BoB after: how would you like to see Spitfire further developed?

Glider · Feb 20, 2012

Edgar Brooks said:
Especially by ensuring that the pilot couldn't see what was behind him, also that the airframe was completely out of balance as long as there was fuel in the tank. The only way to keep the Spitfire V balanced, with a fuel tank behind the pilot, was to fit a 270-gallon ferry tank under the fuselage (check the manual.)

The rear tank didn't impact rear vision. As for the imbalance the Mustang had exactly the same problem and as long as you used that fuel first it wasn't a problem.
The very first Spitfires built were tail heavy and they simply put weights in the nose. As the aircraft gained weight the weights were moved to the back I don't see why that couldn't be done again.

Hop · Feb 21, 2012

The most important improvement would have been to the radiators. Supermarine designed a much cleaner installation with boundary layer separation but the air ministry needed more Spitfires, they weren't prepared to sacrifice numbers for minor increases in performance. It's worth remembering that in early 1941 the Spitfire was the only fighter in production in the UK or US that could take on the 109 on equal terms.

Switch Production to the P51

You mean stop building the best air superiority fighter in the allied arsenal and instead start producing a low altitude army co-operation aircraft which wouldn't be ready for mass service use for another year? (It's worth remembering the RAF didn't get their first Mustang until October 1941, and they didn't have enough to put them in service until mid 1942).

That would leave a pretty big gap in the RAF for 18 months of the war.

It would have meant the RAF abandoning high altitude fighters for the next 4 years.

I don't think that was really an option.

As to adding range to the Spitfire, if it was required they could have added the enlarged forward tanks (the Spitfire had room for 95 gallons in the forward fuselage, and was later fitted with it, but the specification only called for 85 gallons, so that's what was fitted originally). They could also have added the 30 gallon rear tank used on ferry flights to Malta (plenty of room for it, and 30 gallons didn't cause much of a trim problem). Both of those could have been done with almost no effort. Fitting the wing tanks (approx 26 gallons) required some modification to the wings, but not much.

The problem with adding fuel early in the war was engine power. That's why Portal said a long range fighter couldn't compete with a short range one.

In 1941 the Merlin 40 series could provide about 1,000 hp at 20,000ft. In 1943/44, when the Mustang finally arrived as a fighter, it was using a 60 series Merlin with about 1,500 hp at 20,000 ft.

You can't just ignore the fact that the loads carried by late war fighters were enabled by increased engine power that simply wasn't available earlier in the war.

pbfoot · Feb 21, 2012

Hop said:
You mean stop building the best air superiority fighter in the allied arsenal and instead start producing a low altitude army co-operation aircraft which wouldn't be ready for mass service use for another year? (It's worth remembering the RAF didn't get their first Mustang until October 1941, and they didn't have enough to put them in service until mid 1942).

.

Exactly , save a small production run for local air defence aircraft which were almost not needed . The Spit is a pretty aircraft but not the tool to take the fight to the LW unless you want to have air superiority over Calaisas for taking on LW it was sure outperformed in 41 -43 when Fighter command losses were higher then LW even over Dieppe they were crushed,
recent quote

" By even the standards of many later WWII fighters, the Spitfire is extremely limited in range. With 85 gallons of fuel in a single fuel tank (95 gallons in later models), the Spitfire can be out of gas in less than an hour under combat conditions. Again this arose from the having a wing too thin to house fuel tanks, so all of the fuel is mounted in a single tank that is - ominously - installed directly in front of the pilot."

Hop · Feb 21, 2012

The Spit is a pretty aircraft but not the tool to take the fight to the LW unless you want to have air superiority over Calais

It seems to me you are targeting a very narrow time period. The Mustang wasn't a front line fighter in 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942 and 1943. From the summer of 1944 onwards the allies had bases on the continent only a few miles behind the front line.

That's 5 years when the Spitfire could do what the Mustang couldn't hope to, 5 months when the Mustang could do what the Spitfire couldn't, then 11 months when the Spitfire and the Mustang could both take the fight to the Luftwaffe.

tomo pauk · Feb 21, 2012

Hi, Hop,

The ratio of 109s that might be confronting Spitfires in 1941-43 was perhaps 5:1, since as early as Spring of 1941, most of the Luftwaffe was deployed at East, 1st over Balkans, then above SU. Spitfire's production was bigger than of 109 from BoB till 1944?
The Merlin 60 series was in production in UK already in 1942, so I see no problems that a long range fighter would be using it at that time, or at least from beginning of 1943*. With fuel tanks as you've noting, a fine long range Spitfire that is. The Mk. VIII was almost there, too bad it was not produced in greater volume used to bring war to Germany proper.
Perhaps Portal was not aware that twin engined fighter can do the trick until the engine power is up to the standard. Of course, there is still no answer why a Sabre-powered long range fighter was not present in RAF's arsenal by mid 1943, at least.
So IMO it was much more to the doctrine, and thinking inside the box, than up to technical stuff.

