Inline or radial

[Yama]

10 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

And 7 years later than the P-36.

Performance of P-36 was nothing to write home about even in its own time, however. It was barely faster than Fokker D.XXI (and climbed worse) despite having 200hp more power, retractable landing gear and constant speed propellor.

P-36 was a good fighter in many other ways but the performance was simply bad.

[Stuart Galbraith]

49 minutes ago, Rick said:

+1 on "Fire in the Sky." I think the pre-W.W.2 U.S.A.A.F. was centered on the four-engine bomber, there is mention of the "bomber cult" in some past readings.  Also, this "cult" in order to secure funding in the 1930's more-or-less convinced Congress that the B17 was going to be used to defend the U.S. coastline. 

But that was true in most European nations also. The British emphasized building up a bomber force for deterrence purposes, because the RAF mantra was that it was better to deter than defend. It was only when Chamberlain got in, very late in the day, that Britain started to build up defensive forces, ie fighter command, AA command.

I believe the Hurricane was prototyped in 1935, the Spitfire in 1936. This was very late in the day.

I just had a thought to look up the weight of a P40 and a Spitfire VB, rough contemporaries. The P40E weighed 5922lb empty, and 8515lb full. The Spitfire by contrast is 5065lb empty, and 6622lb full. Admittedly the Spitfires range is only just over half that of a P40. But even before you started putting fuel in the Spitfire, its nearly 900lb lighter.

Its quite interesting to compare the weight of a Tempest, which was 9000lb empty, and a further 10000lb for the P47empty. It just looks like the Americans were building fighters of greater weight for a similar class.

[Rick]

The only European country that could compare to the U.S. was Great Britain. From memory, I believe both countries had faith in the four-engine bomber with the infrastructure and doctrine (strategic bombing) for it and where the only two countries that had this in W.W.2.

[Yama]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The Hurricane could actually take a surprising amount of battle damage. And it was trivial to repair, which was a bonus.

All the aircraft you describe had armour in them. The zero as far as im aware, did not.

Hurricane was pretty vulnerable to battle damage owing to lack of armour and self-sealing fuel tanks. Only after Battle of France it began to get seat armours and protected fuel tanks (which had been standard in Bf-109 for much longer).

Big problem for Spitfire and particularly Hurricane was that their fuselage fuel tanks were located in the front part, behind the engine. This made them very vulnerable to attacks from frontal sector - for example, defensive fire from the bombers -  and if the tank caught fire, pilot was unlikely to survive. By contrast, Bf-109 fuel tank was located behind and under the pilot - it was virtually impossible to hit from the front sector. Finnish ace Hans Wind considered Hurricane as one of the easiest fighters to shoot down as it caught fire so easily.

Zero got seat armour only in its A6M5c variant, ie. late 1944.

Of course, early war seat armour got quickly obsolete when rifle-calibre machine guns fell out of use. Finns actually removed the seat armours from P-36's: they were made from such poor quality steel that they often didn't stop even 7.62mm bullets so basically they were just dead weight.

[Stuart Galbraith]

French had some good heavy bombers as well Rick. I forget the name, but there was one I was looking into that was not very far removed from the Halifax or the Lancaster, and they had that prototyped in 1940. The Germans took one look at it, and ignored it. Serves them right really.

Nobody really had a doctrine to make heavy bombing work until about 1943. We all thought we did, so we invested in systems that, we thought,  would make war impossible, then when war came, found that other than the deterrence value they were almost useless. Its not unreasonable to suggest the heavy bomber only really came into its own very late, say 1944/45 after prodigious amounts of investment. Well the Germans made a worse decision in the V2. They spend more than your manhattan project to invent a weapon that can carry a one ton warhead, and there is the humble Lancaster that can carry 8.

I guess my point is, everyone was looking at bombers from a deterrence point of view. Even the Germans used them to some extent to enforce early capitulation or face terror bombing. It was only very late in the day everyone figured out that if a war happened they were going to be caught short footed, and started investing in Fighters. So in that regard, Americans were really no different from Britain or France or Italy.

I think the main problem with American fighters was they were designed to defend the US, hence the long range and perhaps over engineered cooling systems (that was criticised in the Spitfire when it was taxied on the Huge American Airbases in the US. But of course in the UK its irrelevant) The mental leap that it might be required to station American fighters abroad and involve themselves in other peoples wars still had not been made. Hence the reason why the Mustang was so valuable. It absolutely HAD been designed for that kind of environment.

But hey, its just a personal view, id welcome people throwing rocks at it.

