So why did they develop drop tanks, slipper tanks, leading edge tanks, larger main tanks and rear tanks if it didn't need more range?. What was the biggest drawback of the Spit again?, that's right, lack of endurance.
Escort Fighter Performance Comparison (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
The Spit IX was deemed satisfactory to perform combat maneuvers once 34G ha been burnt off, the P51 was required to have no more than 40G in the rear tank an preferably 35G if going into combat. You will notice in both reports that it states that pilots need to get experience with the changes in handling when the rear tanks are use.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
It simply shows the performance loss in climb.
The two reports don't measure quite the same thing, as I pointed out earlier the Test on the Spit IX was for an experimental plane with all metal ailerons in Jan 1945.
The P-51B test was done in Dec 1943, and the handling of the P-51B was better at 1/2 tank than the Spitfire was at 1/2 tank.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
The P-51 was about 30-40mph faster than the Spitfire.
The P-51B was almost 2,000lbs heavier than the Spitfire, a similar increase in fuel load is going to have a proportionally smaller change in performance.
The P-51B has a way of fighting that is different than the Spitfire, it can use it's speed (and low drag) to compensate for it's poorer climb and turn.
Since the Spitfire is already slower sacrificing climb and turning ability may not be the way you want to go.
Think about what happens if both planes are doing 360mph, the Spitfire has only a limited amount of excess power, the difference between 360mph and 400mph.
The P-51s is heavier but it has the difference between 360mph and 440mph and since the P-51 doesn't need as much power to fly at 360mph it has even more power to use for climb or turning.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,356
- Jan 31, 2021
The Soviets gained air superiority over their own forces without long-range aircraft like the P-51 and without a large, four-engine strategic bomber force.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,356
- Jan 31, 2021
Improving endurance for more localized air superiority duties -- or a better range for fighter-bomber work -- is not quite the same thing as flying 600+ miles to fight over the enemy's capital while your heavy bombers are hitting it.
I'm going to say it again for the dozenth time, I don't want to make the Spit a P51, I want it to be able to range deeper into Europe before the P51 came on scene and compliment it after.
Okay you win, instead of finding ways to give the B17's crews some support in 1942-'43 even if it's doing fighter sweeps causing the Luftewaffe to redirect their fighters around them taking away their ability to dictate when to attack your think a better suggestion is to do a Portal and say it can't be done?.
They didn't bomb Germany's industrial base.
Maybe some of you need to actually read posts before replying, for the upteanth time, I don't want to fly to Berlin in 1942, I just want to use the fighters on hand to support the bombers as much as possible, in 1942-43 on average B17 crews didn't make it to their 10th mission before being lost, maybe you all should have asked them if they wanted help, any help, even if it's half way out and half way back, do you think they would say, no thanks, Berlin or nothing?. Seeing what those crews had to endure I would have done anything to help, the naysayers be damned.
Those P51A pilots are going to have sore necks constantly looking up as they watch the fighting going on above them.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Just point out (for the dozenth time) that were differences between the Spitfire and P-51 that affected how they were used and what you could do with them.
A Spitfire IX was NOT a Mustang with less fuel.
It had some definite limitations.
The MK VIII was supposed to be the longer range version.
However it was not produced at Castle Bromwich in order not to affect production.
The MK VIII got a strengthen fuselage and a retractable tail wheel and a few other minor changes.
The MK IX only appeared in numbers (4 squadrons) at Dieppe and a lot of the early ones were built on MK V airframes with less than ideal outfits.
The whole program was rush job to counter the Fw 190. and long range was not desired. They had the MK VIIIs in the works but they wouldn't show up until 1943 so the MK IX was the interim rush job. Turns out it was very close to the MK VIII in performance (except for range) so they kept building them with further refinements. One of which was the modified extended elevator horns. Probably not a good idea to put rear fuselage tanks in the early MK IXs.
