Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: RAM on November 26, 2008, 09:54:47 AM
-
Just thought this would be a fun exercise.
You have to design the fighter of your dreams based on the ones already in Aces High. Keep it reasonable if possible (so no turbocharged R-2800 in a 6500 lbs airframe, for instance), and let's see what do we get.
So say, I want to design a pure fighter:
Engine:
my take on WW2 air combat is that you must have a fast plane with high dive/zoom, good high speed maneouverability and as much firepower as you can bear on target. Acceleration and climbrate are desirable but not indispensable. Range is also a concern but second only to the priority considerations already mentioned.
If I want a fast plane, I'll need a powerful engine. As a side effect that will result in a good powerloading, giving me power for climbrate/acceleration, which is never bad to have. We also have to decide between radial and in-line.
Radial engines are rough, can handle battle damage, but are less power/weight efficient than the best in lines. Inline engines have a weak point: the coolant radiator. However we can minimize the chances of a radiator hit by going the same way the germans went with some of their radials: putting an annular radiator in the cowling resembling a radial engine: the radiator will still be a weak point of the engine, but it will be much less exposed than what it would be if placed under the fuselage or the wings: an annular cowling means the radiator will be very hard for all shots coming from the aft hemysphere. Aerodynamics will suffer a bit as streamlining of the nose won't be possible with a blunt radiator there, still the engine mount will be more aerodynamic than that of a radial engine.
So we decided for an in line engine as powerful as we can. We also need to know if we want it turbo or supercharged, and the engine's performances at different altitudes.
Having a turbocharged engine would be desirable, they maximize engine performance for all altitudes and is superb for high altitudes, but undesirable for the weight of the instalation and the cost. On the other hand supercharged engines have irregular performances as the plane goes up and aren't as good as high altitudes with few exceptions, but weigh much less and are cheaper.
However there's a series of supercharged engines with maximized power output for all altitudes, the DB60x. In the game there's no plane with DB603, the engine I would like to use, but the DB605DM is there. roughly 2000hp at sea level, variable speed auto-regulated supercharger, respectable high altitude performance and good output for it's weight.
So the engine will be the DB605DM, cooled by an annular radiator, the installation will resemble that of a radial engine.
Cockpit:
All-around vision is a must for a very good SA, and a good distribution of gauges is needed for easily assess the flight conditions the plane is in. So I would want a cockpit with high all around vision and good gauge distribution. The Fw190 has a great panel distribution but the overhead bar impairs vision directly up. The P51D's bubble cockpit on the other hand has an impressive view and it still has a very good panel layout.
So I'd want a cockpit similar to that of the Pony-D
Wings:
It's tempting to go for the laminar flow wings, but here we deal with something that might have some serious side-effects with the weaponry. Of course if we plan to put all the weapons out of wings, there's no problem, but I'd want to have at least two wing cannons, so, for instance, a P51's wing is out of the question, it won't take any 20mm cannon without serious modification/bulging, thus killing the laminar flow effects which make that wing so efficient.
The Tempest wing is also laminar flow, and can house 20mm cannons. Still, it's got too big wingspan and it's got a lot of wing area: roll inertia will suffer, and probably roll rate too. Given we want to get a plane fast and maneouverable at high speeds, the tempest wing is also out of the question.
Looking between the wing profiles of AH's fighters there's only one that will give us good weaponry options while retaining very good high speed maneouverability properties: the one of the Fw190. So I'd go with that one. It will have a cost in low speed maneouverabilities but we are aiming for a high speed fighter. The wing fits in perfectly.
Weapons:
Now we decide which will be the plane's main weapons. I want to have a mighty snapshot power while retaining as much nimbleness as we can. In other words: I want 20mm cannons in the plane, MG-only weapon sets don't fit in the plane I want. As we want very high roll rate, and to avoid convergence issues, we want weapons as close to the center line as possible. We have the 190 wing which can take up to four 20mm cannons without problems. we have the 109K4 engine, so we can mount a cannon firing through the prop hub. In theory if we have enough space between the engine and cockpit, we can even mount two cannons in the cowling. So we have seven potential spots for 20mm guns. Of course we can't mount that many because of weight consideration, so we have to decide how many and where do we want them.
One of them is a granted, as the installation has only advantages, the one in firing through the prop hub. easy to aim, no convergence issues, no syncronization problems. That one I am going to install no matter what.
Of the other six, the cowling guns offer some advantages but a lot of drawbacks aswell. They offer good fire concentration and easy aim, but cowling guns of that size are hard to mount, and if installed may require the cockpit to be displaced aft. Mounted so much forward they may cause CoG displacement problems, the ammunition space they take could be used for the centerline gun instead, and they must be syncronized.
So, no cowling guns.
The outter wing cannons offer no syncronization problems, but some serious convergence issues instead. Being mounted that far out the wing, they might affect roll rate and ammunition storage won't be as big as if the cannons were placed elsewhere. So no outter wing cannons.
the wing root cannons must be syncronized, but offer very good fire concentration and almost no convergence issues. They potentially have a lot of space for ammunition, which is also good. so we'll mount two wing root cannons.
As for the model: in AH there are several brands of 20mm cannons:
Hispano MkI - too big, too heavy, hard to syncronize-out of the question
Hispano MkV- same as before, even while a bit lighter.
MG151/20 - relatively light ,easily syncronized with low ROF lost. Good contender
ShVAK - relatively light, a bit worse than the MG151 when syncronized. Doesn't make the cut
MG FF- Low ammo, drum fed, bad ballistics, hard to syncronize, out of the question. Same with the japanese version
HO-5 and type 99: hard to syncronize- out of the question.
B-20: Very light, bit less of RoF than the MG151/20 when syncronized but the save in weight more than compensates for it, we have a winner here.
So we'll mount three B-20 cannons. one in the engine, two in the wing roots. Given that we have the 190 wing and that the B-20s are really light, we can add a field modification adding two more 20mm guns in the outter wings for straffing or bomber attacks.
external ord:
We have a fighter and we are designing a fighter. External ordinance needed is, basically, drop tanks. So we add a rack under the fuselaje for a DT. For land attack purposes (secondary priority given that we want a fighter and not a ground attack plane) the rack should also load a bomb. As we want a pure fighter we don't need a huge bomb...250kg will be enough (550lbs)
Tail unit:
we want good rudder control and good elevator control aswell at all speeds. Many planes give you this, but I can't think of a plane with a higher rudder and elevator authority than the Corsair's...so is chosen.
final plane
DB605DM engined plane with Fw190 wings and an annular nose radiator resembling the appearance of a radial engined plane. 3x20mm B-20 cannons (option to mount up to 5). bubble cockpit similar to the P51D's one, tail unit similar to that of the F4U corsair. Optional ventral rack for one DT or one bomb of up to 550lbs.
-----------------------
So, that's the ideal plane I'd like to fly in AH :). Comments?...and of course, input for your own favorite plane composition?.
S!
-
Mines easy!
Gimme an La-7 with 3 Hispanos in the nose. :rock
-
Hell, give me an La5 with 1 Hispano and 500 rounds. I'm not greedy.
-
a b-29 with a nuke lol
but seriously a p 51d with 4 hispanos, basically a typhoon gun load out on a pony :devil
or maybe even a p 47 with some hispanos, ahh i can't decide!
-
a b-29 with a nuke lol
but seriously a p 51d with 4 hispanos, basically a typhoon gun load out on a pony :devil
or maybe even a p 47 with some hispanos, ahh i can't decide!
A P-47D-25 with the N's motor, and 6 Hispanos :devil
-
A P-47D-25 with the N's motor, and 6 Hispanos :devil
touche sir, touche :D
-
Give me a plane with 2 Allison engines with 4 .50s and 1 20mm mounted in the nose. I want it to have a twin-boom design.
oh yeah we got that
-
Spixteen :devil
-
Just thought this would be a fun exercise.
You have to design the fighter of your dreams based on the ones already in Aces High. Keep it reasonable if possible (so no turbocharged R-2800 in a 6500 lbs airframe, for instance), and let's see what do we get.
So say, I want to design a pure fighter:
Engine:
my take on WW2 air combat is that you must have a fast plane with high dive/zoom, good high speed maneouverability and as much firepower as you can bear on target. Acceleration and climbrate are desirable but not indispensable. Range is also a concern but second only to the priority considerations already mentioned.
If I want a fast plane, I'll need a powerful engine. As a side effect that will result in a good powerloading, giving me power for climbrate/acceleration, which is never bad to have. We also have to decide between radial and in-line.
Radial engines are rough, can handle battle damage, but are less power/weight efficient than the best in lines. Inline engines have a weak point: the coolant radiator. However we can minimize the chances of a radiator hit by going the same way the germans went with some of their radials: putting an annular radiator in the cowling resembling a radial engine: the radiator will still be a weak point of the engine, but it will be much less exposed than what it would be if placed under the fuselage or the wings: an annular cowling means the radiator will be very hard for all shots coming from the aft hemysphere. Aerodynamics will suffer a bit as streamlining of the nose won't be possible with a blunt radiator there, still the engine mount will be more aerodynamic than that of a radial engine.
So we decided for an in line engine as powerful as we can. We also need to know if we want it turbo or supercharged, and the engine's performances at different altitudes.
Having a turbocharged engine would be desirable, they maximize engine performance for all altitudes and is superb for high altitudes, but undesirable for the weight of the instalation and the cost. On the other hand supercharged engines have irregular performances as the plane goes up and aren't as good as high altitudes with few exceptions, but weigh much less and are cheaper.
However there's a series of supercharged engines with maximized power output for all altitudes, the DB60x. In the game there's no plane with DB603, the engine I would like to use, but the DB605DM is there. roughly 2000hp at sea level, variable speed auto-regulated supercharger, respectable high altitude performance and good output for it's weight.
So the engine will be the DB605DM, cooled by an annular radiator, the installation will resemble that of a radial engine.
Cockpit:
All-around vision is a must for a very good SA, and a good distribution of gauges is needed for easily assess the flight conditions the plane is in. So I would want a cockpit with high all around vision and good gauge distribution. The Fw190 has a great panel distribution but the overhead bar impairs vision directly up. The P51D's bubble cockpit on the other hand has an impressive view and it still has a very good panel layout.
So I'd want a cockpit similar to that of the Pony-D
Wings:
It's tempting to go for the laminar flow wings, but here we deal with something that might have some serious side-effects with the weaponry. Of course if we plan to put all the weapons out of wings, there's no problem, but I'd want to have at least two wing cannons, so, for instance, a P51's wing is out of the question, it won't take any 20mm cannon without serious modification/bulging, thus killing the laminar flow effects which make that wing so efficient.
The Tempest wing is also laminar flow, and can house 20mm cannons. Still, it's got too big wingspan and it's got a lot of wing area: roll inertia will suffer, and probably roll rate too. Given we want to get a plane fast and maneouverable at high speeds, the tempest wing is also out of the question.
Looking between the wing profiles of AH's fighters there's only one that will give us good weaponry options while retaining very good high speed maneouverability properties: the one of the Fw190. So I'd go with that one. It will have a cost in low speed maneouverabilities but we are aiming for a high speed fighter. The wing fits in perfectly.
Weapons:
Now we decide which will be the plane's main weapons. I want to have a mighty snapshot power while retaining as much nimbleness as we can. In other words: I want 20mm cannons in the plane, MG-only weapon sets don't fit in the plane I want. As we want very high roll rate, and to avoid convergence issues, we want weapons as close to the center line as possible. We have the 190 wing which can take up to four 20mm cannons without problems. we have the 109K4 engine, so we can mount a cannon firing through the prop hub. In theory if we have enough space between the engine and cockpit, we can even mount two cannons in the cowling. So we have seven potential spots for 20mm guns. Of course we can't mount that many because of weight consideration, so we have to decide how many and where do we want them.
One of them is a granted, as the installation has only advantages, the one in firing through the prop hub. easy to aim, no convergence issues, no syncronization problems. That one I am going to install no matter what.
