# Spiteful



## Aggie08 (May 9, 2006)

Did some research, I'd heard of it briefly. But wow, my real question is can a non-swept wing aircraft really get that fast?!? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spiteful says top speed 494... I would have thought that compressibility and airframe strenth would have prevented it from getting to that kind of speed. That is really flippin fast.

ps sorry i dont know how to resize the picture in the thread, i didnt realize it was so big...


----------



## Sal Monella (May 9, 2006)

Regarding the lower part of your post which says, ""I had ten rockets on board, and as I wasn't particularly fond of head-on attacks, I salvoed the whole lot at him. The rockets didn't hit him but but they must have scared the bejesus out of him, for he did a steep turn to starboard... I let him have the full blast, all eight fifty-calibers. I had never seen an aircraft completely disintegrate in the air the way this Me-110 did..."
Bill Dunn, 406th Fighter Group

In the Pacific theatre, a P-47 pilot did actually make an air to air kill of another fighter with an air to ground rocket. Must have made one hell of a boom.


----------



## Sal Monella (May 9, 2006)

Here it is:

http://home.earthlink.net/~atdouble/~318thFighterGroup.IeShima.html

http://home.earthlink.net/~atdouble/Wolfe.JPG
He (Judge Wolfe pictured above) spotted two "Zekes" with a 4,000 feet advantage, and didn't want to jettison two 5 inch rockets under his wings. He got into a head on attack position and tried them as air to air weapons. Said Wolfe later, "I don't know who was more surprised, him or me!" The Zeke just disintegrated. Wolfe's T-Bolt carried him through the debris cloud for kill number 6. A minute later, he had kill number 7. Four other pilots scored that day including Harry E. McAfee, the first army pilot to land on Saipan and Tinian. He got a bomber.


----------



## red admiral (May 9, 2006)

How can an aircraft go that fast?

The Spiteful is a Spitfire with a laminar flow wing and 5 or 6 blade prop with more power. The producing 2450hp and cleaner lines enables it to go at 494mph. Compressibilty becomes a problem with the prop, but the thin wings limit the problem with regards to aerodynamics.

If you want to faster look at the Rolls-Royce Eagle fighters. The Supermarine 391, again very Spitfire-ish was to be powered by the Eagle. 3500hp H24. Projected maximum speed was 548mph.

Then here is the Hawker P.1030 basically a Tempest with the Eagle engine. Projected speed of [email protected],000ft. Climb to 20,000ft in 4mins.






Personally, I that if the Rolls-Royce Crecy had been developed and put onto these aircraft, 600mph+ could be possible. 5000hp from the engine + another 30% from the 2-stroke exhaust thrust.


----------



## wmaxt (May 9, 2006)

A number of aircraft could break 500mph in dives the P-51 was limited to 505mph according to my Pilots Handbook. A bearcat and a griffon and contrarotating prop powered P-51 both broke 500mph in level flight. I'm sure there are more but those come to mind right now.

The X-1 and F-104 had straight wings and broke Mach 1, and Mach 2 respectively.

wmaxt


----------



## elmilitaro (May 9, 2006)

Wow!


----------



## Hot Space (May 10, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> A number of aircraft could break 500mph in dives the P-51 was limited to 505mph according to my Pilots Handbook. A bearcat and a griffon and contrarotating prop powered P-51 both broke 500mph in level flight. I'm sure there are more but those come to mind right now.
> 
> The X-1 and F-104 had straight wings and broke Mach 1, and Mach 2 respectively.
> 
> wmaxt



A Griffon Spit almost went supersonic in a dive at one point


----------



## pbfoot (May 10, 2006)

I'll even wager there was allsorts of prop guys that went close or past Mach 1 towards the end of WW2 in late 45 fighters just that they aren't any around


----------



## Hot Space (May 10, 2006)

Yep 

The spit in question was a Mk 19 from No.81 Squadron based in Hong Kong. The Pilot, Flight Lieutenant Ted Powles took his Spitfire up to 51,550ft, put the nose full down and at 15,000ft he was doing Mach 0.9 - 690mph 

Both he and his plane survived intact


----------



## lesofprimus (May 10, 2006)

I remember that story as well space... Powles had some large cohones to try that one...


----------



## Hot Space (May 10, 2006)

Not anymore if he kept up trying that though  

I've mention this before here, but I still remember seeing a program on Brit TV in the early 70's when one of the designers of the Spitfire was saying, that they were thinking of adapting a 'Griffon' Spit by taking the Rads away, Streamlining etc to make it go 500 mph plus, so it could take on the Me-262. The Air Ministry at the time said it would be a waste of time as the Gloster Meteor was about to come online, saying that it would be as fast as the 262 - they where wrong of course (414 mph isn't the 262's 540 mph in anyone's books)

Shame it didn't happen though


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 10, 2006)

Only the Mk I Meteor was limited to 414 mph. The Meteor Mk III, which went into squadron service with 616 Squadron in December 1944, was capable of 480-490 mph. 

The Mk I was really more of a serise of service development airframes than a actual fighter while the RAF waited for the more reliable Derwent I engines to replace the underpowered Wellands. If Rover hadn't kept dragging their heels and doing everything to go as slow as possible in 1941-1943, the British could of been flying the Meteor in 1943.

Rover took a practical working design, [email protected] it up in an attempt to avoid patent and design fees, and put English jet production behind by almost 2 years. When Rols-Royce stepped in and took over developmen, it took them just 6 months to do what Rover had done in almost 3 years.

Rover had produced just 32 centrifugal flow and 6 axial flow engines by the end of 1942, and were bench testing at around 1,400 lbs. After Rolls-Royce took over engine production in January 1943, they produced 60 Welland engines in 5 months and were bench testing them at 1,500 lbs in March 1,600lbs by May adnd 1,700lbs in July. Rolls Royce produced around 170 Wellands in 9 months before moving to the more advanced and reliable Derwent.

Aviation enthusiasts wax lyrical about the possibilities of a LuftWaffe armed with Ar-230s and Me-262 in 1943. If Rolls-Royce had been in charge of jet production and developement, the Meteor could of been in regular squadron service by January 1944 and the Vampire/Spider-Crab possibly just a few months later. There was a 6 month delay in Vampire development brought about because the Halford engines were being suplied to the USAAF for the XP-80 project after they destroyed the first engine in ground testing.


----------



## Hot Space (May 11, 2006)

Sorry, should of put MkI Meteor there


----------



## R988 (May 11, 2006)

I guess Rover was crap even back then.

what was the Spider-Crab? A nickname of the Vampire or a different aircraft?


----------



## Twitch (May 11, 2006)

Most of the unlimited air racers are in the 500-550 MPH realm with straight wings though a few are clipped a bit. Of course they're getting more HP out of the engines these days and they're tuned for sprints instead of longevity. Proves even a brick with enough horsrpower wil fly!!


----------



## Hot Space (May 11, 2006)

Fancy a Spitfire in WWII with 2 Cannons 2 MG's doing that though. 

WOW 



R988 said:


> I guess Rover was crap even back then.
> 
> what was the Spider-Crab? A nickname of the Vampire or a different aircraft?



Yep, that was the original name for the Vampire.


----------



## Gimmeacannon! (Feb 22, 2007)

The fastest of the 70-odd Spiefuls built were two F16's (only two were built) with the Griffon 89 rated at 2,450 h.p and a top speed of 494 mph, these were actual service aircraft flown by the RAF as against special one-off aircraft in developement.
I have a photo of a Spit (griffon) that hit over 600 mph in a dive and the prop speed was so great the reduction gearbox exploded and he had to glide back to the field and land the thing.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 22, 2007)

I thought 16 or 17 were built out of an original order of 70 (which was already reduced from a greater number)/



Kris


----------



## Jank (Feb 22, 2007)

Twitch said, "Proves even a brick with enough horsepower wil fly!!"

That was proven much earlier with the P-47.


----------



## bigZ (Feb 22, 2007)

Talking of spit development. Wasn't their an atempt to significantly improve the the Spits range for bomber secort which ended in failure?

I would appreciate it if any one can shed some light and post a pic if possible?


----------



## Civettone (Feb 22, 2007)

You're talking about the Spiteful?

The data I have suggest that it didn't have a long-range capability. To me, it's simply the successor of the Spitfire. Development started rather early but was always put on low priority. The British - more than others - upgraded existing designs rather than start with a new one. Worked well in WW2...

Kris


----------



## Morai_Milo (Feb 22, 2007)

Spitful could carry both 90gal and 170 gal drop tanks.


----------



## bigZ (Feb 22, 2007)

Civettone said:


> You're talking about the Spiteful?
> 
> The data I have suggest that it didn't have a long-range capability. To me, it's simply the successor of the Spitfire. Development started rather early but was always put on low priority. The British - more than others - upgraded existing designs rather than start with a new one. Worked well in WW2...
> 
> Kris



Sorry went a bit of topic. No I did mean the Spitfire. Apparently the prototype was an utter failure and quietly shelved. My information is second hand and was hoping for confirmation.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 23, 2007)

There are a lot of reports of very fast aircraft in the latter days of WWII. However, the planes of that era typically had airspeed indicators that only provided indicated airspeed (IAS). Some may have been corrected for installation errors (calibrated airspeed-CAS). Probably none had been corrected for compression (equivalent airspeed-EAS). And probably none had outside air temperature which is necessary to calculate true airspeed (TAS). As a result of all of these errors, the indicators of these aircraft were woefully inadequate to generate an accurate TAS and pilot reports other than "that was fast" should be suspect. Unless, of course, the plane was tested in a controlled enviornment with proper instrumentation.

The world's fasted piston engined aircraft over 3 km is an F8F with a non-standard R3350 engine that generated 3800 hp with a speed of 850 km/hr (528 mph). Over a longer course, a P-51D holds the record with a non-standard Merlin that generated 3000 hp with a speed of 832 km/hr (516 mph). You can pretty well predict that these aircraft were stripped of every non-essential pound and every crack was sealed and every bump was removed, and with very small aerodynamic canopys. Also, they probably only had enough fuel to fly the course and land.

With the above information, I believe that, for a piston powered warbird to approach 500 mph in level flight, it would have to be very clean, no racks, and have about 3000 hp. The following planes would probably be capable of reaching close to 500 mph, although I have not seen any test results that would indicate that. With a normal load of fuel and with the warfighting weight, even these would struggle to get close to 500 mph.

XP-72 with 3450 hp
Do-335 with 3600 hp

With 2400 hp, the Spiteful probably would not approach 500 mph.
Two engine aircraft would have to carry a significant more hp due to increased drag. Except, of course, the Do-335 which had tandem engines.


----------



## Jank (Feb 23, 2007)

The XP-47J with an R-2800C-57 (2,800hp) hit 507mph in combat trim. The secret - It's combat loaded weight was 2,000lbs less than a P-47D and it had a close fitting cowl that presented a more efficient shape.


----------



## Smokey (Feb 23, 2007)

The Heinkel He P 1076 had a theoretical speed of 546 mph and forward swept wongs, so in theory it would have had a relatively small turning circle.







Heinkel He P.1076


----------



## davparlr (Feb 23, 2007)

Jank said:


> The XP-47J with an R-2800C-57 (2,800hp) hit 507mph in combat trim. The secret - It's combat loaded weight was 2,000lbs less than a P-47D and it had a close fitting cowl that presented a more efficient shape.



I've seen that number too, but I don't know if it is flight test or engineering estimates. I have seen similar data on the P-51H showing a top speed of 487 mph, which was an engineering estimate by North American while actual flight test show only about 475 mph. The XP-47J does have the criteria I suggested, however.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 23, 2007)

Smokey said:


> The Heinkel He P 1076 had a theoretical speed of 546 mph and forward swept wongs, so in theory it would have had a relatively small turning circle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A lot of things can be accomplished theoretically. The P 1076 (if it could have been built with those forward swept wings and the engine worked) could probably reach the 500 mph level with its most powerful engine, 2750 hp (it meets my criteria) but I doubt it could go a lot faster. Remember, a P-51D, also an extremely clean aircraft, with a 3000 hp engine was able to make only 516 mph, a record that still stands for the distance.

