# Best US escort fighter in ETO during 1943?



## DarrenW (Apr 1, 2018)

Due to the spirited debate still raging in a separate thread (HERE), I felt there was a need to see which side was making the most headway with their position. So which of these candidates would you fly in an escort role, before the advent of the P-51B\C\D Mustang?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 1, 2018)

Historically - P-38.
If we are allowed to fiddle with engine reliablity and improvements on fuel takage, P-47.


----------



## fubar57 (Apr 1, 2018)

P-39N.....because of all the "facts"

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 1, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> P-39N.....because of all the "facts"


And a recently uncovered chart on an obscure little known website.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 1, 2018)

Historically?

From AHT.

"Oct 15th 1943. The 55th FG goes operational in England with the first use of P-38H models; The 343rd Squadron has P-38H-1s. With two 75 callon drop tanks the the aircraft of the 55th can escort bombers 450-520 miles compared to the P-47's 340 miles. However there are seven P-47 groups already operational."

I would note that the first P-38H aircraft left the production line in March/April of 1943. Aircraft didn't show up in service anywhere near as quick as Mr Expert thinks. 

You pretty much had the P-38 showing up at the end of the year with a lot of problems but long range or the P-47 showing up much earlier (operational in April of 1943) and while taking a while to sort out it happens sooner than the P-38s getting sorted out. It takes Until Dec to get the Paddle blades and water injection and in Jan 44 for wing racks for drop tanks.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 1, 2018)

Not all escort duties were high altitude long range missions, there were 5,000+ B26 Marauders and 7,500 A 20s. who escorted them?


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 1, 2018)

Of these three fighters, I find it easiest to eliminate the P-39, based solely on range requirements and it's ability for future growth. And as discussed in many threads to _ad nauseam_, its speed at heights above 20,000 feet (where escorting heavies primarily took place) was inferior to other aircraft of it's day, such as the P-38, P-47, F4U-1, and F6F-3. Any one of these types would make a far better escort fighter than the Airacobra and luckily the people making the decisions way back in 1943 knew so as well.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 1, 2018)

I've heard that some people around here like "official government charts" (you know who you are), so I thought it best if I provide one or two right now and again as the need arises.....

Advantage : Thunderbolt 

P-39Q-1 (Dec 1942):







P-47B/C/D/G (Jan 1943):


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 1, 2018)

Being that the charts were rather large, I didn't want to post the finer points regarding these flight operation Instructions at the same time. Note that there are NO power settings less than max continuous (full throttle) above 20,000 Feet. This basically means that there isn't enough power to maintain a safe operational flight below this setting. How comforting must that have been to pilots back in the day??? The P-39Q (and very similar N model) had a max range of 215 miles, which was less than half of the P-47. Put a drop tank on and the P-39 suffers even worse in the comparison. It's maximum speed plunges an astonishing 93 mph below that of the P-47 at similar power settings, and it STILL comes up short on range by 86 miles (note that we haven't even looked at putting external tanks on the P-47 yet).

P-39Q w/75 gallon drop tank:


----------



## soulezoo (Apr 2, 2018)

I chose P-38, but not decidedly so. If I had the paddle bladed props for the -47, then I'd choose that. The -38H still has a lot to sort out as well... tough choice. Went for the range and acceleration in the end. Range being most important for the escort role- as the P-51 taught us.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 2, 2018)

I changed my vote, if the P39 gets on the list then the P51A certainly should.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 2, 2018)

Although the Hellcat and Corsair never performed escort duty over Germany (just like the Airacobra), and after looking at operational charts it's quite apparent that even they would have been a better escort choice over Germany than the P-39..

Knowing this (and being a "fanboy" of the Hellcat) I decided to change my vote as well.


----------



## fubar57 (Apr 2, 2018)

pbehn said:


> And a recently uncovered chart on an obscure little known website.



Yes...www.p39sruleandeverythingelseintheskysucksbecauseisaidso.com

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 2, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> Yes...www.p39sruleandeverythingelseintheskysucksbecauseisaidso.com



Hey Fubar, great website, thanks for sharing...


----------



## Thorlifter (Apr 2, 2018)

Changed my vote as well from the P-38 to P-47. Picked the '38 first strictly on the premise of long range escort. Pbehn made a great point that not all escorts were long range.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 2, 2018)

Due to input from our members and being that the nature of this poll is somewhat hypothetical, the P-51A, F4U-1A, and F6F-3 have now been added to the poll. Now let's get out and vote!


----------



## pbehn (Apr 2, 2018)

Thorlifter said:


> Changed my vote as well from the P-38 to P-47. Picked the '38 first strictly on the premise of long range escort. Pbehn made a great point that not all escorts were long range.


In the curious way things work in war, Typhoons escorted Mosquitos in daylight, Mosquitos escorted Lancasters at night while later Spitfires escorted Typhoons.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 2, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Due to input from our members and being that the nature of this poll is somewhat hypothetical, the P-51A, F4U-1A, and F6F-3 have now been added to the poll. Now let's get out and vote!



Ah, the F6F-3. Spitfire V performance in late 1943....

Excellent choice for escort work!

In a similar discussion some time ago, I suggested that the best use of the F6F and its apparent ability to carry sizeable drop tanks was best used for carrying Spitfire XIVs over Europe, so they could do the final leg of escort duty.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 2, 2018)

Hey that was mean!  But knowing the load carrying capability of the Hellcat a very good idea!!! 

And while it obviously was never considered for high altitude escort work in ETO, the Hellcat performed admirably in a medium/low-altitude PTO scenario while escorting Navy types such as the Avenger, Helldiver, Dauntless, and yes, even the ultra sexy Corsair at times (when it was being utilized in the fighter-bomber role).


----------



## wuzak (Apr 2, 2018)

This thread discusses the merits of the F6F and F4U in the ETO.

Corsair and Hellcat in Europe


----------



## parsifal (Apr 3, 2018)

I would say Supermarine Spitfires of the RAF. 

On August 17, 1942, the 97th Bomb Group began the opening attack of the U.S. Army Air Forces’ (USAAF) strategic bombing campaign against Germany. The mission was a strike by 12 B-17s against the railroad marshaling yards at Rouen, 40 miles into France from the English Channel.

The 12 bombers were escorted by four squadrons of RAF Spitfires. The first plane off the ground was flown by Major Paul Tibbetts, of the Enola Gay fame on its historic mission against Hiroshima. Sitting across from Tibbets was Colonel Frank Armstrong, the 97th commander. Armstrong was to serve as the model for Colonel Frank Savage, the lead character played by Gregory Peck in the famous World War II film Twelve o'clock high.

On hand for the launch of the mission was Maj. Gen. Carl “Tooey” Spaatz, the commander of the USAAF Eighth Air Force, the primary organizational element that would carry the air war to Germany. Riding along in one of the strike aircraft was Brig. Gen. Ira Eaker, commander of the 8th bomber command, the bomber component of the Eighth Air Force bomber and fighter forces. Eaker had spent most of his career as a fighter pilot not as a bomber disciple. However, he was convinced that daylight strategic bombing could inflict catastrophic damage on the fighting capability and military production capacity of an enemy.