Of the other six, the cowling guns offer some advantages but a lot of drawbacks aswell. They offer good fire concentration and easy aim, but cowling guns of that size are hard to mount, and if installed may require the cockpit to be displaced aft. Mounted so much forward they may cause CoG displacement problems, the ammunition space they take could be used for the centerline gun instead, and they must be syncronized.
So, no cowling guns.
The outter wing cannons offer no syncronization problems, but some serious convergence issues instead. Being mounted that far out the wing, they might affect roll rate and ammunition storage won't be as big as if the cannons were placed elsewhere. So no outter wing cannons.
the wing root cannons must be syncronized, but offer very good fire concentration and almost no convergence issues. They potentially have a lot of space for ammunition, which is also good. so we'll mount two wing root cannons.
As for the model: in AH there are several brands of 20mm cannons:
Hispano MkI - too big, too heavy, hard to syncronize-out of the question
Hispano MkV- same as before, even while a bit lighter.
MG151/20 - relatively light ,easily syncronized with low ROF lost. Good contender
ShVAK - relatively light, a bit worse than the MG151 when syncronized. Doesn't make the cut
MG FF- Low ammo, drum fed, bad ballistics, hard to syncronize, out of the question. Same with the japanese version
HO-5 and type 99: hard to syncronize- out of the question.
B-20: Very light, bit less of RoF than the MG151/20 when syncronized but the save in weight more than compensates for it, we have a winner here.
So we'll mount three B-20 cannons. one in the engine, two in the wing roots. Given that we have the 190 wing and that the B-20s are really light, we can add a field modification adding two more 20mm guns in the outter wings for straffing or bomber attacks.
external ord:
We have a fighter and we are designing a fighter. External ordinance needed is, basically, drop tanks. So we add a rack under the fuselaje for a DT. For land attack purposes (secondary priority given that we want a fighter and not a ground attack plane) the rack should also load a bomb. As we want a pure fighter we don't need a huge bomb...250kg will be enough (550lbs)
Tail unit:
we want good rudder control and good elevator control aswell at all speeds. Many planes give you this, but I can't think of a plane with a higher rudder and elevator authority than the Corsair's...so is chosen.
final plane
DB605DM engined plane with Fw190 wings and an annular nose radiator resembling the appearance of a radial engined plane. 3x20mm B-20 cannons (option to mount up to 5). bubble cockpit similar to the P51D's one, tail unit similar to that of the F4U corsair. Optional ventral rack for one DT or one bomb of up to 550lbs.
-----------------------
So, that's the ideal plane I'd like to fly in AH :). Comments?...and of course, input for your own favorite plane composition?.
S!
P-63 is the plane...
Could out run the La-7 on the deck, could turn like an FM2, has .50s and 1 37mm tater to counter it....
-
i would have somthing with the turning ability of a RV8 the speed of a 163 and the firepower of a 262 :devil
-
We already HAD the perfect plane.
It was a shark with a lazer beam on it's head. If not that, then the gatling-armed RV-8.
-
A tighter-turning Mustang.
-
P-63 is the plane...
Could out run the La-7 on the deck, could turn like an FM2, has .50s and 1 37mm tater to counter it....
for some reason I don't believe this statement. A plane with a 37mm (VERY heavy), can outrun an La7, AND can turn with an FM2...
-
P-38L with two Rolls Royce Griffins and 3 or 4 20mm Hispanos in the nose (if you can wedge them in there) would make a killer plane.
:salute
-
la-7 engine,spit 16 armament,yak-9u body. cupholders.....
-NEARY
-
We already HAD the perfect plane.
It was a shark with a lazer beam on it's head. If not that, then the gatling-armed RV-8.
Beat me to it, but truth none the less.
-
for some reason I don't believe this statement. A plane with a 37mm (VERY heavy), can outrun an La7, AND can turn with an FM2...
If one considers 420 mph at 21,000 feet poor performance. Let's face it, 95% of all engagements in AH2 are below 20,000 feet.
The answer to the La-7 is the P-63A Kingcobra. Similar climb and low-level speed, but the P-63 is nearly as maneuverable as the FM-2. Add four .50 cal MGs and a 37mm cannon.
These two fighters would be very equal except that the La-7 could not afford to turn-fight with the P-63, and the P-63 has a big range advantage, plus the ability to haul a 500 pound bomb (or a drop tank).
So, how fast does the P-63A climb? Well, for comparison, let's look at the F6F-5. It requires 7.7 minutes to climb to 15,000 feet. In contrast, the P-63A can get to 25,000 feet in 7.3 minutes! The P-51D requires near twice as long (13 minutes) to reach 30,000 feet.
When the Soviets first began flying the P-63, they found the tail to be weaker than that of the P-39. Bell developed a kit for strengthening the tail and Bell technicians made field modifications to those planes in service. That change was immediately incorporated into the production line as well.
Pilots who flew the P-63, and had time in the other major U.S. types, generally agreed that the P-63 was far and away the best performer at low to medium altitudes. Not surprising, the pilots flying it at the Joint Fighter Conference differed from rave reviews to outright dislike (the only thing the JFC ever proved was that every monkey prefers his own banana).
Since more than 3,300 P-63s were built, and it saw combat (with the Free French and Soviets) in far greater numbers than the F4U-1C or Ta 152H, I think it would be an excellent candidate for inclusion in the AH2 plane-set someday.
My regards,
Widewing
Edit: P-63C was even faster at low alts IIRC, dont know if it saw service though. :salute
-
I already did this experiment once with X-Plane, before I played AH.
Yeah, it came out looking a lot like an La-7. As much radial engine in as little airframe as possible, highly tapered wings, even slats.
Now you all know my shameful secret.
-
A Spitfire MkIX with a wing with standard flaps instead of split flaps, slats, and equipped with 2 Hispanos in the wings. The engine would be replaced with a DB605D, with a MK103 firing through it if space allowed, if not, a Mk108.
-
Ill take a Bf-109K-4 with the cowling of the G-14 (Those bulges are sexy), and replace the Mk 108 with an MG-151/20 and mount a pair of MG-151/20s IN the wings. (1 per wing). Thats pretty much it, the Bf-109 is perfect for me as it is except for the light armament.
-
a mosquito
-
Come on Bat, live a little. At least change the darn engines to counter-rotating types.
-
you're right. Lets swap the 4 spud guns for another 4 hispano.
Counter rotars are for helicopters and P38 pansies.
-
Counter rotars are for helicopters and P38 pansies.
Well yeah, you Brits could never figure them out! :D
-
actually mine would be very simple,
it would be a 262 complete and as is from the end of the fuselage forward
mated with the very tail end, including rocket of the 163.
use the 163 rockets to get you up to the stratosphere in seconds, and the 262 engines so you can stay up there all day.
course it wouldn't break my heart if you could remove 2 of the 30mm mk 108's (80 rounds) and replace them with 2 40mm vickers with as much ammo as you could shove inside.
make the 30's and 40's able to fire separately! no sense in chucking 40's at a pony!
if it is allowed by the rules i would sweep the wings back. i would keep the size similar to the traditional 262, but would sweep them back in a manner similar to the 163.
no bomber would ever know another moment of peace or serenity above 10,000 feet again.
both bomber crews and high flying escorts would tremble at the whisper of the name of this evil boy when he comes to town.
sorry i couldn't explain everything as well as you did RAM but i gave you what i could. :salute
FLOTSOM
-
no bomber would ever know another moment serenity above 10,000 feet again.
I disagree. As long as there are BUFFs at 35k, Ill be there! :D
-
Low altitude, LA7 with a bit more range (20%), drop tanks, and a bubble canopy.
For High altitude, a pony with 2 nose or wing mounted hispanos and 4 fifties, or a Yak with a bubble, more cannon and drop tanks, or a spit XIV bubble, drop tanks, 4 hispos, and clipped wings.
INFIDEL>
-
You know what the problem is when you start kitbashing?
The resulting product never comes out as well as the sum of its parts would lead you to believe. Fighter designs are VERY sensitive and finely tuned. They work the way they do because the parts used were designed to work TOGETHER in a specific way. If you start grafting random parts from different aircraft that were designed for completely different purposes into one airframe all you end up with is a Frankensteinish mess that will more often than not spin itself right into the ground. Just look at the experiments the Allies and Axis ran during WWII doing just that (IE, the XP-75 which cobbled together parts from the SBD, P-51 and F4U). The only aircraft parts that ever proved to be swappable were engines, and often times THAT took substantial work (the cowling of the P-38K test mules had to be completely redesigned to mount the new props and uprated Allison engines).
Just say NO to kitbashing. Design planes on what you want it to DO, not components of Aircraft A, B, and C you happen to like.
-
The cowling on the P-38K was only changed for the propellers, the engines had nothing at all to do with it. The larger diameter propellers along with the gear box change required to slow them down required that the propeller centerline be raised a bit. I don't think that the change from electric to hydraulic controls required any real change. No other changes were necessary. The actual changes were so small in fact that the entire production system would have been down for no more than two weeks to put the upgrade into production.
The P-38K would be a good piece for the exercise proposed by this thread. I'd carry it only slightly further. Instead of the three blade propeller, let's go ahead with a four blade version, a bolt on swap. Let's take those engines one more step up, and use the base model that ended up in the P-82, a bolt in swap, hooks right up to the entire exhaust and turbocharger system. Next, make the ailerons slightly larger, to increase roll authority at low speeds, the hydraulic boost will take care of the increased effort at higher speeds. Then substantially increase the radius at the joints where the wing sections meet the fuselages, as was done where they meet the center nacelle in early models. Finally, swap out the M2 Brownings for more 20MM cannons. Five 20MM cannons with 250 rounds each mounted in the centerline should be the most effective fighter gun package around.
-
Well yeah, you Brits could never figure them out! :D
Actually it was a logistics decision, they didn't want to have to support handed engines.
Of course there was a stupid easy solution to that which was actually used on the Hornet, just have an additional gear in the reduction gearing on one side and presto, prop rotates in the opposite direction. Did the P-38 use that method or did it have handed engines?
-
Actually it was a logistics decision, they didn't want to have to support handed engines.
Of course there was a stupid easy solution to that which was actually used on the Hornet, just have an additional gear in the reduction gearing on one side and presto, prop rotates in the opposite direction. Did the P-38 use that method or did it have handed engines?
Yup, and the hornet would be my choice,and if I got real brave and ventured into a single engined plane,well Bearcat or Fury would go nicely.
-
That's easy!
(http://www.thegalacticcore.com/shipyard/zips/images/viper2.png)
-
one word : giggity.
-
Actually, I'd like to make my ACTUAL pitch for best plane.....
Ta183, with the proper engine (HeS011) installed, and some X-4's to boot. Hell, why not throw in an afterburner and some hizookas?
And a Strato-262 is a terrible idea. Those 004's beat themselves to death to make idle speed at high-alt.
-
Actually it was a logistics decision, they didn't want to have to support handed engines.
Of course there was a stupid easy solution to that which was actually used on the Hornet, just have an additional gear in the reduction gearing on one side and presto, prop rotates in the opposite direction. Did the P-38 use that method or did it have handed engines?
The P-38 had "handed" engines. All the same parts, just assembled differently. Not a REAL problem logistically, if you work on the engines in the field, and they did, it is easy to make a left into a right, and to reverse the process. An added step in the process though, it is true.
When you are not using straight cut spur gears, reversing the rotation in the gear box can be troublesome, it creates issues with thrust loading and endplay. The P-38 suffered through that early on.
-
A A6M5 with two 30mm cannon and a blower on the engine. :rock
-
Standard F6F-5 Hellcat airframe, coupled to either a Pratt and Whitney R-2800-18W or -36W engine. Hamilton-Standard hydromatic airscrew with 6501 blades.
Powered, hydraulic ailerons similar to the type installed on late-model P-38s.
Dive-brake to control compression in high-speed dives.
Four well-tooled Hispano-Suiza 20mm cannon.
Auto-matic flaps that deploy to decrease turn radius.
Modified canopy for better vision to the rear.