By the time you get the new elevators and bit of streamlining (like stop using the VC wings with double cannon blisters) it is the fall of 1942 and RR and NA are both working on the Merlin Mustangs and the MK VIII is closer to production. There isn't a lot of opportunity to build long range MK IXs (and by long range I mean 150 Imp gallons internal).
You could build a plane with more range than the MK IX but how much is it really going to get you and are you willing to screw up production of the MK IX in the fall/winter of 1942 to get it?
Please note that several of test Spitfires used at Boscombe down were converted from MK Vs in October of 1942.
Also note that the Mustang MK X with Merlin was flown by RR on Oct 13th 1942. 3-4 more were in the shop being worked on.
Basically the MK IX was Flown with about 120 Imp gallons of internal fuel after the drop tanks were gone. Better than the standard MK IXs but we are talking about an extra 40-45 minutes of flight time? A lot this depends on the speed used when exiting.
you only have a few months to make any major difference difference
I would also note that the 8th Air Force was not doing a large number of raids into Germany in 1942 early 1943.
The 303rd Bomb Group made it's 50th mission flight on July 14th 1943 after starting on Nov 17th 1942.
14 of those missions were into Germany.
It might have been quite possible to make a long (or longer) ranged version of the Spitfire, but it might have required more engineering changes. Supermarine was also busy designing the MK XII Griffon Spitfire in the summer/fall of 1942 and the "prototype" MK XIV (MK VIIIG) flew in Jan 1943 although actual production aircraft didn't reach squadron service until Dec 1943.
What version of the Spitfire do you want to stop in order to free up engineering staff (and workers for prototypes ) for the "somewhat" longer ranged MK IX Spitfires.
There is no real reason they couldn't have built a Merlin powered Spitfire with 150 or more gallons of internal fuel, however you may very well need a slightly stronger fuselage, You may want the larger rudder, vertical fin of later versions, you may want a bit different elevator (or metal covered one) You may want a bit stronger landing gear to handle the higher take-off loads on non-paved runways.
It was also a question of priorities. They didn't have the staff to handle all the different versions, perhaps they made some wrong choices, but in 1942 (and early 1941) they were handling a lot of projects (versions) all at once. A new version may have required another version to be canceled.
A lot of 1942 was spent trying to catch-up/get ahead of the Fw 190. It didn't help that the Spitfires replacement (the Typhoon) was failing in rather spectacular fashion in 1942.
Perhaps if the Typhoon had been able to make more of the load in 1942 the Spitfire might have been able to shift to other roles..
There was discussion at high levels about increasing the Spitfire's range and we'll get to that in a second, but there was discussion about long range fighter escorts for the RAF surrounding the ineffectiveness of Bomber Command night raids, which took place in 1941 following the release of the Butt Report that included the suggestion of reverting back to daylight raids, although these could only be carried out with a long range escort fighter, something that even the Prime Minister had suggested. Again, as mentioned, it was Portal, Chief of the Air Staff who pooh pooed the idea, believing that a long range fighter would not be effective against existing short range fighters. Also in these discussions were bombing accuracy and successfully reaching the target area, both of which Bomber Command was bad at. Even before the war, there was discussion about bomber escort fighters, Edgar Ludlow-Hewitt, C-in-C Bomber Command in 1938 wrote,
"Experience in China and Spain seems clearly to indicate that with the aircraft in use in two theatres of war at present, fighter escorts are considered absolutely essential for the protection of bomber aircraft. So far as I'm aware this policy runs counter to the view long held by the Air Staff".
That view remained entrenched within the Air Staff under Portal.
Increasing the Spitfire's range was deemed necessary for ferry purposes and with this in mind, throughout 1941 and 1942 Supermarine did much work in researching the fitting of extra internal tankage and external tankage, either fixed or drop tanks with the intent of increasing the Spitfire V's range. Sholto Douglas, head of Fighter Command was keen on doing so, pushing for increased internal range rather than external tanks. In an Air Staff Requirement dated August 1941 there was a request to increase the tropical (yup) Spitfire's range to not less than 1,000 miles, which resulted in the demand for an additional 90 gallons of fuel. Following trials by the A&AEE with Spit V AB320, the aircraft had flown a distance of 1,035 air miles with a slipper tank under the fuselage. This was done at 15,000 ft at a speed of 170 IAS.
In the Big Book of Spitfires by Morgan and Shacklady there is ample reference to this work and on page 150 in the chapter about the Spitfire V marks there is a curious map, out of context with the text on that page, which shows projected ranges of a bomber escort Spitfire in circles from the UK, the caption reading "Maximum long range bomber escort shown as shaded areas - UK Berlin ferry range, full overload tanks". This shaded area shows transit range of 540 miles from fixed points in the UK, with sufficient fuel to return again puts the cities of Hamburg, Hanover, Berlin, Munich, Prague and Milan in range, there's even an outer ring where the range is extended for a one-way operation to 1,140 miles, which puts Leningrad and Belgrade in reach. The key to the map has the following,
"Fuel Basis, Escorting - 5 min take off, 10 min climb, 15 min max power, remainder max cruise at 240 mph. Enforcing - 5 min take off, remainder cruise at 240 mph with 20% fuel reserve."
Unfortunately there's no date nor clue as to who produced the map, but I'm guessing Supermarine.
In the book there is a page, 311, on efforts to increase the IX's range by Vickers and by the Americans at Wright Patterson, where Spitfire IXs MK210 and MK317 were sent for that purpose. Following modification and subsequent trials, the Vickers mods increased the Spitfire's range to 1,400 miles, the American efforts yielded increases over this to 1,600 miles, although handling unsurprisingly suffered. The American system was more efficient and handled better, although the Vickers system could be modified to increase the aircraft's range to 1,650 miles.
All this talk here about not needing to increase the Spitfire's range runs contrary to what actually happened and what was investigated by both the manufacturer and the RAF air staff.
This is true, but these changes would certainly not have been insurmountable. As mentioned above, range trials were carried out by Spitfires without these modifications that yielded ranges in excess of 1,000 miles, though. For anyone that doubts the Spitfire could have been modified to carry out the escort fighter role, get a copy of the Morgan and Shacklady book and read the sections on the Spitfire V and IX which both include information on efforts to increase its range. Much work was done and, as mentioned, the Spitfire's range could be and was increased to (well) over 1,000 miles without too much modification.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,356
- Jan 31, 2021
I yield to your more thorough knowledge.
I do wonder though what Harris would have made of going back to daylight bombing in late 1942/early 1943.
It would be interesting trying to control 100's of miles of bomber stream made up of 1000's of individual bombers transiting in and out of the UK at the same time, it would certainly overwhelm the day defences not to mention saving a lot of black paint.
drgondog
Major
The better way was for Eisenhower to be satisfied with P-40s in abundance for North Africa and leave the P-38s in England, all three operational August to October 1942. Secondly, the LW in Luftflotte 3 were not shy about bouncing Spits, includng Spit IX. from the time the B-17s were making penetrations in November-December, 1943 and January,1944 when there were't enough Spit IXs for critical RAF missions.
You may recall that in that timeframe - and beyond - though January 1944 the LW wisely chose to conserve the t/e fighters at the threshold of maximum penetration for the P-47s which in January 1944 was beyond Spit IX CR w/90 gal tanks. At that time, the RAF had given up the October thru December 1943 delivered Mustang III and were receiving Mustang III replacements for the reverse Lend Lease.
You might recall that RAF was Hugely influential in pushing the Merlin conversion in June 1942 timframe at R-R - which offered the promise or potential of a neary equal combat aircraft to the Spit IX in the same relative operational window as the Spit IX, by converting in-hand' Mustang I's.
To Portal being a 'short-sighted meanie' for not pushing major additional changes to the Spitfire airframe for additional internal fuel?
Maybe he was doing some pretty good replacement planning to extend RAF operational footprint ) like escorting Mosquitoes to Norway, etc and let the Americans 'do what they do'? At the time the great R-R and NA experiment proceeded, RAF was getting butt kicked by the FW 190 and not enough airframe conversion capacity to make a difference until late Fall for series 60 Merlin powered Spits. The request by RAF and War Ministry for NA to ship P-51B airframe to Britain began before the first flight of the Mustang X in October 1942.
As an additional observation, thank God for Portal instead of Leigh-Mallory.
Was the P38 working in 1942?, the Luftwaffe were keen to bounce MkV's but the MkIX took them very much by surprise, it's nearly impossible to tell them apart from a distance so at first they might have jumped in but caution soon prevaled once the MkIX starting being the predominate fighter.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Staff Sergeant
- 1,278
- Sep 30, 2021
Maybe if you took yes for an answer you would not need to repeat. No one here is trying to turn the Spitfire into the Mustang. They are trying to keep the Spitfire range comparable to the 1943/44 P-47, in a similar time frame.
So it did not have the longest range on internal fuel of any Merlin version until the 1944 upgrades?
Even with the extra forward weight you note? You are now in 1942, when no one else is thinking of or proposing rear fuselage tanks.
That is the mark VIII plus 33 gallon rear fuselage tank. Why require it in 1942 to early 1943 after noting even the USAAF did not need that sort of range escorts given its operations at the time?
Why the somewhat and supposed ranges? How about two things, fit the larger internal fuel tanks into the Castle Bromwich Spitfires as it switches to mark IX, then add the 33 gallon rear fuselage tank in say October 1943, the 12th month of mark VIII production and the 14th month of mark VII. Given the exchanges about fighter ranges and drop tanks between the USAAF and RAF in mid 1943?
Have you noticed your Spitfires tend to turn up later, thirstier, more fragile, harder to fly and modify than the ones the British built?
The time line is clear enough, the mark VIII with 90 gallon external tank as built has a longer range than the P-47 to July 1943, matches the P-47 range in August 1943, becomes less in September and much less in early 1944. Add a 33 gallon rear fuselage tank and it matches the early 1944 P-47. Pushing the Spitfire to the edge of its stability envelope and weights would take a lot of resources and time, to come up with something with less range than the off the shelf P-51B and later could supply. Adding a 33 gallon rear fuselage tank to remain competitive with the P-47 range in 1943/44 was clearly possible. Historically none of the 1943 Spitfires came with rear fuselage tanks, cut down rear fuselages or E wings, they were all 1944 changes, the XIV was (just) a 1943 production aircraft, the F.21 was a 1943 design one.
At 66 gallons per hour, 320 mph, translates to 4.85 miles per gallon, the Spitfire VIII had 660-434 = 226 miles more range than the Spitfire IX by having 124-85 = 39 gallons more fuel, 226/39 = 5.8 miles per gallon at economic cruise. So to reach 320 miles at fast cruise cost 66 gallons, at economic cruise 55.2 gallons. Looking at the map on page 8 here and knowing where the front line was in September 1944 it was possible for aircraft in Britain heading for the Ruhr to avoid hostile airspace until the German border, including flying direct courses, no need for high speed cruise until quite near the target, anyway the Germans were not contesting Netherlands airspace with fighters very often, if at all. That was the profile for the Spitfire longer range escort missions in 1944/45 and there were open continental airfields if something went wrong. Spitfire IX 85 gallons, add the 28 gallons of wing tanks and 66 gallons in the rear fuselage, total 179, deduct 103.5 for 300 miles of range, 23 for take off and climb, 36 gallons for combat leaves 16.5 gallons, you could almost do the trip on internal fuel with adequate reserves, alternatively have 113 gallons internal less 52 for return and 36 for combat leaves 27 gallons, the 90 gallon external tank handling the 52 for outward and 23 for climb. The Big Ben anti V-2 operations consisted of Spitfire fighter bombers from Britain making an attack, landing in Belgium, rearming and refuelling and doing another attack on the return journey.
