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.
Of course the 90 gallon tank is fully viable for the VIII with it's 120 gallon internal capacity.
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.
Please see below.
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.
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.
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.No worries. Sometimes it brings up new interesting discussion.
The guys will just mess with you though...
