a tongue in cheek what if but it does show someone had decided neither drop tanks or single engined fly fuel tanks where the answer
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
How?
Did they complete the prototype but hold the first flight back a year?
It's more like they were trying to help us fight the final stages of war in the Asia-Pacific theatre.
...In the absence of a specific escort plane, Arnold wrote
to Air Marshall Portal in April, "It is possible that with
the greater defensive firepower of our bombers, and a care-
fully developed technique of formation flying with mutually
supporting fire, that our bombers may be able to penetrate
in daylight beyond the radius of the fighters." However ,
Maj. Gen, Carl Spaatz, commanding the Eighth Air Force, ad-
vocated early in May that bombers be used in night operations
if escort fighters could not be provided, though he realized
that the accuracy of bombing at night was not as high as in
daylight. Less than two weeks later Spaatz observed that
the problem might be met by counter flights of pursuits to
attract enemy fighters away from the bombers, giving them
indirect support at the same time. He apparently thought
that the need for escort would occur only under a few special
circumstances. An RAF group captain bluntly voiced a less
optimistic note by saying that "until experiences proves
otherwise, American bombers must be protected by fighters".
If some uncertainty existed in the spring of 1942 on
the use of fighters, there was also some indecision as to
types of planes best suited for use in England. Early in
May when Chaney learned that American fighter groups were to
be equipped with P-38's and -39's, he wrote Air Marshall
Portal that he gravely doubted if they were suitable for es-
cort missions. He suggested that the American units, in-
stead, be assigned Spitfires, and that a like number of
Kittyhawks (P-40) be sent to the British in the Middle East.
Chaney reasoned that the P-38 was an interceptor-type plane
designed to shoot down bombers rather than to cope with
opposing fighter forces. He considered the Spitfire the
"best all-round fighter developed in this war, which readily
adapts itself to the mission of providing top cover for
bombardment missions within its range." " Since the War
Department had considered equipping a third fighter group
with Spitfires, Chaney believed that all American fighter
units should be so geared. This issue was not settled in-
mediately...
DEVELOPMENT OF THE LONG - RANGE
ESCORT FIGHTER. USAF Historical Division
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.
Yes.Floats?
You do know that the IX was the "interim" Merlin 60-series Spitfire, the VIII was the "definitive" version?
The P51B/C didn't even enter production until Mid 1943 and didn't enter the ETO until Dec 1943.
According to what, Air Force Journal?
The RAF had no need for a long range escort fighter because they bombed at night.
The Spitfire VIII was a logical response to giving the Spitfire greater tactical range to allow it to operate as short range escort when needed. The USAAF however did need a long range escort fighter, and would have used the Spitfire for this purpose if it had the range to escort daylight bombing missions into central Europe.
The prospects for a LR Spitfire were realistic as a Spitfire with ~160IG of internal fuel and a ~90IG DT would have a useful escort radius of about 300-400 miles and maybe more if used for shuttle missions where the fighters caught up with the bombers rather than providing continuous escort. This would have placed much of the 8th AFs target area within range of Spitfire escort.
The RAF bombed at night because they had no long range escort fighter
Yes, I'm sure they would have. The Mustang and late model P-38s had some advantages but everyone agreed -with the exception of the year or so where the Fw 190 was dominant- the Spitfires were excellent in air to air combat, so long as the battle was taking place within their reach.
Spitfire couldn't fly safely with 160 IG of internal fuel, 130 is more likely (as already discussed) and the addition of the large external tanks designed for ferry flights degraded the performance sufficiently, while increasing vulnerability, that it was no longer going to be dominant against Fw 190s or late model Bf 109s, or even necessarily competitive. 300 miles radius, for the Spit VIII, might be plausible, but they needed more range than that for escort flights.
Sorry mate but it's just out of reach.
They did incidentally use overlapping escort flights with all types of fighters (including Spitfires) to give bombers the maximum level of coverage, though there were still often gaps.
The US did have Spitfire squadrons, they had three whole fighter groups, the 4th FG fighting out of England, which switched to P-47s in early 1943, the 31st and 52nd in the Med (31st switched from Spit IX to P-51B in March 1944, 52nd switched from Spit IX to P-51B in April 1944).
I read this...not noted as a statistic.
I have a question related to speed and WEP. On page 66 the Osprey book on the 49th FG, there is a section describing an incident over New Guinea in October 1943 where one of their pilots - (14 victory Ace and future Korean War F-86 Ace) Lt James Hagerstorm shot down a Ki-46 recon plane. The American was flying a P-40N (subtype not given) and the chase was at 18,000 ft. He said he had a hard time catching the plane and had to fly at WEP for 12 minutes indicating 270 mph and 2700 rpm.
I was a bit confused by this because based on what I've been reading in this forum I didn't think WEP would be available on a single speed Allison at 18,000 ft.