*P-51 was notably heavier anyway, and the P-51A already was there to show what can be done with 1000 HP at 19000 ft. And that is firmly in 1943, and down low it was the competitive plane already in 1942.

pbfoot · Feb 21, 2012

Hop said:
It seems to me you are targeting a very narrow time period. The Mustang wasn't a front line fighter in 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942 and 1943. From the summer of 1944 onwards the allies had bases on the continent only a few miles behind the front line.

That's 5 years when the Spitfire could do what the Mustang couldn't hope to, 5 months when the Mustang could do what the Spitfire couldn't, then 11 months when the Spitfire and the Mustang could both take the fight to the Luftwaffe.

its those 5 months that were in the mind of most historians that the LW met its end , I understand knocking the Spit to a Brit is like kicking your puppy but the fact remains it was not the aircraft it needed to be after BoB .

Hop · Feb 21, 2012

The ratio of 109s that might be confronting Spitfires in 1941-43 was perhaps 5:1, since as early as Spring of 1941, most of the Luftwaffe was deployed at East, 1st over Balkans, then above SU.

I don't think the ratio was anything like as large as that. According to Hooton in Eagle in Flames the Luftwaffe had 430 day fighters in the west in September 1941, 527 in December.

The RAF had 37 Spitfire squadrons in July 1941.

If you look in terms of sorties, according to Hooton Fighter Command flew about 12,200 day fighter sorties in July and August 1941, Luftflotte 3 flew about 8,900 day fighter sorties in the same period. Bear in mind many of the RAF sorties would have been by Hurricanes.

Spitfire's production was bigger than of 109 from BoB till 1944?

Spitfire production was higher in the middle of the war, 109 higher at the beginning and end.

According to Wiki Bf109 production was 1,868 in 1940, 2,628 in 1941. Spitfire production was 1,995 between 3rd September 1940 and 2nd September 1941. Over the period it looks like the Germans made a few hundred more 109s.

The Merlin 60 series was in production in UK already in 1942, so I see no problems that a long range fighter would be using it at that time, or at least from beginning of 1943*.

Perhaps by 1943. Of course, that's when the Spitfire VIII started production, so the opportunity wasn't lost. The RAF had already switched to night bombing so there wasn't a requirement for a long range escort fighter.

Perhaps Portal was not aware that twin engined fighter can do the trick until the engine power is up to the standard.

Could it? Which twin engined fighters were competitive day fighters? Possibly the P-38, though it had so many problems we can't be sure. But a twin engined fighter also requires about twice the resources, and that's something the RAF certainly couldn't afford early in the war.

*P-51 was notably heavier anyway, and the P-51A already was there to show what can be done with 1000 HP at 19000 ft. And that is firmly in 1943, and down low it was the competitive plane already in 1942.

The Allison engined P-51 was a very good low altitude, medium range aircraft. It most certainly was not a good high altitude, long ranged escort, a role it simply could not carry out due to lack of engine power.

its those 5 months that were in the mind of most historians that the LW met its end ,

I don't think so. The Luftwaffe lost far more aircraft and pilots before then, and far more aircraft and pilots after.

Of course, it was the time of the first major contribution of the USAAF in Europe, so it gets most attention from US historians. But by what logic do you assign criticality to 5 months in a 6 year battle of attrition?

I understand knocking the Spit to a Brit is like kicking your puppy

Don't worry, you're offending my attachment to logic, not my sense of patriotism

tomo pauk · Feb 21, 2012

Thanks for setting my numbers straight re. production numbers.
Even so, I'd say that at least reworked radiators could be installed, if not Merlin XX itself, for the Spitfire for 1941. Germans did reworked their 109E already in 1940 to acquire the 109F, and Brits themselves were adapting the Hurricane.

When talking about long range fighters, there was more to it than to escort the bombers to Ruhr/Berlin/Hamburg. RAF was fighting in MTO and in Asia, while supplying fighters to Commonwealth beyond. Hence most of Beoufighters, Mitchells, Bostons, Marauders were without fighter support, and Spit VIII was produced in too few numbers to cover all of those missions.

As for what when RAF was able to afford, they were building many twin four engined planes, and many of them were carrying Merlins. Even the controversial planes, Battle and Defiant, used up 3000 Merlins (without counting spares) prior 1941. Not to mention producing Blenheims after 1941 (doesn't matter they were using Mercurys). Brits even leased 600 Merlins for P-40s. So the Air Ministry had plenty of material to spare already in 1940, let alone in eg. 1942.
The P-38 was rarely regarded as an easy prey, so I'd say it was pretty good. The twin engined fighter of conventional shape, with Merlins aboard 4 cannons seem to me like a better hores to bet than Typhoon, for example.

