No chance your leaving mate, you only have to look at this thread to see the quality of the blokes on here, even though we are having a very stout discussion everyone is treating everyone else with respect, no name calling or personal attacks, this is the best aircraft site on the net and it's all down to the the members, go your hardest and say what you want to say.
Escort Fighter Performance Comparison
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
glennasher
Senior Airman
Don't run off, I learn a lot from everyone here, and anyone leaving is bound to take something with them that could help me learn "stuff". I tend to avoid disagreements, but those are few and far between here. Most folks here are out-and-out gentlemen and conduct themselves that way. I have learned a helluva lot here, and have had more than a few things fleshed out that skewered my previous assumptions. I learn from that. I like learning new information (to me).
Not all of us are experts by any means, we're all students in our own ways. Hang around, it's fun.
GregP
Major
We'll have to agree to disagree here. They actually WERE built in about 20,351 copies and they flew just fine. They actually turned into one of the finest piston fighters ever built.
You're just being dramatic.
Came across this, thought I would share. Another log on the fire.
www.aerosociety.com
Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach? - Royal Aeronautical Society
Could Supermarine's iconic fighter have been modified to escort US bombers all the way to Berlin and back? Paul Stoddart examines some development options for the Spitfire and suggests what might have been achieved.
I find it completely baffling that so many of you are putting so much effort into finding out reasons why the Spit shouldn't have it's fuel capacity increased, I can't think of any aeroplane that didn't benefit from it. Jeffrey Quill and Winkle Brown both pushed for it, Johnny Johnston lamented the fact it wasn't done until too late in the war, it's the first and generally only criticism the Spit gets in any conversation, I don't understand it.
wuzak
Captain
I thought the idea was to not get hit. If being able to "handle more punishment" also means you are more likely to be hit, is it worth it?
PS: Not sure if the P-47 was easier to hit than the P-51, but the extra size must help those shooting at it!
In the words of the great Rocky Balboa
"It's not about how hard you can hit; it's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward."
drgondog
Major
From My perspective, I understand both airframe design and production. I suspect without proof, that the dictates of lowest risk path to put the best possible assets in the field for the assigned roles were at the top of both Arnold's and Portal's minds - and guided AAF and RAF/BAM priorities accordingly. From my perspective you have argued that the failure to increase internal fuel for the Spitfire - to increase strategic footprint but no better than parity with the shorter range US aircraft available - was a mistakeny 'missed' and misguided decision.
The RAF doctrines of strategic bombers pointed to middle altitudes and attacks at night in loose formations. There were no advocates of long range strategic day light missions arguing at BAM/RAF senior levels to a.) reconsider, and b.) prioritize LR Daylight escort. Nor were there any advocates to change range requirements of the Spitfire to assist AAF in their goal of daylightlight LR escorts.
Nor were there any specifications for such aircraft for RAF.
So, why slow down existing struggle to attain air superiority at Malta or The Channel or Iraly by slowing delivery of planned Spitfire mods and deliveries to introduce new designs and tooling to achieve slightly better range at expense of Performance in air combat? Recall in that interval of the war, Spits were having asses kicked by Fw 190 and not visibly superior to A6M until a re-engined Spit IX STARTED to arrive in very late 1942. That slice of time also included first flights of Mustang 10 and XP-51B. The latter with full promise of US anufacturing muscle to produce and deliver rapidly.
The 'push' to reduce weight for the Mustang began in 1942 just before 1st flight of Merlin Mustangs. Such were contracted immediately afterwards. 1st Delivery (P-51H) in February 1945. Too late for ETO.
Its a classic barber shop GOAT argument. Sometimes they go for decades.
The idea is an increase in 1943 over and above that the mark VIII achieved in 1942. Can you please provide the references make it clear fitting a 33 gallon rear fuselage tank into Spitfire VIII/IX/XVI would require substantial redesign, perhaps with examples drawn by the fitting of 1x75 or 2x33 gallon rear fuselage tanks into the mark XVI and IX in 1944/45 which would presumably have cause more substantial redesign problems?
It is generally agreed the longer range Spitfire did not happen in 1943 partly because no one was asking for it, until mid 1943 the Luftwaffe could generally still be encountered around the front line and while the P-47 was working its bugs out only the Merlin 60 series Spitfires had been shown to match German fighter performance. Result was a great demand for the latest Spitfires. Equipping existing underemployed Fighter Command squadrons with longer ranged fighters would not be a drain on the RAF.
Greetings Geoffrey,
As I said, I'm no aviation engineer, but my comment was based on the following:
- Numerous sources stating that the MKVIII airframe was necessary for heavier fuel loads. Since that airframe wasn't in service until mid-summer 1943, my assumption is that 1942 is overly optimistic.
- Greater effort to reduce overall drag in the Spitfire. From the article I link earlier in this thread, there was a proposal to reduce drag by the introduction of a single under body radiator that would have cleaned up the wing and improved speed by up to 30mph. (That alone gets you extended range without more fuel)
- And lastly, in keeping with Supermarine's approach to component improvement the development of a new long range wing similar to what was developed for the P-47. (This last is a conjecture on my part)
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 903
- Feb 16, 2013
The Spitfire Mk.IX entered squadron service in June 1942
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,354
- Jan 31, 2021
Is that conducting actual combat missions, or just working up in preparation to entering combat? How many squadrons were so equipped at that time?
I think Drgondog was talking about combat in the far east.
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,671
- Dec 6, 2006
The first Mk IX combat was on July 28, 1942
Mike Williams
Senior Airman
- 572
- Oct 19, 2006
BR581: FF 9-6-42 33MU 10-6-42 64S 22-6-42
BR592: FF 10-6-42 33MU 11-6-42 64S 8-7-42
BR978: FF 27-6-42 45MU 28-6-42 611S 25-7-42
BR981: FF 29-6-42 39MU 5-7-42 42S 24-7-42
And so on....
72 Squadron received Spitfire IX's in late July but handed them off to 401, according to S/L Bobby Oxsbring when the squadron went north for a rest. On 28 July 1942 64 Squadron, of the Hornchurch Wing, was the first squadron to go operational with Spitfire IX's . 611 squadron began taking deliveries of Spitfire IXs on 23 July 1942 while at Redhill, a satellite field to Kenley. Their first operation took place on 5 August covering the 308th FS USAAF to Le Touquet, with the first success, a FW 190 destroyed and 2 damaged coming on the 17th. 401 (RCAF) squadron started taking deliveries of Spitfire IXs at the end of July, fully converted with the move to Biggin Hill 2 August, performed their first operations with the Spitfire IX on 6 August 1942 and met with their first success on the 17th when they claimed 1 FW190 destroyed, 5 190 probables with 1 damaged. 402 (RCAF) squadron fully converted to Spitfire IXs by 2 August at Redhill with the first operations taking place on 13 August. They moved to Kenley on the 14th with their first claim in the type of 1 damaged coming on the 17th.
Attachments
Last edited:
The Spitfire IX shot down it's first FW190 on 30th July 1942. The IX entered service first with no 64 squadron at Hornchurch in July 1942. That was it's debut in Europe
so use in the Pacific theatre would have been some time after that.
There were two more versions of the IX with the 66 engine (lower altitude performance - highest number built) and the 70 engine (higher altitude performance - not many).
so use in the Pacific theatre would have been some time after that.
There were two more versions of the IX with the 66 engine (lower altitude performance - highest number built) and the 70 engine (higher altitude performance - not many).
GregP
Major
I find it absolutely baffling that you want to change what is perhaps the finest piston fighter. Have you ever seen one in person? Have you ever worked on one?
A Spitfire is perhaps a ton or more lighter than a P-51. Comparatively speaking, it is almost fragile by comparison. The structure was strong enough, but the Spitfire is much easier to damage by comparison with a P-51D. Adding the extra fuel would reduce structural margins. It is weight the aircraft doesn't need and the longer-range tasks were being done by other aircraft.
For heaven's sake, leave the nice fighter airplane alone and let it be the great fighter that it was. Try dealing with the world as it actually was instead of what you can look back and turn it into. There are no correct or incorrect answers to a "what if," and the long-range Spitfire is a complete "what if." It was a great airplane if ever there was one. Celebrate it, but leave it alone.
Last edited:
Hi
No. 64 Sqn. with Spitfire IXs was in action by the end of July 1942. Also during July 1942 No. 72 Sqn. was equipped but handed them back In August (the squadron went to North Africa and used Spitfire Vs again). Nos. 611 and 401 (RCAF) were also equipped, from VBs, that month. In August No. 402 (RCAF) Sqn was equipped from VBs.
During September No. 122 Sqn. was equipped, as was 133 Sqn. however, this latter squadron became the 366th Sqn. 4th FG of the US 8th AF on 29th Sept. taking their Mk. IXs with them. During October Nos. 306 (Pol), 331 (Nor) and 340 (French) Sqns. coverted to IXs. In November Nos. 315 (Pol) and 332 (Nor) also equipped with IXs. At the start of 1943 9 squadrons of Fighter Command had IXs. It is of note that British RAF squadrons did not have priority for the new fighter (before someone says that the British held them back from non-British squadrons).
The first P-47s undertook their first operations in April 43 with RAF Spitfires going along with them. During the second half of 1942 many Fighter Command squadrons were being re-deployed overseas.
Mike
No. 64 Sqn. with Spitfire IXs was in action by the end of July 1942. Also during July 1942 No. 72 Sqn. was equipped but handed them back In August (the squadron went to North Africa and used Spitfire Vs again). Nos. 611 and 401 (RCAF) were also equipped, from VBs, that month. In August No. 402 (RCAF) Sqn was equipped from VBs.
During September No. 122 Sqn. was equipped, as was 133 Sqn. however, this latter squadron became the 366th Sqn. 4th FG of the US 8th AF on 29th Sept. taking their Mk. IXs with them. During October Nos. 306 (Pol), 331 (Nor) and 340 (French) Sqns. coverted to IXs. In November Nos. 315 (Pol) and 332 (Nor) also equipped with IXs. At the start of 1943 9 squadrons of Fighter Command had IXs. It is of note that British RAF squadrons did not have priority for the new fighter (before someone says that the British held them back from non-British squadrons).
The first P-47s undertook their first operations in April 43 with RAF Spitfires going along with them. During the second half of 1942 many Fighter Command squadrons were being re-deployed overseas.
Mike
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,671
- Dec 6, 2006
I don't think 133 squadron still had any IXs when they were transferred to the USAAF. They lost 11 of them on one mission 3 days before transferring to the USAAF. I believe they were given Vs as replacements.
drgondog
Major
IIRC, the 4th FG flew mix of Spit V and IX until they converted. Nor do I recall that any one squadon was completely equipped with Spit IXs
I overstated the operational delays for Spit IX, believing Squadron level sorties beyond a few squadrons did not start until October/November 1942.
