# Allied AFs in 1943: realistic options for long range fighters?



## tomo pauk (Nov 1, 2012)

Many a long range fighters were discussed in our forum. Bf-110, Zero, P-38, P-51, F4U, Spitfire VIII, taking the war to the enemy, with more or less success. Sometimes the thinking of the day was more against the long range use, than the real technical limitations.
Now what would be realistic options for the Allied air forces in 1943, using the historically available planes, while allowing modest/minor modifications to modify them, for long range work? Let's say the orders are given in September 1st 1942, so the planes can be deployed in 1st half of 1943. We need a plane with combat range of roughly 450 miles, for starters. If the plane can perform well at ~25000 ft altitude, it scores extra points


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 1, 2012)

maybe P-38?


----------



## TheMustangRider (Nov 1, 2012)

With the benefit of hindsight I would suggest that all P-47 outfits heading for Europe to be deployed to the 12th AF in N. Africa and maintain all P-38 within the 8th AF while their notorious high-altitude issues are addressed with top priority.
It would enable XII FC to have a rugged, well armed fighter-bomber ideal for tactical counter-air missions while VIII FC gets to keep the long-range fighters available.

It would be nice too for the AAF to realize earlier than it did the great potential the P-51 possessed for escort duties.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 1, 2012)

The P-51B contract was let in December 1942 (cancelling about 800 P-51A and shifting the funding). The P-38 'option' was deployed. Hindsight agrees with TheMustangRider. Re-deploy the P-38 back to ETO and replace with P-47s directed to MTO.

With the teething issues of the Allisons and Intercoolers there would have been a higher loss rate for the P-38s but a much lower loss rate on B-17s and B-24s until the P-51B also arrived in-theatre.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 1, 2012)

Indeed, the P-38 seem to be the tool for the job, even if we account the main problem (cockpit heater issues) here. 

Out of the other planes, Spitfire VIII seem like a contender. With 90 imp gals, the ferry range is stated from 1180-1260 miles*, tank dropped when empty. That should give roughly 400 miles of combat range. With 170 gals, ferry range is 1530 miles*; that would give perhaps another 100 miles (more?), providing the tank was emptied prior encountering enemy A/C. Seem like the Mk.VIII was never equipped with rear fuselage tank - even the 30 gal one, like used at the Mk.V should give at least another 100 miles. 
Spitfire's strong points here being climb rate, no problems in dive (unlike the P-38), the speed was either comparable vs. German opposition, or better (providing the HF variant is used). 


*data from Williams' site


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 1, 2012)

i don't think that the 170 tank was used on fighters but hovewer is useless you need to combat and back to home only with internal fuel i've not data on Spit VIII but 450 miles maybe a bit too much for it


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 1, 2012)

The data sheet for the Mk.VIII lists the 170 gal external tank:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfirehfviii-ads.jpg

I agree that 450 miles for the Mk.VIII is too much, the 400 miles is the figure I've stated anyway. We can do some math. The range on internal 120 gals is stated to be 660 miles at most economical speed, with each 5 minutes on combat rating (WER in US terminology) 'costs' 80 miles. With 15 min on combat, that's 240 miles to be subtracted from those 660 miles = 420 miles can be reached from battle area. But now we lack almost any reserve to allow for any non-perfect return and landing. 
So we need additional fuselage tank, in order to make the Mk.VIII a real long range fighter. With that 30 gal tank from the 1942 (Mk.V was using those), and same 5.5 miles for gallon, the range on 150 gals of internal fuel is up to 825 miles. Deducing 240 miles (since we've used the combat rating) brings us to 585 miles to return home, no allowances for a non-perfect return and landing. A realistic 450-500 miles combat range?


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 1, 2012)

white a moment you mean radius or range?
450 miles of range are too few for a escort over germany, if is radius 
this is my point with the data
the fighter go to mwm speed (there are many reports that go slow in enemy area is too dangerous), with the internal fuel has around 120 miles of radius (with 15 at combat power, actually too much for a short range mission), with 90 gall tank maybe around 240 miles.
(number fo reconomic cruiser maybe 200 and 400)


----------



## Freebird (Nov 1, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Indeed, the P-38 seem to be the tool for the job, even if we account the main problem (cockpit heater issues) here.



Do you really thinkthe main problem in late '42 - mid '43 was the cockpit heater? IMO the heater was a problem that could be solved, it was compressability buffeting at high speeds that was a problem, and it wasn't until late '43/early '44 that there were fixes (and enough of them) available



drgondog said:


> The P-51B contract was let in December 1942 (cancelling about 800 P-51A and shifting the funding). The P-38 'option' was deployed. Hindsight agrees with TheMustangRider. Re-deploy the P-38 back to ETO and replace with P-47s directed to MTO.
> 
> With the teething issues of the Allisons and Intercoolers there would have been a higher loss rate for the P-38s but a much lower loss rate on B-17s and B-24s until the P-51B also arrived in-theatre.



IIRC in Sept '43 there are still very limited numbers of P-47s in ETO, wasn't that the problem at Shweinfurt? There were P-47s, but they were overwhelmed and the bombers tookheavy losses


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 1, 2012)

The compressibility issues were indeed important. Cockpit heater was recognized as an important issue, too.

Hi, vincenzo,

450 miles should cover roughly the area from UK to Hamburg-Frankfurt-Strassburg line, so the bombers heading to Ruhr can be protected all the time.

As for realistic ranges: it all depends on what is the real use of the plane. At the areas where it's possible to use the economic cruise, it can be used (MTO, PTO/CBI - the areas where the enemy is likely to be encountered at long ranges). For ETO, the allies can use their numerical superiority vs. the LW. One part of their fighters to cover ingress egress areas (= under 200 miles from UK), so the long range Spits can use the 170 gal tank to the maximum. That enables the Mk.VIII to use the economic cruise, too.

I've already admitted that Mk.VIII would be a far better LR plane with the 30 gal fuselage tank on board.



> white a moment you mean radius or range?



I use terms 'combat range' and 'ferry range' - 'combat range' should be the 'radius'?


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 1, 2012)

for me range is go and back (both trip) radius is only one trip.
450 miles both trip is short, 450 miles one trip is long.
Superiority over Germany in '43? i'm not so sure this is easy to get. 
the 170 gal tank is useless you need to drop it before to combat or also before there is a threat to combat. you need to use your internal fuel for the combat and for the back trip so of 120 Gals of internal fuel around 40 for the combat (your required 15') and 80 for the back trip.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Nov 1, 2012)

freebird said:


> IIRC in Sept '43 there are still very limited numbers of P-47s in ETO, wasn't that the problem at Shweinfurt? There were P-47s, but they were overwhelmed and the bombers tookheavy losses



By late 1943 P-47's still could not make the trip to Schweinfurt; intervened on penetration and withdrawal support aided by improving external fuel tanks with a certain degree of success IIRC.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 1, 2012)

Agreed. It took the installation of taller main fuel tank (int fuel grows to 370 USG) and use of 2 x 150 gal wing DTs to achieve 600 miles of combat range. Unfortunately for the US bomber crews, it was mid 1944 when the P-47 was featuring that quantity of fuel. 

Hi, Vincenzo,

The 170 gal DT is not useless - the P-51 was using 120 or 180 imp gals of external fuel, the P-38 240 or 480 gals, P-47D-23 and later from 240 up. I've already addressed the internal fuel situation 



> Superiority over Germany in '43? i'm not so sure this is easy to get.



Of course. There is some 350-400 miles of aerospace to deny for the LW, though.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 1, 2012)

expain to me as you use the 170 gals of tank in you Spit VIII in escort mission over germany, put that german fighter came 50 miles before of target


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 1, 2012)

You drop the tank, engage the LW fighter. 
The defender can choose to fight vs. you (thus going against the specific orders) - the bomber stream has one less fighter to defend against. Or, the defender chooses to go kill the bomber(s) - makes your job easier to shot him.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 1, 2012)

so is as i told useless need only to waste fuel....


----------



## drgondog (Nov 1, 2012)

freebird said:


> Do you really thinkthe main problem in late '42 - mid '43 was the cockpit heater? IMO the heater was a problem that could be solved, it was compressability buffeting at high speeds that was a problem, and it wasn't until late '43/early '44 that there were fixes (and enough of them) available
> 
> *Compressibility and buffeting was a problem 'only' in a dive, cockpit heater a problem but less than engines failing or blowing up. The late J model dive flap and boosted ailerons arrived in Spring 44 and the intercooler was fixed in about same timeframe. *
> 
> IIRC in Sept '43 there are still very limited numbers of P-47s in ETO, wasn't that the problem at Shweinfurt? There were P-47s, but they were overwhelmed and the bombers tookheavy losses



Freebird - the 8th could have had a 1000 P-47s in late 1943/spring 44 and still couldn't escort beyond Brunswick to Stuttgart radius.. long way from Scweinfurt, Regensburg, Leipzig and Berlin.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 1, 2012)

Bill,



> Compressibility and buffeting was a problem 'only' in a dive, cockpit heater a problem but less than engines failing or blowing up. The late J model dive flap and boosted ailerons arrived in Spring 44 and the intercooler was fixed in about same timeframe.



The improved intercoolers of the -J (late 1943) were a mixed blessing - true, they enabled a higher power, but were one of the contributors to the blown engines. The -G/-H, with intercoolers of smaller capacity, were hardly capable to over-cool the fuel/air mixture.

Hi, Vincenzo:

Not really. If you were using the 90 imp gal drop tank, you wouldn't be capable to reach those 50 miles before target. Better to waste 30, or even 60 gals of fuel and spoil the defender's job, than to present your bombers on the silver plate to the enemy.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 1, 2012)

i think 90 is enough maybe a bit more was best but 170 you was almost 75 gals.


if you use 80 gals for back 90 for go maybe enough


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 1, 2012)

RAF can be smart, and adopt the Lockheed's 150/165 US gal DTs? That's 120/132 imp gals.


----------



## Mike Williams (Nov 1, 2012)

USAAF Materiel Division modified a couple of Spitfire IXs for long range:












No reason I can see that this couldn't be done in 1943 as well.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 2, 2012)

Many thanks, Mike  

Total fuel tankage is listed at 345 USG. Were the fuel tanks of 75 USG variety? That would leave 195 USG of internal fuel, or cca 155 imp gals?


----------



## wuzak (Nov 2, 2012)

So, in 1943 the Spitfire IX could have provided a decently long range, had the modifications been performed?

Moving into 1944, the P-51B was being delivered in numbers, and that solved the long range issue.

The Spitfire XIV was also being delivered late 1943/early 1944. How much extra internal/external fuel would be required to allow the XIV to escort as far as Berlin?

