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

[Shortround6]

SR6,

Did not the Griffon engine burn fuel at a higher rate than the Merlin (Spitfires)? That would no doubt cut into range / time on station/ actual combat time.

Cheers,
Biff

The Griffon not only burned fuel a bit faster, it cut into the room needed for the upper fuselage tank. The combination certainly cut into "range / time on station/ actual combat time."
until (or even after) more fuel stowage could be arranged. Slightly larger wing tanks than the Spit VIII for instance.

 

[BiffF15]

The Griffon not only burned fuel a bit faster, it cut into the room needed for the upper fuselage tank. The combination certainly cut into "range / time on station/ actual combat time."
until (or even after) more fuel stowage could be arranged. Slightly larger wing tanks than the Spit VIII for instance.

Okay, with that being the case how would one be able to get enough fuel into or on such a small frame to get deep into Germany? I'm missing something here I think.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Dan Fahey]

The reasoning that the P40 was better at ground attack. After that task, it was just a much better smaller more agile fighter at low medium altitude. Compared to the P47 designed with a high altitude Turbo Supercharger. The P47 performed well. It was a rugged expensive airplane to operate. What made it an effective fighter. It had time to climb to altitude. It attributes were maximized and was a good combat weapon but at very high altitude and top cover. This was a key complaint about the P47 and would have been if the P38 could dive without hitting compressibility. High diving speed and maneuvering through it was critical and made the P40 a survivable Aircraft. The P40 was phased out as the war moved away from its effective range. Just like the Spitfire...taken over by combat aircraft that could fight effectively from a long distance. Sure great to get to altitude to fight the enemy but to damn low on fuel to fight and extended battle which was a critical attribute of the P40.

This issue would have been the same for the Corsair and Helcat if it were not for mobile airbases (carriers) and ability to share combat space with land base fields. The beauty of the Mustang was its flexibility and ability grow and morph into every combat situation effectively, and cost effectively and Enough speed to take on the Jets of the era.

When Korea began we had the Mustang and Corsair as the dominant WW2 aircraft available. For some reason the French ended up with the Hellcat and Bearcat.
For all the whipping up that the P47 would have been a better CAS Ground attack plane than the Mustang. There was no place it could be used in Korea for the first year, The Spitfire was a disaster in Korea...but the Fury was outstanding... had the P40Q been built it would have done well in that combat environment.

Two aircraft that would have been a significant upgrade to the war efforts was the Martin Baker MB3 and MB5.. But then again hindsight is 50-50..!

 

[RCAFson]

Okay, with that being the case how would one be able to get enough fuel into or on such a small frame to get deep into Germany? I'm missing something here I think.

Cheers,
Biff

Total internal fuel on the Mk XIV was 111IG but the FR MkXIV carried a 31IG fuselage tank for 142IG (in addition to rear fuselage mounted cameras). The MkXIV could have carried a 77IG fuselage tankw with a total of 186IG internal. The PR recon version carried 217 IG internally and the pressurized variant carried 257IG internally, but these variants deleted the armament.

As we've seen, the Mk XIV had excellent performance and handling with a 90IG ST, and total fuel on that was potentially 277IG. Max TO weight was 10280lb, so the aircraft could have handled wing mounted DTs and increased total fuel to ~375IG.

 

[Mad Dog]

The fact that Hurricane pilots only attacked from a position of advantage and continued diving away after the engagement, and were forbidden to dogfight JAAF aircraft only strengthens the argument as to it's obsolescence.

Not when you consider that was also the standard orders for the 7./JG26 pilots flying Bf109E-7s against Hurricane I Trops over Malta in 1941. The 109s were far superior to the Hurricanes available, but the Germans wanted to minimize their losses by choosing tactics that maximized their chances of success. It's not about obsolecence, it's just smart tactics.

 

[MiTasol]

Spitfire couldn't fly safely with 160 IG of internal fuel

There were also severe restrictions on the Mustang and other aircraft when they had a full fuselage tank but the procedure in all cases was to draw from that tank first so your comment is basically of no consequence,

 

[XBe02Drvr]

There were also severe restrictions on the Mustang and other aircraft when they had a full fuselage tank but the procedure in all cases was to draw from that tank first so your comment is basically of no consequence,

Not necessarily. A long range escort fighter generally has a long period of climbing and cruising before being required to engage in combat maneuvering. A point defense interceptor doesn't have that option unless it can empty that tank in the climb. How long would 160 IG last with a Merlin in "buster" climb mode?

 

[pbehn]

Not necessarily. A long range escort fighter generally has a long period of climbing and cruising before being required to engage in combat maneuvering. A point defense interceptor doesn't have that option unless it can empty that tank in the climb. How long would 160 IG last with a Merlin in "buster" climb mode?

About an hour I think. In the roundest of round figures it used 150 gph on full power and 50 gph on cruise.

 

[MiTasol]

Not necessarily. A long range escort fighter generally has a long period of climbing and cruising before being required to engage in combat maneuvering. A point defense interceptor doesn't have that option unless it can empty that tank in the climb. How long would 160 IG last with a Merlin in "buster" climb mode?

You don't need to burn off the lot - just the volume that causes pushes the CG envelope into the restricted area. I don't have the numbers handy but as example on the Mustang the rear tank restrictions only applied when you had more than x gallons in that tank. Taxi, takeoff and climb to above your intended target so you can hit them at full speed instead of climb speed when an interceptor is going to burn a lot of that off and probably move you out of the restrictions though maneuvering will still suffer while you have fuel sloshing around in that tank.

 

[Shortround6]

You don't need to burn off the lot - just the volume that causes pushes the CG envelope into the restricted area. I don't have the numbers handy but as example on the Mustang the rear tank restrictions only applied when you had more than x gallons in that tank. Taxi, takeoff and climb to above your intended target so you can hit them at full speed instead of climb speed when an interceptor is going to burn a lot of that off and probably move you out of the restrictions though maneuvering will still suffer while you have fuel sloshing around in that tank.

You are quite right but you do have know which airplane you are dealing with and what mods may have been done or not done to the planes.
One some of these planes the take-off and climb to somewhere around 5,000ft was done on the main (normal) tank/s and then the rear fuselage tank was drawn down to the "safe" level before the drop tanks were used. On a P-51 that still left a lot of fuel in the rear tank.
Then you can get into arguing about which radios were fitted where, any other extra gear, different safety margins between war time flying and peace time and other things.
Not having flown any of these planes my opinion doesn't mean much but I think the Spitfire could have used some sort of rear tank. The question is how big a one and when.
Look at the games they played just fitting different propellers to the MK I Spits and the different amounts of ballast that was used, Wooden stick got lead shoved in the engine mounts tubes and other weights. two Pitch props go the lead taken out, DH prop with constant speed pump fitted had different ballast, Rotol prop had even more ballast shoved in the tail. That is if I remember right. Four different weight set ups just for the propellers on the MK I.
Now which Spitfires got the tanks in rear of the fuselage? Any difference in the engines? A Merlin 66 or 79 was supposed to weigh 1645lbs while a Merlin 266 was supposed to weigh 1675lbs, I don't know if the Packard was actually heavier or if they included something RR didn't. Engine weights were not always the same, Allison included things like the exhaust flange, gasket and nuts/washers but the exhaust pipes were the responsibility of the airframe maker for instance.

Also consider that even a MK IX Spit was a 7250lb airplane with full normal load, A P-40E with only 37 gal (US) in the rear tank was over 8000lbs and a P-51B without the rear tank and clean was approaching 9000lbs. Now lets stick a tank with even 25 imp gallon in the rear fuselage of all three planes at the same point aft of the CG and see what happens to each plane.
And we are not considering the tail plane size, the elevator size and any trim tabs to help control things when they get out of whack.

Saying the Mustang could do it so the Spitfire should be able to it too ignores a whole bunch of things. Now maybe you could modify the Spitfire to improve things.

My friends full size pickup truck can tow a 3500lb trailer, the trailer will fit behind my Hyundai Tucson and you could get the hitch to line up. Doesn't mean I should drive the rig on the hi-way let alone try to drive it down hill.

 

[SaparotRob]

If you do drive it down hill, could you post it to YouTube?

 

[glennasher]

My friends full size pickup truck can tow a 3500lb trailer, the trailer will fit behind my Hyundai Tucson and you could get the hitch to line up. Doesn't mean I should drive the rig on the hi-way let alone try to drive it down hill.

As you've noted, it ain't the GO!, it's the WHOA! that matters most when towing. If you can't stop or steer effectively, your vehicle is too small for the chore, kinda like the Groundhog.

 

[Shortround6]

As you've noted, it ain't the GO!, it's the WHOA! that matters most when towing. If you can't stop or steer effectively, your vehicle is too small for the chore, kinda like the Groundhog.

Sort of like when the tail of the aircraft tries to pass out the front. Just you have empty space in the tail doesn't mean you should try to fill it with something.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

an interceptor is going to burn a lot of that off and probably move you out of the restrictions though maneuvering will still suffer while you have fuel sloshing around in that tank.

You mean there aren't any baffles in that tank? Any tank whose contents potentially compromises stability or maneuverability is supposed to be baffled against slosh effect.

 

[Shortround6]

You mean there aren't any baffles in that tank? Any tank whose contents potentially compromises stability or maneuverability is supposed to be baffled against slosh effect.

Well, the rear tank in the Hawk 75 doesn't have any baffles in the description while the two wing tanks are described with baffles?
An error or disinformation or a a cunning plan?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

An error or disinformation or a a cunning plan?

I go with error of omission.

 

[MiTasol]

You mean there aren't any baffles in that tank? Any tank whose contents potentially compromises stability or maneuverability is supposed to be baffled against slosh effect.

Two things.

• Baffles slow down the movement of fuel from compartment to compartment but they do not eliminate it, and
• The compartments themselves are big enough that the fuel sloshes inside them.

It is always a compromise where more baffles equals less slosh equals less fuel volume and equals a heavier tank. The object is to keep the fuel movement to a level that does not compromise safety.

 

[MikeMeech]

You are quite right but you do have know which airplane you are dealing with and what mods may have been done or not done to the planes.
One some of these planes the take-off and climb to somewhere around 5,000ft was done on the main (normal) tank/s and then the rear fuselage tank was drawn down to the "safe" level before the drop tanks were used. On a P-51 that still left a lot of fuel in the rear tank.
Then you can get into arguing about which radios were fitted where, any other extra gear, different safety margins between war time flying and peace time and other things.
Not having flown any of these planes my opinion doesn't mean much but I think the Spitfire could have used some sort of rear tank. The question is how big a one and when.
Look at the games they played just fitting different propellers to the MK I Spits and the different amounts of ballast that was used, Wooden stick got lead shoved in the engine mounts tubes and other weights. two Pitch props go the lead taken out, DH prop with constant speed pump fitted had different ballast, Rotol prop had even more ballast shoved in the tail. That is if I remember right. Four different weight set ups just for the propellers on the MK I.
Now which Spitfires got the tanks in rear of the fuselage? Any difference in the engines? A Merlin 66 or 79 was supposed to weigh 1645lbs while a Merlin 266 was supposed to weigh 1675lbs, I don't know if the Packard was actually heavier or if they included something RR didn't. Engine weights were not always the same, Allison included things like the exhaust flange, gasket and nuts/washers but the exhaust pipes were the responsibility of the airframe maker for instance.

Also consider that even a MK IX Spit was a 7250lb airplane with full normal load, A P-40E with only 37 gal (US) in the rear tank was over 8000lbs and a P-51B without the rear tank and clean was approaching 9000lbs. Now lets stick a tank with even 25 imp gallon in the rear fuselage of all three planes at the same point aft of the CG and see what happens to each plane.
And we are not considering the tail plane size, the elevator size and any trim tabs to help control things when they get out of whack.

Saying the Mustang could do it so the Spitfire should be able to it too ignores a whole bunch of things. Now maybe you could modify the Spitfire to improve things.

My friends full size pickup truck can tow a 3500lb trailer, the trailer will fit behind my Hyundai Tucson and you could get the hitch to line up. Doesn't mean I should drive the rig on the hi-way let alone try to drive it down hill.

Hi
From 'Spitfire, The History' page 334, Loading and C.G. diagram for Mk. IX and Mk. XVI, numbers 9 and 17 reference rear tanks:

Official drawing of Mk. IX rear tanks from SAM Modellers Datafile 3, page 115:

And, for information from same publication, the Mk. VIII leading edge tank:

Mike

 

[Zipper730]

Okay, so the fuel tanks are on the C/G, the wing tanks are slightly aft of it, and the aft tanks are clearly aft of it. So you can work with the forward tanks and wing tanks, or forward tanks and aft tanks, but not both simultaneously on the Mk.VIII?

I'm not sure why the Mk.IX could pull it off, but maybe it had to do with the difference in fuel carried up front.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I'm not sure why the Mk.IX could pull it off, but maybe it had to do with the difference in fuel carried up front.

Or increased weight firewall forward.