ALT Long range fighters for 1937-1941

[tomo pauk]

Was the Bf110 inherently a bad design or could it have been a better fighter if executed better? It seems a common theme that aircraft in the period considered were good short ranged fighters or had decent range and were poor fighters. Extending range on the good fighters has a high price (zero) but could any of the twin engined ones be improved enough to make them adequate fighters? So reasonably competitive with a hurricane for example. Or is air warfare so reliant on small margins that nearly is nowhere near good enough?

Bf 110 was IMO a good design. Problem is that, when country/ministry/government invests double of everything in a 2-engied fighter (double the number of engines, propellers, airframe weight, fuel usage, manufacturing time, usually more crew and firepower) vs. 1-engined fighter, the resulting aircraft must be a great design. Or, in ww2 frame, it must be able to out-fly everything in the sky - and that was not what Bf 110 was capable once against the RAF.

Extending the range on 1-engined fighters was easy. A drop tank facility on a Bf 109 worked well, but it was too late for the BoB to make an impact. Greater internal fuel tankage was not just Zero's 'trick' (it was no trick), eg. P-40 in 1940 flew with 180 US gals of fuel in the internal tanks, the P-40B in 1941 flew with 160 gals. These were as fast as the Bf 109, topping 350 mph. The Bf 109E flew with 105-106 US gals.
Range can also be extended with good/great streamlining - the Bf 109E was not that good in that regard, the streamlined 109F was much better and was rangier on same fuel.

Back to Bf 110C - on same engines, it was ~70 km/h slower than the small IMAM Ro.58. Or, it was about as fast as the small Fw 187, despite having 50% more power. So if the Bf 110 was designed as a smaller aircraft (not bigger than the P-38 IMO), it would've been not just considerably faster, but it would've been lighter, a better climber and with a tad better range.

At the end of the day, for the German needs a big fleet of 2-engined fighters was an big economic burden both to buy and operate, they should've been better to go with a well-streamlined 1-engined fighter instead.

 

[historyfool]

The 110 had the same issue as any other twin engined fighter. It worked well as long as it had a performance advantage against the opposition and tactically could use it. Hit the enemy with a high speed pass and be gone. Of course that means the fighter can't be tethered to a Bomber Formation as close escort and it's Utility Drops rapidly as soon as Single engine fighters close the performance gap. The same happened to the P38 in Europe: It was by and large a failure as escort fighter, but reasonably successful in other roles. And did far better against the lower performance. Japanese Single engine fighters.

Given the speed of aircraft development in WWII it's almost guaranteed that any twin-engine in the primary fighter role will be obsolete within two or three years of introduction. Thus IMO a heavier frame capable of adapting is more sensible than one too light.

 

[Llewwyy]

How early could, Eric 'Winkle' Brown's favorite aircraft, the DH Hornet been made? Single seat, twin engine, high performance fighter. It came out in 1945 or 1946? I am not sure about the range but I was under the impression that it was similar to a Mosquito .

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Good question. While it was too big, too heavy to mix it up with the much more nimble Spitfires and Hurricanes in the BoB, later on the 110 provided some real good service as a night fighter, in part from having sufficient size to be adaptable for changing radars and armaments. The Beaufighter probably makes a decent comparisson - not desirable as an escort, but the hammer-of-the-gods in other roles.

I think the Luftwaffe nabobs over-estimated it's capability early on, and learned hard lessons. The 109's short legs meant the 110 got used in ways that exposed its inherent weakness. With the Norwegians lacking both quantity and quality of modern fighters, the 110 was a useful hammer. Not so much over Southern England.

What if the Luftwaffe chiefs split the difference between the heavy 110 (4400kg empty and 6700kg combat) and the the FW-187 (as Belasarius notes above) at (3600kg empty and 5000 +/-kg combat load) The 187 had plenty of promise, but it's own long list of teething issues. Go with some design with range and adaptability, but a bit more nimble

If I'm getting a fighter that weighs as much as a light tank I want a P47!
It's a good point about size allowing more adaptations (presumably why the relatively small Whirwind disappears so quickly after briefly looking interesting).

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

How early could, Eric 'Winkle' Brown's favorite aircraft, the DH Hornet been made? Single seat, twin engine, high performance fighter. It came out in 1945 or 1946? I am not sure about the range but I was under the impression that it was similar to a Mosquito .