As far as anyone can find the RAF did not run a single mission with a Spitfire VIII/IX/XVI formation using 66/75 gallons of rear fuselage plus wing tanks and a 90 gallon external tank. So there is no evidence for how well the combination went in service use, only the test pilot's reports. As noted that sort of fuel load is about 300 pounds heavier than the standard Spitfire VIII carrying 1,000 pounds of bombs, so at the least that needs to be engineered. To bring it back to the weights actually flown means a reduction of around 40 gallons. So say the 33 gallon rear fuselage tank and 90 external or the 75 internal and 50 external. While the usual rule is better to carry things internally the effects on handling by that much rear fuselage fuel means I suspect many pilots would have preferred the larger external tank. The test pilot's reports make it clear 33 gallons in the rear fuselage was completely acceptable, going beyond that caused increasingly difficult handling problems. Also having two smaller tanks in the rear fuselage was better than one big one because of the way the fuel would move during things like turns when the tank was part filled.
A Spitfire VIII with a 33 gallon rear fuselage tank and 90 gallon overload tank by end 1943 is not an engineering problem, it is whether it was asked for. Similar for taking the hit to production and switching Castle Bromwich to using the bigger fuselage and the wing tanks in 1943. Going beyond 33 gallons in the rear fuselage is an engineering issue, both in terms of handling and weight, it would not be a 1943 aircraft without a lot of work starting in 1942 and probably luck in coming up with the right answers early, if there actually were answers that could be implemented within the constraints of the time (Spiteful tail cure for F.21 series problems for example). Post war rules meant the RAF only used the rear fuselage tanks in the Merlin Spitfires at least with special permission, similarly post war Mosquitoes were flown at maximum weights of at least a couple of tons less than routine wartime weights and even during the war the RAF was wary about filling the rear fuselage tank of its Mustangs.
The various changes made to the Spitfire in 1944 are not well documented, even things like the cut down rear fuselage and E wing which are visible in photographs still have uncertainties. The internal fuel arrangements more so. Add the ongoing monthly quota for Spitfire IX to Russia, which would not want most of the longer range and which prolonged the mark IX production.
The Portal comments about long range were made in 1941, by then or at latest the end of 1941 the PR Spitfires had proved the range could be extended and the pilots could handle the flying hours and navigation loads. The early 1942 P-51 showed the combination of long range and high performance was quite possible. The Spitfire mark VII and VIII were the considered redesign starting in 1941 to make the best use of the Merlin 60 series engines and included adding another 37 gallons of fuel which combined with the 90 gallon external tank meant being able to reach out to around 300 miles at fast cruise and towards 400 at economic. In any case with its world wide commitments adding a long range fighter force in Britain plus associated long range day bombers would require reallocation of resources on a major scale to be effective. As we know the US supplied the bomber force but that was all plans in 1942 and into 1943, taking much longer than the timetables said and not asking for fighter escorts.
The Spitfire XIV as introduced was considered weight limited, not surprising given the engine change and the need for a larger tail, it reverted to the mark IX forward fuselage tanks, 87 versus 96 in the VII and VIII, but kept the wing tanks, the FR version did add rear fuselage cameras. The XIVE added a 33 gallon rear fuselage tank, the FR XIVE added cameras as well. The XIV was considered an interim version with the XVIII the definite one, it had more strengthening and a pair of 33 gallon rear fuselage tanks plus things like a wing that eliminated the residual support for the outboard 0.303 inch machine guns.
