Long range, high speed Spitfire fighter: the best approach?

gumbyk · May 14, 2013

With that pic, I lost track of which website I was looking at!

nuuumannn · May 14, 2013

One of those images slipped through totally accidentally.

Must be one of the fuel diagrams; the rest look perfectly normal to me. In fact, it looks like my bedroom wall when I was a teenager...

OldSkeptic · May 15, 2013

"The main problem I can see was the numbers of tanks and the handling required; lots of things to go wrong: "

Hmmm can see why...

OldSkeptic · May 15, 2013

Getting back on tack (somehow) that's interesting (I mean the Spit ... clean your minds). Obviously the wing thinness is affecting the capacity, plus the 2x20mm.

But even that, plugging it into my model, gives a 550 miles combat radius with a 120 mile reserve on the return. That's more than enough in '43 to make a big difference.
Even a big help post June 44 for many except the really long missions, because the escorts often found themselves very stretched on a numbers basis, until the Luftwaffe finally collapsed.

Having even just few extra wings of LR Spits (ideally far more) would have been of tremendous help to the US Mustang fighter groups, those guys got really pushed at times (when you read their accounts).

To answer a point raised: I use the 500 miles to Berlin as a yardstick, because if you draw a radius with that distance it covers a lot of Germany and many important industrial centres.

wuzak · May 15, 2013

On Mike Williams' site there is a reproduction of an AFDU tactical trials report on the Spitfire XIV.

Some of the conclusions are interesting:

Even with the 90 gallon tank, the Spitfire XIV can equal or outclass the FW.190 (BMW.801D) and the Me.109G in every respect. Its main advantages remain the tight turn and maximum climb.

and

The Spitfire XIV has a slightly better maximum climb than the Spitfire IX, having the best maximum rate of climb yet seen at this Unit. In the zoom climb the Spitfire XIV gains slightly all the way, especially if full throttle is used in the climb.

So, presumably the Spitfire XIV could have gone into combat with is long range tank in place and partially full.

vs the Spitfire IX

At all heights the Spitfire XIV is 30-35 mph faster in level flight. The best performance heights are similar, being just below 15,000 and between 25,000 and 32,000 ft.

vs the Spitfire VIII

Performance- Speeds near the ground are identical, at 10,000 and 15,000 feet the Spitfire VIII is faster, at 20/25,000 ft. similar, at 30,000 ft. and over the Spitfire XIV accelerated faster and was the superior aircraft.

Climb- Zero to 30,000 feet the Spitfire VIII is the better aircraft, at 30,000 ft. and over the Spitfire XIV is by far the better.

Interesting that the speed of the VIII was considered equal to that of the XIV, since the IX was 30-35mph slower than the XIV at all heights. This was an early conversion aircraft, the tests taking place in late July 1943. Would this suggest that the XIV (VIIIG) tested wasn't as fast as the production version comapred to the IX.

Aozora · May 15, 2013

From a post war report written by a former O.C of the AFDU (Sqn Ldr Wade) as shown in WW2 Aircraft performance Comparative Performance of Fighter Aircraft:

In this he showed that the Spitfire XIV had a combat radius of just over 230(?) miles (Spitfire 21 c. 280 miles, Spitfire XIV c. 390miles) based on the following conditions:

In all cases the range is given at the individual aircraft's rated altitude, with full complement of drop tanks where applicable. Throttle settings are standardized in that five minutes are allowed for take-off at full power, climb at maximum throttle settings to rated altitude, five minutes combat at full throttle, 15 minutes at maximum cruising and the balance at economical cruising. This method is purely arbitrary, and should not be taken as representative of an operational sortie.

the normal fuel capacity of the XIV was 111 gallons (top and bottom main tanks, 2 wing LE tanks: from Pilot's Notes) + 90 gal = 201 Imp gal (although Wade wrote 199 gal), so even with the 90 gal drop tank the ordinary Spitfire XIV would have struggled to be a useful long-range fighter, even flying at economical cruising speeds for the entire flight.

In my previous posting I was showing the improved fuel capacities of the late model Spitfire/Seafires with the revised wing, which could carry more fuel in the outer leading edges. The downside was a complicated fuel system, particularly the Seafire 46/Spitfire 22 with 3 drop tanks and the fuselage tank, ten tanks in total, meaning seven sets of fuel tanks to manage for a total capacity of 247 gal. Cf the P-51 which had five fuel tanks (two wing, fuselage tanks plus drop tanks), yet almost twice the fuel capacity.

Shortround6 · May 15, 2013

Camden said:
.... and machine-guns without any significant change in firepower, then fit extra tanks where the mg's had been. Once the wing tanks were empty, the aircraft would also be about 150-200 pounds lighter than the actual aircraft, and would probably have a somewhat better roll-rate.

The Problem with the Spitfire ( and many other fighters) was NOT getting TO the fight, that was handled by drop tanks. The Problem was GETTING HOME from the fight. That requires protected fuel tankage that is FULL or nearly so when the fight starts.

zjtins · May 15, 2013

Clean sheet of paper

What bender said.

Moding a simple passenger plane is very difficult to get right... let alone a high performance fighter. There are so many factors that must be considered to the get all the performance variables into acceptable ranges at all altitudes and speeds(it that is required).
We all talk about eh P-51 wonder plane made in 90 days but how many attempts failed? From clean sheet designs in that era?

Willy Messerschmidt tried with 109, one of the top minds of his day and could only be considered a modest success.

The Spitfire was good in the BoB bu twas the same as the ME-109, more current designs outclassed it.

Njaco · May 15, 2013

Willy Messerschmidt tried with 109, one of the top minds of his day and could only be considered a modest success.

