Never enough range
 

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??

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

I'm assured by those who have been there, that you do, when you're on fire. :)

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.

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?

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.

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m...aham227/z1.jpg
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m...psd1518204.jpg

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

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.......

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.

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

Agree with Danny, horses for courses.:ok:

CAC15 Kangaroo

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

CAC CA-15 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operational history

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...om_Lincoln.jpg http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.2...gnify-clip.png
The CA-15, piloted by Flt Lt J.A.L. Archer, over Melbourne, photographed from the rear turret of an Avro Lincoln bomber.


A drawing of the R2800 version here:

CA 15

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).

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

Mustang
 

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

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

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

Piper PA-48 Enforcer - close support aircraft

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 :)

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

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...1061473550.jpg

I miss the old girl...:{

LJ

An 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.

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!".

So 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".

Ed Schmeud
 

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.

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

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!

[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.

PN

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

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!

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

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.

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

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.