Escort Fighter Performance Comparison

[Shortround6]

But there was little possibility that any UK fighter would have to fight with a wooden fixed pitch prop. The question was what variable pitch prop do you fit, which depends on how much power the plane has, which depends on things like is 100 octane fuel available.

I am not talking about the wooden fixed pitch prop.
The 2 pitch prop, some times called two speed, and often called variable pitch (sounds much better than fixed pitch) but all the same propeller only offered (most of the time) two pitches.
There is a set of directions on how to operate a switch to get pitch settings in-between two limits but I am not sure all planes had that.
In any case one of the test planes describes how the propeller was set up so that at take off 2850rpm and 6 1/4lbs boost the prop was at 32 1/2 degrees pitch (at 42in radius) and at about 2000ft with a speed of 170 IAS the prop was changed from fine to coarse pitch and the speed increased to 185 IAS while the engine rpm dropped to 2070rpm at 6 1/4lbs boost. 185IAS was considered the best climbing speed in coarse pitch.
It doesn't have much of anything to do with 100 octane fuel. What you want for coarse pitch is the prop pitched to give you the max speed at 3000 rpm (engine speed) at 17,000ft or above. IF you reduce pitch to give you better climb down low (under 17,000ft or so ?) you will either over speed the prop at the higher altitudes or have to throttle back a bit. The 100 octane fuel only gives you more power several thousand feet below FTH.

See this report.

Spitfire Mk I K.9793 Trials Report

Spitfire Performance Testing, wartime flight trials and reports of Spitfire aircraft. Spitfire Mk I data.

www.spitfireperformance.com

even with the two pitch prop when climbing they never got the engine over 2440 rpm which is severely going to limit boost and power output.
A constant speed allowed 2600rpm and 6 1/4 boost at any altitude below 11,000ft.
Later they approved a climb rating of 2850rpm and with the impeller spinning faster the 6 1/4 lbs could be held higher.
In combat you could use the full 3000rpm.

Maybe
If you over rev the engine at too a low a speed your prop will be slipping in the air and not giving good thrust. The constant speed prop is supposed the adjust the pitch setting to keep the prop from over speeding for the conditions. Like letting you use 3000rpm and 6 1/4 lbs boost at 170 mph while climbing in fine pitch and then keeping the prop pitch increasing while the speed and/or altitude increases.



Anything you do with a two pitch prop is going to be a comprise.

 

[pbehn]

I am not talking about the wooden fixed pitch prop.
The 2 pitch prop, some times called two speed, and often called variable pitch (sounds much better than fixed pitch) but all the same propeller only offered (most of the time) two pitches.
There is a set of directions on how to operate a switch to get pitch settings in-between two limits but I am not sure all planes had that.
In any case one of the test planes describes how the propeller was set up so that at take off 2850rpm and 6 1/4lbs boost the prop was at 32 1/2 degrees pitch (at 42in radius) and at about 2000ft with a speed of 170 IAS the prop was changed from fine to coarse pitch and the speed increased to 185 IAS while the engine rpm dropped to 2070rpm at 6 1/4lbs boost. 185IAS was considered the best climbing speed in coarse pitch.
It doesn't have much of anything to do with 100 octane fuel. What you want for coarse pitch is the prop pitched to give you the max speed at 3000 rpm (engine speed) at 17,000ft or above. IF you reduce pitch to give you better climb down low (under 17,000ft or so ?) you will either over speed the prop at the higher altitudes or have to throttle back a bit. The 100 octane fuel only gives you more power several thousand feet below FTH.

See this report.

Spitfire Mk I K.9793 Trials Report

Spitfire Performance Testing, wartime flight trials and reports of Spitfire aircraft. Spitfire Mk I data.

www.spitfireperformance.com

even with the two pitch prop when climbing they never got the engine over 2440 rpm which is severely going to limit boost and power output.
A constant speed allowed 2600rpm and 6 1/4 boost at any altitude below 11,000ft.
Later they approved a climb rating of 2850rpm and with the impeller spinning faster the 6 1/4 lbs could be held higher.
In combat you could use the full 3000rpm.

Maybe
If you over rev the engine at too a low a speed your prop will be slipping in the air and not giving good thrust. The constant speed prop is supposed the adjust the pitch setting to keep the prop from over speeding for the conditions. Like letting you use 3000rpm and 6 1/4 lbs boost at 170 mph while climbing in fine pitch and then keeping the prop pitch increasing while the speed and/or altitude increases.



Anything you do with a two pitch prop is going to be a comprise.

Werent Rotol variable pitch props in place before the BoB and an improved DH version optimised for a lower altitude but greater altitude range introduced with the Spitfire Mk II?

 

[Milosh]

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/Flight_DH_CSP_9_Dec_1943.pdf

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Germans had a terrible time using twin-engined, two-seater fighters as daylight bomber escorts. Would the British have failed as badly had they sent the Mosquito fighter variant as a daylight bomber escort?

 

[GregP]

You might try looking at this:

Comparitive Performance of Fighter Aircraft

This is a comparison of the way the aircraft WERE in real life, not how they were with your particular desired modifications.

 

[Howard Gibson]

This was kind of inspired by the thread about the what-if idea of modifying a Supermarine Spitfire for additional range: I remember hearing of the idea of using the Hawker Tempest as an escort, and things of that sort (there was some information based on range on that page).

I was thinking about the various fighters that existed that either were used or were usable as escorts during the Second World War. I was thinking about obviously the available range, the way range could be improved, and the performance data of the aircraft (i.e. how they compared to each other, and adversary planes) in terms of performance and maneuverability.

From 1943 on, the Americans were successful under a very specific set of circumstances. The B-17s, B-24s, and the escorting P-38s and P-47s were turbocharged. The bombers flew in at 25,000 to 28,000ft, and combat against P-47s took place at 30,000ft. If you were flying a P-47, you wanted to fight at 30,000ft. The later Mustangs had two-stage superchargers, so they were effective at high altitude too. The Germans did not bring two-stage supercharges into service until the closing weeks of the war.

Let's re-run the American daylight bomber campaign at 15,000 to 20,000ft, or let's give the Germans two-stage superchargers. Now, the American fighters do not have a gross advantage in performance. Their large fuel loads slow them down and make them more vulnerable to the Germans. Lower altitudes help German flak.

 

[33k in the air]

The bombers flew in at 25,000 to 28,000ft, and combat against P-47s took place at 30,000ft.

There were numerous bombing missions which flew under 26,000 feet. Of 372 bombing missions of the 303rd Bomb Group, the lowest bombing altitude:

11,000 to 13,900 feet:  11  ( 3.0%)
14,000 to 16,900 feet:  18  ( 4.8%)
17,000 to 19,900 feet:  31  ( 8.3%)
20,000 to 22,900 feet:  77  (20.7%)
23,000 to 25,900 feet: 178  (47.8%)
26,000 to 28,900 feet:  54  (14.5%)
29,000 and over:         3  ( 0.8%)

 

[GregP]

How about we not re-run the war except in the "what if: category, which is rather notorious for having no correct answers to any questions.?

 

[Jabberwocky]

Just about any fighter could use a bit more range.
Just what are you going to have to give up to get it?
An extra 20-30 gallons in a Spit might be doable, depends on the engine and tactical situation. but an extra 30 gallons is not going to get to the Ruhr and back let alone any futher.

We keep posting this picture
View attachment 665395
They built at least 40 of them, They were used by 3 different squadrons, (at the same time?)
There are performance figures for them. If you stick the tank in the rear fuselage you get rid of most of the drag but the loss of climb rate is going to be fairly close.
The idea that you can stick even more fuel inside an early Spitfire and wind up with a useful escort fighter needs some careful evaluation.

A standard ML II was supposed to climb at 2,175fpm at 20,000ft.
With the tank the climb rate dropped to 1420fpm.
Adjust for drag (about 25mph in speed) but you are not going to get most of the climb back.
For a Spitfire V fitting four 20mm guns instead of two 20s and four .30s cost just about 1 full minute to climb to 20,000ft. from a difference of about 400lbs in weight.
For these tests the Merlin 45 was running at 9lbs of boost at 2850 rpm.

That wing tank is such a horrible kludge.

I've always been a little mystified by the RAF's failure in 1940 to 1944 to fit fuel tanks behind the pilot on combat versions of the Spitfire. After-all, they were happy enough to fit them in front of the pilot (Spitfire) and both in front and to the side of the pilot (Hurricane). And they were happy to do it from late 1944 onwards. Why not earlier?

The PR Mk IB had a 29 gal fuel tank sitting behind the pilot. It was flying missions over France in early 1940. The reports were that it was somewhat unstable with the rear tank full, but takeoff was fine and handling was close to normal once most of the rear tank had been used up.

