Admiral Beez
Major
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.
British escort fighter--what might it have been like?
- Thread starter BarnOwlLover
- Start date
Funny you should say that, in September 1944, two Spitfire Mk.IXs, MK210 and MK317, both of which carried out long-range trials in the USA fitted with P-51 drop tanks - set off from Gander, Newfoundland-Reykjavik-Boscombe Down, the latter leg being over 1,000 miles distant. They did have military equipment deleted when they made the transatlantic flight, though. MK317 did belly land in Greenland, but MK210 made the rest of the trip. During US trials at Wright Field, the still air range of the aircraft was 1,600 miles fitted with a 43-gal tank in the rear fuselage, 16.5-gal bag tanks in the leading edge, two 62-gal drop tanks, and an increased capacity oil tank. The total fuel capacity was 285 gal, of which 161 gal was internal.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
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.
Most planes with chin radiators should do a bit better than belly radiators. The "idea" being to try to hit a bit tail first or at least a bit nose high and skim across the top. Actual success??? But with a ventral radiator you very little hope of not hitting radiator first Unless you are pointing so high you stall and belly flop in. Spitfire IX with those two big boxes under the wing?
American planes with their higher stalling speeds to begin with? If you are hitting the water at 90-100mph to begin with instead of 70???? Impact goes up with the square of the speed.
Most Hurricanes (and Whirlwinds) in Europe used 250lb bombs, 500lb bombs took too much performance. Circumstances did change (more fighter escort?). Typhoons took a while to get larger than 500lb bombs ( new props, new brakes, new tail wheels, etc). A lot of planes changed over time.
Some of these planes could not ( or were not allowed to at times) dive at steep angles, like around 45 degrees which affects accuracy somewhat, so does the type/quantity of AA guns.
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 P-47 carried just about 254 imp gallons of fuel internal. It did not suck up fuel at 2.5 times the rate of a Spitfire at 210-220mph at low altitude. Again, sort of useless trivia. Also took a P-47 a lot of fuel to get to 25,000ft. Some of the American planes fall somewhere in the middle. P-40s often carried just over 140 US gallons in the internal tanks so while they weren't going to a lot further clean than a clean Spitfire they could go further if flying at the same speed and altitude. However they often weren't because of tactical considerations. Once you start hanging belly tanks off of Spitfires and P-40s all bets are off and actual operations start to take over. P-40s sucked more fuel to climb to the same height so some of their fuel was burned IF you wanted them to fly at 15,000-20,000ft. Plain physics, you need more fuel to lift an 8670lb (P-40F) plane to 20,000ft than a 7500lb (Spit IX) plane. Then we can argue about actual time to altitude
A lot of US planes had guns taken out for ferry flights.
Ferry flights are different than operational flights/escort flights.
British paid for, in blood, the knowledge that you cannot tootle along at the same speed as the bombers when escorting. You need to be running a lot closer to max lean cruise and weaving which sucks up range two way. Likewise once contact is made and the fighters engage the interceptors, egress has to be made at higher than economical cruise, at least until you get to the coast. Over the desert there was very little safe space. In the Pacific there was a lot, unless flying right over an enemy island.
Basically the Spitfire was a 7500-8000lb airplane once you stuck a two stage Merlin in it. A Merlin P-51 was a 9300-9600lb plane clean (without the rear tank). there is only so much you can do with the lighter plane. Unless you go back and beef it up a bit. The P-51 was running too heavy for US standards as it was and it was only tolerated because of circumstances. When G suits showed the pilots could take more Gs than the airframe could.
They could have made longer range Spitfires than they did.
P-51s were rated by the USAAC at 475 miles radius at 10200lbs take off with 184 US gallons of fuel internal and 150 US gallons external. That is with standard form up, cruise at 210IAS at 25,000ft combat allowance and egress allowance. Please note that 9800lbs the P-51 was rated at 375 mile radius just using 269 US gallons internal, no drop tanks. The extra 100 miles of radius cost 65 US gallons due to fuel burned in climb and fuel used fighting the drag of the drop tanks.
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.
as far as ranges go, without speeds and altitudes most listed ranges are pretty much useless. More on this later.
Most planes with chin radiators should do a bit better than belly radiators. The "idea" being to try to hit a bit tail first or at least a bit nose high and skim across the top. Actual success??? But with a ventral radiator you very little hope of not hitting radiator first Unless you are pointing so high you stall and belly flop in. Spitfire IX with those two big boxes under the wing?
American planes with their higher stalling speeds to begin with? If you are hitting the water at 90-100mph to begin with instead of 70???? Impact goes up with the square of the speed.
Most Hurricanes (and Whirlwinds) in Europe used 250lb bombs, 500lb bombs took too much performance. Circumstances did change (more fighter escort?). Typhoons took a while to get larger than 500lb bombs ( new props, new brakes, new tail wheels, etc). A lot of planes changed over time.
