Spit or P51 in mid 43

[Tante Ju]

I know this is going to sound like a stuck record but the LR fighter problem for the RAF wasn't equipment, it was will.

I see. So, they get will and waive magic wand, and voila! Long range fighter..? sorry.. you are very optimistic.

If the RAF wanted long range fighters they had
a) the Tempest which had a combat radius of approc 1,150 miles using 90 gallon Drop Tanks which isn't so far off the Mustangs 1,335 miles combat radius
b) an extended range Tempest which had the same combat range of the Mustang

Except: combat radius of Tempest V - 404 miles, not 1150.. see? http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/temprange.jpg

c) they could have used the modified Spitfire (note the USA and Vickers both produced extended range spits with the same fuel capacity) which had a combat range of 1,150, not as far as the Mustang but pretty good

Spitfire had about 100-150 miles radius. How does it become ten times..? Magic wand? A tank of 850 gallon..?
Major factor: 1 great drag of airframe 2 great consumption of engine.. it was built-in disadvantage of design to have small range..

d) they could have put greater effort into the Hornet which entered production in early 1945. This had a combat range of 1,410 miles

But, in 1943, it would have 1943 engines.. meaning same as Spitfire, ie. Merlin 61 or 63, 66, in best case.. what would performance look like with so less power?

All of these options would be easier and quicker than trying to build the P51 in the UK. The Tempest in particular would be a good option.

I agree, especially last sentence.. Tempest had potential.. but I do not think practically doable.. in 1943. You need faster development of airframe, when Typhoon is still do not work, when Sabre still do not work.. how.. even 1945 - Tempest was rare aircraft. One unit, that is.. How mass produce it two years early?

 

[Mustang nut]

I agree, especially last sentence.. Tempest had potential.. but I do not think practically doable.. in 1943. You need faster development of airframe, when Typhoon is still do not work, when Sabre still do not work.. how.. even 1945 - Tempest was rare aircraft. One unit, that is.. How mass produce it two years early?

I still dont know what you are going to hit in 1943, the RAF had Mustangs anyway. Name a military target you could hit effectively with a Mustang/P51 that you couldnt hit with a spitfire. The mustang/P51s range was longer than the spitfire or typhoons but only in uncontested airspace. Based on 50 gals per hour 180 gallons is 3 1/2 hrs cruising at 250MPH. You can only fly a mustang for six hours if you dont meet anything in the first 3 or 4. It is the bomber that made the merlin engined P51 necessary and effective. cruising about over enemy territory with a fighter achieves nothing. For ground support the typhoon I would say was better being armed with cannon and carrying a bigger payload.

 

[Glider]

I see. So, they get will and waive magic wand, and voila! Long range fighter..? sorry.. you are very optimistic.

I was wrong to put radius in my previous message which no doubt caused confusion and was clearly wrong.

That said the USA and Vickers both modified a SPit IX to carry 287 gall of fuel and tested them in August 1944. The main difference was the USA carried 2 x 60 gall DT and the Vickers 1 x 90 gall DT. The still air range was 1,500 miles and for planning purposes they used 75% of the still air fig. If your interested the advantage of the US conversion was that it had less effect on the COG and the Vickers conversion had more internally which gave more leeway from a tactical position.

My figures came from official documents which I attach. Its not optimism on my part

.. Tempest had potential.. but I do not think practically doable.. in 1943. You need faster development of airframe, when Typhoon is still do not work, when Sabre still do not work.. how.. even 1945 - Tempest was rare aircraft. One unit, that is.. How mass produce it two years early?

The Tempest had more than potential. UK based Tempests escorted at least one Halifax daylight raid to the Rhur without loss to the bombers or fighters in 1944. The USA were impressed and in Aug 1944 asked for two examples to experiment on in a similar manner to the Spit IX's that they had previously used to extend the range.

The point I am trying to make is that the RAF had they pushed development had the tools, they lacked the will. The standard Tempest was close to the Mustang, an amended Tempest could match it. In the wings in production from early 1945 was of course the Hornet which had development been pushed also had the range.

If you have difficulty reading the paper let me know on PM and send me your email address and I will send it to you.

PS to talk of 1943 is a dream, 1944 is probably the best that could be done

 

[Mustang nut]

In terms of the poll mid 1943 means an allison engine. That means no high level escort work and if you loiter about the LW can fly above and bounce you while you cant climb up to attack. A Mid 1943 P51 was good for recon and ground attack not for the escort work it later made its name at.

 

[Glider]

I should add that by 9th September 800 modification kits were on order to be retrofitted into Spits IX which increased internal tankage from 85 gallons to 168 gallons.

 

[Shortround6]

Range does not directly translate into operational radius. Consider two aircraft, both with 400 gallons of fuel. One with 150 gallons inside and 250 gallons external and one with 250 gallons internal and 150 gallons external. If we ignore the drag of the extrnal tanks we could say that both planes have the same range. But their usable operational radius will be quite different. If they are both bounced ( if forced to drop tanks to intercept fighters going for the bombers) after burning 200gals of fuel. (plane "B" is already operating on internal fuel) Plane "A" has 150 gals to fight the engagement ( it dropped 50 gals of unused fuel in order to fight), chase enemy aircraft and or regroup after the engagement and then head for home. Plane be has an extra 50 gals to do those things.

Plane "A"s operational radius is defined by the distance it can fly AFTER dropping the external tanks and using a portion of it's fuel in combat. How much it carried in drop tanks before the fight starts does it no good in getting back to base. Plane "B" might have a "radius" 100-200 miles further than plane "A".

 

[drgondog]

Shortround is entirely correct. Every successful long range fighter was characterized by large internal capacity. Only in the case of ferry ranges from Point A to point B was the total fuel combining internal and external capacity useful for discussion...

Every mission had to be planned to conserve internal fuel - and the combat radius was calculated by only considering the internal fuel remaining at Point B, with reserves for combat and for loiter around the base areas.

 

[Shortround6]

I would add that for combat radius the internal has to be in tanks that allow the plane to fly in an unrestricted manner. While both the Mustang and the Spitfire could be fitted with sizable tanks in the rear fuselage these upset the CG to the extent that some rather sever restrictions on maneuvers were in place if they were filled, these were enforced not only be regulations but by the laws of aerodynamics and physics. Violating these restrictions could result in a bent or broken aircraft, lose of control and/or a crash.

 

[pbfoot]

The question I posed still remains would the the Commonwealth forces be better served with the P51 or Spit seeing how the main task of the Spit in middle to late 44 was dive bombing or chasing enemy transport a rather poor end to a storied air superiority fighter

 

[drgondog]

I would pose an equally provocative question. Take the P-51 'as is' in mid 1943, with knowledge that the first production P-51B flew in May 1943. Transition bomber tactics to adapt to the P-47 for high cover - short range and the 51 (allison) for long range escort at 17,000 feet. It gives up performance slightly to the Fw 190 and Me 109 at that altitude - but there might have been fewer losses in the bombing campaign in 1943. Bomber lose more to flak and far fewer against LW with greater escorted footprint for all medium and heavy daylight missions.

It (Mustang II and then III and IV) continues to do well in ground support, gives up a lot as a point interceptor but if we play this logically, the RAF doesn't put a match to the Mk IX and Mk V, it just replaces many squadrons with first P-51 and then the P-51B while the role of the Spit is relegated to short range/high performance missions.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Spitfire had about 100-150 miles radius. How does it become ten times..? Magic wand? A tank of 850 gallon..?
Major factor: 1 great drag of airframe 2 great consumption of engine.. it was built-in disadvantage of design to have small range..

On internal fuel, standard RAF combat radius for Mk IX was 170 miles, about 40% of still air range. With a 45 gal d/t this increased to 240 miles - about 35% of still air range.

Funnily enough, operation OVERLORD planners used a figure of 240 miles as combat radius for the Spitfire Mk IX.

Its entirely possible for the Spitfire Mk VII/VIII to have a 340-350 mile combat radius - enough to put it over west central Germany (although probably not Berlin). Mk VIIs performed escort missions out to 690 miles in the ETO. Mk VIIIs performed escort missions out to 730 miles in the PTO.

On balance, the Mustang, with more fuel and less drag at high speed was a better option, provided the RAF wanted to go on the offensive over Germany.

Without a daylight bomber force to escort, the RAF doesn't have the same offensive imperative as the 8th AF. Fighter Command relegated itself to short-range penetrations escorting medium bombers and harassing German fighters in France.

If the RAF had been able to see how the course of the war was to develop, then a long-range Spitfire can be developed and put into place quite painlessly. The RAF had been modifying Mk Is with 98 gal front tanks and additional 29 gal rear fuselage tanks for reconnaissance duties - with no ill effects - since 1940.

Adopting the Mk III airframe as the successor to the Mk I/II - instead of the interim Mk V - gets you 15% more fuel, with options for wing tanks and rear fuselage tanks. If the RAF had really wanted to - and had the foresight to - its not that difficult to see a Merlin 60 family powered Mk III derivative operational in mid to late 1942, with two thirds more internal tankage than the standard 85 gal.

