Escort Fighter Performance Comparison

[EwenS]

After a number of "prototype" and "pre-production" Mk.IX in early 1942 the first 100 conversions from Mk.Vc airframes were authorised on 18th April 1942 for delivery by the end of June. Ultimately 52 of these were converted by Supermarine and 48 by Rolls Royce. More conversions from F.Vc airframes followed through to March 1944. Exact numbers seem to vary but were in the order of 300 (one source I have says 278 by Supermarine & RR and another says nearly 300 by RR alone). The early conversions display a number of odd features to their cowlings displayng the rush nature of the conversion job. There was an article on these variations way back in an issue of Air Enthusiast in Sept/Oct 2001.

When the Mk.IX began to be issued to the squadrons in North Africa from Jan 1943 (yes I forgot about the Torch squadrons!) it was generally alongside the Mk.Vc. Usually it was only one flight to begin with until numbers increased. So 81 squadron for example went to NA fully equipped with the Mk.Vc. In Jan 1943 it, as noted above, got some Mk.IX. But it operated both models until Nov when it was withdrawn to re-equip with the Mk.VIII and transferred to India.

Someone asked about the planned destination of the Mk.VIII. The answer is "overseas". In an effort to maximise production the number of camouflage schemes applied to aircraft was minimised from 1942. AIUI, from discussions on other sites, all Mk.VIII (except perhaps for some early trials aircraft retained in the UK) produced to about March/April 1944 began life with the Desert Camouflage Scheme applied. That policy also applied to other types destined for overseas, like the Hurricane, at this time. If some other scheme was needed when they got somewhere where that was not appropriate then they were repainted. So that is what happened with aircraft sent to India and Australia. After early 1944 they left the factory in the Daylight Fighter Scheme and were again repainted in theatre as required.

The first Spitfire VIII shipped to India and Australia rolled off the production line in Aug 1943, went aboard ships in mid-Sept and arrived at their destinations in late Oct / early Nov 1943. So planning for that must have occurred some months prior.

81 and 152 squadrons were the first Mk.VIII squadrons to become operational in India in Dec 1943. Having been re-equipped with Mk.VIII in Egypt they flew their new aircraft to the Calcutta area. Spitfire squadrons already in theatre began to swap their Mk.Vc for Mk.VIII from Jan 1944.

Mk.VIII began to reach the squadrons in the Darwin area in March 1944.

And again before anyone says anything about priority, the USAAF 31st and 52nd FG equipped with Spitfire Mk.Vc in NA began to receive Mk.VIII and Mk.IX in the same sort of timescale as British squadrons. More detail on this thread

US Spitfires

I have heard that the Spitfires flown by the US Army in late ‘43 and early ‘44, particularly out of Corsica, Sicily, France, were old models and vastly inferior to the newer models given to the RAF. Is there any truth to this?

ww2aircraft.net

 

[Milosh]

I will put this out there as a Spitfire reference source, home

 

[GregP]

Just for fun, here's one of my drawings of a Spitfire XIV:

Cheers.

 

[PAT303]

it is almost fragile by comparison.

Ohhh yes very fragile aeroplanes those Spitfires, this one was only in front line service for 4 years, A long-serving Spitfire Mk. Vb — Historic Photographs | 1941 | 1942 | 1943 | Spitfire Mk. V the dear thing, how did it survive so long being so fragile, one of life's mysteries I guess.

 

[PAT303]

Personally, with the arrival of the P-47 I have a hard time making an argument for extended range Spitfire unless it exceeds the Thunderbolt's capabilities.

That's exactly what we are trying to achieve, if you read through the thread you would have known that the Spit and P47 could have worked together in the desperate first years of the day bomber offensive, late 1942 early 43, that's the whole point of giving the Spit more fuel.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

Greg, I think the phrase that could sum up your post here is "the Law of Unintended Consequences."

 

[GregP]

Ohhh yes very fragile aeroplanes those Spitfires, this one was only in front line service for 4 years, A long-serving Spitfire Mk. Vb — Historic Photographs | 1941 | 1942 | 1943 | Spitfire Mk. V the dear thing, how did it survive so long being so fragile, one of life's mysteries I guess.

