- Thread starter
- #581
Kevin J
Banned
Mxdoc Beaufighter aces.
A Critical Analysis of the RAF Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya in 1941-45
- Thread starter Kevin J
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Mxdoc Beaufighter aces.
I still don't understand why the RAF hobbled their fighters by not adopting the widespread use of aux/drop tanks, the Beau was an unsung hero in the Pacific.
Agree on Beaufighter being an unsung hero. The US left drop tanks off of the Wildcat and P47 and the Germans left drop tanks off the Me109. Those are all real head scratchers looking back
Shortround6
Major General
Which fighters and when?
The Hurricane and Spit were designed to fly out of pea patches using fixed pitch props powered by engines that were throttled well back from full throttle for take-off.
Not to mention they had to maintain a certain weight in order to avoid putting ruts in the grass fields.
Not a recipe for large fuel loads regardless of the type of tanks used.
The airfields did get bigger, the planes got propellers that allowed full power to be used for take-off and even the weight restrictions were relaxed. But it took time and original planes were not sized (or perhaps more properly Stressed) to take large fuel loads. trying to fight a Spitfire with an extra 100 imp gallons crammed into it would probably break the Spitfire.
Photo recon Spits dropped hundreds of pounds worth of guns and ammo and also usually didn't try extreme maneuvers. doing a high speed 2-3 G turn is much less likely to bend/break the wing when overloaded than a 6-7 G turn.
Drop tanks are not really good answer for a plane with small internal tanks as the plane's radius is determined by how far it can fly after dropping the external tank/s and fighting for X minutes.
Beaufighter was bigger than some people's bombers, including the Mosquito.
I agree 100% with the fixed pitch prop, low hp, short fields, large internal tank on early Spitfires and Hurricanes being a problem. But, by the time of the Battle of Britain when both fighters got constant speed props it was time to add drop tanks, not for escort missions, but for standing patrols, longer intercepts or longer pursuits after initial contact. I'm sure they would have been helpful at times during the BoB and certainly would have been helpful during the Darwin raids.
- Thread starter
- #588
Kevin J
Banned
The Beaufighter had a similar range with / without drop tank as the Zero. Their P-40 was their bomb truck and it had a better range than the Spitfire VIII. The Seafire III's of the BPF used RAAF P-40 drop tanks. I wasn't aware of the RAF in the Pacific not using drop tanks.
Standing patrols are a waste of your resources if your resources are limited. The Hurricane was the first to get 45 imperial gallon tanks, for ferrying aircraft to the Middle and Far East, fixed at first in 1940, then could be dropped from 1941 (?) when 90 gal tanks became available for ferrying. Some Spitfire II had fixed 26 gal wing tanks. From mid Summer 1941, Spitfire V had slipper tanks, 30 gal combat, 45 gal drop, 90 gal fixed.
Hawker was working on auxiliary tanks for the Hurricane in May 1940. The first Hurricane Mk IIa series 2 aircraft entered squadron service in dec of 1940 and were capable of carrying 2x250lb bombs or 2x45 gallon tanks that could be either fixed or drop tanks. These effectively doubled the combat range of the Hurricane.
That is a very good point, The Hurricane worked around this limitation by making the auxiliary tanks stressed for combat and having them equipped with transfer pumps that would pump fuel to the main tanks in the wing, allowing for two fuel top ups.
That is a very good point, The Hurricane worked around this limitation by making the auxiliary tanks stressed for combat and having them equipped with transfer pumps that would pump fuel to the main tanks in the wing, allowing for two fuel top ups.
[QUOT
Not a recipe for large fuel loads regardless of the type of tanks use
The MkXIV could match the 109/190 with the 90G tank fitted. Sydney Cotton designed a 20G under seat talk for the Spit MkII in 1940, the MkIII had a 96G tank in 1940, the MkV's got a 29G rear tank, the MkVIII had the 96G main, 26G wing tanks, the MkIX's got 26 and later 36G wing tanks and 66G rear tanks plus as many slippers and drop tanks you could ask for, there's plenty of options to extend the range of both the Spit and Hurri.
Not a recipe for large fuel loads regardless of the type of tanks use
The MkXIV could match the 109/190 with the 90G tank fitted. Sydney Cotton designed a 20G under seat talk for the Spit MkII in 1940, the MkIII had a 96G tank in 1940, the MkV's got a 29G rear tank, the MkVIII had the 96G main, 26G wing tanks, the MkIX's got 26 and later 36G wing tanks and 66G rear tanks plus as many slippers and drop tanks you could ask for, there's plenty of options to extend the range of both the Spit and Hurri.
- Thread starter
- #592
Kevin J
Banned
Originally it was. Later versions had assistor springs to ensure it detached successfully. The XIV with 90 gal tank still attached had superior performance to the Bf 109G and Fw 190a.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #594
Kevin J
Banned
Yes, in 1941. In 1942 on the Spitfire IX it was a drop tank. On the XIV the only drop tank, so no 30 or 45 gal tanks. So you could retain it in combat if only a third full and performance wise you're equal or superior to a Bf 109G or Fw 190a.
P-38F was plumbed for tanks from the P-38F-1-LO block, and were used by 1st Fighter Group when flying their P-38s to the UK in August 1942. They were definitely in use by P38 groups in the Pacific in 1943.
The Battle of Britain, one of the biggest and most intensive air campaigns of the War. A far higher number of sorties and combats between Spitfires and ME109s than in any campaign mounted by the IJN with Zeros. In total, the Japanese mounted only 97 attacks on Australia during the War, the majority without Zeros, a fraction of the number of raids the Luftwaffe flew in 1940. Care to reconsider your claim "they had trouble coming to battle with the English channel in the way"?
You obviously missed the fact the ME110 was also 20-30mph slower than the Sptfire in the BoB, but still shot down Spitfires using boom'n'zoom tactics. The problems for the ME110s began when Goring insisted they fly close escort rather than freijagd sweeps. The Beau II could certainly have used the same tactics against Spitfires. The Me410 and Mosquito FBVI would also have a speed advantage over a Spitfire V.
So the Me410, the Beau, the Mosquito weren't German or British? Try nit-picking less and just admit you were wrong. The Yanks planes were simply added to show other planes that could have done the mission far, far better than the Zero.
I suggest you go read up on Squadron Leader Paul Elwell, who took on five FW190As in a Mosquito FBVI over Cherbourg in 1944, dogfighting them until he ran out of ammo. He shot down one confirmed and one probably destroyed before he broke off and escaped. IIRC, the Banf Wing also had no great problems taking on ME109Gs and FW190As over Norway even as late as 1945. Please try and pretend a tropicalised Spit V was somehow a tougher opponent than a late-model FW190A.
Just about everything you posted.
The Germans could have flown Me262s, it would not have changed the fact the Kriegsmarine didn't have enough ships to defend an invasion fleet against the Royal Navy, nor enough ships to actually carry the invasion force the Wehrmacht required, so zero likelihood we'd have ended up speaking German.
RAAF Beaufighters usually raided Japanese airfields etc then used their (slight) low level speed advantage to escape, certainly have never heard of Beaufighters dogfighting Zeros (like some ace Mosquito pilots did vs Fw190/Me109 in Europe).
The Japanese had the Ki-45 twin fighter and it sometimes faced the Beaufighter over the southern pacific seas on long patrols. Unfortunately the Ki-45 was slower than allied single engine fighters and had no escape like the Beaufighter did. A Ki-45 vs Beaufighter would be an interesting speed race!
An Me110 was not 20-30 mph slower than a Spitfire. It was faster than a Hurricane and just barely slower than a Spitfire with nowhere near the climb rate or maneuverability of either. Essentially when an Me110 got a single engine British fighter on its tail there was no way to shake it off.
An Me109 had about 10 minutes of fuel over London and German pilots constantly talked about watching the fuel gauge, worried about going down in the channel.
In isolated incidences a twin engine fighter (other than the P38) I'm sure took on a won battles with single engine fighters, but there is no way a Beaufighter, Me410 or Mosquito is going to work as a long range fighter. These are the conclusions of the tactical trials of the Mosquito as a long range fighter.
British tests of a Mosquito as a longe range fighter. Mosquito was considerably faster than a Beaufighter. I really like the Beaufighter but it just could not double as a high altitude escort fighter any more than an A20 havoc could.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Mosquito-VI-tactical.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Mosquito-VI-tactical.pdf
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
