So larger airfields can't be made before 1943?, how did bombers take off?.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
So larger airfields can't be made before 1943?, how did bombers take off?.it also misses the point about the airfields.
The airfields of 1943-44 were NOT the airfields of 1940-41. Many or most of the existing RAF fighter fields were enlarged and had obstructions (building and trees) cleared away. New airfields were built larger to begin with. P-51s had it easy, they were going into fields that been built (or modified) to suit P-47s Which had field requirements almost that of a medium bomber.
The same principles apply to Ruhr valley. Conserve internal fuel when external tanks are also available. I your concern is about being attacked while climbing there isn't a great difference beween airplane fully loaded internally, and 'nearly fully loaded' by buring 20 -40 gal compared to 7000 pounds GW.We aren't trying to get the Spit to match the Mustang, we are just trying to get worthwhile range out of it, that's why we are focused on the Ruhr valley from 1941.
The problem with the 1940 and early 1941 escort fighter is the engines when trying to compare them to 1942-43 aircraft.It was in regards to SR reply in regards to handling and climb when loaded with fuel. You also have to take into account the time frame, the Luftwaffe had a very strong presence on the channel coast in 1941-42, you wouldn't want to be caught by an FW190 with full rear tanks.
Sure you can, just stop working on the bomber airfields and you can better fighter airfieldsSo larger airfields can't be made before 1943?.
A Spitfire long range escort in 1943-44 may very well be doable. In 1940 not a chance. In 1941 maybe, at distances into Holland or France.
The airfields of 1943-44 were NOT the airfields of 1940-41. Many or most of the existing RAF fighter fields were enlarged and had obstructions (building and trees) cleared away. New airfields were built larger to begin with. P-51s had it easy, they were going into fields that been built (or modified) to suit P-47s Which had field requirements almost that of a medium bomber.
The Spit V opens the possibility, at least to adding 40-80 gallons of internal fuel and not having performance (climb and turn) not fall below Spitfire I & II levels. If that level of performance is good enough for which months in 1941-42. As the German fighters get better (109F-4s and Fw 190s) you either need to fit Merlin XX engines, which actually only help at lower altitudes and not at 15-25,000ft area you need to stop German fighters from diving on the bombers, or you need to reduce the fuel load to lighten the plane when the external fuel is dropped which shortens the escort range.
The Spitfire II with the under wing held 124 imp gal, I am not arguing about drop tank/s at the moment just simply combat capability with drop tank gone an greater internal fuel.say, 130 imp gals of fuel + drop tank. Spitfires of 1938-40 were a bit faster than Bf 109s, not the case in 1941.
Spitfire II used a Rotol prop and the Merlin XII engine used higher boost limits for both take-off and climb than the Merlin III and should be fairly close to the Merlin X engine.British were perfectly capable to make longer strips.
A LR Spitfire with Merlin X and at least 2-speed prop goes a long way to cut the take off distance.
Ok but you may want to forget about the wing clip. Cutting about 10% of your wing area when you are trying to take off with heavy loads is not usually a good idea.Spitfire can be made a bit faster by better streamlining (as it was done by the Mk.III)
The Spitfire II with the under wing held 124 imp gal, I am not arguing about drop tank/s at the moment just simply combat capability with drop tank gone an greater internal fuel.
You still have speed but climb and sustained turn have gone to pot.
Now the take-off is not that complicated by adding in 40-60 imp gallons of internal fuel, the take off is complicated by using both added internal fuel and external fuel.
How much external fuel do you need to get to the No-go point?
No-go is the fuel left after the combat allowance and reasonable reserve are taken out.
90 imp gal is probably too much (?) but somewhere around 60-75 might work.
Ok but you may want to forget about the wing clip. Cutting about 10% of your wing area when you are trying to take off with heavy loads is not usually a good idea.
The Altitude advantage lasts how long in combat? Right up until the first turn or pull-out from the first dive?As for the climb - I've already climbed. It is the Germans that needed to climb to my altitude, not vice-versa. Altitude advantage means something, right
Japanese had 2-3 years to build longer runways.We're in no worse situation than Japanese taking off with Ki-61.
Ferry flights have somewhat more discretion as to take-off conditions.Or Spitfire V pilots taking off with 170 + 29 + 84 gals from ground, let alone aircraft carriers.
You would be relaying aircraft as the raid goes further out so by the time combat starts just the rear 33G main and wing tanks are full, the MkIX had no handling issue's with 33G in the rear and MkVIII's XIV's and Seafire III's didn't have handling issue's with full leading edge tanks so we can assume the MkIII wouldn't either. The MkIII was capable of handling the 109F and on par with the FW190 so warm up taxi on the upper rear 42G, switch to main for take off then back to rear upper for climb out from 2,000ft, continue to use it to climb to 25,000ft and cross the channel, once gone switch to drop tank, have the DT return go to the main tank before overflowing back to the DT so not only are you running on the DT it's refilling the main, once in combat switch to main and manage from there.The same principles apply to Ruhr valley. Conserve internal fuel when external tanks are also available. I your concern is about being attacked while climbing there isn't a great difference beween airplane fully loaded internally, and 'nearly fully loaded' by buring 20 -40 gal compared to 7000 pounds GW.
