Spit or P51 in mid 43

pbfoot said:

I'm going to assume it wasn't a direct flight across the pond and if the Spit was capable of such flights why wouldn't they have done this earlier on the early 8th AF missions into Germany

Click to expand...

I don't pretend to know the details to give a definitive reply to either of these questions. I wouldn't rule out flying across the atlantic in one hop. With a total of 290 gallons (including the rear optional tanks) they would have had the legs for it. As for the second question simple bloody stupidity on behalf of the senior ranks of the RAF, not for the first or last time in WW2.

I'm going to assume it wasn't a direct flight across the pond

Click to expand...

It was one of the normal ferry routes, Goose Bay, Newfoundland - Iceland was the longest leg at 1,530 miles. (Berlin is 575 miles from London)

if the Spit was capable of such flights why wouldn't they have done this earlier on the early 8th AF missions into Germany

Click to expand...

For a variety of reasons.

First, it takes time to modify aircraft, especially ones that are already in service. The USAAF only belatedly realised the need for escort fighters. It wasn't until May 1943 that they placed the first order for drop tanks in the UK, for example.

Secondly, numbers. When the USAAF started attacking Germany in earnest in Feb 1944, they used very large fighter forces. On the first day of Big Week, for example, they flew 830 fighter sorties. On the last day of Big Week the number had increased to 910 fighter sorties. (Those figures exclude RAF operations escorting USAAF medium bombers)

The RAF didn't have enough spare fighters to put on operations like that. In July 1943, for example, they had a grand total of 730 serviceable Spitfires in squadrons in the UK. (they had more in reserve, but that only helps with sustaining a campaign, it doesn't increase front line strength)

By Feb 1944 the RAF had 830 serviceable Spitfires in squadrons in the UK, still nowhere near enough to carry out operations of that strength. If the RAF had committed all their strength to escorting the 8th, it A: wouldn't have been enough, and B: would have meant an end to invasion preparation.

So there is little doubt in my mind that the Spit had the potential to be a decent long range fighter.

Click to expand...

We know the fuel consumption figures for the Spitfire from the Australian trials of a Spitfire VIII. Whilst carrying a 90 gallon tank at 20,000 ft it could cruise at 306 mph true at 6.2 mpg.

From there it's simple to work out an escort profile.

First, take a Spitfire VIII (123 gallons internal) and add a 30 gallon rear tank, as fitted for flights to Malta. Spitfire IXs later used 75 gallon tanks, with the same restrictions as Mustangs. They were OK for aerobatics when the rear fuel was down to 30 gallons.

That's 153 gallons internal, add a 90 gallon drop tank (you could use a 170 gallon if necessary)

10 gallons for warm up and takeoff, from main tanks.
143 gallons internal, 90 gallons external remaining

Climb to 20,000 ft and form up, 10 gallons from drop tank.
143 gallons internal, 80 gallons external remaining

Cruise to target, 80 gallons from drop tank at 6.2 mpg = 496 miles
143 gallons internal remaining.

Cruise to target, 5 gallons from internal at 6.2 mpg (consumption should improve with the tank dropped, but I'll ignore that), 31 miles.
138 gallons internal remaining.

5 minutes at maximum power, 10 at military (same as US allowed for combat in flight planning) 25 gallons
113 gallons internal remaining.

Climb back to altitude, 10 gallons
103 gallons internal remaining

Fly 530 miles back to base, at 6.2 mpg (the tank would have been jettisoned by now, but we won't allow for the drag reduction). 86 gallons
17 gallons remaining.

From East Anglia that gets you to Berlin and back, with reserves, but no further.

There's nothing difficult about adding range. You just need to identify the requirement. The RAF simply didn't have much requirement for extra range. The USAAF did because they were committed to unescorted daylight bombing, and when that didn't work out they had to either abandoning daylight bombing or provide escorts.

But that was the USAAF's decision. The RAF didn't have the requirement themselves, and didn't have enough aircraft to take over the escort role for the USAAF.

