WI long range fighters in 1940.

Not what you think.

The IJN trained to squeeze the absolute maximum endurance out of its Zeros and in the early days of the Pacific war flew them out to 500 miles. They did this by adopting slow and lean flying, which is risky if planes are bounced when doing 130mph to save fuel. The Zero carried 137 gallons of fuel internally, the P40 130 and Hurricane 125, plus all carried drop tanks of various sizes.

So WI the British and US also trained this technique and used it as a tactic? Presumably the Hurricane with 2 x 45 gal tanks won't go quite as far as the lighter and less powerful Zero, but I wouldn't think flying missions to 300 miles or more is out of the question.

What circumstances could this be used. Crete springs to my mind.
 
Some thoughts, based mainly on ignorance. I thought the exceptionally long range of the A6M was due mainly to its light structure and low powered engine, not the amount of fuel it carried. Is it reasonable to supposed that any amount of "slow and lean flying" would have given planes like the Hurricane, Spit or Bf-109 equivalent range? I really don't know. Regarding slow and lean flying, I imagine one of the reasons the Japanese could adopt it was that their planes were often flying over tractless wastes of ocean where it was highly unlikely they would encouter enemy planes until they neared their targets. Does this situation really apply in the Aegean or other British theatres in 1940?
 
factors

Optimum cruise speed depends on a number of factors. The Zero was light, had a large wing area and was a decently clean aerodinamic design. With a Bf 109 (or the Spitfire) you get a fighter that was designed for speed, with a supercharged fuel injected engine tunned for higher revs, that would allways need more fuel just to keep cruising. If you took a Bf109T, with the bigger wing (for carrier ops) and retunned the engine for optimal cruise performance rather than for max power you would get more range. You would also get a slower fighter that would be easier to shot down...
The Zero dominated the pacific facing fighters that the RAF had rejectd for service over Europe. At the time of Pearl Harbour the Germans were flying FW190A3 that would have blown Zeros at will.
It took until 1943 and the mating of the best aerodinamic design (the Mustang) with the best engine (the Merlin) to create a fighter that would have both good range and top air combat capability.
A 1940 Mustang would be hard but not impossible, since the Merlin was avaiable in older, less developed variants. Some would argue that the Heinkel H100D, with a more evolved DB601 could have filled that ticket.
Another way around (ie, a better Zero) would be a Macchi 200 with a license built 1200HP twin wasp (and license built .50 Brownings), but you would need butterflies the size of (bald)eagles for that one...
 
Not what you think.

The IJN trained to squeeze the absolute maximum endurance out of its Zeros and in the early days of the Pacific war flew them out to 500 miles. They did this by adopting slow and lean flying, which is risky if planes are bounced when doing 130mph to save fuel. The Zero carried 137 gallons of fuel internally, the P40 130 and Hurricane 125, plus all carried drop tanks of various sizes.

So WI the British and US also trained this technique and used it as a tactic? Presumably the Hurricane with 2 x 45 gal tanks won't go quite as far as the lighter and less powerful Zero, but I wouldn't think flying missions to 300 miles or more is out of the question.

What circumstances could this be used. Crete springs to my mind.

Your introductory data is erroneous. There are three ways to measure fuel quantity, Imperial gallons, US gallons and liters. For the Hurricane, you have added the reserve tank to the total fuel, rather than to the wing tanks. That should be 97 gallons Imp. The P-40 came in models, which varied from the P-40B/C at 162.5 gal US to 120 gal. US for the E. The P-40 was deemed to be too heavy, and a reduction in fuel carried was one chosen solution. Certainly, the Buffalo suffered greatly from an increase in fuel tankage. In Britain, it was believed to be a rule inflexible and inexorable, that long range aircraft could not compete with short range aircraft. In the US, it was doctrine that external fuel tanks were unduly hazardous and fidgety things, and were forbidden until they needed them. It was then found that some treasionous individuals had been developing them, contrary to regulation. The IJN had no such misgivings, and the A6M was ordered from scratch with a large drop tank.

