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.
Last edited:
British escort fighter--what might it have been like?
- Thread starter BarnOwlLover
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
buffnut453
Captain
Having put a few silly comments int his thread, I'll try to add something more substantive to the discussion.
A number of posts have highlighted the relative light weight of the Spitfire, and often focus on 1941 as a time period. Aside from the obvious doctrinal problem that the RAF had no role or requirement for a long-range escort fighter, I think it would be more realistic to consider when the USAAF decided it needed truly long-range escorts for its B-17s and B-24s?
Despite the procurement of the P-38, many of the early 8th AF bomber missions were short-ranged ops into France which could be, and were, escorted by existing Spitfire variants. As it was, the P-38 was only transferred to England in September 1943. Even the P-47 only commenced operations from the UK in March 1943 and it was only later in the year that the P-47's range extended sufficiently to enable longer-range escort.
Given these facts, if we're looking at Spitfires available in 1943, we should be focusing on the Griffon-powered MkXII and MkXIV. These were the first of the "heavyweight" Spitfires that ultimately led to the MkXX-series RAF fighters and even the Seafire Mk47, which had a max all up weigh in excess of 12,000lb. The MkXII and MkXIV had combat ranges of 493 and 460 miles respectively, compared to just 248 for the MkV.
It seems to me that the MkXII would be the best starting point for any discussion of adapting the Spitfire to provide longer-range escort capabilities. It's certainly a more historically-relevant option than the MkV (IMHO).
A number of posts have highlighted the relative light weight of the Spitfire, and often focus on 1941 as a time period. Aside from the obvious doctrinal problem that the RAF had no role or requirement for a long-range escort fighter, I think it would be more realistic to consider when the USAAF decided it needed truly long-range escorts for its B-17s and B-24s?
Despite the procurement of the P-38, many of the early 8th AF bomber missions were short-ranged ops into France which could be, and were, escorted by existing Spitfire variants. As it was, the P-38 was only transferred to England in September 1943. Even the P-47 only commenced operations from the UK in March 1943 and it was only later in the year that the P-47's range extended sufficiently to enable longer-range escort.
Given these facts, if we're looking at Spitfires available in 1943, we should be focusing on the Griffon-powered MkXII and MkXIV. These were the first of the "heavyweight" Spitfires that ultimately led to the MkXX-series RAF fighters and even the Seafire Mk47, which had a max all up weigh in excess of 12,000lb. The MkXII and MkXIV had combat ranges of 493 and 460 miles respectively, compared to just 248 for the MkV.
It seems to me that the MkXII would be the best starting point for any discussion of adapting the Spitfire to provide longer-range escort capabilities. It's certainly a more historically-relevant option than the MkV (IMHO).
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
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?
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.
Yup, but also because Portal disagreed with the premise, against the advice of his juniors and peers.
It's pretty obvious that these things are quite relevant to the discussions, really. It's not that hard...
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
As long as there is ground clearance...
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?
I've figured out long time ago (just joking, people smarter than me have figured it out) wrt. how to get home - even a small addition of internal fuel is a boon. On Spitfire, each imperial gallon was worth 6+- air miles in cruise (= we're going home); 29 gals that rear tank held = 174 miles.
Drop tanks are easy, my preference is that in drop tanks is carried as much fuel as in the internal tanks. Advantage of Spitfire is that a single drop tank could've been very big, thus the racks will steal as least speed as possible. Make a slipper or 'torpedo' tank of ~120 imp gals and you're golden (although the 170 imp gals slipper was also in use)
Both 170 and 200 (!) imp gal 'torpedo' tanks were flight tested on Spitfire.
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
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.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
It's pretty obvious that these things are quite relevant to the discussions, really. It's not that hard...
PR Spits might have quite long range, but guns and ammo would have an effect, I'd imagine. As for navalized Spits, they're gonna burn a helluva lot of fuel weaving over ... Skuas. You'll spend that long range zigging, lol.
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.
Besides all of which.... the Tempest was based on an existing design (the Typhoon) and the principal difference was, tada the wing, the difference between the Spitfire marks became huge INCLUDING the wing. The Lancaster was based on a previous design - the Manchester. The principal difference was, tada, the wing. The Beaufighter used the wings of the Beaufort but had a different fuselage - etc etc etc.
If we're going to indulge the concept of discussing 'what ifs', you've chosen a peculiarly obtuse rationale to split that hair. Especially when the P51A wasn't a purpose designed long range escort, but was developed from that of an existing design with a completely new engine, extended fuselage and new tankage to correct the new CoG, new armament, eventually a new cockpit and became, tada, the poster boy for this entire thread, the most successful long range escort fighter of WW2 on the form of the P51D.
I suppose all those designers wondered about the point of not designing a new aircraft from scratch too. But isn't it down to the imperatives of the urgency and economics of war? If there are existing jigs and production facilities for parts of an existing design that can be used, they shave months (sometimes years) of developing everything afresh from a clean sheet of paper. The examples are numerous!
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.
buffnut453
Captain
But 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.
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?
Why?
The RAF had more survivable types in the form of Beaufighter and Boston than the above even by 1941 - and later had the Mosquito.
The Circus operations had proved pretty conclusively that daylight operations a mere hop into France and even with large numbers escorts accrued high and unsustainable losses.
Neither the Wellington or Hampden could operate at high altitude with a full bomb load (usually about 15k for a laden Wellington) and the Hampden could only go long range with a substantially reduced bombload. Thats a horribly vulnerable flight profile, even with an escort. They're likely to suffer losses to combined flak and fighters at an even worse rate than the escorted Blenheims over France. And for what actual strategic goal?
Our imaginary long range escort fighter is going to have to wait until there are large numbers of Stirlings (service ceiling 17k, in practice with full bomb load, often even lower) and Halifaxes and Lancasters (operational ceilings of around 20 to 24k) before there are some serious long range bomb trucks ready to dabble with some proper strategic bombing. But they're all big planes, still horribly vulnerable at those altitudes to heavy flak.
If our 'what if' long range escort is to make any sense to fighter command and the RAF to justify the development time and cost, it also needs a survivable strategic day bomber to escort, surely?
Last edited:
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.
buffnut453
Captain
I'm not trying to eliminate the need for the Mustang. The OP is about the best option for a long-range escort fighter for the RAF. Since the RAF hadn't defined such a role, we're in the realm of speculation. However, adapting an existing design is always less risky than creating an entirely new design, hence the Spitfire is a good starting point for discussions.
As for your quote, we're discussing the potential evolution of the Spitfire, not the versions that actually saw service. Again, there was no RAF requirement for long-range fighter escort, so no such design was created. However, that doesn't mean the Spitfire couldn't have evolved. Perhaps it couldn't attain the ranges of the P-51D but the idea that the Spitfire was "too light" and "too small" to carry a decent load simply isn't correct (again, I refer to the Seafire Mk47 to show how the design was evolved...not for long-range escort but for other roles).
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.
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.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,283
- Jan 31, 2021
The P-38 was initially seen as the long-range fighter for U.S. forces in Europe.
Bomber Command had been bombing mostly at night since the autumn of 1940. If the bombers are going at night, there is little pressure or need to develop a long-range day fighter.
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.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
