Spitfire Combat Radius (range) evolution, limitations?

IdahoRenegade · Dec 28, 2019

I understand the Spitfire was more limited in range than some other fighters. I'm curious, year by year, what was the combat radius that could be achieved (with a combat-suitable, drop tank (not a fixed ferry tank)). How much did this harm it's usefulness once past the BOB, when the fighting turned towards offensive war, rather than as a point defense fighter? And how much did the Griffin engine drop the range (I'm assuming the larger, more powerful engine returned poorer fuel efficiency). Wikipedia shows a 470 mile combat radius, but doesn't tell what variant or aux tanks it would be equipped with. I haven't found much else definitive. Specifically, fighter variants, not recon versions.

tomo pauk · Dec 28, 2019

Combat radius depends/depended on many factors - how much of the time the engine was pushed to the max power, ratio between internal and 'droppable' fuel, altitude and speed of cruise and/or combat. So unless those things are specified, we will not be able to arrive at a strict figure.

MIflyer · Dec 28, 2019

An article I read a few years back said the Spit IX, used a fighter bomber after the Normandy invasion, with two 500 lb bombs, had a combat radius of 90 miles.

Shortround6 · Dec 28, 2019

If we could find the aircraft data sheets for many of the marks it would be a start.
like http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit21ads.jpg

However some are incomplete.

PAT303 · Dec 28, 2019

I think this one would go a long way http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire9-fuelsystem-lr.jpg

drgondog · Dec 28, 2019

IdahoRenegade said:
I understand the Spitfire was more limited in range than some other fighters. I'm curious, year by year, what was the combat radius that could be achieved (with a combat-suitable, drop tank (not a fixed ferry tank)). How much did this harm it's usefulness once past the BOB, when the fighting turned towards offensive war, rather than as a point defense fighter? And how much did the Griffin engine drop the range (I'm assuming the larger, more powerful engine returned poorer fuel efficiency). Wikipedia shows a 470 mile combat radius, but doesn't tell what variant or aux tanks it would be equipped with. I haven't found much else definitive. Specifically, fighter variants, not recon versions.

Planned Combat radius is limited to a.) internal fuel available after dropping external tanks, and b.) military/combat power time.
Maximizing combat radius included minimum use of internal fuel to warm up, take off and form up before switching to externals for climb and cruise.

PAT303 · Dec 28, 2019

MIflyer said:
An article I read a few years back said the Spit IX, used a fighter bomber after the Normandy invasion, with two 500 lb bombs, had a combat radius of 90 miles.

The biggest problem dive bombing with the Spit was speed, during training they practiced with smoke bombs but when they started operations over Normandy with real 500 pounders they found they would hit 400+ mph within seconds giving the pilots very little time to adjust, also the bombs fuses wouldn't work effectively, they were designed to arm after being dropped horizontally from a bomber not vertically in a dive.

pbehn · Dec 28, 2019

Until the introduction of the Mk IX the issue wasn't range at all but performance. Even with the introduction of the MkIX there was the question of what missions you could perform because there were not really many suitable bombers to escort.

pbehn · Dec 28, 2019

The internal and external fuel carried on the Spitfire was gradually increased throughout its life, but the consumption of the Merlin and later Griffon also increased. I don't think combat with wing tanks is realistic but I have read that a Spitfire Mk XIV with a slipper tank (30gal as I remember) was on par with a Spitfire Mk IX.

PAT303 · Dec 28, 2019

pbehn said:
Until the introduction of the Mk IX the issue wasn't range at all but performance. Even with the introduction of the MkIX there was the question of what missions you could perform because there were not really many suitable bombers to escort.

You need a Merlin 60 to maintain a decent level of performance once you start adding fuel, the British also seemed to be dead against doing anything that upset the handling of the Spit, they even wired up the aft fuselage tanks on their Mustangs because of it. The Spitfire could have done more if they simply gave the thing more fuel.

PAT303 · Dec 28, 2019

pbehn said:
I don't think combat with wing tanks is realistic but I have read that a Spitfire Mk XIV with a slipper tank (30gal as I remember) was on par with a Spitfire Mk IX.

It could beat both the Me109G and FW190A with the 90G tank fitted.

pbehn · Dec 28, 2019

PAT303 said:
You need a Merlin 60 to maintain a decent level of performance once you start adding fuel, the British also seemed to be dead against doing anything that upset the handling of the Spit, they even wired up the aft fuselage tanks on their Mustangs because of it. The Spitfire could have done more if they simply gave the thing more fuel.