-
Why not make this into a challenge for those of us with Xplane or the ability to build planes for MSFS? Give it say, one month... to make it simple, designs are due on or Jan 1st 2009.
We can have a set "test" syllabus to test these aircraft and compare our Data to determine the winner. (best overall performance)
Of course we would need a set of rules regarding the design of said aircraft.
I will start a new thread with my ideas for "rules" maybe some can chime in with suggestions... and then we can finalize the rules and begin the building?
-
is Xplane still free or does it close the program after 5 mins like the other demo? i am hoping to pick up a copy of it sometime.
thanks
-
Standard F6F-5 Hellcat airframe, coupled to either a Pratt and Whitney R-2800-18W or -36W engine. Hamilton-Standard hydromatic airscrew with 6501 blades.
Powered, hydraulic ailerons similar to the type installed on late-model P-38s.
Dive-brake to control compression in high-speed dives.
Four well-tooled Hispano-Suiza 20mm cannon.
Auto-matic flaps that deploy to decrease turn radius.
Modified canopy for better vision to the rear.
That would be close to a Chog. Now we already have that one :devil
-
Better than a C-Hog, cause it doesn't have those quirky little handling problems.
Besides, that was MY design. Go build yer own, you...you...ICELANDER you! :devil
-
I had a go at that one a few years ago; it's here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2plane.htm
This is a ‘what if’ exercise to devise an ‘ideal’ fantasy plane. The criteria are these:
Starting in the mid-1930s, specify the design of one plane (which may have several variants) which would make the greatest difference to the effectiveness of the RAF and/or Fleet Air Arm.
You must use existing, available equipment and technology.
The design should be able to be made without clashing with other equipment priorities (especially over the use of engines).
It must be capable of being upgraded so that, while it must be in full squadron service by early 1940, it remains useful throughout the war.
You are allowed the benefit of hindsight in determining what would be most useful; you don’t have to be restricted to what 1930s designers would have known."
Enjoy!
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk)
-
Some of this wont match perfectly, cause I'm not an uber historian, but:
B-24 main body
B-17 wings and mounting
B-26 nose and cockpit
4 R2800W36 Engines
10 .50 machine guns, 2 20mm hispanios in tail gun
2000 mile fuel range
Just thought I would do a bomber instead of a fighter.
-
Some of this wont match perfectly, cause I'm not an uber historian, but:
B-24 main body
B-17 wings and mounting
B-26 nose and cockpit
4 R2800W36 Engines
10 .50 machine guns, 2 20mm hispanios in tail gun
2000 mile fuel range
Just thought I would do a bomber instead of a fighter.
Thats one bizare looking motherf*****... If only I was on my other comp I could post some pics of the B-24/B-17 hybrid they made during the war...
-
Ta152H body, no GM1 (maybe a low alt engine as in the D11 or -C), no aft tank, no gizmo radio, no wingroot guns, a MK103 in the nose with 100 rounds or more, wooden tail and enlarged horizontal surfaces, the planned prop upgrades, drooping ailerons and fowler flaps.
-
234 with Niki cannons and renewable jato (kinda like wep)
-
dont know if it saw service though. :salute
It did.
-
My concept of the perfect fighter was already in existence in December of 1944....
In late 1944, an idea circulated North American Aviation to consider a proposal to build a low altitude version of the P-51H Mustang. This idea was the brain child of a USAAF Lt.Col who wanted a better low altitude, more maneuverable, long range fighter for the invasion of Japan.
To improve low altitude performance a low alt supercharger would need to be fitted to the Packard V-1650-9. Increasing wing area was discussed and one Engineer (Ed Horkey, IIRC), suggested using the then under development XP-82 outer wing profile. This wing offered the broader chord desired. Its wing structure was readily adaptable to fit a pair of 20mm cannon.
Some sketches were generated and a few preliminary line drawings completed to present the concept to management.
Unfortunately, management was not receptive as NAA was largely stretched to the limit with the P-51D in production, the P-51H ramping up for full production and the XP-82 program absorbing many engineers and technicians. Added to that, NAA was waiting for approval of the still pending design proposal to the Navy for the XFJ-1 jet fighter. There was no resources for yet another design proposal. The concept died stillborn.
Estimates of performance were slightly below that the P-51H due to the added drag and increase in basic weight.
1,960 HP at Sea Level
Sea Level Max Speed: 422 mph @ 90" MAP
10,000 ft Max Speed: 455 mph @ 90" MAP
Time to 10,000 feet: 2.2 minutes @ 90" MAP
Some basic sketches survived in the NAA archives and a line drawing was done showing the changes to a standard P-51H-5-NA. I have a third or fourth hand copy of that line drawing and I've included it here.
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/LowAlt-P51H.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
If anyone is wondering how the standard P-51H performed, here's some speed and climb charts courtesy of Mike Williams' website.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-booklet-pg11.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-booklet-pg15.jpg)
If HTC ever put the P-51H into the game (they were flying combat patrols during the final week of the war), they would have to perk it like the Tempest.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The H was in one of Pyro's old voting polls along with the 152 and 47 N and/or M..
-
Didn't the P51 have a jostle-test with an F4U4, the F4U being flown by John Glenn?
(out of memory, but not bad memory, and if it serves Glenn was flying the F4U)
Anyway, insane performance numbers.
However, bear in mind that the Low alt performance was not exactly nuclear science, - the focus went to low alt after the more challenging high-alt performance. The one who can make engines that run at very high alt already is a master at the trade...
-
Wow....That P-51 looks amazing...
-
green and black p-38 with the grim reaper painted on the nose :devil
-
(http://www.ketzer.com/millennium_falcon/MF_thrqurtr_new.jpg)
.point 5 past light-speed
does the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs (I know, doesn't make sense)
Arakyd ST2 concussion missile launchers
Corellian Engineering Corporation AG-2G quad laser cannons (dorsal and ventral)
What more do you need?
Chicks dig it too... :rock
-
Mine would be the f4u-4 with 4 hissys. :devil
-
Mine would be the f4u-4 with 4 hissys. :devil
There was one. F4U-4C. However it didn't enter service until after the war.
-
A pink RV-8 with airshow smoke, RATO units, and three NS37's.
Just try and make a more ridiculous perk ride.
-
Thats one bizare looking motherf*****... If only I was on my other comp I could post some pics of the B-24/B-17 hybrid they made during the war...
You mean B-32 Dominator?
-
Nice input from everyone! :) Glad I started a thread where so good ideas come from everyone.
Just one thing to remember: the rules to "design" the plane are simple: take something from AH2 and put it into your plane...no Ta183, then, unfortunately ;)
camnite:
Some of this wont match perfectly, cause I'm not an uber historian, but:
B-24 main body
B-17 wings and mounting
B-26 nose and cockpit
4 R2800W36 Engines
10 .50 machine guns, 2 20mm hispanios in tail gun
2000 mile fuel range
Just thought I would do a bomber instead of a fighter.
I'm puzzled by your choice of body/wings. IIRC what made the B24 so good was, actually, the highly efficient wing it used...why using the B-24 body and B-17 wings, and not the opposite?.
Widewing:
That low altitude mustang seems amazing. BTW, are the P51H charts calculated or show actual performance?...because I'm struggling with the idea of a plane with the frontal area of the Mustang doing 425mph@SL with just 2000hp of power at hand. Not to mention a climbrate of 6000+fpm @SL, the 109K4 was lighter than the P51H, had 2000hp available and didn't have anything near those climb numbers...
I'm not trying to put your data at doubt, but you'll understand that those numbers seem out of this world...
FLOTSOM:
nice job, liked your design :).
Saxman:
Yes, I know taking parts from different planes and putting them all together usually ends in awful results. One just has to look at the P-75 to know that a "multi-plane mega-mix" design isn't a very smart thing to do. However in other cases the results were pretty interesting (like the spitfire with DB605A engine or the Buchon, Bf109 with Merlin)
So, while our "designs" (actually, choices) probably wouldn't work at all in real life, I think this is an interesting exercise to do :)
-
Widewing:
That low altitude mustang seems amazing. BTW, are the P51H charts calculated or show actual performance?...because I'm struggling with the idea of a plane with the frontal area of the Mustang doing 425mph@SL with just 2000hp of power at hand.
Yes, but the Mustang is smaller than, for example, the Tempest, and highly streamlined.
Not to mention a climbrate of 6000+fpm @SL, the 109K4 was lighter than the P51H, had 2000hp available and didn't have anything near those climb numbers...
I'm not trying to put your data at doubt, but you'll understand that those numbers seem out of this world...
Well, lower drag means your horse power is used more efficiently in the climb too. Also, you'll notice that those extreme climb numbers for the P-51H are at 8,000 lbs. That is not all that much higher than the normal loaded weight for a 109-K4, and the P-51 has a larger wing area.
-
Yes, but the Mustang is smaller than, for example, the Tempest, and highly streamlined.
Well, IIRC the Tempest had also a laminar flow wing and was (except for the chin radiator) pretty well streamlined. And had 2400hp to boot. And was quite slower than what those charts show.
Something doesn't add up here...
Well, lower drag means your horse power is used more efficiently in the climb too. Also, you'll notice that those extreme climb numbers for the P-51H are at 8,000 lbs. That is not all that much higher than the normal loaded weight for a 109-K4, and the P-51 has a larger wing area.
Not really into aerodynamics, but I think wing area says nothing about climbrate. Wingloading does (when taking also in account wing shape efficiency, I think the term is liftloading) but not THAT of a difference....Lower drag should mean a difference too, but not that big given that climbs are done at low speeds.
If those charts showed a climbrate of 5000fpm for a 8000lbs mustang with an engine giving 2000hp I'd be suprised, but I'd accept it. We're seeing a climbrate of +6000fpm at sea level for a 8000lbs plane with 2000hp. In comparison a Bf109K4 (7400lbs and 2000hp) climbs at 4600fpm more or less. We're talkiing about a 30% discrepancy with another plane with the same power but 600lbs more. BEtter aerodynamics and a better wingloading can't explain such a discrepancy AFAIK. Not to mention that the curve of 10.000 pounds show a climbrate of around 4800fpm, which still is 200fpm more than the k4, for a plane 2600lbs heavier and the same power available.
AS I said, something doesn't really add up here. Not that I don't trust widewing (he's one of the guys who've shown the best raw data I've ever seen on WWII planes here in AH boards), but I can't accept those numbers without a proper explanation...Granted that I'm not an expert (by far), but still 6000fpm@sl its too big of a number to accept it lightly.
-
im not exactly an expert either, however, logic stands to reason that, in addiition to the pure HP rating, your Supercharger settings would come into play for horsepower @ a given altitude, and your prop design would play a vital role as well. Some props simply climb better than others. (thus why we have variable pitch props!) im sure that in addition to prop pitch, prop chord, thickness, etc would come into playa s well, seeing as a prop is simply an airfoil perpindicular to the aircrafts thrust line.
-
Well, IIRC the Tempest had also a laminar flow wing and was (except for the chin radiator) pretty well streamlined. And had 2400hp to boot. And was quite slower than what those charts show.
You've got to wrap your head around just how slick this airframe is...
The really jaw-dropping is looking at even a P-51D compared with a Merlin-powered Spit or a Fw-190A. These are smaller airplanes that are quite low-drag themselves, with as much or more HP, yet he P-51 manages to be ~20mph or more faster than all of them at S/L. And the H featured some streamlining improvements over the D.
Also, IIRC, maximum WEP for the H was something like 2,200 HP.
-
Gimme a F4U-4 with an extra pair of .50s
-
Well, IIRC the Tempest had also a laminar flow wing and was (except for the chin radiator) pretty well streamlined. And had 2400hp to boot. And was quite slower than what those charts show.
Something doesn't add up here...
Not really into aerodynamics, but I think wing area says nothing about climbrate. Wingloading does (when taking also in account wing shape efficiency, I think the term is liftloading) but not THAT of a difference....Lower drag should mean a difference too, but not that big given that climbs are done at low speeds.
If those charts showed a climbrate of 5000fpm for a 8000lbs mustang with an engine giving 2000hp I'd be suprised, but I'd accept it. We're seeing a climbrate of +6000fpm at sea level for a 8000lbs plane with 2000hp. In comparison a Bf109K4 (7400lbs and 2000hp) climbs at 4600fpm more or less. We're talkiing about a 30% discrepancy with another plane with the same power but 600lbs more. BEtter aerodynamics and a better wingloading can't explain such a discrepancy AFAIK. Not to mention that the curve of 10.000 pounds show a climbrate of around 4800fpm, which still is 200fpm more than the k4, for a plane 2600lbs heavier and the same power available.
AS I said, something doesn't really add up here. Not that I don't trust widewing (he's one of the guys who've shown the best raw data I've ever seen on WWII planes here in AH boards), but I can't accept those numbers without a proper explanation...Granted that I'm not an expert (by far), but still 6000fpm@sl its too big of a number to accept it lightly.
If we look at the power ratings of the V-1650-9, we see that it is rated at 2,240 hp @ 90" MAP with water injection at 3,500 feet. See power chart below.
When we look at the drag coefficient of the H model, we see that it comes in below 0.0176 for the P-51D at 0.0167. Compare that to the Tempest which is approximately 0.0250. You cannot get around the massive radiator hanging out in the wind, plus the enormous size of the Tempest. Gains in drag reduction for the laminar airfoils are not significant in actual practice and those gains (assuming the wing is spotlessly clean) don't really show up until speed is in excess of Mach 0.6 (conventional airfoil drag curves begin rolling up around Mach 0.6).
Thus, in comparison to the Tempest, we have the P-51H data reflecting an 7,500 lb fighter with a significantly lower drag coefficient, and similar available power. It should run away from a Tempest. Load the P-51H with full internal fuel, bringing its weight up to 9,500 lb and the climb rate degrades substantially. Yet, it is still better than the Bf 109K-4.
I haven't even mentioned one important reason for the P-51's (any P-51) speed advantage. Its carefully designed Meredith Effect sealed heat exchanger generated considerable greater thrust than any other installation in a WWII fighter.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-na-8284-pg12.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-na-8284-pg5.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
The power alone is enough to convince me. I thought the P51H engine was rated at 2000hp, if it's 2240hp, we're in a completely different situation than the one I thought about.
I know about the meredith effect and how the P51 got a huge speed advantage out of it's ventral radiator. But almost 250hp more are a big difference here, both in climbrate and speed.
Still, there's a discrepancy in the speed charts you've posted. The one in the previous page gave the P51H a 425mph speed@SL. The last one you just posted shows 410mph@SL (which is fast enough, lol) With the extra power explaining the climbrate and the speed, and 410mph@SL instead of 425mph, I find the data much more believable now.
Thanks for the explanation, widewing. That thing was not a plane, but a winged rocket...of course I agree that if it ever sees the light in AH, it should be perked somewhere between the tempest and the 262. What a plane.
<S>
-
When did it enter service,and if in WW2, did it see action??
-
When did it enter service,and if in WW2, did it see action??
On the day Japan surrendered, 370 P-51H fighters had been delivered. Approximately 57 had been delivered to the P.I., with at least 17 ferried to Iwo Jima. Flight ops began near the end of July, with P-51H hops flown for familiarization. Only about 6 were released to squadrons before Aug 7. About a week before the surrender, a few of the new Mustangs were flying local combat air patrols. None, however, encountered Japanese aircraft on these patrols. Guns were never fired in anger. No P-51H types were going to fly escort missions until they had established that they were bug free. As far as anyone can determine, the H models would not have flown over Japan until early September.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Which arguably rules it out from addition to the game. Otherwise HTC may as well add the Bearcat, too.
-
No reason not to, if everything else on the other side of the threshold is already in.
-
Which arguably rules it out from addition to the game. Otherwise HTC may as well add the Bearcat, too.
Boooo.... f-7f better. :D
-
On the day Japan surrendered, 370 P-51H fighters had been delivered. Approximately 57 had been delivered to the P.I., with at least 17 ferried to Iwo Jima. Flight ops began near the end of July, with P-51H hops flown for familiarization. Only about 6 were released to squadrons before Aug 7. About a week before the surrender, a few of the new Mustangs were flying local combat air patrols. None, however, encountered Japanese aircraft on these patrols. Guns were never fired in anger. No P-51H types were going to fly escort missions until they had established that they were bug free. As far as anyone can determine, the H models would not have flown over Japan until early September.
My regards,
Widewing
Sad, it doesn't meet HTC's criteria then? (Fired guns in anger?). What of the F7F and F8F as well as DeHavilland Hornet then? Guess not....
Sort of tickles one for a Korea part to AH, - but if I recall right that one is not on the drawing board...
-
Sad, it doesn't meet HTC's criteria then? (Fired guns in anger?). What of the F7F and F8F as well as DeHavilland Hornet then? Guess not....
Sort of tickles one for a Korea part to AH, - but if I recall right that one is not on the drawing board...
I wouldn't push for the P-51H, although I'd be quite happy to see it. Like the F7F-3N, it was in the war zone, but never had an opportunity for actual combat.
What I would like to see is a 150 octane option for the late-war USAAF and RAF fighters, perked as needed.
This would make the P-51s competitive with the La-7 and Tempest down low and climb with the late 109s.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/na-p51b-150grade-level.jpg)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/na-p51b-150grade-climb.jpg)
Certainly, this is within the scope of the game.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Which arguably rules it out from addition to the game. Otherwise HTC may as well add the Bearcat, too.
There's actually a case to add the 51-H. While the guns were never fired in anger, it wasn't for a lack of trying. They served active sorties in the theatre in a time of war.
The F8F's weren't even delivered yet, strapped to the deck of a carrier, and on their way, halway across the pacific when the surrender was signed.
Widewing- What planes would you make available with the 150 octane upgrades? Did any other countries have higher grade AV Gas?
While we're on the subject....what would you think about perking fighters who had common field mods? i.e. the P47's modified waste gate to allow a D-11 to throw down over 70" hg, etc. (I think that's right- Bob Johnson's Thunderbolt was SCREAMING fast, forgot what he said his manifold pressure was)
-
i have hoped for a while now that we could get perked field mods, such as the p-47 with 80psi. boost!
i am not sure how to do it yet! :noid
but i for one would be burning alot more points than i do, altho some players still might fly a few perked rides, right now unless i want to ride in a 262 there is no other reason too use them, the 163 option is almost off the table on most of the maps we use now, unless you want to ferry one with its trolly a hundred miles or so!
as for bomber points, bigger payload, paid for with perks that you dont get back unless you bring the bombs back! :rofl
-
By 80 psi you mean the supercharger? Or mercury manifold pressure?
-
I'd like an F2G-1 please!
Think F4U-4 but with a big motor and a P-47 canopy (really!, they got the first few from Republic).
An acquaintance is restoring a R-4360 and he had to replace all 56 sparkplugs, at $110 a piece, OUCH!
(http://hiavps.com/Airfield%20Histories/Luke%20Field/Genne24%20F-2G%20taxiing-pilot%20Starkes%204-15-46.jpg)
-
Which F2G do you want? The one that Goodyear built, or the plane it WOULD have been had the Navy been able to fine-tune the design as was done after the war with the private-owned racers?
-
Certainly, this is within the scope of the game.
Agreeing 100% with your opinion that planes flying with 150octane gas should be in AH (but perked) I want to know something about the 150 octane usage in WWII. And something which is based on real data, not on factual information that holds no real ground when subjected to analysis.
There have been a lot of discussions, in about every forum about WWII I can thing of, about 150 octane gas on allied fighters during the last months of the war. I've always been on the bench looking at those discussions without saying anything as I don't really have any serious information on the matter. But it seems that
1-) there were relatively few planes flying on 150 octane fue.
2-) the ones that were fitted with it were mostly dedicated to tactical air support, not Air superiority.
3-) using that kind of fuel caused some serious manteinance issues and drastically reduced the time between revisions for the aircraft using it.
I've seen arguments about and against those three points for years now, to the point that I don't really know if they are based on real facts or they are not. But I've never seen some definite proof that proves them, or that disregard them as false.
As I said in a previous post, I value a lot your knowledge and trust your sources as very reliable, and that's why I'd like to know your point of view: if those facts were true or not, and to which extent.
All of that, I insist, agreeing that US/British planes with 150 octane fuel DO have a place in Aces High (hopefully that will be when the perk loadouts are implemented).
Thanks in advance (again :))
-
Widewing- What planes would you make available with the 150 octane upgrades? Did any other countries have higher grade AV Gas?
Heh Spits Mk VIII, XIV and XVI with 150 octane???? Yes please. :devil
-
Widewing: Please allow me to chip in on the subject of 150 octane and the aircraft that used it.
Copied from P-51 Mustang Performance (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html)
The P-51 operated on 100/130 grade fuel with War Emergency Power limited to 67" up to June 1944. On 29 March 1944 the Commanding General, Army Air Forces authorized the procurement of the necessary parts to modify all P-38, P-47 and P-51 airplanes in the United Kingdom for the use of Grade 150 fuel, subject to the relevant engines being cleared to use the fuel. (1) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/cti-1659.pdf) (2) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/ppf-4april44.jpg) During March & April 1944 flight tests were conducted at Wright Field on the P-51B-15 airplane, AAF No. 43-24777, using 44-1 fuel, at the request of the Power Plant Laboratory, Engineering Division. (3) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51b-24777.html) These tests were made to determine the performance of the airplane at the higher powers allowable with 44-1 fuel as compared with the performance at powers allowable for standard aviation fuel. Parallel tests were conducted by Proving Ground Command at Eglin Field, Florida on P-51B airplanes, AAF Nos. 43-24755, 43-24757, and 43-24775. The Power Plant Laboratory concluded in a 19 April 1944 memorandum report that the "Packard built Rolls-Royce V-1650-7 engine will satisfactorily comply with a 75 In. Hg manifold pressure war emergency rating with Grade 44-1 fuel". (4) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/75inch-clearance-v-1650-7.jpg) As a result of the engine clearance and airplane trials the P-51-B airplane was cleared for operation at 75" Hg by late April.(5) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/ppf-29april44.jpg) The modifications required to the P-51 to use the 150 grade fuel were: modify manifold pressure regulator, modify supercharger volute drain valve, install new type induction center manifold extension gland seals, use of Lodge RS5/5 or KLG RC5/3 spark plugs, installation of bulged exhaust stacks, and reset supercharger aneroid switch.(6) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/ppf-p-51-mods.pdf) By June 1944, final release on Project P.P.F. had been made approving 75" manifold pressure for the P-51 (both the 1650-3 and 1650-7 engines), as well as increased powers for the P-38 and P-47. (7) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/ppf-20june44.pdf)
Deliveries of Grade 100/150 aviation fuel to Eighth Air Force fighter airfields commenced in June 1944. (8) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/150-fuel-13-june44-b.jpg) (9) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/361st-24june44.jpg) (10) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/359th-150grade-1jul44.jpg) This coincidentally occured about the same time as the introduction of the P-51D into service. Even though the USAAF had cleared the P-51 for 75" Hg., the Eighth Air Force chose 72" Hg as the P-51's War Emergency Rating. (11) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/supplymemo-11july44.pdf)(12) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/78thfg-eng-rep-dec44.jpg) Apparently there is more to the story, however, as Encounter Reports demonstrate that 75" Hg was used operationally. (13) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/357-yeager-6nov44.jpg)(14) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/479-riddle-24dec44.jpg)
By January 1945, fourteen of the Eighth Air Force's fifteen Fighter Groups were operating Mustangs, the sole holdout being the 56th FG in P-47's.
