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.
British escort fighter--what might it have been like? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter BarnOwlLover
- Start date
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
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?
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?
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,356
- Jan 31, 2021
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...
Last edited:
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.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
I don't know how much effect, sure. But I also know that there's no free lunch. Referring to a high-altitude, high-speed, unarmed airplane (or non-combat tests) to argue the idea of a viable long-range fighter just needs more support than that thin reed, I think.
If you find that "short-sighted", meh.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,356
- Jan 31, 2021
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.)
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Basically what NA was offering were 2 things.
1. More guns. four .50s and four .30s instead of two .50s and two/four 30s.
2. More speed.
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.
Also note that the Mustang prototype didn't carry as much fuel as as the P-40 did. True. Also note that both planes were supposed to fly combat with 120 US gallons and the Mustang I first flew with 170 US gallons max and the P-40s flew with 181 US gallons max.
Then things got complicated. I don't know if NA was planning on putting in protected tanks. However the production Mustang Is were delivered with protected tanks and 180 US gallons max although when the XP-51 was tested by the USAAC in Dec 1941 it weighed 7934lbs. which does not seem like it was carrying full fuel.
P-40 fuel capacity declined. First to 160 gallons on the P-40B and then to 135 (?) on the P-40C and then back to 148 in the D & E.
P-40 fuel tanks were limited by the space they had to fit them into and when they put the really thick self sealing material in/on them they lost fuel capacity.
You will find variations according to sources and the later P-40s are all over the place. They would take out the forward tank and put it back, some sources say the Merlin powered ones used a larger rear tank, P-40N-5 and later used different tanks with different protection.
You can find different tank capacities for the Mustangs and Allison P-51s too. On occasion you can find differences between the left and right tank but that may be because one tank was fitted with a separate fuel tape to act as the reserve? British originally said it had 140 IMP gallons. max.
NA had time to set up the tanks to accommodate the protection requirement.
I will also note that the P-40's fuel tank use order changed with some of the engine changes in order to keep the CG balance as fuel was used. An unwary pilot who jumped from P-40 to P-40 without checking the manual could find himself with CG problems.
wuzak
Captain
The main reason for the long range in PR Spits was the leading edge tanks fitted to them. Each held 66 Imp.G. So the PR Spitfires had more than twice the fuel of the fighter variants,
It would be possible to modify the standard wing to have more fuel, in addition to the small ~13.5 Imp.G fuel tanks inboard of the gun bays.
To use the leading edge of the wing would require them to standardise on 2 x 20mm cannon + 2 x 0.50" hmgs, or 4 x 20mm cannon. These gun positions are close together, as compared to the 2 x 20mm + 4 x 0.303" mg arrangement, where the mgs are spaced apart.
The Leading edge tanks - outer and inner - could possible give 40-45 Imp.G.
The question about that arrangement would be how the fuel is fed past the gun bays, and whether it can be done without sacrificing the structural strength of the wing.
The leading edge fuel tanks on PR Spitfires lost some supporting structure, so probably weren't as good for manoeuvring.
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.
I think I said this very same thing a couple of pages ago. You also forgot the bit about the RAF Chief of Air Staff Portal refusing to acknowledge that long-range escort fighters were possible (sounds familiar). My original point is obvious, really.
You can say anything you like, but support it with facts rather than bias. Here's something that we can agree on, the Spitfire was not an ideal long-range escort fighter, simply because it was not designed for that role.
Here's the clincher that I feel you're refusing to acknowledge, that doesn't mean that there was no way it could have been one. With modification it could have easily become a suitable long-range escort fighter, had the need arisen, but the need did not arise, therefore it was done as an exercise only and not done for service. It's the nuance that's missing.
To demonstrate fairness, don't get me started on the problems that beset the Typhoon or the Halifax...
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Context.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Could the Spitfire have been given longer range than it was historically? YES
Could it equal the P-51 Mustang with Merlin engine? NO
we are arguing about where on the spectrum it could have fallen.
Could it equal the P-51 Mustang with Merlin engine? NO
we are arguing about where on the spectrum it could have fallen.
Well, yes, to those of us paying attention, but some refuse to acknowledge whether or not it could have been done at all. Regarding a comparison with the Mustang, a pointless exercise given they were on the same side and underwent quite different early development, around five years apart from one another. Bear in mind that had the British needed to modify the Spitfire for long-range escort duties it would have taken place in 1939 to 1940, beginning with Spitfire Is and IIs and subsequently graduating to later variants, before the Mustang I even entered production.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 914
- Feb 16, 2013
Exactly.
Besides the obvious fuel issue, the other strike against the Spitfire was it's relatively draggy airframe. Perhaps the Mk.III solved most of those concerns, but they were rejected in favour of standardized production. 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?
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
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.
A MK 47 Seafire, clean, is within a hundred pounds of of clean P-51D. (about 10,200lbs?)
They will max gross within a few hundred pounds of each other (around 12,500lbs)
They aren't really supposed to do the same thing. The MK 47 Seafire still has no range (clean) but that monster Griffon engine and MK V 20mm cannon it would eat a Mustang for breakfast, land and then go back up and eat other one for lunch.
But how much of the even the Spitfire MKVIII airframe was left let alone the MK V.
The Mustang was intended to be heavier and carry more weight (read payload), both planes got heavier as time went on.
The Mustang simply had more room (volume) and more weight allowance to put the extra 'stuff' without breaking.
Doesn't mean that they couldn't have put more stuff than they did in the Spit if they were willing to either accept the trade offs or beef up the airframe (add weight) or both.
A MK 47 Seafire, clean, is within a hundred pounds of of clean P-51D. (about 10,200lbs?)
They will max gross within a few hundred pounds of each other (around 12,500lbs)
They aren't really supposed to do the same thing. The MK 47 Seafire still has no range (clean) but that monster Griffon engine and MK V 20mm cannon it would eat a Mustang for breakfast, land and then go back up and eat other one for lunch.
But how much of the even the Spitfire MKVIII airframe was left let alone the MK V.
The Mustang was intended to be heavier and carry more weight (read payload), both planes got heavier as time went on.
The Mustang simply had more room (volume) and more weight allowance to put the extra 'stuff' without breaking.
Doesn't mean that they couldn't have put more stuff than they did in the Spit if they were willing to either accept the trade offs or beef up the airframe (add weight) or both.
Not really. All that would need to happen with the Spitfire is increasing the fuel load. The Mustang, by comparison, could not have become a viable long-range escort fighter without the Merlin, revision of the cooling system, extra fuel etc, and even then, investigation into these things was done before the USAAF decided to accept the type as a fighter.
The Mustang was by and large, across all variants, physically larger than a Spitfire. This is gonna limit the Spitfire's usable fuel load by comparison, and again, we are looking at two different knowledge sets being devised when each type was developed, so yes, the Mustang's range performance was always going to be greater. As always, it depends entirely on what you are comparing, though. A Spitfire Mk.I is a very different long-range escort fighter compared to a Spitfire Mk.XIV or later model, for example. Let's not forget that the Spitfire XIV could outperform the P-51C/D in every respect with the exception of range.
For argument's sake, a straight comparison between a Spitfire IX and P-51D is worthy. Could you modify a Spitfire IX to fly escort on daylight raids all the way to Berlin? Yes, you could. As long as it fulfils what is being asked of it, why does it matter that it doesn't have the same performance as the Mustang? They're both on the same side...
A bit more than you realise, actually. From the firewall aft to the tail section, between Frame 5 and Frame 19 where the tail section fitted to, from the Mk.V onwards, the structure was the same. The modification for high and low back Spitfires was a simple change in the size of frames, but the basic structural elements were the same. Wings, engines, empennage, and cooling systems all changed, but the fuselage stayed the same.
This is a Mk.21 fuselage. The only difference between it and a Mk.V fuselage is the forward canted firewall at its upper edge to take a larger oil tank, because the 21 had a Griffon.
Your point about the Mk.21 is a good one, though, it kinda doesn't really make sense that the 21 had a high back when low backs were already being fitted to earlier marks. The British do make odd decisions, but for good reasons, see below...
Last edited:
It was a matter of expediency. So, the prototype Mk.21, DP851 was formerly a Spitfire Mk.IV, which had a high back as it was built in 1941 was fitted with a Griffon already and became the basis of the Mk.XII, but not the XIV, as that was a Mk.VIII fuselage modified with a Griffon (this is a good lesson in the interchangeability of each mark of Spitfire's defining elements to the same basic fuselage). The Air Ministry didn't specifically issue a specification for the Mk.21, the production line at Castle Bromwich, which was pumping out Mk.Vs and then IXs was modified to take the Mk.21 and thus, with high back fuselages already on the production line, the new wing and empennage, Griffon engine and associated cooling system were fitted to existing fuselages.
Both Beaufighter and Boston were bad in bombing Germany.
British war started in 1939, not in 1941.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
