If you read up on what it did with the Merlin XX it was a very good aircraft and later when fitted with the 60 series the MkVIII was as good as any model up to 25,000ft including the MkXIV.Did it?
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
If you read up on what it did with the Merlin XX it was a very good aircraft and later when fitted with the 60 series the MkVIII was as good as any model up to 25,000ft including the MkXIV.Did it?
Drop tanks are for Getting to the target, internal fuel is for getting home.Shouldn't we after that (an before that) start attaching the drop tank(s)?
Well two drop tanks have more drag than one so a single central mounted 90G or 100G torpedo will do.Drop tanks are for Getting to the target, internal fuel is for getting home.
Once you figure out how to get home we can figure out how to get to the target.
One drop tank or two? or three?
The MkXIV was a Griffon engined MkVIII, which was the 60 Series engined MkIII of 1940's fame.Given these facts, if we're looking at Spitfires available in 1943, we should be focusing on the Griffon-powered MkXII and MkXIV
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 wouldn't tout the Spit's wartime naval service, myself. And I don't know that PR Spits are relevant to the conversation.
As long as there is ground clearance...Well two drop tanks have more drag than one so a single central mounted 90G or 100G torpedo will do.
Drop tanks are for Getting to the target, internal fuel is for getting home.
Once you figure out how to get home we can figure out how to get to the target.
One drop tank or two? or three?
As long as there is ground clearance...
Doing a thin wing Fulmar rather removes the point of using an existing design and one may as well build a purpose designed long range escort day fighter.A de-navalised (the FAA always added huge amounts of equipment and weight to their early war aircraft!), lightened single seat Fulmar derivative with a thinner wing and higher rated engine might have indeed been a possible contender for this 'what if' I guess.
It's pretty obvious that these things are quite relevant to the discussions, really. It's not that hard...![]()
Putting in a new engine is rarely as simple as undoing and reconnecting a few bolts, either though, is it? Changes to CoG if weight differs. new oil coolers and air intakes, new radiators (themselves changing drag and CoG), potentially a new prop, blah blah blah.Doing a thin wing Fulmar rather removes the point of using an existing design and one may as well build a purpose designed long range escort day fighter.
For a long range escort, focusing on the Griffon powered Spitfires seems counterintuitive given the greater fuel consumption and lower miles per gallon. To go the same distance you're going to need to carry even more fuel.The MkXIV was a Griffon engined MkVIII, which was the 60 Series engined MkIII of 1940's fame.
For a long range escort, focusing on the Griffon powered Spitfires seems counterintuitive given the greater fuel consumption and lower miles per gallon. To go the same distance you're going to need to carry even more fuel.
I guess I look at the RAF Tactical Trials for the MK XIV. Here is the quote related to the Mustang MK IIIBut look at the range figures for the MkXII and MkXIV Spitfires which were considerably longer than for the MkV. Yes, your fuel consumption increases. However, the additional power of the Griffon also buys you a lot of performance benefits. To get longer range in a Spitfire, you need more heft in the airframe to carry the additional fuel. The Griffon variants were the path to enabling the additional bulk within the Spitfire airframe. Again, look at the Seafire Mk47 with over 12,000lb gross weight. That's no longer a "lightweight" fighter.
Why?Wellingtons and Hampdens flying combat missions during the night was a consequence of RAF not having escort for their bombers. Provide the effective escort and these two bomber types can wage the war during the daylight.
Literally no one has said that.I get the desire to envision the Spitfire as a long range escort and eliminate the need for the Mustang,
I guess I look at the RAF Tactical Trials for the MK XIV. Here is the quote related to the Mustang MK III
Radius of Action
31. Without a long range tank, the Spitfire XIV has no endurance. With a 90 gallon long-range tank it has about half the range of the Mustang III fitted with 2 x 62 1/2 gallon long range tanks.
Here's the link:
I get the desire to envision the Spitfire as a long range escort and eliminate the need for the Mustang, but in my opinion the Spitfire is lacks in two fundamental characteristics to be successful in this role: Fuel Efficiency and Speed per Horsepower. Perhaps like the P-47, the Spitfire could be redeveloped with a brand new wing as well as new fuselage with greater capacity resulting in something like a P-47N but at that point is it a Spitfire?
Because they had leading edge aux fuel tanks where's the MkV just had the standard 85G main tank, the MkXIV was also built on the improved MkIII fuselage unlike the MkV's MkII variant.But look at the range figures for the MkXII and MkXIV Spitfires which were considerably longer than for the MkV.
Literally no one has said that.
You seem to be forgetting that the long range Mustang didn't come around until the winter of 1943/4. That's four years of war for the RAF. Re-read the thread title.
What is the one criticism of the Spitfire, the first thing everyone mentions in every discussion?, it's lack of range. We aren't trying to turn the Spitfire into anything other than a fighter that has useable range allowing it to take the fight to the enemy, it's seriously not rocket science. There is enough internal space to get over 200G of fuel inside the airframe with an external 90G dropper meaning it can from the MkIII onwards range as far as the Ruhr, I bet if you asked every single Spitfire pilot than ever lived what was the planes only flaw I bet they say it's range.A long-range Spitfire would include an aft fuselage fuel tank located roughly where the cameras were located in the PR XIX variant. The "wet wing" ofthe PR variant would also be useful, although it would have to be modified to accommodate guns and ammo. It would still need external fuel tankage of some sort. Would such a frankenstein Spitfire match the range of the P-51D? Probably not. However, it seems eminently achievable if (and it's a BIG IF) the RAF decided it needed such an airframe.