# Which is the best Spitfire mark?



## Oskar the Pilot (Jan 4, 2012)

Hello everyone,

This is yet another of my major threads. I were wondering, what Spitfire mark do you either like the most or assume is better than the rest? 
Basically, which is the best Spitfire mark? Personally, I think the XIX is quite cool, but my favourite for now would have to be the XIV. The winner of this may be my favourite plane. Explain your answers.

_Happy voting!_


----------



## Crimea_River (Jan 4, 2012)

Most pilots who flew Spits believed the IX to be the best of all Marks.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jan 4, 2012)

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/best-spitfire-version-12659.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 4, 2012)

The best Spitfire was the one that was available. However if your asking favourite version then this is mine the PRXIX

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Readie (Jan 4, 2012)

Hard to choose...
Mine would have a Merlin. So I'll go for the glorious Mk9.
John


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 4, 2012)

Readie said:


> Hard to choose...
> Mine would have a Merlin. So I'll go for the glorious Mk9.
> John



Except you voted for the XI damn those pesky Romans and there numerals


----------



## Juha (Jan 4, 2012)

Hello
I have always problem to choose between Mk VIII and Mk XIV, but because one could not choose Mk VIII in the poll Thorlifter gave the link, I now voted for VIII, after all it was the Spitfire, or in fact a development from the Spit (Mk VII), which was designed for utilisation of 60-series Merlins, not a shotgun marriage between Mk V fuselage and 60-series Merlin like Mk IX. And it had extra fuel cells so it had longer range. But it flew like IX, maybe a few miles faster because of its retractable tailwheel.

Juha

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Jan 4, 2012)

No such thing as 'The best Spitfire' - purely (if rather simplified) as it was a design which evolved with a need - there may, however, be a 'favourite' Spitfire, in ones personal choice.
And, of course, the 'best' aircraft to fit the need/role/mission at a particular time. This includes economics, operational effectiveness, and availability for a particular theatre/time period.
Arguably the best 'All Round' Mark, as a fighter, was the MkVIII, in performance, handling etc, etc . 
BTW, from the MkXVIII onwards, the Roman numeral nomenclature was replaced by Arabic numerals. Thus, for example, the PR 19 was recorded as such, and not PRXIX.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 4, 2012)

MkI or MkII closely followed by the early PR variants.

Yes, I know they weren't the "best" of the breed but there's something about the early, non-cannon variants with Type A1 roundels on the fuselage, Type A roundels under the wings, and a goodly slathering of Dark Earth, Dark Green and Sky camo that just gets the pulse racing.

Then again I might be a tad biased....

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## riacrato (Jan 5, 2012)

Airframes said:


> No such thing as 'The best Spitfire' - purely (if rather simplified) as it was a design which evolved with a need - there may, however, be a 'favourite' Spitfire, in ones personal choice.
> And, of course, the 'best' aircraft to fit the need/role/mission at a particular time. This includes economics, operational effectiveness, and availability for a particular theatre/time period.
> Arguably the best 'All Round' Mark, as a fighter, was the MkVIII, in performance, handling etc, etc .


Very true. Hence my vote goes to the Mk IX. It restored parity with the FW 190 and was never truely beaten by any mass produced Me 109 until very late in the war when newer fighters took over most of the workload. It also was economically more sensible than the Mk VIII. The second place would go to the Mk I, which also was relative to its opposition, very competetive.


----------



## Readie (Jan 5, 2012)

fastmongrel said:


> Except you voted for the XI damn those pesky Romans and there numerals



Groan...I should have paid more attention in latin

John


----------



## Oskar the Pilot (Jan 5, 2012)

Why are none of you voting for the XIV? It's amazing!


----------



## marshall (Jan 5, 2012)

Airframes said:


> No such thing as 'The best Spitfire' - purely (if rather simplified) as it was a design which evolved with a need - there may, however, be a 'favourite' Spitfire, in ones personal choice.
> And, of course, the 'best' aircraft to fit the need/role/mission at a particular time. This includes economics, operational effectiveness, and availability for a particular theatre/time period.
> Arguably the best 'All Round' Mark, as a fighter, was the MkVIII, in performance, handling etc, etc .
> BTW, from the MkXVIII onwards, the Roman numeral nomenclature was replaced by Arabic numerals. Thus, for example, the PR 19 was recorded as such, and not PRXIX.




While I agree with what Airframes wrote, I would like to ask if Mk XIV wouldn't be better than Mk VIII as "the best" all rounder?


And again in agreement that there is no best mark, I could pick the best looking one but all marks look great so I can't decide I like'm all. 

To choose the favorite one I think I would have to fly all marks to check them maybe then I could say more...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## riacrato (Jan 5, 2012)

Doesn't the MkXIV have significantly less range than the MkVIII? It is a better interceptor, but a better all-rounder?


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 5, 2012)

Readie said:


> Groan...I should have paid more attention in latin



Centurion: What's this, then? "Romanes eunt domus"? People called Romanes, they go, the house?
Brian: It says, "Romans go home. "
Centurion: No it doesn't ! What's the latin for "Roman"? Come on, come on !
Brian: Er, "Romanus" !
Centurion: Vocative plural of "Romanus" is?
Brian: Er, er, "Romani" !
Centurion: [Writes "Romani" over Brian's graffiti] "Eunt"? What is "eunt"? Conjugate the verb, "to go" !
Brian: Er, "Ire". Er, "eo", "is", "it", "imus", "itis", "eunt".
Centurion: So, "eunt" is...?
Brian: Third person plural present indicative, "they go".
Centurion: But, "Romans, go home" is an order. So you must use...?
[He twists Brian's ear]
Brian: Aaagh ! The imperative !
Centurion: Which is...?
Brian: Aaaagh ! Er, er, "i" !
Centurion: How many Romans?
Brian: Aaaaagh ! Plural, plural, er, "ite" !
Centurion: [Writes "ite"] "Domus"? Nominative? "Go home" is motion towards, isn't it?
Brian: Dative !
[the Centurion holds a sword to his throat]
Brian: Aaagh ! Not the dative, not the dative ! Er, er, accusative, "Domum" !
Centurion: But "Domus" takes the locative, which is...?
Brian: Er, "Domum" !
Centurion: [Writes "Domum"] Understand? Now, write it out a hundred times.
Brian: Yes sir. Thank you, sir. Hail Caesar, sir.
Centurion: Hail Caesar ! And if it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 5, 2012)

LFXVIe; A rose by any other name.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 6, 2018)

If we are talking purely aesthetics then it would have to be the Mark II. To my eyes no other aircraft comes close to it's grace and beauty.


----------



## Snowygrouch (Jan 17, 2018)

Just to be awkward I'd want a Mk III, just because I think it was such a shame it was canned and replaced with the stopgap V. Which I regard as being a retrograde step, even if they felt they had to rush it in. A mk IV would also have been great. I think most of the best Spitfires were all cancelled!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 17, 2018)

*Which is the best Spitfire mark?*
The one that just shot the Bf 109 off of my tail. Every 'Best' question needs
to be qualified, when and where.
1. The Mk.I because it was there first.
2. The Mk.II because it was there with the improvements needed.
3. The Mk.V because it more than just became a stopgap and gave hope.
4. The Mk.IX because it gave the Allies the only actual true equal balance in 1942.
5. The Mk.VIII because it took that balance that the IX gave and improved on it
in spades making it useful in the Pacific.
6. The Mk.XII because it had the low performance when needed.
7. The Mk.XIV because its speed allowed it to more than just compete, it set the
Standard. It lost some of the magnificent handling attributes of the Mk.V / IX but its
performance allowed it to set the standard that all other fighter aircraft would be
judge by. Much like comparing the handling of the P-40 against the P-51 Merlins.

Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 17, 2018)

Snowygrouch said:


> Just to be awkward I'd want a Mk III, just because I think it was such a shame it was canned and replaced with the stopgap V. Which I regard as being a retrograde step, even if they felt they had to rush it in. A mk IV would also have been great. I think most of the best Spitfires were all cancelled!



Now, is that the Mk IV that became the XX and led to the XII?

Or the Mk I PR Type D, which was redesignated as the PR Mk IV?

For mine, the best looking Spitfire was the XII, followed by the XIX and XIV. The most capable Spitfire was the XIV, but it won't do you much good in 1940.


----------



## Snowygrouch (Jan 17, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Now, is that the Mk IV that became the XX and led to the XII?



The one that was later called the XX by March 1942. I particuarly like the mockup version with six hispanos. 

According to Morgan`s "Spitfire The History" - its also known as type 337 (pg 137) - an astonishing book with the one flaw that it has very little at all on the engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 17, 2018)

Snowygrouch said:


> Just to be awkward I'd want a Mk III, just because I think it was such a shame it was canned and replaced with the stopgap V. Which I regard as being a retrograde step, even if they felt they had to rush it in. A mk IV would also have been great. I think most of the best Spitfires were all cancelled!


I think many of the changes intended for the cancelled variants were slowly incorporated into the "stop gap" this gives our modelling section no end of fun.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 17, 2018)

I see the Mk XVI has got one vote and the Mk IX has 4 - shouldn't they be put together, since the main difference is the source of the motor, the XVI having a Packard.


