Escort Fighter Performance Comparison (1 Viewer)

[GregP]

Just so everyone is clear, the Greg's Aviation site is not mine. It's another Greg. I like some of his stuff, but some of his contentions are a bit suspect, at least to me. Still, pretty good efforts on his part in general.

I like them WAY more than I dislike or disagree with them.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Just so everyone is clear, the Greg's Aviation site is not mine. It's another Greg. I like some of his stuff, but some of his contentions are a bit suspect, at least to me. Still, pretty good efforts on his part in general.

I like them WAY more than I dislike or disagree with them.

I like that he isn't afraid to get into the weeds, and does so by way of explanation that even a dolt like me can understand the issue. I still don't know if he's right or wrong much of the time, but his channel is certainly food for thought.

 

[Zipper730]

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

What was Quill & Brown's rationale?

Also did they have any known specific proposals for stuffing more fuel in?

 

[PAT303]

I'm not saying that all Spitfires expended their entire ammunition supply on short-range missions; they didn't. But a large percentage did. If they kept returning without seeing any action, then they would have been reassigned to other missions where they DID see action. Nobody keeps flying non-effective missions for too long. There is no point.

Actually that's exactly what happened later in the war, the Spit's lack of range meant they did pointless short range escort missions and saw nothing or pointless fighter sweeps over the low countries also seeing nothing. A fighter that had expended it's ammo is heading home regardless of what it's mission is, giving the Spit more fuel allows more chance of it getting into action, ideally you want them coming home empty, that means they are doing their job.

 

[PAT303]

What was Quill & Brown's rationale?

Also did they have any known specific proposals for stuffing more fuel in?

More endurance, the Spits biggest handicap was it's lack of endurance. Go and read about the Spit in WW2, everything it did was dictated by its range, it's lack of range,

 

[glennasher]

Please Pat, let it go.

 

[PAT303]

Please Pat, let it go.

Okay.

 

[GregP]

Actually that's exactly what happened later in the war, the Spit's lack of range meant they did pointless short range escort missions and saw nothing or pointless fighter sweeps over the low countries also seeing nothing. A fighter that had expended it's ammo is heading home regardless of what it's mission is, giving the Spit more fuel allows more chance of it getting into action, ideally you want them coming home empty, that means they are doing their job.

That only happened after the war was essentially won, when the competent Luftwaffe was getting scarce. When that happens, your range available from your short-range fighters doesn't matter, you have won the war and the enemy only has to realize it and surrender. Any aerial action after that is almost superfluous.

That was mostly after about February 1945. In 1944, the USAAF averaged 869 German airplanes destroyed each month. In Jan - Mar 1945, they averaged 558. In April 1945, the USAAF destroyed 4,257 German aircraft, 3,703 of them on the ground. Can you say "Collapse of the Luftwaffe as a Fighting Force?"

 

[PAT303]

That only happened after the war was essentially won, when the competent Luftwaffe was getting scarce. When that happens, your range available from your short-range fighters doesn't matter, you have won the war and the enemy only has to realize it and surrender. Any aerial action after that is almost superfluous.

That was mostly after about February 1945. In 1944, the USAAF averaged 869 German airplanes destroyed each month. In Jan - Mar 1945, they averaged 558. In April 1945, the USAAF destroyed 4,257 German aircraft, 3,703 of them on the ground. Can you say "Collapse of the Luftwaffe as a Fighting Force?"

Greg, the Spit had 85G of fuel for one reason and that was because that's all that could be carried aloft with the then available engine power, the airframe had great growth potential and adaptability as shown by the vast number of models and rolls it was developed into which coincided with Merlin/Griffin engine development. The need to limit it's fuel capacity based on 1937-9 engine power was long gone by 1942, anyway I'll take glennashers advice and leave it.

 

[GregP]

Just so we understand each other, I agree there's nothing wrong with extra fuel. It just never materialized until very late and, by then, it didn't really matter. They also didn't allow Grumman to modify the F6F by eliminating the wing dihedral to increase the rate of roll, even though it was needed. They never allowed Messerschmitt to "fix" the main Bf 109 shortcomings, either.

So, the Spitfire wasn't exactly alone in not getting something that would help it out in the field. Nevertheless, it acquitted itself quite well during the war with what it DID have: sparking performance at the mission it was designed for.

Cheers, Pat303.

Edit: By the way, the Supermarine Attacker was basically a jet version of the Seafang / Spiteful. It had a Spiteful wing and a new fuselage with a jet engine in it. The Attacker shared the short range with the Spiteful and Spitfire / Seafire. Max range was just 590 miles, meaning less than 300 mile range with no reserve. So, when it was fueled up, oiled up, and ready for engine start, it was basically in a state of fuel emergency. Perhaps they had to get back for tea, scones, and darts?

 

[drgondog]

Actually that's exactly what happened later in the war, the Spit's lack of range meant they did pointless short range escort missions and saw nothing or pointless fighter sweeps over the low countries also seeing nothing. A fighter that had expended it's ammo is heading home regardless of what it's mission is, giving the Spit more fuel allows more chance of it getting into action, ideally you want them coming home empty, that means they are doing their job.

No.
Later in war, Spit squadrons based in UK did interceptions of V-1s, convoy escort, escort over transports shipping supplies to Invasion forces, escort to Netherlands, general UK air Defense. Nothing 'meaningless'..

Later, based on Continent, Meaningful Escort of TAC Air light and medium bombers, air defense, even tactical CAS type sweeps.

Your focus seems to be "'I'm sad that the Spitfire didn't get into the big air battles over Germany" - but the Spits were Everywhere else and making major contributions in wresting air superiority from Axis - just deployed in a complimentary fashion with other air assets available.

 

[Milosh]

Perhaps they had to get back for tea, scones, and darts?

Scones are Scottish. Biscuits are the Brits.

 

[SaparotRob]

..and now I know.

 

[pbehn]

..and now I know.

Biscuit is French for "cooked twice" (you may note a little thread drift here)

 

[GregP]

Scones are Scottish. Biscuits are the Brits.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Thread drift? Surely you jest!

Speaking jest, a man walks into a bar with a monkey on his shoulder ...

 

[NevadaK]

Biscuit is French for "cooked twice" (you may note a little thread drift here)

The best southern biscuits are made with White Lily Flour.

 

[SaparotRob]

mmmmmmm biscuits.

 

[BiffF15]

The best southern biscuits are made with White Lily Flour.

And covered in breakfast gravy!

 

[BiffF15]

A fighter that had expended it's ammo is heading home regardless of what it's mission is, giving the Spit more fuel allows more chance of it getting into action, ideally you want them coming home empty, that means they are doing their job.

Pat,

A fighter without ammo is not without use. He can stay as a flight lead and do battle direction, monitor engaged time and call "bingo" / for the RTB (Return To Base). As a wingman he is probably more useful in that he checks his flight leads six, keeps navigational / fuel SA and doesn't wander off (he needs a shooter nearby). "Very loyal this wingman is".

As for coming home empty meaning their job is done is not always true. Coming home with your weapons can also mean you have done your mission (Air Superiority has been established and no ordinance was expended to do it).

Cheers,
Biff

 

[wuzak]

Internal fuel capacity is the determinant - not external tanks. Whatever you have left after dropping externals and a.) fight for 20 in, b.) economy cruise home, c.) loiter for 30 min is central to Combat Radius estimates.

P-51B/D with fuse tank = 269gal.

Spitfire was designed to slightly lower stress limits than Mustang - at the beginning of its life cycle.

Both the wing and the cooling drag attributes contributed to superior cruise and top speed aerodynamics for the Mustang although the thin(er) wing of the Spitfire gave slightly better Cdmach profile than Mustang wing.

Changing the cooling system approach to imbedded Radiator system would have been a huge fuselage re-design (my speculation) due to differences in aft frame volumes and structure to accomodate the new Meredith type system.

Significant is he lack thereof in the later models of Spit after several years experience and knowledge of the 'do/don't do' of Mustang I and evolution of external/internal configuration changes. Even with the original allotment of NA-73/83 airframes for Merlin conversion, no attempt was made to lift the cooling system into a later model Spitfire toimprove aerodynamics. All the major changes were horsepower driven.

Smith was not allowed to redesign the Spitfire with a embedded fuselage radiator, even though he and Supermarine wanted to. Production was king, and the changes required for a Mustang style radiator would have cost a lot of production time.

Even when Supermarine made improvements it was delayed, or not implemented at all. For example, the changes made to the radiator for the Mk.III were never adopted. Similarly the V was chosen over the III, and the IX over the VIII, for production reasons.

The new wing was delayed, so that the interim Griffon Spitfire (the XIV) was introduced a year before the "definitive" version, the 21. And the laminar flow wing of the Spiteful was delayed even more.