It is curious that the British never fitted a teardrop-shaped drop tank to their aircraft, while British industry created the paper-and-paste 90 Imp. gal. drop-tank which enabled the P-47D to achieve a useful range. Although the tank's use was forbidden by the Brass, those treasonous individuals still used it. The German insisting on the development of wooden tanks, so as not to waste precious alloys on disposables, might have taken a lesson from the efficient English.
 
Optimum cruise speed depends on a number of factors. The Zero was light, had a large wing area and was a decently clean aerodinamic design. With a Bf 109 (or the Spitfire) you get a fighter that was designed for speed, with a supercharged fuel injected engine tunned for higher revs, that would allways need more fuel just to keep cruising. If you took a Bf109T, with the bigger wing (for carrier ops) and retunned the engine for optimal cruise performance rather than for max power you would get more range. You would also get a slower fighter that would be easier to shot down...
The Zero dominated the pacific facing fighters that the RAF had rejectd for service over Europe. At the time of Pearl Harbour the Germans were flying FW190A3 that would have blown Zeros at will.
It took until 1943 and the mating of the best aerodinamic design (the Mustang) with the best engine (the Merlin) to create a fighter that would have both good range and top air combat capability.
A 1940 Mustang would be hard but not impossible, since the Merlin was avaiable in older, less developed variants. Some would argue that the Heinkel H100D, with a more evolved DB601 could have filled that ticket.
Another way around (ie, a better Zero) would be a Macchi 200 with a license built 1200HP twin wasp (and license built .50 Brownings), but you would need butterflies the size of (bald)eagles for that one...

An earlier Mustang would have to wait for an earlier laminar flow wing developed by NACA. The Allison-powered versions didn't offer the same fuel economies, and the Packard company didn't manufacture Merlins any earlier.

The He-100 had very little wing volume for fuel tankage, and never did obtain a truly efficient cooling system. A hybrid with the Kawasaki Ki-61 wing would be of interest.

I can't see the MC-200 amounting to a hill of beans, no matter what, but I do find it strange that the designer and country that developed the MC-72 would sink so low.
 
I have added reserve fuel because that's one of the things the Japanese did to get the extreme range, ran the risk by biting well into their fuel reserves. The whole thing was a risk, but it was minimised as someone said by flying over water, so paid off.

As for the data, I had the measurements Imp gal for Zero and Hurricane and Litres and US gal for the P40 and Wildcat , so I converted that to Imp gal for consistency. http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/P/-/P-40_Warhawk.htm

The Med is about the only place where this could be used in Europe I think.
 
Some thoughts, based mainly on ignorance. I thought the exceptionally long range of the A6M was due mainly to its light structure and low powered engine, not the amount of fuel it carried.

This is partially true; in addition the Zero had very sophisticated engine-propeller management techniques which helped it fly further IIRC.
 
I have added reserve fuel because that's one of the things the Japanese did to get the extreme range, ran the risk by biting well into their fuel reserves. The whole thing was a risk, but it was minimised as someone said by flying over water, so paid off.

As for the data, I had the measurements Imp gal for Zero and Hurricane and Litres and US gal for the P40 and Wildcat , so I converted that to Imp gal for consistency. http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/P/-/P-40_Warhawk.htm

The Med is about the only place where this could be used in Europe I think.

I'm trying to correct errors of small consequence, but the Hurricane doesn't carry 125 gal., it carries 97. Total fuel plus an extra reserve tank equals 125. The reserve tank is counted twice.

The tankage of the P-40 depends on model. They actually shortened the range over time, to improve performance. For more arguements regarding aircraft range, see the Frisian disaster.

Sources on various internet sites are often wrong or misleading (see Fresian disaster) The Spitfire VB which listed range with largest drop tank without mentioning the drop tank. The P-47D-25, just a tad higher than most. Data for P-39's commonly listed 675 miles range where it was actually about half that. A problem with sources is that they often repeat erroneous figures from lying manufacturers or wiki.
 
I got to wondering what a Heinkel 100 would look like with Kawasaki Ki-61 wings and coolant duct. Sorry.

HeinkelKawasakiHK161small.png
 

Cook

Banned
Wasn’t one of the ways the Japanese aircraft achieved their far lower weight by not having any armour?
:confused:
 
The Hurricane had 97 litres in wing tanks and 28 gal in the reserve tank, totaling 125 gal. Was there more or less than 125 gal?

There is no such thing as a stated range, which is the whole point of this thread. Range could be increased and decreased depending on how the aircraft was flown. I'm asking what would be the effect if the Allies were flying planes such as Hurricanes and P40s which had a reasonable amount of fuel in a similar way that the IJN flew the Zero, including cutting well into the reserves, in order to maximise range despite the risk.
 
Wasn’t one of the ways the Japanese aircraft achieved their far lower weight by not having any armour?
:confused:

Some nations built combat aircraft without armor or self-sealing fuel tanks because they never thought of it. Japan built them to save weight and extend range and improve performance.
 
The Hurricane had 97 litres in wing tanks and 28 gal in the reserve tank, totaling 125 gal. Was there more or less than 125 gal?

There is no such thing as a stated range, which is the whole point of this thread. Range could be increased and decreased depending on how the aircraft was flown. I'm asking what would be the effect if the Allies were flying planes such as Hurricanes and P40s which had a reasonable amount of fuel in a similar way that the IJN flew the Zero, including cutting well into the reserves, in order to maximise range despite the risk.

Even Wiki says two wing tanks of 34.5 gal. (157l) and reserve tank of 28 gal. (127l) for 97 gal. total. Range for a Hurricane is around 500 miles. Range for a Spit is somewhat less with 85 gallons. The range of the Zero was more than just fuel management. The wing on the Zero was built integral with the fuselage and could not be removed for repair, to reduce weight. No armor or self-sealing tanks. Minimal wing skinning using 75s alloy. Parachutes were often considered for sissies, and too heavy. The radio was usually removed for land-based operations. It was only good for homing on their carriers. I don't think anybody else was willing to make those sacrifices.

Hawk 81 P-40's, Tomahawks in British service, carried a similar fuel load and had good range, but not nearly as good as the Zeke. And for all their armor and self-sealing tanks, Hans Marseilles shot down 15 in a day. Plus 2 Hurricanes and a Spit.
 
Fighter "tunning"

An earlier Mustang would have to wait for an earlier laminar flow wing developed by NACA. The Allison-powered versions didn't offer the same fuel economies, and the Packard company didn't manufacture Merlins any earlier.

The He-100 had very little wing volume for fuel tankage, and never did obtain a truly efficient cooling system. A hybrid with the Kawasaki Ki-61 wing would be of interest.

I can't see the MC-200 amounting to a hill of beans, no matter what, but I do find it strange that the designer and country that developed the MC-72 would sink so low.

The Macchi was a good fighter let down by an underpowered engine (the fiat was the size and weight of the twin wasp but had a lower output) and bad HMG. With the DB601 as the 202 it only needed better guns to be a world beater in 41. Now the DB601 was as powerful as a (contemporary)merlin but was the size of a RR Griffon. So a Macchi 202 with a two stage Merlin and 4x.50 Brownings would have been a tremendous machine. Put a Griffon on a Re2005 in early 44 and the resulting Anglo Italian machine would have really kicked ass.
It allways bugged me how DB could have made the best (car)racing engine of the world with their two stage supercharged 3l V12 for the w154 racing car, and could never beat RR with a comparable aeroengine (size/weight/power). Having to use low quality fuel while the Brits had the benefict of very high octane gasoline gives a good excuse, but not in 39/40.
I am aware that GP engines of the late 30s, up to the early 50s run on very special fuel, but if the germans where number one in supercharged racingcar engines, with the italians a close second (the 1938 alfetta was winning the world champ up to 1951), why couldn't they do better in the air?
 
Even Wiki says two wing tanks of 34.5 gal. (157l) and reserve tank of 28 gal. (127l) for 97 gal. total.

Now I get what you mean when I was counting the reserve tank twice, it was because I can count at all and think 34.5 + 34.5 = 97. Duh!
 
Top