to_change22
Recruit
- 6
- Apr 9, 2023
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Until the people with experience in aero-enginering chime in, here is the 'IMO'.What accounts for this drastic difference in weight? References and people with aero-engineering experiences would be greatly appreciated
Hi,Keep in mind some of these fighters ( F4F, P-39, P-47, BF 109) do not have wing center sections so their wing weights look comparatively better than they actually are.
Empty | Normal loaded | Gross | Maximum | |
P-26A | 2197 | 2955 | ||
P-26B | 2302 | 3062 | ||
P-26C | 2332 | 3075 | ||
P-35 | 4315 | 5599 | ||
P-35A | 4575 | 6118 | ||
P-36A | 4567 | 5470 | ||
P-36C | 4620 | 5734 | ||
Hawk 75A-4 | 4483 | 5692 | ||
Hawk 75A-4 | 4541 | 5750 | ||
Hawk 75M | 3975 | 5305 | ||
Hawk 75O | 3975 | 5172 | ||
P-39C | 5070 | 7075 | 7300 | |
P-39D | 5462 | 7500 | 8200 | |
P-40 | 5376 | 6787 | 7215 | |
P-40B | 5590 | 7326 | 7600 | |
P-43 | 5654 | 7810 | 7935 |
As I've been reading through various resources on pursuit fighter development in WW2, I've noticed a weird trend that I'd love to get some advice on. Simply put, the structural weight of 1935-1940 era U.S. pursuit fighters (single-engined) was larger than the Bf-109E or the Spitfire Mk1. This was partly responsible for their poor climbing performance (given than climbing performance is proportional to P/W ratio).
Here's some data with sources:
Curtiss P-40A (without armor or self-sealing fuel tanks): Gross weight = 6782 lbs
- Source: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40_Official_Summary_of_Characteristics.pdf
Curtiss P-40B (with armor, self-sealing fuel tanks, and 2 additional machine guns): Gross weight = 7326 lbs
Bell YP-39 & P-39C (with armor and self-sealing tanks): Gross weight = 7000 lbs
- Source: Bell YP-39 Airacobra
Spitfire Mk1 Gross Weight: 5,935 lbs.
Bf-109 Gross Weight: 5,875 lbs (sources vary).
What accounts for this drastic difference in weight? References and people with aero-engineering experiences would be greatly appreciated
Yeah, the P-40 had at least twice the range of the Spitfire, given roughly contemporary variants. That gave a much better ability to escort tactical bombers.Another big thing is fuel. US was expecting to have to fight at a distance, not on home territory. P-40s and Wildcats carried a good bit more fuel than Spitfires, Hurricanes, Bf 109s or Yak-1s. Lightnings, P-51s and P-47s, Corsairs and Hellcats carried much more fuel. So that is a lot of weight right there even for the empty (but self sealing) fuel tanks, and the structural strength to carry all that gas.
Not quite true.Another big thing is fuel. US was expecting to have to fight at a distance, not on home territory.
Not quite true.
The US did expect to fight on home territory, trouble was that the home territory was huge.
Almost 540 miles from Pensacola to Miami.
470 miles from Boston to Norfolk/Newport News
680 miles from Seattle to San Francisco.
480 miles from San Francisco to San Diego.
Just getting squadrons from one area of the country to another was a major problem.
For the British it was about 610 miles from Land's end to John o' Groats
The poor ole P-51 was caught up in an additional "bind". In addition to its prodigious internal fuel which was increased by a rear tank almost as big as a Hurricane and Spitfires total, it was also tasked with carrying 75 external tanks, meaning it also had to carry enough oil and oxygen for its 6 hr missions, every increase involved another increase.Another big thing is fuel. US was expecting to have to fight at a distance, not on home territory. P-40s and Wildcats carried a good bit more fuel than Spitfires, Hurricanes, Bf 109s or Yak-1s. Lightnings, P-51s and P-47s, Corsairs and Hellcats carried much more fuel. So that is a lot of weight right there even for the empty (but self sealing) fuel tanks, and the structural strength to carry all that gas.