1937-1945: smallest, but still practical fighters?

I've just had a look at the Swedish Wikipedia, which has some quite detailed data, and it shows a "Stridshastighet" of just 420 km/h @ sea level and 510 km/h at 4000 m. I believe that translates to "combat speed", and thus is probably achieved at 900 HP @ 2550 rpm, for which the table gives a (static full throttle) altitude of 3658 m (12000 ft).
See the other speed values, from the same source translated:
Max speeds0 meters: 480 kilometers per hour
3000 meters: 590 kilometers per hour
3500 meters: 575 kilometers per hour
4300 meters: 560 kilometers per hour
The speed record was 610 kilometers per hour

Engine power:
Power at heights910 horsepower at 3600 meters
900 horsepower (2550 rpm) at 3658 meters

Weight and wing area are basically the same as the Emil's, performance and armament are worse.

As you can see, Emil is worse wrt. performance.

Fine as a fighter trainer, but does it make sense to take a low-performance "small fighter" like that (not that it's really any smaller than a Me 109) up against an Fw 190A, a Spitfire IX, or a P-38E in 1942?

Several things:
- the J.22 still lacks 100 HP for the time frame
- time frame for 1000 HP radial does not start in 1942, but in 1940
- let's not assume that just every fighter in 1942 was as performing as the Fw 190
- aircraft comparable to the listed high-performers were not available for a lot of the air forces
 
I was trying to find out how fast (or slow) were the real aircraft on the reduced power.
The P-39C with full guns' setup and on 750 HP was good for 327 mph at 12600 ft. The heavier and a bit draggier P-39C was slower, at 311 mph on same HP at 13 kft.
The still draggier P-40 (early model, no suffix) needed 900 HP to do 323.5 mph, and about 750 HP to do break 300 mph mark.
Spitfire I with the fixed-pitch prop was good for 317 mph at 15000 ft on 2600 rpm and +1.7 psi boost (works to about 850 HP?); basically, stick the Peregrine on the Spitfire and it is a tad faster than the Hurricane with a Merlin III :)

All of the 3 were much bigger aircraft than what is needed here.
 
Hi Tomo,

See the other speed values, from the same source translated:

Yes, I saw all these. However, a close look at the power settings shows that obviously, the take-off/emergency power is achieved at 2700 rpm, there's another power setting for 2550 rpm, and then there's another for 2250 rpm.
The first is "Start/Max", the second has no name here, and the last is "Marsch", which translates as "cruise".

Maxeffekt1065 hästkrafter (749 kW)
Marscheffekt650 hästkrafter (2250 varv/min)
Effekt vid höjder910 hästkrafter vid 3600 meter
900 hästkrafter (2550 varv/min) vid 3658 meter
Starteffekt1050 hästkrafter (2700 varv/min)
Marcheffekt650 hästkrafter (2250 varv/min)

There are also three sets of speed listed:
Max hastigheter0 meter: 480 kilometer i timmen
3000 meter: 590 kilometer i timmen
3500 meter: 575 kilometer i timmen
4300 meter: 560 kilometer i timmen
Hastighetsrekordet var 610 kilometer i timmen
Stridshastigheter0 meter: 420 kilometer i timmen
4000 meter: 510 kilometer i timmen
Marschhastigheter0 meter: 410 kilometer i timmen
1500 meter: 440 kilometer i timmen
4300 meter: 500 kilometer i timmen
In my opinion, it's clear that "Max" corresponds to the 2700 rpm setting, "Strid" corresponds to the 2550 rpm setting, and "Marsch" corresponds to the 2250 rpm setting.

Since you've capped power at 1000 HP, the "Max" setting doesn't conform with your own requirements, so it made sense to me to use the "Strid" speeds. (On top of that, it's not clear how long use of the Start/Max setting was permissible, or whether it was permissible at all on the 87 octane fuel that's listed in the table.)

Assuming that the setting for the "Strid" speeds can be sustained as per normal US convention for 30 (or at least for 15 minutes, as on a few of the earlier engines), that makes it comparable to the Steig und Kampf setting of the Me 109 E, which according to the Kennblatt for the E-1/E-3 (which applies to the early models with the old-type supercharger that limits its full-throttle height) achieves 460 km/h at sea level and 540 km/h at 4000 m, which is 40 km/h resp. 30 km/h faster than the J.22 at the same altitude.

Up the power of the J.22 to 1000 HP, and it's going to make 435 km/h at sea level and 528 km/h at 400 m, which is quite respectable for a radial-engined aircraft, but still not as good as the Emil.

Note that there's a big jump in performance between the J.22's "Strid" and "Max" settings due to the incrase of rpm from 2550 to 2700 rpm, which increases the full throttle height, which allows another increase in speed. As this breaks your 1000 HP limit and still doesn't match the Emil's full throttle height, especially with the "new type" supercharger which it woiuld have in the 1940 - 42 comparison period, I've disregarded this.

- let's not assume that just every fighter in 1942 was as performing as the Fw 190

Hehe, as per your suggestions, the air forces have to field "small" fighters, that does in fact mean that the enemy air force has to do the same, so you're automatically right! ;-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
The first is "Start/Max", the second has no name here, and the last is "Marsch", which translates as "cruise".