[Rick]

A few good heavy French bombers does not make infrastructure and doctrine. Did said bombers affect the outcome of their debacle with Germany at all? Other than G.B. and the U.S. the only country, I believe, that come close was Japan. Japan had superb crews and twin engine bombers that fit with their doctrine of air power projection over long ocean distances. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 minutes ago, Yama said:

Hurricane was pretty vulnerable to battle damage owing to lack of armour and self-sealing fuel tanks. Only after Battle of France it began to get seat armours and protected fuel tanks (which had been standard in Bf-109 for much longer).

Big problem for Spitfire and particularly Hurricane was that their fuselage fuel tanks were located in the front part, behind the engine. This made them very vulnerable to attacks from frontal sector - for example, defensive fire from the bombers -  and if the tank caught fire, pilot was unlikely to survive. By contrast, Bf-109 fuel tank was located behind and under the pilot - it was virtually impossible to hit from the front sector. Finnish ace Hans Wind considered Hurricane as one of the easiest fighters to shoot down as it caught fire so easily.

Zero got seat armour only in its A6M5c variant, ie. late 1944.

Of course, early war seat armour got quickly obsolete when rifle-calibre machine guns fell out of use. Finns actually removed the seat armours from P-36's: they were made from such poor quality steel that they often didn't stop even 7.62mm bullets so basically they were just dead weight.

Ok Ill give you that, in the Battle of France thats perfectly true about fitting armour. OTOH, if you think the Hurricane couldn't take damage, its worth looking up Flight Lieutenant Nicholson and how he won his VC in the Battle of Britain. Granted it was lost shortly thereafter, but that it was still flyable at all after being shot up point blank by an Me110 is something I find particularly stunning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Brindley_Nicolson

 

The Zero was effectively obsolete in 1944. Even the Spitfire which it dominated over Darwin in 1942, had no trouble dispatching them over Burma in 44 and 45. That isnt to say the Japanese were not building other aircraft to defend the home islands that were not significantly better of course.

[Rick]

Interesting site for W.W.2 airplanes.

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/hawker-tempest-v-vs-p-47d-27.4571/

[Rick]

"... Even the Spitfire which it dominated over Darwin in 1942, had no trouble dispatching them over Burma in 44 and 45. '

I would think that has to do with the pilots and not the planes. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

5 minutes ago, Rick said:

A few good heavy French bombers does not make infrastructure and doctrine. Did said bombers affect the outcome of their debacle with Germany at all? Other than G.B. and the U.S. the only country, I believe, that come close was Japan. Japan had superb crews and twin engine bombers that fit with their doctrine of air power projection over long ocean distances. 

No, you are missing my point Rick. Nobody had the doctrine to make strategic bombing work in 1940. We sprinkled a few bombs on Berlin that annoyed Hitler, but did nothing else. The Germans bombed London, and although it was nearly a firestorm, they didnt really have anything like the numbers or the saturation to destroy it.

The French made a political decision to not bomb Germany (they even begged us to not do it, which we reluctantly complied with till August) for fear they would be bombed. You cant mix up the political desire to use strategic bombing, from the capability to DO strategic bombing. They clearly COULD have done it if they had a mind to. I think there was even a joint Franco/British plan to bomb the Soviet oil wells in the Caucasus if the USSR had come into the war. That to me points to their strategic bombing capabilities being unfairly ignored. Just because they were not used, doesnt mean they wouldnt have if events had transpired differently.

Japan had a superb tactical airforce. I dont believe it can ever really be called a strategic one. I think in that regard they were very similar in mindset to the Germans.

[Stuart Galbraith]

4 minutes ago, Rick said:

"... Even the Spitfire which it dominated over Darwin in 1942, had no trouble dispatching them over Burma in 44 and 45. '

I would think that has to do with the pilots and not the planes. 

Bit of both probably. The Spitfires over Darwin were VB's I think (Doug would probably correct me here). The ones over Burma were MkVII, a very formidable machine indeed. Even then they still were told not to turn with a Zero but use BNZ tactics. So it still even then had something going for it.

[MiloMorai]

2 hours ago, Yama said:

Only after Battle of France it began to get seat armours and protected fuel tanks (which had been standard in Bf-109 for much longer).

During the BoB most 109Es shot down during and after didn't have armour. The IWM one certainly doesn't.

[Yama]

3 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

During the BoB most 109Es shot down during and after didn't have armour. The IWM one certainly doesn't.