Also, the fasted propeller driven aircraft in the world was a Russian Tu 114 with speed of 541 mph. This with counter-rotating supersonic props and was jet turbo powered.


----------



## Smokey (Feb 23, 2007)

> Mark XIV - the type 371 was fitted with a Griffon 69 engine rated at 2,375 hp driving a 5 blade propeller. The top speed was 475 mph. 19 were built. Of these aircraft 1 was converted to a Mark XV and 2 were converted to Mark XVI.
> Mark XV - Fitted with a Griffon 89 or 90 engine rated at 2,350 hp and driving two contra rotating three blade propellers. The one converted aircraft, RB520, was subsequently used in the development of the Seafang. Top speed was 483 mph.
> Mark XVI - The two conversions from the Mark XIV, RB516 and RB518 were fitted with the Griffon 101 engine producing 2,420 hp and a top speed of 494 mph.



http://www.supermarine-spitfire.co.uk/the_spiteful.htm


----------



## Civettone (Feb 23, 2007)

Davparl, wouldn't you consider the Spiteful aerodynamically more refined and lighter in weight than the P-51D? 


And the tandem engine configuration of the Do 335 was aerodynamically inefficient, as acknowledged by the Dornier guys themselves. 

Kris


----------



## delcyros (Feb 23, 2007)

The Meteor issue is an interesting one and certainly there is potential for a more rapid introduction, but I doubt that it could have been avaiable that early. One should not forget that the US provided the tooling tech necessary to mass produce jet engines to the UK in early 44. 
The 490 mp/h are also somehow optimistic. I can recall in between 768 and 770 Km/h at 3000m (477-478 mp/h) in clean configuration after tail modifications in late 44. Below or above this altitude, the speed curve drops off significantly.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 23, 2007)

The theoretical estimates of speed should be taken with a serious grain of salt. This is true for all ww2 nations estimates which achieved higher speeds than Mach 0.75. In Germany, f.e. (I could examplify the US or Britain as well but I am particularely more familar with the RLM issues) every company used it´s own mathematical system, which tends to produce contradicting estimates. The full problematic of transsonic speed calculations were solved in late february 45 by the DVL and any earlier design proposal was prone for to high estimates.


----------



## Hop (Feb 23, 2007)

> Talking of spit development. Wasn't their an atempt to significantly improve the the Spits range for bomber secort which ended in failure?



There were quite a few methods used to improve the Spitfire's range. 

The first was to fit drop tanks, of 30, 45 or 90 gallons. A 170 gallon tank was used on some ferry flights and for recce Spitfires.

Second was increasing the lower forward fuel tank by 10 gallons. This was standard on Griffon Spitfires and Spitfire VIIIs, and common on other late production Spitfires.

Third was fitting tanks in the wing leading edge, of up to about 18 gallons each.

Fourth was fitting a rear fuselage tank. This was first done on Spitfire Vs for ferry to Malta, when a 30 gallon tank was fitted. In 1944 and 1945 some Spitfires were fitted with rear tanks of up to 75 gallons.

The most fuel a Spitfire could reasonably fly with would be a Spitfire VIII with 95 gallons in the main tanks, 28 in the wing tanks, 90 in a drop tank, and up to 60 in a rear tank, for a total of 273 gallons. The first Spitfires had started out with 85 gallons.

Such long ranges were rarely required of Spitfires, though. The recce aircraft, which did need long range, were equipped with lots of extra fuel, for example the PR XIX carried up to 257 gallons internally.

The only "attempt" I know of to equip the Spitfire as an escort was by the USAAF. Two Spitfires were modified in the US, having tanks put in to their leading edge, and wing drop tanks added. The modifications to the wing for the leading edge tanks were thought to have weakened it (although slightly larger tanks were routinely fitted to Spitfires in production). The aircraft were flown back across the Atlantic to Britain.

There was no reason for the Spitfire not to have greater range. The British didn't really require it in most cases, and when they did Spitfires were equipped with extra tanks. The US seriously considered using the Spitfire as an escort, but by the time they would be available with long range tanks the Mustang was entering service as an escort fighter, and Spitfire production wasn't high enough to fulfil all the demands placed on it.

Here's the consumption figures achieved under Australian testing of the Spitfire VIII with Merlin 66:




This aircraft had 123 gallons internally, and a 90 gallon drop tank. The drop tank remained attached at all times, hence the "ferry" designation.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 23, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Davparl, wouldn't you consider the Spiteful aerodynamically more refined and lighter in weight than the P-51D?



Since the P-51D that set that particular record is tail number N5410V, which is Dago Red, a rather famous and highly modifed racer, the answer is, no, until all the things that was modified on Dago Red was applied to Spiteful.




> And the tandem engine configuration of the Do 335 was aerodynamically inefficient, as acknowledged by the Dornier guys themselves.
> 
> Kris



I don't know, you may be right. The overall design concept is aerodynamically sound with a puller and a pusher prop and the aircraft looks clean. The detail execution of it may be inefficient. It does seem strange that the Do 335V-1, with 3500 hp available was only capable of reaching 455 mph. Also, tandem engines always seem to pose cooling problems, which may have been a problem here, too.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 23, 2007)

Smokey said:


> The Supermarine Spiteful




That site usually has flight test or manufacture data to support its statements. In this case it does not provide that. I would like to see that before I would conclude this data is accurate.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 23, 2007)

Every pound added whether its fuel, oxygen, weapons etc or even the weight of the paint affects the useful load an aircraft its coming up with a balance that makes or breaks the aircraft . The spit could never be a long range fighter without sacrificing one of its other attributes


----------



## Civettone (Feb 23, 2007)

Davparlr, 
I didn't notice the P-51 was modified that way. 

As to the Do 335, the problem was that the front prop couldn't achieve its maximum efficiency because the air flow interrupted that of the other engine ... or something like that  

But it's obvious when you look at the next Do 335 designs: they abandoned the tandem engine layout in the P 247 and P 252. 

Kris


----------



## davparlr (Feb 24, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Davparlr,
> I didn't notice the P-51 was modified that way.



What you can see is the small flaired-in canopy, the high gloss reflection in the wing which indicates a highly polished finish, and the advanced, and modern, wing-tip flairings. What you can't see is the efforts that was spent to lighten the airframe and the detail that went into eliminating any source of drag such as gaps, uneven alignments, etc. in order to achieve the cleanest airframe. Also, the I believe the wings had been clipped. As it was, the baseline P-51D in military trim was one of the cleanest fighters of the war as indicated by the hp required to generate speed at sea level (1640 hp, 375 mph), with only the Fw-190D coming close (1750 hp, 380 mph).


> As to the Do 335, the problem was that the front prop couldn't achieve its maximum efficiency because the air flow interrupted that of the other engine ... or something like that
> 
> But it's obvious when you look at the next Do 335 designs: they abandoned the tandem engine layout in the P 247 and P 252.
> 
> Kris



Good information, and reasonable.


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 24, 2007)

Hop said:


> Here's the consumption figures achieved under Australian testing of the Spitfire VIII with Merlin 66:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It should be noted that Hop usually waves about this leaflet from an Australian archives, which is claiming 10 miles per gallon achievable. That of course, is by far the highest mileage you`d find for any Spitfire test - it appears to be a single abberant test result, with dozens of other fuel consumption trials showing around 6-6.5 mpg being realistically achieavable. Hop knows those very well.

Here`s for the Mk IX. Mk IX and VIII had the same engine :







These full endurance trials showed 6.76 mpg being achievable at 20000 feet, 1800 rpm.

If you`d add up the claimed mileage in Hop`s paper with the fuel tankage, ie. 10 mpg and 120 gallons available, this would give you something like 1200 miles (!!!) of range for the Spitfire. If this would be true, there would be never any need for the Mustang as Spitfires would easily reach out to Berlin and back. Nonsense, of course, and all MkVIII data sheets give only 740 miles or so range, which points to the 10 mpg data is simply result of an abberant test, perhaps, but agrees well with the ~ 6.5 mpg given everywhere else.


The original comment on the Spitfire`s lack of penetrative range is quite correct. Despite many attempts, the Spitfire, as the war progressed, become increasingly a defensive fighter, lacking the range for any serious escort job. 

Simply adding fuel droptanks did not solve the problem, since your penetrative range in any case is determined how much internal fuel you`re left with after you dropped the fuel tank. In other word, you can`t use practically a 90 gallon droptank to bring you over to enemy territory, if all you have is 85 gallons (some of which you`ll use up quickly during combat, where fuel consumption skyrockets at max power) to return on.

The rear tanks, fitted irregularly to some planes at the very end of the war were similiar to droptanks, as they could be used for ferry (one-way) missions only, like Malta. The reason was that with the rear aux. tanks the Center of Gravity shifted so far back that the plane was outright difficult and dangerous to fly, not to speak air combat. Therefore the rear tank, like a droptank, had to be emptied first, and then return on the normal internal tankage, again 85 gallons on the vast majority of Spits. 

The third factor was that the rapidly increasing fuel consumption of the Merlin made the Spitfire shorter and shorter ranged. The confidental document titled 'Development of the Spitfire Fighter' from the Australian archives gives some idea :

The Spitfire I, while cruising very slowly - hardly an option over enemy territory - could go as far as 575 miles at 188 mph, but only 350 miles if it travels at 250 mph.

The Spitfire V was shorter ranged, at slow economic cruise it would manage 480 miles at 185 mph, and 335 miles at 310 mph cruising speed.

The Spit IX was even thirstier, at economic cruise it would manage 450 miles on slow economic cruise, as seen above. 

The Spit VIII was the only variant which had some range at least, with the internal fuel being increased by 50% to 120 gallons with 740 miles being possible at slow economic cruise, and much less if any reasonable speed was maintained. However few were build and most of those went either to the PTO or MTO, where with the large overseas missions the short range of the Mk V or IX would simply not do.

Enter the MkXIV and the Griffon engined fuel hogs.. range was down again, fuel tankage was 120 gallon, as in the MkVIII, but the Griffon engine was not any shy using it up... at enourmous rates. The range at an economic, slow cruising range was down again to about ca 450 miles. That is, with 50% more fuel carried than the Mk I, and having 100 miles less range. That of course would refer to the luxury of cruising at slow speed over enemy territory, asking to be bounced by an enemy fighter.

Of course this is on interal fuel, but for escort or any two-way mission, it makes sense to look at the droptank range. The absolute maximum range of a mission was defined by the range of what you could get back on your limited internal tankage, ie. after dropping your external tank when engaged and using up considerable amounts of fuel at high power during air combat. A % of allowance had to be also given for navigational etc. errors, or just circling above your own airfield and wait for your turn to land.

There`s a good reason why US escort fighters were introduced, and while they featured very large internal fuel tankage.


----------



## Hop (Feb 24, 2007)

What Kurfurst knows well is that the page he posted is for a test on a Spitfire IX with Merlin 61. The Merlin 61 was rather different to the Merlin 66, the engine which powered most Spitfire VIIIs/IXs/XVIs. 

The Merlin 61 had a slightly different supercharger, but more importantly it had an SU float carburettor. The Merlin 66 had a Bendix Stromberg injection carburettor.

The Australian test is for a Spitfire VIII with Merlin 66.



> If you`d add up the claimed mileage in Hop`s paper with the fuel tankage, ie. 10 mpg and 120 gallons available, this would give you something like 1200 miles (!!!) of range for the Spitfire. If this would be true, there would be never any need for the Mustang as Spitfires would easily reach out to Berlin and back.



The problem is escort range is typically one third of maximum range, which means you need about 1800 mile range to escort bombers to Berlin and back. And you don't want to cruise at 160 IAS, either, because you'll be a sitting duck over Germany at that speed.



> The rear tanks, fitted irregularly to some planes at the very end of the war


From the Spitfire IX/XVI manual:

Later production Mk IX and all Mk XVI aircraft mount two additional fuel tanks with a capacity of 75 gallons (66 gallons in aircraft with "rear view" fuselages), they are fitted in the rear fuselage.

1,054 Spitfire XVIs were made.

The rear tanks were also fitted to the Spitfire XIV, possibly other models as well.



> were similiar to droptanks, as they could be used for ferry (one-way) missions only, like Malta.



Wrong. Source for this claim?



> The reason was that with the rear aux. tanks the Center of Gravity shifted so far back that the plane was outright difficult and dangerous to fly, not to speak air combat. Therefore the rear tank, like a droptank, had to be emptied first,



In other words, exactly like the Mustang. Both had to use most of the fuel in the rear tank first. The RAF Spitfire IX manual notes:

"When the rear fuselage tanks are full there is a very marked reduction in longitudinal stability, the aircraft tightens in turns at all altitudes and, in this condition, is restricted to straight flying, and only gentle manoeuvres; accurate trimming is not possible and instrument flying should be avoided whenever possible."

The RAF Mustang III (P-51B) manual notes:

"Stability.—Except when earning full fuselage tank, the aircraft is stable longitudinally, laterally, and dircc-tionally. When the fuselage tank is full, the aircraft is longitudinally unstable in all conditions of flight, and tends to tighten up in turns; until at least 40 Imp. gallons (48 U.S. gallons} have been consumed from the fuselage tank, no manoeuvres other than very gentle turns should be attempted."

Regarding aerobatics, the Spitfire manual:

"Acrobatics are not permitted when carrying any external stores (except the 30-gallon " blister " drop tank) nor when the rear fuselage tanks contain more than 30 gallons of fuel, and are not recommended when the rear fuselage tanks contain any fuel."

Mustang manual:

"Flick manoeuvres arc not permitted. When carrying bombs or drop tanks, or with fuel in fuselage tank, aerobatics are prohibited."

As you can see, the restrictions on the Spitfire with rear fuel tank are not quite as bad as for the Mustang, the Mustang is prohibited from any aerobatics with any fuel in the rear tank, the Spitfire with more than 30 gallons in the rear tank.



> and then return on the normal internal tankage, again 85 gallons on the vast majority of Spits.



Depends on the Spitfire. Most Spitfires had only 85 gallons internal because that's all they needed. Those that needed more fuel, like the Spitfire VIII, the Spitfire XIV, the recce Spits, got more tankage.


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 24, 2007)

Hop said:


> What Kurfurst knows well is that the page he posted is for a test on a Spitfire IX with Merlin 61. The Merlin 61 was rather different to the Merlin 66, the engine which powered most Spitfire VIIIs/IXs/XVIs.
> 
> The Merlin 61 had a slightly different supercharger, but more importantly it had an SU float carburettor. The Merlin 66 had a Bendix Stromberg injection carburettor.
> 
> The Australian test is for a Spitfire VIII with Merlin 66.



Smokescreen. 

What Kurfürst knows is that Hop likes the Spitfire very much, thus Hop would like to to attribute it with properties that are beyond the actual capabilities of the aircraft, and therefore Hop waves around a single test that contradicts all others, and would like to dismiss all those others, via making up that the test is with Merlin 61, a claim Hop repeats over and over again and fail to back up over and over again.

In any case, it doesn`t matter. The range of the Spitfire IX is given in the paper is 450 miles. The range of 'rather different Merlin 66' is given as 434 miles. Hardly a difference. Smokescreen.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-lfix-ads.jpg




> The problem is escort range is typically one third of maximum range, which means you need about 1800 mile range to escort bombers to Berlin and back. And you don't want to cruise at 160 IAS, either, because you'll be a sitting duck over Germany at that speed.



That would mean that realistically, the Spitfire, when fitted with the biggest practical, 90 gallon slipper tank, would be good about for a (low speed sitting duck) escort of ca. 300 miles at economical cruise, more realistcally 520/3= 175 miles escort radius. That`s barely reaching into France. Oh sorry, you can`t even reach out that far because then you`ll have obvious problems returning on your 85 gallon internal tangage, draing further by air combat, after getting their on your _90 gallon_ droptank. 

Short ranged indeed. Wasn`t that the point all the way?



> From the Spitfire IX/XVI manual:
> 
> Later production Mk IX and all Mk XVI aircraft mount two additional fuel tanks with a capacity of 75 gallons (66 gallons in aircraft with "rear view" fuselages), they are fitted in the rear fuselage.
> 
> ...



Well, the Mk XVI was in production only from September 1944, and as far as it went, only about 6-7 Squadrons were being operational with the 2nd TAF.

Too late, too few in other words, carrying fuel in an aux tank that made the aircraft a pregnant pig and was useful for 1-way ferry missions only.




> Wrong. Source for this claim?



The RAF Spitfire IX manual notes:

"When the rear fuselage tanks are full there is a very marked reduction in longitudinal stability, the aircraft tightens in turns at all altitudes and, in this condition, is restricted to straight flying, and only gentle manoeuvres; accurate trimming is not possible and instrument flying should be avoided whenever possible."




> In other words, exactly like the Mustang. Both had to use most of the fuel in the rear tank first.



Except of course the Mustang had plenty of range internal tankage and plenty of range after using up it`s internal fuel tank. 

The Spitfire didn`t.







> As you can see, the restrictions on the Spitfire with rear fuel tank are not quite as bad as for the Mustang, the Mustang is prohibited from any aerobatics with any fuel in the rear tank, the Spitfire with more than 30 gallons in the rear tank.



Except again of course, that after emptying the rear tank as instructed, the Mustang will have plenty of internal fuel to perform and return from an escort mission, and the Spitfire don`t.

That`s why the Mustang was so important during the war, and why the post-war Spitfires tried to catch up with that.




> Depends on the Spitfire. Most Spitfires had only 85 gallons internal because that's all they needed.



And they had thus the shortest radius of action any WW2 fighter I can think of. A bit of a luxury if the target is so far away., isn`t it?



> Those that needed more fuel, like the Spitfire VIII, the Spitfire XIV, the recce Spits, got more tankage.



The Spitfire VIII`s use was extremely limited in Europe, and it`s operations largely confined to the PTO, where it`s _relatively_ longer range, compared to the other very short ranged Spitfires, was still laughably inaduquate for the theatre.

As for the Spitfire XIV, even less were around than VIII, appeared even later, and all the extra tankage was used to make up for increased fuel consumption. Having 50% more tankage than the Mk IX, the XIV could just have the same very short range.


----------



## Morai_Milo (Feb 24, 2007)

So Kurfurst, if that Aussie Spit range test is an abberant test, then so must that supposed document text (no document scan ever posted) Pips posted about availability of 100PN fuel you like to wave so much about since there is reams of documentation of there being large quanities of 100PN fuel available for BoB, using your logic process.


----------



## Morai_Milo (Feb 24, 2007)

> And they had thus the shortest radius of action any WW2 fighter I can think of. A bit of a luxury if the target is so far away., isn`t it?


 Is that shorter than the 135 mile tactical radius of the 109?


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 24, 2007)

Morai_Milo said:


> Is that shorter than the 135 mile tactical radius of the 109?



Well these figures are without droptanks; the Spitfire figures are with droptanks.
Of course, the 109 had droptanks as well, this would extend the range.

As noted, the practical 2-way range is dependant on range on internal fuel; the 109 with the exception of the 109E, had more range on internal fuel than the Spitfire, except the Mk VIII which was comparable.

The document you posted seems to stipulate the range of an enemy fighter-bombr on hit-and-run attacks on southern England, without droptank, using high power all the time and plenty of room for errors and combat added.

Perhaps this would give you comparable figures :






In any case, this thread is about the Spitfire, not it`s relative merits compared to the Bf 109.


----------



## Udet (Feb 26, 2007)

Excellent information Kurfurst.

And by the way what´s all this thing about drop tanks used in Spitfires? It´d seem it was a comodity rarely used as i am unable to recall any mention of drop tanks used in operations in virtually all books i have.

Finally, has anyone seen a single photo of Spitfires flying with drop tanks fitted? I have not, and my Spitfire photo collection ain´t small.

Possibly because the Spitfire variants which used it saw very limited combat action if any.

Although no date is specified on the document, point (II) reads: "it is asummed that the tanks will be jettisoned when approaching the combat or target area..."

Assumed? Does not sound the guys who made the paper were very convinced regarding this particular issue.


----------



## Morai_Milo (Feb 26, 2007)

The thread is titled *Spitful* and got sidetracked with Spitfire.

Kurfurst you opened the door with: _"And they had thus the shortest radius of action any WW2 fighter I can think of."_

There is something wrong with the British est. This would mean using the bigger engine (605) and having a somewhat cleaned up airframe the 109G got almost double the range of the best a 109E got.

max continuous - 286mi, 0.55hr
max economy - 413mi, 1.50hr

Tell me Udet, how did Spitfires get to Holland and back to GB without drop tanks? If they didn't use them, then they must have done so on internal fuel.

Also, if the 109 had such great range, then why does one see almost every photo of them having a drop tank? 

Considering the _aluminum overcast_ of Allied a/c over occupied Europe in 1944-45, what 109 pilot would be stooging around at econo cruise? Not if the pilot wanted to stay alive.

pg1 and table ii


----------



## Hop (Feb 27, 2007)

> And by the way what´s all this thing about drop tanks used in Spitfires? It´d seem it was a comodity rarely used as i am unable to recall any mention of drop tanks used in operations in virtually all books i have.
> 
> Finally, has anyone seen a single photo of Spitfires flying with drop tanks fitted? I have not, and my Spitfire photo collection ain´t small.



You are joking, right? 

About 300,000 slipper tanks for Spitfires were built during the war. As standard procedure was not to drop them unless necessary, that's enough for a lot of flights.

As to pictures, because Spitfires usually used the conformal "slipper" tanks under the fuselage, they are hard to spot, unless the picture is from underneath.



> Possibly because the Spitfire variants which used it saw very limited combat action if any.



The first variant to use drop tanks was the Mk 5. They were commonly fitted to all later marks. That means the only variants that didn't have drop tanks were the Mks I and II.

Regarding Kurfurst's use of the Merlin 61 range figures, the Australians also tested Mustangs for range. From the Australian archives, various Mustang models (the Australians tested Mustangs with Merlin 66 and 70s post war, because of problems with spare parts from the US)

First, Mustang 20 (V-1650-3). This engine was suffering from "surging" at low rpm, so the lowest figure they recorded was at 2,100 rpm:





Note the speed is in knots, and the range in nautical miles.

Slowest speed they were able to get (because of the surging) was 303 mph. At that speed, consumption was 7.5 mpg.

Compare that to the Spitfire VIII figures I posted earlier, to achieve a similar speed, the Spitfire achieved 308 mph at 6.2 mpg.

The closest rpm and boost match would be 2200 rpm, 0 lbs boost on the Spitfire, which achieved slightly better range, 7.8 mpg, but at only 266 mph.

Note that at slower speeds, the Spitfire _should_ have a range advantage. It has lower induced drag than the Mustang, because it's lighter, so it's speed for best range is slower. The speed for best range on the Spitfire was 160 IAS, which is where induced and parasitic drag balance out. For the Mustang it was higher (both because of reduced parasitic drag and increased induced drag)

You can see that clearly in their test of the Mustang 23, which was a Mustang with Merlin 70:





Note how best range is obtained at higher speed than the Spitfire VIII. That's because the Mustang weighs 1,200 lbs more on test.

