"Stretch or not strech" of aircraft designs (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter spicmart
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Actually had the same engine the later versions got an Afterburner...
CAC Sabre was in Thailand and Malay right through the Vietnam war and never met.
Did meet at Que Moy Incident
Shortround6
Major General
I do wish when people use the tests at WWiiaircraftperformance.org they include some of the pertinent data.
Yes the plane was using WEP (57in of MAP), it actually climbed faster than 3500fpm with the peak being 3720fpm with the engine making 1480hp.
However the plane only grossed 7413lbs at take-off which is extraordinarily light for late P-40, The plane was a P-40K that was being used as a sort of prototype for the P-40N-1, The test does not say if the plane got all the modifications the P-40N-1 got.
The P-40N-1 itself went about 7740lbs max gross clean and had the aluminum radiators and oil coolers, (as did the test plane) they had 27 in magnesium wheels instead of 30in wheels like most P-40s, the front wing tank was taken out (max internal fuel was 122 US gallons), the vacuum system was removed.a reduction in the front pilot armor, and the electric starter was removed (leaving the hand crank inertia starter), Some sources say the battery was removed, others say a much smaller one was fitted. In any case the test P-40 was about 300lbs lighter than "service" P-40N-1.
A few reasons why there are few pilots memoirs touting the climbing ability of the P-40 is than only 400 of the light weight N were built. The factory rolled the first one out the door at the end of Feb or beginning of March 1943. The first US unit to get them was the 99th fighter squadron and they first went into action with them in June of 1943. In July the 18th fighter group of the fifth air force went into action with them and in Sept the 80th fighter group went into action in Burma. That may or may not be the extent of use of the P-40N-1 as a fighter with US forces. 41 were given to Brazil. AN unknown number were converted as tactical reconnaissance aircraft with a K-24 (or K-28) camera.
Please note that in service some of the P-40N-1s had the forward fuel tank installed in the wing, the electric starter motor added back in and the regular sized battery installed at the least. which means they were somewhat heavier than the official figures. The next model was the P-40N-5 and it had full fuel tanks, the starter and big battery, 6 guns but kept the light weight radiators,oil coolers and small magnesium wheels.
With about 5200 P-40Ns built the light weight -1 would tend to get swamped by the combat reports of the later versions or by combat reports of the -1 after several hundred pounds had been added back in.
One source says that the P-40N-1 took 6.7 minutes to climb to 15,000ft at 7700lbs, Power level of the engine not given. ( I am guessing military power for at least the first 5 minutes)
You do realize that is the exact point I was making right? I was pointing out that those kind of stats can be misleading. Not trying to start another P-40 argument!!
What I mean is that conditions varied, tests were sometimes done in ideal conditions, (or sometimes the opposite) and then sometimes these stats get written down in books and become legends, right or wrong (and more often than not, wrong I think). So given that typical initial climb rate for an MC. 202 is around 3,300 - 3,600 fpm, a very light one or one with the engine pushed a little harder could well reach 4,000 fpm. That doesn't mean it was typical combat performance. However on the other hand, after flying for 40 minutes performance might jump up a little too with a light gas tank so that's also worth keeping in mind.
You really need a range of tests with the conditions noted to give you an idea of the range of performance under different circumstances, and especially some idea of what performance was like under actual combat conditions. Otherwise long lasting misperceptions or outright fantasies get repeated over and over.
As an aside, it's unclear if the 99th FS actually ever flew any combat missions with the -N, they did have some briefly, but seem to have flown the F and L in combat, all the photos and records of them I've found are with the F/L
Hello Schweik,
Actually I have seen that number before for the P-40. Its initial climb rate wasn't really that bad especially under War Emergency Power, so it isn't a surprise. I would imagine that a P-40K could do as well or better down near sea level.
For the Macchi, the climb rate works out to 4472 feet/minute average to 2000 meters. The problem is that I suspect that some of this data is for prototypes rather than the service type. The power output listed for the engine suggests that it wasn't the one that was actually installed in any of the Folgore service models but since there were 400+ DB 601 engines imported, perhaps it was one of those?
The problem though is that the Folgore really ISN'T lighter. Where did you get the idea that the wing was any better?
