Notably, Lockheed and Curtiss and North American proceeded to develop and design wing and fuselage drop tank/sway brace capability in 1941/early 1942 on their own nickel. Spaatz was Chief Materiel Cmd for only a brief period, then Echols assumed command when Spaatz went to Air Plans - then in 1943 assumed command of 8th AF and brought Eaker as CO VIII Bomber Cmd.
Explain
To give an idea of how little importance the USAAF was attaching to long range they had actually STOPPED production of the 75 gallon drop tank.
It took the Yanks over a year a half from the first B-17 mission over Europe to get it on with it and build a viable escort force . In January 1944 they were still futzing around with adding drop tank capabilities to P-47 and P-51s. The P-38s were finally being delivered with leading edge tanks and the P51s with fuselage tanks. Retro fits kits for both those aircraft were also arriving . Its not an accident that Big Week didn't start until February.
But they did it that's the difference, the British new their fighters lacked range and that indirectly lead to the blooding of the RAF in 1941 over France. I don't buy we didn't have time, didn't have resources etc, they had time and resources to fit the Merlin 45, 20mm Hispano's, design belt feed, change over to constant speed props, fit pilot armor, metal covered control surfaces and finally the Merlin 60 series with all new cooling system and wings, fitting the 29G rear tank took no time in the MkV, stupid thing is after fitting them for ferry flights they removed them, Stupidity at it's worst.
By having an extra 20G the fighters could have been launched earlier allowing for optimal positioning for attack. During the BoB fighters were held on the ground until the last minute, they had to wait until the plotters were satisfied what the target was before releasing the fighters for launch, this caused them to be constantly attacking from underneath or from less than ideal positions, that extra 20G would have had them at 20,000ft before attacking or likewise fuel to reposition.
The extra weight of the tank and fuel etc are going to weight as much as a second crew man which will have significant impact on the rate of climb.
I was waiting for this exact reply. With an extra 10 minutes of fuel the need for max climb rate is null and void, as soon as the incoming raid's direction is plotted the fighters are launched and will be race tracking at 20,000ft before the bombers cross the coast, the need for a high climb rate is because they don't have enough fuel to do anything other than point defense. The P51 got rear Berlin tanks from late December '43? when the missions they flew required more internal fuel, and numerous different sized drop tanks.
I suspect that self preservation was lower in his mind than saving his wingman. IIRC they needed all the fuel remaining in the tanks to get home safely, but frankly don't know where that information came from.
Yes they did, quote
I misunderstood. You are actually proposing to scrap the so called Downing System and replace it with standing patrols. The irony of that is the Downing System was designed to elimate standing patrols. The argument against standing patrols is that they are wasteful of resources. More run time on engines and airframes means more frequent maintenance which obviously means more maintenance personnel and more parts. Pilots also become fatigued more quickly requiring more pilots. Fuel consumption rises of course. You are proposing a more than 30% increase in fuel load which roughly would equate to a 30 % increase in flying time, a substantial burden on resources.
Are you saying an extra 20 gallons plus tank did not affect take off runs, rate of climb and turn and stability of a 1939 Spitfire Mk I with fixed pitch prop and 85 octane fuel? Was running out of fuel an issue or more of an issue than not getting in the air and at altitude quick enough? Re writing how a battle should have been fought is easy after the event. If you could have sent Dowding and Park back from 1941 to 1935 they would have changed many things. By that time in 1941 they knew the war started in 1939 and France fell in 1940. If the 20 gal ferry tank was removed I presume there was a reason, like it did affect performance or was not self sealing. I dont know why the Spitfire gets it in the neck over range all the time, Allisson engined planes dont for their lack of altitude performance without a turbo. Until 1943 only the P-38 had range and high altitude performance, the P-47 didnt appear in service until April 1943. The Sabre and Typhoon had problems so they never replaced the Spitfire. The Vulture and Tornado also were abandoned. The failure of everything else meant that the best engines were given to the Hurricane to keep it marginally competitive. The Mk III wasnt produced because the RAF preferred more Mk Vs which used the Mk I/II fuselages already made. The MK VII and VIII were produced in smaller numbers because the RAF preferred more of the Mk IX which also used Mk V fuselages already made. The Mk V and Mk IX were made to produce more Spitfires rather than wait and produce better Spitfires. The decision mainly forced by the failure of everything else, the Spitfire itself should have been replaced.
Hi
On The Radar Pages I read that high altitude raids were outside the Chain Home calibrated beam. To detect them at all required side lobes of the main beam which meant some luck was involved, if a raid was detected, in a side lobe returned signal strength isnt proportional to distance or raid size which meant the plotters made understandable errors. In principle it is the same in Ultrasonics which used to be part of my job.
I'm proposing neither, what I am saying is the extra fuel allows the Spitfires to take off earlier so gaining both an altitude and tactical advantage over the incoming raid, chain home made standing patrols obsolete.
I'm pretty sure the BoB was fought in 1940 and no Spitfire or Hurricane that took part had fixed pitch props or was running on 85 octane fuel.