----------



## wlewisiii (Mar 9, 2018)

Mk II because 1940 was when it really mattered.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Mar 9, 2018)

wlewisiii said:


> Mk II because 1940 was when it really mattered.



That's one of the reasons I voted for the Mk I.

It was also the lightest, most manoeuvrable and, by all accounts, the nicest to fly.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 8, 2018)

Technically, the last one, unless you think they went backwards 

Nice or easy to fly matters a lot to modern day pilots and the late ones retain most of the problems but without proper fuel, not as much of the performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 1, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> *Which is the best Spitfire mark?*
> The one that just shot the Bf 109 off of my tail. Every 'Best' question needs
> to be qualified, when and where.
> 1. The Mk.I because it was there first.
> ...


Resp:
I just finished reading about the RAAF in the Pacific during WWII, where they used the MkV and MkVIII Spitifres. There were three (3) major problems with these Spitfires; short range, too fragile for the climate and had a constant problem with the 20MM cannons (failed to function when needed). Therefore, they were used primarily for 'air defense' of Allied bases/airfields. These traits kept them from participating in the 'push' of Japanese forces eastward. However, their high altitude capability was well suited to air defense, as in the Battle of Britain.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 1, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Technically, the last one, unless you think they went backwards
> *I believe the Mk.21 was a backward step. It improved rate of roll and speed ever so slightly,
> but pure handling was quite inferior to the Mk.XIV from what I have read to date. I am not
> an authority, my personal opinion is the Spitfire went slightly down with the 21 and sideways
> ...


*It matters to all pilots.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 1, 2018)

stona said:


> That's one of the reasons I voted for the Mk I.
> 
> It was also the lightest, most manoeuvrable and, by all accounts, the nicest to fly.
> 
> ...


Resp:
The same could be said of the Allison engine Mustang variants, as it was much easier to fly than the P-51B onward. But air to air combat is why the Merlin was used.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> The same could be said of the Allison engine Mustang variants, as it was much easier to fly the the P-51B onward. But air to air combat is why the Merlin was used.


A tiger moth is easier to fly, aircraft became harder to fly as technology progressed. Altitude performance was the reason for the Merlin engine and range was the reason for the P-51 airframe.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 2, 2018)

In reviewing info on RAAF Spitfires, I noticed in two b/w photos they show only one 'roundel' on the upper wings, and that it was on the right wing, instead of being on the left like US military aircraft. Am I correct in that they used the upper right wing for the national roundel?


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 2, 2018)

Mk.VIII


----------



## parsifal (Jul 3, 2018)

Seafire XV for me


----------



## stona (Jul 3, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> In reviewing info on RAAF Spitfires, I noticed in two b/w photos they show only one 'roundel' on the upper wings, and that it was on the right wing, instead of being on the left like US military aircraft. Am I correct in that they used the upper right wing for the national roundel?



I am no expert on Australian markings, but all their Spitfires were manufactured in the UK (and technically remained the property of the UK government). The roundels and other national markings were applied at the point of production, which means if they were absent it was the Australians who had altered them.

Spitfires in Australia, and the PTO, gradually lost the red in all their national markings, ending up with the familiar blue and white markings. These can be hard to see in some B/W images.

There are also images, including this screenshot, of modellers' favourite 'Grey Nurse' which has clearly undergone some serious repair.






Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 3, 2018)

stona said:


> I am no expert on Australian markings, but all their Spitfires were manufactured in the UK (and technically remained the property of the UK government). The roundels and other national markings were applied at the point of production, which means if they were absent it was the Australians who had altered them.
> 
> Spitfires in Australia, and the PTO, gradually lost the red in all their national markings, ending up with the familiar blue and white markings. These can be hard to see in some B/W images.
> 
> ...





stona said:


> I am no expert on Australian markings, but all their Spitfires were manufactured in the UK (and technically remained the property of the UK government). The roundels and other national markings were applied at the point of production, which means if they were absent it was the Australians who had altered them.
> 
> Spitfires in Australia, and the PTO, gradually lost the red in all their national markings, ending up with the familiar blue and white markings. These can be hard to see in some B/W images.
> 
> ...


Thanks Steve. The other b/w photo is a MkV in natural overall metal finish. The fuselage in front of the cockpit is painted black all the way to the spinner. It has roundels and code letter on the rear fuselage, but on one roundel on top, which is the R wing.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 4, 2018)

Found a photo of a Mk.V that had the right roundel nearly obliterated from "....many flying hours...", the left one nearly intact. It served with five different squadrons, No. 2 OTU, 457, 54, 457 again and finally 83 Squadron. It might be just a case of neglect. I've got two books on RAAF Spitfires and all photos showing the top surfaces have two roundels. It would be my luck that the aerial shots of aircraft taken from below had one roundel. Do you know the serial number or squadron?


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 4, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> Found a photo of a Mk.V that had the right roundel nearly obliterated from "....many flying hours...", the left one nearly intact. It served with five different squadrons, No. 2 OTU, 457, 54, 457 again and finally 83 Squadron. It might be just a case of neglect. I've got two books on RAAF Spitfires and all photos showing the top surfaces have two roundels. It would be my luck that the aerial shots of aircraft taken from below had one roundel. Do you know the serial number or squadron?


Resp:
Serial A58-250 with code letters SH K, 85 Sqd.


----------



## Smokey Stover (Jul 4, 2018)

It's a bit of a hard question to answer. My head is saying the Mk lX as it pretty much rained supreme for the rest of the war.
But my heart says i have to agree with Stoner, the Spitfire Mk l interceptor was the first no frills advanced fighter to really make a huge tactical & psychological impact on German aircraft during the bob. And for a fighter that Luftwaffe generals described as and i quote: "A pretty little toy" that just wouldnt compare to the advanced Bf - 109. Ignorance and complacent thought are a dangerous ignorance to have. The end of the day the Spitfire Mkl did exactly what it was designed to do. Keep British skies clear of enemy aircraft. And it did that extremely well....


----------



## wuzak (Jul 4, 2018)

Smokey Stover said:


> It's a bit of a hard question to answer. My head is saying the Mk lX as it pretty much rained supreme for the rest of the war.



Until the XIV arrived to reign supreme.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 4, 2018)

PR MkXIX looks down on your lowly Spitfires from 50,000ft


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 4, 2018)

Smokey Stover said:


> It's a bit of a hard question to answer. My head is saying the Mk lX as it pretty much rained supreme for the rest of the war.
> But my heart says i have to agree with Stoner, the Spitfire Mk l interceptor was the first no frills advanced fighter to really make a huge tactical & psychological impact on German aircraft during the bob. And for a fighter that Luftwaffe generals described as and i quote: "A pretty little toy" that just wouldnt compare to the advanced Bf - 109. Ignorance and complacent thought are a dangerous ignorance to have. The end of the day the Spitfire Mkl did exactly what it was designed to do. Keep British skies clear of enemy aircraft. And it did that extremely well....


Resp:
There are many variants that kept the design alive, but it was the early Marks that kept England in the fight.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 4, 2018)

N
 Navalwarrior
PM sent


----------



## Smokey Stover (Jul 5, 2018)

The Griffon powered Spits were reaching the limit of the aircrafts design evolution. And with jets looking set to take over the future of aircraft design and production its days were numbered, at least in England. And with ac like the Tempest and Meteor the Spit was no longer the single driving force for the RAF. Nothing will beat the mkl simply because of its history, pedigree and amazing achievement in the BOB. The Mkl was then, and still is now, the most beautiful fighter ever to be designed in Britain. My heart will always be with the Mkl


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 5, 2018)

Smokey Stover said:


> The Griffon powered Spits were reaching the limit of the aircrafts design evolution. And with jets looking set to take over the future of aircraft design and production its days were numbered, at least in England. And with ac like the Tempest and Meteor the Spit was no longer the single driving force for the RAF. Nothing will beat the mkl simply because of its history, pedigree and amazing achievement in the BOB. The Mkl was then, and still is now, the most beautiful fighter ever to be designed in Britain. My heart will always be with the Mkl


Resp:
Well said. I just ordered a print of a MkIX in D-Day markings for my work room. There is a very good book on Britain's behind closed doors, about their research, particularly inre to aircraft/radar, etc that on the eve of WWII was shared with the United States. "A Man Called Intrepid," written by William Stevenson, 1976. England just did not have the facilities for mass production, so they shared their research.
PS. Which Mark had the longest range, and what was it miles?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Smokey Stover (Jul 5, 2018)

Well, of the top of my head it would have to surely be the PR (photo recon) unless of course you mean a combat loaded spit? And which engine, the merlin or the griffon, or both...?

Early merlin spits Mk Vl (AB200) Combat range 428 miles
Ferry range 1530 miles with various drop tanks

Late Merlin/Early Griffon. Mk Xll combat range 493 miles

Ferry range Spitfire L.F Mk lXe 980 miles

Should be noted these are rough guesstimates, i havent looked into my manual yet​


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 5, 2018)

Smokey Stover said:


> Well, of the top of my head it would have to surely be the PR (photo recon) unless of course you mean a combat loaded spit? And which engine, the merlin or the griffon, or both...?
> 
> Early merlin spits Mk Vl (AB200) Combat range 428 miles
> Ferry range 1530 miles with various drop tanks
> ...


Resp:
I am interested in air combat missions rather than photo recon.
Does the term combat range, mean from liftoff to target area AND back to base? 
Also, using external fuel stores (drop tanks) for combat missions only. Which Mark had the longest combat range?


----------



## Smokey Stover (Jul 5, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I am interested in air combat missions rather than photo recon.
> Does the term combat range, mean from liftoff to target area AND back to base?
> Also, using external fuel stores (drop tanks) for combat missions only. Which Mark had the longest combat range?


The F Mk VIII's top speed was 408 mph (657 km/h) at 25,000 ft (404 mph for the LF.Mk VIII at 21,000 ft (6,400 m) and 416 mph (669 km/h) for the HF Mk VIII at 26,500 ft), with a service ceiling of 43,000 ft (41,500 ft for the LF Mk VIII and 44,000 ft (13,000 m) for the HF Mk VIII). The two main tanks were given an extra 11 gal for a total of 96 gal which, along with the wing tanks, allowed the fighter to fly for a maximum distance of 660 mi (1,060 km) with a full internal fuel load and 1,180 miles (1,900 km) with a full internal load and a 90 gal drop tank. Provision was made to allow the Mk VIII to carry a single "slipper" drop tank of 30, 90 or 170 gal capacity. With a 170 gal tank, the aeroplane could fly over 1,500 mi (2,400 km). When carrying the 90 or 175 gal tank the aircraft was restricted, once airborne and at cruising altitude, to straight and level flight.[25] A maximum external bomb load of 1,000 pounds (1 × 500 lb (230 kg) bomb attached to the centre bomb-rack plus a 250 lb (110 kg) bomb under each wing) could be carried.

I pulled this off the net, but if you need some serious technical data i can dust off my old manual and find the results. But tbh, i think these numbers are pretty close to being accurate.....


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 5, 2018)

Smokey Stover said:


> The F Mk VIII's top speed was 408 mph (657 km/h) at 25,000 ft (404 mph for the LF.Mk VIII at 21,000 ft (6,400 m) and 416 mph (669 km/h) for the HF Mk VIII at 26,500 ft), with a service ceiling of 43,000 ft (41,500 ft for the LF Mk VIII and 44,000 ft (13,000 m) for the HF Mk VIII). The two main tanks were given an extra 11 gal for a total of 96 gal which, along with the wing tanks, allowed the fighter to fly for a maximum distance of 660 mi (1,060 km) with a full internal fuel load and 1,180 miles (1,900 km) with a full internal load and a 90 gal drop tank. Provision was made to allow the Mk VIII to carry a single "slipper" drop tank of 30, 90 or 170 gal capacity. With a 170 gal tank, the aeroplane could fly over 1,500 mi (2,400 km). When carrying the 90 or 175 gal tank the aircraft was restricted, once airborne and at cruising altitude, to straight and level flight.[25] A maximum external bomb load of 1,000 pounds (1 × 500 lb (230 kg) bomb attached to the centre bomb-rack plus a 250 lb (110 kg) bomb under each wing) could be carried.
> 
> I pulled this off the net, but if you need some serious technical data i can dust off my old manual and find the results. But tbh, i think these numbers are pretty close to being accurate.....


Resp:
I should be able extrapolate with what you furnished. I know that Spitfires did shuttle work for the 8th AF bomb runs, but it looks like they could have flown some distance. I had assumed that the Spitfires did the initial escort, or possibly the last leg of egress. But with a 90 gallon drop tank, perhaps they could have gone farther.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Smokey Stover (Jul 21, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I should be able extrapolate with what you furnished. I know that Spitfires did shuttle work for the 8th AF bomb runs, but it looks like they could have flown some distance. I had assumed that the Spitfires did the initial escort, or possibly the last leg of egress. But with a 90 gallon drop tank, perhaps they could have gone farther.


As a matter of fact you are right. It's really quite an enigma. During the B.O.B the German Bf -109 as we know had a very limited fuel tank. Crossing the channel + later having to stick close to their bombers the 109's had an average of ten minutes fighting time over England before they had to disengage to have enough fuel to get back to France. There are many accounts of fighter pilots recalling how their squadron mates one by one over the radio described how the fuel warning light was on, and eventually having to ditch into the channel. The French coast was littered with fighter and bomber ac that barely made it home. But my point is, the Bf-109E did have the capability to carry extra fuel drop tanks. It's a serious failure by the Luftwaffe to not implement those measures straight away, as many ac were converted in the field. Especially German ac.

Now getting to the original question bare with me. The same thing happened with the Spitfire once the roles were reversed and it was England flying fighter sweeps across the channel to the French coast. This started out as mostly fighter v fighter combat missions and England were loosing a lot of ac by the end of 1941. Especially around the time the Focke Wulf Fw-190 came into operation. It's nickname "butcherbird" given to it by the British pilots flying their Spitfire Mk V's certainly lived up to it's name. And the Spitfire Mk lX design (mainly more powerful merlin 65 with twin stage superchargers) the Mk lX was a direct result of 190's introduction and produced as an effective adversary. (Side note: Many German pilots upon first meeting the Mk lX mistook it for the slower less powerful Mk V, to their cost. Very similar to the Wildcat & Hellcat v Zero experience in the Pacific. The changes for both US and UK fighters were so minimal many enemy pilots simply were shot down for using dogfighting tactics based on the older planes performance parameters.) But i digress...

Back to the Spitfire's and escort duty. Like the Germans and the experiences with short fuel ranges, the British had perfectly capable resources to fit droptanls or extra fuel pods to the Spitfire. After all they were basically just paper and plaster, meant to be discarded after the fuel was expended. The Spitfire escorting actual bombing missions usually would make the first escort then be relieved by either another squadron of Spits or sometimes American P-47's and P-38's. But this wasn't really common practice as both the RAF & USAAF didn't have much cooperation when it came to missions. The British pretty much bombed by night and the US by day. The RAF offered advice to the USAAF but they were confident the mighty B-17 would shoot its way in and out of a mission. The truth was it simply couldn't even defend itself especially when the Luftwaffe literally loitered around the same airspace as the escorting allied fighters knowing full well they would simply have to turn around and leave the bombers to their fate because of lack of fuel. Some say resources were not enough but the fact is no squadrons were carrying extra fuel tanks adequate to stay with the bombers all the way to the target and back. I don't want to guestimate on fuel range for combat escort ac right now, but i will look up my references. I know more figters could have given a lot longer cover for bombers flying deep penetration raids. The 8th and bomber command were rather ruthlessly treated as canon fodder unfortunately. That's why the numbers of k.i.a are so huge compared to any other branch of the armed forces.

P.S. The book you mentioned sounds very interesting and i have not heard of it before. I will certainly look it up thanks


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 21, 2018)

Smokey Stover said:


> As a matter of fact you are right. It's really quite an enigma. During the B.O.B the German Bf -109 as we know had a very limited fuel tank. Crossing the channel + later having to stick close to their bombers the 109's had an average of ten minutes fighting time over England before they had to disengage to have enough fuel to get back to France. There are many accounts of fighter pilots recalling how their squadron mates one by one over the radio described how the fuel warning light was on, and eventually having to ditch into the channel. The French coast was littered with fighter and bomber ac that barely made it home. But my point is, the Bf-109E did have the capability to carry extra fuel drop tanks. It's a serious failure by the Luftwaffe to not implement those measures straight away, as many ac were converted in the field. Especially German ac.
> 
> Now getting to the original question bare with me. The same thing happened with the Spitfire once the roles were reversed and it was England flying fighter sweeps across the channel to the French coast. This started out as mostly fighter v fighter combat missions and England were loosing a lot of ac by the end of 1941. Especially around the time the Focke Wulf Fw-190 came into operation. It's nickname "butcherbird" given to it by the British pilots flying their Spitfire Mk V's certainly lived up to it's name. And the Spitfire Mk lX design (mainly more powerful merlin 65 with twin stage superchargers) the Mk lX was a direct result of 190's introduction and produced as an effective adversary. (Side note: Many German pilots upon first meeting the Mk lX mistook it for the slower less powerful Mk V, to their cost. Very similar to the Wildcat & Hellcat v Zero experience in the Pacific. The changes for both US and UK fighters were so minimal many enemy pilots simply were shot down for using dogfighting tactics based on the older planes performance parameters.) But i digress...
> 
> ...


Resp:
Thanks, Smokey. After a disastrous bombing raid to Germany in Sept 1943 by 8AF Bomber Command, Gen Arnold (visiting England) 'jumped' Air Marshall Portal (spelling ?) for not using his fighters to attack German fighter airfields (while they were refueling after attacking ingress bombers) to reduce available fighters for egress attacks. When the incident filtered down to RAF pilots, they thought Arnold justified, as they believed 'command' was not adjusting to the changing needs of the air war! Part of the blame fell to Eaker, as he communicated little with RAF Command.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 21, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Thanks, Smokey. After a disastrous bombing raid to Germany in Sept 1943 by 8AF Bomber Command, Gen Arnold (visiting England) 'jumped' Air Marshall Portal (spelling ?) for not using his fighters to attack German fighter airfields (while they were refueling after attacking ingress bombers) to reduce available fighters for egress attacks. When the incident filtered down to RAF pilots, they thought Arnold justified, as they believed 'command' was not adjusting to the changing needs of the air war! Part of the blame fell to Eaker, as he communicated little with RAF Command.


Some details would be nice, like which country the airfields were in?


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 21, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Some details would be nice, like which country the airfields were in?


1943: Occupied France.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 21, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> 1943: Occupied France.


Which part of France wasn't occupied in 1943?

I am trying to narrow things down.


----------



## Airframes (Jul 22, 2018)

The best Spitfire ?
Any Mark that I could afford to own !!!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 23, 2018)

Smokey Stover said:


> As a matter of fact you are right. It's really quite an enigma. During the B.O.B the German Bf -109 as we know had a very limited fuel tank. Crossing the channel + later having to stick close to their bombers the 109's had an average of ten minutes fighting time over England before they had to disengage to have enough fuel to get back to France. There are many accounts of fighter pilots recalling how their squadron mates one by one over the radio described how the fuel warning light was on, and eventually having to ditch into the channel. The French coast was littered with fighter and bomber ac that barely made it home. But my point is, the Bf-109E did have the capability to carry extra fuel drop tanks. It's a serious failure by the Luftwaffe to not implement those measures straight away, as many ac were converted in the field. Especially German ac.
> 
> Now getting to the original question bare with me. The same thing happened with the Spitfire once the roles were reversed and it was England flying fighter sweeps across the channel to the French coast. This started out as mostly fighter v fighter combat missions and England were loosing a lot of ac by the end of 1941. Especially around the time the Focke Wulf Fw-190 came into operation. It's nickname "butcherbird" given to it by the British pilots flying their Spitfire Mk V's certainly lived up to it's name. And the Spitfire Mk lX design (mainly more powerful merlin 65 with twin stage superchargers) the Mk lX was a direct result of 190's introduction and produced as an effective adversary. (Side note: Many German pilots upon first meeting the Mk lX mistook it for the slower less powerful Mk V, to their cost. Very similar to the Wildcat & Hellcat v Zero experience in the Pacific. The changes for both US and UK fighters were so minimal many enemy pilots simply were shot down for using dogfighting tactics based on the older planes performance parameters.) But i digress...
> 
> ...


Resp:
We can't change history, nor should we try, but as students of WWII aviation history it is important to know as much as possible. There are reasons why the USAAF, RAF, etc evolved the way they did. The Japanese Zero had a phenomenal range by late 1940 (even w/o its ability to carry one drop tank), while the USAAF (formerly USAAC) placed a restriction on aircraft manufacturers against building fighters capable of carrying external fuel stores (drop tanks) since 1939. Most historians believe that this was due to infighting between Bomber Command and Fighter Command (since late 1920s/early 1930s) as the capability of fighters carrying external fuel stores was a 'threat' to Strategic Bombing (may have also influenced where money was allotted). Regardless, as you said, 8th AF Bomber Command suffered extremely heavy loses from German (Luftwaffe) air attacks on ingress and egress, with ack ack artillery over target area. HOWEVER, it was my understanding that when RAF Bomber Command went to 'night' missions only (or mostly), they flew w/o fighter escort. If so, how where RAF fighters used by mid 1943? As was mentioned, after the B.O.B. the Liftwaffe and RAF roles were reversed; RAF defending their territory against German air attacks, to Liftwaffe defending French held territory against Allied (RAF & USAAF) power projection. So how was RAF Fighter Command utilizing their air assets in the ETO in mid-1943, now that they were in the air offensive mode? We know that RAF Spitfies did provide Ingres/egress over occupied France, but to what extent and when, is my question. And most importantly, could or were drop tanks used to extend their coverage on B-17s and B-24s? P-47s in England were not fitted (retro for single 75 gal belly tank) for external fuel stores until Sept 1943. Plumbed wing hard points didn't arrive until P-47D-15 arrived in Mar/Apr(?) 1944, so there was a need for daylight bombing escorts. [My info indicates that 8 AF Commander Gen Eaker and RAF Air Marshall Portal rarely interacted/met with each other to exchange info, etc..]. I know that when USAAF Commander Gen Hap Arnold visited 8th AF in Sept 1943, he also met with AM Portal, where he gave Portal 'hell' for not using his fighters/fighter bombers to attack German air fields in France on the days when the 8th AF bombers had missions. Knowing full well that some Luftwaffe airfields were w/in striking distance. Arnold pointed out that RAF could catch the fighters on the ground when they landed to refuel/rearm, after attacking his bombers on ingress. When the story of their meeting filtered down to RAF fighter pilots, they thought Arnold's point had merit, as they saw RAF Command as stagnate, by not adjusting to the needs of the changing conflict. Portal, shocked . . . did act. 
So, I am interested in how the RAF assisted 8AF. I know that RAF fighters did perform escort duties for 8AF, but I am interested in to what extent; details please. Were drop tanks used on Spitfires for this assist?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Smokey Stover (Jul 23, 2018)

_Two Spitfire IXs were fitted with Mustang drop tanks in the US. (US National Archives_

Ok, i will get you some figures. But just for now, to answer one of your questions about bomber command flying at night without fighter escort (As escorting fighters in the dark, would hardly have been very effective if at all) The bomber crews were pretty much left to their own. Although it should be noted that from late '42' to '43' onwards, the RAF were flying night intruder missions in and around German night fighter bases. These missions were undertook by the Mosquito FB's and were very successful. Either shooting down twin engine night fighters such as the Bf - 110 & Me - 410's. Even if they weren't shooting down enemy planes it was an effective method of keeping some German units on the ground as they knew full well Mossies were likely orbiting their airbases. It was pretty standard for night fighter pilots to stick very close to ground level when taking off for at least two miles before making their climb up into the bomber stream. I interviewed a Canadian Mosquito pilot who went on such missions and said sometimes it was simply bad practice by enemy pilots. One Me -410 pilot landed after shooting down 5 RAF bombers that very night, so he could refuel and rearm only in his rush to get back up had left his landing lights on. This was enough for the Mossie to sneak in behind the 410 and blow it out of the sky. The guy probably never even knew what hit him. The German pilots called these mossie intruders "The bandits of the air!" They were based at Hunsdon airfield i believe. There was a pub at the end of the runway called the turkey cock. Apparently patrons would almost duck their heads while holding a pint when the mossies were taking off and landing....

But as for the Spits range and operational duties, It has to be noted that while various extra fuel tanks were fitted or adapted to nearly all Spitfire Mk's, the aircraft was designed as a short range home interceptor. So a large capacity fuel tank was simply not a requirement in the original design. And infact the front fuel tank, located just forward of the cockpit firewall resulted in many pilots being horribly burned or killed if trapped inside the cockpit. s The Mk I carried 85 gallons of petrol internally in two tanks immediately ahead of the cockpit. The upper tank held 48 gallons and the lower 37. This arrangement was used in the majority of the Merlin fighter marks: II, V, IX and XVI. (By comparison, the Bristol Bulldog of 1928, with only 490 hp, carried 106 gallons). Later examples of the Mk IX and Mk XVI featured two tanks behind the cockpit with 75 gallons (66 gallons in the versions with the cut down rear fuselage). The principal versions of photo-reconnaissance Spitfires used the majority of the leading edge structure as an integral fuel tank holding 66 gallons per side. As this required the removal of the armament, it was not an option for the fighter variants. Capacity was increased in the Mk VIII (which followed the Mk IX into service) with the lower tank enlarged to fill its bay and holding 48 gallons. Each wing also held a 13-gallon bag tank in the inboard leading edge (between ribs 5 and 8) to give a total internal load of 122 gallons, a 44% increase on its forerunners. Eighteen gallon leading edge bag tanks were also fitted in some late Mk IXs. Fitting the Griffon in the Spitfire’s slim nose displaced the oil tank from its original ‘chin’ position to the main tank area. This reduced upper tank capacity by 12 gallons but all Griffon Spitfires, bar some Mk XIIs, featured the 48-gallon lower tank. It is worth noting that the PR Mk VI had a 20-gallon tank fitted under the pilot’s seat although no other mark of Spitfire appears to have used this option. On 85 gallons of internal fuel, the Mk IX had a range of only 434 miles; the Mk VIII, reaching 660 miles on 122 gallons, was still short on reach.

Try this article below, just follow the link
*Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach?*


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 23, 2018)

Smokey Stover said:


> Ok, i will get you some figures. But just for now, to answer one of your questions about bomber command flying at night without fighter escort (As escorting fighters in the dark, would hardly have been very effective if at all) The bomber crews were pretty much left to their own. Although it should be noted that from late '42' to '43' onwards, the RAF were flying night intruder missions in and around German night fighter bases. These missions were undertook by the Mosquito FB's and were very successful. Either shooting down twin engine night fighters such as the Bf - 110 & Me - 410's. Even if they weren't shooting down enemy planes it was an effective method of keeping some German units on the ground as they knew full well Mossies were likely orbiting their airbases. It was pretty standard for night fighter pilots to stick very close to ground level when taking off for at least two miles before making their climb up into the bomber stream. I interviewed a Canadian Mosquito pilot who went on such missions and said sometimes it was simply bad practice by enemy pilots. One Me -410 pilot landed after shooting down 5 RAF bombers that very night, so he could refuel and rearm only in his rush to get back up had left his landing lights on. This was enough for the Mossie to sneak in behind the 410 and blow it out of the sky. The guy probably never even knew what hit him. The German pilots called these mossie intruders "The bandits of the air!" They were based at Hunsdon airfield i believe. There was a pub at the end of the runway called the turkey cock. Apparently patrons would almost duck their heads while holding a pint when the mossies were taking off and landing....
> 
> But as for the Spits range and operational duties, i will get you some info shortly. But while your waiting i suggest you check out this article below.....
> 
> ...


