Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Only range figures I've seen for the Spiteful was 564 miles on internal fuel and 1315 miles with drop tanks (Old Machine Press' article on the Spiteful and Seafang).
However, I'd bet that a Merlin Spiteful would've been a good deal lighter than the Griffon version, and probably less fuel thirsty.
It seems to me that institutional inertia was alive and well in the RAF.If that was the case, it seems that the Spiteful had the same directional stability/CG issues that Spitfires had with the rear fuselage tanks when filled above a certain levels.
Hence why I do agree with the thought that such an aircraft as what I'm asking about would probably have to be designed for the role of escort or being capable of both escort and interception from scratch, and not just a reworking of an existing design.
However, I'd bet that a Merlin Spiteful would've been a good deal lighter than the Griffon version, and probably less fuel thirsty.
Again, as pointed out, the suggestion that you can just take a Spitfire for example, and pack more fuel in it, probably isn't the way to go. You'd have to change so much in a design that was never really optimized for long range flight to begin with. Even the Mustang needed added fuel to make it a true escort fighter once the Merlin was installed in it, and it already was carrying basically twice the fuel of a Merlin Spitfire.
All of this has to be considered on a single seat, single engine fighter, and the smaller the aircraft, the less room you have to put stuff and optimize its position. However, as has been shown by examples mentioned, it's certainly not impossible, though certainly improbable with a relatively small aircraft by pre-1942 standards.
Are you aware of the Spitfire Mk.VIII? 740 miles cruise on 120 gals internal fuel, plus allowances - not a single drop of it being behind the pilot. Same fuel tankage was carried by Spitfire VII.IMO, the Spitfire would work if it was designed to be longer ranged to begin with. IMO, trying to squeeze 800+ mile range on internal fuel out of a plane designed originally for a 500 mile range doesn't IMO make much sense, not without a major redesign.
If you feel that two tanks are too much (65-70-ish imp gals total), install just one tank per Mk.VII/VIII/IX, 30-35 gals. Or use the 29 imp gal tank aft the pilot as used on Spitfire Vs for overseas deployment:And even the suggestion of installing rear fuselage mounted tanks on a Spitfire doesn't make much sense as they played havoc on CG/directional stability when filled above a certain level.
If as one posted noted you want high cruising speed, excellent speed and maneuverability, and things like a low drag or ducted radiator (ventral or wing leading edge), and heavy armament, you basically need either a fresh design or a design that has most of those in it and doesn't take a ton of modification to add the missing feature.
Speaking of radiators, would a radiator like what the Napier Heston Racer or Airspeed's Sabre fighter concepts used (both of which exhausted the radiator out of the tail unit area) make sense for such an aircraft or a single seat single engine figher in general?
If you want to improve the Tempest's aero, you'd have to redesign the radiator, since the chin radiator wasn't insanely aero efficent (though aero suggested it was better than the Tornado's early Hurricane-esque ventral radiator due to compressiblity problems). That means either reviving the leading edge radiators (which would displace the leading edge fuel tanks as on the Tempest I, and those tanks weren't fitted to the Tempest V as standard until after the Allies established themselves in France), or fitting a Mustang-type ventral radiator (envisioned for the Hawker P1027, which was never built, and would've required a redesign of the Tempest's rear fuselage).
Again, you'd probably be better off with a purpose made design than trying to shoe-horn all of those features into a Spitfire or even a Tempest, even if the Tempest is closer to what I'm asking for in terms of overall performance.
Not to mention that most Spitfires aside from some in North Africa still carried rifle caliber machine guns along side 2x20mm cannons well into the war until the E-wing (2x.50 MG, 2x20mm cannon) became a common fit in 1944. And it wasn't until the Spitfire 21 that 4 cannon armament was standardized. The Battle of Britain showed the rifle caliber machine guns were barely adequate for fighter vs fighter combat in 1940, and weren't great on bombers, either. The fact that most German fighters were also armed with a mix of rifle caliber MGs and 20mm cannon until 1943 also astounds me.
It is strange that when the British use .303 ammo it is pea shooter stuff that barely scratches the paint.Two cannons are more than enough to kill anything Luftwaffe puts in the air. The .303s were a back-up.
IMO, a good case study could've been the DH Comet racer. Even though it was twin engine, it had several things that should've been studied or observed, such as a high cruse speed, relatively small for the fuel it carried, etc. Granted, using a Merlin would eat into that, as well as cannon armament, armor and self sealing tanks, but what was stopping the RAF from saying in 1940 after the first Mosquito (which embodied a lot of lessons and concepts from the Comet), "we want a single seat, single engine long range fighter of certain range and performance specs"?
IMO, a good case study could've been the DH Comet racer. Even though it was twin engine, it had several things that should've been studied or observed, such as a high cruse speed, relatively small for the fuel it carried, etc. Granted, using a Merlin would eat into that, as well as cannon armament, armor and self sealing tanks,
Trouble was there was nobody to make it, established or otherwise. There was no spare capacity in Great Britain and not much in Canada (or anywhere else). There were no empty factories (with or without machinery) and no labor force sitting around have tea waiting for something to do. Canada (not slight the rest of the Commonwealth) did great things, but, they often had to wait for the US to supply the machine tools/equipment. British Machine tools were being absorbed by existing industries as fast as they could be produced.Thus, either someone outside of the established system would have to design it, or an established maker could design it, but someone else would have to make it.
Both German guns had been in design/development for several years in 1940.. England and France were thinking of adopting the 13.2mm FN machine guns (basically an AN-M2 Browning re-barrelled to fire the 13.2x99mm Hotchkiss HMG round instead of .50 BMG), but Belgium was overrun before that happened. Germany realized during the Battle of Britain that the low velocity 20mm MG FF cannons were obsolescent and the 13mm MG131 was the better bet, or for sure the 20mm MG151 (which was being designed at the time).
Was the XP-51F/G/J really 105 gallons or was that some slight of hand to get the weight where they wanted it?XP-51F/G/J - 105 gallons.
Or call it 30 Cal, then its a real killer.It is strange that when the British use .303 ammo it is pea shooter stuff that barely scratches the paint.
When the Italians use it (in 1/2 the number of guns that fire slower) it is a useful supplement to the 12.7s.
AND when the Japanese use it it (again slower firing guns) was good enough to help conquer wide areas of South East Asia and nearly bring the US to their knees in 1942.
Here is an idea.
Slow the .303 Browning's down to 800-900 rpm instead of 1100-1200rpm for greater effectiveness.
Don't forget to take out the communications equipment, life raft and parachute, rear pilot armour, front armored windscreen, self sealing tanks, six of the eight guns and optimise the handling for under 200mph and it would be a war winner. Bloody Mitchell, he knew nothing about aircraft.It is strange that when the British use .303 ammo it is pea shooter stuff that barely scratches the paint.
When the Italians use it (in 1/2 the number of guns that fire slower) it is a useful supplement to the 12.7s.
AND when the Japanese use it it (again slower firing guns) was good enough to help conquer wide areas of South East Asia and nearly bring the US to their knees in 1942.
Here is an idea.
Slow the .303 Browning's down to 800-900 rpm instead of 1100-1200rpm for greater effectiveness.