To compare the figures, the Mustang never gets as high a mileage as the Spitfire at very low speed, which is to be expected, because it has higher drag at low speed. However, as the speed increases, the Mustang develops a large advantage, again as expected.

At 1800 rpm, -2.5 lbs boost, the Mustang gets 8 mpg, at a speed of 190 IAS.

At almost the same settings, 1800 rpm, -2 lbs boost, the Spitfire gets 10 mpg, but at only 159 IAS

As the speed increases, at 2000 rpm, the Mustang gets just over 7.5 mpg at 220 IAS, the Spitfire 9.4 mpg at 169 IAS. But to match the speed of the Mustang, the Spitfire has to go to 2400 rpm, 2 lbs boost, and gets only 6.6 mpg

Take it to higher speeds still, and the Mustang opens a large advantage. The Spitfire can cruise at 230 IAS at 6.2 mpg, at the same speed the Mustang does 7.3 mpg. 

Put simply, the Spitfire can get lower consumption at very low speeds, because it is lighter, the Mustang gets better consumption at higher speeds, because it has less drag. 

Below the Mustang's optimum speed, the Spitfire gets better consumption. At any speed above the Mustang's optimum speed, the Spitfire gets worse consumption.

That's _exactly_ as expected.


----------



## Udet (Feb 28, 2007)

Mr. Milo: nobody suggested the Bf 109 had a "great range". It was you who chose the phrase.


I have no issues at admitting mistakes. So, the Spitfires used these slipper drop tanks of which i had heard, but having seen countless photos of P-47s, P-51s, P-38s, Bf 109s, Bf 110s, Fw 190s and zeros with drop tanks, all tanks kind of "standard" regarding the looks, is that i incorrectly assumed RAF drop tanks should have had a similar design or look.

It is ok, and thanks for the input.

Now a necessary question from my part has to be: you say the first type of Spitfire that used the drop tank is the Mk. V but you do not specify the date.

The Germans had the Bf 109 G series deployed in numbers while the Mk. V was still the main RAF fighter -until the end of 1943- when they were having problems in bringing the new Mk. IX in numbers...not forgetting that for D-Day there were several squadrons that were still flying Mk. V Bs, say, 234 Sqn...so when was it that drop tanks became available to the RAF? Can you narrow the comment?

If drop tanks were available to RAF fighter squadrons fielding Mk. Vs why was it that very early in the war RAF bomber command decided it would be better to carry on bomber missions at night?

300,000 tanks made? Why so many? In all Great Britain produced ~50,000 fighters of all types during the war. Given the nature of those slipper tanks it would seem only one could be fitted to each plane.

There must have been some important reason to prefer the night to carry on with bomber missions.

So is Kurfurst´s correct when he advises regarding the negative impact those tanks had in the overall performance of the Spitfire they decided to not use it as long-range escort? Would like to hear your opinion for Kurfurst´s comments make sense.

It would be interesting to know when was the first time Spitfires flew over Berlin keeping in mind the date when Mustangs flew over the capital city of the Reich for the first time.

I know the operational record of the Spitfire very well, and it is crystal clear that without the 8th AF coming from abroad, the Spitfires would still be trying to figure out how to move outside the island.


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 1, 2007)

Hop said:


> Regarding Kurfurst's use of the Merlin 61 range figures,



Source please for it being a Merlin 61. Let`s note again that the 'Merlin 61' part is 

ad 1, entirely made up by Hop because he wants to dismiss all figures but the highest figures
ad 2, Smokescreen anyway, as the M 61 and 66 had no significant differences in fuel consumption.

Again :

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-lfix-ads.jpg
Range given, in miles, at most economical speed : 434 miles on permanent (85 gallon tanks)

Works out 434/85 : 5.1 miles / gallon.
That`s for the Merlin 66 Spit. According to Hop, it had so much better fuel consumption than the Merlin 61, so I wonder how much shorter legged the 61 Spit was?

At maximum weak mixture cruise : 240 miles at 85 gallons. 2.82 miles/gallon.

Here`s for MkXI HF w. Merlin 70 - the same meager 434 miles.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-hfix-ads.jpg



> the Australians also tested Mustangs for range.



Irrelevelant, it`s only more stunts after making up and trying to dismiss with a mantra of 'different engine' as above. Now you try to make up the Spitfire had of course better mileage than the far more aerodynamic Mustang.

Again, it`s clearly not the case :






The Mustang appearantly has better mileage than the Spitfire.






The following are results from the British test establishment Boscombe Down, May 1942 Fuel consumption trials on Mk V AB 320. Mileage without overload tank (ie. most optimum condition, with least drag). 6695 lbs.

Alt 20000 feet 
ASI 170 mph
rpm 1850
air miles per gallong 6.65 mpg

Alt 6000 feet 
ASI 170 mph
rpm 1850
air miles per gallong 6.65 mpg


Take note that this is a MkV at similiar power alt etc. settings.

And, if we follow Hop`s mantra about how much better mileage the 'lighter' aircraft should have 'because of better induced drag' (Hop here of course convinently ignores parasitic drag, the Spit had more than any other WW2 figher of that), the MkV, which is some 700 lbs lighter than the Mk IX and some 1000 lbs lighter than the Mk VIII should possess astronomically better mileage.. The Mk V is also a good deal less draggy then either, which had two and bigger radiators.

It doesn`t. In fact, it`s pretty much the same, as all other but one Spitfire milegae test, circa 6.6-6.7 miles per gallon - expect of course the single one Hop waves around, which is quite simply an abberant test, something like setting the mixture too lean or measuring fuel flow was wrong during the recordings.



> So is Kurfurst´s correct when he advises regarding the negative impact those tanks had in the overall performance of the Spitfire they decided to not use it as long-range escort? Would like to hear your opinion for Kurfurst´s comments make sense.



Just to clarify, what I am saying that the Spitfire`s range was severly limited because of it`s small capacity permanent (internal) tanks of typically 85 gallons size, coupled with it`s high drag and the engine`s high fuel consumption, it meant that the aircraft could simply not return from the sortie on it`s internal fuel capacity if the external fuel tank`s capacity was bigger.

In reality a larger than 45 gallon external fuel tank was not practical to extend the aircraft`s operational radius (ie. the distance the aircraft can get to, perform something useful, _and get back on the internal fuel_ - slipper tanks being on in combat was not a really option as the weight and bulk would put you into severe disadvantage). The 90 gallon tank and especially the even bigger ones were only useful for one-way sorties - say relocate to a base like Malta far away. This was especially true because the Spitfire used fuel pumps to drain the drop tank, and these being unreliable at take off (fuel could cut, and engine stop - easy to imagine the consequences) the main tank had to be used for takeoff, warmup and so on, before switching to the droptank. This meant even less permanent fuel in practice.

And on 45 gallon external tank the range was very limited indeed, even though some fanboys of the plane will always argue range and mileage _too_ was something the Spitfire was better than anything else out there. It wasn`t. It could barely reach into France or Belgium, limiting it` operational use to largely defensive duties over England.


----------



## Hop (Mar 1, 2007)

> Source please for it being a Merlin 61. Let`s note again that the 'Merlin 61' part is
> 
> ad 1, entirely made up by Hop because he wants to dismiss all figures but the highest figures
> ad 2, Smokescreen anyway, as the M 61 and 66 had no significant differences in fuel consumption.



Spitfire The History. 

Boscombe Down 10 October 1942. BF274. Fuel consumption trials. At auw 7,100 lb in MS gear @ 174mph 6.76 air miles per gal; range 450 miles; endurance 1.95 hours at 20,000ft. FS gear @ 160 mph 6.03 air miles per gallon; range 375 miles; endurance 1.0 hr at 37,500ft. These results allow for climb to height.

Now, Spitfire the History notes that BF274 was converted from a Spitfire V to IX in August 1942, with the fitting of a Merlin 61 engine. The fuel consumption trials took place on 10th October, on 22nd October performance trials took place: Spitfire F Mk IX Test BF274

Again fitted with Merlin 61. And are you suggesting the Merlin 66 was in use in early October 1942?



> Again :
> 
> http://www.spitfireperformance.com/s...e-lfix-ads.jpg
> Range given, in miles, at most economical speed : 434 miles on permanent (85 gallon tanks)



Based on the Merlin 61, though. I can't find any RAF range trials with the Merlin 66. Can you?

I know of only one test of the Merlin 66 range figures, as is usual you dismiss it because it doesn't say what you want it to say, and use instead _figures for a different engine_.



> Irrelevelant, it`s only more stunts after making up and trying to dismiss with a mantra of 'different engine' as above. Now you try to make up the Spitfire had of course better mileage than the far more aerodynamic Mustang.



No, quite the opposite. If you look at the Australian tests, they are consistent. The Mustang has much better range at any speed above it's most economical speed. The Spitfire, being lighter, quite naturally has a lower most economical speed.

You are aware that as weight goes up, so does most economical cruise speed, aren't you? And that fuel consumption rises with it, and range decreases (unless the extra weight is fuel, of course)



> Take note that this is a MkV at similiar power alt etc. settings.



Again the SU carb, again not a Merlin 66.

*There is a test of the Merlin 66, Kurfurst. Why is it you reject a test of the actual engine, and instead try comparisons with other, older engines?*



> expect of course the single one Hop waves around, which is quite simply an abberant test, something like setting the mixture too lean



What, you mean mixture could make a difference? Getting the mixture leaner would increase range? Duh.

What do you think the carburettor _does_, Kurfurst?


As to the mantra about 85 gallon internal fuel tanks, that's all the Spitfire was fitted with, until the RAF wanted more range. When they did, they started fitting wing tanks, a larger lower forward fuselage tank, rear fuselage tanks, and bigger drop tanks.

Just like the USAAF started fitting bigger drop tanks, enlarged the size of the P-38 wing tanks, fitted a rear fuselage tank to the Mustang, etc, _when they identified a need for them_.



> Now a necessary question from my part has to be: you say the first type of Spitfire that used the drop tank is the Mk. V but you do not specify the date.



Spitfire the History gives a date of August 1941 for the 30 gallon tank. The 90 and 170 gallon tanks were in use in early 1942.



> The Germans had the Bf 109 G series deployed in numbers while the Mk. V was still the main RAF fighter -until the end of 1943



Well, the most numerous perhaps, but certainly not the "main" fighter. For example, a quick glance through the claims and losses lists for December 1943 shows 2 operations by Spitfire Vs, 5 by the much more capable at low altitude LF vs, and 19 by Spitfire IXs.

And please don't encourage Kurfurst on this. Last time he got into an argument on these lines, he got banned from a forum. It really wasn't nice.



> If drop tanks were available to RAF fighter squadrons fielding Mk. Vs why was it that very early in the war RAF bomber command decided it would be better to carry on bomber missions at night?



They decided to switch to night bombing at the end of 1939. The Spitfire V entered service in spring 1941.

That decision was reinforced in summer 1940, when the Luftwaffe couldn't maintain daylight penetrations of 50 miles into British airspace, even with escorts. Bomber Command had to penetrate 600 miles or more of German airspace. That simply wasn't practical without more aircraft, and more power was needed to lift that much fuel.

Don't forget, it took the 8th AF almost 1.5 years to build up enough strength, and overcome the technical problems, to begin bombing Germany in earnest. Calling off the battle for 18 months wasn't an option for BC.



> So is Kurfurst´s correct when he advises regarding the negative impact those tanks had in the overall performance of the Spitfire they decided to not use it as long-range escort?



No. The manual notes similar restrictions for the Spitfire with rear tanks to the Mustang with rear tanks. In fact, the Spitfire restrictions seem slightly less severe.

Having said that, post war the RAF removed the rear tanks from most of their Mustangs, and wired the Spitfire ones shut, because the relaxed stability was deemed unacceptable in peace time.

The RAF tried unescorted daylight bombing in 1939, and learned their lesson. The USAAF tried it in autumn 1943. In 1939 fighter aircraft had 1000 hp engines. In 1943 they had 1700+ hp. What was possible in late 1943 simply wasn't possible in 1939.
 
I suspect that if the RAF had faced the choice of switching to night bombing in 1943, they too would have gone for escorts. But that was a decision they had been forced to take in 1939.



> 300,000 tanks made? Why so many? In all Great Britain produced ~50,000 fighters of all types during the war. Given the nature of those slipper tanks it would seem only one could be fitted to each plane.



Because when they were dropped, they were lost, and you had to have a new one. Doctrine was not to drop these reusable tanks unless necessary, so many were undoubtedly reused. However, if a Spitfire ran into the enemy whilst carrying a slipper tank, standard practice was to drop it.



> It would be interesting to know when was the first time Spitfires flew over Berlin keeping in mind the date when Mustangs flew over the capital city of the Reich for the first time.



March 1941, for a Spitfire Mk I converted for recce operations.

As to Spitfires flying escort over Berlin, it wasn't until summer 1944 that Bomber Command began large scale daylight operations again, and I don't know if they bombed Berlin in daylight with heavies.



> I know the operational record of the Spitfire very well, and it is crystal clear that without the 8th AF coming from abroad, the Spitfires would still be trying to figure out how to move outside the island.



That's funny, considering the 8th flew their first operation in summer 1942, didn't move into Germany in any numbers until autumn 1943, and didn't _return_ to Germany until 1944.

Spitfires were operating out of Malta from March 1942, and Egypt from April.


----------



## Morai_Milo (Mar 1, 2007)

> Mr. Milo: nobody suggested the Bf 109 had a "great range". It was you who chose the phrase.



Udet, I take from your comment that you don't frequent any other boards were Kurfy posts about the range of the 109 and Spitfire. It is always the same, he makes his comments and then is shown his Spit and 109 numbers don't stand up to scutiny.



> And they had thus the shortest *radius of action* any WW2 fighter I can think of.



The difference is between theoretical and actual. 

As has been shown, the 109 also had a short 'radius of action'. Someone did not do enough thinking > a bogus statement. Spits flew missions over Holland and this is within range without dts and is further than the 135mi '_radius of action'_ of the 109. The use of dts allowed for greater time over the target area. The Spit could fly at econo cruise to almost the target and for most of the return flight while the 109 had to fly fast all the time to avoid being shot down.

Anyways, it is just another putdown of the Spitfire, due to the fanatical love he has for the Spit, for range was not an issue for an a/c that was used in a tactical role.

I would still like to see an explination why the 109G at fast cruise had the same range as the 109E on econo cruise .


----------



## Udet (Mar 1, 2007)

Hop: thank you for the response, but i do not think i am getting your point. 

Are you suggesting, saying or affirming the Spitfire could have made an efficient long-range escort?

Is it possible for you to post a photo showing a Spitfire fitted with a drop tank? I mean, i have my Spitfire photos (Mk. V, Mk. VIII, MK. IX and Mk. XIV) here, but really, i fail to detect anything that might indicate the presence of a drop tank.


Milo, i do not care about other forums. You are correct, i do not visit other forums and do not know what those are. A long time ago i used to be a member of the "Axis History" but got tired of those pseudo-Superior Priests of Universal Wisdom and Keepers of the Truth and Censorships which own the place. Have not been there for years.

I care about the things i read here, and it is here where i yet have to read anything that might suggest Kurfurst "hates" the Spitfire. It was you Milo who brought up all that "hate"/"uber" crap. 

Kurfurst responses include data and sources, and are not more aggressive than your own postings Mr. Milo.

I do not encourage anyone to do anything. Kurfurst does not need my or anybody´s help.

I do not hate the Spitfire at all but it is the most overhyped, overvalued, and mythified plane of the entire war and that is a fact. 

Two major aerial battles where Fw 190s/Bf109s and the Spitfires met in the air, February 1942 (Unternehmen Cerberus) and only a few months later, Operation Jubilee, ended in juiciy disasters for the RAF. 

The Dieppe Raids was more than a disaster, it was a slaughter of RAF fighters.

And those are only two examples, the operational records of JG 2 and JG 26 for 1941, 1942 and 1943 are easy to verifiy and the flyers of both jagdgeschwadern swallowed the Spitfires, maintaining a stunning kill ratio over the Brits.

I am certainly not in a position to intervene in this very technical debate you are having here; i leave that to guys like Soren, Flyboy and others. You can call me when you want to discuss operational/ battle records.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2007)

Here you go Udet. A Spit with drop tanks.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 1, 2007)

I doff my hat for the contribution of all those datas, Gentlemen!


----------



## Hop (Mar 1, 2007)

Adler's picture is of one of the 2 Spitfires modified in the US, and which were later flown back across the Atlantic. Wing drop tanks weren't standard on Spitfires.

Edit. The fuel capacity of these two Spits was: 43 gallon rear tank, 2 16.5 gallon tanks in wing leading edge, 2 62 gallon drop tanks, 85 gallons main tanks. Total 285 gallons. They flew back along the Bangor - Goose Bay - Rejkavijk route (1550 miles for the longest hop)

Here are a couple of pictures of Spitfire Vs taking off from USS Wasp in 1942. They are carrying 90 gallon slipper tanks:









The 90 gallon was the largest of the tanks used routinely, and the smaller 30 gallon tank was much more common. It's fairly hard to see the 90 gallon from most angles, the 30 gallon can only be seen in close up pics from the front or underneath.

There was also a 45 gallon slipper tank, but that was largely replaced by a 50 gallon torpedo tank, which was fairly common on Spitfire IX operations.

Here's a Spitfire XII with slipper tank. Size is either 30 or 45 gallon:






From most angles, and with a less clear image, that tank will be almost impossible to see.



> Are you suggesting, saying or affirming the Spitfire could have made an efficient long-range escort?



Depends what range you want.

The best Spitfire for a long range would be the Spitfire VIII or IX or XVI. Those are essentially the same aircraft, all with Merlin 60 series engines. The Spitfire VIII had minor airframe revisions.

Basic fuel load was either 85 or 95 gallons in the main tanks ahead of the cockpit, 0 - 36 gallons in the wing leading edge tanks (not all had them fitted, all the VIIIs did, some later IXs and XVIs did).

To that you could add a 90 gallon drop tank, and 75 gallon rear tank. All these fuel options were fitted to the Spitfire in fairly substantial numbers (ie at least 1,000 Spitfires had wing tanks, at least that many had rear tanks, at least that many had the 95 gallon main tanks, etc)

So, none of these is a fantasy option.

Total fuel load would be 95 gallons main tanks, 28 gallons wing tanks, 75 gallons rear tank, 90 gallons drop tank. Total 288 gallons.

Now the post war Spitfire IX manual notes fuel capacity of up to 255 gallons with the 170 gallon tank, so this would be a bit of an overload. Weight would probably be just over 9,000 lbs. However, the Spitfire XIV was cleared for weights up to 10,280 lbs, and this was basically the same airframe.

So, the we have a Spitfire with 123 gallons in the forward tanks, 75 gallons in the rear tank, 90 in the drop tank. Obviously we don't want to still have the drop tank once combat starts, and we need to have 30 gallons or less in the rear tank (the manual notes aerobatics are safe with 30 gallons, iirc, but with extra fuel forward it's even more stable)

F (forward tanks) 123 gallons
R (rear tank) 75 gallons
D (drop tank) 90 gallons

Start the engine, warm up on the ground. Takeoff to 2,000ft. Because this is critical, we will run from the main tank. 10 gallons used.
F (forward tanks) 113 gallons
R (rear tank) 75 gallons
D (drop tank) 90 gallons

Climb to altitude and form up, 15 gallons from the rear tank.
F (forward tanks) 113 gallons
R (rear tank) 65 gallons
D (drop tank) 90 gallons

Cruise at 6.5 mpg. Rear tank first, using 35 gallons. 225 miles
F (forward tanks) 113 gallons
R (rear tank) 30 gallons
D (drop tank) 90 gallons

Cruise with drop tank. We'll go faster, as we're in enemy territory by now. 5 mpg, 450 miles. Total range to target, up to 675 miles
F (forward tanks) 113 gallons
R (rear tank) 30 gallons

Combat. 5 minutes at WEP, 15 minutes at military power (to use the American definitions). 40 gallons from the main tanks.
F (forward tanks) 73 gallons
R (rear tank) 30 gallons

Cruise home. A lot lighter now, with less drag. 7 mpg. 103 gallons left, 721 mile range. However, this doesn't allow reserves, so more practically about 650 miles.

650 miles would be about the limit for practical Spitfire escorts, without adding more fuel still. I've only allowed the commonly fitted Spitfire fuel tanks, that were used in numbers of greater than 1,000. However, you could add the 30 gallon tank fitted under the seat of some recce Spitfires, you could put an extra tank in the unused cannon bays, etc. That would take the range higher, but that's pure speculation.

The point about long range escort fighters, though, is that only 1 single engined fighter in WW2 was _designed_ with the necessary range to escort bombers from Britain deep into Germany. That was the Zero. None of the others, not even the Mustang, had sufficient range until the need was identified, and the aircraft equipped accordingly. 

The fact that most Spitfires flew with far less fuel isn't because they couldn't carry more, it's because that need was never identified.



> I do not hate the Spitfire at all but it is the most overhyped, overvalued, and mythified plane of the entire war and that is a fact.



A statement like that can only be _opinion_.



> Two major aerial battles where Fw 190s/Bf109s and the Spitfires met in the air, February 1942 (Unternehmen Cerberus) and only a few months later, Operation Jubilee, ended in juiciy disasters for the RAF.
> 
> The Dieppe Raids was more than a disaster, it was a slaughter of RAF fighters.



Hardly. And from the RAF viewpoint, they had troops ashore to protect, and ships lying off the coast, and the Luftwaffe only managed to damage 1 ship, and had no effect on the fighting onshore. I suspect it's another case where the Jagdwaffe were looking after their "score" to the detriment of the war effort. (And seriously, on another forum Kurfurst and others were arguing that the 190 was such a wonderful plane because it allowed the Luftwaffe to run away, which just shows the attitude is still alive and well)



> And those are only two examples, the operational records of JG 2 and JG 26 for 1941, 1942 and 1943 are easy to verifiy and the flyers of both jagdgeschwadern swallowed the Spitfires, maintaining a stunning kill ratio over the Brits.



Not quite so stunning as is usually made out, because what's passed off as "Luftwaffe losses" tend to be pilot fatalities in 2 fighter geschwader.

In 1943 the tide had very much turned.

Jg 26 records show at least 96 pilots killed or seriously injured by Spitfires in 1943. Plane losses will be substantially higher than that. In return, Jg 26 _claimed_ 168 Spitfires. However, the Luftwaffe _claimed_ 903 Spitfires on the western front in 1943, at a time when the RAF lost about 700 fighters in total, to all causes (the claims don't include flak, the losses do)

That means Spitfires shot down about two Jg 26 fighters for every Spitfire JG 26 shot down, in 1943.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2007)

Thanks for the info on my pic and thanks for sharing the pics of the slipper tank Spits.


----------



## Udet (Mar 1, 2007)

_That means Spitfires shot down about two Jg 26 fighters for every Spitfire JG 26 shot down, in 1943._

This is false. A huge lie, possibly the fattest of all lies i´ve heard so far, ever. Keep playing your game of self-embarrassment. It´d appear you are experiencing some sort of mental collapse and delusional process: thanks for sharing it Hop.


----------



## Soren (Mar 2, 2007)

I see our Spitfire fan is again sphewing out lies....


----------



## GregP (Mar 2, 2007)

Twitch, where are you in the LA area? I'm in Irvine.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 2, 2007)

Udet said:


> _That means Spitfires shot down about two Jg 26 fighters for every Spitfire JG 26 shot down, in 1943._
> 
> This is false. A huge lie, possibly the fattest of all lies i´ve heard so far, ever. Keep playing your game of self-embarrassment. It´d appear you are experiencing some sort of mental collapse and delusional process: thanks for sharing it Hop.



Interesing how the reams of evidence you provide in counterpoint makes your refutation even more definitive (instead of say, dismissing it out hand because it doesn't fit your particular view of the RAF/Spitfire vs Luftwafffe/109+190).

I may not always agree with Hop, but at least he is providing something to base an assesment off... (and doesn't seem to be getting ad hominem).


----------



## Hop (Mar 2, 2007)

> This is false. A huge lie, possibly the fattest of all lies i´ve heard so far, ever. Keep playing your game of self-embarrassment. It´d appear you are experiencing some sort of mental collapse and delusional process: thanks for sharing it Hop.



Caldwell and Butler list JG 26 pilot losses. AFAIK, the aircraft losses are unknown. However, we can extrapolate aircraft losses, which are usually more than double the number of pilots killed (by definition, if a pilot is killed the aircraft is almost certainly lost, but if the aircraft is lost, the pilot still has a good chance of survival (as long as he has a parachute))

With 95+ pilots killed and seriously injured by Spitfires (I can provide the names, if you like), you are looking at at least 150 aircraft lost to Spitfires.

Now, if you look at Jim Perry's Luftwaffe claims files http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/tonywood.htm

You will see JG 26 _claimed_ 168 Spitfires in 1943. That means they claimed a ratio of approx 1:1. 

However, as is normal, pilot claims far exceed enemy losses. The Luftwaffe as a whole, excluding nearly all the flak units, claimed 902 Spitfires on the Western Front in 1943. 

ER Hooton, Eagle in Flames, says the RAF lost 590 fighters and fighter bombers on operations on the Western Front in 1943, to all causes (out of just over 80,000 sorties). Many of those were Typhoons, and a great many of the losses were to flak.

To sum up, JG 26 claimed 168 Spitfires, but probably got around half that, whilst losing around 150 fighters themselves.

Now, what makes you believe the Luftwaffe was doing so well against Spitfires in 1943? (Apart from the inflated claims, of course)


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 2, 2007)

Hop said:


> Spitfire The History.
> 
> Boscombe Down 10 October 1942. BF274. Fuel consumption trials. At auw 7,100 lb in MS gear @ 174mph 6.76 air miles per gal; range 450 miles; endurance 1.95 hours at 20,000ft. FS gear @ 160 mph 6.03 air miles per gallon; range 375 miles; endurance 1.0 hr at 37,500ft. These results allow for climb to height.
> 
> ...



Oh, finally some useful contribution from you, and one of the red letter days when you can actually back up what you claim. I wish all days would be such.

So, it`s a F Mk IX w. a Merlin 61. It is given with a range of 450 miles on 85 gallons, and 6.76 mpg at the most economical cruise speed.

The RAF gives the range of the LF Mk IX w. a Merlin 66, with 85 gallons as 434 miles. It would appear that any difference caused by the different carb of the M66, it made it even more fuel hungry.




> Based on the Merlin 61, though. I can't find any RAF range trials with the Merlin 66. Can you?









It says Spitfire IX LF, Merlin 66 (just under the range paper attachment). Based on the Merlin 61, according to whom? So now you claim you know the IXLF`s range better than the RAF itself, right?

The Merlin 66 Mk IX LF datasheet says 434 miles at most economic range. 

This other British paper shows 420 miles range for the Merlin 66 IX LF 






Then again, another British paper from 1945 - Spit XVI (same as the Mk IX, just with US built Merlin 66-licence engine, the Merlin 266) - 434 miles range again. Also of interest is MkXIV, with it`s greatly increased fuel capacity with wingtanks - it was only enough to make up for the greater consumption of the engine.







The other trials, which you claim to have been performed with the 'older engine Merlin 61', actually resulted in _higher range_, 450 miles.

Take note it`s actually for 7100 lbs (possibly avarage flight weight), not the 






It`s pretty well established I think that the Mk IX could cover 434-450 miles range on it`s internal 85 gallon capacity under the most favourable conditions (economic slow speed cruise etc.). In other words, it could not get back to it`s base from any larger distance than ca 450 miles from it`s base, much less under practical circumstances.




> I know of only one test of the Merlin 66 range figures, as is usual you dismiss it because it doesn't say what you want it to say, and use instead _figures for a different engine_.



As shown above, you hold onto a single test which conflicts the results of half a dozen of other range data.



> No, quite the opposite. If you look at the Australian tests, they are consistent. The Mustang has much better range at any speed above it's most economical speed. The Spitfire, being lighter, quite naturally has a lower most economical speed.
> 
> You are aware that as weight goes up, so does most economical cruise speed, aren't you? And that fuel consumption rises with it, and range decreases (unless the extra weight is fuel, of course)



It has nothing to do with weight. The Mustang is much cleaner aircraft than the Spitfire, so using the same amount of power, using the same amount of fuel, it can reach higher cruise speeds. Naturally, this makes it`s range much better. 

The Mustang`s mileage was something like 8 mpg in the Australian test, and one would believe the Spitfire with the same engine would have much less - which is the case as the Spitfire fuel economy trials returned a milage of 6.76, consistent with the range charts etc.



> Again the SU carb, again not a Merlin 66.



Let me clarify then : You claim that the SU carburrator of the Merlin 66 was so much more efficient, that it _improved fuel economy by no less than 50%  , from 6.76 mpg to 10 mpg? _ It`s amusing given that not even swapping carburrators to direct fuel injection achieved such _unbelievable_ results.

It`s quite simply hogwash. Funny though the RAF firmly believe the Merlin 66, Merlin 266 Spits have the same (as a matter of fact, a bit less, ie. 434 miles vs. 450 miles) range as Merlin 61 Spits.



> *There is a test of the Merlin 66, Kurfurst. Why is it you reject a test of the actual engine, and instead try comparisons with other, older engines?*



Well if a single test claims 50% better fuel economy, and all the other tests and range tables give the same range, it`s logical to conlclude that single test was simply abberant, the results were poorly recorded or such.




> What, you mean mixture could make a difference? Getting the mixture leaner would increase range? Duh.



That`s why aircraft have engine controls like 'auto-lean' and 'auto-rich' mixture settings (at least Western Allied aircraft, LW fighter aircraft had it set fully automatic and did not need the attention of the pilot at all).



> What do you think the carburettor _does_, Kurfurst?



Oh I am sure you know such matters much better than any of us. Tell us about the technical advanced that allow one carburrator to be 50% more fuel economic than another.

I wunder why everybody went with fuel injection in the end, and even that didn`t gave such incredibly fuel savings. 



> As to the mantra about 85 gallon internal fuel tanks, that's all the Spitfire was fitted with, until the RAF wanted more range. When they did, they started fitting wing tanks, a larger lower forward fuselage tank, rear fuselage tanks, and bigger drop tanks.



Sure. Yet 95% of the Spitfires in service at the end of the war still had just 85 gallon internal fuel tank. The only ones that had wing tanks were the Mk VII/IIIs, and there were very few of these around compared to Mk Vs and IXs (the latter two making up more than half of all Spitfire production IIRC, the Mk VIII less than 10%).




> Well, the most numerous perhaps, but certainly not the "main" fighter. For example, a quick glance through the claims and losses lists for December 1943 shows 2 operations by Spitfire Vs, 5 by the much more capable at low altitude LF vs, and 19 by Spitfire IXs.
> 
> And please don't encourage Kurfurst on this. Last time he got into an argument on these lines, he got banned from a forum. It really wasn't nice.



Cherry picking a single operation only prevents you seeing the forest from a tree.

As for the LF V, performance was hardly inspring for 1943. It was about comparable to the Mk IX or Bf 109G close to the ground level (2-3-4000 feet), above that it`s performance fell off so badly it was inferior even compared to the Mk I. It was a desperate measure, an 'ersatz' Mk IX, due to the lack of Mk IXs.

Neil Stirling from WW2aircraftperformance.org posted the following numbers :



> As of 18th May 1944.
> 
> Spitfires with Sqn's
> 
> ...



Note that in the entire RAF, even by mid-1944, Mk IX amounted still just under a thousend, there were still more than five hundred old and outfashioned MkVs still used. The Mk VII/VIII was even less numerous, half as many of them being around than Mk Vs. And we're talking about _mid-1944 here_. 



> 'Of the 47 Spitfire Squadrons available at the beginning of 1943, only 10 were equipped with the MkIX. Owing to the difficulties producing enough engines, and demands for the aircraft from other battlefronts, it remained in short supply. *This situation did not markedly improve until the second half of the year. As a result, the vast majority of home Spitfire units had to soldier on with the Mk V, even though this aircraft in most respects were totally outclassed by the opposition.'*
> 
> Source : Ian Carter - Fighter Command, Chaper 5, '1943', pg 92.
> They decided to switch to night bombing at the end of 1939.




In *June 1943,* the RAF Fighter based in Britiain command possessed 10 MkIX Squadrons, but 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, plus a Squadron of the similiar Spitfire VI. Many Squadrons operated the Typhoon, in fact the two mainstay fighters were the Spitfire Mk V and the Typhoon by far.

This is via John Foreman, author of many volumes dealing with of Fighter command, 2nd TAF etc. histories.


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 2, 2007)

Hop said:


> With 95+ pilots killed and seriously injured by Spitfires (I can provide the names, if you like), you are looking at at least 150 aircraft lost to Spitfires.



That`s purely speculation on your part. You`re simply beefing up the enemy losses.

Now, if you look at Jim Perry's Luftwaffe claims files http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/tonywood.htm



> You will see JG 26 _claimed_ 168 Spitfires in 1943. That means they claimed a ratio of approx 1:1.



Nope, they claimed 180. They, at least according to you, lost 95 pilots in return, which would include of course accidents and wounded.



> To sum up, JG 26 claimed 168 Spitfires, but probably got around half that, whilst losing around 150 fighters themselves.



The 150 fighters lost to Spitfires is a made up figure.

Well the correct facts, via Caldwell and Tony Wood, plus the LW`s Quartermesiter equipment movement reports are that JG 26 claimed 480 enemy planes shot down during 1943, of these 180 being Spitfires, 181 B-17s (this includes a lot of HSS), 8 B-24s, 16 Typhoons and 49 P-47s plus 3 P-38s.

Comparison with the RAF records of Spitfire losses (Cat E, ie. completely destroyed and/or missing). 

RAF records of losses on operational missions show a total of 403 Spitfires being lost (Cat E, but typically Em ie. total loss).

They attribute the cause of loss to the following specific causes in 294 main (not neccesarily correct, and of course, the causes are far from complete ) :
- 161 attributed to FW 190s
- 37 attributed to Bf 109s
- 46 attributed to Flak
- Specifically, not included in either 190/109 loss causes, 26 and 24 are attributed to JG 2 and 26.

78 Spitfires were declared Cat. B damage during 1943's operations.


Quite clearly, 1943 was about fighting the USAAF`s heavy bomber formations. When Spitfires got in the way, they shot down those first.  Considering the odds, their loss-ratio is outstanding. 

Against that, JG 26 lost 316 fighters planes to enemy action (all sorts, not just air combat, ie. strafing, bombing etc.) during the course of 1943.


----------



## Hop (Mar 4, 2007)

> Oh, finally some useful contribution from you, and one of the red letter days when you can actually back up what you claim. I wish all days would be such.



I wish you'd stop misrepresenting things you know to be wrong.

We've been over this several times in the past, each time I prove to you the test you are quoting is of a Merlin 61. Yet you continue to post it and claim it's a Merlin 66. 

Here's an example:


> Spitfire The History gives the following under trials conducted on the Spit IX:
> 
> Boscombe Down 22 October 1942. BF274 Fuel Consumption Trials. 6.76 ampg range 450 miles, endurance 1.95 hours at 20,000ft. 6.03 ampg, range 375 miles, endurance 1 hour at 37,500 ft.
> 
> Look familiar? Look exactly the same as the figures in the doc you posted?


Aces High BB - Bf 109 G range and endurance



> The RAF gives the range of the LF Mk IX w. a Merlin 66, with 85 gallons as 434 miles. It would appear that any difference caused by the different carb of the M66, it made it even more fuel hungry.



No. One is a test result, the other a published figure, which usually includes reserves.



> The other trials, which you claim to have been performed with the 'older engine Merlin 61', actually resulted in higher range, 450 miles.



A test result vs a published figure. You don't want pilots actually trying to fly as far as the absolute range, which is what reserves are for.



> As shown above, you hold onto a single test which conflicts the results of half a dozen of other range data.



No. I hold on to *the only test of the Merlin 66 I have seen*. *You use tests of different engines to try to refute it*



> It has nothing to do with weight. The Mustang is much cleaner aircraft than the Spitfire, so using the same amount of power, using the same amount of fuel, it can reach higher cruise speeds. Naturally, this makes it`s range much better.



You are saying range has nothing to do with weight? You have heard of induced drag, right?



> The Mustang`s mileage was something like 8 mpg in the Australian test, and one would believe the Spitfire with the same engine would have much less



Unless it's lighter, so can fly slower. Flying slower reduces parasitic drag, increases induced drag. The lighter plane, even if it suffers from higher parasitic drag, can thus have lower overall drag at low speeds. The Mustang has about 8% better speed, but on these tests weighed nearly 16% more.



> Let me clarify then : You claim that the SU carburrator of the Merlin 66 was so much more efficient, that it improved fuel economy by no less than 50% , from 6.76 mpg to 10 mpg?



Quite possibly, yes. Don't forget, when the SU carbs were designed for the Merlin, the idea of a fighter was to take off, climb to high altitude, intercept the enemy and return to base. Power was the requirement, not range.

Large gains at extremely lean mixture are entirely possible.



> Sure. Yet 95% of the Spitfires in service at the end of the war still had just 85 gallon internal fuel tank.



Yet another made up fact.

Lets see. All the Spitfire XVIs had rear fuselage tanks, all the Spitfire VIIIs had wing tanks and enlarged forward tanks, all the Spitfire XIVs had wing tanks, all the PR Spitfires had extra tanks. I'd be very surprised if even half of Spitfires in service at the end of the war (either when Germany gave up, or when Japan finally surrendered) had only 85 gallons. 95% is just another of your silly made up figures.

Edit: The 2nd TAF OOB I have for May 1945 lists 6 squadrons of Spitfire XIVs (all of which have wing tanks), 6 squadrons of Spitfire IXs, 13 squadrons of Spitfire XVIs (all of which had rear tanks).

That means at least 19 of the 25 squadrons definitely had more than 85 gallons, and the remaining 6 squadrons may have had more. 



> Cherry picking a single operation only prevents you seeing the forest from a tree.



Which is why I didn't pick a single operation. If you read what I said, rather than what you wanted to see:


> For example, a quick glance through the claims and losses lists for *December 1943* shows 2 operations by Spitfire Vs, 5 by the much more capable at low altitude LF vs, and 19 by Spitfire IXs.



It wasn't a single operation, it was an entire month's operations.



> That`s purely speculation on your part. You`re simply beefing up the enemy losses.



Of course it's speculation. The Germans burnt most of their records in panic at the end of the war. But the numbers of pilots killed and seriously injured is known, although there are probably even some of those not recorded. That would push the loss figures up, though.



> Nope, they claimed 180.



Yes, you are right. I was going by Henning's analysis, and I suspect he's missed a few. He missed a few of the total Luftwaffe claims as well, though, so the overclaiming is actually worse.



> They, at least according to you, lost 95 pilots in return, which would include of course accidents and wounded.



No. They lost 95 pilots killed and seriously injured *to Spitfires*. The cause of loss is listed.



> The 150 fighters lost to Spitfires is a made up figure.



Based on the 95 pilots killed and seriously injured by Spitfires.



> Well the correct facts, via Caldwell and Tony Wood, plus the LW`s Quartermesiter equipment movement reports are that JG 26 claimed 480 enemy planes shot down during 1943, of these 180 being Spitfires, 181 B-17s (this includes a lot of HSS), 8 B-24s, 16 Typhoons and 49 P-47s plus 3 P-38s.



Right



> Comparison with the RAF records of Spitfire losses (Cat E, ie. completely destroyed and/or missing).
> 
> RAF records of losses on operational missions show a total of 403 Spitfires being lost (Cat E, but typically Em ie. total loss).
> 
> ...



I'm not sure what you are saying here. They attributed 24 losses to JG 26? That's lower than even I thought.

The overall figures are the RAF lost 590 fighters on operations in the west in 1943. The Luftwaffe claimed 927 Spitfires (Henning missed some of those, too). The Luftwaffe claims do not include flak, or only a handful of flak claims. The RAF losses of course include flak, and accidents. (and the JG 26 loss figures do not)

If you take only the 46 losses attributed to flak from the total, and assume all the other losses were caused by the luftwaffe (which is nonsense, of course) then 357 Spitfires were lost to the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe claimed 927. That means they claimed a minimum of 2.6 Spitfires for every 1 they actually shot down.

That would make JG 26s 180 _claimed_ Spitfires less than 69 in reality. And they suffered 95 pilots killed or seriously injured by Spitfires.



> Quite clearly, 1943 was about fighting the USAAF`s heavy bomber formations. When Spitfires got in the way, they shot down those first. Considering the odds, their loss-ratio is outstanding.



What, 2 losses to Spitfires for every kill of a Spitfire? Sounds pretty bad to me. Even if you look at their total claims for the year, 630, that was in reality (assuming the same rate of overclaims) 234 or less, and you say losses were 316 aircraft. Doesn't really sound like they were doing well, does it?


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 5, 2007)

Hop said:


> I wish you'd stop misrepresenting things you know to be wrong.
> Here's an example:
> 
> Aces High BB - Bf 109 G range and endurance



Oh, a thread from 3 years ago, sorry I forgot that. I have a life, you know.



> No. One is a test result, the other a published figure, which usually includes reserves.



Your claims vs. RAF data.



> A test result vs a published figure. You don't want pilots actually trying to fly as far as the absolute range, which is what reserves are for.



Again, your odd theories vs. RAF datasheets.




> No. I hold on to *the only test of the Merlin 66 I have seen*. *You use tests of different engines to try to refute it*



Well, RAF tested the Merlin 61 Spit, they found the still air range was 450 miles. They gave 434 miles for the Merlin 66 Spit.



> You are saying range has nothing to do with weight? You have heard of induced drag, right?



Well, that explains why the 109 had about 50% better range on the same fuel load, as given by British range comparisons. It was much lighter than the Spitfire. So the Spit had 10 mpg you say? How much the 109 and Mustang would be then, 15 mpg ?

We know both of these aircraft are listed with greater range on the same fuel load. This would be impossible without better mileage.



> Unless it's lighter, so can fly slower. Flying slower reduces parasitic drag, increases induced drag. The lighter plane, even if it suffers from higher parasitic drag, can thus have lower overall drag at low speeds. The Mustang has about 8% better speed, but on these tests weighed nearly 16% more.



Stil, the British list the Mustang with more range than the Spit IXLF with the same fuel. Why is that Hop?



> Quite possibly, yes. Don't forget, when the SU carbs were designed for the Merlin, the idea of a fighter was to take off, climb to high altitude, intercept the enemy and return to base. Power was the requirement, not range.



Well, the RAF gives the following ranges for Spitfire IX :

Merlin 61 : 450 miles
Merlin 66 : 434 mies

It seems the RAF is convinced the Merlin 66 was less fuel efficient.



> Large gains at extremely lean mixture are entirely possible.



And the moon is made of blue cheese.



> Lets see. All the Spitfire XVIs had rear fuselage tanks,



Source?



> all the Spitfire VIIIs had wing tanks and enlarged forward tanks,



All the 1,654 Mk VIIIs were built at slow pace between 1943-1945, out of 20 000 Spitfires. 

As of 18th May 1944.

Spitfires with Sqn's

MkV 531
MKVII 62
MK VIII 209
MK IX 996
Mk XII 22
MK XIV 61.
----------
Total 1881

Out of 1881 Spitfires, 209+62= 271 or 14% are MkVIIIs (counting the rare pressurized VIIs as well).



> all the Spitfire XIVs had wing tanks,



... and for what, it had the same ~460 mile range. Fuel economy must have been awful. In May 1944, only 3 out of 100 Spitfires are XIV.









> all the PR Spitfires had extra tanks.



At the price of disposing all armament and armor, being an unarmed photo recce..  It would make an excellent escort, no doubt. 



> I'd be very surprised if even half of Spitfires in service at the end of the war (either when Germany gave up, or when Japan finally surrendered) had only 85 gallons. 95% is just another of your silly made up figures.
> 
> Edit: The 2nd TAF OOB I have for May 1945 lists 6 squadrons of Spitfire XIVs (all of which have wing tanks), 6 squadrons of Spitfire IXs, 13 squadrons of Spitfire XVIs (all of which had rear tanks).That means at least 19 of the 25 squadrons definitely had more than 85 gallons, and the remaining 6 squadrons may have had more.



Obviously a made up number.






So the ones that have more than 85 gallons are the MkXIV, but these being fuel hogs, their wing tanks can just make up for their apetite for fuel, the range being the same as the 85 gallon Mk IXs anyway. The point being the Spitfire was so short ranged it needed extra fuel tanks. 

SUVs have pretty big fuel tanks as well, you know why? They really need that help to reach the gas station. 

The mere 5 Squadrons of Mk XVIs have the same 85 gallon tank as the Mk IXs, some may or may not be fitted with a 75 gallon rear tank, which makes the aircraft behave like a pregnant duck anyway. The Spitfire manual notes the XVIs with the cut-down fuselage are completely useless in this condition.




> Which is why I didn't pick a single operation. If you read what I said, rather than what you wanted to see: It wasn't a single operation, it was an entire month's operations.



Yep, for _December_ 1943. Noone says the IX didn`t become more widespread by 1944. For most if not all of 1943 however, there was simply not enough of them, as Foreman, Carter etc notes :
_
'Of the 47 Spitfire Squadrons available at the beginning of 1943, only 10 were equipped with the MkIX. Owing to the difficulties producing enough engines, and demands for the aircraft from other battlefronts, it remained in short supply. This situation did not markedly improve until the second half of the year. As a result, the vast majority of home Spitfire units had to soldier on with the Mk V, even though this aircraft in most respects were totally outclassed by the opposition.'_

Source : Ian Carter - Fighter Command, Chaper 5, '1943', pg 92.
They decided to switch to night bombing at the end of 1939..

Imagine those MkVs vs. 109Gs. Tough, I say!


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 5, 2007)

> Of course it's speculation. The Germans burnt most of their records in panic at the end of the war.



That`s speculation on top of speculation; the German losses in 1943 are well known in any case, already posted in the thread, you speculate they were burned only to allow even more room for wishful thinking and exaggrevating loss figures.

But those loss figures and readily available, unfortunately, so no room for manipulation.



> But the numbers of pilots killed and seriously injured is known, although there are probably even some of those not recorded. That would push the loss figures up, though.



Well with enough wishful thinking, anything is possible, but I doubt by this point anyone takes your claims seriously.



> Yes, you are right. I was going by Henning's analysis, and I suspect he's missed a few. He missed a few of the total Luftwaffe claims as well, though, so the overclaiming is actually worse.



Oh, yes, I forgot this another Hop-mantra, the Luftwaffe overclaimed, all German claims were automatically awarded yada-yada-yada... 




> No. They lost 95 pilots killed and seriously injured *to Spitfires*. The cause of loss is listed.



Oh yes, go on, go on... 



> Based on the 95 pilots killed and seriously injured by Spitfires.



It`s awfully funny when somebody refuses to acknowladge known loss figures, and then he makes up a random number for pilot losses, and based on that made up number he mades up another number of fighters lost to Spitfires, and expects to be taken seriously.



> I'm not sure what you are saying here. They attributed 24 losses to JG 26? That's lower than even I thought.



Well, most never knew what hit them, so mostly they just noted Johhny fell to a 190, not that Johhny fell to a 190 of JG 26.



> The overall figures are the RAF lost 590 fighters on operations in the west in 1943.



Nope, that`s Fighter Command only, not the RAF. It does not include the losses sustained by Coastal Command, which lost 279 aircraft, and losses of the 2nd Tactical Air Force which lost 177 aircraft, it does not include Army cooperation command with 70 aircraft or BC bombers wondering in the daylight.

Your '590' losses of the RAF is much more like 1100+ lost aircraft not counting BC losses in the daylight, not counting American units that may flown British aircraft.



> The Luftwaffe claimed 927 Spitfires (Henning missed some of those, too).The Luftwaffe claims do not include flak, or only a handful of flak claims.



That's bullocks, they claimed 431 Spits in 1943.



> The RAF losses of course include flak, and accidents. (and the JG 26 loss figures do not)



No, the JG 26 figures include all enemy related losses, that's losses to fighters, flaks, strafed, bombed on the ground and so on.

No, the 'RAF losses' are in fact not what you call them, only the losses of Fighter Command, without the losses of the 2nd TAF, Coastal Command and so on. 



> If you take only the 46 losses attributed to flak from the total, and assume all the other losses were caused by the luftwaffe (which is nonsense, of course) then 357 Spitfires were lost to the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe claimed 927. That means they claimed a minimum of 2.6 Spitfires for every 1 they actually shot down.



That's bullocks again , the LW claimed 431 Spits. Of that, they awarded only 191. 

The RAF FC alone admitted the loss 403 Spits (another 78 were heavily damaged), and of that. They attributed 198 Spits shot down by Bf 109s and FW 190s, which is obviously an understatement.

As a matter of fact, the LW awarded less Sptifre victories than the RAF knew it shot down, and most of the 431 claims vs. 481 lost and damaged aircraft was fairly reasonable as well, showing just how rigid the claiming procedure was, especially if we consider there were plenty of plane type mis-identifications. Many 'Spitfires' were just Mustangs, Typhoons etc.

The RAF in contrast claimed 1400+ of FW 190s alone in 1943. 
I don`t even dare to look up their Me 109 _and Me 209, FW 190D_ claims. 



> That would make JG 26s 180 _claimed_ Spitfires less than 69 in reality. And they suffered 95 pilots killed or seriously injured by Spitfires.



No, that would make the 180 claims about 180 claims in reality. Against the loss of 95 pilots. 1:2 loss rate, despite outnumbered. Impressive. Actually, I only realise now how bad even 1943 was for the RAF 

In their defense, they still flew mostly Spit Vs and the not-so-successfull Typhoon against uprated FW 190s and Bf 109Gs.



> What, 2 losses to Spitfires for every kill of a Spitfire? Sounds pretty bad to me. Even if you look at their total claims for the year, 630, that was in reality (assuming the same rate of overclaims) 234 or less, and you say losses were 316 aircraft. Doesn't really sound like they were doing well, does it?



And how about you, are you doing well?


----------



## Juha (Mar 6, 2007)

Hello Kurfürst
“That's bullocks again , the LW claimed 431 Spits. Of that, they awarded only 191”

what is Your source to that?

I went fast through Tony Wood’s claimlist for Jan and May 43 and none of the claims in those 2 months were marked as Abgelehnt = denied or VNE= destruction not yet proven. 

Of the Jan 43 claims counted 26 Spitfire claims (not counting the one PRU Spitfire claim), of which 19 had Confirmation Certificate Number, 2 were marked as Anerk: Nr._ which I take as meaning that Confirmation Certification has not found or was not given ie we don’t know if the claim was confirmed or not, 2 were marked as ASM ie confirmation to be decided later, 3 had taken from supplementary sources, from JG 1 List or from JG 26 List
There were also 7 Mustangs, 3 had Confirmation Certificate Number, 1 was marked as ASM and 3 had taken from supplementary sources, from JG 1 List.

Of May 43 claims 43 were Spitfires, of which 12 had Confirmation Certificate Number, 14 had Anerk: Nr._, of which 2 were claimed by ZG 1, 4 were marked as ASM and 13 were from supplementary sources.
There were also 12 P-47s, 4 with Confirmation Certificate Number, 3 were marked as Anerk: Nr._ and 5 were from supplementary sources.
And 10 Typhoons, one Mustang and 1 P-38, all of which had Anerk: Nr._

So none of the claims against fighters from those 2 months were clearly marked as denied but in May 43 some 40 % of claims were those of which IMHO we don’t know for sure were they accepted or not. According to You only 44% of LW’s Spitfire claims were accepted, do You mean that 56% were denied or what?


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 6, 2007)

I will return to that, try TW's claim lists in excell, this is how I sorted it out for the whole year.
I was going by Anerk. Nr. s btw, where the approval was clearly given (AnerkNr + number of claim present)


----------



## Juha (Mar 7, 2007)

Hello Kurfürst
thanks for answering. I had a little time yesterday, my analyze was only on single-seat fighter claims.
Still in a hurry, so only a short comment. IMHO we cannot say based on Tony Wood list how many of the fighter claims were awarded, we simply don’t know that. Or if we accept You position we must downgrade rather drastically the numbers of personal victories of many LW aces because a hurried check seemed to show that also those without Anerk. Nr. are included in their personal scores in normal score lists we see nowadays.

Juha


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 8, 2007)

Well, those are the ones confirmed by the LW for the pilots. I believe publication s are generally listing their total number of claims, but I see nothing wrong with that since they do the same for Russian, Japanese, USAAF, RAF pilots - it's always the claims being listed appearantly. There's nothing wrong with that either, as it`s probably a pretty close number to the actual number of aerial victories (ie. a triumph over the foe in battle, not necceserily ending up in destruction - say he claimed it as shot down, but the enemy aircraft limped back to base heavily damaged, probably written down. Now even though he did not technically shoot it down, he ensured the enemy plance failed it`s mission and would probably cause the enemy a - permanent or temporary- loss of an aircaft anyway). Note the Germans use the term Luftsieg (aerial victory), and not destruction or something like that. The problem is imho not with the system itself, but people today who do not understand how it worked.

In any case, I recall some talk between Goring and some famous ace. It went like that :

Goring : And how many victories do you have so far?
Pilot : I have 82.
Goring : All of those confirmed?
Pilot : Yes.
Goring : And what would be an honest number, I was a pilot myself, it`s sometimes very confusing up there, in air battle.
Pilot : Honestly... hmm, it would be about 100.

8)


----------



## Juha (Mar 8, 2007)

Hello
Yes, the personal scores are OK as long as we remember that they only gives a number of claims, Luftsieg, kills, ilmavoitto (the term Finns used, straight translation of Luftsieg or of an aerial victory) and we don't use they as synonyms of destroyed enemy aircraft. IMHO they cannot even be used as sure indications of any ranking list of pilots of an airforce because the accuracy of claims, at least those of LW and Finnish AF, seemed to vary significantly from person to person, only as a rough guide. So from Your story, which well can be true, we can probably say without careful checking of the pilot's claims only that the pilot have probably shot down between 25 - 85 enemy a/c. And after a careful check of the claims maybe that he seemed to have shot down at least 40 and possibly even 66 plus some of which it is no more possible to get a proof.


----------



## Soren (Mar 8, 2007)

You do know however that the Luftwaffe had the strictest confirmation system of any nation in WW2.


----------



## Morai_Milo (Mar 8, 2007)

Soren said:


> You do know however that the Luftwaffe had the strictest confirmation system of any nation in WW2.


You do know that the system was breaking down late war.

You do know that a staffel in North Africa in 1942-43 was making false claims and having them approved.


----------



## Udet (Mar 8, 2007)

_"You do know that the system was breaking down late war."_

And...? What has that got to do with the fact the Luftwaffe had the strictest set of rules to confirm victories?

Would you like to compare the German method, say, with the utterly _naive soviet system of involving barely literate vodka/ilya ehrenburg infested partisans in the procedure to confirm victories of those so-called "guards" air regiments?

Or what about the British claims, all those happily posted by Mr. Hop in this thread...i wonder where all those British aces who shot down "huge" numbers of Fw 190s and Bf 109s of JG 2 and JG 26 are to be found. Possibly there are none or not too many, and also possibly a large number of them ended their lives in the bottom of the channel or littering the french coastline.

Or possibly with the USAAF system of confirming 1/2s, 1/3s, 1/4s of enemy planes shot down? A USAAF pilot who was awarded 1/2 an enemy plane destroyed means the "confirmed" half was indeed destroyed while the other half most likely made it back to base.

Finally, your evidence to substantiate your last assertion is...?_


----------



## Soren (Mar 8, 2007)

Morai_Milo said:


> You do know that the system was breaking down late war.



In 1945, yeah it was getting abit sketchy at this point, confirmations being not always possible - therefore many possible kills were never confirmed.. 



> You do know that a staffel in North Africa in 1942-43 was making false claims and having them approved.



You do know this was nothing compared to what the Allies were claiming ??


----------



## Morai_Milo (Mar 9, 2007)

Soren said:


> You do know this was nothing compared to what the Allies were claiming ??


There is a difference between deliberatly falsifying claims and honest mistakes. The staffel's claims were deliberate.


Udet, nice racist comments. Be careful or people will think you are something more than just a person who thinks Germany made the best war machines. Nice rant btw. 

You want to read 'Fw190 in North Afica' for that is where the cheating staffel was based.


----------



## Udet (Mar 9, 2007)

NO. Do not divert the discussion. 

_"You do know that the system was breaking down late war."_

What has that got to do with the fact Germans had the strictest system to confirm kills? 

So it is either you answer this or keep your silly remarks for yourself.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2007)

Actually Udet is is a proven fact that late war German claims were obscure. We will never know what is real and what is not because by 1945 the system was no longer in use.

Second Udet, he did not say anything to warrant an attitude from you, so calm down. He was only responding to what you said in your thread which frankly was as usual very confrontational.

You allways jump into a convo with an attitude if you do not agree with someone. Quit that. I have told you before and I am getting tired of it.


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 9, 2007)

Morai_Milo said:


> Udet, nice racist comments. Be careful or people will think you are something more than just a person who thinks Germany made the best war machines. Nice rant btw.



Moderator, 

I think this forum should not tolerate one member accusing the other with Nazism and racism just because they disagree with each other. It's a very serious accusation, on what basis..? That Udet likes LW planes?!!

If such precedent is tolerated, it may set path to a dangerous routine of branding the other each time with the Nazi remark as an ultimate arguement. I've seen it enough times from Milo and I hope he is not allowed to proceed on with that custom here.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2007)

This thread is closed now...

I have told everyone in here to calm down and quit this ****. No body listens. This thread is closed.


----------