Second has the name, it is the 'altitude power'. Yes, we can say it is vague, my interpretation is that it was the best power available at these 4000+ meters.

In my opinion, it's clear that "Max" corresponds to the 2700 rpm setting, "Strid" corresponds to the 2550 rpm setting, and "Marsch" corresponds to the 2250 rpm setting.

Since you've capped power at 1000 HP, the "Max" setting doesn't conform with your own requirements, so it made sense to me to use the "Strid" speeds. (On top of that, it's not clear how long use of the Start/Max setting was permissible, or whether it was permissible at all on the 87 octane fuel that's listed in the table.)

Max power was probably only allowed on the high-octane fuel? 'Normal' allowed furl for the engine of the J.22 was 100 oct.
I've cropped a bit the big table, so it is easier to read (Swedes say that the engine for the J.22 was the equivalent of the SC3-G: SFA STWC-3 - 1 065 hk, Svensk kopia av TWC-3 (R-1830-SC3-G), tillverkad och konstruerad av Svenska Flygmotor AB utan licens och ritning.):

S1ecI41.jpg

Was the engine capable for 1050 HP at 2700 rpm at 14000+ ft with all the ram in the Christendom? I'd say no, especially on 87 oct fuel. As you can see, even at 2800 rpm (??? - typo probably) it was making just 1000 at 11500 ft without the ram.

Up the power of the J.22 to 1000 HP, and it's going to make 435 km/h at sea level and 528 km/h at 4000 m,

(my bold)
I'd politely disagree.

Hehe, as per your suggestions, the air forces have to field "small" fighters, that does in fact mean that the enemy air force has to do the same, so you're automatically right! ;-)

You have me scratching my head while trying to recall when I've said that the air forces have to field small fighters.
 
In 1919, the Swedish Army had an aircraft division formed by twelve war surplus Phönix D.III fighters joined by twenty-four FVM Ö1 Tummelisa advanced trainers in 1921.



Four years later they acquired ten units of the Nieuport-Delage NiD 29 ex-French fighters. The Swedish Air Force (Flygvapnet) was created in 1926, unifying Army and Navy aviations. The new service required the use of two-seat long-range fighters. They acquired fifteen Fokker C.Vd in 1927 and the following year six Heinkel HD 19 seaplane fighters.



The weapons race started by the Soviet Five Years Plan in 1928, prompted the countries close to the U.S.S.R. to modernize their combat aircrafts. After the entry into service of the Polikarpov I-3, in August 1929, Lithuania ordered fifteen Fiat C.R. 20 fighters and Latvia seven Bristol Bulldog Mk.II. In Mach 1930 the prototype of the first Polish monoplane fighter P.W.S.10 flew for the first time and four months later the prototype of the Polikarpov I-5. At that time the VVS already had two-hundred-and-fifty I-3 in service.



In August Sweden ordered three Bristol Bulldog Mk.II and eight Bulldog Mk.IIA (286 kph) fighters in May 1931. That same year the Swedish Government ordered the construction of 18 units of the indigenous fighter Svenka Aero Jaktfalk. The VVS fighter strength was of three-hundred-and-eighty-nine I-3 and sixt-six I-5. In 1932 the expansion of the Flygvapnet was planned, with the construction under licence of thirty-six Tiger Moth and twenty-five Tigerschwalbe elementary trainers, joined by ten Sparmann S-1A advanced trainers in 1934.



Between 1936 and 1938, the U.S.S.R. made a demonstration of force by sending to Spain hundred-and-eight Polikarpov I-15, ninety-three Polikarpov I-152, ninety-three Polikarpov I-16 Type 5, sixty-eight Polikarpov I-16 Type 6, hundred-and--twenty-four Polikarpov I-16 Type 10, thirty-one Polikarpov R-5 Army cooperation airplanes, thirty-one Polikarpov R-5 Cht strafers, sixty-two Polikarpov RZ light bombers and ninety-three Tupolev SB-2 medium bombers. They also sent 347 tanks, 60 armoured vehicles, 1,186 cannons, 340 mortars, 20,486 machine guns, 497,813 rifles, 862 millions of cartridges, 3.5 millions of artillery shells, 10,000 aviation bombs and four torpedo boats.



Lithuania ordered thirteen Dewoitine D.501 L monoplane fighters.



With the publication of the Defence Act in December 1936, the second plan of expansion of the Flygvapnet to five combat wings was started. To equip these units with enough airplanes it was necessary to organize the indigenous production of forty-two Hawker Hart light bombers, eighty Junkers Ju 86 K-1 medium bombers, hundred-and-two Douglas 8 A-1 attack bombers, hundred-and-ninety SAAB 17 dive bombers, eighty-five Focke-Wulf Fw 44 elementary trainers and hundred-and-thirty-six North American NA-16-4M advanced trainers, which should be delivered between 1937 and 1941.



At 1937 the VVS strength was of 8,139 front-line aircraft, including 443 medium and heavy bombers. The Polikarpov I-152 started fighting in China.



In June, Sweden ordered thirty-seven Gloster Gladiator Mk.I fighters. In 1938 the production of Polikarpov I-153 started and Sweden ordered eighteen Gloster Gladiator Mk.II (414 kph). At the end of that year the Soviet aviation was defeated in Spain thanks to the technological superiority of the Legion Condor.



On 11 May 1939, the VVS entered into combat against fighters of the Imperial Japanese Army in Khalkin Gol. In September, the Soviets were forced to sign an armistice, overcome by the technical quality of Japanese planes and pilots.



On 29 June, Sweden ordered fifteen Seversky EP-1-106 fighters.



After its defeat in Spain the U.S.S.R. was also forced to sign the German-Soviet non-aggression pact and be satisfied with 'freeing' weaker objectives by occupying eastern Poland when the Polish Army had already been defeated by the Wehrmacht. That same month the ANBO VIII indigenous dive bomber took its first flight in Lithuania and its Government ordered thirteen Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 fighters that the French never delivered because of the war. Nor did the British deliver the Spitfires acquired by Estonia or the Hurricanes acquired by Latvia.



On 11 October Sweden ordered a second batch of forty-five Seversky fighters.



Despite the losses suffered in Spain, Manchuria and China, the VVS strength was of 7,320 aircrafts. On 30 November, the Soviets began the invasion of Finland. At that time the Flygvapnet possessed a front-line strength of only 140 aircraft (of which about one half consisted of Harts and Gladiators biplanes) but went to their aid forming the Flygflottilj 19, a volunteer unit with four Hawker Harts and twelve Gladiators equipped with skis undercarriages.



On 1 January 1940 the Swedish Government ordered a third batch of sixty Seversky EP-1-106 and two Republic 2PA attack bombers. On 6 February, they also ordered hundred-and-forty-four Vultee Model 48C fighters but, fearing that the airplanes might fall into Soviet hands, the U.S. State Department placed an embargo on the export of military aircraft to Sweden on 18 October.



The embargo also included the export of engines, so the Douglas 8 A-1attack bombers had to use the Bristol Pegasus XII, the SAAB 17 used the Bristol Pegasus XXIV and the Piaggio P.XII bis RC 40D and the North American trainers used the Piaggio P. VII RC 16, less powerful and reliable than the original Pratt & Whitney and Wright Whirlwind. The situation derived in panic and the Swedish Government ordered seventy-two Fiat C.R. 42 bis and sixty Reggiane Re.2000 fighters from Italy, as stop-gap solution until the indigenous industry could build their own fighters.



Unfortunately, the SAAB 19, a project of fighter based on the Bristol Type 153, whose manufacture was started in 1941, had been cancelled when the British rejected to continue the production of the 1,400 hp Bristol Taurus II engine. The SAAB 19 would have been a low wing monoplane with 10.5 m wingspan, all-metal construction, retractable undercarriage and armed with four wing-mounted 13.2 mm m/39A machine guns. Its estimated maximum speed would have been 605 kph and his maximum take-off weight of 2,690 kg.



On 1 January 1941, the design work of the J 22 'panic fighter' was started, under the leadership of Bo Lundberg. The General Nils Söderberg established the FFVS workshop, to temporary organisation intended solely for the production of the new aircraft. As the Swedes expected to get the fighters in the USA, all available aluminium 2024 T3 was already being used in the production of the S 17 and S 18 bombers.



The construction system of the J 22, based on that of the Finnish Myrsky, consisted of welded Chrome-Molybdenum steel tube structure covered with plywood panels. To circumvent the engines embargo, Sweden managed to purchase a batch of 100 Pratt & Whitney R-1830-45 Twin Wasp engines in 1942, from the Vichy-French Curtiss H-75 fighters, and Svenska Flygmotor-Trollhättan started an programme to copy the Twin Wasp as the Swedish-made 1,050 hp STWC-3G.



The J 22 prototype made its first flight on 20 September 1942, reaching 575 kph.

Between 1943 and 1946, 198 units were built. Of these, the first 143 units were J 22 A (with two 13.2 mm m/39A and two 7.9 mm Bofors m/22F machine guns) and 55 units of the J 22 B version (with four m/39 A). The J 22 was light and very manoeuvrable fighter equivalent to the Spitfire and Messerschmitt Bf 109 of 1940, but it could not compete with the latest German and British designs when entered service.



This did not represent a serious problem as Sweden already maintained good relations with both and the J 22 exceeded or equalled the Soviet fighters Polikarpov, LaGG, Hurricane Mk.II and Airacobra that posed the real threat. In March 1941, the Flygvapnet Air Board managed to reach an agreement for SFA-Flygmotor licence manufacture of the German Daimler-Benz DB 601 engine. Subsequently the licence upgraded to the latest version DB 605B with 1,475 hp. The new engine was acquired to improve the performances of the SAAB 18 bomber and to propel the fighter that would replace the J 22. On 5 April 1941 the design team of SAAB, under the leadership of Frid Wänström, proposed the construction of the J 21, an unconventional fighter with twin tail booms, nose wheel and pusher propeller.



The radical nature of the new fighter presented unknown development problems: the technological risk of the design of a high speed laminar flow wing, the serious cooling difficulties of the radiator installation buried inside of the wing (that never really overcome), the adoption of a nose wheel that required to train the pilots again using a specially modified North American NA-16 and the development of the SAAB-Bofors Mk.I ejector seat to prevent the pilot from being hit by the airscrew during the bail out.



In October 1941, fearing that the J 21 presented insurmountable development difficulties, the Flygvapnet suggested the design of a more conventional fighter, as a fall-back option, and the SAAB J 23 parallel project was proposed on November. It was a low wing monoplane with 11.28 wingspan, all-metal construction, conventional landing gear and armed with a 20mm Bofors M/45 engine-mounted cannon and four 13.2 mm Bofors m/39A wing-mounted machine guns.

The J 23 would be propelled by one DB 605B driving a VDM propeller and cooled by one Mustang-style ventral radiator. Wind tunnel tests in the Technical High School-Stockholm showed that the J 23 would have superior maximum speed and climb, but the J 21 was more manoeuvrable thanks to the central position of the engine. When the J 21 development problems were surmounted, the J 23 design work was discontinued on 5 December 1941.



At the end of 1944 the latest models of German and British fighters already reached speeds that the J 21 could not match, because of the excessive drag generated by their tail surfaces. In April 1945, SAAB started the design work on the J 27, a conventional fighter with elliptical wings, Youngman flaps, tear drop canopy and ejector seat, capable of flying at 700 kph powered by a 2,200 hp Rolls-Royce Griffon engine driving contra-rotating airscrews.

The foreseen armament was four 13.2 mm Bofors-Colt m/39A wing-mounted machine guns.

It was expected to build a more advanced version, with butterfly tail, four 20 mm Hispano cannons and 740 kph maximum speed, when the 2,500 hp Svenka Flygmotor AB Mx would be available, a 54 litres engine with 24 cylinders in 'X' configuration to be ready in 1947.

At the end of 1945 the Flygvapnet chose one brute force solution, acquiring the manufacture license of the Havilland Goblin Mk.II British turbojet (1,360 kg thrust), to power an advanced version of the J 21 that flew at 800 kph in 1947.



Bibliography


Books

Davis, C., Aircraft Three View Drawings for Collectors, B.C.F.K. Publications, 1989.

Di Terlizi, M., Reggiane Re.2000 Falco, Héja, J.20, Aviolibri Special 6, IBN Editore, 2002.

Punka, G., Reggiane Fighters in action, Aircraft nº 177, Squadron/ Signal publications, 2001.

Davis, L., P-35, Mini in action number 1, Squadron/ Signal publications, 1994.

Cattaneo, G., Reggiane Re.2000, Profile Nº 123.

Cattaneo, G., Fiat C.R. 42, Profile Nº 16.

Wildfelt, B., The SAAB 21 A & R, Profile Nº138.

Crawford, A., Hawker Hart Family, Casemate Publishers, 2008.



Publications

Green, W., “A SAAB half-century”, Air Enthusiast/Thirty-Three.

Billing, P., “A fork tailed Swede”, Air Enthusiast/Twenty-Two.

Sgarlato, N., “Le Fiat C.R. 42”, Le Fanatique de l’Aviation Nº 166 to 169.

Waligorsky, M., “Adventures into the Esoteric”, IPMS Stockholm Magazine, 2002.

Knutsson, G., “SAAB J 23”, Flyg Specialnummer Nº20, 1945.

Drawings from SAAB Svenska Aeroplan Aktiebolaget, Linköping, 1946.

Drawings from Bo Wildfelt, Chuck Davis and Torstein Landström.
 

Attachments

  • 106.jpeg
    106.jpeg
    588.3 KB · Views: 7
  • 105.jpeg
    105.jpeg
    501 KB · Views: 7
  • 107.jpeg
    107.jpeg
    304.4 KB · Views: 6
  • 108.jpeg
    108.jpeg
    371.2 KB · Views: 6
  • 109.jpeg
    109.jpeg
    462.1 KB · Views: 7
  • 110.jpeg
    110.jpeg
    310.5 KB · Views: 8
  • 111.jpeg
    111.jpeg
    346.6 KB · Views: 8
Swedish Fighters
 

Attachments

  • 042.jpg
    042.jpg
    1,002.3 KB · Views: 8
  • 043.jpg
    043.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 9
  • 044.jpg
    044.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 9
  • 045.jpg
    045.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 8
  • 046.jpg
    046.jpg
    1,021.5 KB · Views: 8
  • 047.jpg
    047.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 7
SAAB 19
 

Attachments

  • 098.jpg
    098.jpg
    827.5 KB · Views: 7
  • 096.jpg
    096.jpg
    659.1 KB · Views: 4
  • 097.jpg
    097.jpg
    750.6 KB · Views: 3
  • 099.jpg
    099.jpg
    848.2 KB · Views: 2
  • 100.jpg
    100.jpg
    670.9 KB · Views: 2
  • 101.jpg
    101.jpg
    944.3 KB · Views: 2
  • 102.jpg
    102.jpg
    707.1 KB · Views: 1
  • 103.jpg
    103.jpg
    707.6 KB · Views: 1
  • 104.jpg
    104.jpg
    672.2 KB · Views: 1
  • 105.jpg
    105.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 2
SAAB J22
 

Attachments

  • 191.jpg
    191.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 3
  • 192.jpg
    192.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 3
  • 193.jpg
    193.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 3
  • 194.jpg
    194.jpg
    931.2 KB · Views: 3
  • 195.jpg
    195.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 2
  • 196.jpg
    196.jpg
    472 KB · Views: 2
  • 197.jpg
    197.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 2
  • 198.jpg
    198.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 2
  • 199.jpg
    199.jpg
    716.3 KB · Views: 3
  • 200.jpg
    200.jpg
    941.8 KB · Views: 3
Post-2
 

