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
- Thread starter
- #903
Kevin J
Banned
We're talking late 1944 for first production deliveries, so same timescale as P-40Q.
- Thread starter
- #905
Kevin J
Banned
They were escorting Lancaster's on daylight raids. Why Berlin? I thought we'd already wrecked it.
Just to be clear, I do not think this is actually the case, but if a Spitfire IX or XVI could actually fly 1,200 mile combat sorties, then it would be by far the best Allied fighter available (IMO) and the immediate solution to any problems the RAF or the Allies in general were having in Burma or the CBI. Or the Pacific or anywhere else.
I am left with only three question in that case which would be
I am left with only three question in that case which would be
- why wasn't this done sooner and
- why were they still making other types and
- how did they do such a good job keeping this secret?
Taking off from continental bases. The 303rd BG bombed Berlin March 28 1945.
Generic figures for a Spitfire IX with a 90 gallon drop tank, minus take off and climb to 20,000 feet:
For every 5 min at combat power reduce:
- range at most economical: 980 miles (tank dropped when empty)
- range at most economical: 900 miles (tank carried all the way)
- range at max weak mix: 520 miles
For every 5 min at combat power reduce:
- most economical range by 82 miles
- max weak mix range by 45 miles
Most economical ranges of 1,300 or 1,200 miles required the 170 gallon tank:
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
I think the Spitfire Kevin is referring to is the experimental USAAF long range Spitfire.
Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach? - Royal Aeronautical Society
Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach? - Royal Aeronautical Society
Which you obviously can't fight while carrying.... that looks to me like a ferry tank.
From the article "No Spitfire flew deep escort missions and this makes the claim for the Mk V having Berlin capability somewhat questionable. "
I'd say that is a fair bet! Lol....
Shortround6
Major General
The production prob;em was significant in that Jan 1943 was 4-5 months before the Merlin powered Mustang entered production. Perhaps you meant Jan 1944?
Four guns may have been fine for combat, just don't quote speed and climb figures for a 4 gun airplane and then say the production planes would have been much more heavily armed.
I would also love to see how the P-40Q was going to get 300 miles more range than a P-40N using just about the same amount of fuel. They sure didn't reduce the drag that much..
P-40Q did 365mph at 10,000ft on military power (59.5in or about 15lbs boost) which falls between the exceptionally fast P-40N-1 and the other P-40s using similar boost pressure.
Also let's not compare to the ability of the Mustang to absorb battle damage to an experimental aircraft that uses a much different radiator and oil cooler lay out than the P-40s in service.
Note the difference between the F4U and the F6F of which a fair amount of the difference was in oil cooler location.
The P-40Q went from radiator and oil coolers in the nose to wing mounted radiators. oil coolers of larger size and more spread out.
Building the P-40Q a year early requires an awful lot of work on the part of Allison and it requires the appreciation or knowledge that boost pressures actually used in mid to late 1943 and early 1944 were possible or practical in 1942. It may have been true or it may not have been. The two stage Allisons got a number of different parts in the engine that the single stage engines did not have or didn't get until later.
Shortround6
Major General
We have a number of these arguments about range before.
Unless you have the speed and altitude at which the range figures are listed they are almost useless for comparing planes and that is before you get to the fuel capacity.
Combat radius is determined by internal fuel, how far you can fly once the external tanks are gone ( a few planes did use small external tanks with self sealing, Japanese sometimes kept the drop tanks on due to supply shortages).
operating over Europe called for higher cruise speeds than operating in most of the CBI or South Pacific, which means shorter range/radius. North Africa/med may be mixed. Might depend on operating over land or water and what year (or month)
When comparing British and American planes don't forget to convert from Imperial gallons to US gallons or vice versa.
for the first point.
Now is the range on internal fuel 400 miles (left hand column) or 1210 miles (right hand column)?
Would you want to fly over Germany and France at 170-180mph at 9,000 to 12,000ft?
Do you need to fly at 280-300mph over hundreds of miles of open ocean?
Some "performance specifications" will take the miles per gallon and multiply it by the full fuel capacity with no allowance for warm up, take-0ff and climb to 5,000ft (or more importantly, to operational hight). Which is pretty useless for figuring out what a plane could really do even if it it gives some idea of the relative merits between planes (but only if you KNOW they are both/all being measured the same way).
In 1940/41 the British figured the radius of the Spitfire and Hurricane were either identical or about 10 miles different from each other. This was for general operational planning, which included where to base the fighters to get the coverage desired. This is different than specific mission planning. Operational planning has to take into account reserves for average wind and weather. Operational planning sometimes also used different numbers over land and water (shorter distance over water to increase chance of plane (and pilot) making it back to dry land (not airfield) in case of battle damage or mechanical failure. Whirlwinds at this time were allowed 20-30 (?) miles more radius over water due to their supposed twin engine safety. This was actually an illusion (or wishful thinking) as the fuel system was not set up to cross feed, the props would not feather, and only one engine had a generator (like all early P-38s).
Be careful when quoting some books that you are comparing the same things.
Unless you have the speed and altitude at which the range figures are listed they are almost useless for comparing planes and that is before you get to the fuel capacity.
Combat radius is determined by internal fuel, how far you can fly once the external tanks are gone ( a few planes did use small external tanks with self sealing, Japanese sometimes kept the drop tanks on due to supply shortages).
operating over Europe called for higher cruise speeds than operating in most of the CBI or South Pacific, which means shorter range/radius. North Africa/med may be mixed. Might depend on operating over land or water and what year (or month)
When comparing British and American planes don't forget to convert from Imperial gallons to US gallons or vice versa.
for the first point.
Now is the range on internal fuel 400 miles (left hand column) or 1210 miles (right hand column)?
Would you want to fly over Germany and France at 170-180mph at 9,000 to 12,000ft?
Do you need to fly at 280-300mph over hundreds of miles of open ocean?
Some "performance specifications" will take the miles per gallon and multiply it by the full fuel capacity with no allowance for warm up, take-0ff and climb to 5,000ft (or more importantly, to operational hight). Which is pretty useless for figuring out what a plane could really do even if it it gives some idea of the relative merits between planes (but only if you KNOW they are both/all being measured the same way).
In 1940/41 the British figured the radius of the Spitfire and Hurricane were either identical or about 10 miles different from each other. This was for general operational planning, which included where to base the fighters to get the coverage desired. This is different than specific mission planning. Operational planning has to take into account reserves for average wind and weather. Operational planning sometimes also used different numbers over land and water (shorter distance over water to increase chance of plane (and pilot) making it back to dry land (not airfield) in case of battle damage or mechanical failure. Whirlwinds at this time were allowed 20-30 (?) miles more radius over water due to their supposed twin engine safety. This was actually an illusion (or wishful thinking) as the fuel system was not set up to cross feed, the props would not feather, and only one engine had a generator (like all early P-38s).
Be careful when quoting some books that you are comparing the same things.
- Thread starter
- #916
Kevin J
Banned
Not according to the book I quoted earlier.
- Thread starter
- #917
Kevin J
Banned
A1. Why would we want to. We only need to look at it when the final showdown with Japan occurs. We have Mustangs anyway.
A2. The Spitfire is light weight compared to a P-51. It's still nowhere near as good as a Mustang or Thunderbolt when it comes to load carrying capabilities.
A3. I've known about it for almost 20 years.
The Spitfire was best as an interceptor and battlefield air superiority fighter. Put in all those extra fuel tanks and maybe you get the range of a Thunderbolt but not it's big load of bombs and rockets. Mustangs and Thunderbolts are far better.
As for the P-40Q, I love it, but do we really want to give it to the USSR.
Wildcat
Major
Hi guys. RE spitfire range, I posted this question years ago. Longest Spitfire raid of WWII.. Can anyone confirm the claim of being the longest spitfire raid?
- Thread starter
- #920
Kevin J
Banned
They both sound feasible. La Palice raid with 45 gal slipper tank? East Timor raid with 60 gal Curtiss P-40 tank? Both over water raids. Normal max LXVI radius of action was about 230 miles but that's over hostile territory.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