Resp:
Thanks Smokey. I didn't think fighters could be used as escort on night missions, but I didn't want to assume that it wasn't done (you know, 'assume' makes an 'ass out of u and me!).


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2018)

Smokey Stover said:


> But as for the Spits range and operational duties, i will get you some info shortly. But while your waiting i suggest you check out this article below.....
> 
> 
> *Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach?*



Unfortunately the authors made a few errors in their calculations or operations.


_Start-up, taxi and take-off with rear tank selected
_
Just about everybody else performed this on the main tanks. For one thing one of the main tanks on most aircraft was the "reserve tank" with a seperate fuel tap/standpipe. Most planes also had a return line from the Carb/injector that returned excess fuel. Using this main tank first not only assured safer fuel supply but gave room for the excess fuel to be returned to rather than vented overboard. 

_Climb to height and cruise commenced on remaining rear tank fuel
_
This is where the Mustang switched to the rear tank, at least until it had been drawn down to the desired amount. Planes without a rear tank CG problem switched to drop tanks. Nobody took off on drop tanks. 

_Outbound cruise continued on underwing tanks fuel – jettisoned when empty (or on entering combat)
_
Pretty much standard

_Combat on slipper tank fuel
_
Slipper tank better have very postive feed and be self sealing. 

_Return on internal fuel 
_
here is the kicker, it doesn't matter how much fuel you had going in, what matters is how much fuel you have after you drop the the tanks and fight for 15-20 minutes.
Mustangs drew the rear tank down to about 35 gallons(?) then switched to the drop tanks. with drop tanks gone they had most of the 180 gallons in the wing tanks to fight and get home with. depending on the length of the flight some of the fuel used to start-up/taxi and take off had been replaced by the return fuel. 
The 35 gallons in the rear tank became the 'reserve' for finding airfield and landing. With tanks gone the Mustang had a max of 215 US gallons but might be down to 200 gallons. A Spitfire with full fuselage tanks and 18 gallon wing bags has 154 US gallons, add in 25-30 gallons for a rear tank and you are still abit short, you also have 5 possible fuel tanks for the pilot to juggle compared to the 3 tanks on the Mustang and this is after the drop tanks are gone (5 tanks total on the Mustang vs 7 tanks (or 8 if a slipper is used?) 
How many pilots/planes lost due to pilot either putting the fuel selector in the wrong position or the engine cutting out on an air bubble in the line/system (one reason take-off was always done on a main tank and not an auxiliary tank)


----------



## Smokey Stover (Jul 24, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Unfortunately the authors made a few errors in their calculations or operations.
> 
> 
> _Start-up, taxi and take-off with rear tank selected
> ...


Oh indeed. It's not just about turning the plane into a flying gas tank. I know from P-51 pilot testimony if the fuel tanks were not used up in a certain order all kinds of stability problems occur. Any aircraft adding extra weight has to be effected. And the Spits were very thirsty beasts. As i said before though, the spitfire was only ever supposed to be a fighter/bomber interceptor. And for that job it excelled. All sides found once distance became an issue, new methods and compromises had to be made. A lot of people forget WW2 aircraft technology and understanding was still a tough learning curve.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 24, 2018)

Smokey Stover said:


> Oh indeed. It's not just about turning the plane into a flying gas tank. I know from P-51 pilot testimony if the fuel tanks were not used up in a certain order all kinds of stability problems occur. Any aircraft adding extra weight has to be effected. And the Spits were very thirsty beasts. As i said before though, the spitfire was only ever supposed to be a fighter/bomber interceptor. And for that job it excelled. All sides found once distance became an issue, new methods and compromises had to be made. A lot of people forget WW2 aircraft technology and understanding was still a tough learning curve.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 24, 2018)

Resp:
I do not know why we are talking about the Merlin Mustang. The question was a rather simple two fold one. If the Spitfire (whatever variants were available around the time frame of Sept 1943) was providing escort for 8th AF bombers, which I believe it was . . . what would the maximum (radius) that it could fly? If drop tanks were available, what would the combat radius be with those tanks? It may not be a significant distance.
NOTE: A standard escort chart of Allied fighters shows the Spitfire (unknown Mark) flying 175 miles before turning for home.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 28, 2018)

Smokey Stover said:


> View attachment 503068
> _Two Spitfire IXs were fitted with Mustang drop tanks in the US. (US National Archives_
> 
> Ok, i will get you some figures. But just for now, to answer one of your questions about bomber command flying at night without fighter escort (As escorting fighters in the dark, would hardly have been very effective if at all) The bomber crews were pretty much left to their own. Although it should be noted that from late '42' to '43' onwards, the RAF were flying night intruder missions in and around German night fighter bases. These missions were undertook by the Mosquito FB's and were very successful. Either shooting down twin engine night fighters such as the Bf - 110 & Me - 410's. Even if they weren't shooting down enemy planes it was an effective method of keeping some German units on the ground as they knew full well Mossies were likely orbiting their airbases. It was pretty standard for night fighter pilots to stick very close to ground level when taking off for at least two miles before making their climb up into the bomber stream. I interviewed a Canadian Mosquito pilot who went on such missions and said sometimes it was simply bad practice by enemy pilots. One Me -410 pilot landed after shooting down 5 RAF bombers that very night, so he could refuel and rearm only in his rush to get back up had left his landing lights on. This was enough for the Mossie to sneak in behind the 410 and blow it out of the sky. The guy probably never even knew what hit him. The German pilots called these mossie intruders "The bandits of the air!" They were based at Hunsdon airfield i believe. There was a pub at the end of the runway called the turkey cock. Apparently patrons would almost duck their heads while holding a pint when the mossies were taking off and landing....
> ...


Resp:
I just got to briefly scan the 'Escort Spitfire - a missed opt for longer reach.' I need to re-read to digest its impact.
In reviewing info on how the 8th AF set up in England, it was interesting to find that the RAF offered, in July 1942 to 'provide bomber escort for the USAAF via the Spitfire. Apparently, the British wanted to test the MkIX's ability at sustained high altitude against the FW-190. The USAAF accepted the offer (funny how hard the USAAC fought its own Fighter Command against the idea of fighter escorts for the B-17, etc.). First escort mission was on Aug 17, 1942 to Rouen/Sottervulle marshaling yards. More to follow!


----------



## Navalwarrior (Aug 4, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I just got to briefly scan the 'Escort Spitfire - a missed opt for longer reach.' I need to re-read to digest its impact.
> In reviewing info on how the 8th AF set up in England, it was interesting to find that the RAF offered, in July 1942 to 'provide bomber escort for the USAAF via the Spitfire. Apparently, the British wanted to test the MkIX's ability at sustained high altitude against the FW-190. The USAAF accepted the offer (funny how hard the USAAC fought its own Fighter Command against the idea of fighter escorts for the B-17, etc.). First escort mission was on Aug 17, 1942 to Rouen/Sottervulle marshaling yards. More to follow!


Cont:
I would think using the chart's 175 miles range w/o drop tanks (am assuming they were Spitfire MkIXs) as a basis to extrapolate range WITH various drop tanks. In so doing, that 175 mile distance X 2 would provide enough fuel 1) on ingress, 2) air combat, and 3) for egress. So 350 total miles on internal fuel would cover all three? Can't we just add in half the distance for each capacity drop tank, for the additional range?


----------



## pbehn (Aug 4, 2018)

The issue with the Spitfire compared to the P-51 is not only internal fuel or external fuel. The P-51 was faster on maximum speed but also about 30MPH faster on most engine settings, after 2 hrs cruising it was 60 miles ahead of a Spitfire or still had 60 miles more fuel on board, The Spitfire had less fuel but actually required more which is why the difference in terms of an escort fighter was huge.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 4, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I just got to briefly scan the 'Escort Spitfire - a missed opt for longer reach.' I need to re-read to digest its impact.
> In reviewing info on how the 8th AF set up in England, it was interesting to find that the RAF offered, in July 1942 to 'provide bomber escort for the USAAF via the Spitfire. Apparently, the British wanted to test the MkIX's ability at sustained high altitude against the FW-190. The USAAF accepted the offer (funny how hard the USAAC fought its own Fighter Command against the idea of fighter escorts for the B-17, etc.). First escort mission was on Aug 17, 1942 to Rouen/Sottervulle marshaling yards. More to follow!


