Spitfire Combat Radius (range) evolution, limitations? (1 Viewer)

[pbehn]

This is almost exactly the context of where I originally brought up the F8, upthread. That is just about what i said verbatim.

You cannot design an F8 in 1935, first you need the engine and the fuels, then you need to have learned what you learned on the F4F and F6F. The P-40 couldnt have been designed with the aerodynamic profiles that the P-51 used, they didnt exist at that time. Wanting a F8 in the early or mid stage of the war is like wanting Spitfire MkIXs in the Battle of Britain, it would have been great, but just couldnt happen, the engine and fuels werent there.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

You cannot design an F8 in 1935, first you need the engine and the fuels, then you need to have learned what you learned on the F4F and F6F. The P-40 couldnt have been designed with the aerodynamic profiles that the P-51 used, they didnt exist at that time. Wanting a F8 in the early or mid stage of the war is like wanting Spitfire MkIXs in the Battle of Britain, it would have been great, but just couldnt happen, the engine and fuels werent there.

This was actually the point i was making mate

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

If we want to compare the fighters from 1945, the 420-425 mph F8F-1 is badly outpaced by 470-480 mph P-51H. Less firepower, too.
P-47 was indeed used as a fighter bomber. Once it wrestled the air superiority (in concert with other Allied aircraft) from the Axis air forces, and was a very good fighter bomber, with good payload, guns' firepower (double of what F8F-1 had), range and performance.
P-47 being a high-altitude bird was a feature, not a bug.

Well, I guess that depends how good you think the P-47 was in air combat down low, which is where it did have to tangle with German fighters quite a bit. And I don't think it was so good because of all the drag and weight.

To me, if you are designed for 35,000 ft but actually end up being used mostly at 5-10,000 ft where you (arguably) aren't so good, then it is a bug, IMO. That's why the Soviets didn't want it.

 

[tomo pauk]

Well, I guess that depends how good you think the P-47 was in air combat down low, which is where it did have to tangle with German fighters quite a bit. And I don't think it was so good because of all the drag and weight.

We have a saying here:
- Someone good has 1000 shortcomings. Someone bad have just one shortcoming: being bad.
P-47 was a good fighter. F8F have had just one shortcoming: not being there.

To me, if you are designed for 35,000 ft but actually end up being used mostly at 5-10,000 ft where you (arguably) aren't so good, then it is a bug, IMO. That's why the Soviets didn't want it.

Soviets were not trying to escort their bombers at 25000 ft, 400-600 miles deep behind the frontlines. What Soviets wanted or not had no bearing on how the air war was fought in the West.

 

[MIflyer]

Quoting Maj Gen Richard Rohmer a WWII Mustang I pilot, in his book, "Patton's Gap."

"It was a big impressive fighter, a much larger machine than the Spitfires of the day."

Aside from the much larger fuselage I think the Mustang Mk I sat a lot higher than Spitfires or Hurricanes.

By the way, I know of not much in the way personal accounts written by Mustang I pilots and I recommend the book.

And as for the P-47, do y'all recall the info I posted that showed the P-47 could out turn the FW-190, even at lower altitudes?

If you really wanted to start a contentious thread, why did the RAF not use the P-47 in the ETO? It was better than the Typhoon and a vastly better fighter bomber than the Spitfire.

 

[pbehn]

This was actually the point i was making mate

But your point is mainly based on range where US fighters had an advantage, mainly because they entered the war later. There were key battles that had to be won, like the battle over Dunkerque, the battle of Britain and the battle of Malta, in these range was not important, the Hurricane and Spitfire only had 12 seconds of firing time and so were more likely to run out of guns than fuel. These battles were fought at altitudes that didnt suit the P-51, P-40 and P-39 even if they were available. The Beaufighter had long range, not great performance compared to a single engined fighter but that puts it in the same bracket as the Bf110, as a heavy fighter against shipping, Condors and Ju88s and night fighter it did its job well at the time. Dismissing the P-47 because it wasnt great at low altitude ignores the fact that it was great at high altitude which was what the US strategic campaign needed, in the early days of the strategic campaign the P-47 provided the bulk of the escort force.

 

[pbehn]

We have a saying here:
- Someone good has 1000 shortcomings. Someone bad have just one shortcoming: being bad.
P-47 was a good fighter. F8F have had just one shortcoming: not being there.



Soviets were not trying to escort their bombers at 25000 ft, 400-600 miles deep behind the frontlines. What Soviets wanted or not had no bearing on how the air war was fought in the West.

Not a saying, but a legal term in English law "time is of the essence of the contract" a war isnt a contract, but it does carry penalties for lateness and not being there Time of the Essence clauses: Business Contracts (time critical performance)

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

We have a saying here:
- Someone good has 1000 shortcomings. Someone bad have just one shortcoming: being bad.
P-47 was a good fighter. F8F have had just one shortcoming: not being there.

My point about the F8F was (this is a direct quote from post 155:

"What everybody wants of course is something like a bearcat, but we didn't see anything that close to the sweet spot until the end of the war, and by then you are in the jet age, with a whole new balance to strike..."

So in other words, my original point was precisely that the Bearcat was too late for the war, and striking this balance wasn't easy. I don't think the P-47 really did it by the way in spite of the legendary status of that aircraft. But no aircraft design was perfect, every design was a tradeoff. And by the time they came up with the 'almost perfect' designs for piston engined fighers the jet age was already well under way.

Soviets were not trying to escort their bombers at 25000 ft, 400-600 miles deep behind the frontlines. What Soviets wanted or not had no bearing on how the air war was fought in the West.

War on the Russian front was actually pretty similar to War in the Western Desert, in Sicily and (to a somewhat lesser extent) in Italy, and definitely also to war on the ground in France and Belgium, Holland, Germany etc. after D-Day. I the support of friendly fighter bomber or ground attack aircraft and the destruction of the enemy ones. War in the Pacific and China Theaters had their own unique characteristics but escorting heavy bombers at 25,000 ft didn't come into play until pretty late in the game (well after the outcome had already been decided).

I don't understand why everything seems to always devolve to 'strategic bombing is the only air war'. I really don't think it was.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

But your point is mainly based on range where US fighters had an advantage, mainly because they entered the war later. There were key battles that had to be won, like the battle over Dunkerque, the battle of Britain and the battle of Malta, in these range was not important, the Hurricane and Spitfire only had 12 seconds of firing time and so were more likely to run out of guns than fuel.

Actually at Malta, and especially Dunkirque, from my understanding fuel limitations were indeed a factor.

My original post was:

"Getting back to the fighter / fuel capacity thing, I guess the difference is, once you have more than ~1,000 - 1,200 hp engines, you start to have the power to move heavier aircraft around the sky. Then it's time to go back to the drawing board and give yourself a bit more fuel, guns, armor, and other things. The Fw 190 was much heavier than a Bf 109 but by no means less capable. The P-51 was also a heavy aircraft, as was the F4U, F6F, P-47, P-38, Typhoon, Tempest etc."

I.e. I recognize that with a 1,000 hp (or less) engine you could not have all the features you might want, especially range. Once the 1,500 to 2,000 hp engines (and the appropriate fuel) are available then it's time to improve the range.

These battles were fought at altitudes that didnt suit the P-51, P-40 and P-39 even if they were available.

The P-39 had quite short range. The Allison P-51 seemed to have other issues besides altitude performance, which limited it's efficacy as a fighter, but these were cleared up at the same time as the B model appeared. That said, over Malta or Dunkirque*, against SM 79, Ju 88, Ju 87 etc., i think (Allison) P-51 and P-40s certainly could have been useful, and even P-39s probably if they had the range. Certainly Martlets. Kittyhawks were certainly very useful in similar battles such as around Pantelleria, Sicily, Milne Bay etc.

* I realize most of these fighters weren't available in time for Dunkirque

The Beaufighter had long range, not great performance compared to a single engined fighter but that puts it in the same bracket as the Bf110, as a heavy fighter against shipping, Condors and Ju88s and night fighter it did its job well at the time.

I personally think the Beaufighter was an outstanding aircraft. It wasn't a fighter in the same way as a Spitfire or say a P-38 was, but it played many very useful roles and was quite dangerous opponent at low altitude. I think aside from night-fighting, it was much better than a BF 110, and in general was one of the most successful twin engined fighter / fighter bomber designs of the war.

Dismissing the P-47 because it wasnt great at low altitude ignores the fact that it was great at high altitude which was what the US strategic campaign needed, in the early days of the strategic campaign the P-47 provided the bulk of the escort force.

I'm not dismissing the P-47 at all, I just think it's flaws were a bit larger than are typically acknowledged. And I don't think the strategic campaign was the only one that mattered.