Fragile means it is MUCH easier to get "hangar rash," nothing more. The Spitfire structure itself is as strong as it needs to be and the ultimate failure load was 12 g when the development started. I am not aware if it maintained the 12 g ultimate rating as the Griffons engine came into service and it got heavier, but the Spitfire and other WWII-era fighters couldn't maintain more than about 3.5 - 4.0 g in a level turn at 10,000 feet ... they just didn't have the excess power. So, I'm pretty sure the Griffon Spits were as strong as they needed to be.

If you are careful with a Spitfire, there is no reason it shouldn't last as long as any other warbird. Just so you know, there were P-51s in front-line service for 30 years. Many Spitfires served longer than 4 years. Nothing wrong with a well-maintained warbird except that new developments overtake it in wartime, so they generally get swapped out for newer ones as they come down the pike in higher-priority theaters (think ETO) and used for a long time as-is in lower-priority theaters (think CBI). But, you should know that.

Your answer tells me you're more interested in snappy answers than information. So, go do as you want. Cheers.

 

[GregP]

Greg, I think the phrase that could sum up your post here is "the Law of Unintended Consequences."

Probably right. Changing one of the world's best fighter-interceptors so as to make it heavier to change its mission without adding firepower seem like exactly an undesired consequence. The original guys likely thought that way, too, since they didn't do as Mr. Gas Tank wants when they had the chance. Maybe they were smarter than we know.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Probably right. Changing one of the world's best fighter-interceptors so as to make it heavier to change its mission without adding firepower seem like exactly an undesired consequence. The original guys likely thought that way, too, since they didn't do as Mr. Gas Tank wants when they had the chance. Maybe they were smarter than we know.

No doubt they, or someone looking over their shoulders, had something to say about economics and production schedules. Those are two important factors in production, and you gonna trust an engineer with 'em?

Weapons are not and can not be manufactured in a vacuum. In this case -- and other, worse cases too -- I think the results speak for themselves. They built the right fighter that they needed at the time, other fighters came along with different mission capabilities, and so the smart thing to do, instead of messing with production per se is to simply apply a division of labor and have each airframe assigned to the most suitable mission.

Some airframes tolerated more mods than others, but that does not argue against what it is that they each do the best. Does that make sense or am I just meandering? The Spit was a superlative interceptor/dogfighter. Try to make it something else and court "jack of all trades-master of none" titles.

 

[SaparotRob]

Well, they made 827 marks of Spitfires (correct me if I'm wrong) so they spent a lot of time tinkering around with the things. Improved high altitude performance, improved low altitude performance, extended range photo recon birds (one sounds more authoritative saying "photo recon birds"), etc. With all the time spent on it and all the things tried with it, if they could've improved range or felt a compelling reason to, they would have.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, they made 827 marks of Spitfires (correct me if I'm wrong)

They made MMDCXII marks of the plane. Get it right!

 

[SaparotRob]

They made MMDCXII marks of the plane. Get it right!

This is why I love The Forum. Facts!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

This is why I love The Forum. Facts!

YOU WILL USE ROMAN ENUMERATION AND YOU WILL LIKE IT.

 

[SaparotRob]

YOU WILL USE ROMAN ENUMERATION AND YOU WILL LIKE IT.

yes, sir.

 

[GregP]

Roman numerals in 2022?

Oh excuse me, MMXXII? I say, that might be a trifle odd. Then again, mayhaps not.

 

[nuuumannn]

First, I think the engineering to make a LR Spitfire is greater and more involved than adding gas tanks where possible.

I'm gonna jump in here because I think Pat's getting unnecessary flak here. Let's also not forget the engineering difficulties of converting the Spitfire into a naval fighter were far greater than simply increasing its range, yet it was done, through various variants and modifications to the airframe.

As I posted earlier, the Spitfire was modified to increase its range and combat radius with the hope of using it as a long range escort, although firstly it was to ferry the type to the Middle East. Both the manufacturer and the Air Ministry investigated its potential in these roles. As mentioned, someone (not sure who, possibly Supermarine) calculated that as an escort fighter, a Spitfire V could be made to go all the way to Berlin and back to escort British bombers. This was in either 1941 or 1942.

Both the Americans at Wright Pat (Spit IX MK210 was flown non-stop across the Atlantic to the USA) and the British (Vickers) carried out structural modifications to the Spitfire to give it greater endurance. The Vickers mods extended its range to 1,400 miles, the American mods, to 1,600 miles. Although done in 1944, this alone proves it could have been done had the desire been there.

Here's some detail and a picture of MK210:

Spitfire pilots and aircraft database - Spitfire MK210

Again, I'll repeat why it wasn't, Charles Portal, Chief of the RAF Air Staff refused to believe that the RAF needed a fighter with that kind of range because it would be inferior to short ranged fighters, at least that was his argument.

 

[nuuumannn]

This is why I love The Forum. Facts!

Now, wait just a cotton pickin' minnit with those "facts"...

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Now, wait just a cotton pickin' minnit with those "facts"...

You want facts? I got facts. Everyone gets a fact!

 

[NevadaK]

I'm gonna jump in here because I think Pat's getting unnecessary flak here. Let's also not forget the engineering difficulties of converting the Spitfire into a naval fighter were far greater than simply increasing its range, yet it was done, through various variants and modifications to the airframe.

As I posted earlier, the Spitfire was modified to increase its range and combat radius with the hope of using it as a long range escort, although firstly it was to ferry the type to the Middle East. Both the manufacturer and the Air Ministry investigated its potential in these roles. As mentioned, someone (not sure who, possibly Supermarine) calculated that as an escort fighter, a Spitfire V could be made to go all the way to Berlin and back to escort British bombers. This was in either 1941 or 1942.

Both the Americans at Wright Pat (Spit IX MK210 was flown non-stop across the Atlantic to the USA) and the British (Vickers) carried out structural modifications to the Spitfire to give it greater endurance. The Vickers mods extended its range to 1,400 miles, the American mods, to 1,600 miles. Although done in 1944, this alone proves it could have been done had the desire been there.

Here's some detail and a picture of MK210:

Spitfire pilots and aircraft database - Spitfire MK210

Again, I'll repeat why it wasn't, Charles Portal, Chief of the RAF Air Staff refused to believe that the RAF needed a fighter with that kind of range because it would be inferior to short ranged fighters, at least that was his argument.

Now, why am i getting called out for dog piling here? Especially since I also linked an article from the highly esteemed Royal Aeronautical Society covering what had been tried and so forth. Jeez.

 

[drgondog]

Fragile means it is MUCH easier to get "hangar rash," nothing more. The Spitfire structure itself is as strong as it needs to be and the ultimate failure load was 12 g when the development started. I am not aware if it maintained the 12 g ultimate rating as the Griffons engine came into service and it got heavier, but the Spitfire and other WWII-era fighters couldn't maintain more than about 3.5 - 4.0 g in a level turn at 10,000 feet ... they just didn't have the excess power. So, I'm pretty sure the Griffon Spits were as strong as they needed to be.

If you are careful with a Spitfire, there is no reason it shouldn't last as long as any other warbird. Just so you know, there were P-51s in front-line service for 30 years. Many Spitfires served longer than 4 years. Nothing wrong with a well-maintained warbird except that new developments overtake it in wartime, so they generally get swapped out for newer ones as they come down the pike in higher-priority theaters (think ETO) and used for a long time as-is in lower-priority theaters (think CBI). But, you should know that.

Your answer tells me you're more interested in snappy answers than information. So, go do as you want. Cheers.

Greg - I believe, substantiated by the NAA weight comparison Report of 11-42 NA-5567 "Weight Comparison of Spitfire IX with P-51B" That the Spitfre (Spitfire I) was designed for 11G AoA, 1 G side and 4G Landing Loads. That became the standard for the LightWeight Mustangs, including the P-51H.

The XP-51 was designed to USAAC MC Stress Standards of 12G, 2G and 7G respectively at 8,000 pounds GW.

When the weight comparions were laboriously completed the weight Diference between the Spit IX and P-51B was 1450 pounds - each with 100 and 105 gal fuel respectively. The strength comparison noted that the Ultimate G loads for AoA for the Spit IX and P-51B had both been reduced by Gross Weight Growth over time. That said, the P-51H corrected this issue by re-stressing to combat Gross Weight of full internal load of 9600 pounds at 11G Ultimate, whereas the P-51B at full combat Internal Load had reduced from 12G at 8000 pounds of XP-51 to Approx 10G Ultimate for allowable max stress before failure and about 6.6 for Limit Load AoA. (You know this - just citing the Report comparisons)