Which aft fuel tanks in which Mustangs? The P-51B/C and D are unstable with fuel in an aft tank as are the equivalent Mustang II and III aren't they? Where would you put more fuel in which Spitfire? What more would you have done, where and when?

tomo pauk · Dec 28, 2019

There is certainly no need to wait until second half of 1944 to increase fuel tankage on the Spitfire IX (picture kindly provide by Glider years ago):

pbehn · Dec 28, 2019

tomo pauk said:
There is certainly no need to wait until second half of 1944 to increase fuel tankage on the Spitfire IX (picture kindly provide by Glider years ago):

But as with the Mustang, the rear tank made it unstable and so should be used first, with a large external fuel load it could travel into a place it wouldnt have fuel to return from.

tomo pauk · Dec 28, 2019

pbehn said:
But as with the Mustang, the rear tank made it unstable and so should be used first, with a large external fuel load it could travel into a place it wouldnt have fuel to return from.

Not the rear tank, but fuel in that tank (or tanks) was what made the Spitfire and Mustang with unstable. Mustang was stable enough once half of it's fuel from the rear tank was used up.

pbehn · Dec 28, 2019

tomo pauk said:
Not the rear tank, but fuel in that tank (or tanks) was what made the Spitfire and Mustang with unstable. Mustang was stable enough once half of it's fuel from the rear tank was used up.

Stable enough for normal flight or combat? Not only was the Mustang faster it was more economical. At cruise settings it would go 30miles further per hour. There is no way to make the Spitfire anything like the Mustang in range, it needs much more fuel to do the same job to start with.

tomo pauk · Dec 28, 2019

pbehn said:
Stable enough for normal flight or combat? Not only was the Mustang faster it was more economical. At cruise settings it would go 30miles further per hour. There is no way to make the Spitfire anything like the Mustang in range, it needs much more fuel to do the same job to start with.

Stable enough for combat - the SOP was to use up half of fuel from rear tank and then switch to drop tanks.
My reasoning is that people here want more range/radius on Spitfire. That does not neccesarily means that it must be good as a Mustang with rear tank. Let's recall that Mustang without rear tank (150 imp gals + 120 imp gals in drop tanks) was good for 470 miles of radius per the demanding USAAF conditions - enough for escort bombers to Magdeburg, Kiel or Stuttgart (where I fly today/tomorrow).
BTW - the Spitfire VII and VIII should be even better than Spitfire IX, they already have front fuel tankage increased to 95 imp gals, and leading edge tanks (25 imp gals total).

PAT303 · Dec 28, 2019

pbehn said:
Which aft fuel tanks in which Mustangs? The P-51B/C and D are unstable with fuel in an aft tank as are the equivalent Mustang II and III aren't they? Where would you put more fuel in which Spitfire? What more would you have done, where and when?

Both the MkIX and Mustang/P51 were unstable with full rear tanks, both required 35-40G to be burnt off before any maneuvers could be performed and both RAE Farnborough and Jeffery Quill of Supermarine asked for 30G rear tanks to be fitted to Spitfires from the MkII to no avail. The MkIII had the larger 96G main tank in 1940, PR Spitfires had the 20G under seat tank, 30G rear seat tank and the enlarged leading edge D tanks from the PR MkVI onwards in 1940, the MkV had a 29G rear tank and 45 G D/T in 1941. The MkVIII and MkIX could have come from the factory with any combination of internal auxiliary and D/T's from 1942, plus the MkIX got 66 and 75G rear tanks plus 45-50 and 90G D/T's. There was options galore in regards to increasing the Spitfires range, but like I said earlier it really needed the two speed/two stage Merlin to be truly effective, as did the Mustang/P51.

PAT303 · Dec 28, 2019

pbehn said:
Stable enough for normal flight or combat? Not only was the Mustang faster it was more economical. At cruise settings it would go 30miles further per hour. There is no way to make the Spitfire anything like the Mustang in range, it needs much more fuel to do the same job to start with.

The difference is the Spitfire could have been going to the Ruhr in 1942, the P51 didn't reach Berlin until 1944.

pbehn · Dec 29, 2019

PAT303 said:
The difference is the Spitfire could have been going to the Ruhr in 1942, the P51 didn't reach Berlin until 1944.

To do what with what?

Spitfire Combat Radius (range) evolution, limitations?

Airman 1st Class

Creator of Interesting Threads

1st Lieutenant

Major General

Tech Sergeant

Major

Tech Sergeant

Colonel

Colonel

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Colonel

Creator of Interesting Threads

Attachments

Colonel

Creator of Interesting Threads

Colonel

Creator of Interesting Threads

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Colonel

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads