Spiteful

[Kurfürst]

What Kurfurst knows well is that the page he posted is for a test on a Spitfire IX with Merlin 61. The Merlin 61 was rather different to the Merlin 66, the engine which powered most Spitfire VIIIs/IXs/XVIs.

The Merlin 61 had a slightly different supercharger, but more importantly it had an SU float carburettor. The Merlin 66 had a Bendix Stromberg injection carburettor.

The Australian test is for a Spitfire VIII with Merlin 66.

Smokescreen.

What Kurfürst knows is that Hop likes the Spitfire very much, thus Hop would like to to attribute it with properties that are beyond the actual capabilities of the aircraft, and therefore Hop waves around a single test that contradicts all others, and would like to dismiss all those others, via making up that the test is with Merlin 61, a claim Hop repeats over and over again and fail to back up over and over again.

In any case, it doesn`t matter. The range of the Spitfire IX is given in the paper is 450 miles. The range of 'rather different Merlin 66' is given as 434 miles. Hardly a difference. Smokescreen.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-lfix-ads.jpg

The problem is escort range is typically one third of maximum range, which means you need about 1800 mile range to escort bombers to Berlin and back. And you don't want to cruise at 160 IAS, either, because you'll be a sitting duck over Germany at that speed.

That would mean that realistically, the Spitfire, when fitted with the biggest practical, 90 gallon slipper tank, would be good about for a (low speed sitting duck) escort of ca. 300 miles at economical cruise, more realistcally 520/3= 175 miles escort radius. That`s barely reaching into France. Oh sorry, you can`t even reach out that far because then you`ll have obvious problems returning on your 85 gallon internal tangage, draing further by air combat, after getting their on your 90 gallon droptank.

Short ranged indeed. Wasn`t that the point all the way?

From the Spitfire IX/XVI manual:

Later production Mk IX and all Mk XVI aircraft mount two additional fuel tanks with a capacity of 75 gallons (66 gallons in aircraft with "rear view" fuselages), they are fitted in the rear fuselage.

1,054 Spitfire XVIs were made.

The rear tanks were also fitted to the Spitfire XIV, possibly other models as well.

Well, the Mk XVI was in production only from September 1944, and as far as it went, only about 6-7 Squadrons were being operational with the 2nd TAF.

Too late, too few in other words, carrying fuel in an aux tank that made the aircraft a pregnant pig and was useful for 1-way ferry missions only.

Wrong. Source for this claim?

The RAF Spitfire IX manual notes:

"When the rear fuselage tanks are full there is a very marked reduction in longitudinal stability, the aircraft tightens in turns at all altitudes and, in this condition, is restricted to straight flying, and only gentle manoeuvres; accurate trimming is not possible and instrument flying should be avoided whenever possible."

In other words, exactly like the Mustang. Both had to use most of the fuel in the rear tank first.

Except of course the Mustang had plenty of range internal tankage and plenty of range after using up it`s internal fuel tank.

The Spitfire didn`t.

As you can see, the restrictions on the Spitfire with rear fuel tank are not quite as bad as for the Mustang, the Mustang is prohibited from any aerobatics with any fuel in the rear tank, the Spitfire with more than 30 gallons in the rear tank.

Except again of course, that after emptying the rear tank as instructed, the Mustang will have plenty of internal fuel to perform and return from an escort mission, and the Spitfire don`t.

That`s why the Mustang was so important during the war, and why the post-war Spitfires tried to catch up with that.

Depends on the Spitfire. Most Spitfires had only 85 gallons internal because that's all they needed.

And they had thus the shortest radius of action any WW2 fighter I can think of. A bit of a luxury if the target is so far away., isn`t it?

Those that needed more fuel, like the Spitfire VIII, the Spitfire XIV, the recce Spits, got more tankage.

The Spitfire VIII`s use was extremely limited in Europe, and it`s operations largely confined to the PTO, where it`s relatively longer range, compared to the other very short ranged Spitfires, was still laughably inaduquate for the theatre.

As for the Spitfire XIV, even less were around than VIII, appeared even later, and all the extra tankage was used to make up for increased fuel consumption. Having 50% more tankage than the Mk IX, the XIV could just have the same very short range.

