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.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.there is no reason to greatly extend the Spitfire's range.
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.Spits with 40 gallons in the rear tanks were tightening up turns even at two Gs but could be held. Mustangs at 55 US gallons in the rear tank were pretty much handling normally.
It simply shows the performance loss in climb.I'm not suggesting the Spit goes into combat with any external stores such as a drop tank, no plane was except the MkXIV with the 90G combat tank so I don't understand what you are saying here, the Spit had the same restrictions put on it as the Mustang in regards to maneuvers with rear tanks an drop tanks, RAF mustangs had their rear tanks wired shut post war.
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 if going into combat.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/Spitfire_IX_ML-186_Handling.pdf http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/P-51B_Fuselage_Tank_4-43-23-1.pdf
The P-51 was about 30-40mph faster than the Spitfire.So if that's your logic they shouldn't have put rear tanks or drop tanks on the P51 because it couldn't climb turn or fight with full rear tanks and drop tanks either.
That's like being in a car race with the fastest car but with not enough fuel to make it to the end.
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.
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.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.
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?.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.
They didn't bomb Germany's industrial base.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.
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.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.
Those P51A pilots are going to have sore necks constantly looking up as they watch the fighting going on above them.The P-51 was about 30-40mph faster than the Spitfire.
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.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.
To those at the time, with no RAF bombers making deep penetration raids in daylight, there is no reason to greatly extend the Spitfire's range. Indeed, the expectation was the American insistence to do deep raids in daylight would result in disaster. Which they did, enough so that there was an effort made to convince the USAAF to switch over to nighttime bombing.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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?.
leave the P-38s in England
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.LW in Luftflotte 3 were not shy about bouncing Spits, includng Spit IX.
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.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.
So it did not have the longest range on internal fuel of any Merlin version until the 1944 upgrades?The MK VIII was supposed to be the longer range version.
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.Probably not a good idea to put rear fuselage tanks in the early MK IXs.
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?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?
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?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.
Have you noticed your Spitfires tend to turn up later, thirstier, more fragile, harder to fly and modify than the ones the British built?"It might have been quite possible to make a long (or longer) ranged version of the Spitfire, but it might have required more engineering change"
" however you may very well need, ... You may want ... you may want ... You may want ..."
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.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.
Define working.Was the P38 working in 1942?