The RAF/RCAF used 4 squadrons of Spitfire MkIXs to escort USAAF B-17s on a raid at Abbeville airfield during Dieppe August 1942. On the Schweinfurt raid (Aug 1943) 96 Spitfires escorted to Antwerp and from St Niklaas


----------



## Navalwarrior (Aug 4, 2018)

pbehn said:


> The issue with the Spitfire compared to the P-51 is not only internal fuel or external fuel. The P-51 was faster on maximum speed but also about 30MPH faster on most engine settings, after 2 hrs cruising it was 60 miles ahead of a Spitfire or still had 60 miles more fuel on board, The Spitfire had less fuel but actually required more which is why the difference in terms of an escort fighter was huge.


Resp:
Thanks pbehn. All good info, which explains a lot. I know when I attended a local Air Show, where a Spitfire IX was about 2/3rds the size of a P-51D, when parked next to each other. And the Mustang could out run the MkIX. I recently read where Supermarine was contemplating moving the air intakes from the wings to the fuselage at the aft wing root area . . . to reduce drag. However, I think the wing design did not lend itself to low drag.
BACK TO my question: Knowing what you know, what would the range with drop tanks on the Spitfire operating with the 8th AF during the Sept 1943 time frame? Or put another way, what would the range be where the spitfire would turn for home? Thanks.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 4, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Thanks pbehn. All good info, which explains a lot. I know when I attended a local Air Show, where a Spitfire IX was about 2/3rds the size of a P-51D, when parked next to each other. And the Mustang could out run the MkIX. I recently read where Supermarine was contemplating moving the air intakes from the wings to the fuselage at the aft wing root area . . . to reduce drag. However, I think the wing design did not lend itself to low drag.
> BACK TO my question: Knowing what you know, what would the range with drop tanks on the Spitfire operating with the 8th AF during the Sept 1943 time frame? Or put another way, what would the range be where the spitfire would turn for home? Thanks.


I have no idea but the question is purely hypothetical. On the repeat raid on Schweinfurt in October 1943 there were 24 squadrons of Spitfires equipped with drop tanks, but they handed over to P-47s that didn't have drop tanks fitted (according to Wiki and one identical other source).


----------



## Navalwarrior (Aug 4, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I have no idea but the question is purely hypothetical. On the repeat raid on Schweinfurt in October 1943 there were 24 squadrons of Spitfires equipped with drop tanks, but they handed over to P-47s that didn't have drop tanks fitted (according to Wiki and one identical other source).


Resp:
The 8th AF Commander Gen Eaker met with British officials in mid 1943 inre to producing drop tanks for his fighters. However, Eaker failed to confirm the order. In the meantime, Eaker cancelled a US order to produce drop tanks. By the time Eaker realized his mistake, many months had passed. One can only guess the cost in human life/aircraft.
I read where USAAF Gen Hap Arnold gave RAF Commander Portal a 'hard time' in Sep 43 (visit to England) after the 1st Schweinfurt mission by 8th AF Bomber Command. Arnold expected RAF to attack Luftwaffe fighter airfields while they landed to refuel and rearm. This was after the Luftwaffe attacked the bombers on ingress. When the story filtered down to RAF fighter pilots, they thought Arnold's complaint had merit, in that RAF Command was not keeping up with the changes as the war progressed. According to the info I read, Portal did act (likely the drop tank equipped Spitfires on the Oct Schweinfurt raid was but one area of support). If Spitfires did not have the range, aircraft such as Mosquitos would have sufficed.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 4, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> If Spitfires did not have the range, aircraft such as Mosquitos would have sufficed.


What is this? Pull a well known British aircraft name out of the air? How many Mosquitos? Do you want bomber and photo recon variants too. What use is a Mosquito as a bomber escort apart from being easy to shoot down. If you can conjure unlimited numbers of aircraft as and when you want why not just have Mosquitos do the whole lot until Big Week starts? Your post shows complete ignorance of the situation and a very clear willingness to blame the British for US losses with no more evidence required than "I heard" or "I read" you have not learned anything at all since you first posted here, you have just got a few more "factoids" that you can selectively quote to support your nutty ideas. Now you show me where and when you read quote "*Gen Hap Arnold gave RAF Commander Portal a 'hard time' in Sep 43 (visit to England) after the 1st Schweinfurt mission by 8th AF Bomber Command. Arnold expected RAF to attack Luftwaffe fighter airfields while they landed to refuel and rearm." *What were the RAF supposed to attack with and where and was this requested by anyone, how did "Hap" expect anything? How do you* expect* coordinated airfield attacks? When at the time coordinating bomber escort and actually met recon was beyond everyone involved? Be aware that I am no longer an idle poster and a bystander in this discussion, you are quite clearly trying to pin some latterday accusation of cowardice or lack of care on the RAF in particular, and the British people in general, for US bomber losses. Produce a FACT to support what you claim to have heard and read, or STFU. I have given you specific dates and numbers, you respond with nothing more than accusations of what amounts to witchcraft, whataboutery and couldashoulawoulda, my parents generation are not at your disposal for that. Stop making accusations dressed up as questions and produce some evidence for your tin pot theories.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Aug 4, 2018)

pbehn said:


> What is this? Pull a well known British aircraft name out of the air? How many Mosquitos? Do you want bomber and photo recon variants too. What use is a Mosquito as a bomber escort apart from being easy to shoot down. If you can conjure unlimited numbers of aircraft as and when you want why not just have Mosquitos do the whole lot until Big Week starts? Your post shows complete ignorance of the situation and a very clear willingness to blame the British for US losses with no more evidence required than "I heard" or "I read" you have not learned anything at all since you first posted here, you have just got a few more "factoids" that you can selectively quote to support your nutty ideas. Now you show me where and when you read quote "*Gen Hap Arnold gave RAF Commander Portal a 'hard time' in Sep 43 (visit to England) after the 1st Schweinfurt mission by 8th AF Bomber Command. Arnold expected RAF to attack Luftwaffe fighter airfields while they landed to refuel and rearm." *What were the RAF supposed to attack with and where and was this requested by anyone, how did "Hap" expect anything? How do you* expect* coordinated airfield attacks? When at the time coordinating bomber escort and actually met recon was beyond everyone involved? Be aware that I am no longer an idle poster and a bystander in this discussion, you are quite clearly trying to pin some latterday accusation of cowardice or lack of care on the RAF in particular, and the British people in general, for US bomber losses. Produce a FACT to support what you claim to have heard and read, or STFU. I have given you specific dates and numbers, you respond with nothing more than accusations of what amounts to witchcraft, whataboutery and couldashoulawoulda, my parents generation are not at your disposal for that. Stop making accusations dressed up as questions and produce some evidence for your tin pot theories.


Resp:
WOW! I don't know how you can jump so high. I was referring to strategy and tactics. Having served over 25 yrs, I am well aware of how military leadership is often slow to change. I always allowed my junior officers to speak, as often my head may be focused in an area that causes me to give less time to others. Having worked 11.5 hour days for nearly 12 mos (forward deployed) it is easy to miss things that I haven't paid attention to. I often kept a pen and paper on my nightstand, so I could write down items I missed (one morning I awoke to find 8 items listed). Command is demanding! ! ! RAF pilots, from their agreement, saw this happening at the higher level. Portal was where he was because of his ability, which was significant. There was no disrespect toward any Service. Mosquitos, or any suitable aircraft, could have attacked the airfields.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 4, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> WOW! I don't know how you can jump so high. I was referring to strategy and tactics. Having served over 25 yrs, I am well aware of how military leadership is often slow to change. I always allowed my junior officers to speak, as often my head may be focused in an area that causes me to give less time to others. Having worked 11.5 hour days for nearly 12 mos (forward deployed) it is easy to miss things that I haven't paid attention to. I often kept a pen and paper on my nightstand, so I could write down items I missed (one morning I awoke to find 8 items listed). Command is demanding! ! ! RAF pilots, from their agreement, saw this happening at the higher level. Portal was where he was because of his ability, which was significant. There was no disrespect toward any Service. Mosquitos, or any suitable aircraft, could have attacked the airfields.


Where is the evidence to support your claims? In Big Week Mosquitos and others were used for airfield attacks but I consider that one of many lessons learned. I am waiting for your evidence, and believe me I will badger you for it until you produce it or admit you just made it up since I have not seen any evidence and I was one of the people you were pumping for information. I now suspect that your constant harping on about the Spitfires range is part of your conspiracy theory, prove me wrong.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Aug 5, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Where is the evidence to support your claims? In Big Week Mosquitos and others were used for airfield attacks but I consider that one of many lessons learned. I am waiting for your evidence, and believe me I will badger you for it until you produce it or admit you just made it up since I have not seen any evidence and I was one of the people you were pumping for information. I now suspect that your constant harping on about the Spitfires range is part of your conspiracy theory, prove me wrong.