As detailed a reply as you could wish for and I doff my hat to you Hop. Still think that simple bloody stupidity had a certain ring to it though.
Being serious it does give a very good indication as to what the Spit would have been capable of given some development in this area and if you used the 75 gallon rear tank not the 30 then its pretty comfortable.

Thanks again for the detail of the transatlantic trip.

Glider said:

I don't pretend to know the details to give a definitive reply to either of these questions. I wouldn't rule out flying across the atlantic in one hop. With a total of 290 gallons (including the rear optional tanks) they would have had the legs for it. As for the second question simple bloody stupidity on behalf of the senior ranks of the RAF, not for the first or last time in WW2.

Click to expand...

The only possible stops are Greenland and Iceland.

Escort range is how far you can fly after dropping the external tanks and using 5 minutes of combat power and 15-20minutes military power and allowing for a certain reserve and landing allowance. adding 30-40 gallons of internal fuel to the Spitfire could have roughly doubled it's escort or combat radius. While this is not what was needed for a long range escort it would certainly have allowed UK based Spitfires greater participation in late 1943-44.

Edit: thank you Hop !

Still think that simple bloody stupidity had a certain ring to it though.

Click to expand...

I meant to reply to that bit earlier but forgot.

In 1941 Carl Spaatz signed a memo rejecting fitting long range tanks to the P-39D. Amongst the reasons:

opposition to the "carrying of bombs" and "provision of excessive range", "require
additional and unnecessary [sic] weight and operational complexities that are
incompatible with the mission of pursuit."

The memo noted that the provision of extra tanks would "provide opportunities for improper tactical use of pursuit types."

In 1941 and 1942 the USAAF was considering the provision of escorts for bombers and came to the conclusion they should build bomber gunships, rather than try to extend the range of fighters. They thought long range fighters couldn't fight on even terms with short range ones, and they didn't want to divert them from other missions.

Carl Spaatz and the airwar in Europe goes in to some detail on this. You can find it free on the net as a pdf.

Glider said:

I don't pretend to know the details to give a definitive reply to either of these questions. I wouldn't rule out flying across the atlantic in one hop. With a total of 290 gallons (including the rear optional tanks) they would have had the legs for it. As for the second question simple bloody stupidity on behalf of the senior ranks of the RAF, not for the first or last time in WW2.

Click to expand...

Just finished reading Don MacVicars trilogy about flying and pioneering the ferry routes and it was a very dicey thing they had horrible and no cooordinated weather briefings for such conditions as icing and winds aloft, the route was usually Dorval(montreal) Sept Iles , Goose or Gander, Bluie West (landing up hill at end of fiord) depending on aircraft maybe another stop in Greenland then Iceland to Prestwick. Direct flights returning were usually 13- 19 hours long in Libs bombays or C54s(if lucky) and many times at the limits of fuel. He ferried some Hampdens back but they had eztra tanks fitted but even then fuel exhaustion brcame a huge concern. I really doubt the Spits did it direct not many pilots would be brave enough to to challenge the Atlantic in a single engine ship

I will certainly accept that view, something learnt today. Thanks

pbfoot said:

If the RAF had opted for the 51 over the Spit the priduction lines used for the Spit probably could have been switched over to 51 comstruction in quick order

Click to expand...

The RAF opted for production of the Mustang and wanted 500 per month even with an Alison engine. However when the merlin version Mustang II (P 51B/C) was eventually produced and its capabilities realised the the USAAF directed production to be provided for fighter escorts. This was a very fast moving situation. The need for huge numbers of fighter escorts was only realised towards the end of 1943 and the game was over before the end of 1944. As a joint venture instead of the RAF challenging the Luftwaffe in France Belgium Holland the USAAF challenged them over Germany. The Mustang was a great plane whose qualities were recognised first by the RAF as a long range fighter. The need for a fighter escort wasnt seen by anybody until mid/late 1943.