The Mk V had 29 or 33 gal fuel tanks fitted for various ferry missions to Malta in 1942. Again though, the tanks were removed once the Spitfires made it to Malta.

The 29 gal rear tank seems to be a viable option to turn a short range fighter into a medium range fighter. I'd argue that adding a third more fuel capacity at the cost of rate of climb was an acceptable trade-off for mid 1941 onwards. Of course, I'm writing with the benefit of hindsight. From the RAF's perspective in early to mid 1941, a renewed daylight offensive might only have been days or weeks away.

If the RAF did decide to modify some Spitfires, the question then becomes how many? And what's the potential cost in terms of a weaker interceptor force? You have to go all in on the concept - it's no good having penny packet numbers, otherwise they'll end up locally overwhelmed by German interceptors and the long-range squadrons rapidly become combat ineffective from losses and exhaustion.

 

[PAT303]

If you stick the tank in the rear fuselage you get rid of most of the drag but the loss of climb rate is going to be fairly close.

This is the bit that annoys me the most, one of the reasons Spitfires only had 85G of fuel was to keep the weight down so they could climb fast, the reason they had to climb fast was because they didn't have enough fuel to loiter. By simply putting 20G under the seat as per Sydney Cottons mod or a rear 30G tank as fitted to the MkV the requirement of fast climbing is gone. In the BoB Spitfires could have been launched 10 minutes earlier and be sitting at altitude using the extra fuel instead of waiting until the last minute and climbing like hell from underneath the approaching Luftwaffe aircraft. Once the Merlin got 100 octane fuel, CS props and 1200hp the tactics should have change to suit.

 

[drgondog]

Until you get the Merlin 61 engine showing up the US didn't have an engine that would give them the aircraft performance and the range and the desired armament.
Lets not forget that the P-47 could fly twice as far as Spitfire at low speeds with both running on internal fuel. The P-47 was a fuel hog but it was also a flying tank truck compared to most other fighters in 1942/early 43 and it wasn't near enough.

The B-17 and B-24 with their higher altitudes also required the escorts to burn a large amount of fuel just to get up to 25,000ft to start escorting.

SR - why are you discounting P-38? It paralleled the P-51B in range, and had the combat radius superior to P-47 during its entire life cycle until N.

 

[Shortround6]

Once the Merlin got 100 octane fuel, CS props and 1200hp the tactics should have change to suit.

They were getting the 100 octane fuel, slowly, over the winter of 1939/40. The story of it arriving just in time is fiction, at best.
See: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49597915996_bedb2b59d3_b.jpg

Assuming that the 100 octane was available at the fields the approval of using 12lbs of boost was issued March 20th 1940.
The constant speed props were going to take a bit longer. But any Merlin III could be fitted with a Rotol propeller.
That was the whole reason for the Merlin III. It used a universal prop shaft that would take either the Rotol or the DH prop.
I believe the Merlin II would only take the wood prop or the DH Prop? But the universal shaft was showing up in the summer of 1939.
The 100 octane was not going to change "tactics" as the 100 octane didn't change normal climbing power.

There is a test of a Spitfire I armed with two 20mm cannon and four .303s that went about 6380lbs.
They used 2850rpm and 6lbs of boost and the time to 20,000ft was almost 1.5 minutes slower.

Rate of climb is not all about climbing to altitude. Rate of climb at altitude affects how hard the plane can turn and maintain altitude or at least, not loose altitude as fast, which is going to affect tactics.

 

[Shortround6]

SR - why are you discounting P-38? It paralleled the P-51B in range, and had the combat radius superior to P-47 during its entire life cycle until N.

Sorry, senior moment?

But some what seriously the P-38 was conceived as a long endurance interceptor. 2 Hours I believe the specification said?
It started with 400 gallons of internal fuel but the self sealing tanks cut that to 300 and 300 gallons for 2 engines doesn't sound all that great.
Granted it got drop tanks before some other US fighters but the US was sticking drop tanks under the P-39 and P-40 to restore original range/endurance requirements.
But not really to turn them into escort fighters.
Forget the B-17, the B-26 was "supposed" to fly 2000 miles as was the B-25.
No way you were going to fly P-40s and P-39s with small single belly tanks as escorts for even anything but the shortest Medium bomber missions.
The P-38 also gained about 175hp over time in the F model.
going from 1100hp to 1325hp take-off may have made things easier for take-offs? The 1325hp rating only showed at the end of 1942 and the early engines were not rated to use that power at altitude due to lack of cooling/intercooling/needing new turbos?)
The P-38 was doing good things in other theaters but it didn't show up as a long range escort in Europe until about the same time as the Mustangs.

