USAF Bomber Escorts

[James W.]

Yup! she's hooked another  --- hook line and sinker !

Dunno what you are on about mate, seems like  you've made a bit of a gaffe there - since I'm wielding the gaff.. ( in the nicest possible way, of course..)

[The Wooksta!]

You've been nice enough to answer her questions, which have zero relevance on this site.  She's annoyed everyone but the Mods haven't seen fit to ban her.  Quite frankly, I would, because she's nothing but an annoyance.

Just put the tiresome individual on ignore.

[PR19_Kit]

Yup! she's hooked another  --- hook line and sinker !

Dunno what you are on about mate,

You will do in time I expect..............

[dogsbody]

Yup! she's hooked another  --- hook line and sinker !

Dunno what you are on about mate,

You will do in time I expect..............




Chris

[dogsbody]

You've been nice enough to answer her questions, which have zero relevance on this site.  She's annoyed everyone but the Mods haven't seen fit to ban her.  Quite frankly, I would, because she's nothing but an annoyance.

Just put the tiresome individual on ignore.

Chris

[James W.]

Am I  'sensing'.. a certain level.. of.. exasperation.. with KJL, here? L.O.L..

[The Wooksta!]

She is the essence of everything that is patience testing cack.

[PR19_Kit]

Am I  'sensing'.. a certain level.. of.. exasperation.. with KJL, here? L.O.L..

Funny you should say that................

[KJ_Lesnick]

James W.

M'kay.. are you perchance - female, KJL?

Yes

If so, I am extrapolating - you are tacitly admitting that  your score of "30" is the highest you are 'comfortable' to admit to, in quote, & 'on the record'..
.. so any resemblance to an actually straightforwardly answered score is likely tenuous - that is, "30" - is 'scaled down' - to appear less overt..

I took the test several times and depending on what I input, scores ranged from 28-33.

the notorious thirst of the P & W R-2800 when run hard, is why the final version of the Thunderbolt, the P-47 N - was a 'flying gas tank', 'wet wing' & all

I think you got that one backwards... while I wouldn't be surprised if the R-2800's fuel consumption figures varied from variant to variant, but the additional fuel was added to increase range over the baseline aircraft, while the extra thrust was the result of technological advancement, water-injection for WEP, and a bigger propeller (The P-47 didn't have the best climb-rate).

when fully-loaded, required a take-off run of nearly a mile

I never knew it required that much distance to get into the air, even with full fuel, and three drop-tanks.

Dunno what you are on about mate, seems like  you've made a bit of a gaffe there - since I'm wielding the gaff.. ( in the nicest possible way, of course..)

I'm not sure why they're so annoyed -- there were lots of interesting ideas on this forum revolving around what-if ideas.  And I was thinking of enlisting graphic art assistance (Tophe could be one example of a good candidate) to help make the idea into something that worked.

It requires me to flesh out a basic idea first, and I really am baffled why a simple question has everybody about to bite my head off.

[James W.]

KJL, the P & W R-2800 was used in bombers & transports where economical cruise power settings were the norm..
..however, fighters typically must operate at higher power settings, & when run harder, the R-2800 was a gas hog..

Certainly, the naval aircraft might get to cruise low & slow, over open ocean..
.. but for the P-47 in the ETO, when on war missions - over 'Festung Europa' - this option was suicidal..

The far more efficient P-51 Mustang gazumped the P-47 for 8th AF use accordingly, & the RAF didn't use their L-L P-47s on ops there either.


As for the frequently expressed member irritation - at your posting of seemingly inane 'questions'..
.. many here - rightly consider - that your 'googling' skills could use needful exercise, instead of just trotting out the 'dumb-ask' routine..

[KJ_Lesnick]

James W.

As for the frequently expressed member irritation - at your posting of seemingly inane 'questions'.... many here - rightly consider - that your 'googling' skills could use needful exercise

I can see your point, however most of the questions I asked were after doing searches, and as a result I have a bunch of data on the long-ranged jet-proposals described below.

As for the reason they were cancelled, the general data that I'd read up to this point were that they fell short of expected in terms of maximum altitude, maneuverability, and weight.  I'm not sure if the requirement to support massed-raids was a critical issue, as the F-84's and F2H's were used early on as escorts.  Also SAC had used F-82's and F-51H's for escort for some period of time.

The data-table on long-ranged fighters I've compiled here

..........	XP-83	XF-88	XF-90	YF-93A	Super Scorpion	CF-103
Length	44'10"	54'1.5"	56'2"	44'1"	53'5"	59'9"
Wingspan	53'0"	39'8"	40'0"	38'9"	51'8"	43'0"
Wing Area	431 ft2	350 ft2	345 ft2	306 ft2	710 ft2	506 ft2
Aspect Ratio	6.5174	4.4956	4.6377	4.9071	3.7598	3.6528*
Weight: Empty/Unfueled	14,105 lbs	12,140 lbs	18,050 lbs	14,035 lbs	21,672 lbs	Unknown
Weight: Armed/Fueled	24,090 lbs	18,500 lbs	27,200 lbs	26,616 lbs	30,906 lbs	Unknown
Weight: Maximum	27,500 lbs	23,100 lbs	31,060 lbs	Unknown	39,114 lbs	Unknown
Armament	6 x 0.50 M2, or 6 x 0.60 T17E3, or 4 x 20mm HS404, or 1 x 37mm	6 x 20mm	6 x 20mm, and 2,000 lbs bombs	6 x 20mm	6 x 20mm, or 36 x 2.75" FFAR	8 x 0.50"
Thrust: Dry	2 x 3,850 lbf	2 x 3,600 lbf	2 x 3,000 lbf	1 x 6,000 lbf	2 x 10,000 lbf	2 x 7,275 lbf
Thrust: Wet	N/A	2 x 4,825 lbf	2 x 4,200 lbf	1 x 8,725 lbf	2 x 15,000 lbf	2x 8,490 lbf
Fuel Load: Internal	1150 US Gallons	834 US Gallons	965 US Gallons	1561 US Gallons	1350 US Gallons	Unknown
External Fuel	2 x 250 US gallon tanks	N/A	2 x 350 US gallon	2 x 200 US gallon	1200 US gallon	Unknown

The fuel weight is based on refined kerosene for fuel, which was around 6.84 pounds per gallon; as for the CF-103, I have had to guesstimate the wing-area based on image analysis, and known wing-span.

Another idea that I have thought of was based on the Grumman 97 concept (a progenitor of the F11F), which is admittedly a more advanced design, but useful for it's large wing-area.

[KJ_Lesnick]

I also did some checking here and the Penetration Fighter were not designed to necessarily do close escort missions but instead perform intrusion missions