About P-51 with Allison: the P-51A (Mustang II in RAF service) was able to make 370 mph at 25000 ft, 400 mph at 17500 ft (with racks), with 'yardstick' range of 1500 miles with 2 x 75 gals drop tanks. In worst case that means 400 miles of combat radius - from London to Frankfurt. Decent performance, great range. Esp. if we compare with the most common Spit of 1943, the Mk.V.

Shortround6 · Feb 21, 2012

pbfoot said:
Again this arose from the having a wing too thin to house fuel tanks, so all of the fuel is mounted in a single tank that is - ominously - installed directly in front of the pilot."

Fair is fair boys. Planes with fuel tanks that are "ominously - installed directly in front of the pilot" Include the :

P-47
F4U
Dw 520
Hawker Tempest
and others.

Planes that had the fuel tank/s in the lower fuselage/wing center section below the pilot include;

The Fw 190
F6F
P-40

and a host of others.

If it is bad for one it is bad for all.

Edgar Brooks · Feb 21, 2012

Glider said:
The rear tank didn't impact rear vision. As for the imbalance the Mustang had exactly the same problem and as long as you used that fuel first it wasn't a problem..

I suggest you look at photos; the tank filled the area beneath the perspex at the back of the seat.
The Mustang had the same long nose as the IX; on the shorter-nosed V, the tank had such a huge effect, it was banned from use without having the massive ferry tank; as I said, read the V manual.

The very first Spitfires built were tail heavy and they simply put weights in the nose. As the aircraft gained weight the weights were moved to the back I don't see why that couldn't be done again

The first Spitfire Is were tail-heavy because of the lightness of the wooden 2-blade prop, hence the weights added to the engine mounts. With the arrival of the 3-blade prop, the weights were REmoved, not just moved. When armour was fitted behind the seat, equipment (a flare chute) had to be removed, to allow for it, and that weighed nothing like a fuel tank.
When the XVI received its fuselage tank, compressed-air and oxygen bottles had to be moved to the wings, as balance.

there were 5 X 17.5lb ballast weights in the MK IX but this may be an early aircraft an later ones had other equipment or in different locations that eliminated the weights?

87.5 lbs = about 12 gallons; not a lot, is it?

Shortround6 · Feb 21, 2012

The problem with daylight fighter escort is multiple. you have to provide "top cover" for the bombers. Not just fly at the bombers level but fly 3-5000ft above to stop the the Germans from getting the altitude advantage and diving through the bomber formations. You also have the speed problem. the fighters have to weave at a much higher speed than the bombers so they aren't caught with too low an airspeed when called upon to respond to the German attack. it can take several minutes to work up to high speed from too low a cruising speed. This high speed weave meant the fighters were flying much faster than the bombers and also actually flying much further do the weaving course, it tends to make nonsense out of 'yardstick' figures. Also just climb and forming up can suck up a lot of fuel. An F4U could use up 56 gallons just taking off and climbing to 25,000ft.

tomo pauk · Feb 21, 2012

I do not claim that P-51A was the greatest fighter for the escort job, available in 1943. But classification that it was decidedly low level, medium range plane does not hold water either.
Of course, any engine mounted on P-51s was making perhaps 50% more mileage than R-2800

The weaving above bombers smells like close escort to me - perhaps 'freijagd' would be better to employ vs. a defender?

Shortround6 · Feb 21, 2012

If you get too far from the bombers the enemy fighters can into firing position before the "hunting" fighters get back. There is no radar control to direct the fighters. Ideally you have some of both, some than can range forward and to the sides to help clear a path and some near the bombers to handle what doesn't get swept up or aside. How far the escorts should 'chase' interceptors is another question. Not being allowed to chase them very far just means they can regroup and attack again at their convenience while chasing them too far means the bomber group has no escort from a second attack.

Climb performance is also important and a often under rated or discounted. while two planes can have a very similar speed at 25,000ft one might be able to climb twice as fast as the other. Like a P-51 climbing at 1350fpm (760hp available)vs 2780fpm for a P-51B-1(1260hp available). Please note that the extra power will prevent speed from bleeding off as fast in maneuvers and or allow for a faster recover of speed from a maneuver, even if the maneuver is a simple 180 degree turn to position the fighter section/squadron to handle a new threat from a different direction and not true dog fighting. Please note that the much better climb of the "B" model allows it to try to chase 109s that try to escape or re-position themselves by climbing.

It is the lack of vertical capability that held the Allison Mustangs to the lower levels. While they were fast in a straight line their ability to sustain speed or climb above original height very well meant their options were too limited.

At lower levels things were much more evenly matched which is why the continued in use so long, but the high altitude escort role was simply beyond them.

Shortround6 · Feb 21, 2012

tomo pauk · Feb 21, 2012

Again, P-51A was not ideal long range escort fighter

Hop said:
I don't think the ratio was anything like as large as that. According to Hooton in Eagle in Flames the Luftwaffe had 430 day fighters in the west in September 1941, 527 in December.

The RAF had 37 Spitfire squadrons in July 1941.

If you look in terms of sorties, according to Hooton Fighter Command flew about 12,200 day fighter sorties in July and August 1941, Luftflotte 3 flew about 8,900 day fighter sorties in the same period. Bear in mind many of the RAF sorties would have been by Hurricanes.

Hi,
I've just browsed the 'Butcher bird', by Shackledy, and there it states that from May of 1941 there were only 2 Geschwaders in the West, JG 2 and JG 26. That means under 100 fighters.
37 squadrons makes 444 planes (if the squadron was with 12 planes), up to 592 (with 16 planes each) - I'm not sure when RAF fielded what number of planes per squadron, but a ratio of 4.5:1 seem pretty high And then we add Hurricanes - RAF possessed quite the edge in 1941.

added: for Operation Cerberus (Channel Dash in Feb 1942), LW mustered circa 250 fighters; the number includes the night fighters from NJG 1 and planes from the fighter's school from Paris.

Juha · Feb 21, 2012

tomo pauk said:
...I've just browsed the 'Butcher bird', by Shackledy, and there it states that from May of 1941 there were only 2 Geschwaders in the West, JG 2 and JG 26. That means under 100 fighters.
37 squadrons makes 444 planes (if the squadron was with 12 planes), up to 592 (with 16 planes each) - I'm not sure when RAF fielded what number of planes per squadron, but a ratio of 4.5:1 seem pretty high And then we add Hurricanes - RAF possessed quite the edge in 1941.

added: for Operation Cerberus (Channel Dash in Feb 1942), LW mustered circa 250 fighters; the number includes the night fighters from NJG 1 and planes from the fighter's school from Paris.

Hello Tomo
a Jagdgeschwader in full streght had some 125-168 fighters depending on had it 3 or 4 Gruppen.

Juha

Juha · Feb 21, 2012

pbfoot said:
Exactly , save a small production run for local air defence aircraft which were almost not needed . The Spit is a pretty aircraft but not the tool to take the fight to the LW unless you want to have air superiority over Calaisas for taking on LW it was sure outperformed in 41 -43 when Fighter command losses were higher then LW even over Dieppe they were crushed,
recent quote

" By even the standards of many later WWII fighters, the Spitfire is extremely limited in range. With 85 gallons of fuel in a single fuel tank (95 gallons in later models), the Spitfire can be out of gas in less than an hour under combat conditions. Again this arose from the having a wing too thin to house fuel tanks, so all of the fuel is mounted in a single tank that is - ominously - installed directly in front of the pilot."

So could 109G or La-5FN. Many good Eurepean fighters were short ranged, Spit wasn't exception.

Juha

tomo pauk · Feb 21, 2012

Juha said:
Hello Tomo
a Jagdgeschwader in full streght had some 125-168 fighters depending on had it 3 or 4 Gruppen.

Juha

My bad, 3 Gruppen mostly, 3-4 Staffeln each, 9-12 planes per Staffel - anywhere between 81 and 144 planes. So it's 162-288 fighter planes from May 1941 on, in West?

pbfoot · Feb 21, 2012

Juha said:
So could 109G or La-5FN. Many good Eurepean fighters were short ranged, Spit wasn't exception.

Juha

But they were either a defensive weapon or in the case of the LA5 working near the front . The Spit was doing escort work for 8th AF for a while and longer for 9th AF , if the powers to be were short sighted it wasn't fair on the pilots to be doing work their aircraft was not designed for

Hop · Feb 21, 2012

I've just browsed the 'Butcher bird', by Shackledy, and there it states that from May of 1941 there were only 2 Geschwaders in the West, JG 2 and JG 26.

That's a pretty narrow definition of "west" as it only includes France. Holland was obviously on the eastern front

Looking at the Luftwaffe claims list, the following units made claims on the channel front in the second half of 1941:

JG 2
JG 26
JFS 5
JG 1
JG 52
JG 53
ZG 76

I'm not sure what German fighter strength was in southern Norway, but as RAF squadrons were based all the way up to the Shetlands, I think they should be included.

BoB after: how would you like to see Spitfire further developed?

Major

Senior Airman

1st Lieutenant

Senior Airman

Creator of Interesting Threads

1st Lieutenant

Senior Airman

Creator of Interesting Threads

Lieutenant General

Senior Airman

Lieutenant General

Creator of Interesting Threads

Lieutenant General

Lieutenant General

Creator of Interesting Threads

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

1st Lieutenant

Senior Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads