was even an ace in the type who flew one out of Malta. Both had a pretty good range for the early war ("Maryland" 1,300 miles, "Baltimore" 980 miles).
They did carry relatively light 2,000 lb bomb loads and were fairly lightly armed (the Baltimore had 4 forward firing guns and up to 6 flexible defensive LMG, later versions got a pair of .50 cal guns in a power turret)
Both performed quite well in British service in the MTO, where the Maryland became an important recon type, and the Baltimore replaced the badly performing Blenheim as the main bomber of the DAF (along withe the A-20 / Boston / Havoc).
Both were relatively long and skinny, providing a smooth and clean profile to the resistant air.
Maryland
Baltimore
The far more well known model 179, known as the "Marauder" was also meant to be fast, but requirements for heavier armament and bomb load resulted in a rather portly aircraft with a large compliment of heavy machine guns for defense. But as we all know it ended up relatively slow and (particularly in it's first short-winged incarnation) difficult in terms of handling, with a high wing loading and a relatively poor power to mass ratio.
Top speed according to Janes in spite of powerful R-2800 engines just 287 mph and a ceiling of 21,000 ft.
It did carry a 4,000 lb load though. But to what use?
They did carry relatively light 2,000 lb bomb loads and were fairly lightly armed (the Baltimore had 4 forward firing guns and up to 6 flexible defensive LMG, later versions got a pair of .50 cal guns in a power turret)
Both performed quite well in British service in the MTO, where the Maryland became an important recon type, and the Baltimore replaced the badly performing Blenheim as the main bomber of the DAF (along withe the A-20 / Boston / Havoc).
Both were relatively long and skinny, providing a smooth and clean profile to the resistant air.
Maryland
Baltimore
The far more well known model 179, known as the "Marauder" was also meant to be fast, but requirements for heavier armament and bomb load resulted in a rather portly aircraft with a large compliment of heavy machine guns for defense. But as we all know it ended up relatively slow and (particularly in it's first short-winged incarnation) difficult in terms of handling, with a high wing loading and a relatively poor power to mass ratio.
Top speed according to Janes in spite of powerful R-2800 engines just 287 mph and a ceiling of 21,000 ft.
It did carry a 4,000 lb load though. But to what use?
Attachments
Last edited:
Hello Schweik,
My comment was not to suggest that the Allison or Merlin was superior. It was just an observation that under VERY high power, high RPM use (well beyond the levels used in WW2 aircraft) the Allison seems to hold up much better.
When your customer is not willing to fund development of a better supercharger and already had a "solution" for high altitude operation, then does it make sense to spend corporate funds for no contract?
We are actually both arguing for the requirement for a good radio installation in fighters.
Actually I don't believe I overstated anything here. All changes had to be approved by Rolls Royce and shared with them. Some of the better ideas were adopted for RR production as well. Some such as Indium coatings were just differences that were accepted. I am sure that if one looks at details of the engines side by side, there will be other differences such as seals. Some people working on these engines have commented that the Packards and Rolls Royce engines are about equal in performance where there are equivalent versions but Packards tend to keep more of their oil on the inside.
Many sources have commented that when working on drawings, the dimensions and tolerances had to be tightened up by Packard so that they could guarantee parts interchangeability.
Actually there was no need to comment because the numbers you were listing were not really in disagreement with the numbers I had already seen. Average monthly availability in North Africa for 1942 was about 30-70 Folgores.
The only number that seems to be in dispute is the percentage of sorties flown by Folgore.
Hello Dan Fahey,
I had not missed your mention of the Bubble Canopy.
Just remember that although this was a "better" P-40, everyone else already had the Bubble Canopy for better SA.
Even WITH the improved Allison engine, the XP-40Q-2 was still only making 422 MPH which is 25 MPH below what a P-51D could do.
The client wanted SPEED and even this P-40 wasn't achieving it.
The US built a bunch of P-63. They just exported them all. Compared to what was already in the inventory, they were a bit short-ranged and slow for the time.
Considering that the French lost their colonies in both places you mentioned, that is hardly a recommendation for the quality of their equipment. Neither is using left over Ki-43 fighters.
- Ivan.
Irrelevant argument. A stable full of the best aircraft in the world (Spits? Mustangs? Mosquitos? Skyraiders??) wouldn't have kept Indo-China and Algeria in the empire. Their problems ran far deeper than the quality of their air weapons.
Cheers,
Wes
Par for the course I guess, never let facts get in the way of a good theory eh?
Ok despite the futility let's summarize what I posted on this so far:
Feb 1942
38 x MC.202, 81 x MC.200 and G.50, and 61 x CR 42 - fits your theory
November 1942
146 MC.202, 21 Re 2001, 12 MC.200, 26 G.50bis and 72 CR 42 fighter bombers- doesn't fit your theory
June 1943
6 x Bf 109, 11 x MC 205, 10 x Re 2005, 32 x MC 202, 4 x MC 20, 4 x D.520, 17 x CR.42 - doesn't fit your theory either
In addition –
I finally found that post I had made long ago. It is here. It shows the match up right before El Alamein.
From Shores the theoretical Allied fighter strength was 336 fighters (128 Kittyhawks, 128 Hurricanes, 32 Hurricane IID, 75 Warhawks, and 48 Spitfires) by theoretical I mean it does not show on-hand aircraft like I've been showing for the Italians and for the Germans in that post. The hard core of this group are the 48 Spitfires, 75 P-40F/L, and 60 x RAF Kittyhawk II and III for 183.
Total Axis on-hand fighter strength ads up to 307 front line (Bf 109 and MC.202) fighters plus 150 Cr.42 fighter bombers, 12 Bf 109E Jabo and 46 Bf 110.
German actual fighter strength (via Shores for August 1942) was 92 x Bf 109F, 12 x Bf 109E, 46 x Bf 110
If you counted the CR 42s the Allies were actually outnumbered (457-336) though as I said due to fuel shortages and their vulnerability the biplanes rarely flew.
And then the Italian strength, which no wonder I couldn't find it in Shores as it was derived from this website.
Here is what the website shows. Before the Battle of El Alamein in October 1942:
- 210 x Macchi 202 in 7 groups
- 150 CR 42 "Fighter Bombers" in 5 groups
- 1 group / 20-30 planes of Ju 87
- 1 group / 20 planes of Z 1007 bombers
- 2 groups / 40 planes of Sm.79
So rather the average of 30-80 MC.202 may be applicable for January or February of 1942, but their numbers steadily built up in 1942 and by mid year (when the Americans first started trickling in) I think it's actually more like 100 - 150, peaking around 200 before El Alamein. And while 150 aircraft may not sound like much, the Germans also had about 80-100 state of the art Bf 109s manned by elite JG 27, 51, 53, and 77 (77 replacing 27 after they were overwhelmed) later joined by Fw 190s, so you are talking about 250-300 top level Axis fighters facing about 300-350 Allied fighters, most of which were P-40s and Hurricanes. The Hurricanes almost totally relegated to fighter bomber duties.
As I already pointed out, the 325th FG claimed 95 Bf 109 and 26 MC 202 'confirmed' destroyed while flying P-40s, as you can see here, their only other Italian fighter was a single MC 200 damaged. That is 99.9% front-line aircraft. From Shores we know that about 10 of their victories in 1943 were actually MC 205. None were MC 200. I've posted those too somewhere.
So the TL : DR is that the trope that the P-40 did well in North Africa only because they faced sub-par opposition is just that, a legend and not based on fact.
Looks like the B-26 suffered from mission creep: forward firing MG's for low level attacks, bombardier's nose and ventral guns for level bombing, bomb bay capable of holding a torpedo - it could have benefited from somebody deciding what mission it was meant for and outfitting it just for that - or shipping multiple armament kits, as was done with the B-25.
Yeah, sometimes the fusion of government requirements with the corporate culture results in an odd looking duck. Military planners don't always see the world in the 'less is more' manner of an aeronautical engineer.
The Germans insistence on dive bomber capability for every bomber kind of fits there too. But I'm torn because I can understand why they wanted it. Level bombing was so ineffective in comparison.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
There is a difference (a large one in my opinion) in that while the Russians fitted a lower powered substitute engine into production/service fighters than they were designed for, the US and the British never did. Both countries had fighter prototypes powered by engines that either outright failed or had development problems but none of these fighters went into production with lower powered engines.
P-38 went into production with higher powered engines than the Prototype (and that may have had better engines than initial paper design?)
P-39 went into production with the same power engines as the Prototype (and that may have had better engines than initial paper design?)P-39 did have the turbo removed.
P-40 went production with as good or better engines than the Prototype. (prototype used a C-19 engine and not the C-33)
P-47 went into production with the same power engines as the Prototype
P-51 went into production with the same power engines as the Prototype
All of these planes got higher powered engines later in life as did the Russian aircraft.
F4F went into production with the same power engines as the Prototype, although a few got lower powered engines.
F4U went into production with higher powered engines than the Prototype (Prototype had an 1850hp engine)
F6F went into production with the same power engines as the Prototype.
I don't know of any British fighter that went into production with a lower powered engine than the prototype or planned engine in design stage.
Well, you own statement shows why the Soviet high command wanted higher performing planes. They knew that conditions B and C were NOT going to be met and they needed to insure some measure of superiority in design in order to allow for shortfalls in production performance and the shortfall in skilled pilots. It is easier to keep your green pilots alive and have them become experienced pilots if they are flying planes with superior performance.
What the Soviet high command wanted and what they got were not always the same thing.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Hispano Suiza was based in Spain, in Catalonia. The chief engineer and designer who created the main gun in the Spitfire and the Hurricane (and a lot of other planes) was Swiss -hence the name but they were a Spanish company. They also had a branch in Paris and a branch in Argentina, but beyond that I think they mostly just sold their designs for things like inline engines and guns. And inline engines which worked with guns in the middle
The Branch in Paris actually had at least four locations. It also, in aircraft engine production at least, was by the far the largest producer. Getting through H-S history is tough when you consider the car production, truck production, engines for rail cars and airframe construction in addition to the aircraft engine and cannon production.
However the company did not have the resources of some of the big American and British companies. It also seems that the chief engineer and designer went on to new challenges/projects and didn't go back to the early ones often enough. Or was kept out by some of the manufacturing arrangements?
two reasons for the lack of development in the V-12 engines (or perhaps the trouble in trying to develop the V-12 to stay competitive with the new engines) was that the bore spacing on the V-12s was the same as the 300hp V-8 engine of 1918. It meant you could produce the V-12s using some of the same production machinery but it also meant the bore was limited in size and resulted in the long stroke and high piston speed. They also used a thin crankshaft with no counterweights and no room for them to be added (without a lot of difficulty) which limited RPM.
The ability to use a cannon down the middle was purchased at the cost of having the intake and exhaust both on the same side of the cylinder head which restricted port size and gas flow which affected power. It also limited the size of the supercharger that could be used unless a new supercharger drive (and/or location) could be designed.
Well you are concentrating on the success stories (for the most part). There were quite a few cancellations and long struggles with designs. P-38 is one of those due in part to the various problems with the engines and turbos. But there are others! Many others in fact, which went nowhere.
How about the Hawker Tornado, cancelled due to the failure of the Rolls Royce Vulture
Or the very promising Westland Whirlwind, delayed by problems with the Rolls Royce Peregrine and finally cancelled when they stopped making the RR Kestrel / Peregrine.
Dare I mention the Hawker Typhoon with the numerous problems with the Napier Sabre? Yes it delivered plenty of HP when it was working...
Or how about the doomed Curtiss P-60? Designed to use the Continental XIV-1430-3, then when that project failed a RR Merlin , then a turbocharged Allison V-1710-75, then a Chrysler XIV-2220 which is not a famous engine today because it did not work.
There was also the Lockheed XP-49 which was cancelled due to the failure of the Continental XIV.
The XP-55 Ascender was built around the Pratt and Whitney X-1800 engine and had to be redesigned due to delays with that project.
Or the ambitious and well named XP-58 Chain Lightning, originally meant to use the Continental IV-1430, which were not powerful enough so they switched to the Pratt and Whitney XH-2600, but that engine was cancelled so they switched to Wright R-2160 Tornadoes
And for every total failure there were also many partial successes. The P-36 was given numerous different radial engines none of which delivered enough power (or as much as they were supposed to) which is why they switched to the inline Allison for the P-40, and it didn't give enough power either.
Their biggest challenge with aircraft production was not so much the design, but quality control and the production process itself.
Hello Schweik,
First of all, this isn't MY theory. It was something I lifted from an Italian book about the Macchi C.202.
You REALLY should read what you posted. Your data is actually in pretty good agreement.
My (actually from the book) comment was that in NORTH AFRICA, the monthly average was about 30-70 Folgore for 1942. Your November 1942 statistic fits that just fine because of the units you listed only 66 aircraft by my count (really YOUR count) were actually in North Africa at the time.
As for June, 1943, I have some numbers for that also and they are actually a bit higher than yours though I don't remember ever putting those into the discussion.
As I said before, the main overlap from different sources that I was reading was 1942 so that is all I was trying to list.
- Ivan.
Hello ClayO,
The B-26 Marauder suffered from a LOT of problems. Most of them came from its basic design.
It was designed with a symmetrical airfoil which I had always wondered about. It seemed to be the style at the time but doesn't make sense for an aircraft that was not intended for sustained inverted flight.
A couple years back, I actually found an article by Peyton Magruder, the designer, that stated that the symmetrical airfoil was probably not the way to go.
It sacrificed wing span and wing area for high speed. It had the high speed to start, but as soon as weight increased, it needed bigger wings to still have a "reasonable" take-off and landing performance. This and the airfoil were probably reasons why the aircraft never had any great altitude performance.
It also seemed to be VERY sensitive to the way that the aircraft was loaded.
The package guns were not such a big deal because usually only two of four were retained in operational aircraft.
The last production version, the B-26G showed some of the weirdness that resulted from a small wing and goofy airfoil: The entire wing along with engines were inclined upward to improve low speed handling. That could not have done anything good for high speed performance which is probably why these aircraft were relatively slow.
Incidentally, even such a heavy beast could be flown as a glider as my neighbor proved after the war.
- Ivan.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
An interesting/ funny note on the B26, apaerantly one of its nicknames owing to its speed and small wing area was " the hooker" as it was so fast and had no visable means of support.