Maintenance difficulties with spark plug fouling led to the decision to convert all fighter groups to 100/150 grade fuel reformulated with increased levels of ethylene dibromide (1.5T). Deliveries of PEP, as the new 100/150 blend was called, began to be issued to all fighter groups in February 1945. The use of PEP, however, cooroded the valve seats of the V-1650 at an unacceptable level. Consequently, the standard 100/150 (1T) grade fuel was reverted to by the end of March 1945.(15) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/339th-fuel-report-1march45.jpg) (16) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/atsce-28march45.pdf) The Eighth Air Force also had hoped to supply the 352nd and 361st Fighter Groups based on the continent with 100/150 grade fuel. This was deemed impractical from a logistical viewpoint, although admittedly such difficulties did not prevent the RAF's 2nd TAF from being supplied with 100/150 grade fuel. (17) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/dir-supply-5feb45.pdf)
-
Technical Operations, Eighth Air Force issued a 4 April 1945 Memorandum (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/8thaf-techops-4april45.pdf) in which 100/150 grade fuel experience in the Eighth Air Force was summarized. It is reproduced in full below:
1. The following is a summary of 100/150 grade fuel experience in Eighth Air Force.
2. a. This fuel was first service tested by Technical Operations Section, this headquarters, in October 1943, said service test lasting through until March 1944, at which time it was recommended that if extra performance from P-38, P-47 and P-51 aircraft was desired it could be secured by the use of this fuel.
It was pointed out at that time that the only apparent deleterious effect of this fuel on any one of the three types was the extra lead fouling of spark plugs.
b. A decision was made in May 1944 to have all fighter units supplied with this fuel no later than 1 June. As of that date operations with this fuel continued until approximately 1 February 1945 when all fighter units switched to “Pep” (100/150 plus 1.5 T’s ethylene dibromide).
As of 1 April 1945 all units switched back to 100/150 fuel containing 1.0 T ethylene dibromide.
3. At the time the 150 grade fuel was first used all three fighter types listed above were in operational use by this Air Force.
Shortly after June 1 P-38 units were re-equipped with P-51 type aircraft so that experience with 150 grade fuel in P-38 aircraft is limited.
Gradually, conversion of P-47 outfits to P-51’s took place during the Summer and Fall of 1944, and as of approximately 1 November only one P-47 group remained in this Air Force.
4. Maintenance difficulties can be summarized as follows:
a. P-38 (V-1710 Engine).
Spark plug leading was increased. The extent of this leading was such that plug change was required after approximately 15 hours flying. This conditions was aggravated considerably by low cruising powers used to and from target areas, while trying to get the maximum range possible. It was found, however, that regular periods of high power running for a minute of two in most cases smoothed out any rough running engines unless the cause was other than leading.
b. P-47 (R-2800 Engine).
Spark plug fouling was the only maintenance difficulty encountered during the period in which 150 grade fuel was used. Spark plug life was reduced by about 50%, the same low power cruising as described above being the principle cause for the extra fouling.
No deleterious effects on diaphragms, fuel hose or any other rubber of synthetic rubber materials were noted.
c. P-51 (V-1650 Engines).
The same type of lead fouling as described in a and b above happened in the case of the P-51 except that is was probably more serious than in either of the other two types.
Using 130 grade fuel with 4½ cc. of lead, the average operational P-51 could last 5 missions (roughly 25 hours) before the fouling required plug change. With 150 grade fuel containing 6 cc. of lead, 10 to 12 hours, or normally 2 missions, was the average length of time between spark plug changes or cleaning.
At various times in the six months of operation of P-51 aircraft on 150 grade fuel many other maintenance difficulties were attributed to the fuel, but final analysis proved that the only real effect of the fuel was the lead fouling.
Some units maintained that they had some deteriorations of seals, but this was not borne our throughout the command, nor was there any concrete evidence that it existed in the units.
The excessive fouling of spark plugs usually exhibited itself in roughing up of engines after a couple of hours of low power cruising. Periodic bursts of high power in most cases smoothed the engine out. However, if the engine was allowed to go too long a period without being cleaned out, the accumulation of lead bromide globules successfully withstood any attempts to blow them out.
In some instances, long periods of idling while waiting for take-off and a failure to use high power on take off resulted in loss of power during take-off run and in some cases caused complete cutting out with subsequent belly landing. The cases of cutting-out on take-off definitely attributed to excessive fouling were comparatively few, although numerous enough to list it as an effect of the extra lead.
As a result of several months operational use with the fuel, an SOP – designed to reduce power failures on take-off, leading troubles in flight, and other things which were causing early returns and abortive aircraft – was published. This is inclosure no. 1. Almost immediately after this section published this SOP practically all of the troubles then existing ceased, although it was necessary to change plugs after each two missions or thereabouts.
In an effort to reduce the lead fouling, tests were conducted by this section with 150 grade fuel containing 1.5 T’s of ethylene dibromide.
A total of about 120 hours was run by this section and the three squadrons given the “Pep” fuel for accelerated service tests. The results of these service tests showed a considerable reduction in lead fouling with no apparent effects otherwise.
As a results, all fighter units of the Air Force were put on Pep fuel late in January 1945. About thirty days thereafter a sharp increase in valve trouble was experienced with the V-1650 engine.
Inspection of engines at overhaul revealed that the hydrobromic acid was eroding the silchrome valve seat inserts to such an extent that after approximately 100 hours of operation all the valve clearance was gone.
This 100-hours is the minimum life some engines going 170 to 180 hours before this condition prevailed. There are no other deleterious effects of this fuel noted. As of 1 April 1945 fighter units of the Air Force returned to the use of 100/150 grade fuel containing 1.0 T of ethylene dibromide. (18) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/8thaf-techops-4april45.pdf)
-
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/352FG-150oct-bowser-b.jpg)
352nd FG Mustang being fueled with 150 Octane Gasoline
Those RAF Mustang units tasked with defending against the V-1 were modified to operated at +25 lbs./sq.in. - the equivalent of 80" Hg.(21) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/316sqdn-orb.jpg)(22) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/rae1501.html) On 24 August 1944, by which time the V-1 threat had subsided, the Ministry of Aircraft Production directed Rolls Royce: "all Packard Merlin V.1650-7 engines to be modified to operate at 25 lbs. boost".(23) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang3-clearance-25lbs.jpg) Raising the WER rating from 67" Hg to 80" Hg increased Sea Level speed by 30 mph.(24) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/mustang-tempest-150.jpg) On 18 September 1944 ADGB noted, that with respect to the Mustang III/Packard Merlin 1650-7, "A total of over 7,000 hours have been flown at a maximum boost pressure of + 25 lbs./sq. in.". (25) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/appendixa.pdf) The RAF's Mustang Pilot's Notes gives the Combat Engine Limitation as "81 ins. boost for 5 minutes when using 150 grade fuel". (26) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-pilotsnotes.jpg) Combat Reports show +25 lbs was used operationally over the continent by UK based Mustangs of ADBG. 27 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/129-davis-23march45.jpg)
See also Mustang Performance (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html)
100/150 Grade Fuel (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html)
1. CTI-1659: Modification of Fighter Aircraft for use of Grade 150 Fuel (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/cti-1659.pdf) Material Command, Technical Instructions, 29 March 1944.
2. Project P.P.F. 4 April 1944 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/ppf-4april44.jpg)
3. Flight Tests on the North American P-51B-15 Airplane, AAF No. 43-24777 Using 44-1 Fuel (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51b-24777.html)
4. 75" Hg. clearance for V-1650-7 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/75inch-clearance-v-1650-7.jpg) Material Command, Engineering Division, 19 April 1944.
5. Project PPF: P-51B airplanes are cleared for operation at 75", 29 April 1944 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/ppf-29april44.jpg)
6. Instructions for Modification of P-51 Airplanes for Project PPF (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/ppf-p-51-mods.pdf)
7. Project P.P.F. - Installation and Operating Instructions, 20 June 1944 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/ppf-20june44.pdf)
8. Grade 150 Aviation Fuel (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/150-fuel-13-june44-b.jpg) Chief, Petroleum Section, 13 June 1943.
9. 361st FG - 150 Octane Fuel delivered week ending 18 June 1944 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/361st-24june44.jpg) .
10. 359th FG - Engineering Report for June 1944 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/359th-150grade-1jul44.jpg) noting "change to one hundred fifty octane gasoline".
11. Grade 150 Aviation Fuel (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/supplymemo-11july44.pdf) Supply Division, 11 July 1944.
12. 78th FG Engineering Report for December 1944 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/78thfg-eng-rep-dec44.jpg) noting "boosts set to draw 72 inches" when Group converted to P-51s.
13. Capt. Charles E. Yeager, Encounter Report 6 November 1944, 357th FG (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/357-yeager-6nov44.jpg)
14. Lt. Col. Kyle L. Riddle, Encounter Report 24 December 1944, 479th FG (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/479-riddle-24dec44.jpg)
15. 339th FG Aviation Fuel Report for February 1945 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/339th-fuel-report-1march45.jpg)
16. Grade 100/150 (1 ½ T) Fuel (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/atsce-28march45.pdf) Headquarters Air Technical Service Command in Europe, 28 March 1945.
17. Request for Grade 100/150 1.5 T Aviation Fuel for Eighth Air Force Units on the Continent (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/dir-supply-5feb45.pdf) J.H Houghton, Dir. of Supply, 5 February 1945.
18. Use of 100/150 Grade Fuel by Eighth Air Force (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/8thaf-techops-4april45.pdf) Headquarters Eighth Air Force, Technical Operations, 4 April 1945.
19. TI-2010, Addendum 1: Power Plant Fuel (PPF) 100/150 Grade Fuel (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/ti-2010-add1.pdf) Air Technical Service Command, Tech. Instr., 13 December 1944.
20. 78th FG Supply Report for December 1944 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/78thfg-supply-dec44.jpg) noting "During the latter part of December they were shipped 820 barrels of 150 octane by rail".
21. No. 316 Polish Squadron Operations Record Book, 1 July 1944 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/316sqdn-orb.jpg)
22. Technical Note No.Aero.1501(Flight) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/rae1501.html) Improvement of Performance of Fighter Aircraft Operating Against the German Flying Bomb
23. Requisition MER/388/43 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang3-clearance-25lbs.jpg)
24. Crossbow fighters, low level speed table (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/mustang-tempest-150.jpg)
25. Summary of Use of 150 Grade Fuel (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/appendixa.pdf)
26. Mustang Pilot's Notes, Engine Data (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-pilotsnotes.jpg)
27. Combat Report F/Lt. G. M. Davis, 23 March 1945, 129 Squadron (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/129-davis-23march45.jpg)
Encounter Reports recording high boost obtained with 150 grade fuel:
1st Lt. Raymond R. Flowers, 1 November 1944, 20th FG (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/20-flowers-1nov44.jpg) "I closed steadily pulling over 70 inches."
1st Lt. James F. Hinchey, 14 November 1944, 353rd FG (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/353-hinchey-14nov44.jpg) "For fifteen minutes at 74” hg and indicating 600 mph…"
2nd Lt. Thomas R. Drybrough, 27 November 1944, 353rd FG (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/353-drybrough-27nov44.jpg) "I had been pulling over 70" H.G. and was indicating about 425 MPH at approximately 14,000 feet."
1st Lt. Charles E. Yeager, 13 September 1944, 357th FG (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/357-yeager-13sept44.jpg) "I rolled over and was pulling around 70" Hg."
Capt. Charles E. Yeager, 6 November 1944, 357th FG (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/357-yeager-6nov44.jpg) "I got behind him and was pulling 75” Hg."
Lt. Col. Roy A. Webb, 25 June 1944, 361st FG (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/361-webb-25june44.jpg) "I closed very slowly and pulled as much as 70 inches of mercury."
1st Lt. Thomas H. Hall, 15 August 1944, 364th FG (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/364-hall-15aug44.jpg) "I put on 70 inches and gradually pulled up on them."
Lt. Col. Kyle L. Riddle, 24 December 1944, 479th FG (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/479-riddle-24dec44.jpg) "I pulled about 70" to 75" mercury..."
F/Lt Pearson, 5 April 45, 65 Squadron (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/65-pearson-5april45.jpg) "Opening up to 70 inches I overtook him..."