Attachments

  • 201.jpg
    201.jpg
    524.8 KB · Views: 3
  • 202.jpg
    202.jpg
    634.9 KB · Views: 3
  • 203.jpg
    203.jpg
    628.1 KB · Views: 3
  • 204.jpg
    204.jpg
    495.9 KB · Views: 5
  • 205.jpg
    205.jpg
    630.1 KB · Views: 4
  • 206.jpg
    206.jpg
    689.2 KB · Views: 4
  • 207.jpg
    207.jpg
    571.3 KB · Views: 4
  • 208.jpg
    208.jpg
    707.3 KB · Views: 4
  • 209.jpg
    209.jpg
    612.4 KB · Views: 3
  • 210.jpg
    210.jpg
    647.9 KB · Views: 3
Post-3
 

Attachments

  • 211.jpg
    211.jpg
    542.1 KB · Views: 3
  • 212.jpg
    212.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 3
  • 213.jpg
    213.jpg
    1,016.3 KB · Views: 3
  • 214.jpg
    214.jpg
    999.3 KB · Views: 2
  • 216.jpg
    216.jpg
    678.8 KB · Views: 6
  • 219.jpg
    219.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 6
  • 220.jpg
    220.jpg
    710.8 KB · Views: 6
  • 221.jpg
    221.jpg
    944.1 KB · Views: 5
  • 222.jpg
    222.jpg
    789.1 KB · Views: 5
  • 223.jpg
    223.jpg
    810 KB · Views: 5
Hi Tomo,

Max power was probably only allowed on the high-octane fuel?

No idea, but it would seem very likely that "Max" power was used for "Max" speeds.

You have me scratching my head while trying to recall when I've said that the air forces have to field small fighters.

Well, I was thinking this was implied here:

Big airforces, like the RAF, AdA, RA or LW were burning the midnight oil to bulk up their strength to the untold hundreds of fighters in the second half of 1930s. Much better to do it with an Ambrosini-like fighter than with Gladiator, MS 406, a biplane or the He 112

In reality, they chose not to acquire "small" fighters (though some air forces acquired types of the same size as the J.22), and I think they had good reasons to avoid that.

(OK, there was the Caudron C.714, but that was not only a poor performer, but apparently a poor aircraft all around.)

So if you let these air forces decide, there'll probably not be any "small" fighters. Thus, I take it that to make your scenario work, they "have to" acquire a meaningful number of "small" fighters in each of the periods you mention.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
No idea, but it would seem very likely that "Max" power was used for "Max" speeds.
That can actually get weird with constant-speed propellers.

Increasing prop pitch versus decreasing RPM may result in greater speed at lower engine RPM. Depends on engine and prop installed, of course.
 
The what-if looks of the Japanese He-100 spin-off, with a 950-970 HP Sakae 11/12/Ha 25 in the nose, for 1941-42:

100 rad.png

Note the deepened fuselage, similar to what was done to the Ki-61 when it was about to became Ki-100. Obviously a lot of internal volume is free when compared with the 'normal' He-100.
Two HMGs for the starters. Hang a pair of drop tanks.
Later (for 1943) install the Sakae 21/31/Ha 115. Add another pair of HMGs.
 
Hi Scott,

That can actually get weird with constant-speed propellers.

Increasing prop pitch versus decreasing RPM may result in greater speed at lower engine RPM. Depends on engine and prop installed, of course.

That's right, but it results from compressibilty effects caused by excessive propeller blade Mach numbers, and the R-1830 at 2800 rpm with 16:9 gearing and a 3.1 m propeller gets ca. 256 m/s tip speed at no forward speed, while the DB 601 A-1 at 2400 rpm with 1:1.55 gearing and a 3.1 m propeller gets 251 m/s, so at equivalent forward speeds, the J.22 and the Me 109 E are operating at virtually the same propeller tip Mach numbers at maximum power.

And for the Emil, we know that increasing rpms resulted in higher top speeds, so I'm fairly confident it was the same for the J.22.

In the end, it comes down to finding a reliable source that identifies the exact power settings that are associated with a specific top speed for the J.22. In my opinion, the identification of the 2550 rpm setting with the "Stridshastighet" is pretty solid, but then again, I don't really regard the Wikipedia itself as a solid source.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
So as a different track, then how about something like the Lancair IV as a baseline? Assume it's built Mosquito style out of wood composite rather than carbon fibre.

Empty weight for Tigress version 1,090kg, of which ~590kg is structure. Redesign for extra g increases mass by 15-20% as per Raymer = +115kg. Redesign for a bit higher Vne = <+25kg. Substitute OE600 engine for I-F Delta = +160kg, and +0.5m more forward fuselage taken up. Add armament 4 x 12.7mm at first +120kg, remove extra seats etc. Probably heavier radio, add gunsight etc. ?
Probably need to redesign for higher gross mass for ammo, fuel etc. But then also need to increase wing area to maintain stall speed etc.
= maybe 1,500kg empty minimum? But more likely 1,600-1,700kg I think or getting similar to Ambrosini 207

Drag reduction from smaller canopy for one person

Speed 405mph for the original, but 750hp instead of 600hp for the new engine, so expect max speed higher at maybe 430mph - but this'll be offset by the mass and drag penalties above so maybe a very small net gain.

But the end point isn't that dissimilar to some historical lightweight fighters like the 207/403.
 
But more likely 1,600-1,700kg I think or getting similar to Ambrosini 207

Drag reduction from smaller canopy for one person

Speed 405mph for the original, but 750hp instead of 600hp for the new engine, so expect max speed higher at maybe 430mph - but this'll be offset by the mass and drag penalties above so maybe a very small net gain.

But the end point isn't that dissimilar to some historical lightweight fighters like the 207/403.

We can take a look at how well the aircraft of the time were doing.
Potez 230, a very small fighter, was supposed to be doing 560 (~350 mph) with 670 HP.
Heinkel was offering the combat-worthy He 100 (stil with the surface cooling, as it was the case with all and any He 100s), the data sheet claiming 665 HP with the DB 601A (1020 PS at 4-4.5 km without ram).
The D.550, a diminutive racer with a 1000 (?) HP engine was good for ~700 km/h, ie. about 430 mph.
Yak-3, another small and streamlined fighter, with the power better than these two later fighters by 10-20%, was still good for just about 400 mph.

You will hopefully forgive my huge skepticism about the 400-430 mph figures floating around for the Ambrosini fighters, with 750 HP engines.
Italian data, that I've posted in the previous page here, says 575 km/h for the SAI 207, again with 750 HP.
 
Hi Tomo,

Yak-3, another small and streamlined fighter, with the power better than these two later fighters by 10-20%, was still good for just about 400 mph.

That's probably the best example for a "small" fighter that actually saw combat, but it's worth noting that it weighed in at 2700 kg and had an M-105PF2 with around 1300 HP below 1 km and around 1250 HP just above 2 km. (Approximate values for illustration only, I don't intend to open another can of worms.)

If you limit it to just 900 HP, is will totally lose its historic edge at low altitudes and will be no better than the historic aircraft at high altitude, where it was out of its element. (Except for a slight performance gain if we postulate that the lower-powered engine is a bit lighter than the original.)

2700 kg is about the same weight as the J.22 and the Emil, by the way.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
an M-105PF2 with around 1300 HP below 1 km and around 1250 HP just above 2 km

If you limit it to just 900 HP, is will totally lose its historic edge at low altitudes and will be no better than the historic aircraft at high altitude, where it was out of its element. (Except for a slight performance gain if we postulate that the lower-powered engine is a bit lighter than the original.)

See here:

Engines available should be no more powerful than (power at rated altitude, talk about 12000-15000 ft back then):
- for 1937-39: radials of under 850 HP, other under 750 HP
- for 1940-42: radials of under 1000 HP, other under 900 HP
- for 1943-45: radials of under 1300 HP, other under 1200 HP

At 12000-15000 ft (roughly between 3.6 and 4.6 km), the M/VK-105 derivatives were good for ~1150-1000 HP.
 
Hi Scott,



That's right, but it results from compressibilty effects caused by excessive propeller blade Mach numbers, and the R-1830 at 2800 rpm with 16:9 gearing and a 3.1 m propeller gets ca. 256 m/s tip speed at no forward speed, while the DB 601 A-1 at 2400 rpm with 1:1.55 gearing and a 3.1 m propeller gets 251 m/s, so at equivalent forward speeds, the J.22 and the Me 109 E are operating at virtually the same propeller tip Mach numbers at maximum power.

And for the Emil, we know that increasing rpms resulted in higher top speeds, so I'm fairly confident it was the same for the J.22.

In the end, it comes down to finding a reliable source that identifies the exact power settings that are associated with a specific top speed for the J.22. In my opinion, the identification of the 2550 rpm setting with the "Stridshastighet" is pretty solid, but then again, I don't really regard the Wikipedia itself as a solid source.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
So what I'm hearing is that our engines need additional gearing-down to get the tip speed down appropriately. So instead of a 16:9 reduction we need like a 2:1 or so reduction. This would also help our small engines make more horsepower, by letting them spin at ~4500rpm instead of ~3300rpm or less.
 
Hi Scott,

So what I'm hearing is that our engines need additional gearing-down to get the tip speed down appropriately. So instead of a 16:9 reduction we need like a 2:1 or so reduction. This would also help our small engines make more horsepower, by letting them spin at ~4500rpm instead of ~3300rpm or less.

Well, that opens another can of worms as that requires a completely different route of engine development that wasn't taken historically.

For example, Rolls-Royce canceled the Peregrine development to concentrate on the Merlin instead.

If you sink too much engineering time into an engine that only powers the small fighter, the small fighter itself will no longer be a cheap fighter. The economies of scale in the real world seem to have worked out in a way that made mass production of large engines the better deal, and generally fighters as a category seem to have been well-suited to accept large engines.

When fighters with less powerful engines were built, they generally used otherwise obsolete engines, such as the R-1820, R-1830, V-1710, or M-105. (Still, Germany did not build fighters with the similarly obsolete Jumo 211, despite a feverish increase in fighter production.)

I'm not sure anyone ever kept developing a small engine to stay with the state of the art. I presume it was much easier to get the same power (or more) from a bigger engine, if you assumed the same limited budget of engineer man-years.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Hi Tomo,

See here:

Hm, as the low-gear full throttle height of a two-speed engine is a rated altitude too, I thought the respective HP limits would apply to these too.

