A Critical Analysis of the RAF Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya in 1941-45

[Schweik]

P-38's scored twice as many 'victories' in the MTO as the P-40

True, but if you are looking at US units - they also took substantially more losses

 

[Schweik]

Not according to the book I quoted earlier.

1,200 mile range on a Spitfire means one of three things:

No guns and extra fuel tanks (that aren't protected) i.e. special recon flights.
Huge amount of extra fuel that makes the aircraft nearly unflyable and extremely vulnerable, with external tanks that aren't protected, reduce performance and can't safely be dropped if you want to get home..
Flying at such a low speed as to be a sitting duck, plus all or most of the above.

In other words, not really reality.

There is no genuine combat mission by a Spitfire in which it is meant to shoot down enemy aircraft or strafe ground targets with a range of 1,000 miles or more. If they really

 

[Schweik]

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?

Yes, my bad.

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 think the extra guns would come if and when they figured out how to make it work and still keep good performance, like in the transition from P-51B/C to D and later models. But again, for me four .50 cal guns is enough for dealing with enemy fighters and light or medium bombers.

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.

I think the difference is two external (wing mounted) fuel tanks like on the P-51 instead of one (centerline) tank as was typical on the P-40.

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.

Fair point, some of the reduced vulnerability of the P-40 compared to the P-51 was apparently (anecdotally) due the coolant plumbing being in the nose. But that may not have been the only reason, the P-40 was very strongly built - to a fault as we know.

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.

True, and it's a what-if scenario which we know didn't actually happen so the point is kind of moot anyway. But to restate my theory - if they hadn't wasted so much time on the P-46, P-53 and P-60 (not to mention other zany projects like the P-55) they might have gotten there early enough. Sadly we'll never know.

 

[Kevin J]

1,200 mile range on a Spitfire means one of three things:

No guns and extra fuel tanks (that aren't protected) i.e. special recon flights.
Huge amount of extra fuel that makes the aircraft nearly unflyable and extremely vulnerable, with external tanks that aren't protected, reduce performance and can't safely be dropped if you want to get home..
Flying at such a low speed as to be a sitting duck, plus all or most of the above.

In other words, not really reality.

There is no genuine combat mission by a Spitfire in which it is meant to shoot down enemy aircraft or strafe ground targets with a range of 1,000 miles or more. If they really

The US Spitfire IX tests had 284 Imp gals of fuel, the Gibraltar to Malta Spitfire Vc ferry flights of 1200 miles had 285 Imp gals. The late Spitfire IX / LXVI could carry about 195 internal for ferry, about 160 practical. I would have thought about 680 for a Spitfire VII with a 45 gal slipper drop tank so SW England to La Palice return okay as it's all over water. Maybe a Spitfire VIII with a 90 Imp gal drop tank, Darwin to East Timor return, 900 miles is no problem over water. So late Spitfire IX's should be okay for about 1100 mile range again over water, but over hostile territory at low altitude, perhaps as little as 400 mile range. Seafire III with 60 Imp gal drop tank and 85 internal had combat radius of 185 miles

 

[Schweik]

The US Spitfire IX tests had 284 Imp gals of fuel, the Gibraltar to Malta Spitfire Vc ferry flights of 1200 miles had 285 Imp gals. The late Spitfire IX / LXVI could carry about 195 internal for ferry, about 160 practical. I would have thought about 680 for a Spitfire VII with a 45 gal slipper drop tank so SW England to La Palice return okay as it's all over water. Maybe a Spitfire VIII with a 90 Imp gal drop tank, Darwin to East Timor return, 900 miles is no problem over water. So late Spitfire IX's should be okay for about 1100 mile range again over water, but over hostile territory at low altitude, perhaps as little as 400 mile range.

Yeah exactly - most planes can fly a lot further on ferry flights.

Most of those tests with the fuel overloads were configurations in which the Spit could barely fly (especially toward the beginning of the flight), was degraded in performance and vulnerable due to the unprotected tanks. If you are flying over empty water beyond the range of land based fighters it's Ok, but for a combat sortie it's unrealistic.

