Never enough range

[Heathrow Harry]

Picked up a second hand copy of Gunston's "Fighter Aircraft of the '50's" last week

One thing that comes through is that EVERY plane built was short on range and a fortune was spent on upgrading them later.

My question is firstly WHY? and secondly has there ever been a war plane built with TOO MUCH range??

[Pontius Navigator]

HH, too high a fuel consumption, low powered engines?

In 1963, on the NF14 nav trainer we flew with a ventral tank and had a high level cruise time of about 1.30 - a maximum roa of 300 with a combat roa of probably 200.

One aircraft sustained a cracked ventral on a land away at Leuchars. It was recovered on a direct transit but staged through Ackington, MStG, Leckonfield and the final long hop to Stadishall.

Compared with contemporary piston fighters like the Spitfire and an endurance of 2.5 Hours they were very short legged.

[SASless]

The Douglas A1-E had a range of just over 1300 miles....and that was with a fuel guzzling Radial up front.

The P-51 Mustang had a range of 1650 miles.....England to Berlin and Back Spitfire enthusiasts might remember.

[Wensleydale]

The P-51 Mustang had a range of 1650 miles.....England to Berlin and Back
Spitfire enthusiasts might remember.


Absolutely. Once the American engine had been pulled out and the British Merlin engine fitted it became an excellent fighter. Before then it was relegated to recce missions because of its extremely poor performance.

[Danny42C]

Although it is an oversimplification: the basic fact is that the Spitfire was designed to defend Britain, not to go to Berlin.

In its designed capacity, it did very well.

D.

[Pontius Navigator]

I see no one has challenged my initial statement (Mrs PN looking over my shoulder).

The 1950s fighters brought several things to the party - greater speed, greater altitude, and heavier armament - but they could not match the greater range of the immediate post-war piston aircraft.

The holy grail was clearly to achieve the same range as the earlier fighters with the speed and altitude available to the jet and with the heavier weapons loads.

Arguably there was a British aircraft from the 1940s that achieved this aim but many others still lacked the range or payload.

Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 0.88 (580 mph, 933 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,192 m)
Combat radius: 810 mi (700 nm, 1,300 km)
Service ceiling: 48,000 ft (15,000 m)
Rate of climb: 3,400 ft/min (17 m/s)
Wing loading: 48 lb/ft² (234 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.32

The F86 was also a pretty fair aircraft

Maximum speed: 599 at 35,000 feet (11,000 m)
Range: 1,525 mi, (2,454 km)
Service ceiling: 49,600 ft at combat weight (15,100 m)
Rate of climb: 9,000 ft/min at sea level (45.72 m/s)
Wing loading: 49.4 lb/ft² (236.7 kg/m)

[NutLoose]

It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation, carry more fuel and you need more power and a bigger aircraft to carry it.

Mk X1X Spit had a 1500 mile range.

[Courtney Mil]

I don't remember ever thinking, "God, I wish I had less fuel."

[Willard Whyte]

Although it is an oversimplification: the basic fact is that the Spitfire was designed to defend Britain, not to go to Berlin.

In its designed capacity, it did very well.

T'was ever thus; short range thinking in a figurative and literal sense.

Never understood the teenwank fanboism directed a spit; the '51 was so much more impressive a machine.

[onetrack]

I don't remember ever thinking, "God, I wish I had less fuel."
I'm assured by those who have been there, that you do, when you're on fire. :)

[A A Gruntpuddock]

I think that philosophy arose because fighters were seen only as 'interceptors'.

The idea was that as ammunition was limited, the aircraft was ineffective after a few minutes combat, so why keep flying around?

Get back to base and rearm pdq.

Planes would only be launched when an attack was imminent (observers and/ or radar), so there was no need to loiter.

Less fuel = less weight = improved rate of climb, increased maneuverability, etc.

It was only after the fight moved over the Channel that additional fuel was required.

But I'm not even SLF, so could be wrong.

[aviate1138]

WW should remember the Spitfire was designed in the mid 30's and the P-51 in the early 40's.

A decade in aircraft design has to be taken into account when making " the teenwank fanboism" comparison.

Did anyone ever stick a Griffon engine in a Mustang btw?

[Brian Abraham]

Did anyone ever stick a Griffon engine in a Mustang btwYes and no. The Griffon has been used in some modified to run in the Reno races. There was a plan to create an aircraft out of P-51 bits powered by the Griffon.