Aerodynamics is an interesting thing. With the same power, the Folgore was let's say as you suggest, even with a Me 109F WITH a Tropical Filter. Without, it was significantly slower. With the same engine power, the Veltro was slightly slower than the early Me 109G.
I actually believe the Serie III Veltro and later is significantly better than the early Me 109G. Again, it is a firepower advantage. You really should pay attention to what you are writing. ANYTHING can kill ANYTHING. Remember the "Golden BB" as they call it. There ain't such thing as a bullet proof airplane.
In 1942, the best Axis fighter was probably the FW 190A. In early versions, it was a hot-rod and easily outclassed the Spitfire Mk.V. The Spitfire Mk.IX also came out in 1942, so later in the year, THAT would have been the best Allied fighter.
These planes were in service in ETO where neither the P-40 nor the Folgore could operate in. When they arrived in the MTO, the Folgore and P-40 were again somewhat outclassed.
You have a habit of doing a lot of name calling. That is really not a mature thing to do.
First of all, you are making the assumption that I consider myself well informed on this subject. I do not.
Consider what happened fairly early on during the actual invasion of Sicily. There were a total of about 100 Folgore still in service. Over about two days, they flew 650 sorties against the allies IIRC. The Germans flew about 500 sorties over the same period. That 23,000 number doesn't sound so high with this kind of activity or even a much reduced rate over an entire year, so you may not think the number is credible, but I do.
I was actually looking forward to see what you had to say about the Ki-43. I never said it was easy pickings. I just said it belonged to a prior generation. I like all three aircraft and but I don't believe any of them was among the best of their time.
You need to find some better and more worthwhile dreams....
Much depends on Which version of FW 190A is being tested.
In June 1942, Oberleutnant Armin Faber of JG 2 did a massive stupid and landed a FW 190A-3 at a RAF base.
His aircraft was tested against Allied fighters, notably Spitfire Mk.V and the new Spitfire Mk.IX.
Spitfire Mk.IX and FW 190A-3 were VERY close in climb rate up to about 20,000 feet above which Spitfire had the advantage. Peak climb rate was around 4,000 feet / minute for both aircraft.
Here is the report but note all the qualifiers as to fuel and condition of the aircraft.
This is aircraft was pretty well documented and there were other factors not mentioned in this report
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw-190-rep2092.pdf
There is another report of a USN test of a FW 190G (I believe) which was configured very similarly to a fighter variant but minus the outer wing cannon. Its climb rate was quite similar though there are some other qualifications on that aircraft.
Fw 190 G-3 Performance Test
- Ivan.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Well I looked abouve and to be honest I don't see how the adition of the me110s make the axis fighter force sub par even if they were not mostly confined to night oporations where p40s would likely never encounter them. They would constitute less than a third of the force if my quick in my head counculations are correct.
What percentage of of the fighter force in Western Europe was constituted by me 110s or similar types in 42? I'm willing to bet it was similar.
So if the percentages of first rate fighters to 2nd rate is similar then this force is by definition not sup par, at least if par is western Europe. And even if there was a fairly substantial difference say 15% 110s etc in Western Europe to 30% in the Med and dessert is that 15% difference enough to say" p40s were only successful because they were faced with inferior oposition because 15 aditional planes out of 100 were lesser types." I think we all know the answer to that.
And I don't see how the half dozen or so Do 17s enter into it at all as A: there not fighters and B: there were only 7 of them.
Last edited:
You are arguing yourself in circles and you are making less and less sense. The Folgore had more wing area - 181 sq ft, and a wider wingspan - 34' 9" vs the 109 at 172.8 sq ft and a 32' 7" wingspan. Hence, the Macchi gets a little more lift and maybe a little more drag from the wing - though other factors can affect that.
Well, the 190A did make it to the MTO in time to fight P-40s for more than a year, but I'd also add that I think you are staking out an outlier position. Many people (including a lot of wartime pilots) would say the Bf109 was the best German fighter. I believe it had the best record. Anyway if you are calling the Bf 109 sub-par then I think you are probably not worth debating with.
- Why look at the mote in my eye while ignoring the plank in yours?
- For someone admittedly ill informed you sure take out a very firm position and hold it with great confidence. This is almost the opposite of the ideal. In fact you boast of lacking curiosity about operational history and then proceed to argue for ten pages about the operational history - with people who actually have the data at hand.