Personally if I had to engage a Bf 109 below 20,000 ft I'd rather be in a Spitfire, or a P-51, or an F8F if they had existed at the time.

 

[pbehn]

I don't understand why everything seems to always devolve to 'strategic bombing is the only air war'. I really don't think it was.

Not from my part, I see a need from 1939 for short range high performance planes at all altitudes which you dont seem to. The strategic bomber campaign in 1944 was in part to eliminate the Luftwaffe as an effective force, which was achieved as far as the Normandy landings were concerned.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Not from my part, I see a need from 1939 for short range high performance planes at all altitudes which you dont seem to. The strategic bomber campaign in 1944 was in part to eliminate the Luftwaffe as an effective force, which was achieved as far as the Normandy landings were concerned.

Sure, but per the thread subject, I was suggesting that a longer range Spitfire could have been produced earlier, and was certainly needed. Not that it was an easy problem to solve from a technical perspective. And I don't mean necessarily a version which can fly to Berlin and back.

 

[tomo pauk]

War on the Russian front was actually pretty similar to War in the Western Desert, in Sicily and (to a somewhat lesser extent) in Italy, and to war on the ground in France and Belgium etc. after D-Day. War in the Pacific and China had their own unique characteristics but escorting heavy bombers at 25,000 ft didn't come into play until pretty late in the game.

I don't understand why everything seems to always devolve to 'strategic bombing is the only air war'

There is certainly a lot to the air war besides the strategic bombing. Allies have had a good, if not the great grasp on anti-Uboat warfare, air defense, fighter-bombers, tactical and strategic reconnaissance, night fighting etc. This thread is about long-range Spitfires, so using them in support of strategic bombing is not a stretch.
Ww2 was about defeating the Nazi Germany (while not disparging the effort and sacrifices of Allied servicemen fighting Japan). In order to do so, Luftwaffe needs to be defeated, lest the Allied invasions of Europe are in jeopardy, and Soviets are left to fend with German ground forces all by themselves. The escorted daylight bombers ranging deep in the German-held territory at high altitude represented the hammer-and-anvil situation to the LW, to what they were not prepared - not in technical terms ( P-47s and Merlin Mustangs were much better than LW's best, bar jets), nor in logistical terms (WAllies have had far more men and material to throw at war in general and in the air war in particular).

If the Luftwaffe was not rendered inefficient by the RAF and USAF, there would be no ground battles in France and Belgium in 1944.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I guess I should have picked a better example of a postwar fighter than an F8F ... what are some other good examples? Tempest? Sea Fuiry? P-51H? F7F? Martin Baker M.B.5? D.H. Hornet? Take your pick.

 

[drgondog]

Knowing how to make one - that can still perform well enough to compete at the highest levels, it's a pretty significant design challenge. I think they kind of got lucky with the high efficiency / low drag design of the Mustang.

Somehow NAA got lucky with AT-6, B-25, P-51, B-45, F-86, F-100, X-15, B-70, B-1, B-2?

Why do you attribute to lucky?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

There is certainly a lot to the air war besides the strategic bombing. Allies have had a good, if not the great grasp on anti-Uboat warfare, air defense, fighter-bombers, tactical and strategic reconnaissance, night fighting etc. This thread is about long-range Spitfires, so using them in support of strategic bombing is not a stretch.

No it's not a stretch, but I don't think it was the only reason to want one. If that is all you meant then I'll bow out of the debate. To me a Spitfire with about double the range of a Mk 1 or Mk V would have been very helpful indeed on a tactical level, even though it would not necessarily be ideal to escort strategic bombers.

I'll defer a debate about the importance of the Pacific Theater since that would be too much of a diversion in this discussion.

If the Luftwaffe was not rendered inefficient by the RAF and USAF, there would be no ground battles in France and Belgium in 1944.

I'm not so sure I buy that. The Luftwaffe was only gradually broken in North Africa, but the Allies still managed to win. The Luftwaffe was still active in Sicily and Italy, but could not prevent the Allied landings and they were pushed back. The Luftwaffe remained powerful on the Russian Front, but the Red Army continued inexorably Westward since Stalingrad at the end of 1942. So I think they certainly would have been fighting in France and Belgium even without the strategic air campaign.

