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

[Kevin J]

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.

Once those lend lease supplies of P-51K's arrived in Burma, us Brits wouldn't be worrying about Spitfire's range anymore, but they never did.

 

[Stig1207]

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

Overall claims to combat losses (all causes) is about 1:1 for both the P-40 and P-38 in the MTO.

However, the comparison you make with the P-47 is more about opportunity, or lack of it in the Thunderbolt's case, as Axis opposition in the air was decreasing when the P-47 was arriving in the Mediterranean.

 

[Kevin J]

Overall claims to combat losses (all causes) is about 1:1 for both the P-40 and P-38 in the MTO.

However, the comparison you make with the P-47 is more about opportunity, or lack of it in the Thunderbolt's case, as Axis opposition in the air was decreasing when the P-47 was arriving in the Mediterranean.

How about sticking to the CBI?

 

[Shortround6]

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

The data cards show the Spitfire flying 940 miles on 150 Imp gallons of fuel while the Mustang does 920 miles on 150 imp gallons.

however. the cards also show that the Spit is doing 220mph (apparently) to get that range while the Mustang is doing 253mph.
Just about all British data cards use most economical speed to figure range and often give range at max rich cruising.

Both are too low for flight in enemy airspace.

For fighting in the CBI theater this might mean that the two are actually not that far apart except for the fact that the mustang is flying clean has the ability to add drop tanks.
The Spit is already using a drop tank and while it can certainly use larger drop tanks even the 90 gallon tank is only going to add 60 gallons to the fuel total (30 gallon drop tank has to be removed to fit larger one) used to get the 940 mile range. Mustang is going to add a pair of 62.5 gallon tanks or possible for special operations a 500lb bomb and single drop tank?

Increasing the Speed of the Spit to match the Mustang's cruise speed is going to shorten the Spitfire's range.

 

[Kevin J]

The data cards show the Spitfire flying 940 miles on 150 Imp gallons of fuel while the Mustang does 920 miles on 150 imp gallons.

however. the cards also show that the Spit is doing 220mph (apparently) to get that range while the Mustang is doing 253mph.
Just about all British data cards use most economical speed to figure range and often give range at max rich cruising.

Both are too low for flight in enemy airspace.

For fighting in the CBI theater this might mean that the two are actually not that far apart except for the fact that the mustang is flying clean has the ability to add drop tanks.
The Spit is already using a drop tank and while it can certainly use larger drop tanks even the 90 gallon tank is only going to add 60 gallons to the fuel total (30 gallon drop tank has to be removed to fit larger one) used to get the 940 mile range. Mustang is going to add a pair of 62.5 gallon tanks or possible for special operations a 500lb bomb and single drop tank?

Increasing the Speed of the Spit to match the Mustang's cruise speed is going to shorten the Spitfire's range.

I've just been reading aerosociety.com/news/escort-spitfire-a-missed-opportunity-for-longer-reach . P-51C does 955 miles at 397 mph on internal fuel, so difficult to beat as an escort fighter over hostile territory. Scroll down to 'g' then read on. With 216 internal and 170 external you reach max take off weights. That's with a 45 gal centreline slipper drop tank and two Mustang 62.5 gal drop tanks which foul the wings when dropped and undoubtedly overstress the wings.

Max practical internal is 97 front, 66 rear, 33 wings. Total 196. Minus 33 for combat missions out of rear tank. Total 163.

Since you'll use say 33 gals for take off, I think that limits your max external fuel to about 130 gals, so perhaps a 30 gal slipper tank under the fuselage and 2 X Hurricane 45 gal tanks under the wings. So 120 not 130. Alternately, a 50 gal Typhoon tank under the fuselage and you have 140 external.

Overall total 283 / 303 gals compared with 25% more with a Mustang which cruises 18% faster.

What are we looking at here, maybe range at Econ cruise of 1500 miles as per Spitfire Vc Trop with 170 gal tank and extra 29 gals under pilots seat, 85 in front fuselage? Combat radius at max cruise, 500 miles? Not enough to get to Berlin and back!

 

[Schweik]

Overall claims to combat losses (all causes) is about 1:1 for both the P-40 and P-38 in the MTO.

However, the comparison you make with the P-47 is more about opportunity, or lack of it in the Thunderbolt's case, as Axis opposition in the air was decreasing when the P-47 was arriving in the Mediterranean.

According to what, Air Force Journal?

 

[RCAFson]

The data cards show the Spitfire flying 940 miles on 150 Imp gallons of fuel while the Mustang does 920 miles on 150 imp gallons.

however. the cards also show that the Spit is doing 220mph (apparently) to get that range while the Mustang is doing 253mph.
Just about all British data cards use most economical speed to figure range and often give range at max rich cruising.

Both are too low for flight in enemy airspace.

For fighting in the CBI theater this might mean that the two are actually not that far apart except for the fact that the mustang is flying clean has the ability to add drop tanks.
The Spit is already using a drop tank and while it can certainly use larger drop tanks even the 90 gallon tank is only going to add 60 gallons to the fuel total (30 gallon drop tank has to be removed to fit larger one) used to get the 940 mile range. Mustang is going to add a pair of 62.5 gallon tanks or possible for special operations a 500lb bomb and single drop tank?

Increasing the Speed of the Spit to match the Mustang's cruise speed is going to shorten the Spitfire's range.

Some Spitfires and Seafires were modded to allow for underwing bombs and, IIRC, experimentally DTs
For CBI the difference in cruise speed is not much of a factor, especially if they are performing an escort mission, since the chances of interception are low. Even in the ETO the need to escort slow bombers limited cruise speeds. However, I'm not really sure what we are discussing. The Spitfire VIII, using drop tanks could perform ~500 mile radius strike or point intercept missions using a low-low-low profile that was not suited to the ETO but was useful in the CBI and PTO. For example, I think that Spitfire VIIIs could have been used during Operation Vengance in lieu of P-38s.

This is an interesting article (as mentioned previously but not hyperlinked properly) that explores the Spitfire's potential as a long range high altitude escort fighter:

Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach? - Royal Aeronautical Society

The Mustang had greater potential as a LR escort, but the Spitfire could have replaced it and/or supplemented it if given the necessary developmental work and increased production, say via US production of the Spitfire alongside or in place of the Mustang.

 

[Schweik]

We've all read that article, and I think it's pretty clear from reading it how far of a stretch (in more than one sense) a Spitfire long range escort actually was. I'd love to see some evidence of actual wartime sorties, in the CBI or anywhere else, of Spitfires of any mark flying 500 mile radius (again, other than a recon mission).

 

[Kevin J]

Some Spitfires and Seafires were modded to allow for underwing bombs and, IIRC, experimentally DTs
For CBI the difference in cruise speed is not much of a factor, especially if they are performing an escort mission, since the chances of interception are low. Even in the ETO the need to escort slow bombers limited cruise speeds. However, I'm not really sure what we are discussing. The Spitfire VIII, using drop tanks could perform ~500 mile radius strike or point intercept missions using a low-low-low profile that was not suited to the ETO but was useful in the CBI and PTO. For example, I think that Spitfire VIIIs could have been used during Operation Vengance in lieu of P-38s.

This is an interesting article (as mentioned previously but not hyperlinked properly) that explores the Spitfire's potential as a long range high altitude escort fighter:

Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach? - Royal Aeronautical Society

The Mustang had greater potential as a LR escort, but the Spitfire could have replaced it and/or supplemented it if given the necessary developmental work and increased production, say via US production of the Spitfire alongside or in place of the Mustang.

Except you're not even going to start thinking about this until 1943 after the problems the VIII Air Force encountered over Europe. So by the time you've got the escort Spitfire ready, all that's left to liberate is Malaya, Borneo, Indonesia, Vietnam and Hong Kong. Then it's too late, the atom bombs have been dropped. As for Europe, the Mustang is available immediately. Just imagine Spitfire VIII's with 90 gal P-40 drop tank and floats for starters followed by the definitive IX version with extra fuel.

 

[Kevin J]

We've all read that article, and I think it's pretty clear from reading it how far of a stretch (in more than one sense) a Spitfire long range escort actually was. I'd love to see some evidence of actual wartime sorties, in the CBI or anywhere else, of Spitfires of any mark flying 500 mile radius (again, other than a recon mission).

I agree, maybe a 500 mile radius, but let's hope there's no combat. Alternately put some floats on them and recover the crews by submarines if necessary.

 

[Schweik]

Except you're not even going to start thinking about this until 1943 after the problems the VIII Air Force encountered over Europe. So by the time you've got the escort Spitfire ready, all that's left to liberate is Malaya, Borneo, Indonesia, Vietnam and Hong Kong. Then it's too late, the atom bombs have been dropped. As for Europe, the Mustang is available immediately.

I think the British (and the Germans, the Russians, the Italians and the Japanese) were well aware of the need for a long range escort to do sustained bombing. The Brits had been bombing Germany since 1940 and they knew how fraught that was for bombers. The Americans had their very heavily armed aircraft and their Norden bomb sight and they had that faction we call the "Bomber Mafia" and they thought once again they could take a quantum leap past everyone else and defy the hard won lessons of their Allies. But they were proven wrong, and I doubt many in the RAF were exactly amazed when they were.

The problem was a matter of priorities - as I said before, interceptors and defending the homeland are really the #1 mission of the RAF, and the one they did best at- and the puzzle that is aircraft design. No one fighter could be all things. Planes great for escort did not necessarily excel at interception and vice versa. Planes great for high altitude did not always do as well down low. And so on. Even more interesting, planes that did well in cold weather maybe didn't do as well in the Tropics.

It took a long time to design a new plane and get it into action. That is why sometimes more incremental improvements like the Hellcat or the Mustang did better than more ambitious or radical designs like the P-38 or the He 177. The biggest achievement of the Hellcat for example was the rapidity with which they got it into action (first flight in June 1942, first combat deployment in March 1943). You could say the same about the Anglo-American (Merlin 60 series engined) version of the Mustang which I think is clearly a different plane from the American original - it proceeded from successful experiment in Oct 1942 to mass production (June 43) to flying missions (Dec 43) in quite rapid order. Something like say the Me 262 looks like a war-winner on paper but going from first flight in 1942 to arriving in the field in 1944 makes it less impressive to me than the Fw 190, which went from first flight to deployment in little over a year and got into the war in time to make a difference (if not to actually bring about victory).

The Japanese, as we know, started the war with the excellent, lethal Ki 43 and A6M, but fell behind in speed and performance, and their engine industry wasn't up to the task of creating a competitive fighter in the mid war years, so they didn't get their next generation killer warplanes into action until way too late. Most spent their service life in mostly futile efforts to stop the slaughter of the B-29 fire bombing raids.

You never know if a new design is going to work out, or which of many designs you start experimenting with will come to fruition... and which will suffer delays that prevent it arriving in time to matter. It was a crap shoot in many ways, and the way it ended up the British had an excellent interceptor from the start, thank God because it may have spelled the difference from the Nazi's winning the war. The Americans and Soviets had some 'pretty good' planes in the early war but no world beaters, and had to scramble to get some good fighters into the field in late 1942 and 1943. The Germans started with the excellent Bf 109 which started out dominant and stayed competitive, though always limited by short range, through the end of the war. To this they added the Fw 190 early enough to matter, but luckily for us all their incremental improvements to both were not enough to stay ahead through the tipping point of the war and none of their more radical designs really panned out. The jets got delayed and never came in enough numbers, the Me 309 didn't pan out, & the Fw 190D arrived too late.

 

[RCAFson]

Except you're not even going to start thinking about this until 1943 after the problems the VIII Air Force encountered over Europe. So by the time you've got the escort Spitfire ready, all that's left to liberate is Malaya, Borneo, Indonesia, Vietnam and Hong Kong. Then it's too late, the atom bombs have been dropped. As for Europe, the Mustang is available immediately. Just imagine Spitfire VIII's with 90 gal P-40 drop tank and floats for starters followed by the definitive IX version with extra fuel.

The Mustang wasn't available immediately and was only available because of a UK order that got the P-51 into production. It was also fortuitous that the two stage Merlin was fitted to the Mustang, just in time. It was the availability of the Mustang that probably prevented development of a longer range high altitude Spitfire escort. The USAAF Spitfire range trials show that the USAAF was thinking about using the Spitfire as an escort fighter.

 

[Kevin J]

I think the British (and the Germans, the Russians, the Italians and the Japanese) were well aware of the need for a long range escort to do sustained bombing. The Brits had been bombing Germany since 1940 and they knew how fraught that was for bombers. The Americans had their very heavily armed aircraft and their Norden bomb sight and they had that faction we call the "Bomber Mafia" and they thought once again they could take a quantum leap past everyone else and defy the hard won lessons of their Allies. But they were proven wrong, and I doubt many in the RAF were exactly amazed when they were.

The problem was a matter of priorities - as I said before, interceptors and defending the homeland are really the #1 mission of the RAF, and the one they did best at- and the puzzle that is aircraft design. No one fighter could be all things. Planes great for escort did not necessarily excel at interception and vice versa. Planes great for high altitude did not always do as well down low. And so on. Even more interesting, planes that did well in cold weather maybe didn't do as well in the Tropics.

