Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
In the BoB having 30G behind the seat would have Spitfires at 25,000ft before the Luftwaffe bombers crossed the coast instead of climbing like hell from underneath them., likewise that extra fuel could increase their loiter time or allow greater tactical flexibility, there's no negatives for having extra fuel capacity.Just because you have capacity for more fuel doesn't mean that you always need to top up all the tanks. I'd imagine for interceptor style missions the wing tanks would be left empty. And for aircraft entirely dedicated to the interceptor mission, like during the BoB, I imagine airfield mechanics could even remove the wing tanks for a small weight reduction. Or even not bothering to install them at the factory, such that wing tank kits could be manufactured later and delivered to the squadrons as the RAF adopts a more offensive posture post-BoB.
Further, with my suggestion above to move the radiators to the centerline, the roll rate should slightly improve compared to the historical Spitfire (as long as the wing tanks are empty, of course).
Actually the Mustang drained as little of the 85 gal aux tank as feasible, and only used left main on takeoff. The drop tank was primary fuel source until empty or punched.What performance?, no fighter goes to war with full aux and drop tanks, with the drop tank released the Spitfire with full main tank, full lower rear tank flew just like a normal Spitfire.
I believe, but could be wrong, that the Left main acted as the overflow tank for the carb/injector and took in 1-2 gallons an hour of flight time?Actually the Mustang drained as little of the 85 gal aux tank as feasible, and only used left main on takeoff. The drop tank was primary fuel source until empty or punched.
Let me rephrase, every long range aircraft development results in a loss of performance when the airplane is heavy. In reviewing aircraft tests available on the WW2 Aircraft Performance Site we can see the loss of climb rate on aircraft when carrying heavier full loads. The impact on a Spitfire MKV with 90 gallon belly tank is in the 500 ft/min range. There are also testing reports on aircraft with added fuel weight in the wings. Perhaps the best example is the P-47N. All of these document the loss of roll rate and affect on performance. As this thread has developed, I have been scouring for flight tests of the PR series Spitfires. While I haven't come across anything like a RAF Tactical Evaluation, I did find several references to the earlier PR Spitfires having balance issues and all PR Spitfires being less maneuverable.Absolutely thats why the loss of performance is a stupid reason not to add tanks because the fuel is gone before the fight starts.
Yes. Beginning with XP-51F, the right Main became overflow destination, and introduced crossfeed from 105gal Right to the 75 gal Left. Ditto G/J and H (but H had 100gal Left Main).I believe, but could be wrong, that the Left main acted as the overflow tank for the carb/injector and took in 1-2 gallons an hour of flight time?
Let me rephrase, every long range aircraft development results in a loss of performance when the airplane is heavy. In reviewing aircraft tests available on the WW2 Aircraft Performance Site we can see the loss of climb rate on aircraft when carrying heavier full loads. The impact on a Spitfire MKV with 90 gallon belly tank is in the 500 ft/min range. There are also testing reports on aircraft with added fuel weight in the wings. Perhaps the best example is the P-47N. All of these document the loss of roll rate and affect on performance. As this thread has developed, I have been scouring for flight tests of the PR series Spitfires. While I haven't come across anything like a RAF Tactical Evaluation, I did find several references to the earlier PR Spitfires having balance issues and all PR Spitfires being less maneuverable.
We can't assume that the enemy will kindly wait around until we've burned off all our fuel to be at optimal fighting trim. On the outbound leg, the bomber force is more likely to be attacked as soon as possible to blunt the incoming attack, forcing the escort fighters to drop external tanks and fight with a max internal fuel load.
No, actually all escorts were fully loaded. The Penetration/Withdrawal assignments were largely P-47 and needed full internal fuel to reach intermediate R/V points for the 'relay' and hand off to the longer range escorts.I don't think anyone here is disputing this.
But, to reiterate what I wrote earlier, just because you have the possibility to load a lot of fuel into the aircraft, doesn't mean you have to do it for missions that don't require a full fuel load.
No fighter, including the fabled Mustang, had the endurance to be in combat from the French coast to Berlin and back. And I suspect no pilot had it either. What AFAIU they did for these long range bombing missions was that squadrons relieved each other. And obviously those squadrons responsible for the first leg (and last leg on the way back) didn't need to be loaded with as much fuel as those responsible for cover over the bombing target.
I've posted this before, but it helps illustrate how bomber missions were conducted. I believe drgondog previously identified this particular mission.No, actually all escorts were fully loaded. The Penetration/Withdrawal assignments were largely P-47 and needed full internal fuel to reach intermediate R/V points for the 'relay' and hand off to the longer range escorts.
No, actually all escorts were fully loaded. The Penetration/Withdrawal assignments were largely P-47 and needed full internal fuel to reach intermediate R/V points for the 'relay' and hand off to the longer range escorts.
This is a useful image, I`m not finger pointing I would just like to post it somewhere else. Is this copyrighted ?I've posted this before, but it helps illustrate how bomber missions were conducted. I believe drgondog previously identified this particular mission. View attachment 744872
No worries, sir. I've never claimed it as mine. It looks like the original website is no longer active, but I did find a copy of what I believe is the original post.This is a useful image, I`m not finger pointing I would just like to post it somewhere else. Is this copyrighted ?
Howard's Medal of Honor mission.I've posted this before, but it helps illustrate how bomber missions were conducted. I believe drgondog previously identified this particular mission. View attachment 744872
Two things I take from that.I've posted this before, but it helps illustrate how bomber missions were conducted. I believe drgondog previously identified this particular mission. View attachment 744872
I have reviewed 1000's of mission orders for different groups in 8th AF. The only variation to full load out referenced the amount of fuel in fuselage tank. Additionally, the normal SOP for P-51B/D equipped FGs was to load mains after every mission (unless written up on Form 1) prior to the next day. As I examined differences the most common was to also fill 110 gal (steel) externals at the same time and put 65 gal in fuselage tank.That's logical, when you have aircraft with different maximum range you can't use the short range ones for the long range missions (well, unless you're Greg and the plane is the P-47, but I digress).
You load the fuel you need (plus some reserve, of course). Or for an example, if the 8th had been equipped with P-51B/D from day one, the squadrons responsible for the first and last leg escorting would not be loaded with as much fuel as those responsible for the escort over the target.
True, ButTwo things I take from that.
1.The distance to the target flown by both bombers and fighters is much longer than the straight line distance to the target.
2. If you cant confront a raid with equal numbers of fighters at the coast and conduct similar raids yourself the position is hopeless. Hamburg and Bremen are to the north of that raid, the Ruhrgebiet to the south. Other targets in the south of Germany could be approached via France. The LW needed many more A/C than the USA had to defend Germany or the territory it held.
This report clearly states that the reserve tank be used first for warm up taxi take off and climb with no combat or hard maneuvering with the rear tank more that half full.Actually the Mustang drained as little of the 85 gal aux tank as feasible, and only used left main on takeoff. The drop tank was primary fuel source until empty or punched.
Pretty much what has been said numerous times, about 10 times so far on this thread alone on how it could and was ultimately done, unfortunately too many people have fixated on the Portal mentality of it's impossible to achieve.No, actually all escorts were fully loaded. The Penetration/Withdrawal assignments were largely P-47 and needed full internal fuel to reach intermediate R/V points for the 'relay' and hand off to the longer range escorts.
I would guess that time, other equipment and exact model of the P-51 changed the things around a bit.This report clearly states that the reserve tank be used first for warm up taxi take off and climb with no combat or hard maneuvering with the rear tank more that half full.
All Spitfire tanks were two piece, an upper and lower for precisely this reason, our escort Spitfire would have use the very same tactics escort Mustangs did use, from fuel management to relaying flights.Also the test report clearly states that the test tank had no baffles and production tanks should have baffles to prevent fuel movement both longitudinally and laterally. Which may very well affect the limits needed.
The operational requirements dictated the instructions regarding the tankage - Everyone Knew the issues surrounding accelerated turns. The answer, "if you find yourself in a hard mauevering fight with full load, Go with God - but avoid that if possible'.This report clearly states that the reserve tank be used first for warm up taxi take off and climb with no combat or hard maneuvering with the rear tank more that half full.