Some of these planes could not ( or were not allowed to at times) dive at steep angles, like around 45 degrees which affects accuracy somewhat, so does the type/quantity of AA guns.
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 P-47 carried just about 254 imp gallons of fuel internal. It did not suck up fuel at 2.5 times the rate of a Spitfire at 210-220mph at low altitude. Again, sort of useless trivia. Also took a P-47 a lot of fuel to get to 25,000ft. Some of the American planes fall somewhere in the middle. P-40s often carried just over 140 US gallons in the internal tanks so while they weren't going to a lot further clean than a clean Spitfire they could go further if flying at the same speed and altitude. However they often weren't because of tactical considerations. Once you start hanging belly tanks off of Spitfires and P-40s all bets are off and actual operations start to take over. P-40s sucked more fuel to climb to the same height so some of their fuel was burned IF you wanted them to fly at 15,000-20,000ft. Plain physics, you need more fuel to lift an 8670lb (P-40F) plane to 20,000ft than a 7500lb (Spit IX) plane. Then we can argue about actual time to altitude
A lot of US planes had guns taken out for ferry flights.
Ferry flights are different than operational flights/escort flights.
British paid for, in blood, the knowledge that you cannot tootle along at the same speed as the bombers when escorting. You need to be running a lot closer to max lean cruise and weaving which sucks up range two way. Likewise once contact is made and the fighters engage the interceptors, egress has to be made at higher than economical cruise, at least until you get to the coast. Over the desert there was very little safe space. In the Pacific there was a lot, unless flying right over an enemy island.
Basically the Spitfire was a 7500-8000lb airplane once you stuck a two stage Merlin in it. A Merlin P-51 was a 9300-9600lb plane clean (without the rear tank). there is only so much you can do with the lighter plane. Unless you go back and beef it up a bit. The P-51 was running too heavy for US standards as it was and it was only tolerated because of circumstances. When G suits showed the pilots could take more Gs than the airframe could.
They could have made longer range Spitfires than they did.
P-51s were rated by the USAAC at 475 miles radius at 10200lbs take off with 184 US gallons of fuel internal and 150 US gallons external. That is with standard form up, cruise at 210IAS at 25,000ft combat allowance and egress allowance. Please note that 9800lbs the P-51 was rated at 375 mile radius just using 269 US gallons internal, no drop tanks. The extra 100 miles of radius cost 65 US gallons due to fuel burned in climb and fuel used fighting the drag of the drop tanks.
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.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
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.
''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 are talking what if's, the Spitfire could have been given longer legs, RAAF MkVIII's did some long missions.
Admiral Beez
Major
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?
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
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).
If you look at weight charts you can often find different weights for oil. Like standard or for drop tanks.
Spitfires famously had long range oil tanks.
under the engine, right behind the prop. Nothing wrong with the Spitfire, this was the location for the standard oil tank and it was simpler to make the tank bigger and keep it in the original location and put the bigger body panel on it rather than move the tank and change the plumbing and do the testing. Other planes had tanks in areas where they could put in bigger tanks and not have them show from the outside.
MIflyer
Captain
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.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
*sigh* I didn't ask how it could be done. I asked for examples of it being done. Simple English.
Last edited:
Geoffrey Sinclair
Staff Sergeant
- 1,271
- Sep 30, 2021
Spitfire VIII normally cruised at 210-220 IAS on Rodeos (doesn't say specifically what the cruise was on Ramrods), giving 320-325 TAS at escort altitudes. Maximum weak-mixture power setting as 320 mph at 20,000 ft, consuming about 1.1 imperial gallon per minute. This corresponds with an engine setting of 2,400 rpm, +4 lbs boost (66 gallons per hour). So this seems similar. From the same source, the RAF were allocating 23 gallons for take-off and climb to 20,000 ft, and 36 gallons for 15 minutes of combat,
400 miles at fast cruise = 82.5 gallons + combat 36 gallons, plus reserves 15 to 20 gallons = 133.5 to 138.5 gallons internal. To get there 82.5 gallons + 23 gallons, plus external tank drag penalty, say 10 gallons, around 110 gallons.
Spitfire VIII 124 gallons internal, including a 14 gallon tank in each wing, Morgan and Shacklady indicate the biggest wing tanks on the IX and XVI were 18 gallons.
Subtract 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.
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.
If you want to escort 8th AF heavy bombers to 400 miles out before September 1944 the mark VIII needs the 1944 mark IX/XVI ability to fight with a full 33 gallon rear fuselage tank. The VIII as built had a comparable radius to the mid 1943 P-47, but needed more fuel to match the late 1943 and 1944 P-47.
When it comes to dog fighting consider if the Spitfire XIV was available in 1940, would it use energy tactics, or turning? Like the Bf109 in Africa when facing P-40 and Hurricanes?
400 miles at fast cruise = 82.5 gallons + combat 36 gallons, plus reserves 15 to 20 gallons = 133.5 to 138.5 gallons internal. To get there 82.5 gallons + 23 gallons, plus external tank drag penalty, say 10 gallons, around 110 gallons.
Spitfire VIII 124 gallons internal, including a 14 gallon tank in each wing, Morgan and Shacklady indicate the biggest wing tanks on the IX and XVI were 18 gallons.
Subtract 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.
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.
If you want to escort 8th AF heavy bombers to 400 miles out before September 1944 the mark VIII needs the 1944 mark IX/XVI ability to fight with a full 33 gallon rear fuselage tank. The VIII as built had a comparable radius to the mid 1943 P-47, but needed more fuel to match the late 1943 and 1944 P-47.
When it comes to dog fighting consider if the Spitfire XIV was available in 1940, would it use energy tactics, or turning? Like the Bf109 in Africa when facing P-40 and Hurricanes?
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
we can make some changes in assumptions, just to make things easier
If the fighters have lost much altitude have them break for home, Hopefully there is a reserve or relay squadron coming in behind the bomber formation.
Trying to climb while gaining distance on a formation that is already behind you is going to be both difficult and fuel burning. Even the bombers are moving faster that best climb speed for the fighters so the situations are very variable.
The US often did not count the trading the altitude for distance on the way back, they treated that as part of the reserve. How much fuel do you want for the "estimated" arrival at home (or friendly) airfield, 20 minutes or more? need to find the air field in clouds/fog, have to circle while damaged planes land first? we could go on but just say you need/want 20-30 minutes and minimum fuel consumption. Cutting things too fine will lead to operational losses. Figure the minimums for the below average pilots and airframes as you say.
Basically radius is fuel burned for warm up and take-off to safe altitude (2000ft?) to change over tanks, minus fuel from carb overflow (count or reserve?) around 1-2 gallons per hour.
then it is combat allowance, then the Egress, several stages high speed cruise( high consumption) in high risk area, lower speed in low risk area (like over water).
I am not going to argue (with other people, we seem to be pretty much on the same page) about what could have been done, should have been done or where the fuel for inbound journey should have been carried. I will assume that could have been sorted out.
What matters is how much fuel you have after the drop tanks are dropped and if the plane is in a safe condition for combat ( plane is not over loaded and is in proper CG location)
I will note that P-40s From the F to the N-1 were rated for 170 US gallon ferry tank and from the N-5 to the N-40 for a pair of 225 US gallon under wing tanks, but nobody ever suggesting using them for escort fighters
For one thing the P-40 with 450 US gallons of fuel underwing needed a longer runway than a B-17. That assumes that the P-40 with that fuel load even kept it's guns.
Manual says ranges given are without ammunition. and suggests not carrying any load items not essential for ferrying that will be available at destination.
There is an appendix in the manual for the P-40N/ Kittyhawk IV that is two pages of instructions for the ferry tanks and very bad picture.
one 170 gallon tank, two 170s or two 225 tanks are listed. Just because they could get it off the ground with that load (1350lbs of fuel for each tank) in 4500ft of ground run doesn't mean it was a real good idea
Take-off speed was 135mph and so on.
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?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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.
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!
Yes, the Spitfire was not the greatest dive bomber, but then the Stuka was not a great fighter. As a ground attack aircraft with 2 TAF it proved useful. Here is a brief summary in Wikipedia, something that I'm sure even you could find out from, rather than just going along with a crappy stereotype."The bulk of the Spitfire squadrons, which by D-Day were incorporated into the Second Tactical Air Force, were progressively moved across the Channel, operating from advanced landing grounds in Normandy, close behind the front-lines. From late August 1944, as the Allied ground forces overran German forces in France and moved forward into Belgium and parts of the Netherlands, the Spitfire units of 2 TAF moved to new airfields in support.[96] By this time, as air supremacy (as opposed to air superiority) had been achieved, and in line with 2 TAF's doctrine on the use of fighter-bombers most of the Merlin engined Mk IX and XVI units were used in the fighter-bomber role.[69] This meant that these units concentrated on roaming over German territory, attacking ground targets of opportunity and providing tactical ground support to the army units. In this role there were fewer opportunities to engage Luftwaffe fighters.[97] A notable incident occurred on 17 July 1944, when a Spitfire of 602 Squadron attacked the staff car of Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel, wounding him and removing him from command of Army Group B.[98]
One tactical innovation adopted by 2nd TAF Spitfires was the "Fluid Six"' formation, which had been developed through combat experience in Europe and North Africa. The first use of the tactic dated back to at least November 1941. It is known that No. 112 Squadron RAF used this in the North African campaign.[99] This formation "was considered the best fighter formation of the war".[100] It abandoned the leader-wingman combination that had existed before. Instead, it was based on three pairs of Spitfires which could provide mutual cover and support: the pairs were 'stacked' in altitude so that the pair (e.g.: 5 & 6) flying up-sun, and covering the tails of the leaders (1 & 2), flew higher, while the other pair (e.g.: 3 & 4) flew lower. Any attacking aircraft could be sandwiched between two pairs of Spitfires, no matter the direction or altitude of the attack. Another advantage of this formation was that when operating at squadron strength a flight commander was able to lead six aircraft of his own flight, "whereas, with formations of four there would more likely be one formation from each flight with the third consisting of aircraft from another flight."[100]
The Merlin's water and glycol cooling system, as with all liquid-cooled aero-engines, proved vulnerable to small arms fire, with one hit in the radiator or coolant pipes often being enough to drain the system, eventually causing the engine to seize or catch fire. Although some pilots were able to gain enough altitude to glide back to a forward airfield, the low altitudes normally flown during ground attack missions meant that light (up to 30 mm) flak claimed most of the Spitfire IXs and XVIs lost while operating as fighter-bombers.[101][102] Just 21 of the 152 Spitfires that were destroyed or damaged from all causes from 1–30 June 1944 were shot down by German fighters.[103]
Flight Lieutenant Raymond Baxter, who had flown Spitfires almost continually since 1941, flew Mk XVIs on fighter-bomber operations while commanding 'A' Flight of 602 Squadron attacking V-2 rocket launching sites in the Netherlands:
As for the Typhoon, no one's questioning that it was a dog's breakfast, but that you underestimate the number of aircraft available to the RAF in 1944 and their sortie rate. 2 TAF had no less than 23 squadrons equipped with the Typhoon, and that's not mentioning Fighter Command's examples. Here are some statistics. The air effort surrounding Overlord was a total of 195,200 sorties by aircraft of all types, of which 2 TAF contributed 28,600 sorties. Of interest is that the total RAF sorties was 71,800, which offers the 2 TAF contribution some perspective. The rest was US units, but it is worth noting that while the RAF flew substantially fewer sorties, the tonnage of bombs dropped by the RAF was on average considerably greater per sortie than the US effort. While the 8th and 9th AFs dropped 101,200, the RAF dropped 94,200 over a much lower number of sorties.
Fewer aircraft operated, fewer aircraft exposed to danger for a greater average tonnage per sortie. More done with less, that's efficiency for ya. (Information from Terraine, The Right of the Line, The RAF in the European War 1939-1945, Hodder & Stoughton, 1985)
I get tired of the jingoism, as you well know. Most of it is simply not supported by fact.
No one's denying that. The point was to make a point, the basic figures do conceal operational realities but they disprove these silly stereotypes...
As you and everyone else here knows, without modification, the Spitfire was not suited to long-range escort. It wasn't designed for it. Do y'all really believe that the British would design a long-range escort with a 400-mile range, especially since the British had flown Wellesleys, Fairey Long Range Monoplanes and other aircraft on record-breaking long-ranging flights around the world, to far-flung Imperial outposts? Can we stop with the "it couldn't be done because it only had a range of 400 miles" idiocy, please?
It's worth noting that the USAAF's best long-range escort was also not intended as a long-range escort, the fact that it became one was due to a truly international effort between Britain and the USA that was initiated originally by the British, not the Americans. The Mustang, too required modification from the Allison-engined thing that it was, excellent as it was as its still air range during trials in Britain in 1942 was over 900 mph, but putting an entirely different engine in it, a lot of cleaning up and so on and the P-51 becomes an excellent long-range interceptor. The P-51B was the first to be fitted with the rear fuel tank, which pushed the cg into horrible places, proving that it was not an intentional thing. Almost by accident, you see.
To achieve what exactly? Have you learned nothing from reading this thread? Spitfires with drop tanks frequently flew escort sorties for 8th AF bombers and Coastal Command strike packages against shipping in Norwegian waters. From 1940 through 1942 there was no need for Spitfires to operate as long-range escort fighters. Bomber Command had changed doctrine to night ops, but the idea was discussed. In 1939 C-in-C Bomber Command Ludlow-Hewitt sent a letter to the Air Ministry stating that his bombers needed long-range escort fighters. This was ignored, obviously, and with the Chief of Air Staff Portal's refusal to divest time and effort into the concept, the RAF was not receiving escort fighters anytime soon. The issue was the air staff, not the aircraft. The long-range experiments using PR Spitfires proved that it could be done, and long-range ferry flights were flown, so just because within those early war years the Spitfire wasn't an escort fighter does nothing to prove that it couldn't have been modified to become one. Heck, they turned it into a naval fighter...
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.
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.
I'll say it again, this is a ''what if'' thread.
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?.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
