Did the RAF have designs for a long range escort fighter?

[stona]

It was tear gas. Of course the article fails to mention it.

Diphenylchlorarsine (DA) is a sternutator. It was not developed in time for use in WW1 but it was supposed to penetrate the respirators then in use, causing a violent coughing/vomiting fit and the victim to remove his respirator, potentially exposing him to something even more unpleasant. The German respirator had no filter against such a particulate (neither did the British small box respirator for that matter).

Cheers

Steve

 

[Zipper730]

Diphenylchlorarsine (DA) is a sternutator. It was not developed in time for use in WW1 but it was supposed to penetrate the respirators then in use, causing a violent coughing/vomiting fit and the victim to remove his respirator, potentially exposing him to something even more unpleasant. The German respirator had no filter against such a particulate (neither did the British small box respirator for that matter).

Oh, I just figured "arsenic is poison" and assumed it killed on it's own.

 

[Greyman]

Diphenylchlorarsine (DA) is a sternutator.

I was referring to the type (skillfully omitted) of gas used in Iraq, or were you as well?

One of the works cited in that wiki article writes: "Like Sherlock Homes's supposed use of the expression "Elementary, my dear Watson", or the notion that Humphrey Bogart instructed Dooley Wilson to "Play it again, Sam" in the film Casablanca*, the proposition that the British were the first to use chemical weapons in Iraq in the 1920s has attained the status of common knowledge."

Makes me feel slightly better about being wrong all these years.

*apropos of nearly nothing, I have one to add -- did you guys know no one ever actually said the line "beam me up, Scotty" in Star Trek?

 

[Shortround6]

Why would you do that?
I thought the British Mustangs didn't have a center-tank?.

Because the balance wasn't quite right on the Merlin powered P-51s, you did add several hundred pounds of engine and a larger heavier propeller to the front of the aircraft.
The Balance/CG wasn't bad, just perhaps not all that might be desired. It also made fuel management simpler. fuel for landing was in the rear tank, not fuel in one wing tank (you didn't select both wing tanks at once) so a steep bank when landing (a no-no but they happened) didn't cause fuel starvation. Please note that Merlin powered P-40s also landed using the rear tank while Allison powered P-40s landed on either the forward wing tank (if present) or on the rear wing tank (which was still forward of the rear tank) if the P-40 was a stripper model with the front tank removed.

Then they just thought of having bombers with no bombs and more firepower to simply hose down more enemy fighters, and then from there they developed the YFM-1. I'm amazed the P-30 didn't remove their faith in that idea...

the P-30 idea wasn't quite the same, nobody thought a single RCMG was that big a deal fire power wise. (they were using twin guns in WW I after all) but the P-30 did put an end to single engine two seat fighters in the USAAC.

As a result it meant that the people who had the ability to develop effective tactics for bomber escort, and specifications for practical escorts would never be able to do so... until bombers started getting cut-apart left and right.

The bolded part is a bit of problem. The P-38 is a perfect example. As originally conceived it was a bomber interceptor not interceptor with the same armement and performance as as another specification that lead to the P-39 (at this stage both had turbos) but with twice the endurance. There was no single engine with enough power being offered when design work started so they had to go to twin engines. For a specification for a practical escort, you needed a powerful enough engine that was light enough and didn't gobble fuel at a huge rate (or an airframe that was low enough drag while carrying the required armament and fuel).
Please remember that in general US bomber specifications had much longer ranges than most (all?) european bomber specifications. Even the B-23 which was pretty much a warmed over B-18 with fresh icing drizzled over the top was supposed to carry 4000lbs about 1400miles and first flew in the summer of 1939. So please come up with an escort fighter that could fly a 500 mile combat radius mission in 1939/early 1940 using existing engines of the time before you cast too many stones. Please note that an early P-38 without self sealing tanks (400 gallons internal) can't fly 1400 miles at 210-220mph at altitudes in the mid-teens, please also note that the only way the early P-38s (YP-38s and P-38Ds) got 1150hp engines was by using the turbo, the base engine used 6.44 supercharger gears instead of the 8.77 gears in the P-40 engines and that is what allowed for the extra 110hp for take-off.
That's not entirely true, there were both fighter and bomber-guys who are big proponents of high-altitude capability.

The problem was that the USAAF had little interest in twin-stage superchargers, and focused almost totally on turbochargers. They did work well in producing high critical-altitudes, but they can be kind of bulky compared to superchargers.

that is true but rather ignores the state of the art, such as it was, in supercharger design in the late 30s or 1940. P & W does't get two stage superchargers flying in prototype form until late 1938/early 1939 which is obviously much later than the USAAC was flying turbo charged planes. One Seversky and one Curtiss Hawk show up at the 1939 fighter trials with these engines. The army was apparently not impressed with the performance at that time as they went for the turbo Seversky instead (P-43). Please note the difference in bulk was minor was the two stage P & W engines used intercoolers and at least some ducting.

 

[stona]

I was referring to the type (skillfully omitted) of gas used in Iraq, or were you as well?

No. DA was used against the Red Army in 1919, not in Iraq (and nor was anything else).

I'm not sure why it was used in isolation. The reason it wasn't used in WW1 was because the delivery/distribution method was not effective. The intent then was definitely to use it in combination with more lethal agents like phosgene. I wonder if the British use against the Russians was not a rather nasty experiment.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Zipper730]

Churchill, when he wrote to Portal on 7 Oct 1941, suggested that the RAF ought to provision LR fighters to denude enemy AD and enable a daylight bombing campaign to resume. Portal's reassurance that fighter protection would be required implicitly acknowledged the limitations of not provisioning a LR fighter.

. . .

So a requirement was articulated from the very top and by someone at the operational level

Because they didn't believe the Spitfire fitted with LR tanks could hack it against the Me-109's and Fw.190's?

The only aircraft the RAF had that was available in sufficient numbers and could fulfil this requirement, in terms of dog-fighting/air-to-air combat, was the Spitfire.

I wouldn't say so in the short term -- it wouldn't be able to fly fast enough while flying far enough. Later in the war, the ability to stretch the Spitfire's range was doable, particularly when drop-tanks were added. The USAAF also proposed a modification of a Spitfire IX that had modifications including more fuel-capacity in the wings, possibly additional fuselage capacity and nice big drop-tanks. Eventually, the Spitfire would use the Mareng bags and that would further increase internal load.

What would the Spitfire's operational range have been with these modifications. This is where the experts on this forum would be a great help, to come up with an agreed number in n/miles.

Well, I'll make my computations in statute miles and then compute that into nautical miles.

• USAAF Spitfire IXC modification supposedly had a 1600 mile range
• Provided that is not combat range, your combat range is typically about 2/3 the normal range: 1066-2/3 statute miles
• The Avro Lancaster cruises at around 225-240 mph: Cruising around 225-240 would put you in a situation where you would be unable to accelerate up to combat speed fast enough either in a straight-line or in a dive -- you'll get killed; you have to cruise at around 300 mph to be effective.
• To allow you to fly at 300 mph while the bombers do 225-240 mph would require you to fly a repetitive S-weaving motion (essing for short) which basically allows you to eat-up more distance while staying with the bombers: This means your range will only be 75-80% of flying in a straight-line.
• This yields an effective range of action of 800-853-1/3 miles; radius is theoretically half of that or 400-426-2/3 miles
• If, however you used a relay system, which allowed one to cruise a straight-line up to rendezvous; then s-weaved with the bombers either the rest of the flight or until the next relay came through; then cruised back, theoretically you'd only be essing half the flight and your range would be, in theory 933-1/3 to 960 miles, with a radius of 466-2/3 to 480 miles
• Computing this all into nautical miles, you'll get approximately the following
• Non-Combat Range = 1600 mi, or 1390.362 nm
• Combat-Range = 1066-2/3 mi, or 926.91 nm
• Combat-Radius = 533-1/3 mi, or 463.45 nm
• Combat-Radius w/ S-weaving = 400-426-2/3 mi, or 347.59-370.76 nm
• Combat-Radius w/ S-weaving 1/2 flight: 466-2/3 to 480 miles, or 405.52-417.11 nm

A good question on what escort and protect meant. The minutes of the Air Fighting Sub Committee discussed this issue in 1937

It would seem that they didn't want a single-seat fighter, and preferred fighters that had rear-aiming firepower (turrets?) that would be used as close-escort or roving escort, with multiple crew-members, and possibly be a converted bomber (similar to a proposal of ours in the US of a modified B-10), which at least is comforting to know that we weren't the only ones to come up with ideas like that.

this was probably already stated but i dont think a LR escort was seriously considered because no one thought france would have been over run in the early goings like it was. the raf would have had air strips in france...close enough to the front and some of the industrial regions of germany to be effective

That's actually a very good point.

 

[Zipper730]

I find it curious that RAF withheld Spitfires equipped with 'Slipper Tanks' from daylight escort based on some notion that they 'might be attacked' by coastal LW units

The concern was the performance penalty, it would appear. Ironically, it is likely not a serious problem and, one could compensate by having two sets of fighters of which one would be the primary escort and carry the slipper/drop tanks, and the other set would go without tanks. Because the other set would maneuver better, they could best take care of the LW coastal units, though all could definitely defend themselves if need be. This set would turn back as they'd have a shorter radius of action.

Now, I'm not a war-planner...

In 1936 the DDOps (then Richard Peirse) wrote of events in Spain that "While I still feel it would be a confession of weakness and a waste of effort on our part to even consider the use of fighters in this way [to escort bombers] , I cannot help feeling that we ought to be prepared for such an eventuality."

So, he would prefer the bombers to go it alone, he did think they should be prepared to develop escort fighters if the need arose?

In response the DCAS (then Christopher Courtney) listed a set of concerns about escorts that reflected pre-war RAF thinking. Specialised escorts would demand resources which might otherwise be put into bombers

In the US, there was also a desire to avoid developing escorts to build more bombers. They didn't believe that an escort was impossible, but uneconomical. That said, there did seem to be seriously warped ideas on what an escort should be.

The whole concept of an offensive bomber force was predicated on its ability to launch a devastating counter offensive in the event of, in fact to deter, any aggression.

Of course, but the RAF seemed to switch from heavy city-busting raids to aims that seemed more aimed at specific targets at first -- my guess is they didn't think they could successfully carry out such a raid in the face of enemy strength, and might have had restrictions as to what kind of bombing the politicians would allow them to carry out.

Tami Davis Bidell has written of British attitudes in 1940, "Britain was in a desperate situation: the bombers provided the only means of offensive action against Germany. Looking stoically ahead, the British kept themselves from despair by cultivating a selective blind spot."

What do you mean "cultivate a selective blind spot"?

 

[Zipper730]

Because the balance wasn't quite right on the Merlin powered P-51s, you did add several hundred pounds of engine and a larger heavier propeller to the front of the aircraft.

So the merlin P-51's were a bit nose-heavy compared to the V-1710's?

The Balance/CG wasn't bad, just perhaps not all that might be desired. It also made fuel management simpler. fuel for landing was in the rear tank, not fuel in one wing tank (you didn't select both wing tanks at once) so a steep bank when landing (a no-no but they happened) didn't cause fuel starvation.

Now that's interesting: I'd have figured that under normal conditions selecting the wing-tanks would drain both tanks evenly unless you were deliberately trying to shift fuel from one tank to another.

the P-30 idea wasn't quite the same, nobody thought a single RCMG was that big a deal fire power wise. (they were using twin guns in WW I after all) but the P-30 did put an end to single engine two seat fighters in the USAAC.

I was kind of under the impression that they wanted gunners in fighters as a way of giving them the ability to disrupt a Lufbery circle, and/or bomber-escort. I'm not exactly sure the rationale for the P-24 (which gave rise to the P-30), though if I recall it was based on a Lockheed Altair.

The bolded part is a bit of problem. The P-38 is a perfect example. As originally conceived it was a bomber interceptor not interceptor with the same armement and performance as as another specification that lead to the P-39 (at this stage both had turbos) but with twice the endurance.

The P-38 & P-39 were designated as interceptors because of a way to circumvent inflexible requirements in pursuit aircraft (at least according to Kelsey).

They wanted a pursuit aircraft with high performance at high and low altitude, a 1000 pound armament (the USAAC wanted only 500 max), and the possibility of having two-engines instead of one (with only one crew -- a no-no). Since Lieutenants can't override the limits set by Colonels and Generals, they decided they'd call the design an interceptor because it wasn't used in the US and if they could create a new category, they could produce their own specifications. The P-39 seemed to be an insurance policy if the P-38's twin-engined, single-crew layout wasn't accepted.

There was no single engine with enough power being offered when design work started so they had to go to twin engines. For a specification for a practical escort, you needed a powerful enough engine that was light enough and didn't gobble fuel at a huge rate (or an airframe that was low enough drag while carrying the required armament and fuel).

Well the specifications were often the problems: They hobbled themselves with specifications they didn't need.

Please remember that in general US bomber specifications had much longer ranges than most (all?) european bomber specifications.

Uh, what about the Wellington? It had a 2500 mile range...

that is true but rather ignores the state of the art, such as it was, in supercharger design in the late 30s or 1940. P & W does't get two stage superchargers flying in prototype form until late 1938/early 1939 which is obviously much later than the USAAC was flying turbo charged planes.

I should point out that this ignorance of state of the art didn't affect the USN...

 

[Shortround6]

Now that's interesting: I'd have figured that under normal conditions selecting the wing-tanks would drain both tanks evenly unless you were deliberately trying to shift fuel from one tank to another.

Fuel selector plate.

You can only select one at a time. Pilots often switched back and forth between the left and right wing (or drop) tanks to keep the plane balanced. Flying combat on one wing tank wasn't a problem if it was on the full side, steep banks with only 15-20 gallons left might be a problem, you would have to ask a Mustang pilot. It depends where the fuel pick ups are.

On the Allison Mustangs one tank (the left?) had two fuel pick ups, one was the "standard" pick up and the 2nd was the reserve.
Principle was like a motorcycle fuel switch.

You draw the gas from the taller tube (valve is on it's side in the picture) until the engine sputters and then you switch the lever to short tube and look for a gas station.

I was kind of under the impression that they wanted gunners in fighters as a way of giving them the ability to disrupt a Lufbery circle, and/or bomber-escort. I'm not exactly sure the rationale for the P-24 (which gave rise to the P-30), though if I recall it was based on a Lockheed Altair.

I am not sure of the rational except that it was a replacement for the Berliner Joyce P-16

It used the same engine as the P-30 ony without the turbo charger.

They wanted a pursuit aircraft with high performance at high and low altitude, a 1000 pound armament (the USAAC wanted only 500 max), and the possibility of having two-engines instead of one (with only one crew -- a no-no). Since Lieutenants can't override the limits set by Colonels and Generals, they decided they'd call the design an interceptor because it wasn't used in the US and if they could create a new category, they could produce their own specifications. The P-39 seemed to be an insurance policy if the P-38's twin-engined, single-crew layout wasn't accepted.

The difference was that one specification called for two hours endurance and the one leading to the P-39 called for one hour endurance. Kelly Johnson figured he needed a single 1500hp engine to meet the specification for the two hour endurance but since a single 1500hp engine wasn't available he had to go with two 1000 hp engines.

Uh, what about the Wellington? It had a 2500 mile range...

with 4000lbs of bombs?
The B-23 had max range of 2750 miles.
and the bomber requirements weren't standing still, the requirement that lead to the B-26 called for 3000lbs to be carried over 2,000 miles. This requirement was issued about 2 months before the Army placed their first production order for the P-40. They didn't get close to the range they wanted in the B-26.

I should point out that this ignorance of state of the art didn't affect the USN...

oh but it did. The early F4F-3s had a lot of trouble with rumbling and surging in the ducts. P & W couldn't build the engines fast enough leading to 91 F4F_3A being built with simple two speed superchargers. These two speed engines accounted for about 1/3 of Wildcat production before the F4F-4 showed up.
And the Navy/Grumman two stage supercharger had a critical altitude around 6-7000ft lower than the army turbo charger.

 

[Zipper730]

Fuel selector plate.

Fascinating layout

I'm curious how often they'd have to shift left to right?

On the Allison Mustangs one tank (the left?) had two fuel pick ups, one was the "standard" pick up and the 2nd was the reserve.

So this is redundancy?

I am not sure of the rational except that it was a replacement for the Berliner Joyce P-16

So, that raises a question: What was the motive for the P-15?

The early F4F-3s had a lot of trouble with rumbling and surging in the ducts.

I didn't know that

 

[Greyman]

For 2,500 miles a Wellington would be down to about 1000lb of bombs.

 

[tomo pauk]

"...this was probably already stated but i dont think a LR escort was seriously considered because no one thought france would have been over run in the early goings like it was. the raf would have had air strips in france...close enough to the front and some of the industrial regions of germany to be effective"

"That's actually a very good point."

It might be a good point, if there was not a simple fact present: Belgium was over-run back in ww1 - just 20 years before Nazis started with sabre rattling. Why gamble that Belgium will not be over-run the next time, too, thus providing staging ground for German fighters close to England?

 

[pbehn]

"...this was probably already stated but i dont think a LR escort was seriously considered because no one thought france would have been over run in the early goings like it was. the raf would have had air strips in france...close enough to the front and some of the industrial regions of germany to be effective"

"That's actually a very good point."

It might be a good point, if there was not a simple fact present: Belgium was over-run back in ww1 - just 20 years before Nazis started with sabre rattling. Why gamble that Belgium will not be over-run the next time, too, thus providing staging ground for German fighters close to England?

It might be a point if the Maginot line included or excluded Belgium, it did neither, it just stopped.

 

[KiwiBiggles]

It might be a point if the Maginot line included or excluded Belgium, it did neither, it just stopped.

Didn't Belgium have its own version of the Maginot Line? Forts like Eben-Emael? Although of course they were no more effective than their French counterparts.

The point is that if Britain felt that the Maginot Line made France reasonably secure, they almost certainly felt the same about Belgium.

 

[tomo pauk]

Didn't Belgium have its own version of the Maginot Line? Forts like Eben-Emael? Although of course they were no more effective than their French counterparts.

The point is that if Britain felt that the Maginot Line made France reasonably secure, they almost certainly felt the same about Belgium.

This is the thing - they almost certainly felt. Let's rewind to 1914, when German and Austrian heavy cannons have beaten numerous Belgian forts into a pulp. link
Calculating the future defense upon a feel, rather than upon a very fresh history is about as dubious as possible.

 

[Ascent]

This is the thing - they almost certainly felt. Let's rewind to 1914, when German and Austrian heavy cannons have beaten numerous Belgian forts into a pulp. link
Calculating the future defense upon a feel, rather than upon a very fresh history is about as dubious as possible.

Except of course that the Maginot line was built under the inspiration of Verdun where the forts held out and were not easily captured when defended properly.

 

[tomo pauk]

Except of course that the Maginot line was built under the inspiration of Verdun where the forts held out and were not easily captured when defended properly.

Belgium was not defended by Maginot line.

 

[drgondog]

Because they didn't believe the Spitfire fitted with LR tanks could hack it against the Me-109's and Fw.190's?
I wouldn't say so in the short term -- it wouldn't be able to fly fast enough while flying far enough. Later in the war, the ability to stretch the Spitfire's range was doable, particularly when drop-tanks were added. The USAAF also proposed a modification of a Spitfire IX that had modifications including more fuel-capacity in the wings, possibly additional fuselage capacity and nice big drop-tanks. Eventually, the Spitfire would use the Mareng bags and that would further increase internal load.
Well, I'll make my computations in statute miles and then compute that into nautical miles.

• USAAF Spitfire IXC modification supposedly had a 1600 mile range
• Provided that is not combat range, your combat range is typically about 2/3 the normal range: 1066-2/3 statute miles
• The Avro Lancaster cruises at around 225-240 mph: Cruising around 225-240 would put you in a situation where you would be unable to accelerate up to combat speed fast enough either in a straight-line or in a dive -- you'll get killed; you have to cruise at around 300 mph to be effective.
• To allow you to fly at 300 mph while the bombers do 225-240 mph would require you to fly a repetitive S-weaving motion (essing for short) which basically allows you to eat-up more distance while staying with the bombers: This means your range will only be 75-80% of flying in a straight-line.
• This yields an effective range of action of 800-853-1/3 miles; radius is theoretically half of that or 400-426-2/3 miles
• If, however you used a relay system, which allowed one to cruise a straight-line up to rendezvous; then s-weaved with the bombers either the rest of the flight or until the next relay came through; then cruised back, theoretically you'd only be essing half the flight and your range would be, in theory 933-1/3 to 960 miles, with a radius of 466-2/3 to 480 miles
• Computing this all into nautical miles, you'll get approximately the following
• Non-Combat Range = 1600 mi, or 1390.362 nm
• Combat-Range = 1066-2/3 mi, or 926.91 nm
• Combat-Radius = 533-1/3 mi, or 463.45 nm
• Combat-Radius w/ S-weaving = 400-426-2/3 mi, or 347.59-370.76 nm
• Combat-Radius w/ S-weaving 1/2 flight: 466-2/3 to 480 miles, or 405.52-417.11 nm

.

Don't get too wrapped up in the above calculations for combat radius vs straight line range"

The straight line range for AAC/AAF was calculated and tested for take of, climb to 10,000 feet - set cruise at 2/3 power to destination with minimum margin for saftety/loiter of 20min to descend and land. Extrapolating to Combat radius were calculations which included warm up, taxi and climb to cruise altitude, set MP and RPM to test results at proscribed altitude, straight line cruise to 'destination radius', fight 5 min at WEP, 15 min at MP, turn around and cruise back at proscribed altitude and in a straight line to base - with 30 minutes of reserve

At the end of the day that radius resulted in about 30% (or less - for example the P-47 would be closer to 20%) of the total range. In actual practice for an escort mission, the planners had to take into account the time to take off, circle the base while forming up in twos or fours into squadron - then circle when second and third squadrons assembled, then climb to cruise altitude, proceed in straight line to R/V at cruise speeds based on attaining R?V at planned time (often faster because of perception of being late), arrive at R/V (without loiter waiting for late bombers), disperse per Group plan (i'e. one squadron essing over top of assigned boxes, one squadron running up and down on one flank, maybe another sweeping in front. In the case of planning, the key factor was Time in escort because velocity of the bomber formation was less than the fighters because a.) fighters kept speeds up usually around 300 TAS w/o tanks (i.e. Return) and 270 TAS with external tanks, b.) fighters were usually returning or staying with the bombers until breaking R/V - the fast/economic cruise home, descend, loiter in bad weather and land. No fight? plenty of fuel. Fight? maybe not enough. Headwinds? CO needs to be aware and order RTB early. Bad weather over England pre-D-Day - RTB early and hope that some airfields will be open?

 

[Zipper730]

Don't get too wrapped up in the above calculations for combat radius vs straight line range"

Sorry, I was just making estimates based on what I knew. I then converted the figures into nautical miles as he asked.

The straight line range for AAC/AAF was calculated and tested for take of, climb to 10,000 feet - set cruise at 2/3 power to destination with minimum margin for saftety/loiter of 20min to descend and land. Extrapolating to Combat radius were calculations which included warm up, taxi and climb to cruise altitude, set MP and RPM to test results at proscribed altitude, straight line cruise to 'destination radius', fight 5 min at WEP, 15 min at MP, turn around and cruise back at proscribed altitude and in a straight line to base - with 30 minutes of reserve

What about if you were flying at 25000-30000 feet?

At the end of the day that radius resulted in about 30% (or less) of the total range.

So total range was 60% or slightly below, not 2/3?

In actual practice for an escort mission, the planners had to take into account the time to take off, circle the base while forming up in twos or fours into squadron - then circle when second and third squadrons assembled, then climb to cruise altitude, proceed in straight line to R/V at cruise speeds based on attaining R/V at planned time (often faster because of perception of being late), arrive at R/V (without loiter waiting for late bombers)

I assume circling the base as the squadron forms in twos and fours was routine, but as you were forming up groups of two or fours into whole squadrons and air-groups this became a lengthly exercise?

disperse per Group plan (i'e. one squadron essing over top of assigned boxes, one squadron running up and down on one flank, maybe another sweeping in front.

You mean some ran a race-track pattern, doing full 360's? Or did they just speed up and slow down?

In the case of planning, the key factor was Time in escort because velocity of the bomber formation was less than the fighters because a.) fighters kept speeds up usually around 300 TAS w/o tanks (i.e. Return) and 270 TAS with external tanks

I thought they were cruising at 300 TAS wtih or without tanks... interesting detail

No fight? plenty of fuel. Fight? maybe not enough. Headwinds? CO needs to be aware and order RTB early. Bad weather over England pre-D-Day - RTB early and hope that some airfields will be open?

So they took some liberties that resulted in some pilots having to find a decently flat piece of land or a road to plunk it in, or bail-out

 

[pbehn]

So they took some liberties that resulted in some pilots having to find a decently flat piece of land or a road to plunk it in, or bail-out

Bad weather could mean fog or very low cloud over much of the UK, there were some early disasters with many loses on aborted missions despite no enemy action. Huge resources were put into FIDO and emergency landing strips plus ever increasing recon solely for the weather.