Best altitude for the Allison is below 18,000ft, that's not much use over Europe is it?.
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
Bomber command flew at night because it had no long range fighters.
Escort or not the Spitfire needed more range, if they can redesign it to take the 60 series Merlin and later Griffon, turn it into a carrier aircraft, Photo recon plane, and even tow a glider I cannot understand why they couldn't put more fuel into it.
That didnt answer my question.
- Thread starter
- #65
BarnOwlLover
Staff Sergeant
If we're using the Spitfire as the baseline, it's certainly possible to turn it into a long range fighter, but what would need changing? And would these be changes that wouldn't cause significant production delays or require an other production line be opened to prevent/reduce delays?
If (the big word being if) the Spitfire had a P-51 or Spiteful type inward retracting main landing gear ahead of the front wing spar, you'd have some space to put a removable fuel tank, provided that the radiators and their ducting (which are wing mounted) don't get in the way. But since the Spitfire didn't have such an undercarriage, that's basically a no-go. A Merlin powered Spiteful designed with wing tanks would probably be a better starting point. Or a Merlin Spiteful with a ventral radiator (more room in the wings for fuel) or leading edge wing radiators. Or a Merlin (or even Griffon) Spiteful with a modified Spitfire 21-24 wing with inward retracting landing gear attached ahead of the front wing spar.
However, even that's a problem, because the Spiteful, one, had less wing area than the Spitfire, and two, had less space between the front and rear wing spars than the Spitfire.
To make a Spitfire into an optimized escort fighter or long range pursuit type interceptor that retains all it's admirable attributes., you'd probably be better off using it's design as a starting point, but you'd still end up with a very different aircraft.
Of course, there's also the lightweight Mustangs (XP-51F/G, P-51H/L/M), but you'll be waiting until almost War's end for them in reality. Granted, we're talking about something that didn't really exist until the Merlin Mustangs to begin with, and we're also talking 20/20 hindsight, too.
Then again, the FW Ta-152B/C/H could operate as escort fighters since they had fuel tanks that could be added or subtracted to the wings. But that was too little, too late for Germany (escort fighters were out of place in 1945, for multiple reasons).
My point, formed from what I already knew of World War II aircraft, my imagination, and what others have said here, you can take an existing fighter and make it into what we're talking about, but you'd probably end up with a heavily modified aircraft, or you'd probably be better off with a clean sheet of paper design.
If (the big word being if) the Spitfire had a P-51 or Spiteful type inward retracting main landing gear ahead of the front wing spar, you'd have some space to put a removable fuel tank, provided that the radiators and their ducting (which are wing mounted) don't get in the way. But since the Spitfire didn't have such an undercarriage, that's basically a no-go. A Merlin powered Spiteful designed with wing tanks would probably be a better starting point. Or a Merlin Spiteful with a ventral radiator (more room in the wings for fuel) or leading edge wing radiators. Or a Merlin (or even Griffon) Spiteful with a modified Spitfire 21-24 wing with inward retracting landing gear attached ahead of the front wing spar.
However, even that's a problem, because the Spiteful, one, had less wing area than the Spitfire, and two, had less space between the front and rear wing spars than the Spitfire.
To make a Spitfire into an optimized escort fighter or long range pursuit type interceptor that retains all it's admirable attributes., you'd probably be better off using it's design as a starting point, but you'd still end up with a very different aircraft.
Of course, there's also the lightweight Mustangs (XP-51F/G, P-51H/L/M), but you'll be waiting until almost War's end for them in reality. Granted, we're talking about something that didn't really exist until the Merlin Mustangs to begin with, and we're also talking 20/20 hindsight, too.
Then again, the FW Ta-152B/C/H could operate as escort fighters since they had fuel tanks that could be added or subtracted to the wings. But that was too little, too late for Germany (escort fighters were out of place in 1945, for multiple reasons).
My point, formed from what I already knew of World War II aircraft, my imagination, and what others have said here, you can take an existing fighter and make it into what we're talking about, but you'd probably end up with a heavily modified aircraft, or you'd probably be better off with a clean sheet of paper design.
- Thread starter
- #66
BarnOwlLover
Staff Sergeant
I did find this speculative (but apparently real) project by Alf Faddy, a Supermarine engineer to made a dedicated high performance long range single seat recon plane that could've been developed into a fighter. Not much into exists from what I've been able to find on this project, but maybe an interesting "what could've been".
Shortround6
Major General
The Mustang had several advantages for an escort fighter. Maybe no one advantage was the secret, maybe no 2 secrets were. It may have required all of them.
One of the "secrets" was the airfoil, not just because of the laminar flow but because they had more volume inside the wing.
The extent of the Laminar flow may have been laboratory only. In the field it may have been more like 20%?