Maybe not a Hornet (the difficulty is the slimline Merlins) but a single seat Mosquito could have been built any time after 1939.

 

[tomo pauk]

How early could, Eric 'Winkle' Brown's favorite aircraft, the DH Hornet been made? Single seat, twin engine, high performance fighter. It came out in 1945 or 1946? I am not sure about the range but I was under the impression that it was similar to a Mosquito .

Maybe not a Hornet (the difficulty is the slimline Merlins) but a single seat Mosquito could have been built any time after 1939.

We can take a look at Hornet's details. Has Merlins (doh), it is of modest size (wing area ~360 sq ft, ie. between the Whirlwind and Bf 110), wing is thin (under 15% t-t-c at the root - much more favorable than Bf 110 at 18% or Whirly at 19%), radiator set-up is probably as good as it gets on a 2-engined fighter.
It was a long-range fighter, internal fuel of 430 imp gals (516 US gals) on the Mk.1 + up to 2x200 imp gals in drop tanks. Beats the latest P-38L with 410 US gals of internal fuel + 2 x 300 US gals in drop tanks, and it is similar to the P-82 (that one carried more in the drop tanks). Max range of 2600 miles for the Mk.1.

We will need far less for the specified time frame, and the Merlins of the day are not as great as in 1945. I'd suggest going with similar dimensions, if not with a bit shorter wing of smaller area (talk ~330 sq ft). Fuel - 50% per engine more vs. Spitfire? Two x 1.5 x 84 = roughly 260 imp gals internal fuel, plus one big drop tank, talk 150 gals for starters? Eight-twelve .303s will do for now for the escort job.

We can take a look at the Ro.58 - 375 miles with DB 601A engines - as a real-world example. Luckily, it was too late, and Italians have had not enough of engines for such luxuries (not a case with UK/RAF).

 

[alfredtuomi]

my favourite.Take one underpowered but longish range Fairey Fulmar remove merlin add in RR Crecy increasing weight by 300ish pounds and horsepower from 1300 to 2700+(theorized at 5000 max).Would think 400+mph if the front doesn t part ways with the rest of the plane.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

my favourite.Take one underpowered but longish range Fairey Fulmar remove merlin add in RR Crecy increasing weight by 300ish pounds and horsepower from 1300 to 2700+(theorized at 5000 max).Would think 400+mph if the front doesn t part ways with the rest of the plane.

If, and I admit it's a big if, you can speed up development of the Griffon engine so it's available for the Fulmar then you've got a 300mph+ long range fleet fighter/strike aircraft for the start of the Mediterranean campaign. It would still be at a disadvantage to 109's ect but would be a much more credible fighter.

(The Fulmar gets a lot of grief but its only real fault was it was too slow due to being underpowered. A 1700hp Griffon engine would fix that)

 

[ArtosStark]

my favourite.Take one underpowered but longish range Fairey Fulmar remove merlin add in RR Crecy increasing weight by 300ish pounds and horsepower from 1300 to 2700+(theorized at 5000 max).Would think 400+mph if the front doesn t part ways with the rest of the plane.

That would take a considerable improvement in Crecy development. The highest that a complete functioning Crecy managed was 1800 hp, which was calculated to be 2500 hp when the exhaust turbine (a downscaled Whittle Jet engine scavenging power from the exhaust) was installed. That was in 1944, and that engines longest run time was 82 hours.

With Fulmar production ending in 1943, you would need the Crecy to be much further along much more quickly.

 

[alfredtuomi]

That would take a considerable improvement in Crecy development. The highest that a complete functioning Crecy managed was 1800 hp, which was calculated to be 2500 hp when the exhaust turbine (a downscaled Whittle Jet engine scavenging power from the exhaust) was installed. That was in 1944, and that engines longest run time was 82 hours.

With Fulmar production ending in 1943, you would need the Crecy to be much further along much more quickly.

would require reallocation of engineering resources but then all of these alternate aircraft would.

 

[Llewwyy]

How about, and this is entering ASB territory, mounting a Napier Sabre engine in the Fulmar? I mean a working Sabre with no quality control issues. A properly working Sabre would get you 2,000 hp and the Typhoon was able to exceed 400 mph with it.

 

[sonofpegasus]

Just give Richard fairy some support so that the Monarch (2000hp) is up and in production in 1938/9.
That then gives you one heck of a Fulmar (firefly) and means that the Barracuda will be a half decent aircraft too. Simples!

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Just give Richard fairy some support so that the Monarch (2000hp) is up and in production in 1938/9.
That then gives you one heck of a Fulmar (firefly) and means that the Barracuda will be a half decent aircraft too. Simples!

It sounds great, but can the airframe take it?

 

[sonofpegasus]

They flew the Monarch in a Battle, So I think the Fairy's could ensure that their Fulmar did not fall to bits. also the slightly smaller Firefly was given the Griffon engine.

 

[ArtosStark]

Just give Richard fairy some support so that the Monarch (2000hp) is up and in production in 1938/9.
That then gives you one heck of a Fulmar (firefly) and means that the Barracuda will be a half decent aircraft too. Simples!

The Monarch does look like a good engine, though it had its limitations. However, the big concern with the Monarch would be production. Fairey had no engine works, that would have had to have been built from scratch (with government money).

Fairey started work on the monarch in 1935, and it first ran in 1938. With more support, you could possibly, though not necessarily, move that up to 1937. Unless the government had already started building the factory to support the Prince then they would probably only start this in 1937-38. Hat that would probably allow the first Monarchs to be produced in 38-39. But it would probably be a trickle at first. The integral air passages of the Monarch made for very complex aluminum castings, which were difficult to make, and took specialized equipment.

While I think replacing Napier (who had been a bit of a dud since they pushed out Arthur Rowledge in 1919 after he made the Lion) with Fairey in the 4 manufacturer “ring” that the government supported in military aircraft might have been a good idea, I can see why they didn’t. Production of Fairey’s design would have required a lot of investment in specialized tools to produce an engine that was good, and reliable but appeared less outstanding than the Sabre.

 

[Rickshaw]

Fw187 with a better engine, say a DB601. It had the range and the performance to have made a difference in 1940.

 

[quillreiver]

The Monarch does look like a good engine, though it had its limitations.

What were the limitations of the monarch?

 

[ArtosStark]

What were the limitations of the monarch?

Much of it was related to the integrally cast intake manifolds. This allowed the engine to be relatively light for its displacement. Unfortunately, they moved the air into the cylinders fairly clumsily, using 5 turns, several of them 90 degree. It also caused the air-fuel mixture to be heated going into the cylinders.

Since they were cast into the engines crankcase, a complete redesign would be needed to improve the flow. Additionally since the gear reduction housing was integral to the crankcase, any failure that caused damage to this component would force the entire crankcase to be scrapped. The crankcase was also a very heavy and complicated cast which would likely be a bottleneck in production.

Besides this, the Monarch had a relatively low brake mean effective pressure considering the 9 psi of boost it enjoyed and a low critical altitude (the Merlin 60 series had 160 hp over it at 30,000 ft).

Some of these things probably could have been addressed (Fairey put suggestions forward for a two stage supercharger that would increase power at 30,000 ft to 1800 hp and a detachable gear housing). Others might not have been a problem with more support from the start (I suspect the air intake could have been done better if the right person was there in the early design phase). But some of them (like the complicated casting for example) were kind of part of the engine.

Picture and much of my information from here: https://oldmachinepress.com/2017/10/20/fairey-p-24-monarch-aircraft-engine/amp/

 

[sonofpegasus]

Ninjaed by AstroStark again!
The excellent post above covers the technical limitations of the Monarch engine but IMVHO the biggest problem with the Fairy Monarch engine was Richard Fairy himself. Due to his early clashes with the AM over engines any engine made by Fairy was basically 'Black Listed' by the AM and the RAF. Without Official support any engine by Fairy was going to struggle to be accepted for RAF service unless it was an absolute show stopper, which unfortunately as designed the Monarch was not.
If the Monarch had been designed and built with fuel injection from the start then it might have stood a better chance. The better fuel mix obtained with fuel injection would have helped, as would the better fuel economy and power output, Combine all these together and in 1939/40 you could well have had a 2000Hp+ engine for aircraft such as the Manchester that actually worked.