Resp:
Book: To Command The Sky: The Battle for Air Superiority Over Germany 1942-1944, by Stephen L. McFarlore & Wesley Phillips Newton, 2006, Pub by The University of Alabama Press, pages 106, 112, 114, 133, and 144-146. Details USAAF Gen Eaker's Command issues, to include Gen Hap Arnold's lack of confidence in him. The decision of Arnold to replace Fighter Commander Hunter with Kepner in June 1943, and replace Bomber Commander Longfellow with Anderson. Arnold would relieve Eaker in Nov/Dec 1943, to be replaced by Doolittle.
Paper: American Air Power Comes of Age - General H. H. "Hap" Arnold's World War II Diaries, Vol 2, Air University Press, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, Jan 2002, ISBN 1-58566-094-9, p 48-50. Details Arnold's relationship/discussion with Air Marshall Portal. Covers his visit and correspondence between Arnold and Portal. I believe the first book, To Command The Sky, also mentions communications between Portal and Arnold. You will also see that Arnold was disappointed with Eaker, as his many communications show.
Also: The Spitfire's record stands on it own.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 5, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Book: To Command The Sky: The Battle for Air Superiority Over Germany 1942-1944, by Stephen L. McFarlore & Wesley Phillips Newton, 2006, Pub by The University of Alabama Press, pages 106, 112, 114, 133, and 144-146. Details USAAF Gen Eaker's Command issues, to include Gen Hap Arnold's lack of confidence in him. The decision of Arnold to replace Fighter Commander Hunter with Kepner in June 1943, and replace Bomber Commander Longfellow with Anderson. Arnold would relieve Eaker in Nov/Dec 1943, to be replaced by Doolittle.
> Paper: American Air Power Comes of Age - General H. H. "Hap" Arnold's World War II Diaries, Vol 2, Air University Press, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, Jan 2002, ISBN 1-58566-094-9, p 48-50. Details Arnold's relationship/discussion with Air Marshall Portal. Covers his visit and correspondence between Arnold and Portal. I believe the first book, To Command The Sky, also mentions communications between Portal and Arnold. You will also see that Arnold was disappointed with Eaker, as his many communications show.
> Also: The Spitfire's record stands on it own.


How about some actual quotes to support your assertion that the British did not make coordinated attacks on LW airfields as arranged by Hap Arnold? What did he actually say?


----------



## wuzak (Aug 5, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Thanks pbehn. All good info, which explains a lot. I know when I attended a local Air Show, where a Spitfire IX was about 2/3rds the size of a P-51D, when parked next to each other. And the Mustang could out run the MkIX. I recently read where Supermarine was contemplating moving the air intakes from the wings to the fuselage at the aft wing root area . . . to reduce drag. However, I think the wing design did not lend itself to low drag.
> BACK TO my question: Knowing what you know, what would the range with drop tanks on the Spitfire operating with the 8th AF during the Sept 1943 time frame? Or put another way, what would the range be where the spitfire would turn for home? Thanks.



There are several areas where the Spitfire lost out in drag compared to the P-47.

The radiators were one of them. The expansion and contraction ratios and limited movement of the exit control flap weren't as good as the P-51's. 

The big cannon and fairings contributed 7 or 8mph speed loss.

The steepness of the front of the cockpit canopy caused significant extra drag compared to that of the P-51.

Fit and finish also contributed to performance losses.

Fix those and you could get a Spitfire quite close to a P-51 without changing the wing.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Aug 5, 2018)

pbehn said:


> How about some actual quotes to support your assertion that the British did not make coordinated attacks on LW airfields as arranged by Hap Arnold? What did he actually say?


Resp:
You asked for evidence. I gave you everything you need to read it for yourself. This part requires action on your part.


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 5, 2018)

Resp: LMAO


----------



## wuzak (Aug 5, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> Resp: LMAO



Resp:

I'm not sure if Resp means Respect or Response.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 5, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Resp:
> I'm not sure if Resp means Respect or Response.



Resp:

Dang....I forgot the quote, that's why you were confused

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Aug 5, 2018)

wuzak said:


> There are several areas where the Spitfire lost out in drag compared to the P-47.
> 
> The radiators were one of them. The expansion and contraction ratios and limited movement of the exit control flap weren't as good as the P-51's.
> 
> ...


Resp:
Makes perfect sense. I believe I read somewhere that Douglas Bader preferred the 'a' wing Spitfire because he got better shot placement and plenty of rounds on target. I am not sure if it was a MkV or IX.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 5, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Makes perfect sense. I believe I read somewhere that Douglas Bader preferred the 'a' wing Spitfire because he got better shot placement and plenty of rounds on target. I am not sure if it was a MkV or IX.



Most likely a Mk II.

Not many V went without cannon. I doubt that any IXs went into service without cannons.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 5, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Makes perfect sense. I believe I read somewhere that Douglas Bader preferred the 'a' wing Spitfire because he got better shot placement and plenty of rounds on target. I am not sure if it was a MkV or IX.


What you believe you read and what was actually written are a subject for discussion. Now about these raids that "Hap Arnold" told the British they should have performed but didn't? When was this? Which of the bases which intercepted the Schweinfurt raid should the British have attacked? Or does "Resp:" mean "I made it up".


----------



## Navalwarrior (Aug 5, 2018)

pbehn said:


> What you believe you read and what was actually written are a subject for discussion. Now about these raids that "Hap Arnold" told the British they should have performed but didn't? When was this? Which of the bases which intercepted the Schweinfurt raid should the British have attacked? Or does "Resp:" mean "I made it up".


Resp:
I gave you my sources. You want to argue my points. I didn't dream them up. You need to go to the source(s) and take it up (argue) with them. Asking me more questions, isn't going to help solve anything.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Aug 5, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Most likely a Mk II.
> 
> Not many V went without cannon. I doubt that any IXs went into service without cannons.


Resp:
Roger. It was fairly early in the war. The info I read stated that stated that Bader (spelling ?) was flying one of the oldest Spitfires in the Squ at the time of his collision/shoot down.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 6, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I gave you my sources. You want to argue my points. I didn't dream them up. You need to go to the source(s) and take it up (argue) with them. Asking me more questions, isn't going to help solve anything.


You mean you made it up. You also claim to have read all those sources then come on here asking questions about a Spitfires range, why not consult your sources.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 6, 2018)

pbehn said:


> You mean you made it up. You also claim to have read all those sources then come on here asking questions about a Spitfires range, why not consult your sources.



Resp
Because Google has more than one page of links. I mean come on who can be bothered to read past wiki and world of Warcraft

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Aug 6, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Roger. It was fairly early in the war. The info I read stated that stated that Bader (spelling ?) was flying one of the oldest Spitfires in the Squ at the time of his collision/shoot down.


Resp:
The info I am seeing dictates his last aircraft was W3185, and that it was a MkVa. Regardless, he did prefer the 'a' wings w MG over cannons.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Aug 6, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> The info I am seeing dictates his last aircraft was W3185, and that it was a MkVa. Regardless, he did prefer the 'a' wings w MG over cannons.


Add:
The Spitfire MkVa was known as the Type 331, with 94 made.


----------



## Madelman (Sep 3, 2018)

Hi, I've voted for the Mk XII as nobody has voted for this one.

For me, it's the best looking Griffon, excellent performance for the time and when was really needed. 

I'd choose Mk VIII as best Merlin Spit, the most elegant


----------



## Navalwarrior (Sep 3, 2018)

Madelman said:


> Hi, I've voted for the Mk XII as nobody has voted for this one.
> 
> For me, it's the best looking Griffon, excellent performance for the time and when was really needed.
> 
> I'd choose Mk VIII as best Merlin Spit, the most elegant


Resp:
I'm guessing, but I suspect the Mk XII had better performance than the Merlin models. Did the Mk XII have greater range over the Mk IX or VIII?


----------



## wuzak (Sep 3, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I'm guessing, but I suspect the Mk XII had better performance than the Merlin models. Did the Mk XII have greater range over the Mk IX or VIII?



The XII had excellent low down performance, but not very good high altitude performance.

I doubt that the XII had greater range than the VIII, and probably not better than the IX either.

The Griffon was a thirsty engine, and the XII did not get much more fuel than the IX - I'd have to confirm this later. 

The VIII had the extra tanks in the inner wing leading edges, which gave it greater range than the IX (maybe later IXs got these as well?). The XIV had them (based on VIII airframe), but the XII did not (based on V airframe, as was the IX).


----------



## Navalwarrior (Sep 4, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The XII had excellent low down performance, but not very good high altitude performance.
> 
> I doubt that the XII had greater range than the VIII, and probably not better than the IX either.
> 
> ...


Resp:
Thanks for the info. That explains one reason why Supermarine continued to built Merlin Spitfire's. It seems like Britain built as many low/mid level altitude fighter (Tempests, Typhoons, Spitfires) as the US did with it Allison engine.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 4, 2018)

Production was the reason Merlin Spitfires continued, not range.

The Merlin was being built in several factories in the UK plus a couple in the US (the factory built for the Continental IV-1430 was eventually put towards Merlin production, but not many were built there). In contrast, the Griffon seems to have only been built at Derby and Crewe, Rolls-Royce factories.

Plus there was additional fuselage strengthening required for the XII, XIV, etc. This would have required some sacrifice of production to change over, as well as the new cowlings required.

The fuel capacities of the IX, XII and VIII were as follows:
IX: 85UKG
XII: 85UKG
VIII: 124UKG

In addition to extra tanks in the wing, the VIII had a larger upper tank.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Sep 4, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Production was the reason Merlin Spitfires continued, not range.
> 
> The Merlin was being built in several factories in the UK plus a couple in the US (the factory built for the Continental IV-1430 was eventually put towards Merlin production, but not many were built there). In contrast, the Griffon seems to have only been built at Derby and Crewe, Rolls-Royce factories.
> 
> ...


Resp:
I guess I am confused. I would have thought that since the Merlin operated better at higher altitudes, the British would have focused production more on the Merlin. After all, the need for higher operational altitudes were required in the ETO. Hence, the Merlin Mustang.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 4, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I guess I am confused. I would have thought that since the Merlin operated better at higher altitudes, the British would have focused production more on the Merlin. After all, the need for higher operational altitudes were required in the ETO. Hence, the Merlin Mustang.


The Merlin didn't perform better at higher altitude than the Griffon with 2 stage supercharger (65 series) fitted to the MkXIV. You are working from a conclusion backwards. There were few single stage Griffon engines made (approx. 100), only 2 squadrons used them. The Mk XIV Spitfire was used mainly for armed and PR recon approx. half were fitted with cameras. The number of Merlin Spitfire Mk IXs given to Russia was approximately the same as the number of Griffon Spitfires produced. After D-Day there was a land front, much if not most activity was closer to the ground.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Sep 4, 2018)

pbehn said:


> The Merlin didn't perform better at higher altitude than the Griffon with 2 stage supercharger (65 series) fitted to the MkXIV. You are working from a conclusion backwards. There were few single stage Griffon engines made (approx. 100), only 2 squadrons used them. The Mk XIV Spitfire was used mainly for armed and PR recon approx. half were fitted with cameras. The number of Merlin Spitfire Mk IXs given to Russia was approximately the same as the number of Griffon Spitfires produced. After D-Day there was a land front, much if not most activity was closer to the ground.





pbehn said:


> The Merlin didn't perform better at higher altitude than the Griffon with 2 stage supercharger (65 series) fitted to the MkXIV. You are working from a conclusion backwards. There were few single stage Griffon engines made (approx. 100), only 2 squadrons used them. The Mk XIV Spitfire was used mainly for armed and PR recon approx. half were fitted with cameras. The number of Merlin Spitfire Mk IXs given to Russia was approximately the same as the number of Griffon Spitfires produced. After D-Day there was a land front, much if not most activity was closer to the ground.


Resp:
Not to be smart, but I thought that that is what looking at history meant, looking backwards. When did the Mk XIV enter service (1st operational Squadron)?


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 4, 2018)

Ans:

Dec. 1943 with 610 Sqn.. Forgot to enter the quote or no one will know what I'm talking about...here we go



Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Not to be smart, but I thought that that is what looking at history meant, looking backwards. When did the Mk XIV enter service (1st operational Squadron)?


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 4, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> Ans:
> 
> Dec. 1943 with 610 Sqn.. Forgot to enter the quote or no one will know what I'm talking about...here we go



Supp:

I also found Jan-Feb 1944 so take your pick

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Sep 4, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> Ans:
> 
> Dec. 1943 with 610 Sqn.. Forgot to enter the quote or no one will know what I'm talking about...here we go


Resp:
Thanks much fubar. Do you have a good source so I can read @ the development of the Spitefre?


----------



## pbehn (Sep 4, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Not to be smart, but I thought that that is what looking at history meant, looking backwards. When did the Mk XIV enter service (1st operational Squadron)?


I mean you draw a conclusion and work back to find evidence for that conclusion. The Spitfire Mk XIV first major use was against V1s on diver patrols starting June 1944. The altitude performance of the P-51 is a separate issue, it requires formations of 4 engine heavy bombers as part of the strategy.


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 4, 2018)

I love the mk IX myself. The best looking Spitfire in my opinion.


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 4, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Thanks much fubar. Do you have a good source so I can read @ the development of the Spitefre?



Ret:

I have 82 books about the Spitfire. The books by Alfred Price would be the best start

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ryanjames17 (Sep 4, 2018)

Spitfire MKIII would be the best


----------



## wuzak (Sep 4, 2018)

pbehn said:


> There were few single stage Griffon engines made (approx. 100), only 2 squadrons used them.



I think you meant to say "single stage Griffon Spitfire variants". There were only 100 XIIs made, but the Griffon also went into the Seafire XV (navalised XII) late in the war/post war and the Fairey Firefly from 1943. Post war the single stage Griffon saw service in the Shackleton.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 4, 2018)

Ryanjames17 said:


> Spitfire MKIII would be the best



Th eone that didn't go into production, or the PR version of the Mk I which was redesignated PR.III?


----------



## Ryanjames17 (Sep 5, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Th eone that didn't go into production, or the PR version of the Mk I which was redesignated PR.III?


The one that had near Mk IX performance that they never put into production as they dumped the merlin XX into the hurricane.

I'm sure they regreted that when FW190s showed up


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 5, 2018)

.....but there were two(ish) Mk.IIIs and the Merlin XX did go into Spitfires...

"...A second aircraft, Spitfire Mk.V _W3237,_ was configured to an almost identical standard (minus the retractable tailwheel) to continue Mk.III testing while _N3297_ was fitted with a standard “A” wing and delivered to Rolls-Royce for engine testing eventually being fitted with the first Merlin 61 engine that would be used in the Spitfire Mk.VIII and IX. Even with a second prototype the Spitfire Mk.III project was now cancelled altogether but _W3237 _continued testing until 1944 to support development work on newer model Spitfires.
While the Spitfire Mk.III was a non-starter the fruits of the testing carried out by the two prototypes can be seen in many of the improvements made to the later Spitfire marks such as cropped wings and doors over the landing gear. The Merlin XX did find its way in to around 50 Spitfire II aircraft converted for use in the air-sea rescue role..."

Supermarine Spitfire Mk.III

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Sep 7, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> I love the mk IX myself. The best looking Spitfire in my opinion.


Resp:
I too favor the Mk IX, with the Mk V a close second. A few notes on early RAF Mk IX missions for USAAF:
- MON, Jul 27, 1942: Spitfire Mk IXs assigned to fly escort for 8th AF B-17s (RAF wanted to test high altitude capabilities against the FW-190).
- MON, Aug 17, 1942, Spitfires (1st mission) escort B-17s to Rouen/Sotterville marshaling yards, France
- FRI! August 21, 1942, 12 B-17s to bomb shipyards at Rotterdam. Mission aborted due to lack of coordination with RAF Spitfire escorts.
- SUN, Sept 6, 1942, 37 Spitfires fly bomber escort to attack Abbeville/Drucat Airfield w no losses.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 7, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> - MON, Jul 27, 1942: Spitfire Mk IXs assigned to fly escort for 8th AF B-17s (RAF wanted to test high altitude capabilities against the FW-190).
> .


Where do those bracketed comments come from? My bracketed comments would be (The RAF, charged with responsibility for escort of USAF bomber forces assigned as many of their best fighters that they had available). I am sick of reading your BULLSHIT comments always with a dig against the Spitfires range which is a childish hobby horse of yours, when you progress that on to the character and aims of men who quite willingly laid down their lives in an allied effort I call you a complete, utter, absolute CUNT. The RAF didn't have an idle curiosity into the relative performance of the Mk IX versus the Fw 190 they had the serious responsibility of protecting the lives of their allies. You never answered to my questions about your complete BULLSHIT vis a vis "Chuck Arnold" With all lack of respect, you are a complete dick head. And with that, I take leave of this forum, it has been nice knowing you regular posters, but all good things come to an end.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 7, 2018)

For me it is the XII, XIV and VIII.


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 7, 2018)

Well one things for sure. There's no such thing as a bad Spitfire. Probably the best looking plane of the war, Imho, and performance was pretty darn good to.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Sep 8, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Where do those bracketed comments come from? My bracketed comments would be (The RAF, charged with responsibility for escort of USAF bomber forces assigned as many of their best fighters that they had available). I am sick of reading your BULLSHIT comments always with a dig against the Spitfires range which is a childish hobby horse of yours, when you progress that on to the character and aims of men who quite willingly laid down their lives in an allied effort I call you a complete, utter, absolute CUNT. The RAF didn't have an idle curiosity into the relative performance of the Mk IX versus the Fw 190 they had the serious responsibility of protecting the lives of their allies. You never answered to my questions about your complete BULLSHIT vis a vis "Chuck Arnold" With all lack of respect, you are a complete dick head. And with that, I take leave of this forum, it has been nice knowing you regular posters, but all good things come to an end.


Resp:
pbehn, I read what you wrote to my wife last night. Her reply, "No Baby, you have always been a 'stick and rudder man to me!"


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 8, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Where do those bracketed comments come from? My bracketed comments would be (The RAF, charged with responsibility for escort of USAF bomber forces assigned as many of their best fighters that they had available). I am sick of reading your BULLSHIT comments always with a dig against the Spitfires range which is a childish hobby horse of yours, when you progress that on to the character and aims of men who quite willingly laid down their lives in an allied effort I call you a complete, utter, absolute CUNT. The RAF didn't have an idle curiosity into the relative performance of the Mk IX versus the Fw 190 they had the serious responsibility of protecting the lives of their allies. You never answered to my questions about your complete BULLSHIT vis a vis "Chuck Arnold" With all lack of respect, you are a complete dick head. And with that, I take leave of this forum, it has been nice knowing you regular posters, but all good things come to an end.


For whatever its worth I didn't get that from his comments at all. Didn't see anything about range in there.
Just hate to see conflict over nothing I can discern anyway. And don't want to see you leave over it either but thats up to you. 
Just my 2 cents.


----------

