Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Wow, so with a later four prop model with slipper tanks and PR Spitfire should be close to 2,500 miles at HA. One could fly from Scotland to Newfoundland.Quite far depending on the variant and camera fit. Bear in mind, tankage is internal only.
Wow, so with a later four prop model with slipper tanks and PR Spitfire should be close to 2,500 miles at HA. One could fly from Scotland to Newfoundland.
Spitfires as escort fighters most certainly could have been done, why is that so hard for people to believe?
''Sigh'' take a MkIII Spitfire which first flew in 1940 and add the aux and drop tanks as I've already stated, the MkIII's performance over the Emil was similar to what the MkXIV had over the later G models, that is it could carry the weight of the tanks and fuel and still match it one on one.I'm struggling to think of 400+-mile-radius missions escorted by Spits in 1940 or even later. Might you get specific?
We are talking what if's, the Spitfire could have been given longer legs, RAAF MkVIII's did some long missions.I didn't say it was hard to believe. I asked about escort missions were flown 400+ miles radius by Spitfires. You got any? Name one.
I was wondering about oil consumption. Nowadays our cars consume essentially zero oil between changes. But ww2 era piston aero engines must have consumed gallons of the stuff. Were the engines dry sump, with the oil pumped in from a tank, like on my 1969 Triumph motorcycle? What about radials, also external tanks, the Zero must have gone through a lot of oil on those long missions?and an increased capacity oil tank…
All of the big engines were dry sump. Even most of the little ones. You don't want to uncover you oil pick up when climbing, diving or banking (forget inverted flight).I was wondering about oil consumption. Nowadays our cars consume essentially zero oil between changes. But ww2 era piston aero engines must have consumed gallons of the stuff. Were the engines dry sump, with the oil pumped in from a tank, like on my 1969 Triumph motorcycle? What about radials, also external tanks, the Zero must have gone through a lot of oil on those long missions?
Did high oil consumption make some aircraft or engines ineligible for long range duty? Napier Sabres for example?
I read a book by a pilot who washed out of a Spitfire combat assignment his oxygen system failed and was sent to be a ferry pilot. He liked flying the Typhoon and when delivering one to an operational base was lectured that he should NEVER fly a pattern with a Typhoon but come straight in to get on the ground before the engine quit. He went on to fly Typhoons in combat extensively and described how bad it was at ditching, which had to do with the wing rather than the big "Jaws" air scoop. The Tempest ditched just fine. He had to ditch a Typhoon in the Channel and survived only because he had so many hours in the type and had time to set things up just right, tail low, and gradually skimming the water before the Sabre quit entirely.Regarding the Typhoon, yes, the Sabre was problematic but I think you might be underestimating the number employed in combat despite the difficulties it faced, and yes, these were numerous.
Yes, but with either the Allison or the Merlin the Mustang had a very reliable engine.With its radiator scoop I don't think the P51 would have been much fun to ditch either mate just saying.
Staring in 1942 and compared to P-40, P-38, P-47, and P-51 (any variant) as well as the F6F and F4U. The P-39 was a bit short ranged but the Soviets would no doubt argue it was better, as well.Compared to whom? And compared to what and when?
''Sigh'' take a MkIII Spitfire which first flew in 1940 and add the aux and drop tanks as I've already stated, the MkIII's performance over the Emil was similar to what the MkXIV had over the later G models, that is it could carry the weight of the tanks and fuel and still match it one on one.
we can make some changes in assumptions, just to make things easierSubtract fuel for the climb back to 20,000 feet after combat, formation flying, below average pilots, below average airframes, add fuel for economic cruise before entering and after clearing enemy airspace and trading altitude for distance in the let down.
Even if Britain and the U.S. didn't develop a long range escort for European operations, there would have been one developed for the Pacific - so it was inevitable that a long range capability would have emerged.A British escort fighter would have looked like a Spitfire and then it would have looked like a Mustang Mk III and IV because thats what happened. It took th USAAF a long time to build up forces to perform escorted daylight raids. For "Big Week" there were 800 P-47s with the range of a "long range Spitfire" plus 100 each of the P-51B and P-38. For the RAF to match this effort requires the creation of another "RAF". What would they escort and to where? The Merlin engined Mustang / P-51B was being developed as a long range fighter before the USA committed o having 100% bomber escort an while it had long range without the rear fuselage tank it didnt have the prodigious range required to reach deep into Germany. Additionally if you are not going deep into Germany with heavy bombers, what is the point?
The problem is you've not posted anything except your opinion of an article and even then the article snippet you posted did nothing to reinforce anything you said!here was a whole article in a magazine describing how poor a fighter bomber the Spitfire was. With two 500 lb bombs it had a combat radius of 90 miles. And the four .303guns were judged inadequate as well and had to be replaced by .50 cal. No wonder the RAF pushed to build airstrips in Normandy so quickly! They needed a base close enough to get the Spits in the war and also a place for the Tiffies' emergency landings.
The usual force to attack these small targets was four to six Spitfires, each with either one 500 and two 250 pound bombs or two 250 pounders and a long range tanks... As we crossed into enemy territory we were liable to be engaged with predicted fire from heavy 88mm guns. But in a Spitfire this was no great danger, provided one continually changed one's direction and altitude in a series of long climbing or diving turns... the V-2 targets were defended with light flak so when we reached the target area our approach tactics would vary...Accurate bombing was dependant on accurate flying during the dive...the speed would build up quite rapidly, to a maximum of about 360 mph before the release. When he judged the altitude to be about 3,000 ft each pilot let go of his bombs in a salvo, then did a 5G pull-up to bring the nose up to horizontal... the drill was to make a high-speed getaway using the ground for cover.[104]
It seems to be a lot of chest beating going on around here.
as far as ranges go, without speeds and altitudes most listed ranges are pretty much useless. More on this later.
Getting back to the range, The P-47 actually had very good range compared to Spitfire if both were flown at around 210-220mph at around 10,000ft. They never really flew P-47s that way so it is pretty much useless trivia.
The Spitfire was a wonderful airplane, expecting it to do what an airplane that was around 25% heavier could do might be asking a lot.
They could have done more with it if really needed. 400 miles may have been a stretch.
I asked about escort missions were flown 400+ miles radius by Spitfires. You got any? Name one.
I think your pulling a long bow saying two .50's are better than four .303's for ground attack, I'd ditch the MG's altogether and just have the Hispano's if that was the plan.I read a book by a pilot who washed out of a Spitfire combat assignment his oxygen system failed and was sent to be a ferry pilot. He liked flying the Typhoon and when delivering one to an operational base was lectured that he should NEVER fly a pattern with a Typhoon but come straight in to get on the ground before the engine quit. He went on to fly Typhoons in combat extensively and described how bad it was at ditching, which had to do with the wing rather than the big "Jaws" air scoop. The Tempest ditched just fine. He had to ditch a Typhoon in the Channel and survived only because he had so many hours in the type and had time to set things up just right, tail low, and gradually skimming the water before the Sabre quit entirely.
Yes, but with either the Allison or the Merlin the Mustang had a very reliable engine.
By the way, the squadron commander of the first Typhoon squadron pushed to have the airplane introduced into combat early but later admitted that he was wrong.
Staring in 1942 and compared to P-40, P-38, P-47, and P-51 (any variant) as well as the F6F and F4U. The P-39 was a bit short ranged but the Soviets would no doubt argue it was better, as well.
There was a whole article in a magazine describing how poor a fighter bomber the Spitfire was. With two 500 lb bombs it had a combat radius of 90 miles. And the four .303guns were judged inadequate as well and had to be replaced by .50 cal. No wonder the RAF pushed to build airstrips in Normandy so quickly! They needed a base close enough to get the Spits in the war and also a place for the Tiffies' emergency landings.
View attachment 741395View attachment 741396View attachment 741397
The A6M used the very same tactics. Like I've posted use relays of Spitfires and P47's to reached out as far as the Ruhr, it's not rocket science, look at ways of making it happen instead of reasons why it couldn't.As far as I am aware the longest Spitfire missions in Europe were Britain based escorts for Bomber Command day raids on the Ruhr, but the Spitfires flew in mostly friendly to neutral airspace, no need for fast cruise until relatively near the target, extending the range by about 1 mile per gallon when using economic cruise.
I'll say it again, this is a ''what if'' thread.*sigh* I didn't ask how it could be done. I asked for examples of it being done. Simple English.
So you don't think the Ruhr is worth bombing?. How would forcing the Germans to defend the area have changed the outcome of the war?, instead of ignoring the fighter sweeps or attacking when it suits them the Luftwaffe would have been forced to fight if longer legged MkIII's were escorting bombers over German controlled airspace starting with marshaling yards and airfields in the low country before pushing deeper into the continent as they gain both experience and tactics to suit. This is a what if thread, what if the RAF achieved worthwhile gains in 1941 instead of just improving experton scores?.Additionally if you are not going deep into Germany with heavy bombers, what is the point?