I think you need to look outside the box a bit, ALL the issue's addressed by you were dealt with, all I'm saying once the Spitfire and Hurricane changed from the defensive in 1940 to offensive 1941 they didn't have the range to do it, the Americans on the other hand didn't stuff about, they got straight into looking at ways to extend the range of their fighters which eventually led, even with all it's issue's, to the VLR Mustang.
P-51 fuselage fuel tank
- Thread starter Barrett
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That's a problem with first identifying then plotting the intruders, extra fuel or higher climb rate isn't going to solve that issue.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
Nope, of course not. Heavily armed bombers can penetrate enemy air defenses if they fly at high altitude, where they will be all but undetectable and by use of turbosupercharged engines, will be moving too fast for any interceptor to reach them.
And it was not that it did not work, but that it did not work well enough. Flying in daylight at 15,000 ft over occupied Europe was suicidal, just for AAA.
They found out the hard way that bombers can't defend themselves no matter how many .50 cal brownings you stick in them, hence the reason for experimenting with both aux and drop tanks, the Americans reacted to the changing face of battle when the British steadfastly believed that it couldn't work, Portal held that view even after USAF single seat fighters were taking off from the Britain mainland on long range escort missions over Europe and the MkXIV in testing was shown to be a match for anything the Luftwaffe had with the 90G combat tank still fitted.
True they were fitted in 1940, but in 1938 no on knew that, so when do you fit your 20 gallon tanks?
Until the Spitfire is fitted with a two stage supercharger and can use even higher octane fuels extending its range just means losing more. When leaning into France they were losing at a ratio of up to 5 to 1. The Americans did what to extend the range of the Mustang? The British ordered it and its internal fuel was increased while it was solely a British operated aircraft, without the original British order and the British order for Packard Merlins tell me what the Americans got on with and when? In British service the Allisson engined Mustangs reached on average 90 miles from the coast. Even the longest ranged Spitfire couldnt reach anywhere that the Germans would take heavy losses defending. The situation was different at Dieppe, and look what happened there.
Is that 90 miles from the UK coast or 90 miles inland from the enemy coast? An October 1942 low level Rhubarb over the Netherlands covered a minimum 490 miles total distance from Duxford, out over the North Sea, Bergen Aan Zee - Enkhuizen - De Kooy - back to Snailwell, not a straight course over the Netherlands, but following rail lines, canals and changing course approximately every 7 to 9 minutes, including multiple strafing passes against some of the target encountered. So total air miles covered probably a bit over 500. Another October 1942 low level Rhubarb sortie from Duxford to Groningen in the Netherlands with multiple course changes following rail lines and canals, shooting up targets a minimum 540 air miles covered. A September 1943 Rhubarb and Tac/R of rail lines and road junctions from Odiham to Montreuil and Hesdin and back to Odiham, with a number of other way points along the way, the pilot records in his flight plan 460 air miles, most at sea level or below 500ft, the only 'high point' was at 1,500ft for the transit from Odiham to the crossing out point of the UK coast and then on the return climbing to 1,500ft before the English coast for the reentry and return to base. 220TAS for the channel crossing, then basically 300TAS whilst over the enemy coast. The ACC Mustangs did stuff the Fighter Command Spitfires could not with respect to range, why they ended up doing early morning fighter cover for RN MTBs and MGBs up near Scheirmonnikoog, ability to get there, then stay over the MTBs and MGBs as they withdrew from the area for around an hour and then return to base - plus have sufficient fuel to engage in combat with the Luftwaffe if required, which they did on a number of occasions. Or Instep patrols out into the Atlantic to provide blocking cover for Coastal Command aircraft heading out or returning from their patrols, and similar operations where the long range and duration of the Mustang was an advantage.
From the enemy coast, from an account of their operations at the time. My point wasnt to dispute the range possibility of the Mustang, which is clear. I was makin the additional point that you cannot make the same operation over the same area for months and years without the opponent taking steps to beat you. to
Last edited:
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
Mustang MkI has a range on internal fuel of 1000 miles. P-40E with a 50 gal drop tank has a range of 850 miles. So the Mustangs the RAF bought to replace the P-40's that Curtiss could not deliver in time had more range on internal fuel, and thus did not need drop tanks, and thus had no provisions for them.
Range is only a consideration after other things are satisfied. The RAF tried the P-40 i the T/R role from UK and it couldnt do it, the Mustang Mk I excelled at it.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
They tried escorting the Mustang T/R aircraft with Spitfires. The Spitfires could not keep up.
Quotes from the book "Mustang at War":
"On one of their first Rhubarbs Mustangs penetrated to the Dortmand-Ems Canal, the first occasion single-engined fighter aircraft flying from Britain had entered German air space. An extension of these activities was the introduction, early in 1943, of Ranger missions with similar objectives but the participants operated on a freelance basis. Only the Mustang had the range for such sorties, its radius of action being taken as 300 miles in planning these operations, twice the distance specified for Spitfires, Hurricanes, and Typhoons. Even with long range drop tanks the Spitfires and Hurricanes were only able to reach 210 miles from base."
Yes the RAF and the British were delighted with the plane they ordered and helped develop with NAA, I was looking for where corporate and military America played a part in that. As I understand it NAA had trouble locating an engine for the prototype and the two that were handed over as part of the contract conditions werent tested for a while. The assertion I was responding to was that the Americans got on with it and the British didnt. If it wasnt for a British order the Mustang would not exist at all, there would have been more P-40s though.
As an example of British involvement, NAA proposed a faster Mustang with shortened wing span. The RAF/ British would only accept if take off runs and RoC were unaffected. That would have been a major issue on the Mustang as an escort fighter, lengthening wings of planes delivered and in production is not something easily solved and it would have affected the ability of a Mustang to carry as much extra fuel, oil, guns, ammunition and oxygen that it was eventually tasked with.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
Well, I have read it asserted that the two XP-51's provided from the RAF contract were quite thoroughly tested by the USAAF.
But the fact is, by late 1941 everyone knew that a single seat single engined fighter powered by an engine of less than 2000 cu in was obsolete before it was produced, The RAF had concluded that the Spitfire powered by the Merlin (1643 cu in) had a very limited future and had placed its faith in the NApier Sabre (2240 CU in) RR Griffon (2235 CU in), and Bristol Hercules (2364 cu in). The US thought that the V-1710 was only good enough if you used at least two of them and was planning on the V-3420. The USN was planning on the R-2800 and R-2600 powering it new fighters; the R-1830 was way too small. The Japanese were building their version of the DB-601 at 2069 cu in for the Ki-61. Even the Hisso 12Y used by the French was 2196 cu in, and the Soviets were already using in-line engines of around 2100 cu in and planning on using radials of over 2500 cu in. The Germans had started out with in line engines of over 2000 cu in and wee going still higher, with the FW-190A equipped with a 2546 cu in radial.
By late 1941 a single engined fighter with a single stage supercharged engine of only 1710 cu in could only be a has-been never-was, no matter how brilliant its design. And the Merlin, at 60 cubic inches LESS than the Allison was even worse!
But Stanley Hooker came up with the idea of a liquid cooled intercooler combined witha two stage mechanical supercarger (an idea already tried out on the XP-41 and operational with the F4F) and that changed everything.
The Mustang Mk I was tested thoroughly eventually but not immediately. What ou state were thoughts and opinions and the dates are wrong. The RR Vulture was abandoned in favour of the Merlin because the Merlin development engines were producing almost the same power In the late 1930s power was mainly seen as being related to swept volume which is why the scheduled Spitfire replacements of Typhoon and Tornado had the much larger H and X type engines. Th two stag supercharger doesnt provide more power it just allows thee same oost pressure at higher altitudes. A Spitfire Mk V outperformed a Spitfire Mk IX at the same boost pressure but only at lower altitudes. Thee discussion is always about fighters, the worry for the British was about bombers. The Manchester had two unreliable Vulture engines downrated to 1750 BHP the Lancaster had 4 reliable Merlins rated at 1650 BHP and although it is twic as many engines it isnt twicee as much work because they have the same number of cylinders.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Attached. Load control is Section 4 of the Vol 1 for all RAF aircraft.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Yet the British had drop tanks on every Mk V, and possibly earlier, Spitfire when US dogma was do not fit them. To quote Reluctant Poster in post 40 of this thread
The Spitfire tanks also had self seal couplings and did not need drag producing and range reducing sway braces or pylons like all US aircraft fitted with drop tanks did. I suspect the biggest problem with fitting what are probably best described as conventional drop tanks is the fact that the Spitfire wing had a very strong D type front spar and an almost cosmetic rear spar so there was nothing substantial between the spars to hang the tank from. Fitting Japanese Ki-43 type drops to the Spitfire might have been possible if the shackle was on the rear of the front spar and the lower skin could have supported the rear sway braces. The leading edge was certainly strong enough
That said the Spitfire drop tanks were a form fitting inverted airfoil shape so I expect they destroyed a certain amount of lift and were not widely used.
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
outstanding!
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Corrected.
Note also that the so called backward Japanese who some claim copied everything from the US had drop tanks with self seal couplings and integral sway braces on the Ki-43 and A6M from day one.
I often wonder where the time machine they used to steal these and other concepts like caseless ammunition for the Ki-44 is hidden. Maybe Shinpachi knows.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
What the **** mind altering substances are you consuming?
- Firstly, the Mustang was designed in April 1940 by a team headed by James H. Kindelberger of North American Aviation (NAA) in response to a requirement of the British Purchasing Commission.
- Secondly the Mk IX Spitfire blueprints I have show the date the earliest drawing I have was made in February 1942. almost two years after the Mustang was designed.
- Thirdly the P-51 was designed long before the first Mk IX ever reached US hands.
- Fourthly the Mustang specification was written by the RAF, not the USAAF.
I am sure that drgondog will make corrections to that corrected statement and I will endorse every one of his corrections