 

[Morai_Milo]

So Kurfurst, if that Aussie Spit range test is an abberant test, then so must that supposed document text (no document scan ever posted) Pips posted about availability of 100PN fuel you like to wave so much about since there is reams of documentation of there being large quanities of 100PN fuel available for BoB, using your logic process.

 

[Morai_Milo]

And they had thus the shortest radius of action any WW2 fighter I can think of. A bit of a luxury if the target is so far away., isn`t it?

Is that shorter than the 135 mile tactical radius of the 109?

 

[Kurfürst]

Is that shorter than the 135 mile tactical radius of the 109?

Well these figures are without droptanks; the Spitfire figures are with droptanks.
Of course, the 109 had droptanks as well, this would extend the range.

As noted, the practical 2-way range is dependant on range on internal fuel; the 109 with the exception of the 109E, had more range on internal fuel than the Spitfire, except the Mk VIII which was comparable.

The document you posted seems to stipulate the range of an enemy fighter-bombr on hit-and-run attacks on southern England, without droptank, using high power all the time and plenty of room for errors and combat added.

Perhaps this would give you comparable figures :

In any case, this thread is about the Spitfire, not it`s relative merits compared to the Bf 109.

 

[Udet]

Excellent information Kurfurst.

And by the way what´s all this thing about drop tanks used in Spitfires? It´d seem it was a comodity rarely used as i am unable to recall any mention of drop tanks used in operations in virtually all books i have.

Finally, has anyone seen a single photo of Spitfires flying with drop tanks fitted? I have not, and my Spitfire photo collection ain´t small.

Possibly because the Spitfire variants which used it saw very limited combat action if any.

Although no date is specified on the document, point (II) reads: "it is asummed that the tanks will be jettisoned when approaching the combat or target area..."

Assumed? Does not sound the guys who made the paper were very convinced regarding this particular issue.

 

[Morai_Milo]

The thread is titled Spitful and got sidetracked with Spitfire.

Kurfurst you opened the door with: "And they had thus the shortest radius of action any WW2 fighter I can think of."

There is something wrong with the British est. This would mean using the bigger engine (605) and having a somewhat cleaned up airframe the 109G got almost double the range of the best a 109E got.

max continuous - 286mi, 0.55hr
max economy - 413mi, 1.50hr

Tell me Udet, how did Spitfires get to Holland and back to GB without drop tanks? If they didn't use them, then they must have done so on internal fuel.

Also, if the 109 had such great range, then why does one see almost every photo of them having a drop tank?

Considering the aluminum overcast of Allied a/c over occupied Europe in 1944-45, what 109 pilot would be stooging around at econo cruise? Not if the pilot wanted to stay alive.

pg1 and table ii

 

[Hop]

And by the way what´s all this thing about drop tanks used in Spitfires? It´d seem it was a comodity rarely used as i am unable to recall any mention of drop tanks used in operations in virtually all books i have.

Finally, has anyone seen a single photo of Spitfires flying with drop tanks fitted? I have not, and my Spitfire photo collection ain´t small.

You are joking, right?

About 300,000 slipper tanks for Spitfires were built during the war. As standard procedure was not to drop them unless necessary, that's enough for a lot of flights.

As to pictures, because Spitfires usually used the conformal "slipper" tanks under the fuselage, they are hard to spot, unless the picture is from underneath.

Possibly because the Spitfire variants which used it saw very limited combat action if any.

The first variant to use drop tanks was the Mk 5. They were commonly fitted to all later marks. That means the only variants that didn't have drop tanks were the Mks I and II.

Regarding Kurfurst's use of the Merlin 61 range figures, the Australians also tested Mustangs for range. From the Australian archives, various Mustang models (the Australians tested Mustangs with Merlin 66 and 70s post war, because of problems with spare parts from the US)

First, Mustang 20 (V-1650-3). This engine was suffering from "surging" at low rpm, so the lowest figure they recorded was at 2,100 rpm:

Note the speed is in knots, and the range in nautical miles.

Slowest speed they were able to get (because of the surging) was 303 mph. At that speed, consumption was 7.5 mpg.

Compare that to the Spitfire VIII figures I posted earlier, to achieve a similar speed, the Spitfire achieved 308 mph at 6.2 mpg.

The closest rpm and boost match would be 2200 rpm, 0 lbs boost on the Spitfire, which achieved slightly better range, 7.8 mpg, but at only 266 mph.

Note that at slower speeds, the Spitfire should have a range advantage. It has lower induced drag than the Mustang, because it's lighter, so it's speed for best range is slower. The speed for best range on the Spitfire was 160 IAS, which is where induced and parasitic drag balance out. For the Mustang it was higher (both because of reduced parasitic drag and increased induced drag)

You can see that clearly in their test of the Mustang 23, which was a Mustang with Merlin 70:

Note how best range is obtained at higher speed than the Spitfire VIII. That's because the Mustang weighs 1,200 lbs more on test.

To compare the figures, the Mustang never gets as high a mileage as the Spitfire at very low speed, which is to be expected, because it has higher drag at low speed. However, as the speed increases, the Mustang develops a large advantage, again as expected.

At 1800 rpm, -2.5 lbs boost, the Mustang gets 8 mpg, at a speed of 190 IAS.

At almost the same settings, 1800 rpm, -2 lbs boost, the Spitfire gets 10 mpg, but at only 159 IAS

As the speed increases, at 2000 rpm, the Mustang gets just over 7.5 mpg at 220 IAS, the Spitfire 9.4 mpg at 169 IAS. But to match the speed of the Mustang, the Spitfire has to go to 2400 rpm, 2 lbs boost, and gets only 6.6 mpg

Take it to higher speeds still, and the Mustang opens a large advantage. The Spitfire can cruise at 230 IAS at 6.2 mpg, at the same speed the Mustang does 7.3 mpg.

Put simply, the Spitfire can get lower consumption at very low speeds, because it is lighter, the Mustang gets better consumption at higher speeds, because it has less drag.

Below the Mustang's optimum speed, the Spitfire gets better consumption. At any speed above the Mustang's optimum speed, the Spitfire gets worse consumption.

That's exactly as expected.

 

[Udet]

Mr. Milo: nobody suggested the Bf 109 had a "great range". It was you who chose the phrase.


I have no issues at admitting mistakes. So, the Spitfires used these slipper drop tanks of which i had heard, but having seen countless photos of P-47s, P-51s, P-38s, Bf 109s, Bf 110s, Fw 190s and zeros with drop tanks, all tanks kind of "standard" regarding the looks, is that i incorrectly assumed RAF drop tanks should have had a similar design or look.

It is ok, and thanks for the input.

Now a necessary question from my part has to be: you say the first type of Spitfire that used the drop tank is the Mk. V but you do not specify the date.

The Germans had the Bf 109 G series deployed in numbers while the Mk. V was still the main RAF fighter -until the end of 1943- when they were having problems in bringing the new Mk. IX in numbers...not forgetting that for D-Day there were several squadrons that were still flying Mk. V Bs, say, 234 Sqn...so when was it that drop tanks became available to the RAF? Can you narrow the comment?

If drop tanks were available to RAF fighter squadrons fielding Mk. Vs why was it that very early in the war RAF bomber command decided it would be better to carry on bomber missions at night?

300,000 tanks made? Why so many? In all Great Britain produced ~50,000 fighters of all types during the war. Given the nature of those slipper tanks it would seem only one could be fitted to each plane.

There must have been some important reason to prefer the night to carry on with bomber missions.

So is Kurfurst´s correct when he advises regarding the negative impact those tanks had in the overall performance of the Spitfire they decided to not use it as long-range escort? Would like to hear your opinion for Kurfurst´s comments make sense.

It would be interesting to know when was the first time Spitfires flew over Berlin keeping in mind the date when Mustangs flew over the capital city of the Reich for the first time.

I know the operational record of the Spitfire very well, and it is crystal clear that without the 8th AF coming from abroad, the Spitfires would still be trying to figure out how to move outside the island.

 

[Kurfürst]

Regarding Kurfurst's use of the Merlin 61 range figures,

Source please for it being a Merlin 61. Let`s note again that the 'Merlin 61' part is

ad 1, entirely made up by Hop because he wants to dismiss all figures but the highest figures
ad 2, Smokescreen anyway, as the M 61 and 66 had no significant differences in fuel consumption.