Maybe you could be more specific on the power curves you'll allow for each engine type, for each period?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Hm, as the low-gear full throttle height of a two-speed engine is a rated altitude too, I thought the respective HP limits would apply to these too.
Maybe you could be more specific on the power curves you'll allow for each engine type, for each period?

You certainly have a point.
Perhaps we take a look on the equivalent of the 'military power'; it was 5 min rating on the American engines before ~1943, later it was usually 15 min rating? Or, for the German engines, 'Notleistung'.
If engine has more than 1 speed S/C, the highest gear is accounted for when the rated altitude is stated for the needs of this thread.
Note that I've already 'allowed' the water-alcohol injection past 1942. To even the things out, lets allow all forms of over-boosting, ie. WER with or without water-alc injection past 1942.

When fighters with less powerful engines were built, they generally used otherwise obsolete engines, such as the R-1820, R-1830, V-1710, or M-105. (Still, Germany did not build fighters with the similarly obsolete Jumo 211, despite a feverish increase in fighter production.)

While the V-1710 was not 1st tier of the ww2 military engines, it was still one tier up vs. the R-1820, R-1830 or the M-105.
Even removing the P-51 from the picture, it was still able to push the not-small and not-light fighters to 370-400 mph by 1943, and beyond 400 mph after 1943.
A V-1710-81 (from the P-40N and P-51A) in a Yak-3 would've split the difference between the VK-105PF2 and the future VK-107 above 2.5 km, and already by the late 1942. With the 'normal' Yak-3 doing 640-650 km/h, and the 107-powered prototype doing 720, we'd probably see the -81-powered Yak-3 doing perhaps 680+ km/h.

The last XP-40Q was clocked at 420+ mph with the 2-stage V-1710, ie. the ballpark of the Fw 190D-9, and nobody will say that the P-40 series was miracle of streamlining.
 
Hi Tomo,

Perhaps we take a look on the equivalent of the 'military power'; it was 5 min rating on the American engines before ~1943, later it was usually 15 min rating?

I believe the US ratings were the most fluent with regard to their definition, so I'm not sure using them as a point of reference is going to reduce ambiguities.

That issue already gave me headaches in this semi-recent thread:


While the V-1710 was not 1st tier of the ww2 military engines, it was still one tier up vs. the R-1820, R-1830 or the M-105.

Maybe, but it's obsolete in the sense that the US didn't order any new Allison-engined fighter types (in wartime).

The last XP-40Q was clocked at 420+ mph with the 2-stage V-1710, ie. the ballpark of the Fw 190D-9, and nobody will say that the P-40 series was miracle of streamlining.

With war emergency power and water injection on experimental engine version of which (according to "Vees for Victory") only four examples were manufactured. I don't believe any Allison version used during the war was cleared for more than 3000 rpm.

However, my point was that no airframes were designed specifically for obsolete engines. If the Allison was not obsolete and yet no airframe was specifically designed for it, that's doesn't really contradict my statement. (The P-40Q merely was a re-engined version of an obsolete or at least clearly obsoloscent type.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Well, that opens another can of worms as that requires a completely different route of engine development that wasn't taken historically.

For example, Rolls-Royce canceled the Peregrine development to concentrate on the Merlin instead.

If you sink too much engineering time into an engine that only powers the small fighter, the small fighter itself will no longer be a cheap fighter. The economies of scale in the real world seem to have worked out in a way that made mass production of large engines the better deal, and generally fighters as a category seem to have been well-suited to accept large engines.
Agreed that you can screw up, but if the engine can physically survive the increased RPM it'd be worth making a new reduction gear set and spinning it faster.

Example, the Bugatti Model 100 race plane.
 
I believe the US ratings were the most fluent with regard to their definition, so I'm not sure using them as a point of reference is going to reduce ambiguities.
I'll say that, with just a bit of good will, thae US ratings can actually help us here.

Maybe, but it's obsolete in the sense that the US didn't order any new Allison-engined fighter types (in wartime).

They ordered the P-51 and P-63, both during their wartime.

With war emergency power and water injection on experimental engine version of which (according to "Vees for Victory") only four examples were manufactured. I don't believe any Allison version used during the war was cleared for more than 3000 rpm.

3000 rpm still meant 420 mph.

However, my point was that no airframes were designed specifically for obsolete engines.
Gladiator was designed around an obsolete engine when compared around what the Hurricane was designed. The F.4/35 was even worse, engine-wise, since it was later by years vs. Gladiator.
Italian fighters - 3 of them - powered with A.74 were designed around the obsolete engine, even when compared with what the Italians themselves were making in the time of interest.
Zero was designed around a weak engine (Zuisei of 840 HP), that, when looked from the Western perspective, was badly behind the curve; I'd say it was obsolete. Even Mitsubishi themselves were making the more powerful Kinsei by that time, let alone the Kasei.
Yak-3 was an - succesful - attempt to design a fighter around an engine that was, even by Soviet stabndards of the day, obsolete.
Ambrosini fighters - similar stuff.
VG.33 was designed around the obsolete version of an obsolete engine.

(The P-40Q merely was a re-engined version of an obsolete or at least clearly obsoloscent type.)