F/Lt. G. M. Davis, 23 March 1945, 129 Squadron (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports/129-davis-23march45.jpg) "Opened up to +25 lbs of boost 3,000 revs and dived down to engage."
67" Hg. WEP limitation for the P-51 was superseded by 72-75" Hg as the standard P-51 WEP 5 minute engine limitation in the 8th AF from June 1944 to War's end. P-51D use of 67" as the WEP limitation in the ETO would have been quite limited considering the P-51D arrived onto the scene at the same time as the conversion to 150 grade fuel by the 8th AF (the two 9th AF groups tactical Mustang groups excepted).
-
^^^ :O :O :O :O :O :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :rock :rock
Jesus Christ! Look at all that info! A-friggin-mazing. I know what I'm gonna be reading tonight.
Mr. Williams- Thank YOU! :salute
-
way to go on info !!!
i like it when someone backs up there stuff like that!!!
shows that they at least have an understanding of whats going on :aok :aok :aok
-
thank you both mike and Rebel.
So out of the three points I brought up seems that 1) and 2) were false, and that 3) was true. It's interesting that the alllied accepted the much more intensive manteinance work needed to get the fighters flying with 150 octane fuel rather than staying conservative and using the much less troublesome 100/130...
-
Hm. 150 Octane was loaded on the P-47s? What about those R2800-equipped Blue Planes?
*drools at the thought of loading some 150 in his Hog*
-
thank you both mike and Rebel.
So out of the three points I brought up seems that 1) and 2) were false, and that 3) was true. It's interesting that the alllied accepted the much more intensive manteinance work needed to get the fighters flying with 150 octane fuel rather than staying conservative and using the much less troublesome 100/130...
Agreed- it seems that they wanted to give the pilot's the best possible weapon available, and damn the maint. costs. I kinda like that.
What really struck me is that the R-2800 engine took it just fine, it was only the spark plugs that complained. That engine is a feat of engineering, guys. Turbo-supercharge it to hell and gone, throw high octane fuel in it, and crank 'er up as high as you dare, then throw some 20mm's at it, pop off a few cylinders, she'll still bring ya home. Gotta love that :)
Hm. 150 Octane was loaded on the P-47s? What about those R2800-equipped Blue Planes?
dude. -4 hawg. 150 octane fuel. Jet hunt, anyone? :devil
-
then throw some 20mm's at it, pop off a few cylinders, she'll still bring ya home.
If only OUR R2800 could take that much damage. Inhale a single .303 in here and you're a glider. :furious
dude. -4 hawg. 150 octane fuel. Jet hunt, anyone?
:rock :rock :rock
-
If only OUR R2800 could take that much damage. Inhale a single .303 in here and you're a glider. :furious
:rock :rock :rock
Then again, if the tail end inhales a 30mm and blows the aft end off, the damn thing is a flying wing.
STILL brings you home (with careful throttle and aileron adjustment).
-
Mike do you have anything on the spits using 150?
-
Then again, if the tail end inhales a 30mm and blows the aft end off, the damn thing is a flying wing.
STILL brings you home (with careful throttle and aileron adjustment).
I can attest on good authority the only place the Hog goes after the entire aft end is shot off is straight down. If you think you're seeing otherwise you obviously didn't score as clean a hit as you thought.
No rudder? Missing elevators? Lost the wingtip? Yup, that Hog can limp home (can't tell you how many times I lost half a wing and was left for dead, only to ease out of my spiral and sneak away when the bad guy moved on to other targets). But lose the whole tail, or vertical or horizontal stabs, and unless you're REALLY slow and REALLY low to the ground to squeak out a ditch you're screwed.
Anyway, Mike:
How about the Hogs? Anything on the USN/MC playing with it.
-
Hi Rebel and WWhiskey: I’m glad you got something out of those postings. Saxman: regarding Hogs, let me look into it when I have more time. I know the Navy was using 115/145 octane fuel at some point. It was speced for the F4U-4 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-4.pdf)
-
Hello Bronk: The following is culled from various pages at WWIIaircraftperformance.org (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/), in particular Spitfire IX Performance Testing (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-IX.html), Spitfire XIV Performance Testing (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-XIV.html), Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K, A Performance Comparison (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html) and 100/150 Grade Fuel (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html).
During 1942 and 1943 the British started testing fuels that allowed for higher engine powers than were possible using the standard fuel of the time. Testing of a Spitfire IX by Rolls Royce, Hucknall in October 1943 determined:
- The increase of boost pressure to 25 lbs/sq.inch provides a considerable improvement in the low altitude performance of the Spitfire IX aircraft, the necessary modifications to achieve this being comparatively simple.(1) (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165rr.html)
The same aircraft was tested by the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment (A.& A.E.E.), Boscombe Down November 1943, the conclusion being:
- An increase of about 950 ft/min in rate of climb and about 30 mph in all-out level speed is achieved by the increase of boost from +18 lb/sq.in. to +25 lb/sq.in.(2) (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165.html)
Following successful testing, the Spitfire IX's Merlin 66 was cleared in March 1944 to use +25 lbs boost, obtainable with 150 grade fuel.(3) (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/25lbs_approval.jpg) In early May, No. 1 and No. 165 Squadrons comprising the Predannack Wing, were the first units to convert their Spitfires to +25 lbs boost and employ 150 grade fuel on operations.(4) (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no1_25lbs.jpg) (5) (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no165_25lbs.jpg) Air Defense Great Britain (A.D.G.B.) shared a report, dated 16th June 1944 with A.E.A.F. summarizing the RAF's experience with using 150 Grade Fuel in Merlin 66 engines. (6) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/16-june-44-doc.html) All pilots reported most favorably on the value of the high boost pressures obtainable with 150 Grade Fuel, however, Technical Staff felt that before the fuel was introduced on a large scale that the causes of backfires must be established and that at least 12 engines should complete 200 hours each. The backfire issues were resolved by August. (7) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/backfire-2.jpg) The increased performance obtained with 150 Grade Fuel was put to good use by Mustangs, Tempests and Spitfires in intercepting Buzz Bombs launched against Britain beginning mid June. Performance increases at sea level for the Spitfires were as follows: Spitfire IX - 335 mph increased to 358 mph; Spitfire XIV – 359 mph increased to 366-370 mph.
On 18 September 1944 A.D.G.B. very positively summarized the experience gained to date using 100/150 grade fuel.(8) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/18-sept-44-doc.html) However, due primarily to logistical difficulties, such as the interchange of squadrons between A.D.G.B. and 2nd T.A.F., it was decided that UK based fighter squadrons should revert to the use of 130 grade fuel. Its unclear as to the degree to which this decision was carried out as of November 1944 Fighter Command was apparently still using 2,000 tons of 150 grade fuel per month.(9) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/1-supply-23nov44s.jpg) During November 1944 S.H.A.E.F cleared 100/150 grade fuel for use by the Second Tactical Air Force:
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/2taf150_112044.gif)
It was decided that the Second Tactical Air force would change over from 100/130 grade fuel to 100/150 grade fuel from the 15th December 1944.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/date-of-change.jpg)
The shipping of fuel from Antwerp started on 2 January, 1945.(10) (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/deliveries-commence.jpg)
100/150 grade fuel was introduced into Spitfires of 83 and 84 Groups during January 1945:
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/now-being-introduced.jpg)
New Spitfire XIV replacements were delivered with their Griffon engines set up for +21 boost:
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/125wing-replacement-aircraft.jpg)
Some Griffon engines were cleared for +25 lbs boost before war’s end. (11) (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/griffon-69.pdf)
1. Spitfire J.L.165 with Merlin 66 at 25 Lbs. Boost Pressure, Dor/Chr/RLS.1/MNH. 8.10.43 (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165rr.html)
2. Spitfire IX JL.165 (Merlin 66) Trials at +25 lb/sq.inch boost with Rotol 4 blade propeller. A.& A.E.E. ref: CTO/AS.56/80. (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165.html)
3. Approval of 25 lbs Combat Boost on Merlin 66. 10 March, 1944. (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/25lbs_approval.jpg)
4. 1 Squadron Operations Record Book (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no1_25lbs.jpg)
5. 165 Squadron Operations Record Book (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no165_25lbs.jpg)
6. Interim Report – Service Trials of Merlin 66 Engines operating at + 25lbs. Boost Pressure. 16 June, 1944. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/16-june-44-doc.html)
7. Backfire trouble resulting from use of 150 grade fuel. 12 August, 1944 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/backfire-2.jpg)
8. Use of 150 Grade Fuel, HQ ADGB, ADGB/S.37041/CTO. 18th September 1944. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/18-sept-44-doc.html)
9. Grade 100/150 Fuel, J.H Houghton Colonel A.C., Director of Supply, 23 November 1944. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/1-supply-23nov44s.jpg)
10. No. 424 Aviation Fuel and Ammunition Park, 2nd T.A.F. ORB, January, 1945. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/deliveries-commence.jpg)
11. Directorate of Engine Development, 28th March, 1945 (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/griffon-69.pdf)
Misc.:
Operation of Spitfire IX LF with 25 lbs/sq.in. Boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/adgbs29867g.gif)
Speed comparison: +18 vrs +25 lbs/sq.in. boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/merlin66_18_25.jpg)
SL speeds, Crossbow Fighters (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/merlin66_18_25b.jpg) 11 July 1944
Merlin 66 HP Chart (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/merlin66hpchart.jpg)
Merlin 66 development - engine performance projected and accomplished in 1943 (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/fig7.jpg) (from Rolls-Royce)
Spitfire performance projected and achieved by Merlin 66 engine development in 1943 (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/fig25.jpg) (from Rolls-Royce)
Throttle Quadrant Adjustment (25 Lb. Boost (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/25lb-throttle.jpg)
Ian Ponsford who was credited with 7 enemy aircraft destroyed, 1 probable and three damaged whilst flying Spitfire XIV's with 130 Squadron recalled:
The Spitfire XIV was the most marvellous aeroplane at that time and I consider it to have been the best operational fighter of them all as it could out-climb virtually anything. The earlier Merlin-Spitifre may have had a slight edge when it came to turning performance but the Mark XIV was certainly better in this respect than the opposition we were faced with. The only thing it couldn't do was keep up with the FW 190D in a dive. It could be a bit tricky on take off if one opened the throttle too quickly as you just couldn't hold it staight because the torque was so great from the enormous power developed from the Griffon engine. One big advantage that we had over the Germans was that we ran our aircraft on advanced fuels which gave us more power. The 150 octane fuel that we used was strange looking stuff as it was bright green and had an awful smell - it had to be heavily leaded to cope with the extra compression of the engine.
A special thanks to Neil Sterling for all his excellent work on this subject.
-
Hi Rebel and WWhiskey: I’m glad you got something out of those postings. Saxman: regarding Hogs, let me look into it when I have more time. I know the Navy was using 115/145 octane fuel at some point. It was speced for the F4U-4 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-4.pdf)
:rock
Be even sweeter if I can get that in my 1A.
-
I think we can assemble a list of the aircraft that flew combat ops in the ETO with 150 octane fuel. Remember, this was initially limited to the ETO. I do not know if RAF units in Italy or far east received 150 octane fuel. I don't believe USAAF units did, other than 8th AF fighter Groups. I haven't seen anything to indicate that the 9th, 12th and 15th Air Forces received 150 octane gas.
P-38J (some Groups were flying Js until August of 1944)
P-38L (only a handful in service when Groups switched to P-51s)
P-47D-25 (many in service when fuel was first issued)
P-47D-40
P-51B
P-51D
Spitfire MK.XIV
Spitfire Mk.XVI
Perhaps Mike knows if any Tempest or Typhoon units were issued the fuel...
Next issue: How about anti-G suits? They were in use by late summer 1944 in most P-47 and P-51 Groups. Allowed pilots to pull 1g + over Axis pilots before blackout. Perhaps a small (2 point) perk.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Great stuff for the perk loadout system..
