Allied Fighter vs Fighter: Is it really necessary ???

[davebender]

I think these aircraft failed to enter mass production for a reason that has nothing to do with bad glue and political rivalry.

The Ju-88G night fighter entered mass production during late 1943 and it worked just fine. Spending resources to place the Ta-154 and He-219 into mass production would have been pointless as these aircraft offered no significant performance increase.

 

[Kurfürst]

Absolutely agree...

 

[davparlr]

Even the Mustangs had to use drop tanks until they engaged to maximize combat flight time.

I 'm not sure what you are trying to get at here, but internal fuel load and aerodynamic efficiency is a decisive factor in effectiveness of an escort fighter. Sure, you should carry enough fuel in drop tanks to make the FEBA (front edge of the battle area) but once they're dropped, usually on contact with the enemy, all you have left to fight with and get home with is internal fuel. As I have said, the P-51 had the advantage over the Spitfire in both internal fuel capacity and in aerodynamic efficiency.

Earlier and I'm sorry I didn't qoute. A comparision of the F4-U and the P-47D were compared. I think the F4U-1 was used and not the F4U-4. Which might have been closer in terms of when they entered service(P-47D and F4U-4). In that case the numbers would look a bit different.

F4U-4 did not become operational until April '45. The P-47D first went operational in May '43. The P-51B/D went operational in December, '43. In my opinion, a more equitable comparison would be the F4U-1A to the P-47D-5 and the P-51D, or the F4U-4 to the P-47M and the P-51H.

 

[RCAFson]

There is an error in your assumptions of Spitfire range vs. Mustang range and it is based on the data you provided. The internal fuel of the Mustang III in the report is 150 gallons, (UK). This is the amount of internal fuel, all wing tanks, of the P-51A and some P-51Bs. It does not include the 85 gallons (U.S) fuselage tank in the majority of P-51B and Ds. Apparently, the British Mustang IIIs did not provide the fuselage tank, the one the data page references certainly did not. An accurate comparison, converted to U.S gallons and the requirement to burn off some fuel from the fuselage tanks (est. 20 gallons), of the P-51B to the Spitfire data page would be; internal fuel P-51, 249 gallons, Spitfire (data page), 144 gallons, and Spitfire (drawing schematic) 194 gallons. It is apparent that the P-51B/D carried substantially more internal fuel than either version of the Spitfire, or, 105 gallons more for the first and 55 gallons more for the latter (for a comparison, this is half the fuel load of a Bf-109).

Internal fuel is critical for an escort fighter. When combat is initiated all external fuel is normally jettisoned. That means that the fighter now must fight with internal fuel but not use the fuel required to go home. I estimated in a previous thread that the P-51 would get about .6 minute of combat for each gallon used. This would equate to an additional hour of combat for the P-51 over the Spitfire version on the data sheet and an additional 30 minutes of combat time for the P-51 over the Spitfire version in the tank drawing. In addition, according to the data provided, the P-51 is 11% more fuel efficient so it would not need the same amount of fuel for the home trip, thus increasing its time on target.

It is apparent that, while the two versions of the Spitfire would be capable of the escort mission (the first marginal), their time on target would be significantly less. Also, since the Spitfire in the drawing has aft tanks like the P-51 fuselage tanks, some cg fuel burn off, like the Mustang, might apply, again affecting time on target.

The Mustang III data card:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-III-ads-3.jpg
has a note at the bottom of the page that states:
with extra fuselage tank of 71gals, increase ranges by:
1) 500 miles at most economical
2) 300 miles at max cruise

giving a range of 1450 miles at econ cruise and 900 miles, at max cruise. both with 221 igals of internal fuel.

Increasing fuel by 71 gals equals 500/300 miles increase in range or 7.04/ miles/igal

The HF Spit IX data card shows a range of 434/252 miles with 85 igal internal fuel while the HF Spit VIII shows a range of 660/390 with 120 igals, so an increase of 35 igals = a 226/138 mile range increase or a 9%/7% fuel economy advantage for the Mustang. Now if we fit a Spit VIII with the increased internal tankage of the Spit IX long range mod, we get 189 igals of internal fuel, for a range on internal fuel of 1105/670 miles. So the Mustang still has an advantage, but it is apparent that the Spitfire VIII with the LR tanks could have performed as a long range escort.