Kinda shows that V-1710 does not fit in the same bracket as the other 3 engines listed above as obsolete.
 
Hi Tomo,

They ordered the P-51 and P-63, both during their wartime.

The P-51 wasn't strictly new, as it had been developed for the British. And if there hadn't been the Soviet demand for fighters, I doubt the USAAF would have ordered more than a few evaluation examples. The USAAF certainly didn't use it in combat.

3000 rpm still meant 420 mph.

You're right, I misread the diagram.

Kinda shows that V-1710 does not fit in the same bracket as the other 3 engines listed above as obsolete.

Well, in summary I'd say you're arguing that the V-1710 was not obsolete because it was not "less powerful" (than the Merlin), and regardless of my views on that, that argument means that the existence of the P-51 and P-63 don't invalidate my original point, "When fighters with less powerful engines were built, they generally used otherwise obsolete engines".

It was pretty much a peripheral point anyway, I didn't mean to derail the thread. The Italian fighters didn't enter production, the Zero went into production with the Sakae instead of the Zuisei, and if you consider the M-105 obsolete, you actually don't disagree with me :)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Hi Scott,

Agreed that you can screw up, but if the engine can physically survive the increased RPM it'd be worth making a new reduction gear set and spinning it faster.

Absolutely true, but I'm not sure that this was any easier to achieve than simply designer a bigger engine that didn't run much faster than the model it was to replace. And with regard to risk and opportunities, you're more likely to get more rpm out of a big engine than you're going to get more displacement out of a small engine :)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
"When fighters with less powerful engines were built, they generally used otherwise obsolete engines".

Yes, it was generally so.
OTOH, the engine that went into the P-63 was not obsolete.

It was pretty much a peripheral point anyway, I didn't mean to derail the thread. The Italian fighters didn't enter production, the Zero went into production with the Sakae instead of the Zuisei, and if you consider the M-105 obsolete, you actually don't disagree with me :)
Italians have arrived very belatedly into the conclusion that, if one has low powered and indeed obsolete engines, the 1st order of the day is to make the fighter sized for that engine (and not try to power the bigger Regianne fighter with such an engine) and as much sleek as possible.
Zero went into production with a 950 HP Sakae indeed - already for the second half of 1940, it was behind the curve (luckily for the IJN pilots, Chinese and Soviets were even worse). For 1941-42, the 950 HP Sakae was even more behind the curve.
I have no problems agreeing that M-105 was in the same boat as the Sakae; former went mostly in power increse at lower levels via over-boosting, later was improved from the 20 series onward, including the improved S/C etc.

IMO, for the en-masse used V12s, late 1939 to late 42:
Merlin and DB 601 for the no.1 spot, then the Mikulin engines, then V-1710 (but from mid-1940 with the -33), then M/VK-105, then the 'original' HS-12Ys.
(Peregrine as an outlier - on 100 oct, it was very good)
Post late 1942:
Merlin > DB 605 > V-1710 > Mikulin V12s > M/VK-105.

If you want, we can start another thread about the V12s and whatnot :)
 
Hi Tomo,

Zero went into production with a 950 HP Sakae indeed - already for the second half of 1940, it was behind the curve (luckily for the IJN pilots, Chinese and Soviets were even worse). For 1941-42, the 950 HP Sakae was even more behind the curve.

The question is, could the Japanese have produced a more powerful engine in the required quantities. Though I don't doubt they developed some very good alternative engines, re-tooling for an entirely new engine model might be the greater challenge than developing that engine model in the first place.

Merlin > DB 605 > V-1710 > Mikulin V12s > M/VK-105.

Well, which of these engines and specifically which variant would be OK for your small fighter to use for each of the periods you defined?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
The question is, could the Japanese have produced a more powerful engine in the required quantities. Though I don't doubt they developed some very good alternative engines, re-tooling for an entirely new engine model might be the greater challenge than developing that engine model in the first place.

Japanese engine production, allocation and planning was even worse than what was made in Germany. Just that for now, since the Japanese ... everything aviation-related was a painful tale.
Food for the thread of it's own.

Well, which of these engines and specifically which variant would be OK for your small fighter to use for each of the periods you defined?
Neither of them before 1943, since the power was above the 1000 HP figure.
For 1943 and on, 1-stage Merlins (but with a better carb and exhausts), DB 601A/N at 2600 rpm operation (have Alfa Romeo still making the Monsone; see whether the 601N can operate with MW 50 + B4 so the C3 fuel can be 'avoided'), Ha 40 (also with ADI), VK-105PF and PF2, V-1710-81 and similar (again with ADI).

No Mikulins what so ever, since they made a lot of power now, no 2-stage Merlins, no DB 605s.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely true, but I'm not sure that this was any easier to achieve than simply designer a bigger engine that didn't run much faster than the model it was to replace. And with regard to risk and opportunities, you're more likely to get more rpm out of a big engine than you're going to get more displacement out of a small engine :)
That's getting into how easy it'd be to increase engine bore or stroke, versus increase RPM.

And as one example, there are 5000rpm cams out there for a Cummins 12valve. Not that I'd want to put one of those 1200lb anvils into a plane, but it's a time where an engine has the strength margins left in it to spin significantly faster than originally designed (3000rpm stock)
 

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom