Why were U.S. pursuit fighters at the start of WW2 of lower performance than European fighters?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Shortround6 said:
I think the tanks were later and they make have been in stages, not all tanks of the three got them at once (at least in existing planes).
BP glass also did not show up at the same time as armor. This is for many air forces.
The Germans were NOT fully equipped with Armor. BP Glass and protected tanks in 1939. In fact a few German aircraft shot down in the BoB in Aug (one Bf 110C recon plane in particular) did not have much in the way of protective equipment when examined. May have isolated but both sides were refitting existing aircraft as time and supplies allowed.

Armor often started as one or two plates behind the pilots seat Which may or may not have had head protection (extended above the shoulders) . Some planes got an armored seat bottom. Some planes got flat plates and some got curves. Some planes got armor or very thick sheet metal at the base of the windscreen.
Click to expand...
Some of this was discussed here before: Opinions On This Article I Found About The Zero
 
drgondog said:
Not sure what you are referring to? The standard procedure from day one of production Mustangs - Start engine with fuel selector to LH main - which had reverse feed to LH Main for overflow return. If engine shut off the fuel would drain back. After warm up and take off and formation assembly, every one would switch to fusetank to reduce the tank (if completely filled to 85 gal) by 30+ gallons to 55/60 for safe CG limits. Then switch to external 'auxiliary' tank of choice (usually RH to offset fuel burned in LH main). After drop tanks released the process was usually to swith to RH Main to once again offset LH Main drained at warm up and take off.

Save extreme long range requirements the SOP for P-51B/C/D/K with 85 gal fuse tank was to fill only 55 to 60 gal. For That condition the fuselage tank was last in the useage profile - with Left Main (takeoff), Right Auxiliary/Left auxiliary until dry, RH main/LH main to maintain roll balance for ease of trim until dry - then switch to fuse tank. I recall my father saying that he often landed with more than 40 gal in fuse tank - even for Berlin/Munich missions in which there was no combat, Also missions in which fuel remained in 110gal auxiliary tanks just because he/they wanted to deny germans steel donations. Impregnated tanks rarely made it past the midway mark.

In peacetime conditions the Fuselage tank was rarely filled. For many training command flights, with or without fuse tank - the P-51 mains would be filled to 50 gallons each ("Fighter Condition").

For earliest models (Mustang I) model the capacity for each main was slightly less (85 vs 92) but the tanks were contiguous. Only for Mustang I was there an internal auxiliary tank (s) - Kits were provided to install pumps and two cells totalling 27 gal. I Do not know if the presence of the internal auxiliary tanks changed SOP. I suspect not, but cannot confirm.

Maximum Range for Ferry and Combat Radius purposes pretty much follow the above procedures except to note that desired plan was to reduce the wing fuel to near zero and save the last of the fuselage tank for reserve.

Maybe I mis-interpreted your comment?
Click to expand...

More likely I was misinterpreting how the overload tank was used. Thanks for the additional insights.
 
PAT303 said:
Rear tank down to 35G, no maneuvers or even tight turns until then.
Click to expand...
As a practical matter, 8th AF ops dictated draw of 20-25 gal during climb out. The production baffles installed in the 85 gallon tank materially benefited manueverability as the CG remained within dynamic stability limits. Later SOP was to fill the fuse tank to only 60gal save extremely LR missions. When my father led the last escort for Frantic VII Shuttle, the briefing stated 85 gal at takeoff. IIRC the 110gal drop tanks were dropped NW Berlin and everyone switched to fuselage tank.
 
Shortround6 said:
I think the tanks were later and they make have been in stages, not all tanks of the three got them at once (at least in existing planes).
BP glass also did not show up at the same time as armor. This is for many air forces.
The Germans were NOT fully equipped with Armor. BP Glass and protected tanks in 1939. In fact a few German aircraft shot down in the BoB in Aug (one Bf 110C recon plane in particular) did not have much in the way of protective equipment when examined. May have isolated but both sides were refitting existing aircraft as time and supplies allowed.

Armor often started as one or two plates behind the pilots seat Which may or may not have had head protection (extended above the shoulders) . Some planes got an armored seat bottom. Some planes got flat plates and some got curves. Some planes got armor or very thick sheet metal at the base of the windscreen.
Click to expand...
Hi
As far as RAF Fighter Command is concerned the first protection for them was for the frontal area of single-seat fighters this included BP windscreens, this was to provide protection from return fire from the bombers they were expected to be attacking. In 1939 with the decision to send an expeditionary force to France with an air element including fighters, where it was expected that they would meet enemy single-seat fighters, then it was decided that the Hurricanes, that were to make up the fighter element, should have priority for armour plate behind the seat.
This is covered in the book 'Knights of the Skies, Armour Protection for British Fighting Aeroplanes' by Michael C Fox.

Mike
 
MikeMeech said:
As far as RAF Fighter Command is concerned the first protection for them was for the frontal area of single-seat fighters this included BP windscreens, this was to provide protection from return fire from the bombers they were expected to be attacking
Click to expand...
So why have a nice, unprotected fuel tank right ahead of the Pilot?
 
I think there was some protection on the front as per MikeMeech post, they had to quickly install rear armour when it was clear they would encounter fighters. The Spitfire had two tanks in front of the pilot the Hurricane had one with two wing tanks. It was the wing tanks that were the serious , although in the wings they were in the same open space as the pilots feet.
 
pbehn said:
I will have a look on Youtube, maybe they did, but someone stopped them using it.
Click to expand...
vintage-shell-oil-logo-all-sorts-art.jpg


;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

CHen10
The poor performance of the 343 Kokutai against USAAF fighters
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
6K
GrauGeist
GrauGeist
S
Aerodynamics of Japanese fighters
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
wells
W
Venomstick121
Why did the US ww2 fighters have 50 cals instead of 20mms like their european cousins
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
7K
BarnOwlLover
BarnOwlLover
S
Why airplanes were designed the way they were.
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
7K
EwenS
E
Holtzauge
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
629
Ivan1GFP
I
Back