As I see it thats what the Light Weight Mustangs were all about, going back to the drawing board we re evaluated standards to get what was needed. In the curious world dominated by "G" despite the apparent relaxation in standards it was neither "light weight" nor in any way weak.Good point - "every increase involved another increase" - I think that is definitely a constant in aviation
In what way is 9,500LB light in terms of WW2 v12 water cooled piston engined fighters?They were "lightweight" compared to what the P-51B/D had become (due to weight increases endemic to all fighter development at the time), and were certainly light compared to say a P-47, a Tempest, or even later Fw-190s. They also carried more fuel and had more range than the B/D prior to them getting the 85 gallon fuel tanks. But they were pretty much interceptors by USAAF standards and didn't quite have the range to do very long range missions that sometimes happened in the ETO, let alone the Pacific. Hence the development of the H model.
Primarily, the development of the lightweight P-51s and the P-51H was to fight off weight creep and maintain performance overmatch compared to German and Japanese fighters. See also the Grumman F8F Bearcat development down a similar route.
Also, that weight creep resulted in the P-51B/D's max loading dropping as low as 6.3g even though it was designed for 8g at 8000 lbs. The P-51H was designed for 7.33g at 9400-9600 lbs approx. The XP-51F/Gs barely weight more than a Spitfire IX or VIII, but the USAAF wanted something more than 4 .50s and more range than they could offer at the time with 2 105 gallon wing tanks. Hence, the H got 6 .50s, was capable of carrying a 1000 lb bomb under each wing, and a 50 gallon fuselage tank. And as an interceptor, it's weight could drop as low as 8400 lbs combat weight, which again wasn't hugely heavier than late Merlin-powered Spitfires, while outperforming them in basically every way.
I'm curious. Wright Field Structural Design stadards for Pursuit were 8G Limit and 12G Ultimate for Angle of Attack loads. What specifically do you mean by 'wing stressed to 10G'. And follpowing that up, at which specific Gros Weight?I know in part it's the wings. P-40, at least the military versions, had a wing stressed to 10G. More spars etc. Which did have some benefits.
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.
Outstanding document. Published before I was in airframe business. It would have been useful to be required reading for airfame designers, airframe structure and aerodynamics engineers. I was able to add to my knowledge basis with an hour of reading. Thank you.
The French managed to crash more than one Hawk 75 when they took off with full fuel and tried to do combat maneuvers (training?).
You have two things going on, are you over stressing the air frame? or is the CG that far out of whack? or a combination.
Now the Hawk 75/P-36 had been built from the start with the behind the seat tank, it was not added in at later date.
And a Hawk 75 with 105 US gallons was carrying 87.4 Imperial, less than a Hurricane.
and things are relative.
Sticking 55 gallons behind the seat of a 5700-5900lb plane is lot like sticking 85 gallons behind the seat of 9000lb plane.
Except you don't have the range of the heavy plane.
You can't do fighter type/level maneuvers with underwing bombs even if the CG is within limits.
Yep...Am I missing something here?
for the US Army they were comparing things the same, and the navy wasn't far off or it was identical.I don't think the range estimate is really meant to be that "realistic". Actual realistic strike or patrol radius is much more mission and scenario specific. At the production / training level, all you need is a fairly consistent standard.
Again, standards changed, Later British data sheets will often (but not always) include a 30 minute (or other time period) reserve and some times a combat allowance or give combat minutes vs cruising minutes or combat minutes vs miles at cruising speed.The British standard may be a bit more rigorous, but the American manual gives plenty of variations, sufficient to compare. And it's clear that the P-36 has much better range, both at 200 and 270 mph.
You can depending on the mission and location. If there is much chance of getting bounced early in the mission it becomes very dangerous.I do see your point about not being able to jettison the fuel from the fuselage tank, but you can burn that fuel first.
The P-36 got a single speed supercharger and using US 100 octane fuel was rated at 1200hp for take-off at 2700rpm.The best speed reported for the P-36A or C in that manual seems to be around 12,000 ft. I know they used a variety of engines on the P-36, did they every put a two stage or two speed supercharger on it?
Some Hawks got rear seat armor.The Hurricane also has some armor and SS tanks.
The Agility is subject to question. In some ways it was more more agile, in other ways it was not.The P-36 has the advantage in agility and maneuverability, dive acceleration and apparently, range.
The difference is partially obscured by the heights, However the Mohawk is slower using more power. maybe not by much.I'm not certain the Hurricane would have less drag. Though it has a liquid cooled engine, it has a significantly bigger and thicker wing and fuselage.