Best Long Range Fighter of WWII

[Glider]

Well, basically all Bf 109F, G, Ks could... they had 1000-1200 miles range with a droptank. FW 190As ditto, with a single, jettisonable droptank. Some 109/190s had two droptanks with a bit longer legs I presume. That's not radius of course, but range then again, then again, it's the same in the case of some planes on your lists (Spits - none of them could actually return after flying 1000 miles distance).

Spit VIII with drop tanks, could easily cover 1000 statute miles with a max range of 1265 statute miles.
I am not sure about late production Spit IX's. They had a significant increase in internal fuel (extra 77 gallons), but I don't know what the range increase was.

 

[drgondog]

Well, basically all Bf 109F, G, Ks could... they had 1000-1200 miles range with a droptank. FW 190As ditto, with a single, jettisonable droptank. Some 109/190s had two droptanks with a bit longer legs I presume. That's not radius of course, but range then again, then again, it's the same in the case of some planes on your lists (Spits - none of them could actually return after flying 1000 miles distance).

Kurfurst - that is a suprise. Could you point me to sources for 500+ mile radius escort (or even fighter bomber) missions for either of those?

 

[Kurfürst]

Kurfurst - that is a suprise. Could you point me to sources for 500+ mile radius escort (or even fighter bomber) missions for either of those?

I can't, but doesn't mean too much since I was never too much into operational details, being rather more interested in the cold, heartless technical details. Perhaps someone who's more buried into Tagjagd operations can answer the question, I can't. I presume the resupply missions in the Med would probaly a good place to look...

On the other hand, I own a lot of Bf 109 tech manuals, including very detailed range tables for the 109F-4 and FW 190A, so I can be very sure of this. I don't have much for the later G models from Germans, however there are multiple British documents on this matter in good agreement.

This one is the German datasheet (not the range table - Reichweitentabelle - which gives the same figures) for the 109F-4, FW 190A with an early BMW 801 engine, and preliminary figures for the Bf 109G-1 (calculated from performance measured on a Bf 109F-4 in Rechlin, however the G-1 is in unknown conditions).

Noteworthy is that they except the 109G to be of somewhat higher ranged than the 109F. This is presumably due to the better fuel effiency, and higher rated altitude of the high compression ratio DB 605A engine.

This is a British intel table from early 1945, comparing British types to basic Luftwaffe equivalents (or close. They seem to me more like 1943 versions of the 109G/190A)

And this from the British Middle-East report on the Bf 109G-2/trop they captured there, nowadays it's better known as the 'Black Six'.

This latter 109G range table was later reduced by British AI. by 20% for the most economical settings, without touching the high-speed cruise ranges, however they don't give much of a reasoning why and how the correction was made (other British docs however show a 20% deduction made for safety, navigational errors etc.), and the later doc posted below again gives a touch bit higher figures. Unfortunately, I don't have the original BF 109G range tables to check against.

 

[Kurfürst]

Spit VIII with drop tanks, could easily cover 1000 statute miles with a max range of 1265 statute miles.

Of course it could. Point I was making, after covering that 1000 statute miles, it couldn't return on another 1000 mile journey, since the original poster's question was 1000 miles radius - rather different than range.

I am not sure about late production Spit IX's. They had a significant increase in internal fuel (extra 77 gallons), but I don't know what the range increase was.

Please see below. However, the Spitfire manuals are rather clear about the serious stability issues arising from the use of the rear tank, and specifiy that only if special orders are issued from the proper place may those tank be used. Encountering enemy aircraft with those rear tanks filled would be simply not viable.

Simply to put, those rear tanks were ferry tanks at best for one-way sorties, not enchancing operational range much, ie. for escort jobs. See the problem is that the aircraft has to be able to return on internal fuel only from the mission, otherwise it's a pig burdened with a droppable fuel tank.

The range of the Spitfire IX on it's 85 gallon internal was rather limited at around 450 miles, at that's flying at speed at which even an over-ambitious Stuka could intercept it. Even fully using up 90 gallon tank is rather impractical, since it's a bit of a fix to return from a place on 85 gallons when it took 90 gallons to get there in the first place.. Of course the 90 gallon tank is fully viable for the VIII with it's 120 gallon internal capacity.

 

[Kurfürst]

Yeah, but there has been topics about how they could have used drop tanks in BOB.

Actually, they seem to have used droptanks in the BoB.

The early Bf 109Es could not use a droptank, and even on the most ecomical settings they were restricted to 660 km or so range.

The Bf 109E-7 was the first variant capable of using an external droptank, and it entered combat in the end August 1940, in the midst of the heaviest fighting.
With the 300 liter droptank, which become standard (I presume it was originally made for the Ju 87 R) it's range increased to a maximum 1325 km, and the endurance to 3 hours 50 min, however it took some time for it to arrive in numbers and make it's presence felt on the battlefield.

 

[drgondog]

I can't, but doesn't mean too much since I was never too much into operational details, being rather more interested in the cold, heartless technical details. Perhaps someone who's more buried into Tagjagd operations can answer the question, I can't. I presume the resupply missions in the Med would probaly a good place to look...

On the other hand, I own a lot of Bf 109 tech manuals, including very detailed range tables for the 109F-4 and FW 190A, so I can be very sure of this. I don't have much for the later G models from Germans, however there are multiple British documents on this matter in good agreement.

This one is the German datasheet (not the range table - Reichweitentabelle - which gives the same figures) for the 109F-4, FW 190A with an early BMW 801 engine, and preliminary figures for the Bf 109G-1 (calculated from performance measured on a Bf 109F-4 in Rechlin, however the G-1 is in unknown conditions).

Noteworthy is that they except the 109G to be of somewhat higher ranged than the 109F. This is presumably due to the better fuel effiency, and higher rated altitude of the high compression ratio DB 605A engine.

This is a British intel table from early 1945, comparing British types to basic Luftwaffe equivalents (or close. They seem to me more like 1943 versions of the 109G/190A)

And this from the British Middle-East report on the Bf 109G-2/trop they captured there, nowadays it's better known as the 'Black Six'.

This latter 109G range table was later reduced by British AI. by 20% for the most economical settings, without touching the high-speed cruise ranges, however they don't give much of a reasoning why and how the correction was made (other British docs however show a 20% deduction made for safety, navigational errors etc.), and the later doc posted below again gives a touch bit higher figures. Unfortunately, I don't have the original BF 109G range tables to check against.

Still - pretty interesting - thx

 

[Glider]

Thanks for the info on the Spit IX with the long range tanks.
I like the bit about if you have a rear view fuselage then they shouldn't be used in any situations. Not much point fitting them in the first place?

 

[drgondog]

Please see below. However, the Spitfire manuals are rather clear about the serious stability issues arising from the use of the rear tank, and specifiy that only if special orders are issued from the proper place may those tank be used. Encountering enemy aircraft with those rear tanks filled would be simply not viable.

I wouldn't think the issues would be any more serious than the aft cg problems the P-51 had with the 85 gallon tank behind cockpit - SOP was burn it first - at least down to 20 gallons. Most pilots (my father included) burned it down all the way perferring not to have a flammable reserve in combat/strafing

Simply to put, those rear tanks were ferry tanks at best for one-way sorties, not enchancing operational range much, ie. for escort jobs. See the problem is that the aircraft has to be able to return on internal fuel only from the mission, otherwise it's a pig burdened with a droppable fuel tank.

True to a point but the external tanks were second to be burned off, then internal wing tanks in order.

The range of the Spitfire IX on it's 85 gallon internal was rather limited at around 450 miles, at that's flying at speed at which even an over-ambitious Stuka could intercept it.

Kurfurst - actually the best cruise speed would be affected by the extra fuel.. but only a few knots maybe, but I'm guessing that a Stuka might only be able to catch a Spit in cruise speed in a dive.

I don't actually know what the cruise speed of a Spit would be - but it would be much faster going to an R/V point than 'essing' across bombers during escort... 51's were generally doing about 200-220 IAS during escort to bombers doing 150 mph IAS and a Spit using the same basic engine should be doing somewhere aout the same depending on blower and rpm config

The best cruise settings for low blower in a 51D with a -7 Packard Merlin (merlin 66?) was 26-27 inches of Mercury, 2000 rpm at 16,500 feet ------250 mph TAS, 220 kts TAS, 200 mph IAS

LOL could a Stuka climb that far to dive on a Spit (Joking)

 

[Kurfürst]

I wouldn't think the issues would be any more serious than the aft cg problems the P-51 had with the 85 gallon tank behind cockpit - SOP was burn it first - at least down to 20 gallons. Most pilots (my father included) burned it down all the way perferring not to have a flammable reserve in combat/strafing
...
True to a point but the external tanks were second to be burned off, then internal wing tanks in order.

The trouble with the Spit is not as much the CoG if you think it over. Ie. following the SOP on the Spit :

Burn off 85 gallons in the rear aux tank in towards the target, then switch to droptank.
Burn off 90 gallons in the droptank to get further towards the target, then
Drop dropanks, switch to internal fuel tank

Optionally fight at combat rating - 150 gallons being consumed per our on max output, or about 12.5 gall/5 min.

Do the math and scratch the back of your head Return on what's left from the remaining 85 gallons internal..

The Mustang didn't have it's problem, since it's internal capacity even without the rear tank 2 times or greater than the normal 85 gallon internal on the Spit. Basically it's the permanent internal capacity that defines radius and the point of no return.

Hence why I said the rear tank was more of a ferry (ie. one way) tank for Spits.

Oh, the Spits eco-cruise on which it achieved 450-odd miles on 85 gallon internal was something like 220 mph TAS, so yes indeed a Stuka could catch up with that, being somewhat faster on all out. Seriously, it just meant to illustrate that eco-speeds (and ranges) are not always viable over enemy airspace.

 

[drgondog]

The trouble with the Spit is not as much the CoG if you think it over. Ie. following the SOP on the Spit :

Burn off 85 gallons in the rear aux tank in towards the target, then switch to droptank.
Burn off 90 gallons in the droptank to get further towards the target, then
Drop dropanks, switch to internal fuel tank

Optionally fight at combat rating - 150 gallons being consumed per our on max output, or about 12.5 gall/5 min.Do the math and scratch the back of your head Return on what's left from the remaining 85 gallons internal..



Good question - This is the key to discussing both the 51 and the Spit.. in the case of the 51 you burn at least 65 of the 85, burn the two 75's for a total of 215 gallons before touching internal fuel in wings (Best Case - no fight before this occurs) and have the 184 gallons (plus the remaining 20 in fuse) left to fight and return. Combat anywhere short forces you to punch the 75's short of consumption. This happened and the 51 returned earlier than planned. but you couldn't depend on full consumption of drop tanks so the Internal Fuel was determinant of Point of no return as you say.

So you have to plan a mission based on what it takes to fight after target and still have a reserve for weather, etc

At cruise the 51 burns about 48 gal/hr.. at full throttle about 60+ (My memory could be wrong on this - it's been nearly 50 years since I last flew one-and I never ran at full boost!). Does the Spit Rolls really burn more than 2.5x the -7 Packard Merlin at full throttle? - if it does that would explain why Spits weren't used for long range escort..

Do you know offhand what was Spit fuel consumption during low blower cruise to compare with 51D?

Take that a little further - most air combat was over in less than 5 minutes - but most missions were planned for 20 minutes max fuel consumption plus 30 minute reserve for weather, etc. - so for a 51, plan the mission for about 20 plus 24 gallons (1gal/minute full power plus 24 gallons on cruise). That implied you need to get home on 204-44 gallons. You better be thinking about this when you reached ~ 160 gallons of wing fuel... but zero contingency other than reserve says max plan radius = cruise speed x160 Gallons/48 gallons per hour = 830 miles assuming get into fight AT the target and do not return to escort

For a refinement - assume escort all the way to target and back to R/V point. For the long range escort, the 51s were with the bombers about an hour on Target escort in and out to point of R/V with relieving Fighter Group. Independent of combat thats about 48 gallons weaving above a bomber stream moving at 200 mph in-220mph after Bombs Away. Take conservative - 200 miles in an hour. Take the combat reserve and weather reserve of 44 gallons.

So, radius to inbound R/V = same as out bound after leaving R/V - at 250 mph and 48 gallons per hour consumption. Your practical radius is about what 136 gallons can take you after coming 100 miles back from target using up 24 gallons of your 160.

So, you're down to 100 miles plus 136/48 x 250 mph TAS = 708 = 808 mile radius with 44 gallons reserve. - no combat, no headwings, no battle damage



For a Spit, he might do a reverse depending on where enemy reaction expected- Cg problems more or less disappeared around 20+ gallons remaining so you burn about 30 of the 90 external tank, burn about 65 of the internal.. and decision time occurs about about now..

If the Spit long range escort (for them) said they also needed 44 gallons reserve at point of no return then their return point was 90+20 -44 = 66 gallons at 250 mph (assume quit escort - go home)

The math implies about 66/48 x 250 mph TAS = 340+ miles plan radius - about like the P-47 in early 1944.

ASSUMING I JUST DID THE MATH _ Correctly


I love the phrase "do the math" - I think I have used that before..but seriously, the math I just did for Spit is absent your confirming Spit fuel consumption in comparison with 51 ia about the same

Oh, the Spits eco-cruise on which it achieved 450-odd miles on 85 gallon internal was something like 220 mph TAS, so yes indeed a Stuka could catch up with that, being somewhat faster on all out. Seriously, it just meant to illustrate that eco-speeds (and ranges) are not always viable over enemy airspace.

I agree your point and many a Mustang mission plan went awry when confronted with an early fight - or any fight on a long range mission. The serious contingency planning was all about internal wing fuel being the determinant on point of no return... that was a planning point at every briefing in the 355th

On September 18, 1944 my father gave strict orders that no 355th pilot do more than drive interceptors away during the Shuttle Mission over Warsaw -possibly preventing the 355th from really hurting JG51 by chasing them after initial engagement... and he sent one flight at a time to intercept.

He had maybe 20 minutes left after reaching Piryatin after 7:50 in the cockpit - then flew up to Poltava to refuel and meet with bomber commander.

The difference there was which was point of no return - distance to Piryatin or Steeple Morden..

Regards,

Bill

 

[renrich]

The combat radius of the P51D at 11,100 TOGW was 700 miles at an altitude of 25000 ft and that with 269 gallons of internal and 150 gallons of external fuel. That assumed warm up, takeoff and climb out, 20 min of mid point combat and 30 min of reserves. I don't believe any 109, 190 or Spitfire ever carried that distribution of fuel load or achieved that combat radius during WW2.

 

[renrich]

I believe the P51 could get by on less than 48 gph at cruise. The Corsair could use as little as 42 gallons per hour at cruise and it was not nearly as economical as the Mustang.

 

[Hop]

Thanks for the info on the Spit IX with the long range tanks.
I like the bit about if you have a rear view fuselage then they shouldn't be used in any situations. Not much point fitting them in the first place?

The manual extract Kurfurst posted is from 1946. Post war safety standards were higher, and the RAF went so far as to remove the rear fuselage tanks from most of their Mustangs for safety reasons.

In general, the Spitfire suffered the same stability problems with rear tanks as the Mustang, indeed the RAF manuals for the Spitfire IX and Mustang III (P-51B/C) give slightly greater restrictions for the Mustang:

Spitfire:
"Acrobatics are not permitted when carrying any external stores (except the 30-gallon " blister " drop tank) nor when the rear fuselage tanks contain more than 30 gallons of fuel, and are not recommended when the rear fuselage tanks contain any fuel."

Mustang:
"Flick manoeuvres arc not permitted. When carrying bombs or drop tanks, or with fuel in fuselage tank, aerobatics are prohibited."

I'd expect restrictions to be a bit worse on the P-51D, which wasn't as stable as the B, and a bit better on a Spitfire with wing tanks (more weight forward of the CG)

 

[drgondog]

I believe the P51 could get by on less than 48 gph at cruise. The Corsair could use as little as 42 gallons per hour at cruise and it was not nearly as economical as the Mustang.

Rich I know you are right but the 48 gph was Packard Merlin spec for 1650-7 so that's what I used for calulations... and that applied to low blower at 16,500 feet - cruise in 8th AF would have been 26-30K at high blower

Dad could easily get 42+ but had to watch temperatures pretty close. Would be easy today with EGT/CHT sensor pkg.

 

[IdahoRenegade]

I went with the '38L but a good argument can be made for the 47N as well. The '51D was a great plane, but that's a long dam way to go with a single liquid cooled engine where one bullet anywhere in the cooling system means you're not driving home. Over Europe, captured pilots weren't treated too terribly as a rule by their captors. Over the Pacific, with 1000 miles of shark infested water or a Japanese prison camp as choices...I'd take either 2 liquid cooled engines, or a R2800.

 

[gumbyk]

Holy thread resurrection, Batman!!!!

 

[IdahoRenegade]

Holy thread resurrection, Batman!!!!

Oops, Yes, sorry. I was typing in the heading for a new topic and this one came up-didn't realize it was a necro thread.

 

[pbehn]

Oops, Yes, sorry. I was typing in the heading for a new topic and this one came up-didn't realize it was a necro thread.

Some new guys like to re start the conversation, can be interesting.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Oops, Yes, sorry. I was typing in the heading for a new topic and this one came up-didn't realize it was a necro thread.

No worries. Sometimes it brings up new interesting discussion.

The guys will just mess with you though...

 

[pbehn]

No worries. Sometimes it brings up new interesting discussion.

The guys will just mess with you though...

The last eleven years has seen a great improvement in the Merlins now we have fixed the oil leaks, also the P47 climb performance has vastly improved. Now if only we could sort out the dreadful take off and landing accidents on the Bf109 we would be making some real progress.