Unlike the Griffon conversion of the Spitfire, the Griffon P-51 entailed a totally new design incorporating only the flying surfaces. An all-new fuselage featuring a mid engined layout with the pilot sitting in front of the engine driving a six bladed Rotol contra rotating prop would have made it new aircraft. Drive to the propeller was via transfer gears mounted at the front of the engine. The drive shaft ran under the cockpit terminating at the propeller reduction gears mounted in the nose. A torque tube mounted on the propeller reduction gear case at the front and on the engine at the rear enclosed the drive shaft thus alleviating the nose structure of the aircraft from the considerable torque reaction loads, which were instead transmitted back to the engine. Splines on both ends of the torque tube allowed for longitudinal float. Three early Allison powered Mustang I's, equivalent to Mustang A's were obtained to supply parts for the project. Substantial work had been completed when the project was cancelled for the usual reasons during this time frame, gas turbine development.

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/babraham227/z1.jpg
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/babraham227/m_zpsd1518204.jpg

[4Greens]

Because the US has a much bigger area than the UK their aircraft have always had a better range for domestic reasons alone.

[Heathrow Harry]

good point - at least designers thought in terms of more than 40 mins flying time.............

I can never look at the EE Lightning Mk 6 without embarrassment - extra tankage plastered all over the plane.......

[BBK]

I once attended a lecture given by a pilot from the Aggressor squadron at Alconbury. His take on range was that it wasn't just a case of distance but fuel that you can use in combat on afterburner.

[lasernigel]

Did anyone ever stick a Griffon engine in a Mustang btw

That plane looks pretty impressive. Were design/performance expected figures ever released.

Agree with Danny, horses for courses.:ok:

[At ease]

Did anyone ever stick a Griffon engine in a Mustang btw? CAC15 Kangaroo

Not strictly a Mustang, as the CAC15 involved much detailed redesign, but close enough.

CAC CA-15 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_CA-15)

At first, the CAC designers planned to use the 2,300 hp (1,715 kW) radial Pratt & Whitney R-2800 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-2800), with a turbocharger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger). However, that engine became unavailable, causing further delays in development, and it was decided to fit an in-line Rolls-Royce Griffon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Griffon) Mk 61 (2,035 hp/1,517 kW). Engines for a prototype were leased from Rolls-Royce.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_CA-15#cite_note-Crick.2C_2003-3) It was intended that any production engines would have a three-speed supercharger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercharger)Operational history

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/CA-15_from_Lincoln.jpg/300px-CA-15_from_Lincoln.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CA-15_from_Lincoln.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.22wmf1/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CA-15_from_Lincoln.jpg)
The CA-15, piloted by Flt Lt J.A.L. Archer, over Melbourne, photographed from the rear turret of an Avro Lincoln (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lincoln) bomber.


Development was further slowed by the end of the war, with the prototype flying for the first time on 4 March 1946, and was flown by CAC test pilot Jim Schofield, who also flew the first Australian built P-51.

A drawing of the R2800 version here:

CA 15 (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-requests/ca-15-a-6505.html#post215512)

[Wensleydale]

I don't remember ever thinking, "God, I wish I had less fuel."


You were not in the situation of the Shackleton crews in the 1980s during the moritorium when we were forbidden to dump fuel... Airborne with a full load of fuel then have the radar go U/S with 6 hours to landing weight. (The nav-ex down the Great Glen and return via north cape was scenic though - if you were lucky enough to grab a window seat).

[Fareastdriver]

It has to be remembered that the Mustang only came into existance because the British contracted North American to design and build it.

[Haraka]

.........and that one of its designers was Ed Schmeud ,who just happened to be ex- Messerschmitt.

[Runaway Gun]

Precious Metal, races at Reno, and is a fine example of a Griffon powered P-51.

[NutLoose]

Don't forget the Turboprop version of the P-51 that was designed as a COIN aircraft.

Piper PA-48 Enforcer - close support aircraft (http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/piper_pa-48.php)

[Pontius Navigator]

HH, was not the Frightening the result of pressing an experimental airframe in to service post-Sandys missile-fest?

While it survived into the late '80s it should really have been replaced by the F4 from the early '70s if the F4 hadn't been used to replace the F111 which should have replaced the TSR2 which should have replaced the Canberra until the AFVG didn't.

Or something like that :)

[Courtney Mil]

Er, yeah. What he said. :ok::D

[Lima Juliet]

24 Sep 1987 - A Tornado F3, ZE155, from Boscombe Down, made the first non-stop un-refuelled crossing of the Atlantic by a British jet fighter. The sortie covered 2,200nms in 4 hr 45 min, and took place as the aircraft returned from Arizona after a series of tropical trials.

Here she is with only the 2250L tanks fitted, for the non-stop flight she had some 1500L tanks fitted underneath as well.

http://images2.jetphotos.net/img/2/0/5/5/15230_1061473550.jpg

I miss the old girl...:{

LJ

[Brian Abraham]

Ed Schmeud ,who just happened to be ex- MesserschmittAn urban myth I'm afraid Haraka, widely quoted though it is.

Edgar Schmued was born in Hornbach, Germany, 30 December 1899. At age eight, he first saw an airplane in flight and decided that aviation was to be his life's work. Edgar embarked early on a rigorous program of self-study to become an engineer, and later served an apprenticeship in a small engine factory. He also designed several innovative engine components for which he received patents. In his spare time, he continued the self-study of aviation. Schmued left his native Bavaria for Brazil in 1925, seven years after World War I had shattered the German economy. His experience in Germany led to employment with the General Aviation, the air branch of General Motors Corporation in Brazil. In 1931, he was sponsored to come to the United States through his excellent work for General Motors in Brazil (immigration rules were extremely strict at that time - he was one of 794 people admitted in the quota) and went straight to work for Fokker Aircraft Corporation of America, which was an aircraft company that was owned by General Motors and based in New Jersey.There he began his career as an aircraft design engineer. General Motors later sold its air arm and it became the forerunner of North American Aviation.

The talented and inventive Schmued, by now a citizen of the United States, was employed by North American Aviation (NAA) in Dundalk, Maryland. After leaving North American, he spent five years as an aircraft designer for the Northrop Corporation, where he helped design the F-5 and the T-38.

Edgar Schmued died at Oceanside, California, on 1 June 1985.

[SASless]

I just love the back and forth about the Spitfire and Mustang. American Airframe, British Engine, American 100 Octane Fuel versus British 87 Octane Petrol.

As I recall we were Allies....and cooperated with each other in many ways....Radar, Sonar, Jet Engine Technology and so many others.

We must never forget as we hear all the time...."The Yanks....over paid, over sexed, and over here!".


Or as I have heard it on rare occasions...."The Brits....under paid, under sexed....and under Eisenhower!".

[Brian Abraham]

As I recall we were Allies....and cooperated with each other in many waysSo true SAS, but it is interesting how stories, true or not, gather a life of their own. On the Mustang for example, much is made of the engine cooling arrangement, and how the ducting system reduces drag - some say actually producing thrust, which NA question. All the material on the Mustang published gives the impression that the cooling set up was either a NA "invention", or at least American. The Mustang was not unique in how the cooling system functioned, it had already been developed and used on the Spitfire, which never gets a mention. It was the outcome of research carried out by F. W. Meredith, then at the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE), Farnborough, in 1936. An example of mutual cooperation.

The set up is known as a "Meredith radiator" ie one making use of the "Meredith effect".

[Haraka]

That is a interesting observation Brian on something that I had taken as a fact for a very long time.
Just looking at some of the popular aviation press over the years:
Bill Green has him as Ex- Fokker and Messerchmitt in his "Famous Fighters " in 1957. Chris Shores has him as Ex-Messerschmitt In AE 2 of c.1977, By May 1999 Micheal O'leary certainly has him as a General Motors field service manager in Brazil ( Aeroplane monthly) and Ken Wixey repeats the ex-Fokker /Messerschmitt story in Air Enthusiast 95 in 2001.
"Circular reporting" gives often erroneous stories increasing apparent credibility and this looks like being another example, if you have a verifiable source.
I agree that sweeping unilateral claims for " invention" in aviation are often suspect and the international exchange of knowledge and ideas (although sometimes surreptitious) is often conveniently overlooked ,the Mustang radiator system with its ( admittedly well implemented) Meredith effect being an example.

[Brian Abraham]

Haraka, it's easy to see where the story about Ed Schmued may have originated. One wonders where "Flight" got thier information, and 1942 being early in the war whether there may have been other motivations eg propaganda, though it's hard to imagine why. Perhaps the fact that the 51 had visual similarities to the 109 in some way gave impetus to the story.
www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1942/1942 - 1599.html
It is built to a British specification and has a distinct streak of the Messerschmitt 109 in its make-up. This is not to be wondered at when it is remembered that the designer spent some 12 years in Messerschmitt's drawing office. This is not the first case of design staffs changing their allegiance and merging the products of two firms.

"MUSTANG DESIGNER: Edgar Schmued and the P-51" by Ray Wagner gives Eds background.

[Haraka]

Brian. Well that just about puts the cap neatly on it!
The first version of the story I ever heard was that Schmeud got himself out of Messerschmitt for moral reasons, effectively becoming a refugee , when he saw which way it was all going politically in 1935/6.
This thus could well originally have been a crude piece of propaganda which resurfaced in the Flight article.
I would certainly place Ray Wagner's account above all that!
Ah well, back to the thread!

