British escort fighter--what might it have been like?

nuuumannn said:

Heck, they turned it into a naval fighter...

Click to expand...

This is my constant argument, it couldn't be done yet they fitted it with numerous different engines, guns, cannons, bombs,rockets, camera's, made it fly at 45,000ft to shoot down PR aircraft, fitted it with Jato's, folding wings, tow gliders, carry beer made it work in Europe, the desert the pacific in Russia off carriers and dived it to almost MACH 1 to name just some of the things it did but add fuel to give it long range, nah mate, too difficult, can't be done, beyond our engineering ability.

PAT303 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I did not say that. The RAF did.

PAT303 said:

This is my constant argument, it couldn't be done yet they fitted it with numerous different engines, guns, cannons, bombs,rockets, camera's, made it fly at 45,000ft to shoot down PR aircraft, fitted it with Jato's, folding wings, tow gliders, carry beer made it work in Europe, the desert the pacific in Russia off carriers and dived it to almost MACH 1 to name just some of the things it did but add fuel to give it long range, nah mate, too difficult, can't be done, beyond our engineering ability.

Click to expand...

The reason the Spitfire wasn't turned into a long range fighter was that with rare exception there were no RAF long range bombers flying in daylight to escort. Had there been a need, there would have been a long range Spitfire.

I like to see the camo scheme on a Lancaster painted for daylight raids. Like the RAF's B-17s, I expect.

nuuumannn said:

To achieve what exactly? Have you learned nothing from reading this thread?

Click to expand...

Long-range escort, obviously.

nuuumannn said:

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...

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm aware of this. I'm pointing out that for all the handwavium ... a long-range Spit was never adopted. I'm sure Fighter Command would have appreciated the input offered here. What the hell did they know, anyway?

I wouldn't tout the Spit's wartime naval service, myself. And I don't know that PR Spits are relevant to the conversation.

Thumpalumpacus said:

I wouldn't tout the Spit's wartime naval service, myself. And I don't know that PR Spits are relevant to the conversation.

Click to expand...

Spitfires were somewhat better on carriers than the common reputation which is skewed by Salerno. Many of the escort carriers only got their planes a few days before combat, the winds were dead calm (or 2-3 kts), the carriers were restricted to a small area and had to steam back and forth to pick up what wind there was on one leg of the trip (limited time to actually fly off and recover planes) and there was a ground haze which limited visibility to just a few miles.

On the other hand I fully agree about the PR recon Spits.
Grumman made 21 F4F-7 photo recon Wildcats with non-folding wet wings that held 555 US gallons in the wing spaces and 130 gallons in fuselage tanks (685 US gallons total). Truly phenomenal range but without guns/ ammo and with unknown G limits in the early stages of flight a very poor example to base a long range fighter on.

British 4 engine bombers were a little on the rare side in early 1942. The 1000 bomber raid on Cologne used 88 Sterlings, 131 Halifaxes, 73 Lancansters, 46 Manchesters and about 600 Wellingtons. Plus a some odds and sods to make up some more numbers. Since over 350 odds and sods of the bombers (and crews) were borrowed from Training Command for the raid the ability of the British to mount an effective daytime bombing campaign was going to take some time to build up in 1942.
Air Pollution over the Ruhr was practically it's own smoke generator installation. German flak was not what it would become but flying in daylight makes things easier for the Flak units.
Most of the British bombers fly lower than the American bombers which also makes things easier for the Flak crews.
Effective AA ceiling of the guns is generally figured at what altitude can the gun (battery) keep the target in range for 20 seconds. The envelope of the gun (battery) is sort of a flatten sphere. Flying high puts the planes in top of the sphere for a limited amount of time (may very well be more than 20 seconds?) flying 3-5 thousand feet lower puts the bombers in a much fatter slice of the sphere. Much more time for the guns to fire, and more accurate. Time fuses have a accuracy depending on a percentage of the time of flight. Shorten the time of flight by 20% and you get a lot more shells bursting within lethal range.

I am not going to argue about the effectiveness of the British bomber gun armament compared to the US bomber gun armament except to say if the American Armament didn't work can we expect the British Armament to do any better?

Shortround6 said:

Spitfires were somewhat better on carriers than the common reputation which is skewed by Salerno.

Click to expand...

Salerno isn't the basis for most criticism of the Seafire, as we both know. The big problems were the floatiness over the landing deck, the bounciness on impact, and the landing gear frailty. Armoured Carriers has vid on this for those interested.

MIflyer said:

I did not say that. The RAF did.

Click to expand...

I've only seen the opposite opinion -- ie: .303 preferable for ground attack.

eg:


Leigh-Mallory was the main driving force behind the Spitfire .5-inch armament and his opinions always referred to air-to-air combat. He formally requested the complete switch 14 May, 1943 but the Air Ministry ruled that the .303 armament be retained.

Admiral Beez said:

The reason the Spitfire wasn't turned into a long range fighter was that with rare exception there were no RAF long range bombers flying in daylight to escort. Had there been a need, there would have been a long range Spitfire.

I like to see the camo scheme on a Lancaster painted for daylight raids. Like the RAF's B-17s, I expect.

View attachment 741551

Click to expand...

That B-17 in the above photo was an RAF Mk.II serial FK209 (ex USAAF 41-9203) photographed at Dorval, Canada on 24 Aug 1942 while on delivery. One of several taken of it at the time. Destined for Coastal Command it was painted in Temperate Sea Scheme colours - Dark Slate Grey & Extra Dark Sea Grey upper surfaces and Sky undersurfaces.

In 1945 617 squadron, which was flying mostly daylight sorties, found its aircraft suffering a higher degree of flak damage. In Feb they sought a change to their Lancaster paint schemes. This was agreed and the new scheme was applied to a batch of Lancaster B.I (Special) aircraft being delivered configured for dropping Grand Slam 22,000lb bombs. Orders came through to the factory too late for it to be applied to the first 4 of the batch. But the rest were supposed to be finished in Dark Green / Dark Earth upper surfaces and Medium Sea Grey undersurfaces with a low fuselage demarcation between upper and lower colours. The IWM has some photos of these including this one, with a "normal" 617 aircraft for comparison. Note 617 Grand Slam aircraft carried YZ squadron codes instead of the usual KC in this period.


There was an article in Scale Aircraft Modelling magazine in May 2023 about these aircraft and some controversy about the exact colours purportedly seen by a reliable witness applied to one of these aircraft in 1946.

Some of these airframes were used by 15 squadron postwar.

PAT303 said:

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?.

Click to expand...

We were bombing the Ruhrgebeit. I cant see any time that the RAF would have the additional S/E fighters to mount a campaign and I cant see how loses on such a campaign wouldnt be as prohibitive as they were for Germany in 1940.

Thumpalumpacus said:

Salerno isn't the basis for most criticism of the Seafire, as we both know. The big problems were the floatiness over the landing deck, the bounciness on impact, and the landing gear frailty. Armoured Carriers has vid on this for those interested.

Click to expand...

The Corsair earned itself a reputation caused by floatiness over the deck, the bounciness on impact, the wings stalling unevenly on approach and the airframe rotating around the prop flipping the plane onto it's back and it was designed as a Naval fighter, does that mean we can throw even more criticism at it?. Armoured Carriers has a video on this if your interested.

pbehn said:

We were bombing the Ruhrgebeit. I cant see any time that the RAF would have the additional S/E fighters to mount a campaign and I cant see how loses on such a campaign wouldnt be as prohibitive as they were for Germany in 1940.

Click to expand...

Instead of re-engining MkV's into MkIX's they would have re-engined MkIII's into MkVIII's therefore having two aircraft able to deal one on one with all the models of 109 and 190's they would have encountered, the trouble the RAF had was the MkV offered no advantage over the 109 and was outclassed by the 190 so they couldn't defend themselves let alone the bombers they were escorting as history showed, having two higher performing models of Spitfires with longer range allows far greater flexibility in what, were and how they attack as well as giving the RAF pilots the confidence to take the fight to the Luftwaffe.

PAT303 said:

The Corsair earned itself a reputation caused by floatiness over the deck, the bounciness on impact, the wings stalling unevenly on approach and the airframe rotating around the prop flipping the plane onto it's back and it was designed as a Naval fighter, does that mean we can throw even more criticism at it?. Armoured Carriers has a video on this if your interested.

Click to expand...

I've already watched it, thanks. Floatiness, no -- the video you mention has quite a few FAA pilots saying that when you chopped throttle on a Corsair, it dropped. The bounciness was resolved by adjusting the oleos. The uneven stall was resolved by the stall strip.

None of that impacts the sheer unsuitability of the early Seafires. This is simple whataboutism.

PAT303 said:

MkV's into MkIX's they would have re-engined MkIII's into MkVIII's

Click to expand...

You need two stage Merlins to do either and you don't have two stage Merlins in numbers until late 1942.

PAT303 said:

MkV offered no advantage over the 109

Click to expand...

MK V had double the firepower over the standard 109s of 1941, early 42.

For escort duty (not attacking German bombers) maybe they could have gone back to eight or even 6 .303 guns?
No 20mm barrels/fairings worth 5-6mph?
No 20mm feed bumps?
Easier to fit fuel into the wings?
Use more boost sooner on the Merlin 45s?
Use Merlin XX engines?

Since you are not escorting B-17s/B-24s you can fly a bit lower and don't need the two stage superchargers as much.
Using US .50s instead of 20mm's in 1941 was a no go. British could not get the .50s to work with any degree of reliability for most of 1941.

Thumpalumpacus said:

None of that impacts the sheer unsuitability of the early Seafires. This is simple whataboutism.

Click to expand...

'Whataboutism'....

Can someone explain to me the relevance of a debate on Seafire unsuitability for carrier ops in the context of a thread titled British escort fighter--what might it have been like???



You lot really are an eccentric bunch.

Shortround6 said:

British could not get the .50s to work with any degree of reliability for most of 1941.

Click to expand...

Neither could the Americans for wing-mounted 50 cals through much of 1942.

"But . . the bones, man . . . look at the bones!"

How about a single-seat Beaufighter with Merlins for a long-range escort for British bombers in daylight. The Beaufighter used many parts of the Beaufort but with a new fuselage. The Beaufort was flying in 1939 & Bristol did make engine mounts to fit Merlins (used on the 700 Beaufighter Mk.II).

Antarctica said:

How about a single-seat Beaufighter with Merlins for a long-range escort for British bombers in daylight. The Beaufighter used many parts of the Beaufort but with a new fuselage. The Beaufort was flying in 1939 & Bristol did make engine mounts to fit Merlins (used on the 700 Beaufighter Mk.II).

Click to expand...

The standard merlin-engined Beaufighter ii had a lower performance than the Hercules engines ones, some unpleasant handling quirks and was something of a dog. The Beaufighter was also a big chunk of an aircraft and not very manoeuvrable for all its other merits (low down speed and robustness). All getting rid of the otherwise useful observer would achieve is the deletion of that rear cuppola/perspex bubble, and would still leave that formidably chunky fuselage. Perfectly good as a long range strike aircraft or for escorting Sunderlands etc against JU88s and Bf110s out to sea, or for strafing airfields and roads (as were the standard models), but would probably be made mince-meat of by anything else. The Beaufighter is always going to be limited by its bulk and thick wing.

If you're going down the 'what if' path of reimagining the 1940s era RAF twins, it might make more sense that if a long range escort fighter was really needed, it would have been easier to lean on Rolls Royce and get them to persevere with the Peregrine and to work with Westland to get the Whirlwind right. That was considered a well handling aircraft with huge firepower even at its sub-optimum level of development (good enough to see it serving all the way through until 1943, even though production and development was stopped in its tracks)

Thumpalumpacus said:

I've already watched it, thanks. Floatiness, no -- the video you mention has quite a few FAA pilots saying that when you chopped throttle on a Corsair, it dropped. The bounciness was resolved by adjusting the oleos. The uneven stall was resolved by the stall strip.

None of that impacts the sheer unsuitability of the early Seafires. This is simple whataboutism.

Click to expand...

Talk about a blinkered view, the ensign eliminator was designed as a carrier aircraft yet it took how many years and how many modifications to get it right?, the Spitfire on the other hand was never designed as a naval aircraft so to level criticism at it considering that fact and likewise the fact that before the Seafire III all of them were more or less converted Spitfire V's I don't think you have a leg to stand on in this argument.
All of this impacts the sheer unsuitability of the early Corsairs for carrier operations.

Shortround6 said:

You need two stage Merlins to do either and you don't have two stage Merlins in numbers until late 1942.

Click to expand...

This is true but Merlin XX engined MkIII's were a much better aircraft than Merlin 45 engined MkV's up until the second half of '42, I wonder if the performance from the XX would have sped up interest in the two stage development?