It took a long time to design a new plane and get it into action. That is why sometimes more incremental improvements like the Hellcat or the Mustang did better than more ambitious or radical designs like the P-38 or the He 177. The biggest achievement of the Hellcat for example was the rapidity with which they got it into action (first flight in June 1942, first combat deployment in March 1943). You could say the same about the Anglo-American (Merlin 60 series engined) version of the Mustang which I think is clearly a different plane from the American original - it proceeded from successful experiment in Oct 1942 to mass production (June 43) to flying missions (Dec 43) in quite rapid order. Something like say the Me 262 looks like a war-winner on paper but going from first flight in 1942 to arriving in the field in 1944 makes it less impressive to me than the Fw 190, which went from first flight to deployment in little over a year and got into the war in time to make a difference (if not to actually bring about victory).

The Japanese, as we know, started the war with the excellent, lethal Ki 43 and A6M, but fell behind in speed and performance, and their engine industry wasn't up to the task of creating a competitive fighter in the mid war years, so they didn't get their next generation killer warplanes into action until way too late. Most spent their service life in mostly futile efforts to stop the slaughter of the B-29 fire bombing raids.

You never know if a new design is going to work out, or which of many designs you start experimenting with will come to fruition... and which will suffer delays that prevent it arriving in time to matter. It was a crap shoot in many ways, and the way it ended up the British had an excellent interceptor from the start, thank God because it may have spelled the difference from the Nazi's winning the war. The Americans and Soviets had some 'pretty good' planes in the early war but no world beaters, and had to scramble to get some good fighters into the field in late 1942 and 1943. The Germans started with the excellent Bf 109 which started out dominant and stayed competitive, though always limited by short range, through the end of the war. To this they added the Fw 190 early enough to matter, but luckily for us all their incremental improvements to both were not enough to stay ahead through the tipping point of the war and none of their more radical designs really panned out. The jets got delayed and never came in enough numbers, the Me 309 didn't pan out, & the Fw 190D arrived too late.

We had the Mosquito so didn't need escort fighters.

 

[Kevin J]

The Mustang wasn't available immediately and was only available because of a UK order that got the P-51 into production. It was also fortuitous that the two stage Merlin was fitted to the Mustang, just in time. It was the availability of the Mustang that probably prevented development of a longer range high altitude Spitfire escort. The USAAF Spitfire range trials show that the USAAF was thinking about using the Spitfire as an escort fighter.

It's more like they were trying to help us fight the final stages of war in the Asia-Pacific theatre.

 

[Schweik]

We had the Mosquito so didn't need escort fighters.

No argument here, I think they should have ditched all the four engine heavies (British and American) and replaced them with Mosquitoes. For Burma, where the wooden structure tended to rot or delaminate in monsoon rain and jungle humidity, they could either have just used Beaufighters or made an all-metal Mossie.

 

[Schweik]

The Mustang wasn't available immediately and was only available because of a UK order that got the P-51 into production. It was also fortuitous that the two stage Merlin was fitted to the Mustang, just in time. It was the availability of the Mustang that probably prevented development of a longer range high altitude Spitfire escort. The USAAF Spitfire range trials show that the USAAF was thinking about using the Spitfire as an escort fighter.

Just because they investigated the possibilities doesn't mean they were ever realistic. I'm sure if the Spitfire could have been made into an escort fighter the RAF would have done it long before the Americans looked into the notion.

 

[michael rauls]

Speaking of escorts that could have been. I once read( so who knows if its really true) but I once read that the USAAF briefly gave consideration to using F4Us as bomber escorts in Europe early on.
Quite a thought, hundreds of Corsairs escorting B17s over Europe.

 

[rednev]

In the what if quest for long range . What if we bring the first flight of the f82 ahead by 12 months

 

[wuzak]

Except you're not even going to start thinking about this until 1943 after the problems the VIII Air Force encountered over Europe. So by the time you've got the escort Spitfire ready, all that's left to liberate is Malaya, Borneo, Indonesia, Vietnam and Hong Kong. Then it's too late, the atom bombs have been dropped. As for Europe, the Mustang is available immediately. Just imagine Spitfire VIII's with 90 gal P-40 drop tank and floats for starters followed by the definitive IX version with extra fuel.

Floats?

You do know that the IX was the "interim" Merlin 60-series Spitfire, the VIII was the "definitive" version?

 

[wuzak]

In the what if quest for long range . What if we bring the first flight of the f82 ahead by 12 months

How?

Did they complete the prototype but hold the first flight back a year?