-
I think we can assemble a list of the aircraft that flew combat ops in the ETO with 150 octane fuel. Remember, this was initially limited to the ETO. I do not know if RAF units in Italy or far east received 150 octane fuel. I don't believe USAAF units did, other than 8th AF fighter Groups. I haven't seen anything to indicate that the 9th, 12th and 15th Air Forces received 150 octane gas.
P-38J (some Groups were flying Js until August of 1944)
P-38L (only a handful in service when Groups switched to P-51s)
P-47D-25 (many in service when fuel was first issued)
P-47D-40
P-51B
P-51D
Spitfire MK.XIV
Spitfire Mk.XVI
Interesting the D-25 is in there. I know from video archives that there were Razorback Thunderbolts flying with bubble tops. That may have well been a 9th or 12th AF film, however. Makes me wonder what models of razorbacks (if any) were getting the 150 gas, and coupled with mods of their chargers and the paddle blade props, what their performance would be like.
The Spit XIV information Mr. Williams posted above is nothing short of astounding. 389 mph at sea level with the +25 boost.
Perhaps Mike knows if any Tempest or Typhoon units were issued the fuel...
Next issue: How about anti-G suits? They were in use by late summer 1944 in most P-47 and P-51 Groups. Allowed pilots to pull 1g + over Axis pilots before blackout. Perhaps a small (2 point) perk.
My regards,
Widewing
Anti-G suits *would* be interesting.
-
Thank you Mr. Williams, I have some reading to do.
-
Great stuff for the perk loadout system..
My thoughts exactly.
Think of it, instead of flying the odd ball that's singled out. Instead of "ZOMG TEMPEST KILL IT!!!" pfft just another MK XVI.
-
Yeah.. now if there was something like this for the LW... :P I think only the D9 had some special boost or fuel cleared in 45 (shows up as a separate model in Il-2), and the K4 had C3 or B4 fuel or something. Other than that I cant think of anything comparable. Maybe special field mods like no GM1 in the 152, or no gunner and gunner equipment/guns in the Me410.
It'd be very cool to have all these thanks to the perk loadout system, in any case.
-
Other than that I cant think of anything comparable.
Russian boost lvls on lend lease ac. :aok
-
:lol Yeah, I mean for sse tchermanss. They're gonna be left out in the cold unless HTC throws them a bone with the more useful but rare field mods like the above, or 8x20mm in the 410, etc. Earlier in the war it should be pretty easy to keep it even, but near the end I dont remember anywhere as many toys they could get as the allied had.
-
:lol Yeah, I mean for sse tchermanss. They're gonna be left out in the cold unless HTC throws them a bone with the more useful but rare field mods like the above, or 8x20mm in the 410, etc. Earlier in the war it should be pretty easy to keep it even, but near the end I dont remember anywhere as many toys they could get as the allied had.
I missed that for some reason... getting older you know.
-
Yeah.. now if there was something like this for the LW... :P
Yes there was. C3+MW50 for the 109K4. FW-190D9 factory charts showing a 400mph Dora@SL ;). BMW801F engine in the Fw190A8 (turning it into a 2300hp Fw190A9), Multiple weapon loadouts that were seldom used, but that saw at least advanced production testing on the field (vertical shooting AT and antibomber recoiless cannons, underwing MK-103 pods for the 190, 50mm sniper gun for the 262, X-4 wireguided missiles), hybrid planes which were not rare by spring'45 (Fw190D9 with Ta152H weapons and engine), and literally dozens of Umrust-bausatze and Rüsatze that still aren't in the game...
There is a lot that can be included in the german planeset as perk loadouts the same way as 150 octane gas can be made available on some US/British planes. Bring it on, I say! :).
I think only the D9 had some special boost or fuel cleared in 45 (shows up as a separate model in Il-2)
nope, it doesn't. Il-2 has two fw190D9s, the late'44 version (B4 fuel+C3 emergency injection system, Ladedruckhöhung) and the early'45 version (B4 fuel+MW50) which is the one I think we have in AH2. There were at least two improved performance versions (C3 fuel+Ladedruckhöhung and C3+MW50+Low altitude compressor, the 400mph@SL D9 ;)) that are not implemented in neither of both sims. Rightly so as the C3 Fw190D9 was rare for scarcity of the fuel, and the 400mph Dora probably was just the product of some testing at 2.02 ata in january 1945 and there's no proof about a Dora using those power settings in service. But as perk options, they are there and they can be brought into AH :).
and the K4 had C3 or B4 fuel or something
I think we got a K4 with DB605DB engine, meaning B4 fuel+MW50, 1.8 ata version. Yes, a C3+MW50, 1.98 ata version would be a cool perk loadout.
Other than that I cant think of anything comparable. Maybe special field mods like no GM1 in the 152, or no gunner and gunner equipment/guns in the Me410.
It'd be very cool to have all these thanks to the perk loadout system, in any case.
The Me410 by itself would be so cool... it's a beautiful plane. Perk loadouts for it?...don't think any of them should be perked, as they were all pretty much standard. Well the MG213 fitted version...but that doesn't belong to AH,as the gun wasn't ready by 1945 and wouldn't be good to bring it here.
-
Thanks :)
8x20mm was a one-off.. Would definitely warrant a perk. Hopefuly HTC doesnt find all this stuff too far out.. It'd be relatively simple to have them all once the perk system is worked out.
Can you say more about that D9 with a 152's engine and guns?
-
Can you say more about that D9 with a 152's engine and guns?
There's not much into it. The Jumo213A and E power eggs were mutually interchangeable. I don't know the reason why it happened (be it production supply problems with the 213A or an intentional desire to put the engine on a D-9) but a number of Dora-9s received the 213E power egg instead of the 213A one, and with it the engine mounted 30mm. To keep the CoG from shifting too much forward (a general problem with the 190 family iterations) they erased the 13mm MGs in the cowling, thus leaving the dora with the same weapon setup as a Ta152H.
-
IMO, the best thing you could give the Luftwaffe would be something to get the radial-engine 190s "back in the game" as far as the Late-war goes. Whether that takes the form of an A-5 with extra boost, A-6, A-7, a lighter A-8, or an A-9, all are interesting possibilities.
-
Well, the ultimate rides will thereby be the ultimate rides USED by all sides. We have some of them already.
The 150 oct adds something to the Allies side as well (Spits and P51's) and they might have to be perked.
And an idea of a lighter and more powerful 190 is great IMHO.
(I always die in the thing)
-
IMO, the best thing you could give the Luftwaffe would be something to get the radial-engine 190s "back in the game" as far as the Late-war goes. Whether that takes the form of an A-5 with extra boost, A-6, A-7, a lighter A-8, or an A-9, all are interesting possibilities.
Dunno, I still have to be one tenth of what I used to be in this sim, yet I do pretty nice in the Fw190A8. The plane is "in the game" as long as you keep self-discipline, know when to dive away, and are able to pull some good defensive moves if the need arises. At very low levels it's got a decent acceleration that somehow compensates for it's low speed disadvantages. Between that, the rollrate, and that everyone discards the A8 as a pork 190, you usually are able to suprise more than one overconfident enemy. In fact I rate the A5 as a lesser ride than the A8: the A5 is nimbler, but the A8 has better punch and is 15mph faster on the deck, and that's one of the most important things in the MA.
Said that, I of course (:D) don't have anything against improving the line. An "eastern front" A8 configuration (soviets captured quite a number of 190A8s with all non-essential equipment retired, weighing around 4000kg, that's some 700lbs less than the A8 we have in the game), or a BMW801F option (basically transforming ithe A8 into an A9 so why not going the short way and adding the A9 alltogether) for the model would be more than welcome and very nice additions.
For the Fw190A5 the C3 petrol injection system (1.58/1.65 ata) would be really nice. Almost 250 extra hp, 360mph on the deck and much better acceleration/climbrate at low levels ;).
The thing with the 190A options we're talking about is that there's no reason why either of those configurations should be perked. The plane would still be difficult to master and never too much popular. The A9 option would be a real monster down low, with similar performances to those of the D9 under 15000 feet. But the D9 is not perked, so the A9 then in all fairness shouldn't be either. If you perk one question arises on why not the other...and that would lead to a domino effect (if the D9 is perked why not hte La-7, etc, you know what I mean). An hypotetical A5 with C3 injection would be a bit less hard to fly, but still would be a pretty average ride in the main arena. Perking those options because historic rarity is not an option either (both the A5 with C3 injection and the A9 were common during WW2) and the Ta152H is unperked anyway...
The problem I sense here is that probably a big can of worms would be opened if those loadouts are added, unless they are unperked. Maybe a lower ENY for planes which use those configurations would be a solution...but neither of them warrant a perk because exceptional performance nor because rarity...
-
So there werent any other major differences between A8 and A9, besides the engine? The soviet gutted LW birds would be nice but I think they couldnt qualify, considering we cant get any captured skins.
Higher-powered early A's would be great. More loadout options would be great too, e.g. removing cowl MGs.
-
So there werent any other major differences between A8 and A9, besides the engine? The soviet gutted LW birds would be nice but I think they couldnt qualify, considering we cant get any captured skins.
Higher-powered early A's would be great. More loadout options would be great too, e.g. removing cowl MGs.
no, no no, the "gutted" Fw190 was not a captured soviet bird. German Fw190A fighters in the front east (mostly JG54's) were usually stripped of all unnecessary equipment to lighten them as much as possible to better deal with the soviet ultralight fighters.
The A9 was mostly the same as the A8, just a new power egg with a 14 bladed fan for cooling the engine, and a broader (usually wooden) propeller that made good use of the extra hp the new BMW801 provided. Other than that they were almost identical.
Removing cowl MGs was done in the G-serie Fw190s only. As we already have a ground dedicated 190 in the F version, I doubt a G will be added (would be nice, those underwing drop tanks, tho ;)), and the As and Fs always had the cowling guns mounted.
-
So that's another fake Rustsatz in Il2? I'm pretty sure I saw that, 'MG151/20 only', on an earlier Anton.
The A9 saw action, right?
-
So that's another fake Rustsatz in Il2? I'm pretty sure I saw that, 'MG151/20 only', on an earlier Anton.
The A9 saw action, right?
Well, I'm not sure but I think in Il2 there's no 190G, and there are a lot of R- and U- variants of the 190. The 190G3 was in fact a Fw190A5U8 (IIRC), had wing racks, piping for underwing DTs, and cowl mounts and outter cannons deleted. If that's the version of the early A5 without cowl guns, it's historically accurate. I think some Fw190A4 and A3 dedicated to the jabo role also had the cowl guns stripped, so my bet would be that the il-2 version with cowl guns erased is ok with history (other thing is their performance in that game, lol)
The A9 saw quite a lot of action, as many of the late Antons were all A9s or A8s with the updated power egg. There were some 4000 BMW801TS/TH allocated for FW production. That would include reserves, so that would mean around 1000 A9s were built (or brought up to A9 standards from A8) by the end of the war, thus making up a big percentage of the 190 fleet still flying during the last year of the conflict in Europe.
-
We definitely have to have the A9s, then :)
-
the reason I said chose b24 body and b17 mounting point is it would give the aircraft a better roll rate while still keeping the maximum bomb load possible. Didnt know about the wings though, figured the 17s wings were a tadmore aerodynamic.
-
f4u-5 with 20mms
a p38 with 2 tempest engines
a yak 9u with the tempest engine
and a zeke with the f4u-4 engine
MrMeaty
-
a p38 with 2 tempest engines
MrMeaty
Mr. Meaty, hope you don't mind, I did some figuring on this for my own amusement. ;)
The dry weight of an Allison V-1710 is 1445 lbs.
The dry weight of a Napier Sabre V is 2360 lbs.
2360x2=4720 lbs.
1445x2=2890 lbs.
So the net increase in weight from switching to Allisons to Napier Sabres would be roughly 1820 lbs.
P-38L in AHII with 50% fuel and the light gun package weighs 16,098 lbs. The P-38L has a wing area of 327.5 square feet. That gives a wing-loading of 49.15 lbs-slightly higher than the Fw-190 D9 at 50% fuel. The high-aspect ratio of the Lightning's wings and the Fowler flaps help it to turn much better of course. The Napier engines would bring the weight up to ~17918 and the wing-loading up to ~55 lbs.