Conspicuously absent from all this was any US fighter escort. None of the types then in service were considered suitable or of adequate performance or range to do the job at hand. This was a situation that was to remain more or less unchanged until after Schweinfurt, when finally the message was driven home that US bomber formations were vulnerable. Until that realisation was made, it was an anathema to refer to US fighter groups as “the best’, or “effective”. They were so few as to be discounted from either category. Their best defences were woeful because of range issues, but at least there was some protection offered for returning bombers or outbound strikes for part way of the missions. That protection was provided principally by RAF FC. 

This first raid was about as successful as the 8th was to deliver in its first year, whilst admittedly pitifully small. About half the bombs fell within the target area; some rolling stock was destroyed, about one third of the track lines were damaged, and there were no bomber losses. After the raid Spaatz wrote to General Henry “Hap” Arnold, chief of the Army Air Forces, ”It is my opinion and conviction that the B-17 is suitable as to speed, armament, armor, and bomb load.” Eaker was more questioning. He wrote, “It is too early in our experiments in actual operations to say that it can definitely make deep penetrations without fighter escort and without excessive losses.” These were prophetic words.

The buildup of the aircraft and trained crews in southern England for Eighth had been slow. There were fewer than 100 B-17s in England at the time of this August 1942 mission. Far less than 100 aircraft were mission capable. Under increasing pressure from top U.S. political and military leaders to take the war to Germany, to do something with all the men and machines allocated to it, it was inevitable that Eighth Air Force missions would start as soon as possible.

The form of warfare embodied in this first mission was the air strategy that Arnold, Spaatz, and Eaker had helped develop—unescorted daylight precision bombing of enemy industrial and military targets. In writing to Arnold before this first mission, Eaker said, “The theory that daylight bombardment is feasible is about to be tested when men’s lives are put at stake.”

And tested it would be. As missions were pushed beyond the range of protecting British and a slowly increasing American fighter force, LW fighters and air defense artillery destroyed American bombers at a great rate. By August 1943, a year after that initial raid, five times as many American bombers and airmen would be lost in attacks on two German industrial centers as had flown on that first mission. In the August 1943 dual raid on Regensburg and schweinfurt, Colonel Curtis LeMay led 146 bombers against Regensburg while Brig. Gen. Robert Williams led 230 bombers against Schweinfurt. For the first time the bombers were escorted for parts of the missions mostly by USAAC fighters, mostly P-47st fighters, but because of their limited range they could only go as far the western German border. They proved incapable of defending the returning heavily damaged bomber streams from repeated LW attacks on them. These failures demonstrate in spades the inadequacy of the US fighter forces at this time. 

The German defenders had great advantages. The Luftwaffe fighter force was up in strength and could fly multiple sorties from its nearby bases. Twenty-four bombers of the 146 dispatched, carrying 240 crew members, were lost from the Regensburg force. From the 230 dispatched to Schweinfurt, 36 failed to return to bases in England. Combined, the two forces lost 60 of 376 bombers for a loss rate of 16 percent. But this number only told part of the story. In fact, an additional 20 percent of the attacking bombers were permanently lost to operations as a result of battle damage. In all, the raids cost the Eighth Air Force 40 percent of the bomber force dispatched from England.

Why were loss rates so high? Some historians have argued that the losses experienced on raids like Regensburg-Schweinfurt demonstrated clearly and unequivocally that the concept of unescorted daylight precision bombing was a failed strategy. Could Army Air Forces’ planners and leaders not have foreseen that German fighters would inflict unacceptable and unsustainable losses to the bombers unless they were escorted by protecting fighters? Why wasn’t an effective escort fighter available before late 1943? Were Army Air Forces leaders blinded to the flaws in the bombing strategy they had developed?

A close look at the historical facts demonstrates that it was not ignorance, hubris, or a misplaced commitment to their own thinking that led them to conclude that in 1942 and through the fall of 1943 the concept of unescorted daylight precision bombing was sound. Rather, it was a cold logic based on what was known and knowable at the time. To understand why this is so, it is necessary to understand the context of the times in which the planners and leaders worked.

The U.S. concept of strategic bombardment derived from the theories of airpower thinkers like Brig. Gen. Billy Mitchell, who saw what even the primitive airpower of World War I could do. The resulting concepts were developed and refined at the Air Corps Tactical School (ACTS) at Maxwell Field in Alabama from 1926 until the beginning of the war in Europe. Although the ACTS taught these concepts to many airpower advocates, its doctrine lacked formal War Department approval. Accordingly, the spread of the doctrine was initially limited. The ACTS strategic bombing doctrine included the following components:

• The national objective of war is to break the enemy’s will to resist and force the enemy to submit to our will.

• The accomplishment of this goal requires offensive warfare.

• The special mission of air is the attack on the entire enemy national structure to dislocate its military, political, economic, and social activities.

• The disruption of the enemy’s industrial network is the real target because such a disruption might produce a collapse sufficient to induce surrender.

The state of prewar fighter and air defense technology supported these views. When strategic bombing theory was being developed at the ACTS, the leading edge fighter aircraft of the time had an externally braced single wing, a fixed landing gear, an open cockpit, short range, and light armament. These fighters could hardly keep up with a high-flying B-17 bomber in speed and took a long time to get to a bomber’s altitude. In fact, early versions of the Hawker Hurricane, the RAF’s first mono-winged fighter, were not fielded even in small numbers until mid-1938. To think in the early 1930s that the United States or any nation could within a few years develop a short-range, 380 mile-per-hour pursuit fighter with a closed cockpit, retractable landing gear, a cantilever wing, and internally mounted machine guns or cannons would have been extraordinary.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 3, 2018)

According to the pilot handbooks of the two airplanes, the Hellcat had better fuel economy than the Thunderbolt. Carrying the standard 150 gallon drop tank, the Hellcat burned about 100gph at 25,000 feet while flying at 283 mph TAS, and had a radius of 467 miles. At this same height the Thunderbolt, while carrying the earlier 200 gallon external tank, guzzled about 145gph at 225 mph IAS and had a theoretical flight radius of about 505 miles. The marginally greater range of the Thunderbolt was due to it's greater fuel capacity (although these early ferry tanks often carried only 100 gallons so the radius was more like 400 miles).

How would two airplanes of roughly the same size and equipped with basically the same engine burn fuel at such different rates? Was it the turbo-supercharger of the Thunderbolt that made all the difference?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 3, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> According to the pilot handbooks of the two airplanes, the Hellcat had better fuel economy than the Thunderbolt. Carrying the standard 150 gallon drop tank, the Hellcat burned about 100gph at 25,000 feet while flying at 283 mph TAS, and had a radius of 467 miles. At this same height the Thunderbolt, while carrying the earlier 200 gallon external tank, guzzled about 145gph at 225 mph TAS and had a theoretical flight radius of about 505 miles. The marginally greater range of the Thunderbolt was due to it's greater fuel capacity (although these early ferry tanks often carried only 100 gallons so the radius was more like 400 miles).
> 
> How would two airplanes of roughly the same size and equipped with basically the same engine burn fuel at such different rates? Was it the turbo-supercharger of the Thunderbolt that made all the difference?



It depends much more on whether the pilot uses auto-lean mixture vs. auto-rich. Eg. the P-47 (early) with 200 gal drop tank attached will do almost 300 mph TAS (190-200 mph IAS per manual) while using 105 US gals if the mixture is at auto-lean. Hellcat's 100 gph figure is also on auto-lean mixture setting.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 3, 2018)

Ah so there's the difference. Thanks Tomo. I noticed that the rpm settings and manifold pressures were roughly the same but didn't catch the fuel/air mixture setting difference. Why did the Thunderbolt operate in rich mixture, was it for added speed?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 3, 2018)

Everybody operated with mixture in rich (or whatever it was called in different countries) when more power was needed, and fuel consumption went up by ~50% when switch was made from lean to rich.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 3, 2018)

The two big problems with using the Navy planes as escorts in Europe vs the P-47 are
*1.* what happens AFTER you drop the external tanks. P-47 Has 50-55 gallons more fuel than the Hellcat and 65-70 gallons more than the F4U. 
*2. *That turbo in the P-47 was worth several hundred extra HP at altitude. Over 350 in combat mode and still worth a fair percentage in cruise mode. The Navy planes didn't do as good a job with exhaust thrust as the V-12 engines and in cruise mode you get a LOT less help from exhaust thrust. 
I would double check that F6F fuel consumption figure too.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 3, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The two big problems with using the Navy planes as escorts in Europe vs the P-47 are
> *1.* what happens AFTER you drop the external tanks. P-47 Has 50-55 gallons more fuel than the Hellcat and 65-70 gallons more than the F4U.



There was a small series of the F4Us with wing tanks (not self-sealing) AND drop tanks - that is 237 gals of protected fuel, 114 gals of unprotected internal fuel, and 150-175 gals in drop tank. I know that those don't solve the really long range escort problem, but do offer some advantage.



> *2. *That turbo in the P-47 was worth several hundred extra HP at altitude. Over 350 in combat mode and still worth a fair percentage in cruise mode. The Navy planes didn't do as good a job with exhaust thrust as the V-12 engines and in cruise mode you get a LOT less help from exhaust thrust.
> I would double check that F6F fuel consumption figure too.



Agreed.
The F4U offered parity vs. Fw 190 at 25000 ft and above, the P-47 offered superiority.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 3, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Everybody operated with mixture in rich (or whatever it was called in different countries) when more power was needed, and fuel consumption went up by ~50% when switch was made from lean to rich.



Thanks. Do you happen to have a copy of the P-47 manual that you are referring to? When I took a second look at my copies I don't see that kind of fuel consumption at that speed and altitude, even in AL settings.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 3, 2018)

Hi shortround6. Your point regarding the fuel remaining after dropping the 150 gallon tank is well taken.

Here is an excerpt from the Hellcat pilot manual that I was referring to. Do you have different figures for the F6F?


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 3, 2018)

And just to make it clear, I'm not trying to say that the Hellcat would be the better choice over the Thunderbolt in the long haul (especially after the addition of extra internal fuel and wing tanks). It would be an interim stand-in until the Thunderbolt's problems with external tanks were addressed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 3, 2018)

Thing is by the time you get any real number of F6Fs to Europe the problems with the P-47 drop tanks are fixed. 

They Built 10 F6Fs in 1942 compared to 532 P-47s. The first 3 months of 1943 see under 130 F6Fs built compared to over 450 P-47s.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 3, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Thanks. Do you happen to have a copy of the P-47 manual that you are referring to? When I took a second look at my copies I don't see that kind of fuel consumption at that speed and altitude, even in AL settings.



Page from a manual:






DarrenW said:


> Here is an excerpt from the Hellcat pilot manual that I was referring to. Do you have different figures for the



Do you have a whole table to post perhaps?



DarrenW said:


> And just to make it clear, I'm not trying to say that the Hellcat would be the better choice over the Thunderbolt in the long haul (especially after the addition of extra internal fuel and wing tanks). It would be an interim stand-in until the Thunderbolt's problems with external tanks were addressed.



People were using 75-110 gal tanks on the P-47, or the half-filled ferry tank very soon after it flew 1st combat sorties. The 250+150 gal on the Hellcat offers no advantage vs. 305+75 or +100 or +110 gals on the P-47, while not being able to replicate the P-47's performance over 20000 ft. 
Gen Kenney in Australia was managing to have the 200 gal 'flat' drop tanks manufactured by Ford there, made the P-47 much more useful A/C, while the P-47s were flying from the USA via Iceland to the UK due to use of wing drop tanks, already by August 1943.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 3, 2018)

Hi Tomo, I will have to wait until I get home because the only version I have access to here at work is an on-line copy which doesn't have the clarity if you are viewing the entire page.

And I will have to take a second look at all of this because I thought I had it all figured out and then you guys have to muck it all up for me lol!


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 3, 2018)

Oh, and how about the Hellcat carrying _three_ external tanks? It was engineered to carrying that many but I don't have any flight operation charts that have range calculations with those in place.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 3, 2018)

Here you go Tomo. I should have thought of this earlier...

Grumman F6F (3-5) Pilot's Manual


----------



## Schweik (Apr 3, 2018)

P-40F / L ... they did well particularly in escort missions for B-25's in Tunisia and Italy and the German pilots noted that they were particularly dangerous opponents when flying escort.

From reading Shores Mediterranean Air War I'm pretty sure they had a better kill to loss ratio (in Europe) than P-38's.

And unlike Hellcats or Corsairs, they saw a lot of action in the Theater (well, in the MTO but Italy is part of Europe).

I think P-51A / A-36 were mostly used for recon and dive bombing, and P-47's arrived pretty late in 1943 if I remember right.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 3, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Oh, and how about the Hellcat carrying _three_ external tanks? It was engineered to carrying that many but I don't have any flight operation charts that have range calculations with those in place.




The problem isn't getting into Germany,* it is getting out*. 
Drop your tanks, fight for 20 minutes, allow for 30 minutes reserve (flying at around 180 mph at low altitude looking for home airfields shrouded in clouds) and figure you exit speed over Germany and France or the low countries at about 300mph true in order to keep from being bounced, you are no longer escorting bombers, just running for home. 

I don't have the chart for the F6F. Chart for the engine in the F4U says about 4.5 gallons per minute at military power so 90 gallons combat allowance, 21 gallons for the reserve (42 gallons an hour at 1300rpm 30in 570hp) so 111 gallons out of 250 (or a few less) gives you about 135 gallons for the trip out. Or about 1 1/2 hours at 90 gallons a minute (max lean ?) 2150rpm and 34 in ?


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 3, 2018)

And I think I will have to eat crow here. Tomo is absolutely right. It does seem that the Thunderbolt and Hellcat have similar fuel consumption rates under similar engine settings. What gives the Thunderbolt the edge in overall range it's greater fuel capacity (both internal and external).

*Advantage: Thunderbolt*

And I was referring to charts for late-built P-47Ds with two 165 gallon drop tanks, and the fuel-use figures at 25,000ft are much higher than those for the single 200 gallon tank, even with auto-lean settings:

AN 01-65BC-1A Pilot's Flight Operating Instructions for P-47D-25,-26,-27,-28 -30 and -35 airplanes

I assume it is due to the extra drag of two tanks as opposed to just one but I'm not really sure if that's all there is to it. By the way, wasn't the ferry tank recessed under the fuselage? (earlier P-47s that had flat keels). This would undoubtedly cause less drag than having two tanks mounted on wing hard-points.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 3, 2018)

I thought most of the problem was political, you don't get long range escort fighters until you ask for them and many insisted that bombers didn't need them for far too long.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 3, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The problem isn't getting into Germany,* it is getting out*.
> Drop your tanks, fight for 20 minutes, allow for 30 minutes reserve (flying at around 180 mph at low altitude looking for home airfields shrouded in clouds) and figure you exit speed over Germany and France or the low countries at about 300mph true in order to keep from being bounced, you are no longer escorting bombers, just running for home.
> 
> I don't have the chart for the F6F. Chart for the engine in the F4U says about 4.5 gallons per minute at military power so 90 gallons combat allowance, 21 gallons for the reserve (42 gallons an hour at 1300rpm 30in 570hp) so 111 gallons out of 250 (or a few less) gives you about 135 gallons for the trip out. Or about 1 1/2 hours at 90 gallons a minute (max lean ?) 2150rpm and 34 in ?



Yes, and figuring all this in makes my head hurt. But it's fun to learn about all the variables to consider when deciding which aircraft would be best for the job at hand. The straight range figures quoted in books obviously don't tell us the true capability of an aircraft for a particular mission profile.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 3, 2018)

_I thought most of the problem was political, you don't get long range escort fighters until you ask for them and many insisted that bombers didn't need them for far too long._

That is the modern, easy, blame the generals for being stupid answer.
The real problem was that is pretty much impossible to build a single engine fighter that could reach the middle of Germany (let alone Berlin) until late 1942 or early 1943.
 even 1942 P-38s with twin engines would have problems.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 3, 2018)

Not knowing as much about the Spitfire as I would like, which models were in prominence during 1943 and would there be one version best suited for high altitude escort duty?


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 3, 2018)

I added the Spitfire into the mix, just in case parsifal would like to possibly change his vote.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 3, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Not knowing as much about the Spitfire as I would like, which models were in prominence during 1943 and would there be one version best suited for high altitude escort duty?


Here is a good article on the subject.
Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach? - Royal Aeronautical Society

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 3, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> _I thought most of the problem was political, you don't get long range escort fighters until you ask for them and many insisted that bombers didn't need them for far too long._
> 
> That is the modern, easy, blame the generals for being stupid answer.
> The real problem was that is pretty much impossible to build a single engine fighter that could reach the middle of Germany (let alone Berlin) until late 1942 or early 1943.
> even 1942 P-38s with twin engines would have problems.


Not really, although there was a bomber doctrine, just looking at the Battle of Britain in 1940 may have prompted someone some where to think it may be a good idea to have long range on internal fuel as a good idea.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 3, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Not knowing as much about the Spitfire as I would like, which models were in prominence during 1943 and would there be one version best suited for high altitude escort duty?



The Mk IX was prominent in 1943.

The Mk VIII was, slightly, better, but was just getting into production and were being sent elsewhere.

MK XII production had come and gone, but was not suitable for high altitude work anyway.

The XIV was just starting production, and would come into squadron service towards the end of 1943/early 1944.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 3, 2018)

The Problem was going from "good idea" to "actually possible".

We have had a number of threads on this.

It took several advances to make the long range escort fighter possible, short range could have done earlier but if you limit your bombers to the range of your single engine fighters then you don't bomb much of Germany. 

Now please note that the P-47 had roughly double the "book" range of a P-39 and about 22% further than a P-40E while flying 10% faster. 
And yet the P-47 is derided as being short ranged. At ridiculously slow speeds (like 200-220mph) and low altitudes the P-37 could fly twice as far as as an early Spitfire or Hurricane. The P-47 was a 1940 design and yes, while the R-2800 was something of a gas hog ( but then any 2000hp engine is) it carried 305 gallons of fuel.
To escort bombers you need to be _almost _as good as the defending fighters, not just show up. carrying enough fuel to fly for several hours after combat was too much of a weight penalty _until _you had really low drag airframes that could carry large amounts of fuel inside (the P-39 was low drag but carried crap for fuel). The Allies also benefited from 100-130 fuel. Trying to build an escort fighter using 87 octane fuel is going to be very hard. You are going to need a bigger heavier engine which means you can't carry something else ( large numbers of guns/ammo?) 
You also need an engine that is compact and has a very good power to weight ratio. 
The P-51 combined all three. 
The P-47 and P-38 might have worked but at a much higher cost in in airframes, engines, fuel and even lives.
Now please note that a Hawker Typhoon has a range of around 500 miles on internal fuel at around 300mph (but at 15,000ft, pass on that for now) by averaging (kind of) the most economical and the max lean mistrue speeds. It has 154 inp gallons and the ranges are after it uses 34 gallons taking off. Now if you take out even 15 minutes of combat you have to take off around 180 to 225 miles worth of range from the 120 gallon capacity. 
and we have to add back in the reserve to find airfield after crossing the coast. 
SO how much fuel do we have to jam into a Typhoon to make an escort fighter and what happens to the performance once we stick in an extra 300-600lbs of fuel and fuel tank? 
Speed won't be bad but what happened to climb and turn?

The P-47 wouldn't have worked with straight 100 octane (not 100/130), the P-38 would have been in trouble (limited to 1150 hp or so not the 1335-1425 engines of 1943-44) and so on. 
Advances in propeller design also helped the later fighters. 
Now we can argue about exactly *when* the balance tipped over but tip over it did. The escort fighter was just not technically possible in 1938-39-40. And remember the P-47 was ordered off the drawing board. Over 1200 on order months before the first one flew.

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


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 3, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Here is a good article on the subject.
> Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach? - Royal Aeronautical Society





wuzak said:


> The Mk IX was prominent in 1943.
> 
> The Mk VIII was, slightly, better, but was just getting into production and were being sent elsewhere.
> 
> ...



Thanks fellas for the great information and link. I will delve into it after work...


----------



## parsifal (Apr 3, 2018)

Claiming that it would take “a lot’ or “a long time” to adapt the spitfire to long range escort duty is just not supported by facts. 

In 1945 with the deployment of the BPF with its complement of Seafire III (the basic airframe on which this navalised version of the Spitfire had been developed from was available since at least 1942. It took time to adpt this basic airframe because of issues relating to LG strengthening and compound wing folding…..issues that took a long time to solve. Endurance was another issue frequently raised in relation to the spitfire, and yet it took the maintenance guys of 801 and 880 sqns (the Seafire squadrons of HMS INDEFATIGIBLE no more than a couple of hours to adapt the Seafire to carry the 89 gallon slipper tanks that they had acquired from the RAAF. 

The end result was a great boost in the Seafire’s operational endurance to 4.5 hours. Suddenly, it was capable of engaging in RAMROD (offensive air superiority) missions and long range escort missions. Hellcat effective combat radius was 240 miles, the Seafire compared reasonably well to this with those slipper tanks fitted, with an effective combat radius of 220 miles at . However, it could still not match the performance of - a Corsair carrying a 1000lb bomb which could still fly further.

_Drag did increase by as much as 10%, but when all aircraft in the Wing had been modified to carry the 89-gallon tank, it meant they could carry out offensive sweeps or strike escort duties to a useful radius of 225 miles was [for] 'Ramrod’ ops” - The Seafire, David Brown_

225miles would not allow escort to even the ruhr, much less to berlin or Schweinfurt/Regensburg. But it just about cover air attacks to the Ruhr.

Why the RAF insited on sticking to their problematic 45 gallon slipper tanks, or worse, their leaky 90 gallon tanks, is beyond me. The US type 89 gallon tanks (imperial gallons folks) was the way forward and easy to do.

With no tanks….ie relying on internal fuel only, the Spitfire had an effective combat radius of just under 100 miles. With the RAAF 2 x 89 gallon slippers fitted, this range increased to 225 miles. I have read that it also possible to add a further 2 x 13gal slipper to the outer wings. Ive never seen that but ive read that it was possible, with no wing strengthening required. By my rough reckoning the seafire with the 89 gallon tanks is consuming 1.42 gallons per mile. Potentially the additional 26 gallons of fuel carried in the outer tanks, increases its range to 240 miles

Extending the range of the spitfire was not difficult, it was just not tried really. 

Supermarine Seafire: Variants

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## eagledad (Apr 4, 2018)

Voted for the P-38. Lower altitude equals warmer cockpit and no dive restrictions. The problems with the Allisons and cold temperatures was also reduced. Operating at lower altitudes removed most of the problems that limited the Lightning at higher altitudes. See "A History of THE VIII USAAF Fighter Command" by Lt Col aldo Heinrichs, page 158, to get 8th AF pilots thoughts on the P-38 and lower altitudes.

Eagledad

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 4, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> _I thought most of the problem was political, you don't get long range escort fighters until you ask for them and many insisted that bombers didn't need them for far too long._
> 
> That is the modern, easy, blame the generals for being stupid answer.
> The real problem was that is pretty much impossible to build a single engine fighter that could reach the middle of Germany (let alone Berlin) until late 1942 or early 1943.
> even 1942 P-38s with twin engines would have problems.



Nancy, France to Berlin - 664 km (~415 miles)  It was certainly feasible in 1937 with Hurricane-sized A/C + Merlin III + VP prop + 150 imp gals + 100 gals in drop tanks. 
Japanese probably must wait until 1941 with historical Zero. The Ki 61 also used legacy engine and airfoil, still managed excellent range.



Shortround6 said:


> ...
> Now we can argue about exactly *when* the balance tipped over but tip over it did. The escort fighter was just not technically possible in 1938-39-40. And remember the P-47 was ordered off the drawing board. Over 1200 on order months before the first one flew.



(sorry for butchering the post)
Again, Japanese were very much escorting their bombers before Germany attacked Poland.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 4, 2018)

We may be having some problems in defining a "long range escort" is it a 200 mile radius? 300mile radius or perhaps 475 miles (distance from Colchester to Nuremburg)? forget Berlin for the moment. 
We also have to compare like to like, as in flying over occupied/enemy territory (land) vs flying over open ocean. 
The like to like also covers similarly equipped planes. Please remember that while a liquid cooled plane could be brought down by a single rifle bullet through the radiator *any *plane could be made to fail to return to base from a long flight by a single bullet (flak fragment) through an unprotected fuel tank.

This is why the radius of the escort fighter is defined/limited to the distance it can fly on the fuel contained in protected tanks *after *it drops external tanks AND engages in combat for XX minutes AND exits the combat area at a high enough speed to make interception difficult. 
Some countries (Japan) may differ. 

consider the P-40 for a moment, early ones had unprotected fuel tanks and the fuel system weighed 171lbs (includes lines,valves/pumps) and held 180 gallons, by the time you get to the "C" the "system" weighed 420lbs (protection) and capacity had dropped to 135 gallons. They rigged the planes to take the 52 gallon drop tank and got the range back but the plane would always be saddled with the 250lbs of extra weight from the protected tanks. 

We have been over this many times. 

We also have to avoid the trap of "back fitting" that is to say plane XX (Say Spitfire) had a radius of 220 miles in 1943/44, therefore they could have made it go 220 miles in 1940, if they had wanted to. This ignores the changes in engines/fuel and propellers that occured during that time.

If the British had Merlin 55 engines with 16lbs of boost (and four bladed props) during the BoB things would have been a bit different there too  

For a contemporary view of the problem (and I have no idea what this guy was smoking) see.
bristol blenheim | 1940 | 0079 | Flight Archive
for a multi-page article.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 4, 2018)

I would also note that endurance (especially at 180-200mph) is NOT range in the sense of escorting (or even flying) over enemy land masses that have AA guns.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 4, 2018)

Has anyone looked at the U.S. Navy radius formula before and figured out how the calculated range would be different if flying in an ETO environment?







You would have to climb an extra 10,000 feet before starting your cruise (in the Hellcat's case, take 9 minutes longer while burning an extra 26 gallons of fuel), and of course fly at faster cruise to the target and back than in the PTO, descending only after leaving enemy territory. But the reserves look higher (60 min as opposed to 20 min) so would it basically be a wash or is there more to it than that?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 8, 2018)

The US Army figured 30 minutes for reserve in their charts. We may have used 20 minutes in some of our threads to try an give the idea a bit of a chance or because at some point 20 minutes was used by either the army or the British. 20 minutes is not a lot of time if you navigation is a bit off and/or unexpected clouds/fog are covering your planned landing field. 

170 kts (195mph) at *1500*ft is suicidally slow over enemy held land masses. You are a volunteer target for every machine gun that can point upwards on your route, let alone setting yourself up for a bounce from all but the most rookie of pilots. 

There is a reason the Army used flying back out of the combat area at 210IAS (315mph true) at 25,000ft as an estimate for radius. 

30 minutes at most economical is only about 21 gallons for the F4U or F6f and that is only going to last 15-20 minutes at cruising speeds that use lean mixture. 

Compared to a P-47 the F6F has less internal fuel, more drag and less efficient engine at higher altitudes (25,000ft). The turbo with it's "free" hp comes into play at the higher altitudes and high cruising speeds. 
we can argue about exact numbers but that is the basic situation. The F6F is never going to come close to the P-47 in radius of action in european conditions and in fact, from land bases in the Pacific the P-47 would have been the better option. That extra 55 gallons inside and the lower drag would still count.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 9, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Compared to a P-47 the F6F has less internal fuel, more drag and less efficient engine at higher altitudes (25,000ft). The turbo with it's "free" hp comes into play at the higher altitudes and high cruising speeds.



It's obvious that the larger fuel capacity of the P-47 gave it a longer range than the F6F. But I don't see where the F6F had more drag, as they burned basically the same amount of fuel while flying at the same power settings and in the same configuration (with or without drop tanks). And in optimum cruise their specific engines were developing roughly the same horsepower so the Thunderbolt's extra 300 horses would only come into play when operating above the cruise. No question though that the P-47 was more optimized for high altitude escort and was the better choice for this role in ETO.