I've understood that E-3 had armoured seat, but the seat of course was quite small and didn't cover pilots' head/shoulders etc.

Germans of course had experience from seat armours already, having encountered Soviet I-15 and I-16 in Spanish civil war, many of which had armoured seats.

[Brian Kennedy]

8 hours ago, Rick said:

+1 on "Fire in the Sky." I think the pre-W.W.2 U.S.A.A.F. was centered on the four-engine bomber, there is mention of the "bomber cult" in some past readings.  Also, this "cult" in order to secure funding in the 1930's more-or-less convinced Congress that the B17 was going to be used to defend the U.S. coastline. 

Ah, typing from the book (taken from the memoirs of Brig. Gen. Ben Kelsey, chief of USAAF fighter project 1934-43). I'm still pretty skeptical but gives an idea of the mindset, at least:

"Peacetime maneuvers for the United States involved deployment from Michigan to Florida, from one coast to the other, from arctic climate to deserts, and from sea level to the high plains and mountain areas [...] the planes automatically included provisions for operating in any or all of these areas. That versatility was unique in this country.

This inherent characteristic was brought home clearly when I had occasion to take a Spitfire Mark V from Wright Field in Ohio to Los Angeles and back. Because of its limited range, it was necessary to land at a number of little-used intermediate fields. The cooling on the ground at some fields was inadequate to permit taxiing from landing to the service area or from the hangers to the takeoff end of the field [...] the marginal stability that added so much to the superb maneuverability of the plane for combat and short flights became tiring and uncomfortable on long flights in rough air. The plane that was superior in all respects in its own country would not have met our standards or been accepted unless modified [...] the other side of the picture has to be revealed too. Our planes were not considered desirable when evaluated abroad where adaptability bred into them had no real significance."

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yeah, I think I've read that before, it's a fascinating perspective isn't it?

Edited December 1, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith

[alejandro_]

Quote

Ah, typing from the book (taken from the memoirs of Brig. Gen. Ben Kelsey, chief of USAAF fighter project 1934-43). I'm still pretty skeptical but gives an idea of the mindset, at least:

I was not aware he had written his memoirs. Do you have the title?

 

[Brian Kennedy]

1 hour ago, alejandro_ said:

I was not aware he had written his memoirs. Do you have the title?

 

Not a memoir per se but this was the book that was cited https://www.amazon.com/Dragons-Teeth-Benjamin-S-Kelsey/dp/0874745748

[CaptLuke]

15 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its quite interesting to compare the weight of a Tempest, which was 9000lb empty, and a further 10000lb for the P47empty. It just looks like the Americans were building fighters of greater weight for a similar class.

But the P-47 is not a similar class.  The P-47 was designed around a turbo-charger for high altitude work, that's going to make a bigger and heavier plane.

For instance, looking at the P-47 vs. the Typhoon, the P-47 developed it's maximum speed between 28,000 and 32,000 feet (depending on the version) while the Typhoon maxed out at about 20,000; that's what that extra 1000 pounds bought the AAF.

If you compare the F-4U, same US design philosophy and same engine as the US P-47 but no high altitude requirement and thus no turbocharger, the empty weight is about 9000 pounds. 

[shep854]

7 hours ago, Brian Kennedy said:

Ah, typing from the book (taken from the memoirs of Brig. Gen. Ben Kelsey, chief of USAAF fighter project 1934-43). I'm still pretty skeptical but gives an idea of the mindset, at least:

"Peacetime maneuvers for the United States involved deployment from Michigan to Florida, from one coast to the other, from arctic climate to deserts, and from sea level to the high plains and mountain areas [...] the planes automatically included provisions for operating in any or all of these areas. That versatility was unique in this country.

This inherent characteristic was brought home clearly when I had occasion to take a Spitfire Mark V from Wright Field in Ohio to Los Angeles and back. Because of its limited range, it was necessary to land at a number of little-used intermediate fields. The cooling on the ground at some fields was inadequate to permit taxiing from landing to the service area or from the hangers to the takeoff end of the field [...] the marginal stability that added so much to the superb maneuverability of the plane for combat and short flights became tiring and uncomfortable on long flights in rough air. The plane that was superior in all respects in its own country would not have met our standards or been accepted unless modified [...] the other side of the picture has to be revealed too. Our planes were not considered desirable when evaluated abroad where adaptability bred into them had no real significance."

 

Was this the same Kelsey who ran an XP-38 out of gas and crashed it onto a golf course while trying to set a long-range speed record?

[Markus Becker]

18 hours ago, Yama said:

Hurricane was pretty vulnerable to battle damage owing to lack of armour and self-sealing fuel tanks. Only after Battle of France it began to get seat armours and protected fuel tanks (which had been standard in Bf-109 for much longer).

 

I thought it was just the fuselage tank that was unprotected due to the mistaken assumption that it would be safe being between the engine and the cockpit that had armour. Wing tanks had self sealing. 

 

A word about the P-36 and P-40. 

The P-36 was no slouch at at all. It was tested by the RAF and rated superior to a Hurricane but inferior to a Spitfire except for field of view. 

The P-40 was held back by the inferior critical altitude of it's engines. What was possible was shown by the Merlin powered -F/L variants and the XP-40Q. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

6 hours ago, CaptLuke said:

But the P-47 is not a similar class.  The P-47 was designed around a turbo-charger for high altitude work, that's going to make a bigger and heavier plane.

For instance, looking at the P-47 vs. the Typhoon, the P-47 developed it's maximum speed between 28,000 and 32,000 feet (depending on the version) while the Typhoon maxed out at about 20,000; that's what that extra 1000 pounds bought the AAF.

If you compare the F-4U, same US design philosophy and same engine as the US P-47 but no high altitude requirement and thus no turbocharger, the empty weight is about 9000 pounds. 

You have an excellent point. I would just say, was it really worth the extra 1000lb to get the 4000 feet, particularly as the service altitude of a Tempest was 34000 feet anyway?

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/temptest.html

What was the topspeed in a p47 at 28000?

Edited December 2, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith

[CaptLuke]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You have an excellent point. I would just say, was it really worth the extra 1000lb to get the 4000 feet, particularly as the service altitude of a Tempest was 34000 feet anyway?

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/temptest.html

What was the topspeed in a p47 at 28000?

Whether the extra 1000 pounds was the best approach (esp compared to the P-51) is a good question.  Ref the extra 4000', performance at altitude is a better measure than service ceiling.

To go back to the P-47 vs. Corsair comparison (same engine), the P-47 maintained high performance all the way up to it's service ceiling.  The Corsair, OTOH, has its performance start to drop off at about 25,000 feet.  The FW-190A series had the same issue over about 20,000 feet; performance dropped off rapidly even though the service ceiling was much higher (about 34,000 feet).

This comment is from a UK evaluation of the Tempest II (Centaurus engine) in comparison to the P-47D:

Quote

 

It is difficult to make a clear-cut comparison between the performance of these two aircraft, as the Tempest is a comparatively low altitude fighter and the Thunderbolt was designed as a high altitude aircraft. The Tempest is superior at altitudes below 21,000 feet, except in range and endurance. Above this height the Thunderbolt comes into its own, and is increasingly better with altitude.

 

At 32,000 feet:

• P-47B about 420 MPH
• P-47D  435 MPH
• P-47M 473
• P-47N 457

Edited December 2, 2020 by CaptLuke

[Yama]

19 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

 

I thought it was just the fuselage tank that was unprotected due to the mistaken assumption that it would be safe being between the engine and the cockpit that had armour. Wing tanks had self sealing.

Alas I don't have my sourcebook here, but my recollection is that Hurricane I had unprotected tanks, as was pretty much standard everywhere at that time sans USSR.

Any way I was wrong regarding Bf-109E, seems that the fuselage tank was not self-sealing in any submodel. That only came with F. Bf-110 had self-sealing tanks already in 1940, though.

"Self-sealing" at that time however meant rubberizing, which was not terribly effective.

 

19 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

A word about the P-36 and P-40. 

The P-36 was no slouch at at all. It was tested by the RAF and rated superior to a Hurricane but inferior to a Spitfire except for field of view. 

The P-40 was held back by the inferior critical altitude of it's engines. What was possible was shown by the Merlin powered -F/L variants and the XP-40Q. 

With 1200hp engine (ie. 100 octane fuel) P-36 was okay (not great) performer and probably overall superior to Hurricane, though still slower. However more normal at least amongst the export versions was 1065hp Twin Wasp. Finns noted how that variant struggled to keep up with Blenheims on escort missions.

[Markus Becker]

My source books credit the various versions with top speed between a bit under 500 kph to a bit over, 520 IIRC. Not the fastest but also not the slowest. 

If the Finns had problems keeping up with Blenheims they were probably using low octane fuel. 

 

Edit: Autocorrect typo fixed. 

Edited December 3, 2020 by Markus Becker

[seahawk]

500mph? You mean km/h?