Again :

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-lfix-ads.jpg
Range given, in miles, at most economical speed : 434 miles on permanent (85 gallon tanks)

Works out 434/85 : 5.1 miles / gallon.
That`s for the Merlin 66 Spit. According to Hop, it had so much better fuel consumption than the Merlin 61, so I wonder how much shorter legged the 61 Spit was?

At maximum weak mixture cruise : 240 miles at 85 gallons. 2.82 miles/gallon.

Here`s for MkXI HF w. Merlin 70 - the same meager 434 miles.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-hfix-ads.jpg

the Australians also tested Mustangs for range.

Irrelevelant, it`s only more stunts after making up and trying to dismiss with a mantra of 'different engine' as above. Now you try to make up the Spitfire had of course better mileage than the far more aerodynamic Mustang.

Again, it`s clearly not the case :

The Mustang appearantly has better mileage than the Spitfire.

The following are results from the British test establishment Boscombe Down, May 1942 Fuel consumption trials on Mk V AB 320. Mileage without overload tank (ie. most optimum condition, with least drag). 6695 lbs.

Alt 20000 feet
ASI 170 mph
rpm 1850
air miles per gallong 6.65 mpg

Alt 6000 feet
ASI 170 mph
rpm 1850
air miles per gallong 6.65 mpg


Take note that this is a MkV at similiar power alt etc. settings.

And, if we follow Hop`s mantra about how much better mileage the 'lighter' aircraft should have 'because of better induced drag' (Hop here of course convinently ignores parasitic drag, the Spit had more than any other WW2 figher of that), the MkV, which is some 700 lbs lighter than the Mk IX and some 1000 lbs lighter than the Mk VIII should possess astronomically better mileage.. The Mk V is also a good deal less draggy then either, which had two and bigger radiators.

It doesn`t. In fact, it`s pretty much the same, as all other but one Spitfire milegae test, circa 6.6-6.7 miles per gallon - expect of course the single one Hop waves around, which is quite simply an abberant test, something like setting the mixture too lean or measuring fuel flow was wrong during the recordings.

So is Kurfurst´s correct when he advises regarding the negative impact those tanks had in the overall performance of the Spitfire they decided to not use it as long-range escort? Would like to hear your opinion for Kurfurst´s comments make sense.

Just to clarify, what I am saying that the Spitfire`s range was severly limited because of it`s small capacity permanent (internal) tanks of typically 85 gallons size, coupled with it`s high drag and the engine`s high fuel consumption, it meant that the aircraft could simply not return from the sortie on it`s internal fuel capacity if the external fuel tank`s capacity was bigger.

In reality a larger than 45 gallon external fuel tank was not practical to extend the aircraft`s operational radius (ie. the distance the aircraft can get to, perform something useful, and get back on the internal fuel - slipper tanks being on in combat was not a really option as the weight and bulk would put you into severe disadvantage). The 90 gallon tank and especially the even bigger ones were only useful for one-way sorties - say relocate to a base like Malta far away. This was especially true because the Spitfire used fuel pumps to drain the drop tank, and these being unreliable at take off (fuel could cut, and engine stop - easy to imagine the consequences) the main tank had to be used for takeoff, warmup and so on, before switching to the droptank. This meant even less permanent fuel in practice.

And on 45 gallon external tank the range was very limited indeed, even though some fanboys of the plane will always argue range and mileage too was something the Spitfire was better than anything else out there. It wasn`t. It could barely reach into France or Belgium, limiting it` operational use to largely defensive duties over England.

 

[Hop]

Source please for it being a Merlin 61. Let`s note again that the 'Merlin 61' part is

ad 1, entirely made up by Hop because he wants to dismiss all figures but the highest figures
ad 2, Smokescreen anyway, as the M 61 and 66 had no significant differences in fuel consumption.

Spitfire The History.

Boscombe Down 10 October 1942. BF274. Fuel consumption trials. At auw 7,100 lb in MS gear @ 174mph 6.76 air miles per gal; range 450 miles; endurance 1.95 hours at 20,000ft. FS gear @ 160 mph 6.03 air miles per gallon; range 375 miles; endurance 1.0 hr at 37,500ft. These results allow for climb to height.