So it would be an interesting airplane to fly. It would probably turn like a 190A8, be able to pull itself into compressibility in level flight, and out-accelerate everything. And possibly hang vertically on the props 'till the cows come home...IF you could convince those Brits to build the engines in "handed" versions. Since we've got the thing overweight anyway, might as well put some more 20MMs or even a Mk. 108 in the nose.
and a zeke with the f4u-4 engine
I can see it now...the R-2800 torque-flips the zeke over a couple of times on start-up, then tears itself loose from the mountings and goes looking for some real iron to pull through the air. :D
-
With the properly setup Allisons and Hamilton Standard high activity paddle props, the P-38K could exceed 450MPH (and possibly 460MPH) in level flight. In fact, the P-38L-5-Lo with the boost and RPM set to Allison and Lockheed specifications would pull 447MPH in level flight. I'm not sure how much weight would be added to a P-38 if you swapped out the 4 Browning 50BMG (500 rounds each) and 1 20MM Hispano (150 rounds) for 5 20MM Hispanos with 250 rounds each. I'd say it could be adjusted and compensated to fit within the Lockheed CG specifications.
-
With the properly setup Allisons and Hamilton Standard high activity paddle props, the P-38K could exceed 450MPH (and possibly 460MPH) in level flight. In fact, the P-38L-5-Lo with the boost and RPM set to Allison and Lockheed specifications would pull 447MPH in level flight. I'm not sure how much weight would be added to a P-38 if you swapped out the 4 Browning 50BMG (500 rounds each) and 1 20MM Hispano (150 rounds) for 5 20MM Hispanos with 250 rounds each. I'd say it could be adjusted and compensated to fit within the Lockheed CG specifications.
Here is the 2 cannon prototype tested in connection with the xp-49 program. Other test versions included 8x.50 cals in the nose, and also one with 3 long barrel .60 cals in the nose.
(http://479th.jasminemarie.com/images/2-20mm.jpg)
From TO-01-75F-1, I see the weight of the single 20mm installation is 186.37 lb. The weight of the 4 .50 cals combined are 276.18 lbs.
-
Very simple.
Install a Napier Sabre VII (Tempest) engine in an F4U-4.
The Napier Sabre engine line was the best Hp/Displacement around at the time.
Napier Sabre VII 3500 Hp, 2238In^3(1) 1.56 Hp/In^3
^ Later models 4000 Hp, 2238In^3 1.78 Hp/In^3
Packard V-1650-7 1419 Hp, 1648In^3 0.86 Hp/In^3
P/W 2800-18 (F4U-4) 2450 Hp, 2804In^3 0.87 Hp/In^3
P/W R-4360 (F2G Super Corsair) 3000 Hp, 4362In^3 0.68 Hp/In^3
^ Later Models 4300 Hp, 4362In^3 0.98 Hp/In^3
R-2800 - 2360Lbs Dry
Sabre V - 2360Lbs Dry (Sabre VII simply had improved internal components so weight should be similar)
You would have a corsair with 550 to 950 extra Hp, with little to no extra weight. The jump between the 1D to -4 was only 450 Hp and took speed from 425 to 448Mph. Add 950Hp! I don't know enough to even guess what the top speed would increase to, not to mention improve on the -4's 3,800 Fpm climb rate.
One issue would be cooling. However, since the P/W had a diameter of 54 inches, and the Sabre was only 46 wide and 36 inches high, a radiator of some could be rigged to the sides and/or top of engine, inside the cowling.
Sorry to get all technical but when I started thinking about this I had to look up data (Momma says I'm "Special" :) ), and figured I'd share it with y'all.
1. http://www.hawkertempest.se/NapierSabre1.htm
The Sabre VII was similar to the V; the primary difference was the use of ADI and the strengthening of the internal components. From its 2238 cu.in. displacement a phenomenal 3500 hp was achieved at 3850 rpm. Finally, Napier test ran a Sabre at 4000 hp with ADI. No other production aircraft engine has ever equaled these truly impressive numbers !
*Edited: Saw a typo and couldn't NOT fix it.
-
Just thought this would be a fun exercise.
You have to design the fighter of your dreams based on the ones already in Aces High. Keep it reasonable if possible (so no turbocharged R-2800 in a 6500 lbs airframe, for instance), and let's see what do we get.
So say, I want to design a pure fighter:
Engine:
my take on WW2 air combat is that you must have a fast plane with high dive/zoom, good high speed maneouverability and as much firepower as you can bear on target. Acceleration and climbrate are desirable but not indispensable. Range is also a concern but second only to the priority considerations already mentioned.
If I want a fast plane, I'll need a powerful engine. As a side effect that will result in a good powerloading, giving me power for climbrate/acceleration, which is never bad to have. We also have to decide between radial and in-line.
Radial engines are rough, can handle battle damage, but are less power/weight efficient than the best in lines. Inline engines have a weak point: the coolant radiator. However we can minimize the chances of a radiator hit by going the same way the germans went with some of their radials: putting an annular radiator in the cowling resembling a radial engine: the radiator will still be a weak point of the engine, but it will be much less exposed than what it would be if placed under the fuselage or the wings: an annular cowling means the radiator will be very hard for all shots coming from the aft hemysphere. Aerodynamics will suffer a bit as streamlining of the nose won't be possible with a blunt radiator there, still the engine mount will be more aerodynamic than that of a radial engine.
So we decided for an in line engine as powerful as we can. We also need to know if we want it turbo or supercharged, and the engine's performances at different altitudes.
Having a turbocharged engine would be desirable, they maximize engine performance for all altitudes and is superb for high altitudes, but undesirable for the weight of the instalation and the cost. On the other hand supercharged engines have irregular performances as the plane goes up and aren't as good as high altitudes with few exceptions, but weigh much less and are cheaper.
However there's a series of supercharged engines with maximized power output for all altitudes, the DB60x. In the game there's no plane with DB603, the engine I would like to use, but the DB605DM is there. roughly 2000hp at sea level, variable speed auto-regulated supercharger, respectable high altitude performance and good output for it's weight.
So the engine will be the DB605DM, cooled by an annular radiator, the installation will resemble that of a radial engine.
Cockpit:
All-around vision is a must for a very good SA, and a good distribution of gauges is needed for easily assess the flight conditions the plane is in. So I would want a cockpit with high all around vision and good gauge distribution. The Fw190 has a great panel distribution but the overhead bar impairs vision directly up. The P51D's bubble cockpit on the other hand has an impressive view and it still has a very good panel layout.
So I'd want a cockpit similar to that of the Pony-D
Wings:
It's tempting to go for the laminar flow wings, but here we deal with something that might have some serious side-effects with the weaponry. Of course if we plan to put all the weapons out of wings, there's no problem, but I'd want to have at least two wing cannons, so, for instance, a P51's wing is out of the question, it won't take any 20mm cannon without serious modification/bulging, thus killing the laminar flow effects which make that wing so efficient.
The Tempest wing is also laminar flow, and can house 20mm cannons. Still, it's got too big wingspan and it's got a lot of wing area: roll inertia will suffer, and probably roll rate too. Given we want to get a plane fast and maneouverable at high speeds, the tempest wing is also out of the question.
Looking between the wing profiles of AH's fighters there's only one that will give us good weaponry options while retaining very good high speed maneouverability properties: the one of the Fw190. So I'd go with that one. It will have a cost in low speed maneouverabilities but we are aiming for a high speed fighter. The wing fits in perfectly.
Weapons:
Now we decide which will be the plane's main weapons. I want to have a mighty snapshot power while retaining as much nimbleness as we can. In other words: I want 20mm cannons in the plane, MG-only weapon sets don't fit in the plane I want. As we want very high roll rate, and to avoid convergence issues, we want weapons as close to the center line as possible. We have the 190 wing which can take up to four 20mm cannons without problems. we have the 109K4 engine, so we can mount a cannon firing through the prop hub. In theory if we have enough space between the engine and cockpit, we can even mount two cannons in the cowling. So we have seven potential spots for 20mm guns. Of course we can't mount that many because of weight consideration, so we have to decide how many and where do we want them.
One of them is a granted, as the installation has only advantages, the one in firing through the prop hub. easy to aim, no convergence issues, no syncronization problems. That one I am going to install no matter what.
Of the other six, the cowling guns offer some advantages but a lot of drawbacks aswell. They offer good fire concentration and easy aim, but cowling guns of that size are hard to mount, and if installed may require the cockpit to be displaced aft. Mounted so much forward they may cause CoG displacement problems, the ammunition space they take could be used for the centerline gun instead, and they must be syncronized.
So, no cowling guns.
The outter wing cannons offer no syncronization problems, but some serious convergence issues instead. Being mounted that far out the wing, they might affect roll rate and ammunition storage won't be as big as if the cannons were placed elsewhere. So no outter wing cannons.
the wing root cannons must be syncronized, but offer very good fire concentration and almost no convergence issues. They potentially have a lot of space for ammunition, which is also good. so we'll mount two wing root cannons.
As for the model: in AH there are several brands of 20mm cannons:
Hispano MkI - too big, too heavy, hard to syncronize-out of the question
Hispano MkV- same as before, even while a bit lighter.
MG151/20 - relatively light ,easily syncronized with low ROF lost. Good contender
ShVAK - relatively light, a bit worse than the MG151 when syncronized. Doesn't make the cut
MG FF- Low ammo, drum fed, bad ballistics, hard to syncronize, out of the question. Same with the japanese version
HO-5 and type 99: hard to syncronize- out of the question.
B-20: Very light, bit less of RoF than the MG151/20 when syncronized but the save in weight more than compensates for it, we have a winner here.
So we'll mount three B-20 cannons. one in the engine, two in the wing roots. Given that we have the 190 wing and that the B-20s are really light, we can add a field modification adding two more 20mm guns in the outter wings for straffing or bomber attacks.
external ord:
We have a fighter and we are designing a fighter. External ordinance needed is, basically, drop tanks. So we add a rack under the fuselaje for a DT. For land attack purposes (secondary priority given that we want a fighter and not a ground attack plane) the rack should also load a bomb. As we want a pure fighter we don't need a huge bomb...250kg will be enough (550lbs)
Tail unit:
we want good rudder control and good elevator control aswell at all speeds. Many planes give you this, but I can't think of a plane with a higher rudder and elevator authority than the Corsair's...so is chosen.
final plane
DB605DM engined plane with Fw190 wings and an annular nose radiator resembling the appearance of a radial engined plane. 3x20mm B-20 cannons (option to mount up to 5). bubble cockpit similar to the P51D's one, tail unit similar to that of the F4U corsair. Optional ventral rack for one DT or one bomb of up to 550lbs.
-----------------------
So, that's the ideal plane I'd like to fly in AH :). Comments?...and of course, input for your own favorite plane composition?.
S!
Alright, two Pratt & Whitney R-4360 engine = 8600hp, 2x20mm with 200 round on each side (on the nose of the plane) 2x30mm with 150 rounds. Blessed with swept back spitfire wings, carrier based. 1x2000lb bomb, dive flaps, self sealing tank, reinforced wings, 4 large exhausts on the tail, 2xRi202 Rato Units, folding wings, 13.7 feet propellers, 250 mile range, 20,000 feet altitude in 3 minutes, max 47k alt. 1x125 gallon external tank, Bubble windshield for 360 view, light aluminum skin, titanium skeleton, high acceleration of 150mph in 9.367 seconds fully loaded, 150mph in 4.172 seconds fully unloaded. WEP enabled, extra (optional) internal 20mm bullet storage containing, 400 extra bullets. And for the love and thought an external jet fuel tank for the internal jet engine in the tail like the 163B; but it is an optional attachment.
And only VF-17 corsair pilots may use it because... i named it the S4U-17/FYB.
S=Spitfire
4U=Corsair
17=VF-17
/FYB=ME
Also the R-4360 Engine was used for the F2G-1 and 2, SUPER CORSAIR. ;)
-FYB