As tomo pauk said the move toward armouring planes started in earnest months--and in some cases well over a year--before the war started (in Britain).
Blenheim and Hurricane squadrons based in France used 100 octane.
Wasn't the P-51 the best escort fighter of the war?
- Thread starter Jank
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
As tomo pauk said the move toward armouring planes started in earnest months--and in some cases well over a year--before the war started (in Britain).
Blenheim and Hurricane squadrons based in France used 100 octane.
Shortround6
Major General
A lot of these planes were ordered 1-2 years before they either flew or entered squadron service (sometimes longer) . Engines and propellers were ordered accordingly. Which makes a bit hard to swap parts around in mid production. Yes the Rotol Plant was started in 1937
As far as armor goes, A few countries (Like the Soviet Union) had begun to fit it before the war, but it was by no means common in the fall of 1939.
Neither were self sealing tanks and not all nations or companies agreed on what the best methods were. Some research had been going on between the wars (if not dating back to WWI.
However the best was the enemy of good and most countries were waiting for the ideal solution when actual war forced them to settle for 2nd or 3rd best.
from 1936 on things were changing by the year if not several times per year. Britain had orders for hundreds if not thousands of Battles and Blenheims before they ordered even a couple of hundred Wellingtons, Whitleys or Hampdens. The two light bombers had a nominal range of 1000 miles or a radius of 400 miles with about 30-60 minutes of reserve depending on speed. To escort them you would have needed a plane with similar endurance. The Hurricane had under 1/2 the endurance. The bigger twin engine bombers had even more range/radius and the Blenheim got added tankage and it's range was increased to 1400 miles in the MK IV which was equipping squadrons before the war. The range needed to escort was constantly shifting.
In 1936 they knew 100 octane was coming, what they didn't know was when (price/production capability). By late 1938 or early 1939 a lot more was known, but they still were in the dark about how much would be available. However things were getting sorted out, again with things changing almost constantly. RR had given out preliminary power figures on 100 octane fuel at the Paris Air show at the end 1938.
Given the difficulties in getting both the Hurricane and Spitfire into large scale production one does wonder at effects of trying to build special models with different fuel tanks or other accessories.
I would also note that the comedy of the B-17 was stretched out over a number of years. The Early B-17s were flying when the Germans had 109D with Jumo 210 engines, In 1940 the B-17 didn't need a lot of guns (it was thought) because it would fly at high altitude. trying to chase a B-17 or trio of them, with Bf 109E-3s was going to be pretty comical, The B-17s without gun turrets could actually out climb many fighters above 25,000ft or so. Of course then they found out that many of subsystems on the B=17 wouldn't function at that altitude. The 109s also got a lot better. By the time the later B-17s showed up they were taking off at 25,000-30,000lbs heavier than the early ones and had a lot more drag, the combination certainly made them a lot less "sprightly" shall we say
British policy was certainly scattered all over the place. A fixed gun fighter needed eight guns. Large bombers with 2 and 4 gun power turrets could shoot down large numbers of attacking fighters, four guns in power turret in a fighter was adequate to destroy large twin engine aircraft. A single pan feed machine gun was all that was needed on fast bombers for defence. Obviously not all of those positions could possibly be correct at the same time.
As far as armor goes, A few countries (Like the Soviet Union) had begun to fit it before the war, but it was by no means common in the fall of 1939.
Neither were self sealing tanks and not all nations or companies agreed on what the best methods were. Some research had been going on between the wars (if not dating back to WWI.
However the best was the enemy of good and most countries were waiting for the ideal solution when actual war forced them to settle for 2nd or 3rd best.
from 1936 on things were changing by the year if not several times per year. Britain had orders for hundreds if not thousands of Battles and Blenheims before they ordered even a couple of hundred Wellingtons, Whitleys or Hampdens. The two light bombers had a nominal range of 1000 miles or a radius of 400 miles with about 30-60 minutes of reserve depending on speed. To escort them you would have needed a plane with similar endurance. The Hurricane had under 1/2 the endurance. The bigger twin engine bombers had even more range/radius and the Blenheim got added tankage and it's range was increased to 1400 miles in the MK IV which was equipping squadrons before the war. The range needed to escort was constantly shifting.
In 1936 they knew 100 octane was coming, what they didn't know was when (price/production capability). By late 1938 or early 1939 a lot more was known, but they still were in the dark about how much would be available. However things were getting sorted out, again with things changing almost constantly. RR had given out preliminary power figures on 100 octane fuel at the Paris Air show at the end 1938.
Given the difficulties in getting both the Hurricane and Spitfire into large scale production one does wonder at effects of trying to build special models with different fuel tanks or other accessories.
I don't know when. It is often reported that some in the AIr Ministry considered it to an impossible task. Depending on when they came to that conclusion they may have been right. However they held to that conclusion into 1941/42 at which point they were no longer correct. Technical ability had changed.
I would also note that the comedy of the B-17 was stretched out over a number of years. The Early B-17s were flying when the Germans had 109D with Jumo 210 engines, In 1940 the B-17 didn't need a lot of guns (it was thought) because it would fly at high altitude. trying to chase a B-17 or trio of them, with Bf 109E-3s was going to be pretty comical, The B-17s without gun turrets could actually out climb many fighters above 25,000ft or so. Of course then they found out that many of subsystems on the B=17 wouldn't function at that altitude. The 109s also got a lot better. By the time the later B-17s showed up they were taking off at 25,000-30,000lbs heavier than the early ones and had a lot more drag, the combination certainly made them a lot less "sprightly" shall we say
British policy was certainly scattered all over the place. A fixed gun fighter needed eight guns. Large bombers with 2 and 4 gun power turrets could shoot down large numbers of attacking fighters, four guns in power turret in a fighter was adequate to destroy large twin engine aircraft. A single pan feed machine gun was all that was needed on fast bombers for defence. Obviously not all of those positions could possibly be correct at the same time.
Interesting test on early fighters vs B17
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/PHQ-M-19-1307-A.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/PHQ-M-19-1307-A.pdf
Very interesting, and from Oct 13 1941. But in March 1940 Rolls Royce were asked to produce an engine for a high altitude Wellington bomber, this engine was fitted to a Spitfire which flew for the first time in February 1942 and became the Mk IX. Just as the Blenheim outperformed many fighters when introduced, it is folly to think that situation will continue for long. By the time B-17 numbers had been built up in UK they just wouldn't have wanted to meet their own fighters Which were by then the P-38, P-47 and Spitfire IX.
Mike Williams
Senior Airman
- 572
- Oct 19, 2006
I take your basic point, however, it should be noted that operation of a two position DH prop on Spitfires was a bit more nuanced. The Spitfire I Pilots Notes (A.P.1565A) states:
Airscrew control.- This aeroplane may be fitted with one of the following airscrew controls: (a) de Havilland two position (b) de Havilland constant speed, or (c) Rotol (35°) constant speed. If constant speed control is fitted the r.p.m. can be adjusted to remain as desired, but within the limits allowed by the airscrew pitch range.If the two position control is fitted on this aeroplane it can also be operated to give various airscrew pitch settings between fine and coarse; this is obtained by slowly moving the control between its range of movement until the desired r.p.m. are obtained.For example, if a full power climb is required, instead of pushing the control into fully coarse pitch as the r.p.m. rise after taking-off, the control should be moved slowly forward until the r.p.m. drop to the maximum permissible for climb (2,600) and then pulled slightly back; this will leave the airscrew pitch at the position which gives these r.p.m. until power begins to drop off with altitude. As the power drops off the r.p.m. can be maintained by again fining the airscrew pitch as required. This in effect will give a similar improvement in performance to that obtained by means of a constant speed airscrew. The operation of varying the airscrew pitch in this manner to suit different conditions of flight will be found quite simple after a little experiment. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/AP1565A_June_1940-airscrew-control.jpg
B-25 Pilot
Airman
- 15
- Nov 14, 2019
If we are still on the topic of if the P-51 was the best escort fighter in the war, then my opinion would be yes without a doubt. The P-51 had amazing range and that alone made it better then all the other escort fighters of the war, as no other can match the range of the P-51. The P-51, if you for some reason wanted more range, then you could also add drop tanks. The P-51's weaponry was amazing to. 4 cannons on the P-51D were sure to make short work of any target.
Drop tanks don't greatly increase combat range, internal fuel does that. The British fitted 4x 20mm cannon to their Mustang Mk 1s (it was standard British armament) the P-51D had 6 x 0.5" MGs which could ruin anyones day.
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,671
- Dec 6, 2006
The original RAF Mustang Mk.I (NA-73 & NA-83) had the armament of 4 x 0.50in HMGs and 4 x 0.30in MGs, it was the follow-on order made under Lend Lease for the 150 P-51(no suffix)(NA-91), which was the Mustang Mk.IA in RAF service that had the 4 x 20mm cannon armament. On the 50 P-51A, Mustang Mk.II in RAF service, they retained the orginal US specified 4 x 0.50in HMGs. RAF had wanted to continue on with the heavier 4 x 20mm cannon armament for any follow on orders of Mustangs, however, with the development of the Merlin engined Mustangs and in order to increase production rates and commonality with USAAF orders, they agreed to accept future Mustang deliveries with the USAAF specified armament. That decision may have been coloured in part due to the initial issues the RAF encountered with the NAA designed installation and US supplied Oldsmobile 20mm cannon armament on the P-51/Mustang Mk.IA, which took a lot of effort to fix into a reliable armament.
Last edited:
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,671
- Dec 6, 2006
This begs the question of why the RAF settled for 2 pitch vs constant speed in the first place, particularly in view of the last minute conversion to constant speed by DH technicians during the Battle of Britain. Hamilton Standard (which DH had the licence for) was making CS units well before the war. In fact Rotol used modified Hamilton Standard control units for their CS propellers.
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,671
- Dec 6, 2006
The rule of thumb was that the amount of fuel carried externally could equal the 70 percent amount of fuel carried internally otherwise you would be in combat with fuel still in the drop tanks.
