Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Wow that's dark! No wonder all the revolutions so soon after the war.... I know Malaya went into a revolt very soon after right?
Didn't know that! Different engine variant I guess? RN / Fleet Air Arm seemed to have a preference for low altitude engines for so many of their planes which I never did grasp. They must have had the strangest procurement policies of the war and that is saying something.
Well, FM-2s then the US had plenty of those I think.
Wow that's dark! No wonder all the revolutions so soon after the war.... I know Malaya went into a revolt very soon after right?
Didn't know that! Different engine variant I guess? RN / Fleet Air Arm seemed to have a preference for low altitude engines for so many of their planes which I never did grasp. They must have had the strangest procurement policies of the war and that is saying something.
Well, FM-2s then the US had plenty of those I think.
The need for a long range escort existed from the time of the first long range RAF bombing missions in 1940. They didn't bomb at night because they loved looking at the stars, bombing at night made already abyssmally low bombing accuracy drop to sub-marginal levels. They were lucky if they even hit the right city and quite often they didn't.
If the RAF had a daytime escort fighter available in 1941 or 1942, and one that could take on Fw 190s and Bf 109F and G, I am pretty sure they would have used it.
Can an average of 60 Spitfires at a time defend 240 - 300 bombers. It sounds doubtful. All you need is Me 110's to bounce the Spitfires with their 90 IG tanks still on them over the North Sea and they're mincemeat.
How is that different from P-47s and P-51s carrying drop tanks? You are arguing that it's impossible for any single seat fighter to undertake long range escort missions. The 90IG tank could be dropped at up to 300mph IAS, and so the Me-110s pilots who dared to intercept a formation of Spitfires are going to awarded their Iron Crosses posthumously.
Using Schweinfurt as an example, if we randomly insert 60 Spitfires over the bombers at any given point, it causes severe headaches for the Luftwaffe, who are forced to divert fighters away from attacking bombers, and the results is more Luftwaffe fighter losses and fewer 8th AF bomber losses.
Lets see if ive got this right( and it seems logical, to me anyway) the range of an escort fighter would be limited to the miles it could fly on internal fuel only from the point at which it was likely to encounter enemy fighter oposition to the target and then home again. Because you've got to drop your tanks at that point.
Could this, and perhaps it was, be mitigated by aditional waves of fighters scootin along at a pretty high cruise speed ( difficult to intercept therefore not likely to have to be forced to drop there tanks)to rondevue with the bombers farther out.
Yes, and that's exactly what was done, so the fighter escort detailed to provide cover at the most distant legs of the bomber's route didn't have to tag along with the bombers as close escort.
Not in dispute.
Not what I am arguing at all. what we are arguing about is how far from bases the Spitfire could engage in combat.
in my mind internal fuel only counts if you have it for the return trip, this may be in stark contrast to some other people.
Maybe I am simple minded but what is the difference between stuffing 71 gallons of fuel in the rear fuselage that has to burned/used to make the plane safe to fly before you reach the area where enemy fighters may be encountered (let alone the bombers target) and simply using drop tank/s that hold 71 gallons more than the drop tanks used with the rear fuselage tanks? You can't fly home on fuel you used to take-off and climb to operational hight with no matter what tank it was in.
Question on the 45 gallon slipper tank. Was it self-sealing or not?
Given enough time (projected started early) I don't see the plumbing of the wings for wing drop tanks as an insurmountable problem. The bigger problem is using wing leading edge tanks and drop tanks on wings not designed to hold the weight. WHich is part solved by limiting maneuvers with the drop tanks, which just about everybody did.
Likewise I don't worry too much about how difficult it was to jettison the slipper tanks as I assume that given enough interest either the problem would have been sorted out or alternative tank/s designed. Using twin 44 gallon Hurricane tanks sounds like too much of a bodge to get very far, you want the simplest fuel system possible to cut down on accidents caused by either pilot error (wrong tank selected) or leaky fittings, sucking air into the system is as bad as leaking fuel.
I don't know how difficult it was to put wing tanks in the MK IX. If any rib noses had to be taken out? or how hard it was to run fuel lines in an existing wing. the rear fuselage tank set up may have been seen as an easy way to modify existing aircraft.
The Main problems as I see it for the escort Spit is properly engineering the wing for the increased loads (and that includes loads imposed by taking off on less than perfect airfields) and getting the plane to fly properly (solve a lot of the problems by just sticking 33-37 of fuel behind the pilot and forgetting the remainder of the 71 gallons).
If doesn't give the impressive number on paper though
I'm making the point that 180 Spitfires each 60 defending one third of each leg of the mission is woefully insufficient.
When the RAF sent 12 Bombers across the Channel, there were 12 fighter squadrons in support.
I
I don't agree, it wasn't done because it wasn't feasible. The problem with the Spit was a big part of what made it great- that thin, high efficiency, low drag wing. Couldn't fit both gas and guns in it. Those 'bag' tanks in the leading edges of the wings... were those self-sealing?
You are talking about a scenario that sounds like getting into a knife fight while carrying a stack of dishes in one hand and a bucket of water in the other.
The Spitfire VIII had integral wing tanks and it carried cannon and MGs... I don't know if the bag tanks were SS, but even SS tanks are of little use against cannon fire and some risk has to be accepted, because in the grand scheme of things a single seat fighter was more expendable than a 4 engine bomber.
How do you think the Mustang was able to succeed? Please stop arguing that LR single seat fighter escort is impossible, when it obviously wasn't.
It's definitely possible, but you're looking at 1944/45 service entry. I was in computing for 30 years, developing new systems. First you get your system developed and installed, you learn a bit, respond to customer needs, upgrade it, then you look back and think to yourself "now why didn't I think of that in the first place"? So Spitfire IX 1942/43, VIII 1943/44, XVI 1944/45. So to me the progressive development path seems reasonable. Then you look back and think to yourself "cobbled together systems", what a pile of CRAP ( Concurrent Retail Application Package), and you start all over again.
The Spitfire VIII had integral wing tanks and it carried cannon and MGs... I don't know if the bag tanks were SS, but even SS tanks are of little use against cannon fire and some risk has to be accepted, because in the grand scheme of things a single seat fighter was more expendable than a 4 engine bomber.
How do you think the Mustang was able to succeed? Please stop arguing that LR single seat fighter escort is impossible, when it obviously wasn't.
I think the bigger problem is actually the great big slipper tank which is quite vulnerable, bulky and large... and apparently expected to be carried during combat in this scenario you are laying out. That is foolish.
Because the Mustang could fly 900+ miles on internal fuel (in protected tanks) and do so at close to 400 mph. That way it could fly out to a target say, 600 miles away, drop it's external tanks when attacked, fight for a while and then fly home with fuel to spare.
Lol! I never made such an argument - I am saying that the SPITFIRE could not be and never in fact was a long range fighter escort. I know it's always tempting to win an argument by claiming that somebody said something foolish that they didn't actually say, but let's not go there.
As for flying with unprotected fuel tanks, it wasn't normally done - even by the Japanese, after 1943... and for good reason. There is a big difference between an aircraft with a few holes in it (even big holes from 20mm cannon) vs. one that has caught on fire. The former can and does fly home, the latter very rarely survives (sometimes fires do go out of course).
View attachment 549403
That is a 20mm cannon hole, one of 5 this aircraft received, but the pilot made it back home due to the armor and strong structure of the aircraft. This very likely hit the fuselage tank.
View attachment 549404
Same with those - shrapnel from the lower cannon hole almost certainly pierced the main wing fuel tank.
View attachment 549405
Also a 20mm hole, right behind the armor plate. And right above or into the rear fuselage fuel tank.
If you assume it's Ok to not have protected fuel tanks "because four engine planes are more important than single engine" then just take the self-sealing tanks out altogether, that would seriously reduce the weight and increase fuel capacity at the same time. But that vastly increases the vulnerability of the pilot.
The Mustang and P-47 had cobbled together systems as well (with severe limitations with full fuel loads), but they were also the focal point of large design teams. The Spitfire with Merlin 60 series engines entered production nearly a year before the P-51B and if given similar engineering priority could have been available as a LR fighter 6 months to a year prior to the Mustang.
You are really not making much sense here. As I stated I don't know if the bag tanks were SS and you showing pictures of aircraft with holes in the aluminum skin is quite meaningless and quite pointless especially since the 2nd photo seems to show a shot down aircraft... The wing tanks in a MK VIII were SS.
The 30 and 45IG SS slipper tanks are not huge and have a small effect on performance. I postulated that a Spit8 could carry a 75IG rear fuselage tank as actually tested, (and twin wing torpedo style DTs with ~50IG each), and a 30 or 45IG slipper tank (229-244IG). This creates a fighter with very similar range, using SS tanks, as a Mustang on internal fuel (221-224IG), when using the same throttle settings. The Mustang must burn about 40IG from it's rear fuselage tank before engaging in combat versus about 35IG for the 75IG rear fuselage tank in the Spit8.
If the Mustang could fly 900 miles on internal fuel then a Spit8, as above, could fly 800-900 miles at the same throttle settings, especially as the slipper tank is released when empty.