Looks like that is about 370 mph TAS (depending on various factors) which sounds about right for both aircraft.
I'm a little confused about these Dinah interceptions, the Japanese planes seem to never take any evasive maneuvers. They get chased, they keep fleeing at the same altitude or maybe climb slightly, and either get away or are intercepted and shot down. I don't get why not dive for example to pick up speed, or try some evasive maneuvers.
Interceptions were pretty rare though, I only know of one other by a P-40 over Darwin IIRC and that was subsantially lightened by taking down all but two guns and half the fuel. An RAF Flight Officer named Wittridge shot one down in a modified Spit VIII over Burma in 1944, and Richard Bong shot one down in a P-38G over New Guinea in 1942 and another in later 1943 right before Hagerstorm's victory.
I have a question related to speed and WEP. On page 66 the Osprey book on the 49th FG, there is a section describing an incident over New Guinea in October 1943 where one of their pilots - (14 victory Ace and future Korean War F-86 Ace) Lt James Hagerstorm shot down a Ki-46 recon plane. The American was flying a P-40N (subtype not given) and the chase was at 18,000 ft. He said he had a hard time catching the plane and had to fly at WEP for 12 minutes indicating 270 mph and 2700 rpm.
I was a bit confused by this because based on what I've been reading in this forum I didn't think WEP would be available on a single speed Allison at 18,000 ft.
Spitfire couldn't fly safely with 160 IG of internal fuel, 130 is more likely (as already discussed) and the addition of the large external tanks designed for ferry flights degraded the performance sufficiently, while increasing vulnerability, that it was no longer going to be dominant against Fw 190s or late model Bf 109s, or even necessarily competitive. 300 miles radius, for the Spit VIII, might be plausible, but they needed more range than that for escort flights.
Sorry mate but it's just out of reach.
They did incidentally use overlapping escort flights with all types of fighters (including Spitfires) to give bombers the maximum level of coverage, though there were still often gaps.
The US did have Spitfire squadrons, they had three whole fighter groups, the 4th FG fighting out of England, which switched to P-47s in early 1943, the 31st and 52nd in the Med (31st switched from Spit IX to P-51B in March 1944, 52nd switched from Spit IX to P-51B in April 1944).
Fuel management and CoG
Careful fuel management would have been important. The rear fuselage fuel moved the centre of gravity sufficiently far aft to make the Spitfire longitudinally unstable. As a result, the aircraft could not be trimmed, so tended to diverge in pitch and tighten into turns. These characteristics were certainly undesirable (the latter was unacceptable in combat) but could be tolerated in the early stages of a sortie, ie climb to height and the first part of the outbound cruise leg. A&AEE tests showed that when 35 gallons of the rear fuel had been consumed, longitudinal stability was regained. Conversely, additional leading edge fuel would have caused little problem, as it was far closer to the centre of gravity so causing only small changes in trim as it was consumed. The sequence of fuel use in an escort sortie might have followed this pattern:
Start-up, taxi and take-off with rear tank selected
Climb to height and cruise commenced on remaining rear tank fuel
Outbound cruise continued on underwing tanks fuel – jettisoned when empty (or on entering combat)
Combat on slipper tank fuel
Return on internal fuel
I guess you didn't read the linked article:
Not claiming to be sure that is accurate b ecause I already see one glaring error, but if we assume it is "mostly" correct, it shows almost double the loss rate for the P-38 than for the P-40. 0.8 losses per Sortie for the P-40 vs. 1.4 for the P-38. That is in agreement with my sources and with the point I was making that you sought to contradict.
This chart combines what we traditionally call ETO (flights from England and Northwest Europe) with MTO (Italy, the Middle East and North Africa). P-40 as we know was only in combat in the MTO. So it's not really comparing like with like and it rather muddies the water.
It also shows the P-38 flew roughly twice as many sorties as the P-40 (ETO+MTO combined) which accounts for the higher claim total.
He also shows 481 claims by P-40 units in the MTO whereas the normally accepted total for US P-40 units is more than a hundred more - 592, such as you can see here. The total for the Med if you include Commonwealth claims is 1042.
It is fun if not necessarily enlightening to compare claimed victories vs. losses to all causes - on that chart the P-47, P-38 and P-40 all have roughly the same number of victory claims as losses as you said, but the Spitfire has 130% victories to losses and the P-51 has 196% victories to losses.
P-47 had 100.1% claims to losses
P-51 had 196% claims to losses
P-38 had 100.7% claims to losses
P-40 had 107% claims to losses*
P-39 had 13% claims to losses (you can see why they were relegated to 'maritime patrol')
Spit had 134% claims to losses**
A-36 had 47% claims to losses (but it was really a dive bomber not a fighter so that is pretty good)
Beau had 38% claims to losses (somewhat surprising to me though I think the Brits did better with them)
P-61 had 232% claims to losses (making it techically the best! But that was only 58 claims)
* using the 592 number instead of 480
** These were mostly Spit VC's, with Spit IX coming available shortly before those units transitioned to P-47s
I have read it.