All interesting - bottom line is that Spit IX turned back after shallow penetration escort for 8th AF. All that you describe was over and done with before getting to Paris.You would be relaying aircraft as the raid goes further out so by the time combat starts just the rear 33G main and wing tanks are full, the MkIX had no handling issue's with 33G in the rear and MkVIII's XIV's and Seafire III's didn't have handling issue's with full leading edge tanks so we can assume the MkIII wouldn't either. The MkIII was capable of handling the 109F and on par with the FW190 so warm up taxi on the upper rear 42G, switch to main for take off then back to rear upper for climb out from 2,000ft, continue to use it to climb to 25,000ft and cross the channel, once gone switch to drop tank, have the DT return go to the main tank before overflowing back to the DT so not only are you running on the DT it's refilling the main, once in combat switch to main and manage from there.
The Altitude advantage lasts how long in combat? Right up until the first turn or pull-out from the first dive?
I doubt very highly there is much altitude advantage left after even 5 minutes. You are down to the power to weight ratio (unless you are running in a straight line)
Japanese had 2-3 years to build longer runways.
Again, the arguments against a 1942-43 long range escort are different than the arguments against a 1940-41 long range escort.
Also not sure about how well the Ki-61 would have done against Bf 109Gs. Or even 109F-4s. Ki-61s were facing off against P-40s and P-39s in 1943, in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king when it comes to climb
Cheers.Ferry flights have somewhat more discretion as to take-off conditions.
to add to the numbers listed earlier for the P-40 at 8900lbs with a 75 US gallon drop tank the take off run (at 0 degrees) drops from 1600ft to 950ft with a 20mph head wind and to just 500ft with a 40mph head wind.
Wonder what you could do with a 20kt carrier, plus a 15-20kt wind plus a catapult?
British really screwed up the escort fighter plan when they stopped building catapults on the 500yds (to the trees) airfields
I might be wrong, but UK existed before ww2.Building runways and all the buildings, hard surfaces, bomb and fuel storage etc. in Britain during the war was the biggest ever British civil engineering effort. There was no spare capacity to do more. If you extend fighter runways, possibly rebuild the whole runway for the extra weight, then you make fewer or shorter bomber runways/airbases. The was no more 'more' to add.
I have the same habit when I want specifics regarding Britain, Scotlane, Northern Ireland, Wales.I might be wrong, but UK existed before ww2.
But WW2 didnt. The runway building programme was huge, not only for RAF Bomber Command but for Fighter and Coastal command too in addition many airfields assigned to American bomber fighter and training groups. A daylight bombing adventure into Germany would take its place behind all the other priorities for planes men and infrastructureI might be wrong, but UK existed before ww2.
Don't worry about that, many here don't understand it. For example the "UK" before WW2 was not the same as the "UK" before WW1.I have the same habit when I want specifics regarding Britain, Scotlane, Northern Ireland, Wales.
History of RAF airfield construction including details of expansion of individual airfields as well as numbers built.But WW2 didnt. The runway building programme was huge, not only for RAF Bomber Command but for Fighter and Coastal command too in addition many airfields assigned to American bomber fighter and training groups. A daylight bombing adventure into Germany would take its place behind all the other priorities for planes men and infrastructure
So a Spitfire with over 200G of internal fuel plus a 90G drop tank can only get to Paris from say Biggin Hill, about 280 miles???All interesting - bottom line is that Spit IX turned back after shallow penetration escort for 8th AF. All that you describe was over and done with before getting to Paris.
But the Germans were not sticking DB 601A engines in 6200lb fighters (Spit 1 & II with normal fuel) , they were sticking them in 5500-5800lb fighters. Being 6% lighter is not much but it does help to level the playing field a bit. 100 octane doesn't do quite as much for the escort fighters as if they get sucked down to lower altitudes where the 100 octane makes a difference they are no longer protecting the bombers (they are below them and while German fighters they shoot down today cannot attack tomorrow, Spitfires below the bombers are not stopping German fighters attacking form above today. )Merlin III offered better power than DB 601A above 15000 ft, Merlin X was still better. 100 oct fuel improves the odds for Merlin family further.
It varied practically by the month. What the RAF could do in Nov 1940 was far different (better) than what it could do Nov 1939.Escorting fighters are not in for one vs. one battle. RAF can deploy a few hundreds of bomber and a few hundreds of bombers in 1939-40
British had to change their doctrine in 1936-37. You need different airfields for both bombers and fighters, you need to build another propeller factory (or two). You need more gun turrets, you need at least one different bomber, Hampdens in daylight are not going to workBritish can do it too, early enough, if the doctrine calls for LR fighters. No doctrine = no LR fighters = no long runaways for the fighters packed with fuel.