The Spitfire was good in the BoB bu twas the same as the ME-109, more current designs outclassed it.

maybe I'm mis-reading this but could you explain how either the Bf 109 or Spitfire were "modest success'"?

nuuumannn · May 15, 2013

Willy Messerschmidt tried with 109, one of the top minds of his day and could only be considered a modest success. The Spitfire was good in the BoB but was the same as the ME-109, more current designs outclassed it.

Geez, some people need to read up on their aviation history. There's no 'D' in Messerschmitt for starters. The Bf 109 was built in greater numbers than any other fighter; it was in production before and after the war and was enormously successful and remained front line equipment with the Luftwaffe until the end of the war, despite the Fw 190 and Me 262. As for the Spitfire, like I said in another thread, there were only two occasions when the Spitfire was bested by its German opponents, the Spit V against the Bf 109F and Fw 190 - and we know what happened next, the Spit IX, and the advent of jet fighters, which overtook all piston engined fighters - even still, the Spit remained in RAF service until 1952. Constant innovation and modification kept the Spitfire current throughout the war.

Chris, you're being far too diplomatic.

drgondog · May 15, 2013

Interesting that the Thunderbolt II was declared winner in combat radius - as capable of going to Vienna and back - when it never made an operational mission to Munich and only two as far as Berlin during WWII.

FLYBOYJ · May 15, 2013

zjtins said:
Willy Messerschmidt tried with 109, one of the top minds of his day and could only be considered a modest success.

Almost 34,000 units built during WW2, with another 200 HA1112s built in Spain and 600 built by Avia, along with an operational life from 1937 - 1965 from all variants, yea, I think it was only a "modest success."

Oh, I also think the -109 destroyed more aircraft in aerial combat than any other combat aircraft in the history of aerial warfare. Yep, a modest success

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 15, 2013

Wow, I don't know what to say. The 109 only modest success? The Spitfire just good?

Someone should really stick to net gear and welding discussions.

fastmongrel · May 15, 2013

Sounds like someone has been reading A simple knowledge of everything by Stewart Davies and is Shooting but missing.

zjtins · May 15, 2013

Production numbers alone don't tell the whole story. By the at measure the P-51 and P-47 were only half as good as the ME-109.

And they also destroyed more obsolete aircraft than any other.

So if your measure of success is only production numbers and number of obsolete aircraft shot down then you should go to all the threads about best this or that and give them your 2 cents.

If you want to have a discussion on why I say what I said, be happy to.

FLYBOYJ · May 15, 2013

zjtins said:
Production numbers alone don't tell the whole story. By the at measure the P-51 and P-47 were only half as good as the ME-109.

And can you qualify that in operational terms with regards to maintenance or from a pilot's perspective?

zjtins said:
And they also destroyed more obsolete aircraft than any other.

As well as "non-obsolete." And can you define what you consider "obsolete"? The last time I looked I believe warfare involved removing your enemy's will to fight and that might be achieved by the destruction of said army or in this case air forces - I think its irrelevant what's obsolete or not.

zjtins said:
So if your measure of success is only production numbers and number of obsolete aircraft shot down then you should go to all the threads about best this or that and give them your 2 cents.

I should and have and will....

zjtins said:
If you want to have a discussion on why I say what I said, be happy to.

I'm all ears....

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 15, 2013

So the P-51s, Spifires, P-38s,'P-47's that were shot down were all obsolete?

I too am all ears...

zjtins · May 15, 2013

And can you qualify that in operational terms with regards to maintenance or from a pilot's perspective?

Does this mean performance, reliability, firepower, ruggedness, range all do not matter to you?

All (almost) the Russian plans at the beggining of the war were obsolete. Even the next few models out of there design bureaus were not good (not my words... Ralls.)

Depending upon how one breaks up the time frames, the Germans never lost more than 1:1 until 1945 in the eastern front (except for individual locales or short time frames).
I have seen some published accounts shoe the Russian Air force gone with only a handful of Germans shot down by aircraft in the begging.

Then the German have to pick between anti fighter and anti bomber. Anyone here care to show how good a ME-109 with 2x20mm or 30mm slung beneath its wing was better than just about any western fighter of the time?

Ralls one words were he like the model the best for fighter vs fighter, but he was the best what about the other 99% untrained inexperienced pilots? Most died swiftly.

Like I said after the BoB the ME-109 was only a modest success. You only have to look at the FW-190 for more successful model. When it was re-engined it became far more difficult an adversary, 4x cannon and 2 HMG, was more rugged due to internal construction (Mess gave up alot for speed), also much better vision. And if you want to count the morphing into the TA-152, yet a higher grade still especially at altitude. But the war ended with little contribution.

zjtins · May 15, 2013

So the P-51s, Spifires, P-38s,'P-47's that were shot down were all obsolete?

Lets start there, how many for the ME109 vs FW190 vs flak vs other? And how ME109 and FW190s were shot down by those aircraft mentioned.
Someone provide the numbers because if I do I get too much flak (no pun intended). I will accept pretty much any source the rest sign up to.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 15, 2013

zjtins said:
Lets start there, how many for the ME109 vs FW190 vs flak vs other? And how ME109 and FW190s were shot down by those aircraft mentioned.
Someone provide the numbers because if I do I get too much flak (no pun intended). I will accept pretty much any source the rest sign up to.

Why don't you start here.

Kacha`s Luftwaffe Page

You get Flak because you claim things that prove you are over your head.

Long range, high speed Spitfire fighter: the best approach?

Master Sergeant

Major

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Captain

Staff Sergeant

Major General

Banned

The Pop-Tart Whisperer

Major

Major

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Private Chemtrail Disperser

1st Sergeant

Banned

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Banned

Banned

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads