Another thing I noticed is the armor/self sealing fuel tank issue. The British considering many American fighters not fit for combat due to no self sealing fuel tanks (I certainly agree that every fighter needed seat armor). 35 years of reading had led me to believe that Japanese planes would burst into flame as soon as they were hit, a synopsis of 35 years of reading goes something like "I got behind the zero, gave him a quick burst, he exploded, gave a 2nd Zeke a 2 second squeeze of the trigger and he burst into flames. Now completely out of ammo I gave a 3rd Zeke a dirty look and instantly his fuel tanks erupted into flame" and yet, after reading "The First Team" from Pearl Harbor through the Guadalcanal campaign, it was amazing how many Japanese planes returned back to base shot to pieces. Zeros, Betty's and carrier based torpedo planes all returned to base shot up so badly they never flew again, yet they didn't burn. If Zero's would have had seat back armor, I have a feeling the US Navy would have had a MUCH tougher time dealing with them. Yet, during the Battle of Britain, Hurricanes especially, seem to burn every time inflicting horrible wounds on the pilots in spite of them having so called self sealing tanks.
Top 3 mistakes per country, in field of military aviation
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Just a few points I would like to add about range/performance. The books I read about Dunkerque and the Battle of Britain frequently stated that pilots ran out of or were low on ammunition and/or fuel. Fuel weighs a lot, if you were a pilot would you voluntarily put on extra weight to allow you to fly about for an extra hour after the interception but will mean you dont make the height to have the tactical advantage at the interception? Park/Dowding forbade RAF pilots following the conflict out to sea in the BoB so unless you mount a post battle standing patrol what use is range for a 1940 spitfire? The Spitfire and P 51 both had Merlin engines, The P51 had a great internal fuel load but how would it climb with a 1940 1050BHP engine? I would suggest apart from its firepower such a plane had less utility than a hurricane. From all I have read Battle of Britain pilots wanted rate of climb and canons not increased range. Escorting bombers is of course a completely different game.
- Thread starter
- #143
The Japanese having Zeros or Oscars around meant their bombers were much safer than when flown without escort. The Spitfire and P-40 were hard pressed to defend during Darwin raids, for example. The B-17E was a late 1941 model, I wouldn't bet the house it would've fared well vs. European fighters of same era, although RAF did not suffer some great losses when using ealy Fortresses.
If the P-38 of late 1941 was not combat capable (it was), the B-17 of same year was no better. Zeros did have problems with B-17, the Oscars probably even more.
In 1941 the Bf 109 is a far better fighter, and it carries plenty of cannon ammo.
Americans use turboed engines on their bombers ( two supercharger stages in effect) the Germans were still with 1-stage superchargers - US tech level is greater there.
I think many things get overblown, the problem with the Hurricane was that not all tanks were self sealing, statistically more Hurricane pilots were burned than spitfires, it doesnt mean all Hurricanes erupted in flames or that no one in a Spitfire was burned. If you are hit in the fuel tank by cannon fire then self sealing makes little difference.
The Guinea pig club had pilots from all over the world and all aircraft types, 80% were from bomber command.
On the other hand, over Darwin, Zeros flew 500 miles one way and ran Spitfires out of fuel over their own territory AND outfought them. That is actually pretty sad for what so many consider the "best interceptor of the war".
Last edited:
When was that? I thought it was P40 Kittyhawks?
The P40's were there, but most of the time they couldn't even climb up to the 27-28,000 foot altitude that the Japanese bombers flew at. No sir, it was the Spitfires that were shot down several to 1 by the "inferior" and "obsolete" Zero.
In fact, as I understand it, the Japanese started coming in at 27,000 feet or so specifically because it virtually eliminated interception by P39 and P40's
Last edited:
Sorry friend putting "no sire" and "got their butts handed to them" makes me get out of the conversation, it only gets increasingly unpleasant.
Is there an ignore function on this new format?
Last edited:
Sorry if that offend you, didn't mean to. US got its butt handed to it more than once. So did every combating nation at one time or another.
Fact is that Spitfires over Darwin lost several planes per Zero shot down.
Call it whatever you want to, I didn't think I was doing anything but stating the facts
I just now saw the "No sire" That is a typo. That was supposed to be "No sir"
That would change the perceived meaning of what came afterward. I am fixing that typo now
We are on Darwin now are we? I thought it was Port Moresby?