Now, Spitfire the History notes that BF274 was converted from a Spitfire V to IX in August 1942, with the fitting of a Merlin 61 engine. The fuel consumption trials took place on 10th October, on 22nd October performance trials took place: Spitfire F Mk IX Test BF274

Again fitted with Merlin 61. And are you suggesting the Merlin 66 was in use in early October 1942?

Again :

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/s...e-lfix-ads.jpg
Range given, in miles, at most economical speed : 434 miles on permanent (85 gallon tanks)

Based on the Merlin 61, though. I can't find any RAF range trials with the Merlin 66. Can you?

I know of only one test of the Merlin 66 range figures, as is usual you dismiss it because it doesn't say what you want it to say, and use instead figures for a different engine.

Irrelevelant, it`s only more stunts after making up and trying to dismiss with a mantra of 'different engine' as above. Now you try to make up the Spitfire had of course better mileage than the far more aerodynamic Mustang.

No, quite the opposite. If you look at the Australian tests, they are consistent. The Mustang has much better range at any speed above it's most economical speed. The Spitfire, being lighter, quite naturally has a lower most economical speed.

You are aware that as weight goes up, so does most economical cruise speed, aren't you? And that fuel consumption rises with it, and range decreases (unless the extra weight is fuel, of course)

Take note that this is a MkV at similiar power alt etc. settings.

Again the SU carb, again not a Merlin 66.

There is a test of the Merlin 66, Kurfurst. Why is it you reject a test of the actual engine, and instead try comparisons with other, older engines?

expect of course the single one Hop waves around, which is quite simply an abberant test, something like setting the mixture too lean

What, you mean mixture could make a difference? Getting the mixture leaner would increase range? Duh.

What do you think the carburettor does, Kurfurst?


As to the mantra about 85 gallon internal fuel tanks, that's all the Spitfire was fitted with, until the RAF wanted more range. When they did, they started fitting wing tanks, a larger lower forward fuselage tank, rear fuselage tanks, and bigger drop tanks.

Just like the USAAF started fitting bigger drop tanks, enlarged the size of the P-38 wing tanks, fitted a rear fuselage tank to the Mustang, etc, when they identified a need for them.

Now a necessary question from my part has to be: you say the first type of Spitfire that used the drop tank is the Mk. V but you do not specify the date.

Spitfire the History gives a date of August 1941 for the 30 gallon tank. The 90 and 170 gallon tanks were in use in early 1942.

The Germans had the Bf 109 G series deployed in numbers while the Mk. V was still the main RAF fighter -until the end of 1943

Well, the most numerous perhaps, but certainly not the "main" fighter. For example, a quick glance through the claims and losses lists for December 1943 shows 2 operations by Spitfire Vs, 5 by the much more capable at low altitude LF vs, and 19 by Spitfire IXs.

And please don't encourage Kurfurst on this. Last time he got into an argument on these lines, he got banned from a forum. It really wasn't nice.

If drop tanks were available to RAF fighter squadrons fielding Mk. Vs why was it that very early in the war RAF bomber command decided it would be better to carry on bomber missions at night?

They decided to switch to night bombing at the end of 1939. The Spitfire V entered service in spring 1941.

That decision was reinforced in summer 1940, when the Luftwaffe couldn't maintain daylight penetrations of 50 miles into British airspace, even with escorts. Bomber Command had to penetrate 600 miles or more of German airspace. That simply wasn't practical without more aircraft, and more power was needed to lift that much fuel.

Don't forget, it took the 8th AF almost 1.5 years to build up enough strength, and overcome the technical problems, to begin bombing Germany in earnest. Calling off the battle for 18 months wasn't an option for BC.

So is Kurfurst´s correct when he advises regarding the negative impact those tanks had in the overall performance of the Spitfire they decided to not use it as long-range escort?

No. The manual notes similar restrictions for the Spitfire with rear tanks to the Mustang with rear tanks. In fact, the Spitfire restrictions seem slightly less severe.

Having said that, post war the RAF removed the rear tanks from most of their Mustangs, and wired the Spitfire ones shut, because the relaxed stability was deemed unacceptable in peace time.

The RAF tried unescorted daylight bombing in 1939, and learned their lesson. The USAAF tried it in autumn 1943. In 1939 fighter aircraft had 1000 hp engines. In 1943 they had 1700+ hp. What was possible in late 1943 simply wasn't possible in 1939.

I suspect that if the RAF had faced the choice of switching to night bombing in 1943, they too would have gone for escorts. But that was a decision they had been forced to take in 1939.

300,000 tanks made? Why so many? In all Great Britain produced ~50,000 fighters of all types during the war. Given the nature of those slipper tanks it would seem only one could be fitted to each plane.

Because when they were dropped, they were lost, and you had to have a new one. Doctrine was not to drop these reusable tanks unless necessary, so many were undoubtedly reused. However, if a Spitfire ran into the enemy whilst carrying a slipper tank, standard practice was to drop it.

It would be interesting to know when was the first time Spitfires flew over Berlin keeping in mind the date when Mustangs flew over the capital city of the Reich for the first time.

March 1941, for a Spitfire Mk I converted for recce operations.

As to Spitfires flying escort over Berlin, it wasn't until summer 1944 that Bomber Command began large scale daylight operations again, and I don't know if they bombed Berlin in daylight with heavies.

I know the operational record of the Spitfire very well, and it is crystal clear that without the 8th AF coming from abroad, the Spitfires would still be trying to figure out how to move outside the island.

That's funny, considering the 8th flew their first operation in summer 1942, didn't move into Germany in any numbers until autumn 1943, and didn't return to Germany until 1944.

Spitfires were operating out of Malta from March 1942, and Egypt from April.

 

[Morai_Milo]

Mr. Milo: nobody suggested the Bf 109 had a "great range". It was you who chose the phrase.

Udet, I take from your comment that you don't frequent any other boards were Kurfy posts about the range of the 109 and Spitfire. It is always the same, he makes his comments and then is shown his Spit and 109 numbers don't stand up to scutiny.

And they had thus the shortest radius of action any WW2 fighter I can think of.

The difference is between theoretical and actual.

As has been shown, the 109 also had a short 'radius of action'. Someone did not do enough thinking > a bogus statement. Spits flew missions over Holland and this is within range without dts and is further than the 135mi 'radius of action' of the 109. The use of dts allowed for greater time over the target area. The Spit could fly at econo cruise to almost the target and for most of the return flight while the 109 had to fly fast all the time to avoid being shot down.

Anyways, it is just another putdown of the Spitfire, due to the fanatical love he has for the Spit, for range was not an issue for an a/c that was used in a tactical role.

I would still like to see an explination why the 109G at fast cruise had the same range as the 109E on econo cruise .

 

[Udet]

Hop: thank you for the response, but i do not think i am getting your point.

Are you suggesting, saying or affirming the Spitfire could have made an efficient long-range escort?

Is it possible for you to post a photo showing a Spitfire fitted with a drop tank? I mean, i have my Spitfire photos (Mk. V, Mk. VIII, MK. IX and Mk. XIV) here, but really, i fail to detect anything that might indicate the presence of a drop tank.


Milo, i do not care about other forums. You are correct, i do not visit other forums and do not know what those are. A long time ago i used to be a member of the "Axis History" but got tired of those pseudo-Superior Priests of Universal Wisdom and Keepers of the Truth and Censorships which own the place. Have not been there for years.

I care about the things i read here, and it is here where i yet have to read anything that might suggest Kurfurst "hates" the Spitfire. It was you Milo who brought up all that "hate"/"uber" crap.

Kurfurst responses include data and sources, and are not more aggressive than your own postings Mr. Milo.

I do not encourage anyone to do anything. Kurfurst does not need my or anybody´s help.

I do not hate the Spitfire at all but it is the most overhyped, overvalued, and mythified plane of the entire war and that is a fact.

Two major aerial battles where Fw 190s/Bf109s and the Spitfires met in the air, February 1942 (Unternehmen Cerberus) and only a few months later, Operation Jubilee, ended in juiciy disasters for the RAF.

The Dieppe Raids was more than a disaster, it was a slaughter of RAF fighters.