An also by the passage of time, by the time the Mustang II was put into service the UK was awash with 0.5" ammunition and it was being used with US forces as a P-51B (which it was).
No it doesn't. What is the internal fuel of the P-51B? You can quite easily load up a Spitfire with enough fuel in drop tanks to get to a place it cant fight back from. Why are the P-38M and P38J different in range with the same drop tanks? Could it be internal fuel? The escort escorted for part of a long range mission. They had to take off, form up as a squadron or group, then form up with the bombers wherever that was, cruise with the bombers at a speed suitable to engage the enemy, have enough fuel to engage the enemy for 15-20 minutes and then fly home.
Mustang Mk.II was the Allison engined P-51A, Mustang Mk.III was the Merlin engined P-51B/C. Same basic wing and armament, on the P-51A and P-51B/C. The UK already had quantities of US 0.30in and 0.50in ammunition going back to late 1940, which was tied to the earlier US manufactured types entering RAF service, such as the early P-40s. They were not particularly impressed with much of the ammunition they received in their early orders as most of it was not new manufacture, but released for sale from US strategic stockpiles as dated from 1918 to the mid 1920s, with the new manufacture ammunition funded from the British purchases going to backfill the US strategic stockpiles. It was the only way they could supply the quantities of ammunition required by the British, it had to be surplus to US military/government requirements and allowed the lead time for the US manufacturers to ramp up their production. One of those little "gotchas" in the contracts before the implementation of Lend Lease. As such the ammunition they received had a high failure rate requiring RAF armourers to manually check all rounds before loading into belts - loose projectiles, swollen cases, failed primer cups. By early to mid-1942 the new manufacture ammunition coming out of US factories was actually getting to the UK but there were still issues from the RAF's point of view as the ammunition at that time were limited in the types - ball, armour piercing and tracer - and they were also getting inconsistencies in quality caused by the rapid ramp up in manufacture in the US.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Is this the Mike Williams who owns wwiiaircraftperformance.org? Finally the be all and end all of WWII fighter performance. Great site, thank you.
Why did it take until 2012 to release the P-39N figures? I had not seen those numbers at any time before then. Excellent performance I thought. Thanks in advance.
The pay isn't as much as you think it is.
Conslaw
Senior Airman
I have seen parenthetical remarks about problems with the 20mm in early Mustangs and P-51s, but even after reading several books about the P-51, I have never seen detailed information about the test results and the efforts to make the 20mm armament work. Do you have any detailed information?
Yes, I have the detailed information as a result of examining in some detail over a number of years the Air Ministry files held in the UK National Archives relating to RAF Mustangs, along with the Operational Record Books of RAF Squadrons which were the initial Squadrons re-equipped with the cannon armed Mustang Mk.IA, and I was also quite fortunate to be able to get the recollections and to pose questions to a number of RAF aircrew and groundcrew who were with those RAF Squadrons when they re-equipped with the Mustang Mk.IA. A summarised version of the experience of the RAF in the armament issues encountered by the RAF in the armament design and reliability of the early Mustangs - the Mk.I and Mk.IA in RAF service, and the RAF development of the reconnaissance camera installations for RAF Mustangs has been provided and incorporated into the book on the development and introduction into service of the P-51 Mustang by Bill Marshall and Lowell Ford (no relation) that has been noted elsewhere in this thread and that is due for publication in the next few months.
The problem with many of the books published to date about the P-51, is that the researcher/authors have not done the deep level research into the Archives outside the USA, or have not engaged with researchers/authors who have done the deep level research in Archives such as the UK, Australian, New Zealand and Canadian Archives which do contain quite a lot of material on the Mustang, especially the UK Archives. Other issue was, that many of the long standing 'go to' books on the Mustang were researched and written some years ago, before the relevant UK files were transferred to the UK Archives and declassified and digitised. So when those books were written the information was not publicly available and much they had to go on was the material that had been publicly released, such as press releases and similar. As such these often did not go into much detail or give a true accounting of actual events or the actual situation - wartime censorship and the like. The last 20 odd years has seen a large number of files become available, but some relevant files have still not been opened for public access and will not be for at least another 5 to10 years.
drgondog
Major
Those are ranges for the P-51B w/o 85 gal fuselage tanks and P-47D w/o 370 gal internal fuel this chart circa January 1944 before the Depot installed kits modified the P-51B/C. The P-47D-25 didn't arrive in small numbers until mid May 1944. It does reflect the P-38J increased capacity with 55gal LE tanks but very few kit installations were completed until mid February 1944 (Ditto P-51B)..
drgondog
Major
In the 8th AF long range escort game, the 'rule of thumb' was maximize internal fuel. Take off was on internal fuel with switch over to fuse tank for P-51B ONLY to drain from 85 to ~50-65gal due to cg issues. With P-38 the use of 55gal LE tanks was initiated at point of dropping externals as there was no Cg problem.
By your example that would be combat with 90% internal fuel for P-51B and 100% for P-38J
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