- Thread starter
- #151
British know that Germans are buying Kestrel, since their 600 HP engine is late. How late is the next generation of engines?
At 5 km, the HS 12Y will do 20-25% less power than Merlin I/II/III in mid 1930s.
Defender has to match the power, since, especially in era where radar coverage is spotty or non-existant, it will do the climb in order to match the position, altitude and speed that esort already has. And in case it suceeeded, ie. the escort somehow failed to take advantage of it's speed & altitude advantage, it has the choice to either get the bombers, or to tangle with escorts thus leaving bombers free.
The DB 601N in 1940 can do that power (1160 BHP) for 1 (one) minute, vs. Merlin XX five minutes, 2500 ft higher.
The reason I've mentioned multiple LMGs is to avoid the low ammo carried for cannons in 1940 by UK and Germany.
I don't think that Ki 61 was any more advanced in aerodynamics than Spitfire or P-39. Internal fuel was some 750 L (around 200 US gals; double checked; self-sealing tanks), plus external fuel - two drop tanks of 200 L. Later it was 650 liters of internal fuel, together with introduction of 20 mm cannons, comparable internal fuel as the Typhoon with almost the twice the power.
So I'd repeat that it was doctrine, not technology that interfered with RAF acquiring the long range fighter early on.
Went back and changed the typo on "No sire", that was an accident and changed the wording on "Spitfires got their butts handed to them" to "Spitfires were shot down several to 1"
Is that better wording?
Also changing Port Moresby to Darwin
Last edited:
I believe all offending language has been removed
Shortround6
Major General
Once again, timing has a lot to do with it. Germans bought (or were loaned?) 1 or 2 Kestrels which were loaned around (each Kestrel powered more than one prototype). R-R got a He 70 as an engine test bed ( room for observers/instruments in the cabin).
However the DB 600 made a very public debut at the Zurich air meet of 1937 and Flight Magazine had a short write up in the Sept 2 1937 issue. 1937 | 2418 | Flight Archive
This would have caught any long range British single engine fighter designed in 1935-36 thinking the Germans were going to use 650-700hp engines with it's proverbial pants down. From then on it is a race between the different engines.
HS 12Y engine/s were several hundred pounds lighter in weight than a Merlin. This puts them in hunt in the mid 30s but fading. They are too light to stand up to higher rpm or higher boost when better fuels come along but in the mid/late 30s it is possible to design a working fighter using one.
The Defender needs to match the power to weight ratio of the complete fighter and needs to match the thrust to drag. Using a smaller/lighter plane means either a lower powered engine can be used for equal performance or a similar powered engine will give the defender better performance. And that was the problem in the 1930s.
A Spitfire I that had an all up weight of 5,875lbs had a powerplant weight of 2,035lbs (engine cowl 86lbs and engine mount 58lbs are included in structure) , a structure weight of 1890lbs and a "payload" of 1585lbs. The "payload" includes pilot and parachute (200lbs) armament (685lbs) fuel (646lbs) oil (54lbs), please note that this for a plane with no armor, no BP glass, unprotected tanks and a wooden two blade prop (96lbs + 36lb prop hub).
Adding another 500-600lbs of fuel even in unprotected tanks is a substantial increase in weight when looked at as a percentage.
Engine section of a P-51B/C was 2912lbs not including cowl/mount or fuel tanks (since they are selfsealing it tends to distort the picture, as does the propeller. 483lbs worth of prop on the P-51.
P-51 without rear tank went around 9600lbs clean so adding 500lbs of fuel is a much smaller percentage increase.
Engine installation in the P-51 was about 30% heavier (including two stage supercharger, after cooler and bigger radiators and coolant) for about 45-58% more power (61in boost/67in boost).
It was this increase in the power to weight ratio for the engines/powerplant that opened up the escort fighter.
There may be some dispute about the time limit. Germans stumbled in development of the DB 601E/605 engines. Allies knew what kind of progress they were making, they were guessing at German progress and had to rely on captured equipment/documents to confirm German progress. We know now using the rectrospectroscope that the Germans had trouble for a considerable period of time in matching the Merlin progress.
The point was that from a weight/performance standpoint it doesn't make any difference. The Bf 110 wasn't a poor performer because it carried a pair of MG/FF cannon. It was a poor performer because of it's size.
Do you have a good source for the fuel capacity?
Some sources are all over the place (as low as 550 liters internal) and in general, when something is too good to be true, it often isn't true. Ranges are also all over the place but since the ranges almost never mention either speed or fuel capacity (external tanks or not) one is left with a lot of guess work.
The two different reports/charts on Spitfire Performance disagree with each other on both fuel capacity and weight.
Had the Germans faced the B-29 they would have faced it with the Me 262 armed with 30mm cannon. Even 350 mph doesn't look so good against 500mph+. I'm not sure I'd want to bet on the B-29 in that scenario.
There were other heavily armed jets and even rocket interceptors that may have been available too. How good they would have been we will never know.
I'm not sure that a fully loaded B-17 could out climb a Hurricane. The whole point of the British system was to get its fighters into a position to attack the bombers with as much tactical advantage as possible. The idea that a formation of B-17s cruising at 200mph or less could outrun a properly vectored and controlled 300mph+ fighter is invalid. Even the maximum speed of the B-17 is considerably lower than that of a Hurricane and much lower than the Spitfires and bombers can't fly in self supporting formations, laden, at anything approaching their maximum speed. A typical B-17 formation cruised at a speed not much different from a typical Luftwaffe formation in 1940.
You do make a valid point about armament. 8 .303 machine guns was not designed to shoot down a heavily armoured bomber and would have struggled to do so. Cannon armed aircraft became standard in the RAF in 1941/2 and that is a different matter.
As for the Aussie Spitfires, read Anthony Cooper's 'Darwin Spitfires'. A realistic tally shows that in the actions against the Japanese 1 Fighter Wing achieved results comparable to those of similar squadrons in other theatres. Their balance sheet compares well with those achieved by Spitfire Is in the BoB and the Spitfire Vs on Malta and is considerably better than that achieved by Spitfire Vs in Mallory's lean into France in 1941/2.
1 Fighter Wing was made up of very average, inexperienced, squadrons and went on a sharp learning curve once deployed in North West Australia. It's performance was comparable to any of its contemporaries in the British and Commonwealth air forces. It doesn't look so good when compared to the standards set by the American units in theatre, but that is an unfair comparison.
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
The B29 was in many ways an improvement on the B 17 but it was also a new age in military aviation. Even the US could not sustain loss rates of B29s thay they accepted with the B17. The crews needed much more training and the planes themselves cost much more.
- Thread starter
- #157
This table states 199 US gals: link
Also this report, pdf: link
The table in the Bunrin Do book about the Ki 61 state internal fuel capacity of 650, 700 and 750 L. Max capacity: wing tanks 2 x 190 L, lower fuselage tank (between the two wing tanks, under the pilot)170 L, rear fuselage tank was at 200 L. Don't fill rear tank and it s indeed 550 L.
Wing profile at root was 2R 16, at tip 24009, 200 sq m wing area (215 sq ft).
The British mistake with night bombing is compounded by the fact that they were aware of problems years before the war. In 1937, when arguments over exactly what the next generation of British bombers should look like were raging, Peirse expressed fears that large aircraft would be limited to night operations and be unable to undertake precision operations. The results of 1938 exercises confirmed his doubts when of 47 raids only one got close enough to the target to be plotted, and even that had an error of over a mile. The Bomber Command report attributed this to
"the extreme difficulty of finding and attacking an unilluminated target at night with high speed aircraft."
Nothing had changed two years later when the Command's aircraft attempted the same operations for real. The RAF did not really develop a night bombing programme in the late 1930s.
When discussions of the 'Ideal Bomber' were held in May 1938 it was decided that the bomber should be designed around its turrets. Whereas previous doctrine had emphasised the need for formation flying for mutual defence, the bomber should now be capable of defending itself (though it was acknowledged that formation flying might still be required). These points clearly referred to operation in daylight, but it was agreed that provision for night bombing be made.
The Operational Requirements branch of the Air Staff drew up requirements that emphasised high speed and formidable armament (front, dorsal, ventral and tail turrets, all with 20mm cannon). There were even plans for some aircraft to fly as 'escorts' to the formation with a lower or no bomb load and much increased ammunition. Had this evolved the British might have followed a rather similar route to that taken by the Americans.
At the same time a parallel argument for a clean high speed and lightly or unarmed bomber was being promoted, notably by Ludlow Hewitt.
The Ideal Bomber investigation was based on the long held belief that bombers could defend themselves on daylight operations and that the speed required to reduce exposure to fighter attack inevitably led to large bombers. This line of development was revealed to be unsound when tested in war.
It took years to adapt the large heavy bombers with with Bomber Command would start the war into potent night time weapons.
It was the much derided, but never quite forgotten, unarmed fast bomber which was the most successful concept to emerge from the immediate pre-phoney war period. This did not emerge, as the Official History' would have us believe from some sort of revolutionary lateral thinking by De Havilland. In a liason meeting between the Assistant Chief of the Air Staff and the Director-General of Research and Development on 23rd August 1939 concerns were expressed that some specifications had not been issued and that some aircraft firms were without sufficient design work. The DGRD (Tedder) proposed that these firms be allowed to study
"projects that would follow up aspects of design of general interest.
(a) a relatively small high speed bomber
(b) aircraft directed to attaining the highest possible speed.
(c) aircraft designed for jet propulsion."
The ACAS (Sholto-Douglas) mentioned that a specification for a light bomber would be issued soon as a revision of B.1/39 (Ideal Bomber). The meeting also decided that.
"In the meantime Armstrong Whitworth and A.V.Roe would proceed with a small lightly armed high speed bomber."
It was a month after this that Geoffrey De Havilland, following a meeting with Freeman, put forward his specification for a high speed bomber made of wood (Like the Comet and Albatross) which would look like this.
"Merlin engines using 100 octane fuel
Range of 1,500 miles
Two 500lb bombs or six 250lb bombs
Crew of two
Maximum speed 405 mph at 20,000ft
Cruise o weak mixture at 320 mph."
That's where the Mosquito came from, not from some strange vacuum. It was the one successful aircraft to come out of the long and convoluted discussions around the failed concept of the Ideal Bomber.
You did read Tedder's item (c) correctly above. In August 1939 the British were at least talking about a jet powered bomber, months before the contract for the Gloster E.28/39 was issued
Cheers
Steve
"the extreme difficulty of finding and attacking an unilluminated target at night with high speed aircraft."
Nothing had changed two years later when the Command's aircraft attempted the same operations for real. The RAF did not really develop a night bombing programme in the late 1930s.
When discussions of the 'Ideal Bomber' were held in May 1938 it was decided that the bomber should be designed around its turrets. Whereas previous doctrine had emphasised the need for formation flying for mutual defence, the bomber should now be capable of defending itself (though it was acknowledged that formation flying might still be required). These points clearly referred to operation in daylight, but it was agreed that provision for night bombing be made.
The Operational Requirements branch of the Air Staff drew up requirements that emphasised high speed and formidable armament (front, dorsal, ventral and tail turrets, all with 20mm cannon). There were even plans for some aircraft to fly as 'escorts' to the formation with a lower or no bomb load and much increased ammunition. Had this evolved the British might have followed a rather similar route to that taken by the Americans.
At the same time a parallel argument for a clean high speed and lightly or unarmed bomber was being promoted, notably by Ludlow Hewitt.
The Ideal Bomber investigation was based on the long held belief that bombers could defend themselves on daylight operations and that the speed required to reduce exposure to fighter attack inevitably led to large bombers. This line of development was revealed to be unsound when tested in war.
It took years to adapt the large heavy bombers with with Bomber Command would start the war into potent night time weapons.
It was the much derided, but never quite forgotten, unarmed fast bomber which was the most successful concept to emerge from the immediate pre-phoney war period. This did not emerge, as the Official History' would have us believe from some sort of revolutionary lateral thinking by De Havilland. In a liason meeting between the Assistant Chief of the Air Staff and the Director-General of Research and Development on 23rd August 1939 concerns were expressed that some specifications had not been issued and that some aircraft firms were without sufficient design work. The DGRD (Tedder) proposed that these firms be allowed to study
"projects that would follow up aspects of design of general interest.
(a) a relatively small high speed bomber
(b) aircraft directed to attaining the highest possible speed.
(c) aircraft designed for jet propulsion."
The ACAS (Sholto-Douglas) mentioned that a specification for a light bomber would be issued soon as a revision of B.1/39 (Ideal Bomber). The meeting also decided that.
"In the meantime Armstrong Whitworth and A.V.Roe would proceed with a small lightly armed high speed bomber."
It was a month after this that Geoffrey De Havilland, following a meeting with Freeman, put forward his specification for a high speed bomber made of wood (Like the Comet and Albatross) which would look like this.
"Merlin engines using 100 octane fuel
Range of 1,500 miles
Two 500lb bombs or six 250lb bombs
Crew of two
Maximum speed 405 mph at 20,000ft
Cruise o weak mixture at 320 mph."
That's where the Mosquito came from, not from some strange vacuum. It was the one successful aircraft to come out of the long and convoluted discussions around the failed concept of the Ideal Bomber.
You did read Tedder's item (c) correctly above. In August 1939 the British were at least talking about a jet powered bomber, months before the contract for the Gloster E.28/39 was issued
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
And then we have this report: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Tony-I.pdf
No under seat tank and total fuel capacity of about 550 liters, arguing over 2-3 liters is foolish. Especially considering manufacturing tolerances and conversion charts/formulas.
Apparently there was quite a variation in tanks fitted and perhaps even their capacities.
Also of interest is the performance of the captured plane against US fighters, most of the comparisons are pretty much forgone conclusions but comparing it to the FM-2 is interesting, especially considering the test weight of the Tony was 6150lbs and not the 6982lbs shown in some of the other charts with the 199-200 gal fuel load.
Perhaps the captured plane's engine wasn't running right or the plane was mis-rigged (out of alignment?) but it was a dog when climbing compared to the FM-2 (which is over 1000lbs heavier) and adding 300lbs of fuel and then extra protected tank weight certainly wasn't going to help.
Climb is important for escort fighters because the escort fight isn't one diving pass at the interceptors. The escorts, even if smart enough not to chase the interceptors too far from the bombers often have to climb back up to the bombers height or to escort positions 3-5,000ft above the bombers to stop the next attack and climbing speed isn't even fast escort cruise, it takes time to accelerate back up to speed once the plane/s level off at the desired altitude.
Climb may not be quite as important as it is to interceptors in some scenarios but it can't be ignored either. Early P-47s often got into positions where they had trouble getting back to the bombers in a timely fashion.
No under seat tank and total fuel capacity of about 550 liters, arguing over 2-3 liters is foolish. Especially considering manufacturing tolerances and conversion charts/formulas.
Apparently there was quite a variation in tanks fitted and perhaps even their capacities.
Also of interest is the performance of the captured plane against US fighters, most of the comparisons are pretty much forgone conclusions but comparing it to the FM-2 is interesting, especially considering the test weight of the Tony was 6150lbs and not the 6982lbs shown in some of the other charts with the 199-200 gal fuel load.
Perhaps the captured plane's engine wasn't running right or the plane was mis-rigged (out of alignment?) but it was a dog when climbing compared to the FM-2 (which is over 1000lbs heavier) and adding 300lbs of fuel and then extra protected tank weight certainly wasn't going to help.
Climb is important for escort fighters because the escort fight isn't one diving pass at the interceptors. The escorts, even if smart enough not to chase the interceptors too far from the bombers often have to climb back up to the bombers height or to escort positions 3-5,000ft above the bombers to stop the next attack and climbing speed isn't even fast escort cruise, it takes time to accelerate back up to speed once the plane/s level off at the desired altitude.
Climb may not be quite as important as it is to interceptors in some scenarios but it can't be ignored either. Early P-47s often got into positions where they had trouble getting back to the bombers in a timely fashion.
drgondog
Major
As a side note Re; B-29. SAC had to shift B-29 operations over N.Korea from daylight to night because the MiG 15, with less armament than Me 262 couldn't be defended.
Tomo - the B-17E staffed the first bomb groups for England and North Africa as well as all the BG's(heavy) in the PTO (rapidly replacing few remaining B-17Ds). I accorded itself well but the B-17F was immediately better suited to combat. RAF got some in Coastal Command but the bulk of their B-17 experience was the B-17C.
Tomo - the B-17E staffed the first bomb groups for England and North Africa as well as all the BG's(heavy) in the PTO (rapidly replacing few remaining B-17Ds). I accorded itself well but the B-17F was immediately better suited to combat. RAF got some in Coastal Command but the bulk of their B-17 experience was the B-17C.