----------



## Glider (Apr 9, 2018)

Taking them one at a time

P39 - what can I say apart from - next
P38 - Had performance altitude issues in the west and the Germans didn't consider them to be a real threat
P47 - Only real problem was its poor climb which isn't a huge issue for the escort role as you get plenty of time to gain the altitude. A serious issue if it was trying to defend as an interceptor
P51 - Altitude performance a major handicap
F6f-3 - I think it overall performance would have been lacking against lighter German fighters
F4U a1 - Similar to the F6
Spitfire - clearly lacking range would be a serious threat if it was the defending fighter

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 9, 2018)

Glider said:


> Taking them one at a time
> 
> P39 - what can I say apart from - next
> P38 - Had performance altitude issues in the west and the Germans didn't consider them to be a real threat
> ...



P-39 - agree
P-38 - performance at altitude was either better or equal when compared of the LW fighters in a specified time frame, problems are insufficient heating for hi alt, big size (= LW can spot it and get their act together without much of problems, thus gaining a 1st shot advantage), low rate of roll; this is the only real LR fighter of the listed, as-is. Dive speed disadvantage,
P-47 - at altitude the rate of climb was not that bad vs. what LW fielded, speed advantage vs. LW above 25000 ft; will need wing drop tanks for actually long radius (450 miles, with reserves and allowances, on prescribed 310 mph TAS cruise)
P-51 - agree, plus there was no drop tank facility before too late for 1943 in theater
F6F - agreed, plus not a long range bird
F4U-1 - performance parity vs. LW, range is still not very good as-is
Spitfire - Mk VIII is the only contender with somewhat of a long range, but still of the P-47 or F4U calibre; performance parity or more


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 9, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> in fact, from land bases in the Pacific the P-47 would have been the better option.



Those are fightin' words to any Naval aviator! 

Seriously now, being carrier based the F4U and F6F could easily make up any deficit they may have had with range. And they were also able to strike just as deep into Japanese held territory as any Army fighter, be it the P-38, P-47, or P-51. That's what made them so valuable, especially before the long-range N model Thunderbolts and P-51D Mustangs showed up in theater.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 9, 2018)

Not from land. 
It took a while to get enough carriers to to be able to put carrier aircraft wherever and whenever the Navy wanted. 

Please remember, it is the amount of fuel in the _*protected *_fuel tanks that governs combat radius, not how much you can strap underneath.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 9, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> F6F - agreed, plus not a long range bird



By whose standards? I think having a 1000+ mile range qualifies it as being a rather long range single-seat fighter, don't you?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## redcoat (Apr 9, 2018)

Well, if we take the question at face value it's the Spitfire.
It was the best fighter amongst the aircraft being used by the USAAF as escort fighters at that time


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 9, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Not from land.
> It took a while to get enough carriers to to be able to put carrier aircraft wherever and whenever the Navy wanted.



How much closer were Army fighters based to the action in 1943? And I disagree that one must discount external tanks when considering the effective range of a fighter. They must have been a viable means of extending the radius of an aircraft or they wouldn't have carried them in the first place.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 9, 2018)

We are running into the cement wall of "book" ranges

http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F6F-3_Hellcat_ACP_-_1_October_1945.pdf

Hellcat can fly 955 miles at 160mph attitude not given but from pilots manual that maybe 1500ft.
Totally useless in Europe unless you goal is to make some German 20mm AA gunners day. 

I would note that a Spitfire V can fly about 445miles at 203mph at 2000ft on 70 imp gallons of fuel (allowing 14 gallons for warm up and take off. 

Please note from the linked chart that the F6F-3 Clean was rated at a 120 mile combat radius.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 9, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> How much closer were Army fighters based to the action in 1943? And I disagree that one must discount external tanks when considering the effective range of a fighter. They must have been a viable means of extending the radius of an aircraft or they wouldn't have carried them in the first place.




They certainly help but only to a certain degree. For example adding one 150 gallon tank to an F6F helps an awful lot. 
It kicks the range up to 1340 miles but really extends out the combat radius to 335 miles.
however adding a 2nd tank doesn't help the radius as much. Not so much because of the drag but like we have been talking about, the radius depends on getting out. and the getting out fuel is what is inside the plane. And F6F can burn around 4 gallons a minute (or up to nearly 5) in Military power so 20 minutes can be over 80 gallons, you want that 30 or so gallons for when you get back the _area _of the carrier 
Now if you are running out of the combat area you don;t slow down to 160mph right away. 

Carrying more than 300 gallons out side can get you in further than you can get out. 

P-47 with 305 gallons had a radius of 125 miles, with 370 gallons it went to 225 miles, with 305 inside and 300 outside it went to 425 miles. 
However with 370 inside and 300 outside it went to 600 miles. 
Now think about 250 inside and 300 gallons outside. If you are bounced and have to drop the tanks how far can you go ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 9, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Hellcat can fly 955 miles at 160mph attitude not given but from pilots manual that maybe 1500ft.



The pilot's manual I have gives a different story for max range:

Grumman F6F (3-5) Pilot's Manual

Excerpt:






As you can see the range with 400 gallons of fuel (at an altitude of 25,000ft and flying 283 mph) was 935 statute miles. I'm also pretty certain that most combat missions were flown well above the 1,500ft altitude (a Hellcat pilot once told me that most of his combat flying was between 10,000-20,000 feet). I hope you don't think that the pilots who flew these machines were suicidal? 

The link you provided shows a combat radius for the Hellcat with a drop tank at 385 _statute_ miles, and close to 140 statute miles without, just to compare apples to apples. And that is with everything taken into consideration such as take-off, rendezvous, climb to 15,000ft, cruise out at 200 mph, fight for 20 minutes (in and out of WEP) and return with 60 minutes of fuel in the tanks (using US Navy's F-1 formula).

How do you think your Spit would do under similar circumstances?

And to convince you that I'm being totally impartial with my viewpoint (as well as being open to your opinion), I've taken the liberty of changing my vote in this thread from the F6F-3 to the "Jug".....

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 11, 2018)

I don't get the notion that external fuel doesn't matter. During WW2 escort fighters in general would fly out burning the external fuel and also the fuel in tanks which affected maneuverability first, i.e. the fuselage tank on the P-51 or P-40 for example. When they arrived at the mid-way point their external tanks would be close to empty, ideally. So the route back does have to be on internal fuel in most cases but depending on when you expect to face combat* you should be flying back to base with close to _full_ internal fuel. Only missing whatever you burned in combat.

So the metric of "internal fuel only" combat radius seems a bit disingenuous to me.

And yes, you can (and they did) revert back to economical cruising speed as soon as you disengage. Obviously it does depend on the Theater and region but you aren't necessarily going to run into enemy fighters over and over after you leave the target area.

What is the suggestion that the Hellcat would cruise at 1500 feet based on, is that a joke?

I also think the notion that the F6F or F4U would have trouble with Luftwaffe opposition is absurd. FAA used them, I know they didn't see a lot of combat but I know FAA F6F's saw action in Norway and I don't think they suffered.

Corsair compares well on paper to Bf 109 or Fw 190.

P-51 had much better altitude performance than most Fw 190 and many Bf 109 variants too.

There were few Spit VIII available and no other Spit variant was really suitable for escort as far as I know.

S


*which would vary widely by the specific Theater or region but most commonly would be over the target area, i.e. at roughly the mid-point of the trip.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 11, 2018)

Schweik said:


> What is the suggestion that the Hellcat would cruise at 1500 feet based on, is that a joke?