- I have a lot of dreams, I never said that was near at the top of the list. But wasting this much time arguing on this level is definitely not on it.
- You complain that the Folgore 4,000 fpm climb rate isn't a realistic combat rate (and therefore dismiss your own source), but then laud one test of a German plane which is in contradiction to the Germans own test records. Never let facts get in the way of a good theory...
-S
Ivan, I don't know if you are pulling my leg, but did you actually read this?
Table 2 of that document shows the actual rate of climb as tested, which starts at 3,050 fpm, and then after reaching 4,000 ft drops down to 2,750 fpm.
This is pretty good initial rate, but it's not great and it's definitely not 4,000 feet per minute. In fact it's a considerably lower climb rate than the Flogore, which is normally listed as having an initial rate of climb of 3,563 fpm..
Tables 3 and 4 are estimates and top out at 3,750 fpm - they didn't actually get that performance in the test.
Again, I point you to this aggregation of actual German flight tests (that one for the A-5) which show climb rate ranging from 2,997 ft per minute to 3,290 feet per minute (initial). As you can see clearly on this chart, the rate of climb drops below 2,500 fpm by the time it reaches 8,000 ft. That actually isn't all that great for climbing at higher altitudes, in fact the Spitfire Mk IX which you mentioned could still make a very respectable 3,860 fpm at 12,600 ft and 3,020 fpm at 25,200 ft, making it far and away better than any of the earlier 190s.
But I don't think rate of climb was ever really the forte of the 190, it was more about speed, momentum, rate of roll and those heavy guns. It was still a good fighter.
The fastest climbing German prop fighter though was one of the later marks of the 109.
The post I replied to , you had transcribed claims and losses during July and August '42, and as I already stated, that information doesn't tell us anything about how many Mc. 202's were in North Africa at that time. While Pantelleria is close to nortern Tunesia, it's long way to Libya and even further to the Egyptian border, which is where the fighting is going on this period.
The 97 serviceable aircraft is of the total of 165 Bf 109's, 110's and Do 17's.
You missed the point, once again see above.
I understood you the first time
I don't know how many Folgores the Italians had in North Africa in 1942; I was specifically addressing Schweik's claims and losses of C.202's in the summer of 1942.
So are you making the claim that fighter aircraft based in the Mediterranean Islands weren't engaging with DAF fighters in 1942? Because you have the book, you really ought to know better.
So what? What is your point? Servicability waxed and waned for both sides throughout 1942 and 1943.
Which if any Axis fighters are you alleging are sub-par, Bf 109 or MC202 or both?
Be clear what you are asserting.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Ok, I'll bite. What exactly was the point you were trying to make.
Shortround6
Major General
We are getting into several areas of "stretch" of which the Mig-17 was one example.
The P-47N for example had a "stretched" wing (longer wing roots) in order to provide space for more fuel,
The C-141 (and a host of commercial aircraft) was stretched in length to provide more volume for payload.
The Mig 17 was "stretched" over the Mig 15 in order to solve a variety of aerodynamic problems. It actually used a new wing of different airfoil in addition to the longer fuselage.
The longer fuselage may have been planed with the afterburner or perhaps it was coincidence? Changing the fineness ratio on jets happened sometimes to solve drag problems.
The early Mig-17 carried the same armament and pretty much the same fuel load (they were always trying to cram more fuel into early jets) as the Mig 15.
Very few combat planes were "stretched" in physical size to accommodated more fuel (aside from the P-47N) or bombs.
A few planes may have had an extra bay in the wings to hold additional wing guns?
Bombers often changed length to accommodate a new or different nose/tail turret. The B-17E had one of the most extensive rear fuselage rebuilds of any bomber or WW II aircraft. I don't know if people consider it a Stretch or not.
The Halifax got slightly longer wings but the extra volume wasn't used to fit anything in, the extra wing area and change in aspect ratio was used to better handle the increased loads.
The P-47N for example had a "stretched" wing (longer wing roots) in order to provide space for more fuel,
The C-141 (and a host of commercial aircraft) was stretched in length to provide more volume for payload.
The Mig 17 was "stretched" over the Mig 15 in order to solve a variety of aerodynamic problems. It actually used a new wing of different airfoil in addition to the longer fuselage.
The longer fuselage may have been planed with the afterburner or perhaps it was coincidence? Changing the fineness ratio on jets happened sometimes to solve drag problems.
The early Mig-17 carried the same armament and pretty much the same fuel load (they were always trying to cram more fuel into early jets) as the Mig 15.
Very few combat planes were "stretched" in physical size to accommodated more fuel (aside from the P-47N) or bombs.
A few planes may have had an extra bay in the wings to hold additional wing guns?
Bombers often changed length to accommodate a new or different nose/tail turret. The B-17E had one of the most extensive rear fuselage rebuilds of any bomber or WW II aircraft. I don't know if people consider it a Stretch or not.
The Halifax got slightly longer wings but the extra volume wasn't used to fit anything in, the extra wing area and change in aspect ratio was used to better handle the increased loads.
Ivan, I don't know if you are pulling my leg, but did you actually read this?
Table 2 of that document shows the actual rate of climb as tested, which starts at 3,050 fpm, and then after reaching 4,000 ft drops down to 2,750 fpm.
This is pretty good initial rate, but it's not great and it's definitely not 4,000 feet per minute. In fact it's a considerably lower climb rate than the Flogore, which is normally listed as having an initial rate of climb of 3,563 fpm..
Hello Schweik,
My understanding is that in 1942, the Spitfire Mk.V was a pretty even match for a Me 109F. When the first FW 190A started showing up, Spitfires found they were pretty severely out classed. It got bad enough that an operation was actually planned to raid one of the German bases and steal an aircraft to examine. (Operation Air Thief)
Instead, Faber managed to present the British with an intact but derated FW 190A-3. It was tested against various Allied fighters of the time.
You should read the tactical reports from this testing. It makes for very interesting comparisons.
Now also note the qualifications from THIS report. The new paint job is likely to have a bit more drag.
The fuel used is British standard, not German C3 that the FW 190A-3 normally ran on.
What is Not mentioned on this report but mentioned in other descriptions is that this aircraft's engine had a tendency to run rough probably because of fouled plugs. An attempted solution was to replace plugs with those recovered from crashed German Bombers (!) This is hardly an ideal situation.
Even then, it compared pretty favorably in performance against the new Spitfire Mk.IX up to 20,000 feet.
Regarding Climb rates, the first listings are for Climb or 30 minute power.
The second set of listings are for emergency power and I believe the "estimate" is because they were not really sure they were getting the performance the engine was capable of achieving.
Please look at the Manifold Pressure and RPM that are listed at the bottom of the table.
(1.32 ATA and 2400 RPM)
Those are well below what the engine is capable of.
What do you mean by "Momentum"?
I take it you did NOT read the testing of the "FW 190G-3".
Agreed.
- Ivan.
Shortround6
Major General
The MK V Spit is a very difficult aircraft to pin down performance wise as the Basic MK number does not actually tell you which Merlin it had or which boost setting was being used.
Even getting rid of the MK Vb (and a bunch of them were sent to Russia when they were old and tired which helps confuse things) leaves a rather large array of possible engine/boost settings (not to mention quality of build and tiny bits and bobs of equipment fitted or not fitted).
Comparing a MK V of 1941 with a Merlin 45 (9lbs boost) to a MK V of late 42/early 43 with a cropped impeller Merlin 50 (18lbs boost) at under 15,000ft is going to give some rather startling differences in performance.
Even getting rid of the MK Vb (and a bunch of them were sent to Russia when they were old and tired which helps confuse things) leaves a rather large array of possible engine/boost settings (not to mention quality of build and tiny bits and bobs of equipment fitted or not fitted).
Comparing a MK V of 1941 with a Merlin 45 (9lbs boost) to a MK V of late 42/early 43 with a cropped impeller Merlin 50 (18lbs boost) at under 15,000ft is going to give some rather startling differences in performance.
Hello Shortround6,
Very good point.
It is pretty similar to grouping all the FW 190A or Me 109G or P-47D together.
Each had a pretty long production run and differed quite a bit from first to the last.
The later versions had some pretty impressive initial climb rates, but that was not what was being tested against Faber's 190 at the time.
- Ivan.
Very good point.
It is pretty similar to grouping all the FW 190A or Me 109G or P-47D together.
Each had a pretty long production run and differed quite a bit from first to the last.
The later versions had some pretty impressive initial climb rates, but that was not what was being tested against Faber's 190 at the time.
- Ivan.