 

[renrich]

The Seafire was not a good carrier fighter as it was too shortranged, it's performance was hampered by being made into a carrier fighter and it was not robust enough. It could never compete as a carrier fighter, no matter what was done to it with purpose built carrier fighters like the Hellcat and Corsair. It's liquid cooled engine was not a good choice because of reliablitiy issues, it was not robust enough and it was just too small. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The Spitfire was a fine design for a short ranged interceptor and IMO, is the most beautiful airplane ever designed, particularly the early models but a carrier borne fighter it was not.

The internal wing tanks were deleted on the F4U1D and the F4U4, in favor of drop tanks but the F4U1 with full internal fuel and a 175 gallon drop tank was carrying a lot of gas. The gas carrying USN fighter champion though was the F4F7 with 685 gallons of internal fuel.

 

[tail end charlie]

The Mustang III data card:

The HF Spit IX data card shows a range of 434/252 miles with 85 igal internal fuel while the HF Spit VIII shows a range of 660/390 with 120 igals, so an increase of 35 igals = a 226/138 mile range increase or a 9%/7% fuel economy advantage for the Mustang. Now if we fit a Spit VIII with the increased internal tankage of the Spit IX long range mod, we get 189 igals of internal fuel, for a range on internal fuel of 1105/670 miles. So the Mustang still has an advantage, but it is apparent that the Spitfire VIII with the LR tanks could have performed as a long range escort.

If the RAF was in need of a long range day escort they would have re engineered the spitfire concentrating on increasing internal fuel capacity and reducing drag while simplifying design to allow mass production.

 

[Messy1]

Very interesting info and views guys. You've got me all very interested in this thread!

 

[Colin1]

It's liquid cooled engine was not a good choice because of reliability issues

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear

I wasn't aware of any reliability issues, either with the Merlin- or Griffon-engined Seafires

A sow's ear? Wrong proverb surely?

 

[Messy1]

I'm sure Renrich is referring to the possibility of the liquid cooled engines suffering damage or malfunction that would damage the cooling system.

 

[Colin1]

The HF Spit IX data card shows a range of 434/252 miles with 85 igal internal fuel while the HF Spit VIII shows a range of 660/390 with 120 igals, so an increase of 35 igals = a 226/138 mile range increase or a 9%/7% fuel economy advantage for the Mustang. Now if we fit a Spit VIII with the increased internal tankage of the Spit IX long range mod, we get 189 igals of internal fuel, for a range on internal fuel of 1105/670 miles. So the Mustang still has an advantage, but it is apparent that the Spitfire VIII with the LR tanks could have performed as a long range escort.

I'm trying to juggle this in my head
but some of your wording has lost me a bit so let me just ask:

How far into Germany do you think a Spitfire VIII long range escort would get and what would be the combat margin once the Luftwaffe showed up and the RAF jettisoned the drop tanks?

Would you describe the Spitfire VIII as suitably armed for a prolongued gunfight?

 

[RCAFson]

The Seafire was not a good carrier fighter as it was too shortranged, it's performance was hampered by being made into a carrier fighter and it was not robust enough. It could never compete as a carrier fighter, no matter what was done to it with purpose built carrier fighters like the Hellcat and Corsair. It's liquid cooled engine was not a good choice because of reliablitiy issues, it was not robust enough and it was just too small. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The Spitfire was a fine design for a short ranged interceptor and IMO, is the most beautiful airplane ever designed, particularly the early models but a carrier borne fighter it was not.

The internal wing tanks were deleted on the F4U1D and the F4U4, in favor of drop tanks but the F4U1 with full internal fuel and a 175 gallon drop tank was carrying a lot of gas. The gas carrying USN fighter champion though was the F4F7 with 685 gallons of internal fuel.

The Seafire certainly had drawbacks but it also must have had access to only a tiny fraction of the engineering resources, used for purpose built fighters, committed to its transformation to a carrier borne fighter. The later variants, such as the Mk XV, achieved much greater robustness and performance, however the Merlin engined Seafire still had some advantages over radial engined fighters, in that it was much lighter and the Seafire III had a very compact form, with the wings folded. A carrier could probably have carried more Seafires than other types, while the cost per aircraft, based upon airframe weight would probably be lower. The rate of climb and low altitude performance was excellent, but the low altitude optimization of the Seafire III makes it appear to be a poor performer, when under 10000ft it was very competitive. However, my point is that the Seafire could have "made do" if it was the only Allied single engined carrier fighter.