According to Wiki the XIV had 109.5 UKG fuel, and, apart from the first 25, the XIX had 256 UKG. Where was that extra fuel held? I am assuming that this was in the leading edge, precluding the use of wing guns?

And, if Spitfire XIVs could get to Berlin and back, would the AAF be interested in using them, or would they prefer to just continue with their P-51Bs?


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 2, 2012)

For the late war Spitfires there was a possibility to have rear fuel tanks installed, some 65-70 imp gals there (depending whether the rear fuselage was cut down or not). Kindly provided by our fellow member, glider:


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 2, 2012)

One wonders how easy/difficult would it be to attach the 170 imp gal (212 USG) slipper tank to the P-47. Contrary to that tank, the early P-47 belly tank (200 USG) was troublesome item to use. The historically used 108 USG drop tank was enabling the combat/escort radius up to 375 miles.


----------



## Juha (Nov 2, 2012)

From an old thread - Longest Spitfire raid of WWII. (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/longest-spitfire-raid-wwii-16182.html) 

Wildcat	12-30-2008 05:57 AM
Longest Spitfire raid of WWII.

On the 27th of Nov 1944, five spitfires from No. 549 sqn RAF and 2 spitfires from No.1 Fighter Wing, RAAF in conjuction with 4 B-25's from No. 2 sqn RAAF plus an ASR Catalina, attacked and destroyed a Japanese radar station at Cape Lore on Portuguese Timor. The raid was a round trip of some 850 miles taking 4.5 hours. The Spitfires were first to attack carrying out strafing runs on the installations resulting in the radar tower being destroyed. The B-25's then destroyed the remaining buildings once the spitfires were clear.
The spitfire pilots flying Mk.VIII's, were -...

Juha	12-30-2008 11:15 AM

...Longest Spitfire escort mission in ETO I'm aware was that made by 131 Sqn on 11 Aug 44 to La Pallice, 690mls and took 3 hours 50 min. They were flying Spit VIIs. That was more or less max possible for those Mk VIIs, they didn't have much fuel for combat but Brits calculated that their mere presence would prevent LW attacks on the bombers.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Nov 2, 2012)

wuzak said:


> ... the XIX had 256 UKG. Where was that extra fuel held? I am assuming that this was in the leading edge, precluding the use of wing guns?
> ...



PR XIX had the normal fuselage tanks at the front of the cockpit plus wet leading edge, it was unarmed photo recon plane.

Juha


----------



## Glider (Nov 2, 2012)

Its worth remembering that the first Spitfires with rear tanks were PR versions in 1940. With a bit of imagination someone might have done the same with versions from the Mk V onwards.
These early tanks were 30 gallon tanks but every little helps


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Nov 2, 2012)

Mike Williams said:


> USAAF Materiel Division modified a couple of Spitfire IXs for long range:
> No reason I can see that this couldn't be done in 1943 as well.


You would, if you had to go into combat; to fit the wing tanks, three ribs were removed from the leading edge "D" box, and the Air Ministry were extremely sceptical that the added strengthening was sufficient to keep the integrity of the wing intact.
Also the mechanisms for the wing droptanks extended inside the outer cannon bay, almost certainly precluding any chance of conversion to the "E" wing.


----------



## Glider (Nov 2, 2012)

That wouldn't be an issue with the extended range Mk IX as modified in the UK. This relied more on the internal fuel than the US conversion and the external tanks were no more than often used in combat. So the option still stands.

A side observation, Malta used Mk V spits with 2 x 45 gallon DT under the Fuselage as long range fighters. The tanks were taken off Hurricanes which had flown to the Island. There must have been some scope for developing this idea had someone put their mind to it


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 2, 2012)

Mike Williams said:


> USAAF Materiel Division modified a couple of Spitfire IXs for long range:
> 
> 
> 
> No reason I can see that this couldn't be done in 1943 as well.



Wow! 

If the US had built the Spit under license they could have been using these instead of the Mustang and/or the T-Bolt.


----------



## Hop (Nov 3, 2012)

> Total fuel tankage is listed at 345 USG. Were the fuel tanks of 75 USG variety? That would leave 195 USG of internal fuel, or cca 155 imp gals?



Yes. According to Price the extra fuel tanks fitted were:

43 gallons rear fuselage
2 x 16 gallon wing leading edge
2 x 62 gallon drop tanks
Total fuel - 285 gallons

Those are imp gallons. That means the aircraft was fitted with the original 86 gallon main fuel tank, not the 96 gallon type that was fitted later (and could have been fitted from the start, if specified)



> You would, if you had to go into combat; to fit the wing tanks, three ribs were removed from the leading edge "D" box, and the Air Ministry were extremely sceptical that the added strengthening was sufficient to keep the integrity of the wing intact.



That shouldn't have been an issue if the planes were being modified on a large scale. After all, the Spitfire VII and VIII, and later Griffon versions, had 2 14 gallon tanks in the same position.



> Also the mechanisms for the wing droptanks extended inside the outer cannon bay, almost certainly precluding any chance of conversion to the "E" wing.



I don't think wing fuel tanks were even necessary. The US conversion added 124 gallons in 2 wing drop tanks, but there was nothing precluding a single tank of that size (or larger) being fitted under the fuselage. There was actually a 170 gallon "torpedo" style tank available for the Spitfire later in the war, although it was rarely used.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 3, 2012)

Thanks, hop 



> I don't think wing fuel tanks were even necessary. The US conversion added 124 gallons in 2 wing drop tanks, but there was nothing precluding a single tank of that size (or larger) being fitted under the fuselage. There was actually a 170 gallon "torpedo" style tank available for the Spitfire later in the war, although it was rarely used.



A single belly tank, namely the 150 USG (124 imp gal) tank from the P-38s should fit nicely under belly of the Spitfire - that should beeven an easier thing to do, rather than to make them carry the tanks under wing. Already the Spitfire V was capable to carry the 170 IG slipper tank anyway.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 3, 2012)

In most of the operations using the 170 gallon slipper tank the Spitfires used an enlarged oil tank ( as did many of the PR Spitfires).






On the Malta flights the planes either carried reduced armament or no armament and were armed upon arrival. Oil tanks may have been changed back too. 

More could have been done to improve the Spitfires range but it was never going to be a P-51. Photo recon planes often depended on going high and fast in straight lines, not twisting and turning at high "G" loads to escape. They could fly (and did fly) with CGs limits that would prove fatal to aircraft trying to perform high "G" maneuvers. 

Combat radius is determined by the amount of fuel on board _AFTER_ combat, not the _before_ combat. 

Standard procedure for both P-51s and Spitfires with rear fuselage tanks was to use a considerable portion of it _BEFORE_ using the external drop tank fuel. Even early P-40s considered the rear fuselage tank as an "overload" tank to be used before combat was joined. 

Combat radius of a Spitfire would include the fuselage tanks (the later larger ones), the wing leading edge tanks used in the MK VIII and others and perhaps a certain amount in
a rear fuselage tank but certainly _NOT_ anywhere near 50-60 gallons. Perhaps 15-25? perhaps not?
Now subtract 5 minutes at combat power, 15-20 minutes at max continuous power, 20-30 minutes at minimum fuel consumption as a reserve once you get back to England and you have the fuel available for cruising on the return flight after combat. Pick a reasonable cruising speed for use over enemy territory were you could be bounced again, no 170-210mph economical cruise speeds allowed 

The amount of fuel left X the fuel consumption at the desired cruise speed used for eggressing the combat zone (continental Europe?) defines the combat radius, it is immaterial how much fuel you lug on the way in.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 3, 2012)

IIRC the P-51 pilots were to take off on fuselage tank (85 USG), expand a half of it, then switch to external fuel? That would leave some 40-45 USG (or 32-35 imp gals) prior using the drop tanks.
I agree that it would be very hard* to make a P-51 from a Spit (range-wise), but a Spit VIII with 30 imp gals in the rear fus. tank would be very close. And feasible/available in early 1943, the best quality of the modification had it been done.

*but not impossible, see Yak-9D/DD


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 4, 2012)

Was there a way to 'sneak in' the F4U-1 in the ETO as a long range fighter? Maybe under RAF's guise? 
At 21500 ft and with 360 gals of internal fuel, the endurance was 5 hrs 20 mins at 75% of the high speed - 1600 miles? (F4U Performance Trials). And then strap on a drop tank...


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 4, 2012)

Would these be for B-14/24 escort duty?


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 4, 2012)

A general-purpose fighter. So even an escort fighter.


----------



## Glider (Nov 4, 2012)

A lot of thought has gone into adding fuel to the Spitfire, but the Typhoon had a better range than the standard Spitfire, could easily carry the weight of drop tanks on the wings. Granted it wasn't great at altitude but a) it wasn't as bad as some people assume and b) RAF bombers didn't fly that high anyway.

Do people think that something could have been done with the Tiffy?


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 4, 2012)

The performance was there to compete vs. LW opposition. Was Typhoon ever cleared to carry more than 2 x 500 lbs bombs (alternativelly, 2 x 90 imp gals) under wings? As for internal fuel, the Tempest was modified to carry additional 30 gals over the standard 162 imp gals - wonder if someone has more data about the mod?
Typhoon data sheet shows 610 miles on internal fuel (most economical cruise, or 490 miles on max weak mixture) , once the 32 IG are allowed for TO and climb to 15 kft. Every 5 min on combat power subtracts 75 or 60 miles. So 3 x 5 min on combat power makes the 'return range' of 385 or 310 miles. We need to find the way to install another, say, 40 IG into the plane. In wing leading edge, perhaps - all the way from fuselage to cannons.


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 4, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> IIRC the P-51 pilots were to take off on fuselage tank (85 USG), expand a half of it, then switch to external fuel? That would leave some 40-45 USG (or 32-35 imp gals) prior using the drop tanks.
> I agree that it would be very hard* to make a P-51 from a Spit (range-wise), but a Spit VIII with 30 imp gals in the rear fus. tank would be very close. And feasible/available in early 1943, the best quality of the modification had it been done.
> 
> *but not impossible, see Yak-9D/DD



taxi and take off on internal wing tanks....shortly after switch to fuse tank and take it down to 35 - 30 gallons ( approx 50 min flight time ) then switch to drop tanks alternating every 30 minutes


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 4, 2012)

Thanks, bobbysocks.



tomo pauk said:


> ...
> Typhoon ... We need to find the way to install another, say, 40 IG into the plane. In wing leading edge, perhaps - all the way from fuselage to cannons.



Doh - they are already there, 2 x 40 gals 
Well than - maybe an L-shaped tank, a-la the one Bf-109 had, some 40-50 gals?


