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 btw

Yes 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.

[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.

[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

At first, the CAC designers planned to use the 2,300 hp (1,715 kW) radial Pratt & Whitney R-2800, with a turbocharger. However, that engine became unavailable, causing further delays in development, and it was decided to fit an in-line Rolls-Royce Griffon Mk 61 (2,035 hp/1,517 kW). Engines for a prototype were leased from Rolls-Royce.[3] It was intended that any production engines would have a three-speed supercharger

Operational history


The CA-15, piloted by Flt Lt J.A.L. Archer, over Melbourne, photographed from the rear turret of an 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

[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.