The Spitfire wing was 13% at the thickest (?) while the Mustang was 16% however there was a lot more of the Mustang wing that was "thicker" and then tapered quicker.
This gave more room for the fuel and landing gear and guns, etc.
The Mustang fuselage was actually thicker than the Spitfire and the fuel tanks in wing actually went under the cockpit. I don't know how much of a gap there was between them.
for wing tanks with self sealing you want them to as thick as possible. The thickness of the self-sealing material takes up room. You need the same amount of sealing material per sq ft on the top and bottom regardless of how thick the actual tank is so a long thin tank in a skinny part of the wing means more weight per gallon of fuel carried.
One of the "secrets" was the airfoil, not just because of the laminar flow but because they had more volume inside the wing.
The extent of the Laminar flow may have been laboratory only. In the field it may have been more like 20%?
The Spitfire wing was 13% at the thickest (?) while the Mustang was 16% however there was a lot more of the Mustang wing that was "thicker" and then tapered quicker.
This gave more room for the fuel and landing gear and guns, etc.
The Mustang fuselage was actually thicker than the Spitfire and the fuel tanks in wing actually went under the cockpit. I don't know how much of a gap there was between them.
for wing tanks with self sealing you want them to as thick as possible. The thickness of the self-sealing material takes up room. You need the same amount of sealing material per sq ft on the top and bottom regardless of how thick the actual tank is so a long thin tank in a skinny part of the wing means more weight per gallon of fuel carried.
So what is your question, do you want single stage Merlins like the 45 series fitted into the P51?.
Nothing needs to be redesigned or changed, long range aux tanks plus drop tanks had been designed fitted and used years before the MkIX entered service in mid '42, the fact that all MkXVI Spits had 66 or 75G rear tanks fitted as standard, the MkIII having a 100G main and the MkVIII having leading edge tanks plus the MkV having all sorts of combinations of internal, drop, slipper and ferry tanks proves the equipment and knowledge was there to make it happen, Portal just needed to be sent to Siberia and have someone with vision run the show.
Well that would be a huge improvement on a Hurricane in 1941 to 42.
Can't disagree with you there, making Hurricanes up to 1944 was a total waste of resources.
Maybe you missed the start, I proposed Hawkers building the P509 then Mustang MI in UK straight off the drawing board.
Is that feasible?, we are talking about an escort fighter being available from mid 1942 with the Spitfire, I don't think Hawker could get the P51 into production earlier than that?, if you want to use Hawker they should be making MkVIII's for escort duties with extra tanks and MkXII's to combat the FW190, leave the interim models to Supermarine and have more of the car companies assembling engines if they can to take the pressure off rolls and ford
There is more than enough of space to put the external tank under the fuselage, as it was the case historically. Slipper tanks used were droppable, with choice up to 170 imp gals. The Spitfire IX modified in the US have had drop tanks roughly under the cannon installation, so no problems there, too (Spitfire carried bombs sometimes there, plus under fuselage).
Spitfire Vs were ferried towards Mediterranean with 170 imp gal slipper tank and 29 imp gal tank behind the pilot. Different slipper tanks outlines, as well as the 29 gal tank:
Problem was insufficient internal fuel, with additional/bigger tanks installed in a CoG-neutral location as much as it is possible. That problem was being addressed with Mk.III (99 imp gals between the pilot and engine) and Mk.VII/VIII (95-96 gals in main tanks, 25 gals in leading edge tank). Installing the fuel behind the pilot was a thing too, even if it required a better part of that fuel to be used up before combat since the tanks were rather far from the CoG. However, that was too late, it happened after the Allies were already in France.
Last edited:
Probably a political and economic impossibility, but the British were buying planes from NAA from the start, and the P-509 was submitted as a design study in March 1940. My idea was to tell Hawker to "build that" in March 1940, with production gradually taking over from Hurricanes and the spec gradually improving to that of a P-51, not so much as an escort fighter, but as a better fighter, with longer range etc.
Hurricanes were perfectly suited to 2nd line duties as fighter bombers in the Far East from very austere forward locations.
They fought on out there til VJ Day. Cheap and easy to build, even cheaper and easier to operate.
Even when it had long range fighters, there was no milage in reverting to daylight once they had the technical means to blind bomb with high precision, and night still kept the single engined fighters out of it.
Possible? Possible, practical? not really.
Despite using the same engine and much the same amount of material, you could build 4 P-51's in the time it took to build a Spitfire.
The Spitfire had zero consideration to mass production with its nearly every panel a hand made compound curve.
P-40s were even easier and cheaper to make, cost for the British was zero pounds sterling. Very easy to operate, can carry more than Hurricanes, has better range/radius.
Far more practical than to use Beaufighters as long range fighters, that were in grave danger in presence of enemy fighters.
Thread is about British escort fighter, not American escort fighter.
They did bomb in daylight, stated on here many times.