----------



## wuzak (Nov 4, 2012)

Re the F4U, were there enough for the task in 1943, given that they were also being supplied to the USN, USMC, RN and RNZAF?


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 4, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Every 5 min on combat power subtracts 75 or 60 miles. So 3 x 5 min on combat power makes the 'return range' of 385 or 310 miles.



that i think is going to be the determining "straw for the camel"...you can load up a lot of planes with external tanks and get them long distances you want....but once they drop their tanks they have to be able to engage in combat and still make it all the way home on their inboard fuel...so you are back to your original configurations and possible in frame mods.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 4, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Was there a way to 'sneak in' the F4U-1 in the ETO as a long range fighter? Maybe under RAF's guise?
> At 21500 ft and with 360 gals of internal fuel, the endurance was 5 hrs 20 mins at 75% of the high speed - 1600 miles?
> 
> The plane carried 237 gallons in a protected fuselage tank. Each wing had a 57 gallon tank, unprotected, but with a CO2 system to keep fuel vapors from reaching a flammable range. Very early planes carried NO drop tanks. Later planes deleted the wing tanks and adopted two drop tanks instead of one.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 5, 2012)

bobbysocks said:


> that i think is going to be the determining "straw for the camel"...you can load up a lot of planes with external tanks and get them long distances you want....but once they drop their tanks they have to be able to engage in combat and still make it all the way home on their inboard fuel...so you are back to your original configurations and possible in frame mods.



Fair points. However, in the same post I've said the following:



> We need to find the way to install another, say, 40 IG into the plane.



The wing leading edges are already taken, so this might have worked:



> Well than - maybe an L-shaped tank, a-la the one Bf-109 had, some 40-50 gals?



Hi, wuzak:



> Re the F4U, were there enough for the task in 1943, given that they were also being supplied to the USN, USMC, RN and RNZAF?



The major shortcoming of the type


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 5, 2012)

When one sees the wing LE tanks of the Mk.VIII and XIV, it seems to be a shame that the tanks were not any greater (instead of 25 IG, maybe 45 IG total; the '?' marked area). Also, substituting the LMGs with HMG clears the good part of the leading edge and inter-spar part, new areas for additional fuel tanks (almost the 'E' wing). Not quite as big a fuel quantity as at the PR versions, but still useful.


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 5, 2012)

can the existing wing design handle the added stress of those tanks being there during combat maneuvers or is it going to have to be "beefed" up?


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 5, 2012)

There is no such thing as a free lunch. The beefing up must take into account how much the weight is being added. If extra 30 imp gals per wing is added, that makes 2 x 30 x 7,2 = 432 lbs of extra fuel. Total weight gain, with fuel tanks and reinforcements maybe 650 lbs?


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 5, 2012)

the more i think about it the more i cant help but ask if a mod like that was feasible why they didnt do it...even on a limited basis? gaining extra range would have been adventageous to some degree. my guess is the "Beefing " up that would be necessary to accomidate the mods and effect they would have on the aircraft's CG would have changed the flight characteristics to something less than desireable. so you are back at square 1... instead of using an existing ac and trying to make it fit the role you will have to find a new airframe.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 5, 2012)

The leading edge tanks shouldn't be too far from teh CoG?


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 6, 2012)

As wuzak said.
The wing tanks were installed in many an aircraft, either from get go or as a modification. P-39, P-47N, F4U, P-51, Spitfire, Hurricane, TYphoon, LaGG-3, La-5 etc. Being close to the CoG (when looking from the side) made them more desirable than the rear fuselage tanks; only P-51 and Spitfire having those, and used them with many restrictions.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 6, 2012)

The P-47 have had all the potential to become an long range fighter, even without going after the P-47N. 
It was not until mid 1944 that planes were flying with 370 gals of internal fuel (305 prior that date). In the AHT book the combat radius jumps from 125 miles (with 305 USG) up to 225 (with 370 gals). The another thing was the unfortunate drop tank installation. The ferry tanks (200/205 gals, shaped as 'slipper' tanks from Spitfires) were ill suited to be pressurized - a major issue for a fighter that is at it's best at 25000-35000 ft. So we have accounts (from the same book) of filling the ferry tank half full and then dropping it, in order to extend the combat range. Another quick fix was to adopt the 75 or 108/110 USG fuel tank to be carried under belly.
The fat belly was the obstacle to adoption of Lockheed's 150/165 gal tank (from P-38). However, in the ATH there is some interesting info about local modifications, like the custom made 200 gal belly tank, or an attempt to modify the P-38's tanks for the P-47. Even the rear fuselage tank of unknown volume was tried, but it was found being 'not really satisfactory'. The agile Gen. Kenney was a force behind that, the depots at Port Moresby and Brisbane adopting 75 and 110 gal tanks for the P-47.
In ETO, apart from the 'abuse' of the ferry tanks, the 75 and 108/110 gals tanks were put to a good use.

Now, how was the P-47 suited to carry wing tanks? Again, from the same book:
-Aug 1943: Ten P-47D-5 aircraft with two 165 gallon P-38 type external fuel tanks adapted are air-ferried to the UK.

It's not stated whether these P-47 had any ammo and/or armament. Since that was an adaptation for ferry purposes, the tanks were likely unperssurised. It was not until the advent of the P-47D-15 that wings were fully suited/reinforced to carry that amount of fuel (2000 lbs) and full armament. Once reinforced, there were instances that planes were going on combat missions with 300 gal tanks under wings.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Nov 6, 2012)

The Spitfire's wing derived its strength from the spar/leading edge "D" box combination, which had 21 wingribs inside (it was never a hollow shell); you are planning to remove 11 of those ribs, each of which has four angled braces built-in, and hope that the wing could retain its strength. 
It couldn't happen; the D box had already required internal strengthening in November 1939, since there had been a few incidences of Spitfires shedding wings around that time. Supermarine also undertook to increase the strength, to enable the airframe to cope with 12G, in 1941, which also couldn't happen if the wing's structure was weakened to any extent. The wing tanks (that were inserted in the VII/VIII/XIV) were fitted in the area of the wheel wells (already considerably strengthened,) also meaning that the fuel did not have to pass the gun barrels, which your modification certainly would entail.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 6, 2012)

The fuel tubes can pass either above gun barrels or behind the guns (red circles in the pic attached).
In the area were I've depicted additional LE tanks Supermarine can seal the area and make integral tanks. Or come out with ribs of a different design, leaving the space for tanks.
With both of those proposals failed during testing, they still can try adding the tank to the area once occupied by external two pairs of LMGs their ammo, that's also depicted at post #47 here.

BTW, what was the position of wing fuel tanks of the PR.XIX?


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 6, 2012)

You have several issues here. One is that what was done to a small number of special Spitfires (225 built over 2 years?) may not be applicable to a mass produced version. Changes in the tooling for the mass produced version may interrupt production for several weeks. Another is that just because there is empty space in a drawing or photograph does not mean you can fill it with something. Running fuel lines through the guns bays (which are heated) may or may not interfere with servicing the guns which includes the removal and installation of the guns for servicing.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 6, 2012)

The red circles are for illustration purposes - I could have paint them right by the rear spar so the guns have all the space they need. The lines flowing above barrels (within the 'D' box) do not interfere with the guns anyway. 
As for what it would be good to produce from late 1942/early 1943 on - hopefully not the Mk.Vs?

I'd appreciate any info re. PR.XIX


----------



## cimmex (Nov 6, 2012)

I’m sure the aircraft designers at this time were not dumb and considered all possibilities to fulfil the requirements of the military planers and there must be a reason when their decision differs to some ideas which are done by some crazy guys seventy years later.
Cimmex


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 6, 2012)

Who said the designers were dumb? Were the requirements of military planers always sound? Were the military planers really addressing every possibility right? Was there an instance or two where the newly appointed person at high command immediately made a decision or two that were far better than the previous decisions?
And now whose decisions differ to the ideas of the crazy guys seventy years later? 

Your comment sounds like anything done in military history is above any comment, or, god forbid, critique.


Now into a more constructive tone - here is what I've googled up re. the wings of the PR Spitfires:



> D type
> 
> This designation applied to the unarmed long-range wing for reconnaissance versions. Space for substantial amount of additional fuel was provided in the space ahead of the wing spar, which together with the reinforced skin of the wing’s leading edge formed a rigid torsion box. Its otherwise empty interior was converted into an integral fuel tank capable of carrying 66 imp gallons. On hot summer days, so large amount of fuel inside the wing would produce a substantial volume of vapour, so relief valves were fitted to the tanks in the outboard rib position.



article drawing:
http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/concise-guide-to-spitfire-wing-types.html/2


----------



## cimmex (Nov 6, 2012)

Where are the guns?

When the military planers requires more range for a plane, this is a technical challenge to the engineers and when the engineers tell them that this is not possible for that reason I believe the engineer of this time.
Cimmex


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 6, 2012)

The guns are depicted in the post #47. Cannon remains in the post, accompanied with a HMG. In the same post:



> Not quite as big a fuel quantity as at the PR versions, but still useful.



So, not 2 x 66 imp gals, but certainly more than 2 x 12,5 i,mp gals as in Spit VII/VIII/XIV wings.



> When the military planers requires more range for a plane, this is a technical challenge to the engineers and when the engineers tell them that this is not possible for that reason I believe the engineer of this time.



I'm sure that any modification as a challenge for the engineer, more so since the mistake(s) engineer(s) made can cost lives. We can look at the planes whose engineers said 'yes, can do' to a request for more internal fuel, like P-51, P-47, P-38, Spitfire, Tempest, Yak-9D/DD etc.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 6, 2012)

Please note the words "integral fuel tank" which means the fuel tank formed a structural component of the wing and could not be removed ( or removed easily) for repair or replacement. It would be interesting to know if the "integral" tanks were self sealing or not.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 6, 2012)

As said before, any good data is welcomed


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Please note the words "integral fuel tank" which means the fuel tank formed a structural component of the wing and could not be removed ( or removed easily) for repair or replacement. *It would be interesting to know if the "integral" tanks were self sealing or not*.



Depends on the aircraft - For example, I believe the F4U had a center "integral" tank that was not self sealing.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Nov 6, 2012)

Like it, or lump it (and tempers are appearing to fray,) you cannot remove 11 wing ribs from the leading edge box without seriously weakening the structure; the P.R. aircraft (even though drawings depict the box as an empty space) retained the ribs, in fact they were converted, in places, to solid "baffles," with non-return valves fitted to them, so that, as the fuel was used, it ran towards the wings' centre section, and stayed there.
There was no way that the Air Ministry would remove the outer pair of .303" guns, simply because they preferred their higher rate of fire (and double the number) to the slower-firing .5". Now, you can argue up, down, and sideways, about the reasoning, but it won't alter the fact that it was their decision, and even an officer as senior as Leigh-Mallory couldn't shift them. It was early 1944 before the .5" was seriously considered, and that was due to the arrival of the gyro gunsight, which meant that pilots actually began to hit what they were aiming at. Even then, the wings still contained the tubes, for the outer guns, and it would have needed some major work to remove them, and beef up the structure (and you, again, come back to the need to remove the structural ribs, which was never going to happen.)


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 6, 2012)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Like it, or lump it (and tempers are appearing to fray,)



I'm rather mild tempered, considering I'm from Dalmatia 



> you cannot remove 11 wing ribs from the leading edge box without seriously weakening the structure; the P.R. aircraft (even though drawings depict the box as an empty space) retained the ribs, in fact they were converted, in places, to solid "baffles," with non-return valves fitted to them, so that, as the fuel was used, it ran towards the wings' centre section, and stayed there.



Thanks for the fine details about the wing LE tanks of the PR birds. 
So we will retain the ribs and go with integral leading edge tank.



> There was no way that the Air Ministry would remove the outer pair of .303" guns, simply because they preferred their higher rate of fire (and double the number) to the slower-firing .5". Now, you can argue up, down, and sideways, about the reasoning, but it won't alter the fact that it was their decision, and even an officer as senior as Leigh-Mallory couldn't shift them. It was early 1944 before the .5" was seriously considered, and that was due to the arrival of the gyro gunsight, which meant that pilots actually began to hit what they were aiming at. Even then, the wings still contained the tubes, for the outer guns, and it would have needed some major work to remove them, and beef up the structure (and you, again, come back to the need to remove the structural ribs, which was never going to happen.)



So the RAF pilots can actually hit something with 20mm, yet they would be unable to hit anything with .50? The .50 is here a mere back up augmentation for the 20mm anyway. The .50 can actually do some damage after it pierces the aircraft skinning, like puncture the fuel tank, unlike the LMG bullet.
As to a 'major work to remove tubes for LMG barrels', now that does not seem like something undoable for the people flying jet aircraft in early 1940s? Why not simply leave the barrels inside, or what ever the fix was for the PR birds; same applied again for the structural ribs? What part of the structure need to be beefed up because we're removing the tubes anyway?


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Nov 6, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm rather mild tempered, considering I'm from Dalmatia.


Some of the gentlest, most even-tempered dogs I've ever known come from there.


> So the RAF pilots can actually hit something with 20mm, yet they would be unable to hit anything with .50? The .50 is here a mere back up augmentation for the 20mm anyway. The .50 can actually do some damage after it pierces the aircraft skinning, like puncture the fuel tank, unlike the LMG bullet.


This is what I feared; I can only pass on what the Air Ministry's reasoning was, and why. Tests found that the .5" was no better, at penetration, than the .303", in a deflection shot of, on average, 2 seconds' duration, so 2 seconds' worth of 4 x .303" was more likely to kill enemy aircrew than 2 seconds of 2 x .5". Time, and time again, I've passed on this information, which usually draws a response of "I don't believe it." Sorry, but I can't change 75-year-old history, simply because it isn't liked. 
Just because the war developed into a fighter-v-fighter conflict, this was not something on which the U.K. "management" could rely, until very late in the war; they always had to consider the possiblity of the Battle of Britain being restarted, especially if Russia fell, which seemed likely at first. With that in mind, range was very much a secondary consideration to destroying the expected new crop of larger, more heavily-armoured German bombers, which was why firepower took precedence over range. The Spitfire VIII was designed with 4 x 20mm + 4 x .303" in mind, and the 21 was always a 4 x 20mm only. 


> As to a 'major work to remove tubes for LMG barrels', now that does not seem like something undoable for the people flying jet aircraft in early 1940s? Why not simply leave the barrels inside, or what ever the fix was for the PR birds; same applied again for the structural ribs? What part of the structure need to be beefed up because we're removing the tubes anyway?


You can't remove the gun tubes if you're planning to use them, and that was the plan until 1944; leave them in, and leave in the ribs (which you have to do, to keep the wing's strength,) and there's nowhere for the fuel tanks to go. Each rib is a curved strip, top and bottom, with two "V" constructions (forming a "W") between them, imparting stiffening. There was no "fix" for the P.R. aircraft; they used a completely new type of "D" box, with different ribs and completely fuel-sealed (take out gun tubes, and you're left with big holes in the spars and leading edges, which need plating over, and yet more fuel-sealing.)


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 6, 2012)

Here is what Hawker did - Typhoon's front part of the wing, with ribs, while having the fuel tank inside. 40 gals actually, not 35.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 6, 2012)

Uh, Tomo, if the integral tanks are _NOT_ self sealing ( and trying to apply self sealing materials to a tank as described by Edger Brooks is most difficult. Gotten around in some aircraft by fitting self sealing fuel _bladders/cells_ into such spaces at the cost of weight and volume/capacity) then even LMG bullets can pierce the tank and cause a loss of fuel and range/radius even if nothing worse. 

US Navy practice was to count _ONLY_ the capacity of protected tanks when figuring _COMBAT_ radius. Which is one reason the unprotected wing tanks on the Corsair were replaced by drop tanks. A number of aircraft used integral tanks, many of them were not self sealing. The PBY Catalina used integral tanks that _could_ be fitted with protected fuel cells _inside_ the tanks for a large drop in capacity. The Buffalo started with integral tanks, one of which was seal off and 3 other protected tanks fitted to restore fuel capacity. 
Perhaps there were protected integral tanks in WW II, I don't know but I do know that the more little (or big) tanks you stick in one airplane and the more complicated the fuel system ( a P-51 pilot only had to manage 5 tanks at the most, late Corsairs 3 tanks?) ) the more likely the pilot is to make a mistake and crash due to selecting the wrong tank or failing to restart the engine after selecting a wrong tank. Lots of planes crash with stopped engines even though one or more fuel tanks still contain fuel. 

If you can get 96 imp gallons in the fuselage tanks, 27 imp gallons in the wing tanks and even 15imp gallons in a rear fuselage tank to be useable in combat you have 173 US gallons which is darn near what a Mustang had without the rear tank. What you also have is a higher drag airframe than the Mustang which means you won't go as far on the same fuel. 
I don't know if the 15imp gallons in the rear is a feasible amount to use in combat but it is about 20% of what was fitted in some planes but _NOT_ used in combat ?? It may give 10-20% less radius than a wing tank only Mustang without all the trouble of redoing the wings you want to do. 

At some point you cut your losses and just design a new plane rather than hammer square pegs into round holes.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Nov 6, 2012)

The Spitfire was designed to a 1934 Air Ministry specification F.37/34, which specified the fuel load should be 94 gallons, which is what Mitchell did; the Typhoon was designed to a 1937 specification F.18/37, which called for a load of 200 gallons. If Mitchell had planned for a load of 200 gallons, the Spitfire would never have been built; ignore the Air Ministry's requirements at your peril.


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 6, 2012)

as long as that section of the leading edge isnt used for routing hydraulic lines , static/pitot lines, electrical or other components, gun cameras, etc...you are fine as you are with the tempest but other ac may make use of this area.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 6, 2012)

Edgar Brooks said:


> ...
> This is what I feared; I can only pass on what the Air Ministry's reasoning was, and why. Tests found that the .5" was no better, at penetration, than the .303", in a deflection shot of, on average, 2 seconds' duration, so 2 seconds' worth of 4 x .303" was more likely to kill enemy aircrew than 2 seconds of 2 x .5". Time, and time again, I've passed on this information, which usually draws a response of "I don't believe it." Sorry, but I can't change 75-year-old history, simply because it isn't liked.



It is not something I like or dislike. The .50 bullets from pre-war era were of far lower capabilities than mid-war APIs (US engineers copying Soviet bullets?). 



> Just because the war developed into a fighter-v-fighter conflict, this was not something on which the U.K. "management" could rely, until very late in the war; they always had to consider the possiblity of the Battle of Britain being restarted, especially if Russia fell, which seemed likely at first. With that in mind, range was very much a secondary consideration to destroying the expected new crop of larger, more heavily-armoured German bombers, which was why firepower took precedence over range. The Spitfire VIII was designed with 4 x 20mm + 4 x .303" in mind, and the 21 was always a 4 x 20mm only.



You can note that I don't propose the removal/change of the 20 mm. 
RAF went for extended range for their Spitfires (fighter versions) with Mk.VII on, and was using drop tanks early in the war, so it's clear they wanted/needed more range. The Spitfire with 150 IG instead of 120 IG should not be a huge task, neither for the design production, nor for the Merlin/Griffon. 
As for what UK management could rely: seem like they considered even in 1943/44 that Russia is going to fail, after seeing the fuel tankages of the Tempest and late Spitfires. 



> You can't remove the gun tubes if you're planning to use them, and that was the plan until 1944; leave them in, and leave in the ribs (which you have to do, to keep the wing's strength,) and there's nowhere for the fuel tanks to go. Each rib is a curved strip, top and bottom, with two "V" constructions (forming a "W") between them, imparting stiffening. There was no "fix" for the P.R. aircraft; they used a completely new type of "D" box, with different ribs and completely fuel-sealed (take out gun tubes, and you're left with big holes in the spars and leading edges, which need plating over, and yet more fuel-sealing.)



Several variants to consider, then. 1st can use modified PR wing, arming it, with fuel tank consisting of two halfs - one outboard, other inboard of the armament, connected with a tube non - return valve. We lose some of the volume in process, so it's maybe 2 x 50 gals, not 2 x 66. So the plane has 195 IG of fuel 
2nd variant: in the place once occupied with outboard LMGs and their ammo (area between the spars), install the fuel tanks. Say, 2 x 20 IG? The plane has 160 IG with VII/VIII/XIV wing - not bad either


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 6, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Uh, Tomo, if the integral tanks are _NOT_ self sealing ( and trying to apply self sealing materials to a tank as described by Edger Brooks is most difficult. Gotten around in some aircraft by fitting self sealing fuel _bladders/cells_ into such spaces at the cost of weight and volume/capacity) then even LMG bullets can pierce the tank and cause a loss of fuel and range/radius even if nothing worse.



There is no doubt that LE self-sealing tanks in a thin wing are not ideal thing. It does cost weight complexity. It also allows, once installed, to prosecute the war at enemy's air space. 



> US Navy practice was to count _ONLY_ the capacity of protected tanks when figuring _COMBAT_ radius. Which is one reason the unprotected wing tanks on the Corsair were replaced by drop tanks. A number of aircraft used integral tanks, many of them were not self sealing. The PBY Catalina used integral tanks that _could_ be fitted with protected fuel cells _inside_ the tanks for a large drop in capacity. The Buffalo started with integral tanks, one of which was seal off and 3 other protected tanks fitted to restore fuel capacity.



Fair points. Typhoon and P-47N featuring self-sealing tanks in leading edge?



> Perhaps there were protected integral tanks in WW II, I don't know but I do know that the more little (or big) tanks you stick in one airplane and the more complicated the fuel system ( a P-51 pilot only had to manage 5 tanks at the most, late Corsairs 3 tanks?) ) the more likely the pilot is to make a mistake and crash due to selecting the wrong tank or failing to restart the engine after selecting a wrong tank. Lots of planes crash with stopped engines even though one or more fuel tanks still contain fuel.



Seafire 46 went with 7 (seven) internal fuel tanks, plus 3 drop tanks. Quite a number, I suppose. So I'd like to see 2 fuselage tanks, and 2 pairs of inter-connected wing tanks, and a fuselage drop tank.



> If you can get 96 imp gallons in the fuselage tanks, 27 imp gallons in the wing tanks and even 15imp gallons in a rear fuselage tank to be useable in combat you have 173 US gallons which is darn near what a Mustang had without the rear tank. What you also have is a higher drag airframe than the Mustang which means you won't go as far on the same fuel.
> I don't know if the 15imp gallons in the rear is a feasible amount to use in combat but it is about 20% of what was fitted in some planes but _NOT_ used in combat ?? It may give 10-20% less radius than a wing tank only Mustang without all the trouble of redoing the wings you want to do.



I've proposed a Mk.VIII with rear fuselage tank a page or two before 



> At some point you cut your losses and just design a new plane rather than hammer square pegs into round holes.



Of course the new designs need to be issued. The point in this thread is to come out with a feasible modification for the 1st half of 1943, starting date being September 1942.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Nov 6, 2012)

bobbysocks said:


> as long as that section of the leading edge isnt used for routing hydraulic lines , static/pitot lines, electrical or other components, gun cameras, etc...you are fine as you are with the tempest but other ac may make use of this area.


Up to, and including, the Mk.VI, the leading edge was used to carry hot air pipes out to the outer pair of .303" (and, however much you twist and turn, the A.M. are not going to remove those guns until they think it's worthwhile.) That did not happen until 1944.


> Several variants to consider, then. 1st can use modified PR wing, arming it, with fuel tank consisting of two halfs - one outboard, other inboard of the armament, connected with a tube non - return valve. We lose some of the volume in process, so it's maybe 2 x 50 gals, not 2 x 66. So the plane has 195 IG of fuel
> 2nd variant: in the place once occupied with outboard LMGs and their ammo (area between the spars), install the fuel tanks. Say, 2 x 20 IG? The plane has 160 IG with VII/VIII/XIV wing - not bad either


50 gallons = 350+ lbs; when the Spitfire wing was strenghened enough to carry a 250lb bomb under each wing, the tips still had to be clipped, in order to stand the strain, the pilots were banned from making any sort of aerobatic manouevre, and 11 Group's C.O. flatly refused to have clipped-wing Spitfires acting as escort, since their rate of climb and operational height were so adversely affected. I somehow doubt that pilots, told that they couldn't get involved in any form of combat, before their wing tanks were empty, would not have been overly impressed.
The Seafire 40-series, and the Spitfire 20-series, had entirely new, strengthened wings, with different wingspars, and ailerons which did not tend to make the wing twist, when operated. This meant that they could carry more fuel. Due to aerodynamic troubles, the 21 was passed for service only in 1945, and the Seafires did not see service, during the war, at all.


> As for what UK management could rely: seem like they considered even in 1943/44 that Russia is going to fail, after seeing the fuel tankages of the Tempest and late Spitfires.


It's just as well they did, otherwise the V1s would have done far more damage than they did (and that was bad enough.)


----------



## CobberKane (Nov 7, 2012)

I believe that a number of Soviet aircraft reduced the chance of fire by routing the inert engine exhaust gasses through the space left as the petrol was consumed. Seems like a pretty simple expedient - did any other Allied or Axis aircraft use the same idea?


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 7, 2012)

bobbysocks said:


> as long as that section of the leading edge isnt used for routing hydraulic lines , static/pitot lines, electrical or other components, gun cameras, etc...you are fine as you are with the tempest but other ac may make use of this area.


 


Edgar Brooks said:


> Up to, and including, the Mk.VI, the leading edge was used to carry hot air pipes out to the outer pair of .303" (and, however much you twist and turn, the A.M. are not going to remove those guns until they think it's worthwhile.) That did not happen until 1944.



The guns in later versions were provided with heating via tubes going aft the guns. 



> 50 gallons = 350+ lbs; when the Spitfire wing was strenghened enough to carry a 250lb bomb under each wing, the tips still had to be clipped, in order to stand the strain, the pilots were banned from making any sort of aerobatic manouevre, and 11 Group's C.O. flatly refused to have clipped-wing Spitfires acting as escort, since their rate of climb and operational height were so adversely affected. I somehow doubt that pilots, told that they couldn't get involved in any form of combat, before their wing tanks were empty, would not have been overly impressed.
> The Seafire 40-series, and the Spitfire 20-series, had entirely new, strengthened wings, with different wingspars, and ailerons which did not tend to make the wing twist, when operated. This meant that they could carry more fuel. Due to aerodynamic troubles, the 21 was passed for service only in 1945, and the Seafires did not see service, during the war, at all.



Thanks for the details.
You can note the emoticon ( 8) ) after those 195 gals are mentioned. Those 2 x 50 gals of wing fuel serve just for illustrative purposes, since even adding another 30 gals (2 x 15) for the 120 gal Spitfires can make them almost as fine long range fighters as the Merlin Mustangs (without fuselage tanks) were.



> It's just as well they did, otherwise the V1s would have done far more damage than they did (and that was bad enough.)



Having more internal fuel does not imply that a plane, once able to catch a V1, is unable to do so anymore. It should be able to make two kills, before running out of fuel, instead of one. Maybe the accomplishments of Allied bombers achieved in 1943 (made possible now, since we have plenty of long range fighters in that year, like 150 imp gal Spitfires) can kill the V1/V2 in their nests?


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 7, 2012)

In the Ethell's book about the P-51, there is an tidbit about A-36 acting as an escort for the B-24s and B-17s attacking Naples. Unsurprisingly, the engine's supercharger (tailored for low level bomber's duties) making the job a difficult one. The AHT mentions the A-36 (along P-38 and Spitfire) as the cover for the invasion of Italy, Aug 1943. So there is another plane that can free more P-38s from the MTO to the ETO - the P-51/51A. The escort altitudes were not that high as in ETO, and many times the charges were medium bombers, themselves not flying at high altitudes. The AAA threat was also lower, with many targets being near the coastline themselves.
The P-51 was not able to carry drop tanks, the 'yardstick' range being some 1000 miles (combat range of some 300-350 miles?), and the engine is well suited for operations from SL up to 15000 ft. The P-51A can carry drop tanks (2 x 75 gals were the usual ones), and the engine provides good performance from SL up to 20000 ft. With 2 x 75 gals external, the yardstick range is 1500 miles - 500 miles of combat range? 
Historically, the 1st recipients of the P-51A were RAF (named Mustang II; 50 planes in June 1943) and the 311th FB group in, well, India.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 7, 2012)

V-1710-81 FTH is 14,600 maybe too much 20,000


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 7, 2012)

At 20000 ft, with wing racks (those cost 12 mph, but are a necessity for the long range) P-51A makes ~390 mph.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Nov 7, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> The guns in later versions were provided with heating via tubes going aft the guns.


Only the cannon and .5" in the E wing; earlier C wings, on the VII, VIII, IX XIV, had the heating tubes for the outer guns, having passed through the rear of the cannon bays, routed the same way as before, with the tubes coming from in front.


> Having more internal fuel does not imply that a plane, once able to catch a V1, is unable to do so anymoreIt should be able to make two kills, before running out of fuel, instead of one. .


Always assuming that the Germans oblige by sending the V1s in batches, which they often didn't.


> Maybe the accomplishments of Allied bombers achieved in 1943 (made possible now, since we have plenty of long range fighters in that year, like 150 imp gal Spitfires) can kill the V1/V2 in their nests?


Even those hidden in caves? Judging by the results at Watten, Wizernes, Siracourt, Marquise/Mimoyecques, and Rilly-la-Montagne, the bombers did a fairly good job, anyway, and not many of the ski-sites got away without a pounding (from the USAAF the RAF.)
And the Germans had a charming habit of firing the V2s from among the homes of Dutch civilians, so heavy bombers were banned (the only time mediums were used, it turned into a disaster,) and the hunting was done by the Spitfire XVIs with 1 x 500lb + 2 x 250lb bombs (usually,) but that was not possible until 1945.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 7, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> At 20000 ft, with wing racks (those cost 12 mph, but are a necessity for the long range) P-51A makes ~390 mph.



The 51 has low drag so is fast but at 20k has around 1100 HP... so around 10% less power of a Gustav and around 20% more weight... 

sure is best had a 51A that nothing (or many others fighter)


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 7, 2012)

The heating tubes going in the area between the spars, starting from the radiator/intercooler (shaded tubes at at attached picture). I presume the installation of the wing tank dictated that?









> Always assuming that the Germans oblige by sending the V1s in batches, which they often didn't.



I'm not assuming that Germans will oblige. If Germans send the V1s piecemeal, the easier task for defender.



> Even those hidden in caves? Judging by the results at Watten, Wizernes, Siracourt, Marquise/Mimoyecques, and Rilly-la-Montagne, the bombers did a fairly good job, anyway, and not many of the ski-sites got away without a pounding (from the USAAF the RAF.)



From production lines, through transport channels/lines, up to the launching sites - with LW overstretched or blunted, and Allied AFs in even better shape than historically, the Allied bombers have free reign to make even a bigger dent on all parts of V1 production use chain.



> And the Germans had a charming habit of firing the V2s from among the homes of Dutch civilians, so heavy bombers were banned (the only time mediums were used, it turned into a disaster,) and the hunting was done by the Spitfire XVIs with 1 x 500lb + 2 x 250lb bombs (usually,) but that was not possible until 1945.