How different would the ETO be if the RAF was able to provide escort to the 8th AF past the French-German border from the beginning of 1943?

 

[Mustang nut]

It (Mustang II and then III and IV) continues to do well in ground support, gives up a lot as a point interceptor but if we play this logically, the RAF doesn't put a match to the Mk IX and Mk V, it just replaces many squadrons with first P-51 and then the P-51B while the role of the Spit is relegated to short range/high performance missions.

I think that was the original plan, however changing from allison to merlin engines meant some loss of production. The merlin engined P51s didnt appear in operation
strength until Nov/Dec 1943. I still dont know what advantages a P51 had over a spitfire in mid 1943 it had more range but less altitude. Without a daylight bomber force what use is it?

For Britain to stop producing the spitfire in 1943 and change to Mustangs the decision would have to be made in 1942 why would they decide to do that? The US airforce had no real interest in the P51 at the time and were confident that daylight escorts wernt needed with heavily armed bombers. The RAF expected to receive Mustangs but suddenly they didnt get them because the US needed them more. People may get misty eyed about the Spitfire today but they didnt during the war.
If the typhoon was better it would have replaced the Spitfire, if the Mustang was available it would have replaced the Spitfire. In fact Mustang squadrons had to convert to back Spitfires because no more were available not because the Spitfire was better or the RAFs preferred choice.

It may be an advantage to be able to loiter over an area for a time which is what happened in Normandy. Ground support would circle in the cab rank waiting to be called down on a target if no target was identified by radio they would go and look for one when fuel was running low. This is easier to do from airfield close to the front not from bases in south England.

 

[drgondog]

I think that was the original plan, however changing from allison to merlin engines meant some loss of production. The merlin engined P51s didnt appear in operation
strength until Nov/Dec 1943. I still dont know what advantages a P51 had over a spitfire in mid 1943 it had more range but less altitude. Without a daylight bomber force what use is it?

Well, nearly double the range, faster. Ideal sweep aircraft, armed recce, medium bomber escort to much longer range than Spit. Spit was superior in dogfight in everything except speed and dive..

For Britain to stop producing the spitfire in 1943 and change to Mustangs the decision would have to be made in 1942 why would they decide to do that? The US airforce had no real interest in the P51 at the time and were confident that daylight escorts wernt needed with heavily armed bombers. The RAF expected to receive Mustangs but suddenly they didnt get them because the US needed them more. People may get misty eyed about the Spitfire today but they didnt during the war.

The Brits never intended to build Merlin Mustangs, they 'hoped for' delivery but realistically foresaw them going straight to USAAF Strategic Bomber forces.. your statements are all true wrt to 'what did happen' but wasn't 'what if' the the basis of the thread?

If the typhoon was better it would have replaced the Spitfire, if the Mustang was available it would have replaced the Spitfire. In fact Mustang squadrons had to convert to back Spitfires because no more were available not because the Spitfire was better or the RAFs preferred choice.

It may be an advantage to be able to loiter over an area for a time which is what happened in Normandy. Ground support would circle in the cab rank waiting to be called down on a target if no target was identified by radio they would go and look for one when fuel was running low. This is easier to do from airfield close to the front not from bases in south England.

All true.

 

[pbfoot]

I
For Britain to stop producing the spitfire in 1943 and change to Mustangs the decision would have to be made in 1942 why would they decide to do that? The US airforce had no real interest in the P51 at the time and were confident that daylight escorts wernt needed with heavily armed bombers. The RAF expected to receive Mustangs but suddenly they didnt get them because the US needed them more. People may get misty eyed about the Spitfire today but they didnt during the war.
If the typhoon was better it would have replaced the Spitfire, if the Mustang was available it would have replaced the Spitfire. In fact Mustang squadrons had to convert to back Spitfires because no more were available not because the Spitfire was better or the RAFs preferred choice.

It may be an advantage to be able to loiter over an area for a time which is what happened in Normandy. Ground support would circle in the cab rank waiting to be called down on a target if no target was identified by radio they would go and look for one when fuel was running low. This is easier to do from airfield close to the front not from bases in south England.

