There was, Spitfires were easily jumped over France because of their slow cruising speed brought about by a lack of fuel, even after 30G slippers were added the range didn't increase because pilots used the extra fuel to cruise at a higher speed.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
There was, Spitfires were easily jumped over France because of their slow cruising speed brought about by a lack of fuel, even after 30G slippers were added the range didn't increase because pilots used the extra fuel to cruise at a higher speed.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.
There was, Spitfires were easily jumped over France because of their slow cruising speed brought about by a lack of fuel, even after 30G slippers were added the range didn't increase because pilots used the extra fuel to cruise at a higher speed.
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.
Increasing range is not necessarily the same thing as specifically developing a long-range escort fighter.
How much effect, do you reckon? Enough to lower its range to, say, 400 miles? So, during trials with combat-capable Spitfires, the manufacturer Vickers, which owned Supermarine modified a Spitfire and achieved a range of 1,300 miles. In the USA, the team at Wright Field modified two different Spitfires to achieve a range of 1,600 miles, although the Americans did remove some combat equipment to do so. These two aircraft were, incidentally, flown back to the UK across the Atlantic. One crashed in Greenland and was subsequently recovered intact as the underwing drop tanks took the brunt of the impact with the ground, while the other went from Newfoundland-Reykjavik-Boscombe Down.
Thank heaven that the British and Americans during the war were not as short-sighted and unwilling to face facts as much as you guys are...
Is it really necessary to point this out? We should all, by now, know this. The point is obvious. If they could modify a Spitfire to the degree required for PR - and navalised variants, how hard would it be to turn one into a long-range escort fighter. The naval Spitfire received major structural modifications, far more work than what would have been required to turn it into an escort fighter. Even the Mustang couldn't become a long-range escort fighter without an entirely new engine, intake setup, increased fuel tankage, which, incidentally, put the CG into dangerous levels, etc. The Spitfire would have just needed extra fuel tanks.
A bit of drift if you don't mind. The Mustang wasn't "sold" to BPC as a long range escort. The story, that I never researched, was that the BPC approached NAA to build licensed copies of the P-40. NAA said it could come up with something better.
What was NAA's pitch? What was this better (and nonexistent) plane supposed to be better at? It had to be something more than "we'll have something better!" As happy as the RAF might have been with the T-6, what convinced the BPC to risk Britain's safety with a plane still on the drawing board?
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.
Except the need for a long-range escort is to escort the bombers. But RAF bombers (with the exception for 2 Group) are flying at night, so there is nothing to escort, and thus no problem to which a long-range escort is the solution.
The USAAF thought its bombers would be self-defending in daylight. When this proved to not be the case, the need for long-range escorts presented itself. (The alternative was for the Americans to switch to nighttime bombing.)
Remind me to never, ever say anything negative about the Spitfire ever again. Sheesh.
Context.Note the date, this is within a couple of weeks of the first production P-40 actually flying. and a number of months before the Mustang I flew. They are paper promises.
we are arguing about where on the spectrum it could have fallen.
Exactly.The other way the range could be increased is by reducing drag.
The Spitfire III was an attempt to do this, with a redesigned radiator, clipped wings and other detail changes.
But many of these features did not go beyond the Mk.III prototype.
By the time you get the Spitfire to equal the Mustang (or close) it might look like a Spitfire but next to nothing would be the same as a regular Spitfire.
But how much of the even the Spitfire MKVIII airframe was left let alone the MK V.
They were still installing the ridiculous rear view mirror as late as the Mk.21. How many miles of range did that thing eat up?
Both Beaufighter and Boston were bad in bombing Germany.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.