One of the problems the Germans had was that they too had short range fighters, so one their airfields near the front line were destroyed (as in Tunisia for example), their presence over the battlefield was limited. Allied fighters could range further past the front lines and thus (escorted) Allied bombers could interdict German supplies and rear area columns, and destroy supplies coming from Europe by ship and transport aircraft, well beyond the range where Axis fighters could protect them. This made a difference in the outcomes.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Somehow NAA got lucky with AT-6, B-25, P-51, B-45, F-86, F-100, X-15, B-70, B-1, B-2?

Why do you attribute to lucky?

I think there is always an element of luck in a military aircraft design working out - especially in the era before computer simulation and computer aided design. I'd also debate how great some of the above listed aircraft really ultimately turned out to be (B-70? Really?) , but I was not denigrating NAA, or Edgar Schmued, Ray Wagoner etc.

Quite a few very promising aircraft from other very accomplished firms with good designers got canceled just because a prototype crashed or somebody somewhere decided to cancel it in favor of another, which I definitely consider a factor of luck.

But you could also say the 'luck' factor was in the right people being in the right positions at the right time, and the right people making decisions on both sides of the pond. NAA was a relatively small company when the British purchasing commission approached them to make P-40s right? The original NA-73 / P-51A etc. had not really worked out that well as a fighter did it? It took somebody making a gamble on trying a British engine in an American fighter and others recognizing the possibilities, then still more people approving the idea and moving it ahead. I would say there is quite a bit of luck in all that.

You don't think any luck was involved in the development of the Merlin engined P-51?

 

[ColFord]

By the way, I know of not much in the way personal accounts written by Mustang I pilots and I recommend the book.

"From Sapper to Spitfire Spy - the WWII Biography of David Greville-Heygate DFC" by Sally-Anne Greville-Heygate, Pen & Sword UK, 2015 - Army Officer seconded to RAF for pilot training, flew Mustang Mk.I on first tour of operations, was then an instructor at the RAF Tac/R School on Mustangs, then Spitfire XIV on second tour.
"Coming in to Land - the memoirs of Wing Commander Bill Malins DFC", Memoirs, UK, 2010. Pre-War RAF Officer, flew Westland Lysanders during Battle of France, then Curtiss Tomahawks, Mustang Mk.I, Mk.IA and Mk.II over various postings from 1942 to 1945.

 

[tomo pauk]

I guess I should have picked a better example of a postwar fighter than an F8F ... what are some other good examples? Tempest? Sea Fuiry? P-51H? F7F? Martin Baker M.B.5? D.H. Hornet? Take your pick.

Depends for what a task?
For long range work, P-51H, or Hornet if one prefers 2-engined fighters, especially if cannons are needed.
M.B.5 certainly looks impressive, performance-wise. Tempest and Sea Fury are great under 20000 ft and for shorter ranges.
F7F is worse than Hornet wrt. speed, range/radius and RoC.
There is also the P-47N, very rangy and fast. Not much of a climber with full fuel load, though. It was used in ww2.

No it's not a stretch, but I don't think it was the only reason to want one. If that is all you meant then I'll bow out of the debate. To me a Spitfire with about double the range of a Mk 1 or Mk V would have been very helpful indeed on a tactical level, even though it would not necessarily be ideal to escort strategic bombers.

Agreed 100%.

 

[MIflyer]

Thanks, Colford. I have not heard of those. A book I have on Canadian pilots in WWII does describe some Mustang Mk I missions. The book "Those Were the Days" was written by an A-36 pilot, and along with the A-36 history, "Straight Down" is one of the few about A-36's. I believe I have posted an article or two from the USAF Museum Newsletter by A-36 pilots.

 

[DarrenW]

Maybe 'short range' compared to an A6M, but it seems to have had better range than an F4F, I'd say probably better than an F6

While the F8F-1 had about a 100 mile greater combat range at 15,000 feet with external 150 US gallon tank, the F6F-5 conversely had about a 100 mile greater radius when using the US Navy's Combat Radius Formula F-1.

The F8F-1 Bearcat wasn't built to maximise range. It was built to maximise rate of climb.
F8F-1 4,465 ft/min
F6F-5 2,600 ft/min
P-51D 3,200 ft/min
Spitfire V 4,750 ft/min
Spitfire IX 4,100 ft/min
Spitfire XIV 4,580 ft/min

Actually, depending on power settings the F6F-5 had an initial climb rate from 3,000 to 3,250 ft/min and the Spitfire V is around the same. Your figures for the Spitfire IX and XIV are a little pestitimistic while the P-51D could climb about 300 fpm faster in the highest power settings. But your point concerning the reasons behind the F8F's development are correct.