 

[RCAFson]

I'm trying to juggle this in my head
but some of your wording has lost me a bit so let me just ask:

How far into Germany do you think a Spitfire VIII long range escort would get and what would be the combat margin once the Luftwaffe showed up and the RAF jettisoned the drop tanks?

Would you describe the Spitfire VIII as suitably armed for a prolongued gunfight?

I started this line of thought to explore the results of a "Spitfire only" Allied fighter force, in response to post 27 in this thread. Yes the LR Spitfire will have less range than a Mustang, but this doesn't prohibit it from performing long range flights, as most German targets were less than 650 miles from 8th AF bases in the UK. The Spitfire VIII data card states that for every 5 minutes at combat power, reduce the range on internal fuel by 80/43 miles. So 15 minutes of combat would give the LR Spitfire 860/540 miles remaining range. USAAF pilots might prefer to fit 4 or 6 x .5" HMG armament with more firing time than cannon armed Spitfires, but a switch to a 2 x 20mm and two by .5" guns would allow a pilot to use the cannon and switch to the .5" when the cannon ammo is gone and thus extend the firing time. Alternatively delete the .5" MGs and use 2 x 20mm with more ammo. There are lots of feasible permutations to explore.

 

[The Basket]

An all Spitfire airforce and navy would be a bad thng.

The Spitfire was a marginal Naval foghter and a marginal ground attacker.

Sticking to a mid 1930s design would be throwing away any new technologies and thinking.

Spitfire does one thing very good...the rest not so much.

 

[tail end charlie]

I started this line of thought to explore the results of a "Spitfire only" Allied fighter force, in response to post 27 in this thread. Yes the LR Spitfire will have less range than a Mustang, but this doesn't prohibit it from performing long range flights, as most German targets were less than 650 miles from 8th AF bases in the UK. The Spitfire VIII data card states that for every 5 minutes at combat power, reduce the range on internal fuel by 80/43 miles. So 15 minutes of combat would give the LR Spitfire 860/540 miles remaining range. USAAF pilots might prefer to fit 4 or 6 x .5" HMG armament with more firing time than cannon armed Spitfires, but a switch to a 2 x 20mm and two by .5" guns would allow a pilot to use the cannon and switch to the .5" when the cannon ammo is gone and thus extend the firing time. Alternatively delete the .5" MGs and use 2 x 20mm with more ammo. There are lots of feasible permutations to explore.

From bits I have read here on these forums and elsewhere

1 The spitfires eliptical wing has fundamentally more drag than the lamellar trapezoidal wing of the mustang.
2 The Mustang was designed from the start to have low drag, From things as major as frontal area and wing aerodynamics and size of control surfaces to as minor as fit of panels and rivet finish it was less draggy.
Less drag not only gives a potentially higher speed but also lower fuel consumption for the same speed/altitude with the same engine.
3 The spitfire due to its original design was marginal on stability, attempts to increase its range made it unstable, this was also true for the mustang but not so pronounced. The Mustang loaded with all internal tanks full was at the limits of stability, but experiments with the spitfire reached those limits much sooner.
4 All the military in WW2 would have preferred canon armament but all also had problems installing it. Cannons mounted in the fuselage were no problem (as in the mosquito) but in the wings were unreliable and for high altitude use needed to be heated. Eventually wing mounted canon in the spitfire were mounted on their sides and belt fed but needed to be kept warm by an air bleed from the radiator. It proved difficult to heat the outside cannon ( the wing was too thin) and so high altitute spitfires generally had two cannon with 4 x 0.303 or 2 x 0.5" MGs. The British initially stuck with the .303 for the same reason as the Americans stuck with the 0.5"....they were good enough for what was required, they worked and it was what they were used to.

 

[tail end charlie]

I'm sure Renrich is referring to the possibility of the liquid cooled engines suffering damage or malfunction that would damage the cooling system.

Reliability is reliability Air or liquid cooled, if you want to read about reliability issues read about the B29 in its early days.

 

[KevinK.]