That altitude was primarily used during ferry missions and such when there was no possibility of encountering the enemy. As you pointed out, it would be utterly absurd to enter hostile territory at such a dangerous level.

And be advised that there are people here who will always challenge you in regards to the two premier US Navy fighters usefulness in ETO. But thankfully it's always fun to bicker with them concerning the notion from time to time! 

I do agree fully with your remarks concerning the Spitfire. Since when was it ever considered useful for long range anything????

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 11, 2018)

But she sure was pretty!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 11, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I do agree fully with your remarks concerning the Spitfire. Since when was it ever considered useful for long range anything????


From the start, it was one of the most successful recon planes of the war.





There was much that could have been done to improve the range of the spitfires internal fuel, but this would have taken it up to being on par with a P-47 and the USA already had P-47s while the UK had Mustangs too.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Apr 11, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> The pilot's manual I have gives a different story for max range:
> 
> Grumman F6F (3-5) Pilot's Manual
> 
> ...



I like the Hellcat a lot, more than the Corsair in fact, but I'd cite the Battle of the Phillippine Sea circa 1944, the Japanese fleet was 275 miles away, at the very limit of the strike range for the USN aircraft, Hellcat included.


----------



## Glider (Apr 11, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I do agree fully with your remarks concerning the Spitfire. Since when was it ever considered useful for long range anything????



As a photo Recce aircraft it was probably unmatched. My favourite line shoot was an American Spit PR XI that had to land for fuel on an USAAF airbase

Base Commander - That's a Spit isn't it
Pilot - Yes
BC - Where are your guns 
Pilot - Haven't got any
BC - Where is your fighter escort
Pilot - Didn't have any
BC - Where have you been
Pilot - Berlin

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 11, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I don't get the notion that external fuel doesn't matter. During WW2 escort fighters in general would fly out burning the external fuel and also the fuel in tanks which affected maneuverability first, i.e. the fuselage tank on the P-51 or P-40 for example. When they arrived at the mid-way point their external tanks would be close to empty, ideally. So the route back does have to be on internal fuel in most cases but depending on when you expect to face combat* you should be flying back to base with close to _full_ internal fuel. Only missing whatever you burned in combat.
> 
> So the metric of "internal fuel only" combat radius seems a bit disingenuous to me.



The metric _starts _with the dropping of the fuel tanks. Say for our F6F you can fit two 150 gallon tanks, the problem is can you get in further than you can get out?

Or lets use the P-47, with 305 internal and 300 external it was rated at 425 miles, The distance it could fly after it dropped tanks, fought for 20 minutes got itself back to 25,000ft and exited the area at 210mph IAS and allowing for 30 minutes after reaching sunny old England to find an airfield to land on. It doesn't matter it you hang a pair of 200 gallon tanks underneath for an an extra 100 gallons. You shouldn't go past that 425mile mark if you expect to get home. 
Adding just 65 gallons internal kicked the radius out to 600 miles with the same pair of 150 gal external tanks. 

The P-47 could suck down 70-90 gallons in 20 minutes of combat depending on altitude and throttle settings (actually burned less when using water injection) so that _Only missing whatever you burned in combat _could be substantial.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 11, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I do agree fully with your remarks concerning the Spitfire. Since when was it ever considered useful for long range anything????



1940 - long rage recon
1942 - fighter that can be deployed from UK to Gibraltar, then from Gib to Malta via aircraft carriers, included a 170 imp gal drop tank and 29 imp gal rear fuselage tank
1943 - LR fighter modified in the USA
late 1944 - LR fighter modified in the UK (see the doc atached)



pbehn said:


> From the start, it was one of the most successful recon planes of the war.
> View attachment 489392
> 
> 
> There was much that could have been done to improve the range of the spitfires internal fuel, but this would have taken it up to being on par with a P-47 and the USA already had P-47s while the UK had Mustangs too.



This is from September of 1944. Every single bit is that concerns Spitfires is feasible in winter of 1942/43, plus the leading edge tanks (+25 imp gals, as on the Spit VIII), plus the under-seat tanks (used on some recon versions) - much earlier than LR Mustangs. Alas, the things were dictated by doctrine, not by capabilities of aircraft. Picture kindly provided by Glider IIRC:

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 11, 2018)

LOL you guys crack me up! I knew from the beginning that kind of comment would illicit this amount of quick responses to the contrary. I guess that I'm not the only fanboy on this site! 

Just for clarification though, how many Seafires were used operationally by the US Navy again?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Apr 11, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> 1940 - long rage recon
> 1942 - fighter that can be deployed from UK to Gibraltar, then from Gib to Malta via aircraft carriers, included a 170 imp gal drop tank and 29 imp gal rear fuselage tank
> 1943 - LR fighter modified in the USA
> late 1944 - LR fighter modified in the UK (see the doc atached)
> ...


You found it before I did. I find the bottom paragraph of interest.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 11, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The metric _starts _with the dropping of the fuel tanks. Say for our F6F you can fit two 150 gallon tanks, the problem is can you get in further than you can get out?



Thing is, your fuel burn rate is always greater during take-off, rendezvous, and climb to mission altitude than what's used once you settle into cruising speed. Fuel use is never a one to one ratio from ingress to egress. I would suspect that the mission is planned so that you'd be ready to drop tanks by the time you enter hostile territory. And of course when descending from altitude gas use goes _way_ down as well....

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 11, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> 1943 - LR fighter modified in the USA
> late 1944 - LR fighter modified in the UK (see the doc atached)



I see a lot of modifying going on here....

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 11, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Alas, the things were dictated by doctrine, not by capabilities of aircraft.



So what you saying is, the Spit would have been the far better choice for long range escort than the Thunderbolt or Lightning but politics mucked things up???


----------



## pbehn (Apr 11, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I see a lot of modifying going on here....


Without a fleet of bombers why would you make an ultra long range fighter in Europe? You may find that someone wants to fight with you for more than 20 mins or not let you cruise home at your most economical setting.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 11, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Without a fleet of bombers why would you make an ultra long range fighter in Europe?



There were quite a few other things these fighters were tasked with over Germany besides escorting of heavies.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 11, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> There were quite a few other things these fighters were tasked with over Germany besides escorting of heavies.


I know, but by the end of the war more Mustangs were lost to ground fire than to enemy action. By that time the LW had been pushed back and already weakened. Without the fleet of bombers overhead to occupy the defending fighters interest it is a long way in and out.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 11, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I see a lot of modifying going on here....



Addition of rear fuel tanks, change of bottom front tank as it is alredy done on Spitfire VIII. Much less of a hassle that in was introduction of cut-back rear fuselage and addition of bubble top on P-47s, P-51s and some Spitfires.



DarrenW said:


> So what you saying is, the Spit would have been the far better choice for long range escort than the Thunderbolt or Lightning but politics mucked things up???



RAF didn't have a doctrine demanding long range fighters until too late to matter, while USAAC/AAF expected that their bombers will defend themselves. As a fighter, Spitfire have had several things going on for it when compared with P-47s or P-38s, like being already debugged machine (both airframe and engines), smaller size, better rate of climb, no problems with high speed dive. Particularly vs. P-38: no cold an messy cockpit on Spitfires, far less blind spots, much better dive capability, even the rate of roll was better on Spitfire until 1944. No problems with radios, as experienced with P-47s in 1943.
So yes, a Spitfire with apropriate fuel content would've been a better choice for long range escort than P-38, and possibly the P-47.



pbehn said:


> Without a fleet of bombers why would you make an ultra long range fighter in Europe? You may find that someone wants to fight with you for more than 20 mins or not let you cruise home at your most economical setting.