Firstly in 1941 Churchill was told by Portal that a long range fighter was not feasible hence the switching to night bombing ,so the quest for a longer ranged fighter was put off because of Portals opinion . So for almost 3 years middle 41 to middle 44 the Spits were sent off on less then profitable Balboas, Rhubarbs and Rodeos where the numbers have proved the Luftwaffe romped. I propose if push come to shove they could have set up a paralell production line in the UK in less then 3 months, most of the jigs and forms could have come over on Ferry Command flights and the heavier equipment on convoy. I believe ( my memory is sometimes faulty) the cab rank sysytem came into being post Falaise .
i just read where the MKIX's were st up to carry 2 500lb bombs underwing but many aircraft had bent wings because of it . The Spitfire is a beautiful and amazing aircraft but it was out of it's element post D Day.

 

[Glider]

The problem with the SPit IX was with skin wrinkling when dive bombing with a maximum bomb load which was 3 x 500lb bombs. Clipping the wings was found to resolve the problem. How many aircraft had this problem I don't know, the only reference I can find says 'several cases of severe wrinkling' which means nothing, but clearly enough for a fix to be identified.

 

[drgondog]

The problem with the SPit IX was with skin wrinkling when dive bombing with a maximum bomb load which was 3 x 500lb bombs. Clipping the wings was found to resolve the problem. How many aircraft had this problem I don't know, the only reference I can find says 'several cases of severe wrinkling' which means nothing, but clearly enough for a fix to be identified.

Glider - 'wrinkling' is all about exceeding design limits for shear distribution in skins due to bending loads on the wing...

 

[wuzak]

Firstly in 1941 Churchill was told by Portal that a long range fighter was not feasible hence the switching to night bombing ,so the quest for a longer ranged fighter was put off because of Portals opinion . So for almost 3 years middle 41 to middle 44 the Spits were sent off on less then profitable Balboas, Rhubarbs and Rodeos where the numbers have proved the Luftwaffe romped. I propose if push come to shove they could have set up a paralell production line in the UK in less then 3 months, most of the jigs and forms could have come over on Ferry Command flights and the heavier equipment on convoy. I believe ( my memory is sometimes faulty) the cab rank sysytem came into being post Falaise .
i just read where the MKIX's were st up to carry 2 500lb bombs underwing but many aircraft had bent wings because of it . The Spitfire is a beautiful and amazing aircraft but it was out of it's element post D Day.

To be fair, in 1941 the longe range escort wasn't possible or, more importantly, wouldn't be available in sufficient quantaties in the time frame required. So the switch to night bombing would have happened even if a suitable aircraft was on the drawing board or in pre-production.

And the USAAF 8th AF still didn't believe that long range escorts were required in 1943, even after Regensburg/Schweinfurt.

 

[wuzak]

The problem with the SPit IX was with skin wrinkling when dive bombing with a maximum bomb load which was 3 x 500lb bombs. Clipping the wings was found to resolve the problem. How many aircraft had this problem I don't know, the only reference I can find says 'several cases of severe wrinkling' which means nothing, but clearly enough for a fix to be identified.

Glider - 'wrinkling' is all about exceeding design limits for shear distribution in skins due to bending loads on the wing...

I hadn't heard about the skin wrinking in IXs, but I know that for the XIVs some skin wrinkling occurred on the top of the wing. The RAF instructed that the wing tips be replaced with the clipped wings, even though Joe Smith told them there was no need for concern.

 

[wuzak]

I still say in the time frame a move to production of the Spitfire XIV would be better than the Mustang.

I've been trying to find the stats on the range of the similar PRXIX, which apparently had over 250 gallons of internal fuel. Some of that fuel was in the leading edge tanks which would probably preclude it being used on an armed Spit. The PRXIX also had a pressure cabin, which I'm sure the fighter jocks would have enjoyed having.

 

[pbfoot]

I hadn't heard about the skin wrinking in IXs, but I know that for the XIVs some skin wrinkling occurred on the top of the wing. The RAF instructed that the wing tips be replaced with the clipped wings, even though Joe Smith told them there was no need for concern.

"in the last days of Sept No 126 Wing replaced its SpitfireIXB's with Spit IXE's which carried more powerful armament - 2 50 cal machineguns instead of 4 303's that supplemented the 2 20mm cannon -and wing racks for 2 extra 250lb bombs .A thousand lbs of ordnance (500lb lb bomb under the fuselage and a 250lb bomb under each wing) . was heavy burden for a Spitfire and on OCt 18 No 412 sqn completed its first sorties with such loads four aircraft were found to have wrinkled wings on their return . No 442 carried similar loads the next day , however and Spitfires would continue to haul 1000lb burdens in spite of possible structuaral stress , repalcement wings were easily obtained``
From Crucible of War 1939- 1945 . The official history of RCAF Vol 3