And while in the MTO, if you are in the middle of the Mediterranean you are well beyond the range of Bf 109s in most cases, so that the worst surprise you would be likely to run into are some Ju 88s, in the Pacific the A6M had quite a bit longer range and the Japanese had Carriers active so you would be at much higher risk. You wouldn't want to be in a Spit facing an A6M while carrying 194 gallons of fuel.

 

[wuzak]

True, and it's a what-if scenario which we know didn't actually happen so the point is kind of moot anyway. But to restate my theory - if they hadn't wasted so much time on the P-46, P-53 and P-60 (not to mention other zany projects like the P-55) they might have gotten there early enough. Sadly we'll never know.

Not going to happen because the engine wasn't going to be available earlier.

 

[Kevin J]

The US Spitfire IX tests had 284 Imp gals of fuel, the Gibraltar to Malta Spitfire Vc ferry flights of 1200 miles had 285 Imp gals. The late Spitfire IX / LXVI could carry about 195 internal for ferry, about 160 practical. I would have thought about 680 for a Spitfire VII with a 45 gal slipper drop tank so SW England to La Palice return okay as it's all over water. Maybe a Spitfire VIII with a 90 Imp gal drop tank, Darwin to East Timor return, 900 miles is no problem over water. So late Spitfire IX's should be okay for about 1100 mile range again over water, but over hostile territory at low altitude, perhaps as little as 400 mile range.

Yeah exactly - most planes can fly a lot further on ferry flights.

Most of those tests with the fuel overloads were configurations in which the Spit could barely fly (especially toward the beginning of the flight), was degraded in performance and vulnerable due to the unprotected tanks. If you are flying over empty water beyond the range of land based fighters it's Ok, but for a combat sortie it's unrealistic.

And while in the MTO, if you are in the middle of the Mediterranean you are well beyond the range of Bf 109s in most cases, so that the worst surprise you would be likely to run into are some Ju 88s, in the Pacific the A6M had quite a bit longer range and the Japanese had Carriers active so you would be at much higher risk. You wouldn't want to be in a Spit facing an A6M while carrying 194 gallons of fuel.

View attachment 549087

I agree, it will depend on whether you have opponents on the way. Later Spitfire IX's with about 160 internal should be good for 680 mile range. Perhaps useful for final campaign to liberate Malaya that never happened.

 

[RCAFson]

1,200 mile range on a Spitfire means one of three things:

No guns and extra fuel tanks (that aren't protected) i.e. special recon flights.
Huge amount of extra fuel that makes the aircraft nearly unflyable and extremely vulnerable, with external tanks that aren't protected, reduce performance and can't safely be dropped if you want to get home..
Flying at such a low speed as to be a sitting duck, plus all or most of the above.

In other words, not really reality.

There is no genuine combat mission by a Spitfire in which it is meant to shoot down enemy aircraft or strafe ground targets with a range of 1,000 miles or more. If they really

Spitfire VIII datasheet:

The above range is achieved after a climb to 20K ft (and a 24.5 gal allowance is made for that and warmup) and a 220mph cruise. The same aircraft, refueled after warmup, and flown low-low-low, would have a substantially longer range.

Having said that, it was typically advisable to only use the DT after TO, so this limited available fuel after the DT was released. However a Spit8 could have flown a carefully planned mission to ~500 miles radius, and still have had time to use combat power for a few minutes.

 

[Kevin J]

Spitfire VIII datasheet:
View attachment 549110

The above range is achieved after a climb to 20K ft (and a 24.5 gal allowance is made for that and warmup) and a 220mph cruise. The same aircraft, refueled after warmup, and flown low-low-low, would have a substantially longer range.

Having said that, it was typically advisable to only use the DT after TO, so this limited available fuel after the DT was released. However a Spit8 could have flown a carefully planned mission to ~500 miles radius, and still have had time to use combat power for a few minutes.

Problem with 90 gal drop tank is no manouvres allowed. 30 gal slipper is combat tank, so okay, 45 gal drop tank okay too.

 

[Glider]

Problem with 90 gal drop tank is no manouvres allowed. 30 gal slipper is combat tank, so okay, 45 gal drop tank okay too.

I think you will find that the 90 gal drop tank was often used in combat missions. No doubt they would have been dropped before combat but that was common on most types

 

[Schweik]

I'm still firmly convinced Spit VIII or any other mark can't do a combat mission with a 1,000 mile radius, unless you count recon flights.

 

[Kevin J]

I think you will find that the 90 gal drop tank was often used in combat missions. No doubt they would have been dropped before combat but that was common on most types

From what I've read, you could retain the 90 gal tank in combat on a Spitfire XIV.

 

[Schweik]

I'm guessing it's not a self sealing tank.... if not don't get hit

 

[Milosh]

I'm still firmly convinced Spit VIII or any other mark can't do a combat mission with a 1,000 mile radius, unless you count recon flights.

What single engine fighter could?

 

[RCAFson]

I'm still firmly convinced Spit VIII or any other mark can't do a combat mission with a 1,000 mile radius, unless you count recon flights.

You mean 1000 mile range (500 mile radius)?

 

[Kevin J]

You mean 1000 mile range (500 mile radius)?

Likewise 500 mile radius unlikely.

 

[Schweik]

Spitfire VIII datasheet:
View attachment 549110

The above range is achieved after a climb to 20K ft (and a 24.5 gal allowance is made for that and warmup) and a 220mph cruise. The same aircraft, refueled after warmup, and flown low-low-low, would have a substantially longer range.

Having said that, it was typically advisable to only use the DT after TO, so this limited available fuel after the DT was released. However a Spit8 could have flown a carefully planned mission to ~500 miles radius, and still have had time to use combat power for a few minutes.

Obviously you can play with the numbers, you can yes indeed, pack dangerously vulnerable external ferry tanks (which may or may not be jesittsonable) and fly at lowest possible economic speed etc., and quote ferry ranges. Note the Mustang has several different ranges too.

Notice how much longer the ranges are?

Ranges go from 920 miles, at "most economical speed (~250 mph)" on internal fuel only, to 1,660 miles with 2 x 52 gallon tanks, and 2,190 miles with 2 x 125 gal tanks
At max cruise power / 48" Hg which (at it could make an astonishing 400 mph) this drops a bit to 580 miles on internal fuel, 1,050 miles on two 52 gallon tanks, or 1,420 miles with the big tanks.

That translates to ~500 miles radius with the two external drop tanks that they so often and routinely used if they fly at top speed, or about 800 miles if flying at 'economical cruise', or as much as 1,000 miles (yes, a single engine fighter could do it) with the really big 125 gallon tanks).

But in the real world the normal radius was about 700 miles under typical wartime conditions with the two 52 gallon tanks, with part of the trip in a relatively 'safe' area and part not.



No mark of a Spitfire had ranges anywhere close to this.

 

[Milosh]

 

[RCAFson]

I think you will find that the 90 gal drop tank was often used in combat missions. No doubt they would have been dropped before combat but that was common on most types

Yes, Seafires used the 90gal slipper DTs for combat missions along with ~90 gal ex-P-40 DTs.

 

[RCAFson]

Obviously you can play with the numbers, you can yes indeed, pack dangerously vulnerable external ferry tanks (which may or may not be jesittsonable) and fly at lowest possible economic speed etc., and quote ferry ranges. Note the Mustang has several different ranges too.



Notice how much longer the ranges are?

Ranges go from 920 miles, at "most economical speed (~250 mph)" on internal fuel only, to 1,660 miles with 2 x 52 gallon tanks, and 2,190 miles with 2 x 125 gal tanks
At max cruise power / 48" Hg which (at it could make an astonishing 400 mph) this drops a bit to 580 miles on internal fuel, 1,050 miles on two 52 gallon tanks, or 1,420 miles with the big tanks.

That translates to ~500 miles radius with the two external drop tanks that they so often and routinely used if they fly at top speed, or about 800 miles if flying at 'economical cruise', or as much as 1,000 miles (yes, a single engine fighter could do it) with the really big 125 gallon tanks).

But in the real world the normal radius was about 700 miles under typical wartime conditions with the two 52 gallon tanks, with part of the trip in a relatively 'safe' area and part not.



No mark of a Spitfire had ranges anywhere close to this.

What relevancy does a Mustang's range have to do with a Spitfire's range? The Spit8 data card clearly stated that the 90gal slipper DT was jettisonable.

The data cards do show that with the same fuel the Spit has a longer range.