On top of the evolution of the original airframe and wing came the redesign for the F.21 and later series, the F.21 began production at Castle Bromwich in April 1944, with the probable aim of shifting all production to the new model, but handling problems kept the F.21 out of the war until just near the end, in fact until after the F.22 started production began, the F.21 came with 124.5 gallons of internal fuel, forward fuselage and wings. The F.22 introduced the rear fuselage tanks during production, the much later F.24 came with a pair of 33 gallon rear fuselage tanks.
Packard Merlin production was was quite consistent July to December 1942, 801, 800, 800, 800, 796, 849, not so consistent January to June 1944, 1,564, 1,490, 2,000, 1,905, 1,275, 2,239
Supermarine Spitfire output July 1940 to April 1941, 137, 127, 100, 61, 74, 42, 49, 66, 67, 74. The mark V began series production in March, mark I ended in April. Overlaying the September damage there was usually a reduction in output during winter, harder to make test flights, plus there was the chance for the staff to recover from the major efforts during the Battle of Britain. January to June 1940 production was 37, 51, 40, 60, 77, 93
Weights, Merlin III 1,375 pounds, Merlin 46 1,425 pounds, Merlin 61 1,640 pounds, Griffon 61 1,980 pounds.
As a final note the British economy was tightly stretched in 1943, even simple things like putting drop tanks into series production involved time lags and trade offs where production of other items was cut and this continued into 1944. The US histories note the required resources for Operation Overlord had world wide effects, they also note some of the effects on the British economy, like cutting steel production. The invasion force was taking over ports for holding its shipping and then for moving to France, reducing the port's ability to handle normal economic traffic, while generating large scale moves to handle the supplies and equipment arriving, then departing from different ports. In the first half of 1944 the British added 28,300 more people or 13.1% more labour to the railway system, including Italians. Despite this in May restrictions were placed on civil rail traffic.
Overlord needed plenty of coasters but the US had been very successfully building largely ocean going tonnage. The rather busy British coaster fleet would need to be used, which meant withdrawal from service for modifications then withdrawal as part of the invasion. Initially some 396 coasters totaling 623,000 DWT were considered suitable and each used underwent an on average 3 month refit (extra armament, accommodation, strengthened masts and smoke making equipment) the refit program began in October 1943 just before the railways began having their usual winter problems. As it turned out the reduction in war damage to the coaster fleet meant the tonnage available in the winter of 1943-4 was about the same as the previous year. Despite agreements to hand back ships after the initial invasion it turned out that between December 1943 and the end of 1944 another 64 coasters of 100,000 DWT were added to the invasion fleet. The US helped by allowing use in Britain of locomotives and rolling stock meant for France. This resulted in post invasion exchanges of we want our Coasters/Trains back, you first.
The real world restrictions on what ifs.
drgondog
Major
The P-38F and G were operational in 1942, early 1943 - and likely to experience the same issues encountered in fall 1943 with P-38H's. That said, the experiences gained with early identification of issues a year earlier would have been fortuitous by summer 1943 when penetrations to Hamburg and Shweinfurt occurred.
The heavy loss issues experienced by 14th FG in Africa were more due to inadequate training time in type as well as zero combat experience aganst LW pros.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Define working.
There were 4 fighter groups in England in Sept 1942, 3 were sent to North Africa for Torch.
There is a very high attrition rate (or low serviceability?) of the P-38s in North Africa. The 78th fighter group in England is stripped of pilots and planes for NA but the 78th stays in England as a unit. The 1st and 14th groups do most of flying in NA. the 82nd group gives most of it's planes to the 1st and 14th groups after flying to NA and gets replacement planes from the US.
In Jan 1943 the 3 fighter groups in NA have about 90 planes operational between the 3 of them. The 78th back in England has to send most of it's replacement planes to NA.
Obviously there are some problems but P-38s are the E, F and G versions but mostly F and G. They have different problems from the P-38s used in Europe in late 1943 although the cold cockpit would be common to all.
Lockheed built 1264 P-38s in 1942, In Dec alone 475 P-38s were shipped to England by sea.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