[Pontius Navigator]

[QUOTE=Brian Abraham;7817271One wonders where "Flight" got thier information, and 1942 being early in the war whether there may have been other motivations eg propaganda, though it's hard to imagine why.[/QUOTE]

Don't underestimate the Ministry of Economic Warfare or of propaganda (which we pretended we didn't use). Suggesting that he had been instrumental in designing the Me109 and then defected to the Allies where he improved on the Me109 to create the P51 would have been powerful stuff.

[500N]

PN

Agree. And people then didn't have the opportunity to check
like we do now so good PR.

[ian16th]

Rather than why not replace a Merlin with a Griffon in the P-51, why not replace the Allison's with Merlin's in the P-38?

After all, the P-51 experience had shown that it worked!

[SASless]

Would the Mozzie have benefited from installing the Griffin Engines instead of the two Merlins?

[Tankertrashnav]

"You can never have too much fuel"


Except that on a North Sea towline in a tanker full of fuel you are hoping to get rid of it as quickly as possible so you can get back down before the bar closes.

A thirsty F4, or even better a Buccaneer demanding the centreline was a welcome sight, a Lightning F3 with its pathetic fuel capacity less so.

[Heathrow Harry]

Pontius asked "HH, was not the Frightening the result of pressing an experimental airframe in to service post-Sandys missile-fest?"

the original requirement was ER103 in May 1947 which asked for an experimental high speed aircraft that could be developed into a fighter ( the SR53 came from a similar background). Contract was awarded in April 1950, first flight (P.1A) August 1954, second aircraft armed flew in July 1955. It was redesigned as an all weather fighter (the P.1B) which first flew on 4th April 1957 - the very day the Sandys Report was published - the Lightning was too far along to cancel but they cut development funds for the additional rocket engine planned (!!!)

So it was well pre Sandys and the design was at least partly meant to be an interceptor from Day 1. I suspect the early post war date is a clue to the lack of range - still thinking about the Battle of Britain - the Mk 6 had over twice the fuel of the P.1B

[Fareastdriver]

Except that on a North Sea towline in a tanker full of

Never a problem with the Valiant. If AAR was curtailed early you flew to your airfield's initial descent point, followed the checklist and dumped the remaining fuel in the underwings.
The tanks held 12.500 lbs each and could not start feeding until about an hour's flying. Friday afternoon pilots, like me, used to keep as much as possible in them so they could be cleared and therefore ensure a timely arrival at TGIF.
There used to be some really long unforcast contrails above East Anglia.

[pontifex]

Trouble was that it took rather a long time for the fuel to drop out of the three holes unles you open the nitrogen bottles. But then, that wasn't much talked about was it?

[GreenKnight121]

Rather than why not replace a Merlin with a Griffon in the P-51, why not replace the Allison's with Merlin's in the P-38?

After all, the P-51 experience had shown that it worked!

This was proposed, but the Allison-powered P-51 had no turbo-supercharger, which is why the Merlin improved its mid-high-altitude performance,.

The P-38 had turbo-superchargers for its Allisons, which gave excellent high-altitude performance. Thus, any gains would be much smaller, and as the change-over would cause a significant disruption on production rate, the idea was dropped.

This article has a discussion of the proposal, phrased in terms of the benefits... but glossing over the problems (it only discusses performance to 30,000 feet).
The P-38 Lightning (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-wayne.html)
In 1940 Packard Motors of Detroit began building the two-speed Merlin V-1650-1 (Merlin 28) under license from Rolls Royce. This engine had 1170 horsepower in high blower with a critical altitude of 21,000 feet. Lockheed ran a study comparing a Merlin XX powered Lightning with a standard V-1710 powered variant. The reported speed difference was over 25 mph, favoring the Merlin powered airplane. Climb performance was similar to the Allison powered machine.

Another Merlin vs. Allison comparison in 1942 involved the V-1710-89/91 Allisons (engines used in standard P-38J) and the Packard V-1650-3 two-speed, two-stage Merlin used in the P-51B/C. Utilizing Military Power speed was almost identical.

Yet another study in 1944 compared V-1710s producing 1725 bhp and "advanced" Merlins using "special" fuel and producing 2000 bhp (no altitude specified). The Merlin powered version could supposedly attain 468 mph at 30,000 feet, which was considerably better than the Allison powered version.

These studies were all conducted by Lockheed and exhibit a certain amount of optimism in regard to maximum speed for both types, but the consensus clearly shows better performance with the Merlin powered Lightning.

Note however, that the same article earlier says that the factory-set maximum manifold pressure ratings for the Allison engines were rarely followed by front-line units. They used significantly-higher manifold pressure settings (up to 60" vs the factory 40"-45"!

As a result, combat units regularly achieved higher climb rates and maximum speeds than the factory did. Thus the above Lockheed factory comparison short-changes the performance the Allison was capable of.



This article mentions one of the areas where performance would have dropped with the Merlin (it discusses performance above 30,000 feet):
Whatever Happened To The P-38K ? (http://www.456fis.org/P-38K.htm)
There were some performance areas that would suffer. While a gain in speed at medium altitudes was expected, the rate of climb would be reduced by as much as 400 feet per minute. Service ceiling would also be reduced as the Packard Merlin XX made considerably less power above 30,000 feet than did the Allison V1710.

[Brian Abraham]

why not replace the Allison's with Merlin's in the P-38?Lockheed themselves looked at such a conversion at one point. Nevertheless, a P-38 was sent to Rolls Royce at Hucknall for a trial installation of Merlin XX engines. The program was initiated by the Americans as the P-38 was proving somewhat troublesome in the high altitude role over Europe. RR made a number of test flights in the unmodified state, but before conversion started an order came from Washington for the aircraft to be returned to the 8th Air Force immediately. The supposition is that, Allison having seen their P-51 business go up in smoke, were somewhat upset to see their P-38 business possibly following a similar fate, and applied the necessary political pressure.

[ian16th]

FED

Never a problem with the ValiantIn the very early days of AAR, when we on 214 were doing the trials. Most of out tanking was done between our own Valiant's. Often fuel was passed from A/C 'A' to A/C 'B' and then A/C 'B' passed fuel to A/C 'A'. This was done several times.

When we started doing the night time transfers, and it was getting close to the bars closing, an A/C that had just passed fuel would often develop a snag that required it returning to base, leaving the recently topped up A/C to burn or ditch fuel so that it could land.:sad:

[Fareastdriver]

Jettisoning was sometimes very deliberate. Should an underwing tank pump fail and a receiver was short one could jettison and pass fuel at the same time.
The good tank pump would deliver at about 2,500 lbs a minute and the other tank would take three minutes to empty. As soon a big aircraft engaged it would be fed with fuel from one underwing and the fuel from the other would be jettisoned. The ailerons were powerful enough to take up to 6,000lbs imbalance and you could always jettison in stages.
Spectacular, and quite alarming, when you first did it on the receiving end.

[Tankertrashnav]

We once found our aircraft which had been fuelled for a transit to Leuchars (c 40,000 lb) was u/s. My flight commander captain got us all to jump into the combat-readied Dragonfly aircraft which had 86,000 lb on board and as he was not willing to wait for it to be defuelled we set off in that. As soon as we coasted out over Blakeney I started to jettison through the pods which we continued to do all the way up to top of descent for Leuchars. This was in 1973/74 when as I recall we were talking about petrol rationing and they had just introduced the 50mph speed limit on all roads to save fuel!

[SASless]

Should an underwing tank pump fail and a receiver was short one could jettison and pass fuel at the same time.

Sounds like some mornings after a good Pub Crawl and late night Curry!:uhoh:

[Courtney Mil]

Oh, SASless. So terribly inapropriate in a public forum. But wonderfully funny.

I do not thank you for the picture you've planted in my head!:cool:

[LowObservable]

There were good long-range fighters in WW2 - and then came jets. We just about had the technology worked out for better jets and supersonics came along, the only way to get decent range in a supersonic being apparently through sheer size, cf Avro Arrow.

Today if you must have supersonic speed (there is a strong case for subsonic ground-pounders - if they'd done the A-6F Intruder II we'd be SLEPping the hell out of them and fitting them with AESA) your best bet is to arrange to carry a lot of external fuel. Today's range champs are the Rafale and Strike Eagle.

[Heathrow Harry]

"There were good long-range fighters in WW2"

At the end yes, but not at the start of WW2

Hell, there were hardly any decent long-range BOMBERS at the start of the war

[Brian Abraham]

Haraka, just a follow up on the Ed Schmued being ex Messerschmitt story.

Rolls Royce test pilot Ron Harker test flew the Mustang I on April 30, 1942 and praised the aircraft, suggesting fitment of the Merlin, and commented that he thought it looked like a Bf 109F "probably due to it being designed by one of the Messerschmitt designers, who is now with North American."

The above comes from page 10, "Rolls Royce and the Mustang" by David Birch, Derby, England: Rolls Royce Heritage Trust, 1987.

Could it be that the design credit comment was a tongue in cheek throw away line mistakenly taken as serious by a reporter in attendance and so appearing in "Flight"?

Mustangs of the 357th Fighter Group at one stage sported white spinner and nose and broad white stripe on the fin/rudder so as not to be mistaken for a Messerschmitt.

[DBTW]

I launched from a ship and took 6000 lbs of fuel off a Victor tanker over the English Channel once. Due to fog over the whole UK it turned out the tanker and I were the only folk airborne that day, and when I was summonsed back to Mum due lack of trade, the tanker crew asked if I could take some more fuel because they had a command directive not to dump anything. When I asked how much they wanted me to take they said "about 100K lbs please!" Couldn't help them, so I asked what they were going to do. Their reply was, "We're thinking of doing a practice diversion to JFK." Quite sure they had too much fuel that day...

[ShotOne]

To come back to th OP's question, the only long range fighter involved in the Battle of Britain (Bf110) was severely compromised, relative to our short range opposition. On the other hand the Me 163 had a powered endurance of about four minutes...which for its mission was plenty, although it was very unsatisfactory for other reasons!

[Fg Off Bloggs]

Leon,

24 Sep 1987 - A Tornado F3, ZE155, from Boscombe Down, made the first non-stop un-refuelled crossing of the Atlantic by a British jet fighter. The sortie covered 2,200nms in 4 hr 45 min, and took place as the aircraft returned from Arizona after a series of tropical trials.

Can you be sure? In 1982 Buccaneers (the last British-built jet fighter/bomber) from 16 Sqn deployed to Nellis and flew unrefuelled across the Atlantic from the Azores to Gander (Great Circle route but against the prevailing wind). Buccaneers (RN/RAF) from as early as the 60s routinely flew across the Atlantic unrefuelled from Gander or Goose to Lossiemouth (with the jet stream, which one presumes the F3 took advantage of too)!

On another point, can the Tornado (F3 or not) really be called a British jet aircraft as the F3 was designed from the GR1, not all of which was designed and built in Britain!? Although I take your point that it was in BritMil service and was a fighter (or was it actually an interceptor!).

Anyway, the real point and answer to the original post:

My question is firstly WHY? and secondly has there ever been a war plane built with TOO MUCH range??

is this: Range is inconsequential to a warplane, it is Radius of Action that is imperative AND radius of action in its designed role. A Buccaneer, for example, had a high level range of 2300nm if you fitted every possible tank and filled them to the gunwales - you could (I was involved in planning it once) fly a Buccaneer round the World without AAR as long as you selected judicious landing fields and appropriate diversions! However, the radius of action in its war fit at low level in Germany was no more than 300nms - sufficient to attack enemy airfields and opposing forces during the Cold War and return to base to do it all again (assuming that you got through the SA-2 belt at your first attempt!).

So for Range read RoA!

Bloggs :ok:

[John Farley]

HH's point is an interesting one. Several good reasons have been given why many original specs were like they were and I cannot see a manufacturer deliberately exceeding the required spec as this would create problems with other aspects of the design.

The Harrier GR1 spec of the mid 60s was interesting in that it called for a 2000nm unrefuelled ferry range (rather more than the range of Trident airliners of the day). We met the spec by unscrewing the small wing tips that were outboard of the outrigger wheeels and replacing them with slightly larger so called 'ferry tips'. This took about 45 minutes but I don't ever recall the RAF using this capability.

When I wandered about in the Dunsfold demonstrator G-VTOL (particularly all over South America for example) we were always airborne on our own and often unable to contact our destination until well on the way. So I never planned a leg longer that 1000-1200 miles to keep stacks in hand for whatever. On occasion this caused real aggro at our destination as I always refused to demo on arrival having so much fuel and a congfiguration that reduced the max g . This did not go down well with Generals and salesmen alike.

Hey ho.

[London Eye]

I don't remember ever thinking, "God, I wish I had less fuel."

Not even on a JMC? :bored:

[dalek]

Anyone interested in long range ops in WW2 should read of Charles Lindbergh's efforts as a P38 test pilot in the Pacific. Lindbergh taught the pilots techniques that added 500mms to the range of the P38. His wing kept pitching up in places the Japanese never expected

[Biggus]

I seem to remember many years ago hearing that, when the Tornado was being designed, the German partners considered it politically unacceptable for a Tornado to reach the Russian border at low level from bases in West Germany (don't forget there was a West and East Germany in those days). Targets in East Germany and Poland fine, but no further. I believe that when the Tornado replaced the Buccaneer in RAFG that some of the Bucc's targets had to be handed over to F-111's, as the Tornado didn't have the range to cover them.


Could be an urban myth I suppose...

[RAFEngO74to09]

It is indeed true that it was deemed politically unacceptable at the design stage for the Tornado GR1 to have the range to reach the USSR. I remember this being mentioned by a VSO who accompanied a Staff College visit to my sqn in the 1980s.

It is also true that the Tornado GR1 range in the strike role was less than the Buccaneer. Some Tornado missions were planned to be buddy-buddy refuelled from Buccaneers.

[dalek]

I seem to remember being told that the F111 was not based in Germany because it would then have round trip fuel for Moscow and would therefore have to be counted in the SALT talks.

[Lima Juliet]

F/O Bloggs

The info came from the RAF History webpage under 1987 - RAF - RAF Timeline 1980 -1989 (http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/rafhistorytimeline198089.cfm)

My suggestion is to dig out log-books and the old F540s and/or write to the Air Historical Branch! That way you can rewrite the history books.

LJ :ok:

[Fg Off Bloggs]

Lol!! Thanks,Leon, maybe when I have bugga all else to do!!

Bloggs. ⛄️⛄️⛄️⛄️:D

[Pontius Navigator]

partners considered it politically unacceptable for a Tornado to reach the Russian border at low level from bases in West Germany (don't forget there was a West and East Germany in those days). Targets in East Germany and Poland fine, but no further.

There may have been another reason. I am not aware of any V-force target in the '60s to the west of the WPC eastern boundary, when the MRCA was being considered.

Basically Bomber Command and SAC would operate the deeper strategic plans and the ATAFs would be deconflicted in space. You may also remember that there was an upper yield limit on SACERs 7,000 nukes.

[vascodegama]

JF

Don't doubt your experience for a moment but are you sure about a ferry range for a GR1? If memory serves, the ac burnt about 4000lbs /hr in transit so to cover 2000 nm would need about 16000 lbs plus the arrival fuel and that's not even allowing for any climb. Again, IIRC the latest Harriers only carried about 15klbs and did not fly for the 4 hours needed.

Blogs are we sure that any Buccs referred to did not use buddy/buddy AAR?

LJ I am slightly dubious about the source document that claims that 23 VC10s were to be converted to K2/K3 there aren't that many different serial nos in my logbook!

[Wander00]

Wasn't there a TW3 sketch about the range/radius of action of the then MRCA, and that despite the inability to get to Russia and back it was not a suicide mission

[Pontius Navigator]

Vasco, buddy/buddy only works so far. Assume two Buccs, only one arrives. It would have to wait for the tanker etc etc.

I know the RN flew a Bucc, Goose to UK (Lossie?). I can't remember if it was a Mk 1 or Mk 2, I think it was a Mk 1.

The aircraft was fully fuelled. Having taxied to the marshalling point it was manually topped up to full. I seem to recall that there was a problem restarting and engine that burnt most of that extra fuel.

It made the flight unrefuelled but I believe the 'clouds were full of tankers.'

[vascodegama]

PN am fully aware of the limits, it does of course depend which AC you need to get thru etc. As far as an AC like the Buccaneer is concerned a top up at TOC (to more than one AC ) could be all that is needed to achieve the result. A lot would depend on the exact conditions on the day eg wind component and min fuel needed at destination. I don't actually remember any unaccompanied direct transits in 82 or 83 hence the question.

[John Farley]

vascodegama

Hi. Sometimes spec points can be a little like the small print in insurance policies or other docs.

As I recall the ferry range spec was met using a then light single seater complete with the ferry tips (nothing like a bit of aspect ratio to reduce induced drag) and with the slim 330 tanks - not the fat ones that the RAF eventually bought. The cruise was very carefully flown to produce a fuel flow (for about 30 mins or so as I recall) that showed there was enough left to go the required distance. There were no reserves required and the idle descent distance counted. Such things can make a big difference!

Mind you another spec point for 6g at 400kts, 16,000lb and 10,000ft was a really meaningful operational case which took a lot of wing dressing schemes and mid flap before we hacked it. (Dumping nozzle made it easy to get 6g but the Dunsfold pilots refused to allow the company to meet the spec that way for obvious reasons - which caused a bit of internal company aggro at the time.... )

JF

[Fg Off Bloggs]

Vasco,

Blogs are we sure that any Buccs referred to did not use buddy/buddy AAR?

Germany squadrons, eg 16, were not fitted with AAR probes nor were the crews trained/practised in AAR therefore I am confident that no buddy/buddy AAR or (any other AAR) was conducted crossing the Pond. I was there, I led the leg from Azores to Gander! 23,000lbs of gas on board - a dawdle!

Although we never flew it because RAFG said that we couldn't take 2 Buccs around the World as our RAFG Bucc swansong when Tornado (our replacement) couldn't even get to Cyprus in one hop - we DID plan to do so and it could have been done as described in my previous post and without AAR of any sort!

Bloggs:}

[Pontius Navigator]

Vasco, I was addressing the transatlantic case. For 2ATAF, FO Bloggs gives one definitive answer. Another, from a friend of mine, gives the aircraft/weapon matching for the end-game although pre-release operations would have reduced the number of weapons carriers.

[LOMCEVAK]

The trans Atlantic sortie in the F3 in 1987 was flown by a BAe crew and had nothing to do with Boscombe (although they frequently flew ZE755/AS11 on trials). I am not sure where it took off from (Goose Bay or Gander at a guess) but I recall that it landed at Macrihanish. It was flown with 2 x 2250l plus 2 x 1500l tanks. I suspect that it probably was not carrying missiles.

In the early 1980s just after IX Sqn formed as the first Tornado GR1 squadron they flew an airfield attack on Akrotiri from Honington using Victor and Buccaneer tankers. The Bucc was the tanker for the bracket closest to Cyprus and when the crew asked if, after the bracket, they could follow the Tornado through Akrotiri they were politely told to p**e off! I think that it was a sortie of about 12 hours for the GR1 crew.

[Pontius Navigator]

The trans Atlantic sortie in the F3 in 1987 was flown by a BAe crew . . .

In the early 1980s just after IX Sqn formed as the first Tornado GR1 squadron they flew an airfield attack on Akrotiri from Honington using Victor and Buccaneer tankers. . . . I think that it was a sortie of about 12 hours for the GR1 crew.

I presume that was a return trip (no duty free).

The F2 did a flight, again probably a BAe crew, to Akrotiri 5hr 50min unrefuelled, that would have been mid-80s.

[vascodegama]

I remember having to ferry a spare Victor out to Palermo for that trail. The ac was described as having a realistic weapon load (4 external fuel tanks!) and if memory serves they had to scramble a Buccaneer tanker from Akt when the airborne ac was unable to trail its hose.

[1.3VStall]

LOMCEVAK,

The GR1 that did the Akrotiri mock attack was fitted with 4x1500l fuel tanks (with BOZ and SKyshadow pods on the outboard wing pylons). It therefore could not have carried any weapons. We all wondered what, exactly, the sortie was meant to prove and to whom.

[Onceapilot]

Quote 1.3Vs,
"It therefore could not have carried any weapons."

I think 2 x 27mm, 2 x AIM9 and, last but least, 2 x Browning 9mm:ok:.

OAP

[Onceapilot]

A few years ago TriStar tankers showed how to support long-range attacks from the UK to North Africa and back. A record for RAF UK based attacks I believe. Not trumpeted much as they are old hat and, a capability soon to be lost.:ugh:

OAP

[vascodegama]

OAP

And I suppose there was no VC10 involvement , indeed the entries in my log book must be false! I am also struggling to see how the capability will be lost, for all its faults , Voyager could certainly support such a mission. In fact as a casual observer I would say it is a far better platform (2 hoses, lower fuel burn etc)

[BEagle]

....for all its faults , Voyager could certainly support such a mission.

And those faults are?

Bearing in mind that the Voyager programme is costing the tax payer over £1.2M per day, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect that, by now, it actually met the Indicative Statement of User Need which was written at least 10 years ago....:rolleyes:

[Biggus]

BEagle,


"....it wouldn't be unreasonable......"

OH YES IT WOULD!!

Well, it is Panto season, and sometimes you have to either laugh or cry, and laughing is preferable! :)

[ShotOne]

How did we go from "never enough range" to another snipe-fest (yawn) against the A330 ?? The contract terms aren't the aeroplanes fault and it's unlikely, even if a different type had been substituted, that the finance arrangements would have been any different.

[Onceapilot]

ShotOne.
I presume you are a UK taxpayer?:ooh:

OAP

[vascodegama]

Shot one you are probably right, in that if the PFI was the chosen route the ac type would not be the issue; as a taxpayer I would question the value for money of the PFI concept. BEags you ask what faults-well the lack of receiver capability for a start (admittedly not a limiting factor in the missions referred to overleaf).

[ShotOne]

OAP I certainly am a UK taxpayer although not quite sure how that bears on the issue. At the risk of thread leap, clearly there are issues with the terms of this particular deal but is it the concept of PFI we need to question? Used correctly, the concept is ok, the problem is when used by smiling politico's to deliver shiny goodies which have to be paid for by their rivals decades later! Of course the overall cost is a lot more but one could say the same about buying a house with a mortgage...and I'm very happy for anyone in the lovely position of being able to do so without one,