And those are only two examples, the operational records of JG 2 and JG 26 for 1941, 1942 and 1943 are easy to verifiy and the flyers of both jagdgeschwadern swallowed the Spitfires, maintaining a stunning kill ratio over the Brits.

I am certainly not in a position to intervene in this very technical debate you are having here; i leave that to guys like Soren, Flyboy and others. You can call me when you want to discuss operational/ battle records.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Here you go Udet. A Spit with drop tanks.

 

[delcyros]

I doff my hat for the contribution of all those datas, Gentlemen!

 

[Hop]

Adler's picture is of one of the 2 Spitfires modified in the US, and which were later flown back across the Atlantic. Wing drop tanks weren't standard on Spitfires.

Edit. The fuel capacity of these two Spits was: 43 gallon rear tank, 2 16.5 gallon tanks in wing leading edge, 2 62 gallon drop tanks, 85 gallons main tanks. Total 285 gallons. They flew back along the Bangor - Goose Bay - Rejkavijk route (1550 miles for the longest hop)

Here are a couple of pictures of Spitfire Vs taking off from USS Wasp in 1942. They are carrying 90 gallon slipper tanks:

The 90 gallon was the largest of the tanks used routinely, and the smaller 30 gallon tank was much more common. It's fairly hard to see the 90 gallon from most angles, the 30 gallon can only be seen in close up pics from the front or underneath.

There was also a 45 gallon slipper tank, but that was largely replaced by a 50 gallon torpedo tank, which was fairly common on Spitfire IX operations.

Here's a Spitfire XII with slipper tank. Size is either 30 or 45 gallon:

From most angles, and with a less clear image, that tank will be almost impossible to see.

Are you suggesting, saying or affirming the Spitfire could have made an efficient long-range escort?

Depends what range you want.

The best Spitfire for a long range would be the Spitfire VIII or IX or XVI. Those are essentially the same aircraft, all with Merlin 60 series engines. The Spitfire VIII had minor airframe revisions.

Basic fuel load was either 85 or 95 gallons in the main tanks ahead of the cockpit, 0 - 36 gallons in the wing leading edge tanks (not all had them fitted, all the VIIIs did, some later IXs and XVIs did).

To that you could add a 90 gallon drop tank, and 75 gallon rear tank. All these fuel options were fitted to the Spitfire in fairly substantial numbers (ie at least 1,000 Spitfires had wing tanks, at least that many had rear tanks, at least that many had the 95 gallon main tanks, etc)

So, none of these is a fantasy option.

Total fuel load would be 95 gallons main tanks, 28 gallons wing tanks, 75 gallons rear tank, 90 gallons drop tank. Total 288 gallons.

Now the post war Spitfire IX manual notes fuel capacity of up to 255 gallons with the 170 gallon tank, so this would be a bit of an overload. Weight would probably be just over 9,000 lbs. However, the Spitfire XIV was cleared for weights up to 10,280 lbs, and this was basically the same airframe.

So, the we have a Spitfire with 123 gallons in the forward tanks, 75 gallons in the rear tank, 90 in the drop tank. Obviously we don't want to still have the drop tank once combat starts, and we need to have 30 gallons or less in the rear tank (the manual notes aerobatics are safe with 30 gallons, iirc, but with extra fuel forward it's even more stable)

F (forward tanks) 123 gallons
R (rear tank) 75 gallons
D (drop tank) 90 gallons

Start the engine, warm up on the ground. Takeoff to 2,000ft. Because this is critical, we will run from the main tank. 10 gallons used.
F (forward tanks) 113 gallons
R (rear tank) 75 gallons
D (drop tank) 90 gallons

Climb to altitude and form up, 15 gallons from the rear tank.
F (forward tanks) 113 gallons
R (rear tank) 65 gallons
D (drop tank) 90 gallons

Cruise at 6.5 mpg. Rear tank first, using 35 gallons. 225 miles
F (forward tanks) 113 gallons
R (rear tank) 30 gallons
D (drop tank) 90 gallons

Cruise with drop tank. We'll go faster, as we're in enemy territory by now. 5 mpg, 450 miles. Total range to target, up to 675 miles
F (forward tanks) 113 gallons
R (rear tank) 30 gallons

Combat. 5 minutes at WEP, 15 minutes at military power (to use the American definitions). 40 gallons from the main tanks.
F (forward tanks) 73 gallons
R (rear tank) 30 gallons

Cruise home. A lot lighter now, with less drag. 7 mpg. 103 gallons left, 721 mile range. However, this doesn't allow reserves, so more practically about 650 miles.

650 miles would be about the limit for practical Spitfire escorts, without adding more fuel still. I've only allowed the commonly fitted Spitfire fuel tanks, that were used in numbers of greater than 1,000. However, you could add the 30 gallon tank fitted under the seat of some recce Spitfires, you could put an extra tank in the unused cannon bays, etc. That would take the range higher, but that's pure speculation.

The point about long range escort fighters, though, is that only 1 single engined fighter in WW2 was designed with the necessary range to escort bombers from Britain deep into Germany. That was the Zero. None of the others, not even the Mustang, had sufficient range until the need was identified, and the aircraft equipped accordingly.

The fact that most Spitfires flew with far less fuel isn't because they couldn't carry more, it's because that need was never identified.

I do not hate the Spitfire at all but it is the most overhyped, overvalued, and mythified plane of the entire war and that is a fact.

A statement like that can only be opinion.

Two major aerial battles where Fw 190s/Bf109s and the Spitfires met in the air, February 1942 (Unternehmen Cerberus) and only a few months later, Operation Jubilee, ended in juiciy disasters for the RAF.

The Dieppe Raids was more than a disaster, it was a slaughter of RAF fighters.

Hardly. And from the RAF viewpoint, they had troops ashore to protect, and ships lying off the coast, and the Luftwaffe only managed to damage 1 ship, and had no effect on the fighting onshore. I suspect it's another case where the Jagdwaffe were looking after their "score" to the detriment of the war effort. (And seriously, on another forum Kurfurst and others were arguing that the 190 was such a wonderful plane because it allowed the Luftwaffe to run away, which just shows the attitude is still alive and well)

And those are only two examples, the operational records of JG 2 and JG 26 for 1941, 1942 and 1943 are easy to verifiy and the flyers of both jagdgeschwadern swallowed the Spitfires, maintaining a stunning kill ratio over the Brits.

Not quite so stunning as is usually made out, because what's passed off as "Luftwaffe losses" tend to be pilot fatalities in 2 fighter geschwader.

In 1943 the tide had very much turned.

Jg 26 records show at least 96 pilots killed or seriously injured by Spitfires in 1943. Plane losses will be substantially higher than that. In return, Jg 26 claimed 168 Spitfires. However, the Luftwaffe claimed 903 Spitfires on the western front in 1943, at a time when the RAF lost about 700 fighters in total, to all causes (the claims don't include flak, the losses do)

That means Spitfires shot down about two Jg 26 fighters for every Spitfire JG 26 shot down, in 1943.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Thanks for the info on my pic and thanks for sharing the pics of the slipper tank Spits.

 

[Udet]

That means Spitfires shot down about two Jg 26 fighters for every Spitfire JG 26 shot down, in 1943.

This is false. A huge lie, possibly the fattest of all lies i´ve heard so far, ever. Keep playing your game of self-embarrassment. It´d appear you are experiencing some sort of mental collapse and delusional process: thanks for sharing it Hop.

 

[Soren]

I see our Spitfire fan is again sphewing out lies....

 

[GregP]

Twitch, where are you in the LA area? I'm in Irvine.

 

[Jabberwocky]

That means Spitfires shot down about two Jg 26 fighters for every Spitfire JG 26 shot down, in 1943.

This is false. A huge lie, possibly the fattest of all lies i´ve heard so far, ever. Keep playing your game of self-embarrassment. It´d appear you are experiencing some sort of mental collapse and delusional process: thanks for sharing it Hop.

Interesing how the reams of evidence you provide in counterpoint makes your refutation even more definitive (instead of say, dismissing it out hand because it doesn't fit your particular view of the RAF/Spitfire vs Luftwafffe/109+190).

I may not always agree with Hop, but at least he is providing something to base an assesment off... (and doesn't seem to be getting ad hominem).