Producing the Mustang in UK in place of the spitfire is a nice idea but it is a completely different plane. The Mustang was designed from the very start for production on its designers production lines, to produce it in the UK would take an age to arrange when in fact there were only months available. There were two dedicated facilities for the mustang but they didnt actually produce many planes. The Mustang I was held up for lack of Allison engines. After the Merlin engined MkII was developed it was quickly uprated to the mk III but these changes even in dedicated factories cost production. The British put a lot into the Mustang versions I,II, and III. They commisioned it but it wasnt allowed to fly because engines wernt made available. They provided the merlin engine. They provided a gunsight The British Mk II manufactured as the Sperry K14. The aerodynamics of the Mustang used the Meredith effect (Meredith was British) to achieve its high speed at altitude which acording to its designer had much more effect than the laminar flow wing. When recieved by the British the canopy was changed with the British Malcolm hood and then by the bubble canopy already in service Typhoon Tempest Spitfire.

The British realised the qualities of the Mustang in all its variants and ordered it. It is hardly a problem of the British that Americas need was greater than ours and so it was used for bomber escort, with P47 used for ground attack. Mustang squadrons in the RAF had to change back to spitfires due to lack of planes and Mustangs supplied to the RAF were used for bomber escort after all we were all on the same side.

Perhaps a better question would be if the US had adopted P 51A (and hence B/C,D) production over P40 as soon as the P 51A was available the the war would have finished MUCH sooner, if the Mustang was so obviously brilliant why did the USA order N.A. to fit dive brakes and use it as a dive bomber in mid 1943?

Please dont forget that in 1944 Britain was faced with the V1 threat at which the tempest and spitfire were much more suited than the Mustang III, we still had to defend our island which contained at the time a huge amount of American assets. If the V1 was able to target an airfied for example the game would have changed in a heartbeat.

PS I use the Mustang designation purely to irritate, it may be an American icon but without the British and some very dedicated and brilliant American designers it would still be a "might have been".

Mustang nut said:

Producing the Mustang in UK in place of the spitfire is a nice idea but it is a completely different plane. ?

Click to expand...

Without a doubt but I think there is enough skilled labour in the UK to make a quick change , I thought about building it in Canada but the ferrying over would be to pilot intensive.

pbfoot said:

Without a doubt but I think there is enough skilled labour in the UK to make a quick change , I thought about building it in Canada but the ferrying over would be to pilot intensive.

Click to expand...

PB the skilled labour was there but the design was different, it would take literally months to produce the drawings and source suppliers. It may seem that the fitting of a Merlin was a simple engine change but it cost North American 223,000 engineering hours just to fit the Merlin to their own plane.

quote
It took some 223,000 engineering hours to accomplish the modification compared to the 78,000 hours NAA engineers and craftsmen took to build the original prototype from nothing.

from a history of the Mustang

quote
North American Aviation originally designed the Mustang in response to a British specification. They agreed to produce the first prototype only 4 months after signing the contract in April 1940. By the end of 1941 North American had delivered the first Mustang to England for test flights. These first Mustangs were powered by the Allison V-1710 engine, a good engine, but one which didn't operate well at high altitudes.

A Better Engine
In April, 1942, a British test pilot, Ronald Harker, flew the Mustang and was very impressed by it. He suggested that the new plane would be a natural fit with the Rolls Royce Merlin 60-series engine, well-suited to high altitudes. At the prodding of Major Thomas Hitchcock, the Americans began working along the same lines (using the Packard license-built version of the Merlin), and the first Merlin-equipped Mustang, the P-51B, flew in November, 1942. The results were impressive, to say the least. At 30,000 feet, the improved Mustang reached 440 MPH, almost 100 MPH faster than the Allison-equipped Mustang at that altitude.
unquote

to summarise
contract signed in April 1940
designed in 100 days but first plane not delivered until end of 1941
Merlin suggested in April 1942 first plane flew in Nov 1942
First Merlin production planes arrive in Europe in Nov 1943.

That is the performance of American aviation at its worst please dont say the Brits could have made the plane in a month or two. It took the USA from April 1940 to end of 1943 to get it all together.

From Spitfire the History

It was not non stop it stopped at Reykjavik , non stop would be Goose direct Prestwick or Shannon . and I'll wager the weapons were gone one thing it doesn't mention is if there was an aux oil tank. That is very ballsy flight with the nav aids available both on the ground and in the aircraft , be advised that the Mossie , B25 and B26 all carried ferry tanks for the same flight including the above mentioned stops. You should read some of the stories of those flights it was considered a worthy investment if 50% of aircraft actually made it initially

bada said:

you got a bad time line i think. The Mark14 is a Mid44 plane and is not really a long range, as the G65 was a very thirsty engine compared to the M61 or M66.
And the MKXVIII is a second half45 plane, never saw combat in WWII, the first beeing send to MU for reception in june45.

I would rather go with the MK8 in mid43, but i'm still troubled by the fact that all of them have been send to the MTO (and few to India), ETO squadrons only receiving Mk9's with M66 .

Click to expand...

I never said that the Spitfire XIV was a long range fighter.

The prototype MkXIV flew in January 1943 - two months after the prototype P-51B/Mustang III. Production MkXIVs came of the line in October 1943, a month before P-51Bs arrived in Europe.

Mustang nut said:

contract signed in April 1940
designed in 100 days but first plane not delivered until end of 1941
Merlin suggested in April 1942 first plane flew in Nov 1942
First Merlin production planes arrive in Europe in Nov 1943.

Click to expand...

While the MkXVIII was post war, the main change was added tankage, which could have been achieved on the MkXIV had it been so desired.

The problem for the XIV was that production was still flat out on the MkIX and, to a lesser extent, the MkVIII.

pbfoot said:

It was not non stop it stopped at Reykjavik , non stop would be Goose direct Prestwick or Shannon . and I'll wager the weapons were gone one thing it doesn't mention is if there was an aux oil tank. That is very ballsy flight with the nav aids available both on the ground and in the aircraft , be advised that the Mossie , B25 and B26 all carried ferry tanks for the same flight including the above mentioned stops. You should read some of the stories of those flights it was considered a worthy investment if 50% of aircraft actually made it initially

Click to expand...

I did see a photo in an Air international magazine and I remember being suprised as it still seemed to have its cannon.

Glider said:

I did see a photo in an Air international magazine and I remember being suprised as it still seemed to have its cannon.

Click to expand...

not denying but very shocked I wonder who did the navigation or did they have a shepherd, navigation would be dicey with only a magnetic compass/dg. Did the article say how many days it took.
On an equally stunning flight they were testing towing gliders across as well

I thought for a second you might be saying that gliders were towed over the Atlantic, count me out. Its in the loft I could not say

Glider said:

I thought for a second you might be saying that gliders were towed over the Atlantic, count me out. Its in the loft I could not say

Click to expand...

it was done using a Waco Glider

The Spitfire had evolved into a fearsome broadsword defending against the doodlebug and undertaking ground attack missions.It truely was the 'woodman's favourite axe'.
The Mustang was the long range fighter the allies needed. Although, I have always been puzzled why the twin engined 'heavy' fighters were not used more. The Beaufighter, Whirlwind and the Lightning would have been better with Merlins, they had the range and the clout to deliver the fatal blow to the LW.
Cheers
John

The Beaufighter wasn't fast enough, it had too much drag no matter what you stuffed in it for an engine. It also was the nearly size of some peoples medium bombers. dog fighting wasn't it's suit.

The Whirlwind was too small. It couldn't hold enough fuel inside to get back from a long range mission. It's how much fuel you have aftervthe drop tanks are gone that determine mission range/radius.

The Merlin got worse fuel mileage than the Allison. Switching to Merlins, depending on models of engines being compared and cruise conditions might have shortened the P-38s range from 8-30%

Readie said:

The Spitfire had evolved into a fearsome broadsword defending against the doodlebug and undertaking ground attack missions.It truely was the 'woodman's favourite axe'.
The Mustang was the long range fighter the allies needed. Although, I have always been puzzled why the twin engined 'heavy' fighters were not used more. The Beaufighter, Whirlwind and the Lightning would have been better with Merlins, they had the range and the clout to deliver the fatal blow to the LW.
Cheers
John

Click to expand...

Without a doubt it was great dogfighter it just did not have the legs needed to give the Allies the knockout blow needed to KO the LW that was done by the P51 which makes the 51 the labourers favourite sledgehammer or if you prefer the woodsmans favourite chainsaw