Best US escort fighter in ETO during 1943?

pbehn said:

Without a fleet of bombers why would you make an ultra long range fighter in Europe?

Click to expand...

There were quite a few other things these fighters were tasked with over Germany besides escorting of heavies.

DarrenW said:

There were quite a few other things these fighters were tasked with over Germany besides escorting of heavies.

Click to expand...

I know, but by the end of the war more Mustangs were lost to ground fire than to enemy action. By that time the LW had been pushed back and already weakened. Without the fleet of bombers overhead to occupy the defending fighters interest it is a long way in and out.

DarrenW said:

I see a lot of modifying going on here....

Click to expand...

Addition of rear fuel tanks, change of bottom front tank as it is alredy done on Spitfire VIII. Much less of a hassle that in was introduction of cut-back rear fuselage and addition of bubble top on P-47s, P-51s and some Spitfires.

DarrenW said:

So what you saying is, the Spit would have been the far better choice for long range escort than the Thunderbolt or Lightning but politics mucked things up???

Click to expand...

RAF didn't have a doctrine demanding long range fighters until too late to matter, while USAAC/AAF expected that their bombers will defend themselves. As a fighter, Spitfire have had several things going on for it when compared with P-47s or P-38s, like being already debugged machine (both airframe and engines), smaller size, better rate of climb, no problems with high speed dive. Particularly vs. P-38: no cold an messy cockpit on Spitfires, far less blind spots, much better dive capability, even the rate of roll was better on Spitfire until 1944. No problems with radios, as experienced with P-47s in 1943.
So yes, a Spitfire with apropriate fuel content would've been a better choice for long range escort than P-38, and possibly the P-47.

pbehn said:

Without a fleet of bombers why would you make an ultra long range fighter in Europe? You may find that someone wants to fight with you for more than 20 mins or not let you cruise home at your most economical setting.

Click to expand...

RAF was also fighting in North Africa and, from late 1941, in Asia, where long range was not just nice to have but a necessity.

tomo pauk said:

A


RAF was also fighting in North Africa and, from late 1941, in Asia, where long range was not just nice to have but a necessity.

Click to expand...

I know Tomo that's why the spitfire VIII was mainly sent to Malta and the far east.

I like the Spitfire so it's hard for me to be critical of it. But if we are talking after modifications here then I would contend that the P-47 would be the better choice in an escort role. And to me this has already been proven out, especially after it was modified to carry more internal and external fuel of course.

DarrenW said:

So what you saying is, the Spit would have been the far better choice for long range escort than the Thunderbolt or Lightning but politics mucked things up???

Click to expand...

It isn't what I was saying. It could have been made to be of similar performance to the P-47, but that wasn't good enough anyway. Many Spitfires were used on early raids handing over to P-47s. But if they were handing over to more spitfires who would make them and fly them? From when a Merlin was put in a Mustang in June 1942 it was clear that it was the answer. It was just a question getting them made and into service. and they started to arrive in the summer of 1943.

Peter Gunn said:

I'd cite the Battle of the Phillippine Sea circa 1944, the Japanese fleet was 275 miles away, at the very limit of the strike range for the USN aircraft, Hellcat included.

Click to expand...

I hear you Pete, but from what I know of Naval operations, there are a lot of things that have to come together in order to launch a coordinated strike on the enemy. The Hellcat's combat radius was 350-400 statute miles so by itself it could have easily flown those missions but of course they weren't the only concern when the planning was taking place. And if you slapped one or two extra drop tanks on them (which unlike other aircraft, wasn't a modification) they could have gone even farther but then they'd lose the coordinated support of the fleet at that point so that would be a really bad idea all way around.

I think one of the reasons everyone is talking past each other here is that the OP wasn't specific enough.

You don't have that many generalized solutions in a single airframe. Even the P-51 had it's limitations, the Spit, the Zero, the Fw 190 and the Bf 109 certainly did as well.

First, I'd stipulate, feel free to mix Anglo and American types since they did historically, but stick to historical aircraft, no 'what-ifs'.

And then maybe it makes more sense if you break it up into specific real-world missions-

• Best escort fighter for naval dive bombers - Hellcat or the Corsair (I'd say Corsair for it's higher speed and other qualities but Hellcat is probably more stable of a design earlier on)
  
• Best long range naval / maritime escort (ala Malta zone etc.) - Beaufighter
  
• Best high altitude / long range - Probably P-38 in spite of all the problems. That's the one they used anyway for escorting the B-24's and B-17's at least down in the Med*.
• Best short-range land based / tactical escort for fighter bombers or medium bombers - Spit IX or P-47D (I'd go with the Spitfire IX)
  
• Best medium-range land based / tactical escort for dive bombers, fighter bombers or medium bombers - P-40F, P-51A or P-47D (I'd go with the P-40F)
• Best low altitude / long range escort (like to escort a low alt Mosquito raid) - P-51A
  
• Best low altitude / short range escort (escort Hurri IID)- Spit IX LF (clipped wing)

* I suspect Corsair would be a good substitute with extra fuel etc.

S

DarrenW said:

Thing is, your fuel burn rate is always greater during take-off, rendezvous, and climb to mission altitude than what's used once you settle into cruising speed. Fuel use is never a one to one ratio from ingress to egress. I would suspect that the mission is planned so that you'd be ready to drop tanks by the time you enter hostile territory. And of course when descending from altitude gas use goes way down as well....

Click to expand...

Uh, please look at a map of Europe. You are in hostile territory as soon as you cross the Dutch/Belgian/French coast. Dropping tanks over Antwerp doesn't do much good on a trip to Hanover.
And this is why they used relays of fighters. So the first group of fighters could go home and 2nd, 3rd and 4th groups could go the distance and/or meet the bombers on the way back.

Is also why they needed to keep up the altitude and the cruise speed on the way back.
These radius figures were a rough guide. You are correct, fuel use is much less when descending from 25,000ft. But then no allowance is made for wind/weather or any dog legs.

You also rarely had full internal fuel. all take-offs and initial climb out was done on internal fuel (more reliable fuel feed) and switching over to drop tanks was done at a "safe" altitude. Safe in the sense that if the engine cut out you had time to switch back and get the engine restarted before you crashed. Few, if any, planes could top off their internal tanks from the drop tanks. What could and did happen was there was a vapor return line from the carb that returned vapor/excess fuel to one of the internal tanks. If the flight was long enough this tank could take back in several gallons while the plane ran on the drop tanks.

The thing with the F6F in Europe is why?
It is months later in timing than the P-47, hundreds of P-47s are Europe before the F6F reaches it's first service squadron, The F6F holds less fuel and is no more economic than the P-47, the F6F is slower at the bomber altitudes than the P-47.

Shortround6 said:

You are in hostile territory as soon as you cross the Dutch/Belgian/French coast. Dropping tanks over Antwerp doesn't do much good on a trip to Hanover.

Click to expand...

Good point, but again this would pertain to every fighter plane used in that scenario, not just the F6F. By the way, I was only talking in general and not specifically about the situation in the ETO. Sorry for not making this clear. And as I'm sure you are aware of, hostile territory was an ever-changing variable at this point in the war. What was true in August 1943 wasn't necessarily so a year later.

But again I ask, why would these aircraft consistently fly with drop tanks if using them normally put the pilot beyond a point of no return???? I am sure the folks at Grumman were smart enough to figure out what type of drop tank would work best for the Hellcat and thus fulfill the needs of the US Navy. Wouldn't you agree?

Shortround6 said:

The thing with the F6F in Europe is why?
It is months later in timing than the P-47, hundreds of P-47s are Europe before the F6F reaches it's first service squadron, The F6F holds less fuel and is no more economic than the P-47, the F6F is slower at the bomber altitudes than the P-47.

Click to expand...

I already conceded that for high altitude bomber escort work (above 20,000 feet) the Thunderbolt is probably the better option in ETO. I even changed my vote to reflect this. You made a very convincing argument. I just didn't want you to dismiss the Hellcat so quickly, that's all....

Now let's talk low to medium altitude operations. At these heights the speed of the Hellcat and Thunderbolt were much closer and given the Hellcat's superior overall maneuverability and climbing ability, I believe it could have handled the German fighters just as well. At the very least it could absorb equal amounts of much punishment, being arguably as tough as the venerable old "Jug".

Schweik said:

I think one of the reasons everyone is talking past each other here is that the OP wasn't specific enough.

You don't have that many generalized solutions in a single airframe. Even the P-51 had it's limitations, the Spit, the Zero, the Fw 190 and the Bf 109 certainly did as well.

First, I'd stipulate, feel free to mix Anglo and American types since they did historically, but stick to historical aircraft, no 'what-ifs'.

And then maybe it makes more sense if you break it up into specific real-world missions-

• Best escort fighter for naval dive bombers - Hellcat or the Corsair (I'd say Corsair for it's higher speed and other qualities but Hellcat is probably more stable of a design earlier on)
  
• Best long range naval / maritime escort (ala Malta zone etc.) - Beaufighter
  
• Best high altitude / long range - Probably P-38 in spite of all the problems. That's the one they used anyway for escorting the B-24's and B-17's at least down in the Med*.
• Best short-range land based / tactical escort for fighter bombers or medium bombers - Spit IX or P-47D (I'd go with the Spitfire IX)
  
• Best medium-range land based / tactical escort for dive bombers, fighter bombers or medium bombers - P-40F, P-51A or P-47D (I'd go with the P-40F)
• Best low altitude / long range escort (like to escort a low alt Mosquito raid) - P-51A
  
• Best low altitude / short range escort (escort Hurri IID)- Spit IX LF (clipped wing)

* I suspect Corsair would be a good substitute with extra fuel etc.

S

Click to expand...

You've brought up an excellent point. There never was a "one size fits all" fighter. Ever see a Thunderbolt land on a carrier?