It did a lot of long range work in the Pacific but the Enemy interceptors weren't as strong and most people weren't operating at the same altitudes as the B-17s/B-24s.

The High altitude/high speed requirements of Europe make things harder for the escorts. Just getting to 25,000ft instead of 15,000ft sucks up fuel.
the need to be at near operational height and speed when crossing the coast makes things more difficult than the Pacific where the Japanese (or Americans) could use more time/distance to get up to altitude while burning off fuel before getting into high risk areas. Same on the way back, Pacific long range missions could use more time flying at lower altitudes and slower speeds. Not saying it was easy, Allied pilots forced down over Germany probably had a higher survival rate by coming down on land that ditching in water or trying to land on an atoll.

 

[tomo pauk]

Until you get the Merlin 61 engine showing up the US didn't have an engine that would give them the aircraft performance and the range and the desired armament.
Lets not forget that the P-47 could fly twice as far as Spitfire at low speeds with both running on internal fuel. The P-47 was a fuel hog but it was also a flying tank truck compared to most other fighters in 1942/early 43 and it wasn't near enough.

2-stage R-2800 was flying much earlier than the Merlin 61, talk year and a half? American-produced equivalent was late vs. a 2-stage R-2800 by ~2.5 years?
That nobody made an 1-engined fighter around the turbocharged V-1710 was no fault of the V-1710. The 2-engined P-38 worked, if with shortcomings ( a lot of them had nothing to do with engine choice).
R-1830 + turbo were in service by mid-1941 - again a valid powerplant for an escort of B-17s.

Shortcoming of the P-47 was that someone specifying it left out the requirement for drop tanks. The turbocharged R-2800 was in production and service months before the 2-stage Packard Merlin.

 

[Shortround6]

2-stage R-2800 was flying much earlier than the Merlin 61, talk year and a half? American-produced equivalent was late vs. a 2-stage R-2800 by ~2.5 years?
That nobody made an 1-engined fighter around the turbocharged V-1710 was no fault of the V-1710. The 2-engined P-38 worked, if with shortcomings ( a lot of them had nothing to do with engine choice).
R-1830 + turbo were in service by mid-1941 - again a valid powerplant for an escort of B-17s.

Shortcoming of the P-47 was that someone specifying it left out the requirement for drop tanks. The turbocharged R-2800 was in production and service months before the 2-stage Packard Merlin.

The P & W two stage engines were better than single stage engines but you can't substitute mechanical two stage R-1830s for turbo R-1830s.
The turbo installations needed more bulk/volume even it not a lot more weight of actual engine components.
However the turbo systems will allow 1200hp at 25,000ft instead of 1000hp at 19,000ft.
The turbo systems will also allow 700hp at 25,000ft in lean cruise. The two stage engine in the F4F may give 700hp cruise at 19,000ft?

The P-43 is your best choice for a Turbo R-1830 escort fighter, as least for starters. Perhaps you can do better without a 1935 airframe but you need room for the turbo, the intercooler, the ducts.
And if you want 150-200 US gallons of fuel you are going to need a wing close the size of the P-43, or a fat fuselage.
The air at 25,000ft is about 82% as dense as the air at 19,000ft so you need more air for the same power, you need more air for the intercoolers and if you are trying to make 1200hp instead of 1000hp you need 20% more combustion air, 20 % more intercooler air and 20% more cooling air.

A fighter with a single Turbo Allison has got a similar problem. The engine itself may be OK, but you need to go through the chain of turbos, B-2 to B-13 to B-33 inorder to get to the higher performance levels. You have to go through a few turbo regulator set ups and you have to follow the Allision progression in bottom end improvements. If you also have to figure out the intercooler problem. They were build P-38Hs and 38Js at the same time because they could not get the intercoolers for the 38Js fast enough to keep up production.
No waving the magic wand and getting B-13 turbos and P-38J intercoolers in the fall of 1942

 

[33k in the air]

It [the P-38] did a lot of long range work in the Pacific but the Enemy interceptors weren't as strong and most people weren't operating at the same altitudes as the B-17s/B-24s.

The second engine also provided a measure of safety redundancy for those long flights over open ocean.

 

[tomo pauk]

The P & W two stage engines were better than single stage engines but you can't substitute mechanical two stage R-1830s for turbo R-1830s.
The turbo installations needed more bulk/volume even it not a lot more weight of actual engine components.
However the turbo systems will allow 1200hp at 25,000ft instead of 1000hp at 19,000ft.
The turbo systems will also allow 700hp at 25,000ft in lean cruise. The two stage engine in the F4F may give 700hp cruise at 19,000ft?

FWIW, please note that I haven't listed the 2-stage R-1830 as a viable option for the USAAC/AAF - they have better options, including the R-2800. Turboed R-1830 is/was much better for the task of escorting the B-17s/-24s (granted, not beyond 1942 vs. Germany).

The P-43 is your best choice for a Turbo R-1830 escort fighter, as least for starters. Perhaps you can do better without a 1935 airframe but you need room for the turbo, the intercooler, the ducts.
And if you want 150-200 US gallons of fuel you are going to need a wing close the size of the P-43, or a fat fuselage.

Fuselage bulk is already dictated by the R-1830 diameter. I'd take the wing size of the P-43; granted, the wing structure will need to start with the simple 2-spar layout, so the proper fuel tanks can be installed instead the problematic tanks the P-43 had.

A fighter with a single Turbo Allison has got a similar problem. The engine itself may be OK, but you need to go through the chain of turbos, B-2 to B-13 to B-33 inorder to get to the higher performance levels. You have to go through a few turbo regulator set ups and you have to follow the Allision progression in bottom end improvements. If you also have to figure out the intercooler problem. They were build P-38Hs and 38Js at the same time because they could not get the intercoolers for the 38Js fast enough to keep up production.
No waving the magic wand and getting B-13 turbos and P-38J intercoolers in the fall of 1942

The as-is turboed V-1710s will do.
People doing the intercoolers for P-38 need to take a long, hard look on what the proper intecoolers look like on other US aircraft that have intercoolers.

 

[Zipper730]

You could but why would you? It would not have been as good as a P-51B/C D or the contemporary P-47. There were 1,700 Tempests made, it was probably the allies best fighter at low level and was needed against the V1 and post D-Day operations. It became operational in April 1944, by that time there was hardly a shortage of P-51s and P-47s which were both better in performance at altitude and range.

For some reason, I thought the Tempest was operational earlier actually. I am interested about the low-speed handling characteristics of the Tempest against the P-51 regardless (merely out of curiosity).

As I read the OP it was referring to escorts for strategic bombing missions from UK.

Technically, I was thinking of allied forces. Regardless, it seemed the Axis powers largely had developed escort capabilities as time went on.

These points don't apply to Luftwaffe that much?

I was mostly thinking of allied fighter designs that could be modified for extreme range. Truthfully, you make some good points, but the Bf 110, had it been used for free-ranging fighter-sweeps, it would have demonstrated considerably better effectiveness. That said, I'm really glad they didn't!

These points also don't apply to the Japanese, they employed escort fighters over the long ranges.

For the most part, yes. That said, they had considerable advantages over fighters operating over Europe.

Jamming more fuel into existing aircraft was the most important thing, and was also easiest thing to do. Hardest thing was admitting to oneself that LR fighters are not just needed, but feasible.

True enough -- there was a pervasive attitude that bombers would be able to hack it alone, and if not, they could just get through at night.

Tempest was a 'victim' of jamming more fuel in an aircraft not once, but twice in ww2. 1st, the 130-something imp gal fuel quantity was increased by installing a 30-something IG fuel tank in one wing leading edge, and them extra fuel was installed in another wing LE. Second fuel increase was done after it was necessary (late summer of 1944, on an unknown number of aircraft) since RAF tactical squadrons were in France by that time.

I didn't know that. I thought it had the fuselage tank and wing-tanks (interspar tank) off the bat, with a 30-imperial gallon tank added after.

It could carry 2x45 or 2x90 imperial gal. tanks off the bat if I recall. I'm not sure what penalty came in terms of g-load limits, but the Tempest was pretty tough structurally (if I recall, it compared decently with the F4U-1).

British are in best place engine-wise, but they don't have a doctrine for escort fighters' role. Americans are also hampered with same problem.

The British had the best engine options, particularly the fact that they had many inline engines that were either operational, or very close to operational. They also proceeded at a decent clip with jet development as well (they technically noticed the benefit of jets before the Germans did, but proceeded to develop it slower). Unfortunately, they really proceeded as slow as molasses when it came to developing variable-pitch/constant-speed propellers, often opting to use fixed-props for fighters, an occasionally twin-pitch design for a couple bombers early on (something ironic because of the fact that the technology existed).

The United States quickly adopted variable pitch propellers because we probably had better connections between industry and government, and this gave our aircraft better low speed performance in particular (though the Spitfire showed a significant performance increase when they were fitted with a variable pitch propeller at high TAS if I recall). It would also appear that we were better at stuffing more fuel into a given volume of space for fighter aircraft. This seemed to stem from geography.

1. The USN operated over large areas of ocean, which favored long-range (the RN:FAA probably also built more range into their aircraft as well for the same reason).
2. The USAAF generally liked having range in fighter planes for the purposes of ferrying them around at bare minimum: It would also appear that there was more interest in using them to either carry out or support interdiction operations.

When it came to engines, there was interest in inline engines mostly for the US Army, but the USN largely was a bigger fan of developing radials with the exception of airships (that said, they did develop the X-1800/H-2600 and H-3130/3730), and there was little demand for inlines in the commercial area since cowling-design made radials effective in all but the fastest cases, there was a depression on, and the Army had lots of inline designs that they were looking into, which ended up resulting in relatively little money going to any of them. There also appeared to be a tendency to lag in terms of switching from one concept to another, such as gas-turbine engines. We either stayed with propellers, and occasionally looked into the motorjet.

The Typhoon was designed to have a similar radius of action to the Spitfire and Hurricane. It's larger fuel capacity only fed the bigger engine for about the same period of time.

From what I remember, the British had a problem with their wind-tunnels that led to problems with higher speed aircraft, owing to the fact that their full-size wind-tunnel had some turbulence producing characteristic, and it obfuscated the degree of turbulence produced by the aircraft. While they appeared to have figured out some correction factors for certain ranges of speed, as they went into faster territory, they found their guesswork produced wildly varying results.

This seemed to be how they came up with the misguided assumption that the Beaufighter would be capable of 370 mph (if I recall, it was capable of around 315-325) and the Typhoon could do around 450 mph (it had trouble squeaking past 400 initially). Interestingly, the reason Supermarine avoided falling into that trap was because they produced lots of race-planes and had plenty of hands-on experience with high speed aerodynamics. The US & Canadians were also able to back up Supermarine on the issue of wing-thickness.

I'm not sure when the British realized they had this problem, but it seems that it was probably at some point in 1940 (the Mosquito was built in late 1940 and had a normal wing thickness).You also have to consider what bombers you want to escort.

You also have to consider the fighter opposition you'll face: The P-38 could achieve a radius of action about 1000 miles out with 2 x 165 gallon tanks, but it would have to cruise fairly slow to do it.

Instead of turret fighters, start making LR fighters.

Turret fighters proved a pretty dumb idea in practice: From what I remember, the idea was based on upward tilting guns that could vary in elevation, and be swung around as well in the event they couldn't reach the bomber in time (or the bomber was higher flying).

 

[GregP]

This is the bit that annoys me the most, one of the reasons Spitfires only had 85G of fuel was to keep the weight down so they could climb fast, the reason they had to climb fast was because they didn't have enough fuel to loiter. By simply putting 20G under the seat as per Sydney Cottons mod or a rear 30G tank as fitted to the MkV the requirement of fast climbing is gone. In the BoB Spitfires could have been launched 10 minutes earlier and be sitting at altitude using the extra fuel instead of waiting until the last minute and climbing like hell from underneath the approaching Luftwaffe aircraft. Once the Merlin got 100 octane fuel, CS props and 1200hp the tactics should have change to suit.

The requirement for fast climbing was never gone. Before radar got decent, the Brits had very little warning of incoming German attacks from the air, and needed to get up there quickly. That requirement never really "went away," the warning time just got a bit better, and the Spitfires could get into a position from which, if not superior, was at LEAST not nearly as much if a disadvantage before the Germans were over their targets.

The Spitfire was the best piston fighter of the war for getting to high altitude quickly in the ETO, and was needed for that task until the Luftwaffe was so busy defending the Reich that attacks on the UK were not in the cards.

 

[pbehn]

For some reason, I thought the Tempest was operational earlier actually. I am interested about the low-speed handling characteristics of the Tempest against the P-51 regardless (merely out of curiosity).

Technically, I was thinking of allied forces. Regardless, it seemed the Axis powers largely had developed escort capabilities as time went on.

What is "low speed" the landing speed of a Tempest was 110 MPH, a low speed handling competition between those two is like a parking competition for F1 cars. The German part of the Axis scaled back manufacture of machines that needed daylight escort from 1943, Attacks on UK were done at night.