RAF was also fighting in North Africa and, from late 1941, in Asia, where long range was not just nice to have but a necessity.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 11, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> A
> 
> 
> RAF was also fighting in North Africa and, from late 1941, in Asia, where long range was not just nice to have but a necessity.


I know Tomo that's why the spitfire VIII was mainly sent to Malta and the far east.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 11, 2018)

I like the Spitfire so it's hard for me to be critical of it. But if we are talking _after _modifications here then I would contend that the P-47 would be the better choice in an escort role. And to me this has already been proven out, especially after it was modified to carry more internal and external fuel of course.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 11, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> So what you saying is, the Spit would have been the far better choice for long range escort than the Thunderbolt or Lightning but politics mucked things up???


It isn't what I was saying. It could have been made to be of similar performance to the P-47, but that wasn't good enough anyway. Many Spitfires were used on early raids handing over to P-47s. But if they were handing over to more spitfires who would make them and fly them? From when a Merlin was put in a Mustang in June 1942 it was clear that it was the answer. It was just a question getting them made and into service. and they started to arrive in the summer of 1943.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 11, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> I'd cite the Battle of the Phillippine Sea circa 1944, the Japanese fleet was 275 miles away, at the very limit of the strike range for the USN aircraft, Hellcat included.



I hear you Pete, but from what I know of Naval operations, there are a lot of things that have to come together in order to launch a coordinated strike on the enemy. The Hellcat's combat radius was 350-400 statute miles so by itself it _could_ have easily flown those missions but of course they weren't the only concern when the planning was taking place. And if you slapped one or two extra drop tanks on them (which unlike other aircraft, wasn't a modification) they could have gone even farther but then they'd lose the coordinated support of the fleet at that point so that would be a really bad idea all way around.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 11, 2018)

I think one of the reasons everyone is talking past each other here is that the OP wasn't specific enough.

You don't have that many generalized solutions in a single airframe. Even the P-51 had it's limitations, the Spit, the Zero, the Fw 190 and the Bf 109 certainly did as well.

First, I'd stipulate, feel free to mix Anglo and American types since they did historically, but stick to historical aircraft, no 'what-ifs'.

And then maybe it makes more sense if you break it up into specific real-world missions-

Best escort fighter for naval dive bombers - Hellcat or the Corsair (I'd say Corsair for it's higher speed and other qualities but Hellcat is probably more stable of a design earlier on)

Best _long_ range naval / maritime escort (ala Malta zone etc.) - Beaufighter 

Best high altitude / long range - Probably P-38 in spite of all the problems. That's the one they used anyway for escorting the B-24's and B-17's at least down in the Med*.
Best short-range land based / tactical escort for fighter bombers or medium bombers - Spit IX or P-47D (I'd go with the Spitfire IX)

Best medium-range land based / tactical escort for dive bombers, fighter bombers or medium bombers - P-40F, P-51A or P-47D (I'd go with the P-40F)
Best low altitude / long range escort (like to escort a low alt Mosquito raid) - P-51A 

Best low altitude / short range escort (escort Hurri IID)- Spit IX LF (clipped wing)
* I suspect Corsair would be a good substitute with extra fuel etc.

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 11, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Thing is, your fuel burn rate is always greater during take-off, rendezvous, and climb to mission altitude than what's used once you settle into cruising speed. Fuel use is never a one to one ratio from ingress to egress. I would suspect that the mission is planned so that you'd be ready to drop tanks by the time you enter hostile territory. And of course when descending from altitude gas use goes _way_ down as well....




Uh, please look at a map of Europe. You are in _hostile territory _as soon as you cross the Dutch/Belgian/French coast. Dropping tanks over Antwerp doesn't do much good on a trip to Hanover. 
And this is why they used relays of fighters. So the first group of fighters could go home and 2nd, 3rd and 4th groups could go the distance and/or meet the bombers on the way back. 

Is also why they needed to keep up the altitude and the cruise speed on the way back. 
These radius figures were a rough guide. You are correct, fuel use is much less when descending from 25,000ft. But then no allowance is made for wind/weather or any dog legs. 

You also rarely had full internal fuel. all take-offs and initial climb out was done on internal fuel (more reliable fuel feed) and switching over to drop tanks was done at a "safe" altitude. Safe in the sense that if the engine cut out you had time to switch back and get the engine restarted before you crashed. Few, if any, planes could top off their internal tanks from the drop tanks. What could and did happen was there was a vapor return line from the carb that returned vapor/excess fuel to one of the internal tanks. If the flight was long enough this tank could take back in several gallons while the plane ran on the drop tanks. 

The thing with the F6F in Europe is _why? _
It is months later in timing than the P-47, hundreds of P-47s are Europe before the F6F reaches it's first service squadron, The F6F holds less fuel and is no more economic than the P-47, the F6F is slower at the bomber altitudes than the P-47.


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 11, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> You are in _hostile territory _as soon as you cross the Dutch/Belgian/French coast. Dropping tanks over Antwerp doesn't do much good on a trip to Hanover.



Good point, but again this would pertain to _every _fighter plane used in that scenario, not just the F6F. By the way, I was only talking in general and not specifically about the situation in the ETO. Sorry for not making this clear. And as I'm sure you are aware of, hostile territory was an ever-changing variable at this point in the war. What was true in August 1943 wasn't necessarily so a year later.

But again I ask, why would these aircraft consistently fly with drop tanks if using them normally put the pilot beyond a point of no return???? I am sure the folks at Grumman were smart enough to figure out what type of drop tank would work best for the Hellcat and thus fulfill the needs of the US Navy. Wouldn't you agree?



Shortround6 said:


> The thing with the F6F in Europe is _why? _
> It is months later in timing than the P-47, hundreds of P-47s are Europe before the F6F reaches it's first service squadron, The F6F holds less fuel and is no more economic than the P-47, the F6F is slower at the bomber altitudes than the P-47.



I already conceded that for high altitude bomber escort work (above 20,000 feet) the Thunderbolt is _probably_ the better option in ETO. I even changed my vote to reflect this. You made a very convincing argument. I just didn't want you to dismiss the Hellcat so quickly, that's all....

Now let's talk low to medium altitude operations. At these heights the speed of the Hellcat and Thunderbolt were much closer and given the Hellcat's superior overall maneuverability and climbing ability, I believe it could have handled the German fighters just as well. At the very least it could absorb equal amounts of much punishment, being arguably as tough as the venerable old "Jug".


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 11, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I think one of the reasons everyone is talking past each other here is that the OP wasn't specific enough.
> 
> You don't have that many generalized solutions in a single airframe. Even the P-51 had it's limitations, the Spit, the Zero, the Fw 190 and the Bf 109 certainly did as well.
> 
> ...



You've brought up an excellent point. There never was a "one size fits all" fighter. Ever see a Thunderbolt land on a carrier?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

