Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.it is almost fragile by comparison.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, they made 827 marks of Spitfires (correct me if I'm wrong)
This is why I love The Forum. Facts!They made MMDCXII marks of the plane. Get it right!
This is why I love The Forum. Facts!
yes, sir.YOU WILL USE ROMAN ENUMERATION AND YOU WILL LIKE IT.
First, I think the engineering to make a LR Spitfire is greater and more involved than adding gas tanks where possible.
This is why I love The Forum. Facts!
Now, wait just a cotton pickin' minnit with those "facts"...
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.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:
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.
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.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.