I didn't like about a year or more ago and I don't like it now.
It makes several assumptions or glosses over a few things.
Like near the end.
"The sequence of fuel use in an escort sortie might have followed this pattern:
Start-up, taxi and take-off with rear tank selected
Climb to height and cruise commenced on remaining rear tank fuel
Outbound cruise continued on underwing tanks fuel – jettisoned when empty (or on entering combat)
Combat on slipper tank fuel
Return on internal fuel"
Just about every manual I have read (and others may have read a lot more than me and can find exceptions) has the plane starting, warming up and taking off on the main tank or one of the mains, several reasons for this, one of which is more reliable fuel feed. Mustangs for instance used one of the wing tanks. A certain one more later.
the author rather glosses over the outward bound cruise, like cruise speed and altitude but that is minor and outward bound is NOT where the problem is. You can hang big enough drop tank/s on a number of planes to get them to the bomber's target.
combat on slipper fuel tank? the combat rated tank is 30 gallons, a MK IX Spit burned about 130gph at 3000rpm and 15lb boost. consumption at 18lbs boost would be a bit higher.
Fuel consumption at 2850rpm and 12lbs boost (1 hour rating) was 105 gph. Americans figured the combat allowance as 5 minutes at WEP and 15 minutes at military power. The 30 gallon slipper tank comes up a bit short (cut time to 10 minutes at the one hour rating? or even less time at 3000rpm and 12lbs boost?) which puts you on the internal fuel while still in combat, that in itself is not the big the problem.
The big problem is just how much internal fuel do you have left. According the author's plan you have already burned up all the fuel the rear tanks leaving just the forward tanks (85-96 gallons?) and whatever sized wing tanks may have been stuffed in. The next flaw in the "plan" is he does not specify return speed and altitude. The US figured a high altitude (around 25,000ft) return and around 315-325mph ground speed cruise speed to keep from being bounced by Luftwaffe fighters (this changed on some missions and as Luftwaffe opposition got less) I don't have the figures for a MK IX but a MK V burned burned about 50 gallons an hour at 300mph true and at 20,000ft. Now please figure about a 12-15 gallon reserve for once you hit the British coast to find the home airfield (or any any airfield if navigation has not been spot on or if the weather has changed) as a bare minimum.
it doesn't matter how much fuel you can put in rear tanks or hang outside. Operational radius is figured on how much fuel is left inside after combat and allowing for that reserve to find the home (or any) field and allowing for a higher enough speed to minimize (but not eliminate) the chances of being bounced.
On starting and taking off on the main tank/s. Most fighters had a return line from the carburator/injection unit back to one of the main tanks that handled excess fuel delivered to the carb/injection unit instead of venting it overboard. This might amount to a few gallons an hour, but unless there is room in the main tank the fuel goes overboard. On most airplanes one of the main tanks was also the "reserve" tank, the fuel pick up had two intakes, one at the bottom of the tank and one part way up. when the selector switch was in normal position it drew from the higher pickup. On the Mustang one wing tank was fitted out this way, the other tank just picked up fuel from the bottom. the return line went to the tank with the two position pickup. Motorcycle riders will be very familiar with how this works.
I would also note that some aircraft carried some rather impressive loads of fuel and/or bombs but there were limits. The MK IX manual states that when carrying under wing bombs take-offs should only be done from hard, smooth runways. The Spitfire was often operating at the edge of it's structural strength. Assuming that you can add hundreds of pounds of drop tanks and operate from existing fields without increased accidents and/or structural/landing gear problems is ignoring reality.
I do like this bit "The Wright Field modified Mk IX weighed 10,150 lb and the undercarriage was fully compressed under this load. "
Bolding by me. It is not just a matter of pumping up the oleos.
I would note that a MK IX could carry (smooth hard runway) 1000lbs of bombs but that is only about 140 imp gallons of fuel and that does not include the weight of the tanks.
I am not trying to bash the Spitfire, it did an amazing job at a number of different things, but expecting it to equal (or come close) to a plane that was not only newer but was several thousand pounds heavier when loaded is stretching things to the breaking point.
MT818 (Furlong 20-7-44). First Mk VIII with 75 gallon
fuel tank behind pilot. Unstable but not viciously so. MT818
(Furlong 27-7). It is estimated that aeroplane becomes stable
after 37 gallons have been used from rear tank.
In P-51B, C, D, and K aircraft incorporating the aft fuselage
fuel tank, added for range extension, longitudinal stability was lost
with that tank more than half full, since this condition moved the
airplane center of gravity aft. The instability was particularly dan-
gerous in that a dive pullout at high speed was always accompanied
by a stick force reversal which, unless opposed by the pilot, would
quickly carry the plane into an extreme accellerated condition where
the wings would fail. The incidence of structural wing failures rose
sharply because it was difficult for a pilot who had always flown a
stable airplane to revise his flying technique to handle a danger-
ously unstable one. To meet this situation a twenty pound bobweight
was added to the elevator control system of all airplanes. This fix
eliminated the stick force reversal in dive pullout and made the
airplane marginally stable with about 35 gallons of fuel in the 85
gallon fuselage tank.
From the structural strength viewpoint, because the airplane
was heavier than earlier models the allowable dive pullout g load-
ing of a P-51D with full internal fuel was 6.3 with ultimate break-
ing loads occurring at one and a half times this figure, or 9.5g.
Maximum permissible dive speed for a P-51D was 505 mph IAS
below 9000 feet and 300 mph IAS (539 mph TAS and Mach .81) at
35000 feet. If these diving limits were exceeded compressibility
would be experienced. Maximum allowed engine overspeed in a
dive was 3300 RPM, or 10 percent over normal maximum. In a
dive compressibility effects were indicated by instability, uncon-
trollable rolling or pitching, stiffness of controls, or combinations
of these along with vibration. Nose-heaviness (tuck-under) was
noticeable, and became more severe with speed increases. The lon-
gitudinal characteristics remained normal until Mach .72 to .74.
Dive recovery procedure was to reduce power and pull up as gradu-
ally as possible depending on aircraft altitude. The elevator trim
tab was not normally used to aid recovery.
America's 100 Thousand
Stating that a Spitfire with increased internal and external fuel will have an increased combat radius, is simply stating a fact and in no way implies that it would equal a Mustang as a LR escort fighter.
Where to begin... It almost sounds as though you're arguing that the Spitfire was incapable of engaging in any combat because it didn't have enough fuel...yet we all know that this isn't true. The Mustang with the fuselage tank carried 224IG of internal fuel. A Spitfire VIII with a 75IG fuselage tank, 124IG main tanks and 45IG slipper tank carried 245IG of (effectively) internal fuel. If the Mustang had to engage in manoeuvring combat, it needed to release the DTs, so the aircraft's combat radius was always predicated on the basis of remaining internal fuel. If the Mustang had a combat range of 500 miles after releasing it's DTs, what would be the range of the Spitfire? Fuel consumption on a Merlin 60 series was more or less identical on the Mustang and Spitfire at the same throttle setting, with the main point being that the Mustang flew about 10% faster. The Merlin 40 series was a bit more economical than the 60 series in terms of GPH. This is from Morgan and Shacklady:
Spitfire 8:
A Spitfire VIII with 124IG of fuel had a TO weight of ~7800lb; with 244IG (including 45IH Slipper tank) of internal fuel has a TO weight of about 8800lb. If we add another 720lb of fuel via wing DTs we get an AUW of about 9700lb and about 100IG of additional fuel. This gives us about 60Ig of internal fuel (for TO + climb and mandatory burn of fuel from rear fuselage tank) and 100IG of DT fuel, to reach our combat zone; or about 2 hrs at Max weak mixture. After DT release the aircraft has ~185IG of internal fuel; keeping 100IG in reserve for return flight at MWM (~1. 3hrs plus 20IG reserve), this leaves 85IG (the same as a BoB Spitfire) for ~45min of combat.
Spitfire V's were flown regularly for ferry missions with 114IG (29IG aux tank) of internal fuel and 170IG DTs. A LR MkV escort fighter could have carried 200IG of internal fuel and a 90IG DT and so have about 45IG of fuel for combat where the Mk VIII had 85IG.
As I stated the Mustang had the same CoG problems and had to burn fuel from the rear fuselage tank for safe flight:
If we postulate that the USAAF has 180 LR Spitfires available in August 1943, they could have flown them in 3 rendezvous missions of 60 aircraft each, and thus covered about 2 hrs of the Schweinfurt Raid, at the target and on either side of the target.
My guess is that if the USAAF had 180 LR Spitfires at the start of the raid, few would be left at the end. Distance from Debden ( fighter base ) to Schweinfurt ( target ) is 452.90 miles by air. The Mustang could do 950 miles at 397 mph on internal fuel. Put on 2 drop tanks of 45 IG each should provide enough fuel for combat. So you need 240 IG Overall. The Spitfire is slower, so let's add 10% more fuel, say 264 IG req'd. So front, wing and rear tanks all internal plus gives 196 plus 60 IG from P-40 which was used in Med an Pacific gives 256 IG. So a pretty close match here. Hmm, just about marginally plausible.
The Americans are never going to build the Spitfire, perhaps the Canadians could have and should have built the LR Spitfire instead of the Curtiss Helldiver.