No doubt Spitfires were capable machines, maybe even more than it was realized during wartime. Tanks for the tidbit.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 7, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> The 51 has low drag so is fast but at 20k has around 1100 HP... so around 10% less power of a Gustav and around 20% more weight...
> 
> sure is best had a 51A that nothing (or many others fighter)



You mean: better to have the P-51A, than nothing? I agree. 
In the time the P-51A enters service, the LW introduces the G-6. It is hampered by two things here: worse streamlining than earlier Gustavs, and the Notleistung is still banned. So it can do some 395-400 MPH at 22000 ft. In other words, the edge over P-51A is rather thin. In case the G-6 gets gondola cannons (needed to kill the bombers), the situation worsens: 385 mph at 21000 ft. 
Of course, the G-6 is not the only opposition in the MTO in second half of 1943. There are the earlier Gustavs, that should be faster when new, but they are not new now. The Fw-190A-5 is a worthy opponent, deployed in small numbers in MTO. The Italian serie 5 fighters are also there, speed comparable to 51A. 
All in all, the Axis has tiny edge in speed, and better climb. The advantage in climb is irrelevant if the attacker arrives at good altitude. The numbers game is not something Axis was good at, so they look to be outnumbered soon. And then, the bombers are there, to make things worse - if the defenders go on escorts, the bombers can do their job, and return next day in ever increased numbers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 7, 2012)

Tome, please forget the "yardstick" range when dealing with drop tanks. 

While this is for the A-36 it may give some idea of the fuel burn for the Allison powered Mustangs.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/A-36_Specific_Operating_Instructions.jpg

Allowing 5 min at Military power (12 gallons) 20 min at "normal" (max continuous) (36 gallons) and 20 minutes reserve at "minimum" consumption (12 gallons) you have a max of 120 gallons (US) for the trip home after dropping tanks and engaging in the fight. This is enough for 1.62 to 2.5 hours depending on cruise speed (75-60% power setting) used over enemy territory. Cruising home over open water and/or well away from enemy territory can use lower power settings. WER use and/or more reserve will affect this as will initial start up, taxi, take-off and early climb out (generally not done of drop tanks), some planes could not transfer fuel from drop tanks to airframe tanks, some could. I have no idea on the Mustangs except that no mention is made of it in the P-51D Manual. 

Early Mustangs had a reserve setting in the fuel tank ( much like a motorcycle gas tank) that held a number of gallons in reserve.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 7, 2012)

The P-51B/C/D with 184 + 150 (int + ext, 334 gals total) have had combat range (indeed, the radius) of 450 miles at 25000 ft, and 500 miles at 10000 ft, TO weight 10200 lbs. Pg. 550 at AHT. 
That means all allowances are included - take off, climb to the altitude, combat (5 min on WER, 15 min on military) and 30 min reserves.
The P-51A, with 180+150 gals weighted 9600 lbs at take off, so the radius should be 500 miles.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 7, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> The advantage in climb is irrelevant if the attacker arrives at good altitude.



No, it is not. Climb ability is an indicator of excess power at climb speed. or power to weight ratio at climb speed. Once the fighters have engaged in any sort of maneuver (even a 180 degree turn) they have bled off some speed. The difference in climbing ability is also an indicator ( although not an absolute one) of the planes ability to accelerate back up to speed or regain height lost during a maneuver. 

As an old example ( because I do not have data on any newer planes) a Spitfire I doing about 300mph at 12,000ft can manage about a 2.5 "G" turn that takes about 2800ft radius and just 20 seconds to complete a 180 degree change of direction without loosing either speed or altitude. Any quicker turn will cause a loss of either speed or altitude and this is not a particularly hard or sharp maneuver. Planes trying to fight at higher altitudes have even more trouble, thinner air means less lift for the wings and less engine power. A poor climbing plane that arrives at the fight with higher altitude than it's opponent is going to get about one firing pass before the fight descends to lower altitudes, unfortunately if the poor climbing airplane is tasked with defending/escorting bombers it means it cannot really engage/pursue attackers at it is too easily pulled out of position. Depending on engine fitted an Allison Mustang could take around 1 1/4 to 1 3/4 minutes to climb 3000ft in the high teen range at best climb speed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 7, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> The P-51B/C/D with 184 + 150 (int + ext, 334 gals total) have had combat range (indeed, the radius) of 450 miles at 25000 ft, and 500 miles at 10000 ft, TO weight 10200 lbs. Pg. 550 at AHT.
> That means all allowances are included - take off, climb to the altitude, combat (5 min on WER, 15 min on military) and 30 min reserves.
> The P-51A, with 180+150 gals weighted 9600 lbs at take off, so the radius should be 500 miles.



True but if you add or use bigger drop tanks the combat radius stays the same because you still have the same amount of fuel to get back home once you drop the tanks.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 7, 2012)

No bigger drop tanks here - notice that the same 75 gal ones are used by all the P-51s in the post.

The P-51A, arriving at good altitude, can do what is almost an US custom thing to do: make diving passes, fire at opponent, then trade speed for altitude. Rinse repeat. If it's pulled out of position, that can mean two things: either it's in a combat vs. opponent (good - the opponent cannot go after bombers), or it's free to re-engage the opponent. Keeping the speed high mean it should be able to climb back in timely manner.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 7, 2012)

For keeping the speed high (manouvering) you need power.

Back on my former reply, with i writed Gustav i thinked the early G-2/4. The italian opposition were main C. 202 the series 5 fighters were from very rare to uncommon...


----------



## drgondog (Nov 7, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> The P-51B/C/D with 184 + 150 (int + ext, 334 gals total) have had combat range (indeed, the radius) of 450 miles at 25000 ft, and 500 miles at 10000 ft, TO weight 10200 lbs. Pg. 550 at AHT.
> That means all allowances are included - take off, climb to the altitude, combat (5 min on WER, 15 min on military) and 30 min reserves.
> The P-51A, with 180+150 gals weighted 9600 lbs at take off, so the radius should be 500 miles.



Tomo - the P-51B-5, and all subsequent models prior to 110 gallon Drop tanks in late May, had 92+92+85 gallons internal plus 75+75 external (269+10), and all the -1s were retrofitted with the 85 gallon fuselage tank. That extended the combat radius at least to 700+ miles out and back with reserve for combat and loiter. The 355th flew the longest roundtrip mission until late in thewar on a dog leg escort to Posnan on May 13, 1944. !470 miles round trip as well as shooting down 12 east of Berlin (incl 6 Me 410s).


----------



## drgondog (Nov 7, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> WER use and/or more reserve will affect this as will initial start up, taxi, take-off and early climb out (generally not done of drop tanks), some planes could not transfer fuel from drop tanks to airframe tanks, some could. I have no idea on the Mustangs except that no mention is made of it in the P-51D Manual.
> 
> Early Mustangs had a reserve setting in the fuel tank ( much like a motorcycle gas tank) that held a number of gallons in reserve.



SR - for what it is worth, I have never heard of transferable fuel in the production P-51A through D/K. The fuel selector switch in front of the stick has 5 positions only with no provision to feed from one to another from either internal or external tanks. When one thinks this through why bother. Take off max fuel all tanks, take off uses right main, then switch to fuse tank as soon as aircraft is trimmed and in formation. Switch back and forth between right external and left external until dry or released for combat. Switch to one of the Mains if fuse tank has been reduced to 25 gallons. 

For most of the fighter pilots I have discussed this with, the 20-30 gallons remaining in the fuse tank during climb out and heading toward RV was used as 'last reserve' after all else burned down.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 7, 2012)

Yes, Bill, I know that fuselage tank gave the Merlin P-51 a wider 'footprint'. The 184 + 150 gal tankage for the B/C/C/K serves as the closest comparison with the P-51A, since the figures for the combat range (radius) of the P-51A are hard to come by.



Vincenzo said:


> For keeping the speed high (manouvering) you need power.



Indeed you do. The low drag also helps. The Mustang's driver should know he's plane's strengths weakneses. Weakness is the ammount of power available above certain altitude. He can avoid doghfights in horizontal plane. Strength is the ability to turn the altitude into speed and vice versa, ie. forcing the combat in the vertical plane. 



> Back on my former reply, with i writed Gustav i thinked the early G-2/4. The italian opposition were main C. 202 the series 5 fighters were from very rare to uncommon...



Historicaly, the 1st P-51As arrived in front line units in June/July 1943. Indeed the G-2/G-4 should hold the advantage, but OTOH the MC.202 is at a distinctive disadvantage.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Nov 7, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> The heating tubes going in the area between the spars, starting from the radiator/intercooler (shaded tubes at at attached picture). I presume the installation of the wing tank dictated that?


No, they're running between the mainspar, and the ammunition boxes, which allowed some of the warmth to reach the boxes, by passing in front of them, and they also acted as an extra line of defence, for the ammunition, from gunfire in front. It was found that heat directed straight onto the Browning gun breeches could cause "cooking-off" of the .303" ammunition, so it was better to warm the whole gun compartment.


> I'm not assuming that Germans will oblige. If Germans send the V1s piecemeal, the easier task for defender.


Not if they're having to mount standing patrols, just in case, which is what did happen. At the speed of the V1, pilots couldn't sit on the ground, waiting; they had to be available, at a minute's notice, to go for the bombs which got through the gun belt on the coast, then do their interception in the space of around 60 miles, before they were forced to break off, to avoid running into the London balloon belt.


> From production lines, through transport channels/lines, up to the launching sites - with LW overstretched or blunted, and Allied AFs in even better shape than historically, the Allied bombers have free reign to make even a bigger dent on all parts of V1 production use chain.


You can't have large bombers wandering about the French countryside, just on the offchance of finding a target, and Harris had other uses for them, Try hitting a railway line, from the average height of a heavy bomber; as someone said, it's like trying to stick a dart in a pencil line, from 20 feet.
Train-busting was largely left to the Typhoons, plus the American fighters who'd been released from escort duty, and could shoot up any targets of opportunity, on the way home.


> No doubt Spitfires were capable machines, maybe even more than it was realized during wartime. Tanks for the tidbit.


As far as is known, no V2 was ever hit by the Spitfires, but it's reckoned that a lot of launches were probably aborted, due to the Spitfires flying overhead; the Dutch were delighted to see (and hear) them.


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 7, 2012)

reply within..



Edgar Brooks said:


> You can't have large bombers wandering about the French countryside, just on the offchance of finding a target, and Harris had other uses for them, Try hitting a railway line, from the average height of a heavy bomber; as someone said, it's like trying to stick a dart in a pencil line, from 20 feet.
> 
> *the bombers didnt wander around the countryside but my dad told me it wasnt uncommon to see the germans launch them off when they saw a large bomber formation coming towards them. he said it was like they were afraid the bombers were after them but they never went after the launch sites... *
> 
> ...


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Nov 7, 2012)

You'd have a heck of a job tipping a V2.


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 7, 2012)

dyslexic moment....


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 8, 2012)

The escort ranges targets.
Unfortunately for the Allies, it was 1944 until the best options became available. The attack from Foggia by the heavies is out of question prior November 1943.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 9, 2012)

Back to my pet project 

The P-47 (prior mid 1944, with 305 gals of internal fuel) shows both benefits and limitations of a plane that carries the drop tanks. With additional DT of modest size (75 or 108 USG), the radius (combat range, whatever the term you like more) grows some 50-65%, from 230 to 340/375 miles. The table at AHT book gives lower figures, only 125 miles with 305 USG (225 with 370 USG, both for later P-47Ds). The same book gives also the 340/375 miles for 75/108 belly tank.
Now with 216 USG of external fuel, the radius is further extended. The chart from above post gives 475 miles, that figure being in contrast with AHT table that gives 425 miles on 305 USG internal and 2 x 150 gals. The internal fuel being the limit now: the 370 USG internal and 300 USG external provide the radius of 600 miles.

Be it as it is, the 1st and easiest option for the P-47 is to go with 108 gal belly tank, for those 375 miles radius. Another option can be going for the 370 gals of internal fuel (the main tank grew in height to accommodate additional 65 gals), and/or going with wing tanks. Preferably using the A-36/P-51 racks, those are far less draggier. The 1st P-47s were self-deployed from the USA to the UK, in Aug 1943*, with 2 x 165 tanks, presumably without any ammo. So the 2 x 108 should not present too much for Jug's wings; the option that includes a removal of one HMG it's ammo could make the job easier on the wings.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 9, 2012)

Part of the reason for the big increase in radius can be found here;

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-47/47TOCL.gif

even at 12500lbs it can take a P-47 between 78-90 gallons to warm out, taxi, take off and climb just 20,000ft. another 5,000ft cost another 13-15 gallons. 

once at 25,000ft it can cruise at about 300mph for 95 gallons an hour. 

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-47/47FOIC.gif

Fuel burn can be 4.6 allons a minute at Military power and 3.5 gallons a minute at max continuous. 

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-47/47SEFC.gif


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 9, 2012)

Thanks - the table in the ATH indeed takes into account the warm up and take off (as an equivalent of 5 min at normal rated power), plus the climb up to 25000 ft. But...

The 5 min at WEP is not available for the most of the 1943 for the P-47. The military power is also reduced in duration to 5 min (vs. 15 min as in 1944). So the 1943 P-47 will use considerably less power for 5 + 15 min (military + max continous) than the 1944 P-47 (5 + 15 min, WER + military). 
4.6 USG/min x 5 min + 3.5 USG/min x 15 min = 23 + 52,5 = *75,5 USG* for 20 min of combat, *1943,* vs:
5.25 USG/min x 5 min + 4.6 USG/min x 15 min= 26,5 + 69 = *95,5 USG* for 20 min combat, *1944*

So, in 1943 (prior the engine ratings were 'upped', anyway), the P-47 has a bonus of 20 gals = 60 miles, after the combat. That seem like the main reason for the mismatch between the map and table. One wonders, however, whether the radius for February of 1944 are for the non-WEP engines?


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 9, 2012)

You do have several problems with 1943 use of the P-47, one is the change of propeller that came later, the Paddle blade allowed/provided better climb and take-off performance. Pre Paddle blade climb performance can be described ( charitably) as a "bit lacking". You may have to lighten armament to compensate for extra fuel. 

Another problem is field performance. a 14,000lb P-47C needed 3200ft to clear the trees (50ft obstacle) from a sod runway on a 0 degree day, this went to 3680ft on a 15 degree Celsius day and 4160ft on a 30 degree Celsius day. Headwinds help, paved runway helps. New airfields and extended areas were being worked on at a frantic pace at this time. The Paddle blades ( and occasional use of WEP for take-off) also helped with field performance with the bigger drop tanks. 

More could have been done in 1943 than was done but providing more/bigger drop tanks in 1943 does not turn the the 1943 P-47 into a 1944 P-47. 

Maybe P-51 racks could have been used and maybe they couldn't, rack use is dependent on the carried store not hitting the aircraft when jettisoned. Some tanks could only be jettisoned at certain speeds and in certain flight attitudes. Somewhere there is a strip of photos of a Spitfire jettisoning a tank. The tank turns 90 degrees to the aircraft while still only a few feet below it. Every aircraft had to be trialed with every different bomb or tank to be used in order to prevent accidents, like jettisoned tank hitting flaps or ailerons.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 9, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> You do have several problems with 1943 use of the P-47, one is the change of propeller that came later, the Paddle blade allowed/provided better climb and take-off performance. Pre Paddle blade climb performance can be described ( charitably) as a "bit lacking". You may have to lighten armament to compensate for extra fuel.



The P-47, without paddle blade prop, need to do his thing - climb at 25-30000 ft, and use the speed altitude to it's advantage. In other words, usual boom'n'zoom game. I've already stated that 2 HMGs + their ammo can be deleted.



> Another problem is field performance. a 14,000lb P-47C needed 3200ft to clear the trees (50ft obstacle) from a sod runway on a 0 degree day, this went to 3680ft on a 15 degree Celsius day and 4160ft on a 30 degree Celsius day. Headwinds help, paved runway helps. New airfields and extended areas were being worked on at a frantic pace at this time. The Paddle blades ( and occasional use of WEP for take-off) also helped with field performance with the bigger drop tanks.



Fair points. 



> More could have been done in 1943 than was done but providing more/bigger drop tanks in 1943 does not turn the the 1943 P-47 into a 1944 P-47.



Agreed. The internal fuel tank must grow to 370 USG, dive flaps, paddle blade prop, water injection, wing strengthening to carry the 2 x 150 gal tanks, bubble canopy...
Out of that, the ability to carry 2 x 75 wing drop tanks seem to be easiest to pull off (along with existing 108 USG belly tank). A 450+ miles, almost bug-free (in second half of 1943) fighter would've meant something for the Allied war effort.



> Maybe P-51 racks could have been used and maybe they couldn't, rack use is dependent on the carried store not hitting the aircraft when jettisoned. Some tanks could only be jettisoned at certain speeds and in certain flight attitudes. Somewhere there is a strip of photos of a Spitfire jettisoning a tank. The tank turns 90 degrees to the aircraft while still only a few feet below it. Every aircraft had to be trialed with every different bomb or tank to be used in order to prevent accidents, like jettisoned tank hitting flaps or ailerons.



Of course, things need to be tested. 
One detail from Spitfire: it had hook (hooks?) to force the slipper tank to turn down and away from the low hull. One of the rare planes that suffered almost no speed loss when become able to carry a drop tank?


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 9, 2012)

Before of november (?) 1943 the P-47 is a good fighter only at 25k and over... the P-51A is a good fighter until 18k...
so send the P-51A to free jagd and attack the enemy fighters before they get the intercept altitude, and use the P-47 for zoom and climb over the 21/22k maybe fine....


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 10, 2012)

The benefit of the proposal is to keep the LW fighter busy. Once they expand the fuel and/or ammo, they must retreat into the safety of the bases to refuel rearm. Supossing the attacker outnumbers the defender, that can make the fleeing defender a target. Further, the defender has less-than-ideal time opportunity to go after the designated prey, namely the bombers that would be incoming shortly. That also makes the job easier for close escort. IIRC that was very much how the things turned out when Doolitle replaced Eaker?
The shortcoming is that P-51As doo ned top cover, in order not to be badly hit from above. Vincenzo addressed that above. The lower altitude of the P-51As makes them also easier targets for the heavy AAA.

BTW,


> V-1710-81 FTH is 14,600 maybe too much 20,000



The different charts tables give the FTH, military power, between 14300 ft up to 15500.

http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/1710-81.pdf


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 10, 2012)

this is my source for the FTH of 1710-81, ModDesig


----------



## drgondog (Nov 11, 2012)

The primary problem with P-51A is that the contract was converted in favor of the P-51B starting in December 1942. There would be new P-51A after September 1943 - or else the P-51B would have been delayed.

The secondary problem is that for the P-51A to be efffective, the 8th AF BC needed to strike at 15-18000 feet for the P-51A to meet the 109 and 190 on reasonably even terms at escort altitudes.

The P-47C didn't have ability to past German border until late fall/early winter 1943. Only the 51A would go to Brunswick, Kassel Leipzig and Friederichshafen - but not quite to Munich. Schweinfurt questionable unless the 51A flies directly to Schweinfurt area with others to perform penetration and withdrawal support. There would never be enough P-51As to offset the re-deployment of the P-38 and temporarily replace with P-51A. The P-38H had the same limitations per range but much better altitude performance..


----------



## davparlr (Nov 11, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Fair points. Typhoon and P-47N featuring self-sealing tanks in leading edge?


America's Hundred Thousand states that the wing tanks in the P-47N were self-sealing.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 11, 2012)

The problem with LR fighter in '43 was mental, not mechanical. Had the desperate need for a LR fighter been identified in 1942, many of the comments on providing the capability could have been provided, more fuel for the P-47, more fixed problems in the P-38, earlier inclusion of the Merlin in the P-51, optimizing the F4U-1, and even more fuel in the Spitfire. However, I don't get the feeling that providing a LR fighter became desperate until mid 1943, so no priority was set for developing one. By 1943, the natural fit of the P-51B trumped all the other efforts.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Nov 11, 2012)

davparlr said:


> The problem with LR fighter in '43 was mental, not mechanical. Had the desperate need for a LR fighter been identified in 1942, many of the comments on providing the capability could have been provided, more fuel for the P-47, more fixed problems in the P-38, earlier inclusion of the Merlin in the P-51, optimizing the F4U-1, and even more fuel in the Spitfire. However, I don't get the feeling that providing a LR fighter became desperate until mid 1943, so no priority was set for developing one. By 1943, the natural fit of the P-51B trumped all the other efforts.



My thoughts exactly Davparlr.
Tradition is the worst enemy of progress they say and the pre-war USAAF is not exception. It arrived to the war with a stiff traditional view on how a strategic bombing campaign should be conducted and it took a fair amount of time -and losses- to realize that a change of strategy was desperately needed in the face of defeat.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 11, 2012)

Don't think the USAAF was heavily in the grip of tradition. There was no tradition possible, since the whole air combat was a new thing in warfare. It was the doctrine, that stated the priorities. IIRC,:
-bombers to hit enemy assets far away from USA, or far away from front line
-interceptors to bring down enemy bombers threatening the USA it's 'dominions' (Panama, Philliphines, etc); the P-38/-39/-47 were conceived as _interceptors_. 
-attack aircraft, to aid the Army units in the front line
The bombers have top priority, than the interceptors, than the attack planes. 

The category/task for 'escort fighters' was not there. The bombers will penetrate enemy air space, deliver the bombs and got away (rather Douhetist, or Trenchardist approach). They need to combine speed, altitude, sophisticated sights and defensive armament to help them do the task. It took (here we agree) bloody noses to make them re-think about the doctrine.

BTW, there was only a slim chance to actually see a Merlin Mustang, in numbers, in 1943. Packard's deliveries of the two stage V-1650s were lagging behind the NAA production of the airframes.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Nov 11, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Don't think the USAAF was heavily in the grip of tradition. There was no tradition possible, since the whole air combat was a new thing in warfare. It was the doctrine, that stated the priorities. IIRC,:
> -bombers to hit enemy assets far away from USA, or far away from front line
> -interceptors to bring down enemy bombers threatening the USA it's 'dominions' (Panama, Philliphines, etc); the P-38/-39/-47 were conceived as _interceptors_.
> -attack aircraft, to aid the Army units in the front line
> ...



Operational doctrine not old enough to be considered a tradition, I concede that point. 
Stiff enough IMHO to a point that I would consider it to have traditional connotations.

The P-38/P-39/P-47/Spitfire conceived as interceptors were used to a limited degree as escort platforms as early as 1942 (earlier for the RAF) when the 8th BC began its modest operations 70 years ago being escorted by Spitfires and P-38s while other USAAF outfits used P-39s/P-40s for medium and heavy bombers protection in the South Pacific Area of Operations.

To my reasoning the idea of using escorts fighters to protect bombers was not ‘unthinkable’ prior to 1943 and the concept was there although it needed to be broadened and given much more emphasis into the mind of strategists as the only solution to accomplish the strategic goals at hand.


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 11, 2012)

Wait a minute...
So the US builds self-defensible bombers sans escort in the belief that enemy interceptors will be ineffective...
While simultaneously building interceptors to shoot down enemy bombers???
Something doesn’t smell right.

Seems like a pre Catch-22 Catch-22.


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 11, 2012)

gjs238 said:


> Wait a minute...
> So the US builds self-defensible bombers sans escort in the belief that enemy interceptors will be ineffective...
> While simultaneously building interceptors to shoot down enemy bombers???
> Something doesn’t smell right.
> ...



baffles the mind doesnt it? what is evern more baffling it is made perfect sense to someone in charge...


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 11, 2012)

BUT-BUT-BUT-BUT other countries did not have the .50 cal gun in power turrets, or turbo chargers or massive formations with mutually supporting gunfire or...............

American bombers had just enough differences to keep the semi-delusional thinking that they made _ENOUGH_ difference.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 11, 2012)

I thought somewhere there was discussion regarding Spitfire ranges particulalry spitfire VIII

The first production Spitfire F VIII (JF.274) was delivered in November 1942. 145 Squadron went operational with Spitfire VIIIs in June 1943 while based on Malta. Operation Husky, the invasion of Sicily, commenced on 10 July 1943. On this date there were 23 Spitfire fighter squadrons based on Malta flying a mix of Spitfire Vs, VIIIs and IXs which provided cover for the invasion. 244 Wing moved to Pachino, Sicily on 13 July. 244 Wing (1 SAAF, 92, 145, 417 and 601 squadrons) as well as the 308th FS 31st FG USAAF used the Spitfire VIII during the Sicily campaign. The battle for Sicily was over by mid August. 
On 3 September 1943 British forces landed at Reggio, Italy, followed by the Allied landing at Salerno on the 9th. 324 Wing was the first unit to move to Italy, flying in to Paestum on 12 September. Spitfire VIIIs were used widely in Italy from September 1943 to war's end. Units known to have used the Spitfire VIII in Italy are: 
244 Wing: 92, 145, 417, 601 squadrons. VIIIs predominately/exclusively. 
324 Wing: 43, 72, 93, 111, squadrons. Mix of VIIIs and IXs 
31st FG USAAF: 307th, 308th squadrons. 308th was equipped with VIIIs exclusively 
1 SAAF, 32, 73, 87, 185, 253, 256 squadrons (Incomplete listing)
Spitfire units began moving to Corsica in December 1943. By July 1944 the following Spitfire units, operating a mix of Spitfire VIIIs and IXs, were engaged in operations over France culminating in August in Operation Dragoon, the invasion of southern France: 
7 Wing SAAF: 1, 2, 4, 7 Squadrons 
251 Wing: 237, 238, 451 RAAF Squadrons 
322 Wing: 154, 232, 242, 243 Squadrons 
324 Wing: 43, 72, 93, 111 Squadrons 
332 Free French Wing: 326 (GC/II/7 'Nice'), 327 (GC/I/3 'Corse'), 328 (GC/I/7 'Provence') Squadrons 

Operation Dragoon called for aircover to be provided by these wings and for offensive operations to be undertaken to a depth of about 50 miles. I am unsure of the precise location of the airbases but if centred around Ajaccio, the spitfire Wings were flying sustained operations of around 250 miles. Providing Naval Cover dictates long loiter times, so combat radii in excess of 400nm seems entirely likely. 

The RAF Spitfire Wing in Australia, comprised of 54, 548 and 549 Squadrons, converted to Spitfire VIIIs in April 1944. They were tasked primarily with the defense of the Darwin area. The Australian spitfire squadrons, Nos 79, 452 and 457, also began to re-equip with the Spitfire VIII in April. The Australian Spitfire Wing deployed to Morotai where they provided escort to Beaufighters and engaged in strikes against Japanese positions in the Moluccas. It is more than 400 miles between Moratai and the Moluccan islands which again suggests a combat radius of around 400-450 miles for the Spitfire VIII


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 11, 2012)

A problem with comparing European (northern Europe) and Pacific ranges is that in the Pacific (and to some extent the Mediterranean) a lot of the flying was done over water with little or no danger from flak and enemy airbases were well known and enemy patrols/flights away from those bases were rare. Cruising speeds over Continental Europe tended to be higher both going in and coming out which cut the range to some extent. Getting "bounced" by a Japanese fighter group 150 miles from the target would be a very rare event. Getting "bounced" 100-150 miles from the German border was an all too real possibility.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 11, 2012)

Not so (at least for the Med) . After the experiences in Dodecanese,, where the germans transferred large formations of aircraft from Southern Russia to deal with the British incursion, allied planning always assumed heavy opposition to any offensive moves. Such moves necessarily would have to factor in forced limits on range due to flak and or enemy interceptions. Moreover, cover CAP operations are the most fuel hungry operations for land based air units, not the other way around. moreover atmospheric conditions on long over water flights can be worse than over land....higher humidity, lack of navigational cues sometimes heavier winds all meant that higher margins of safety had to be built into the operations undertaken


----------



## TheMustangRider (Nov 11, 2012)

gjs238 said:


> Wait a minute...
> So the US builds self-defensible bombers sans escort in the belief that enemy interceptors will be ineffective...
> While simultaneously building interceptors to shoot down enemy bombers???
> Something doesn’t smell right.
> ...



That whole riddle might have a good explanation: 
"_Our_ bombers are so superior, they will overwhelm _their_ interceptors while _our_ interceptors are so deadly, _their_ bombers will not stand a chance."


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 11, 2012)

US planners figured fighter escorts would use about 300-310mph cruise speeds over enemy territory. You may very well want ( I know I would) a bigger "reserve" or safety margin built in for over water flights but the safety margin or reserve is usually figured at a cruise speed closer to 200mph if not below. Last 30 min or even 1 hour of flight "reserve" planned at minimum fuel consumption speed, not at a "combat" cruise which could burn fuel at 3 times the gallons per minute. 

Tactics and techniques changed with both time and locations, all I am saying is just because a certain plane operated at a certain radius in the Pacific does not mean it could operate at that radius on a consistent basis over Europe escorting bombers. I am not picking on the Spitfire. American Naval fighters get a bit too much credit for range in many of these threads when the operating conditions were so different.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 12, 2012)

If someone could shed light on this excerpt from Wikipedia:



> In May 1943, [Brig. Gen. Frank ]Hunter was relieved of his command for his failure to obey a directive issued by his superior, General Ira Eaker mandating use of wing tanks on P-47 fighters.[3



Namely, who wanted/ordered/forbid? the P-47s with wing tanks in early 1943?


----------



## drgondog (Nov 12, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> If someone could shed light on this excerpt from Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> 
> Namely, who wanted/ordered/forbid? the P-47s with wing tanks in early 1943?



Total BS Tomo - as usual for Wikipedia. Hunter was replaced when Eaker was replaced by Doolitle. Kepner and Doottle came with Spaatz replaced Eaker and Hunter respectively. Hunter was given 1st Air Force by Arnold and was invloved in the now famous castigation of the 'Tuskeegee Airmen" along with Spike Momyer.

Eaker, Spaatz, Hunter remained great friends and hunting/fishing buddies after the war until they passed away.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 12, 2012)

Thanks for clearing the issue, Bill


----------



## TheMustangRider (Nov 12, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> If someone could shed light on this excerpt from Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> 
> Namely, who wanted/ordered/forbid? the P-47s with wing tanks in early 1943?



As DG stated, Hunter and Eaker were replaced simultaneously by Kepner/Dolittle while Arnold entrusted Kepner to find a solution to the long-range fighter issue.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Nov 12, 2012)

drgondog said:


> Eaker, Spaatz, Hunter remained great friends and hunting/fishing buddies after the war until they passed away.



Drgondog, given that Arnold and Eaker were close friends before the war; did they manage to amend their war-time differences after the conflict or did their friendship remained severed even after the end of hostilities?


----------



## Balljoint (Nov 12, 2012)

TheMustangRider said:


> Drgondog, given that Arnold and Eaker were close friends before the war; did they manage to amend their war-time differences after the conflict or did their friendship remained severed even after the end of hostilities?



“Eaker never got over the humiliation of being replaced, and of the way he had been initially notified…” 
Masters of the Air, page 243


----------



## drgondog (Nov 12, 2012)

Balljoint said:


> “Eaker never got over the humiliation of being replaced, and of the way he had been initially notified…”
> Masters of the Air, page 243



Eakers "Air Force Spoken here" talks about his disappointment but does not imply 'humiliation or bitterness'


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 13, 2012)

Some things from Bodie's book about P-47s: in 1st half of 1943 in stateside (USA), there were two 'overtrained' fighter groups, featuring P-38s, namely the 20th and 55th. Col. Hough*, of the 8th FC, went to Gen. Hunter and remarked the deficiencies of the P-47 to perform long range work. Hunter did not, so Bodie writes, asked any of those fighters, neither from Spaatz nor from Arnold.

(he didn't asked that from Eaker; my op.)

Bodie goes further to claim Hunter was enjoining the 'Merry England', rather than to cater to the needs of his subordinates. Contrary to that, Gen Kenney (5th Air force) was clamoring for more P-38s on weekly basis.

*Hough went to adapt the P-47s to carry drop tanks from mid 1943


----------