I 'm not sure what you are trying to get at here, but internal fuel load and aerodynamic efficiency is a decisive factor in effectiveness of an escort fighter. Sure, you should carry enough fuel in drop tanks to make the FEBA (front edge of the battle area) but once they're dropped, usually on contact with the enemy, all you have left to fight with and get home with is internal fuel. As I have said, the P-51 had the advantage over the Spitfire in both internal fuel capacity and in aerodynamic efficiency.

Sorry davparlr, I was agreeing with you. I'm sorry I was not very clear. My point was that Mustangs had to use drop tanks to maximize combat time before fuel restrictions forced them to head home.


[/QUOTE]F4U-4 did not become operational until April '45. The P-47D first went operational in May '43. The P-51B/D went operational in December, '43. In my opinion, a more equitable comparison would be the F4U-1A to the P-47D-5 and the P-51D, or the F4U-4 to the P-47M and the P-51H.[/QUOTE]

I was thinking that the F4U-4 came about in 1943, and that the -5 models came out in late 1944/early 1945. But after solidly checking (I was at work for my original post) You are correct.

Sorry I shot off without being 100%.

 

[KevinK.]

The Seafire was not a good carrier fighter as it was too shortranged, it's performance was hampered by being made into a carrier fighter and it was not robust enough. It could never compete as a carrier fighter, no matter what was done to it with purpose built carrier fighters like the Hellcat and Corsair. It's liquid cooled engine was not a good choice because of reliablitiy issues, it was not robust enough and it was just too small. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The Spitfire was a fine design for a short ranged interceptor and IMO, is the most beautiful airplane ever designed, particularly the early models but a carrier borne fighter it was not.

The internal wing tanks were deleted on the F4U1D and the F4U4, in favor of drop tanks but the F4U1 with full internal fuel and a 175 gallon drop tank was carrying a lot of gas. The gas carrying USN fighter champion though was the F4F7 with 685 gallons of internal fuel.

renrich, that's why the Brits found ways to get the landing problems on carriers out of F4U-1's and took several squadrons of them to help replace the SeaSpits.

 

[Njaco]

I think these aircraft failed to enter mass production for a reason that has nothing to do with bad glue and political rivalry.

The Ju-88G night fighter entered mass production during late 1943 and it worked just fine. Spending resources to place the Ta-154 and He-219 into mass production would have been pointless as these aircraft offered no significant performance increase.

I stand corrected Milosh and should get 20 lashes for that faux pa! Dave, I agree that the glue wasn't the main reason but I do think it hindered production. I still think the stress of Allied bombing sent designs scrambling for the best answer to it.

 

[timmy]

Its amazing how it worked out so well for the allies compared to the axis I think

You could argue that the allies only had one good fighter up to 1943 (spitfire)

But by the second half of 1943 they had so much choice at their disposal they really must of licking their lips
By 1943 the Mustang/Corsair/Lightning/Thunderbolt/Hellcat a lot of those problematic designs early in their development
Where finally ready for mass production. I'm not sure how many they built...maybe 20 000 units each ???

Which i think worked out well in the end. All those designs had a particular strength which must have made high command very happy.
The Germans still with only the 109/190 and over investing in extremely problematic Jet aircraft. Have must have been so envious

 

[renrich]

Timmy, if one checks the record, the F4F Wildcat had much more success in the Pacific in 1942 than did the Spitfire. There may have been reasons for that other than the performance of the Spitfire but the fact remains that, based on results, the Spitfire was not as good a fighter as the F4F in 1942, early 1943, in the Pacific.

The USN and IMO correctly, was prejudiced against liquid cooled engines for reliability reasons. In Shores' books, time and time again British fighters were U/S because of glycol leaks and were brought down by minor damage. In fact the Japanese were said to, being aware of the cooling system vulnerability of the liquid cooled engines, have specifically aimed at the areas where cooling system damage would disable the British fighters.

The Seafire offered no substantial performance advantage over the A6M and, in several areas, was significantly inferior to the Zeke. This was not true in comparison to the Hellcat and Corsair. In fact in many respects, the Seafire was inferior to the Wildcat (Martlet.) If the Allies had to depend on a prewar design for it's carrier fighter, the Pacific War would have been lengthened if that design was the Spitfire. Every modification to the Spitfire to make it more suitable as a shipboard fighter robbed it of some of the characteristics which made it a great design. The last model of the Wildcat, the F2M, was a pretty good airplane and soldiered on through the whole war both in the PTO and ETO.