Thumpalumpacus
Major
Los Angeles is closer to El Paso than Texarkana. Texarkana is closer to Charlotte, NC than it is to El Paso.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I don't remember where I read this anecdote, probably here, that American aircraft had to at least make it from one end of Texas to the other.
It's a big country. I doubt there was a requirement written as such but thought along those lines must have been there. That might explain why American fighters were larger than their European counterparts.
Not only that, but they had to perform in environments from the Alaskan tundra to the jungles of the Canal Zone.I don't remember where I read this anecdote, probably here, that American aircraft had to at least make it from one end of Texas to the other.
It's a big country. I doubt there was a requirement written as such but thought along those lines must have been there. That might explain why American fighters were larger than their European counterparts.
Was the A6M Model 21 Zero of 1940 'Combat ready'?The P-40s were sort of in no man's land in 1940, they could perform just about as well as any European fighter except the Spitfire but they weren't actually combat ready.
Europe is almost comically small compared to other theatres. I spent years driving to the Hanover region (site of many ww2 air battles) from the north of England . The US "bomber country of Cambridgeshire and East Anglia are 3-4 hours south while the whole journey took 11 to 13 hours depending on traffic and the tunnel. A few times I drove to and from Milan which was just over a days driving. On one job I drove from Rouen to Duisburg every Thursday afternoon and back on the Sunday in time to watch the Rugby. One time I checked out of the hotel in France stopped in Belgium for petrol,, Netherlands for food and went to the bank machine in Duisburg, my bank put a hold on the card because it had been used in 4 countries in one day.. London Berlin is 580 miles, Paris Berlin 212 miles, Paris Berlin 550 miles. Paris to Moscow is 1550 miles which shows how stupid Napoleon was.I don't remember where I read this anecdote, probably here, that American aircraft had to at least make it from one end of Texas to the other.
It's a big country. I doubt there was a requirement written as such but thought along those lines must have been there. That might explain why American fighters were larger than their European counterparts.
Note that almost all US fighters had substantially longer ranges than comparable European counterparts. The reason for this is simple. The USA is an enormous country by European standards. A typical European single seat fighter could not make it across TEXAS without running out of gas. The range requirement made most US fighter larger and heavier.
Brewster F2A: Normal range 950 miles, maximum range 1680 miles.
RAF Buffalo I: Normal range 520 miles, max range 840 miles.
Note that the export versions of some US fighters had much shorter ranges; the Europeans did not seem to want anything more.
I'd say that Zero 21 was combat ready, regardless the imperfections.Was the A6M Model 21 Zero of 1940 'Combat ready'?
It didn't have self-sealing tanks, armorglass or even armorplate for the seatback like the P-40B had. Sometimes even the Radio was removed.
It did have 950 hp and 156 US gallons of fuel internally, two MGs and two 20mm cannons, and pilot had good visibility.
Not all that fast, but maneuverable and had long range.
Was the A6M Model 21 Zero of 1940 'Combat ready'?
It didn't have self-sealing tanks, armorglass or even armorplate for the seatback like the P-40B had. Sometimes even the Radio was removed.
It did have 950 hp and 156 US gallons of fuel internally, two MGs and two 20mm cannons, and pilot had good visibility.
Not all that fast, but maneuverable and had long range.
The Tomahawk I had no protection.I'd say that Zero 21 was combat ready, regardless the imperfections.
P-40B was 1st delivered in January 1941. It was preceded with P-40 and P-40A - these two versions sported no protection for pilot or fuel.
Brewster F2A: 160 US gallons for all types until the F2A-3. Then it was still 160 gallons unless you filled the old unused tank under special orders.
SR6, you often make this comment about the F2A-3. However, is it fair to ignore the capacity of that tank?
When the F2A-3 entered service, the US was still at peace with peacetime rules for flight authorizations. As such, it makes perfect sense for there to be stencils on an overload tank warning that it should only be filled under certain authorized circumstances.
Take the P-51 as a comparison. It, too, had an overload tank that negatively impacted aircraft handling during take-off and climb-out. During WW2, under wartime flight authorizations, filling that tank was driven solely by mission tasking. I'd bet good money that, in 1946 under peacetime authorizations, that overload tank would only be filled "under special orders." Yet nobody quotes the P-51's maximum range by caveating "special orders" use conditions for the overload tank.
Seems like there's a double standard at play here when comparing the much-loved P-51 and the unloved F2A-3.
Thank you,The P-43/P-43A manual lists 220 USgal total internal in 2x 110 USgal non-SSFT (1x in each wing).
The Lockheed P-38 was spawned by available funds for an Interceptor in 1937. The RFP defined "In line engines, heavy firepower and Turbo supercharging to achieve high altitude performance". Two contractors were selected by Ben Kelsey/Oliver Echols at Wright Patterson Field - home of Materiel Command and R&D functions for AAC. Both received contracts in mid-late 1937. One achieved success, the XP-39 tested poorly - majority reasons surrounding the turbo supercharger/Allison installation and performance.There was a wide consensus in U.S. military circles ~1939-1940 that U.S. pursuit fighters were substantially less capable in terms of performance than their equivalent European counterparts. Specifically, in Germany, the BF109-E (the first version to use the Daimler-Benz DB-601 engine) began production in 1938, while the original airframe was designed in 1934. In Britain, the Spitfire airframe was designed in 1935 and the airplane went into production in 1938. The single-engined fighters which were being developed in the U.S. at the same time included the Seversky P-35, Bell P-39, and Curtiss P-40 (derived from the P-36). There was wide belief - confirmable by various performance metrics - that the U.S. fighters were inferior.
See above for power and structures. You missed 4.) basic airframe design --------> which trades increasing wing area for lower W/L versus more speed, trades airfoil selection from low T/C to reduce profile and Mcr vs internal stores capacity (fuel and armament). You might also consider trade offs between best practices production standards vs aerodynamic best practices (i.e. flush rivets, surface preparation standards including butt joints, puttying/painting forward surface of wing, paint selection (bad choice = more friction drag).What accounted for this difference in performance?
Of note: I am looking mostly for an engineering answer, and references would be greatly appreciated!
Advances in in aircraft performance are generally governed by developments in 1) aerodynamics 2) propulsion and/or 3) structures.
Would take exception to that generality, beginning with V-1710-39 or equivalent for P-39, P-40 and Mustang I. Would also point out that V-1710-29/31 with GE turbo was far superior in Hp to weight above 20,000 feet, producing the same HP at 25000 feet as the R-R and DB 601A at 15,000 feet.Keeping this in mind, the most obvious causal factor in the superior performance of European fighters is that the European engines available for use in the 1935-40 timeframe were of higher performance in terms of P/W ratio (particularly at altitude) than similar engines then available in the U.S. The German DB-601 and British Rolls Royce Merlin engines were both superior to the American Allison engine, the only serious V12 the U.S. produced in the late 1930s. It would take until 1940 for the U.S. radial engine makers to launch high-output versions of their radial engines (e.g. supercharged R-2800s) and of course the U.S. capitalized on the high-performance, liquid-cooled Merlin for use in the P-51.
So the question is, was the entire scope of the performance difference due to powerplants alone or whether there were other salient developments in aircraft aerodynamics and/or structures that help account for the superior performance of British and German fighters to start the war.
See above - combat operations for P-38, P-40, P-39 and Mustang I were essentially the same. ALL the Euro fighter you name are in combat before serial production of any of the P-40/P-39/P-51 or P-38 types.I think the best way to do this comparison is to compare three specific aircraft c. 1940: 1) The BF-109E 2) The Spitfire Mk1 (or Mk2) 3) The Curtiss P-40 (alternatively, substitute the P-39).
You would be hard pressed to source any US Military senior commander claiming that US fighters were inferior. You wold also be hard pressed to find a senior officer in 1940 advcating the P-51. (Or junior officer)Note - I am being very specific to the timeframe of 1935 - 1940 because later U.S. developments, such as the P-51 Mustang, F6F, etc., largely corrected much of the performance deficit. While one could still argue on the margins about the superiority of one design over the other, there was no longer a consensus amongst the U.S. military officials that their pursuit fighters were inferior.
I mentioned the AAC Materiel Command handbook for strutural design, in which you may find anomalies compared to Brit/French/USSR/Italy in context of Limt and Ultimate Loads. Specifically the Brit standard vs US design standards that I am aware of include lower landing gear, lower side load and lower Angle attack G factors. All point to lower weights in airframe given equal competency of structural design engineers.Note 2 - there is a difference between a design choice & a technical advance. German and British fighters also may have had higher performance on the metrics I mentioned above not because German's had specific ideas that were more advanced than the U.S.'s designers, but also because they were designed to do with different goals in mind. I have tried to equalize by not comparing aircraft designed for obviously different goals (eg, a twin-engined interceptor vs. a single-engined fighter). But there still might be some differences. For example, U.S. fighters might have been heavier (thus reducing climb rates) because the USAAC put more emphasis on armor protection than the RAF did. If that is the answer, happy to hear that too. Just want to know!
There is no real CG issue with filling the old tank on the Buffalo. the problem is that you are adding about 480lbs of weight to a plane that already had weight issues.
There is no way to dump the weight/fuel in an emergency, either mechanical or by surprise enemy attack.
The F2A-3 was almost 300lbs heavier heavier than the F2A-2 with the same fuel and armament. Adding more fuel just makes the performance worse.
If there was a special mission that required extra fuel then perhaps it could be used.
The F2A-3 was an under 7000lb plane, adding 480 lbs to it makes a difference.
P-51Ds were about 9600lbs with just the internal wing tanks and about 10200lbs with the rear tank.
Interesting note I just ran across, P-51D with rockets, rear tank and drop tank was limited to 1100lb of fuel in the drop tanks or the combat ceiling would be under 25,000ft.
What does that extra 480lbs do to the F2A-3 climb and ceiling? Or take-Off roll?
But the long range recon scenario sometimes put out makes no sense.
As mentioned above with all tanks full only 1/3 of the fuel is protected. The Navy was using SPD as scouts, not fighters, the SPD could carry 260 gal all protected.
The Navy in many of of their weight and load lists would claim they were going the ferry the planes without guns. Maybe they did.
I have a reprint of a post war F-51 manual. They advise not filling the rear tank more than 55 gallons but there are cautions if filled more. They also want 30 gallons to stay in the rear tank for landing (I have no idea what they may have done to radios or other equipment) but they wanted that 30 gallons to be used last after all other tanks were dry.