Spitfire Combat Radius (range) evolution, limitations? (2 Viewers)

[pbehn]

Johnny Johnson mentioned numerous times in his writings of fly around empty skies and his squadron was elated when they finally got aux tanks in their MkXIV's and flew across the border into Germany for the first time.

What does that matter, Spitfires were used from the very start escorting Fortress Is and B17s, they certainly did encounter opposition from the start, there were loses on both sides, it is a gross insult to the men who were lost to say it never happened. By the time the P-47 was used as a second wave escort taking over from Spitfires as the first wave the USA had been mounting bombing operations for a long time.

 

[Shortround6]

Take a Spit IX, the rear top 33G tank is burned off warming up/taxi/take off and have it sitting over the channel at 25,000ft,

And nobody was going to do that.
Standard procedure in just about any air force was to warm up, taxi and take off on one of the main tanks.
You can switch tanks to drop tanks OR internal auxiliary fuel tank/s at somewhere between 2,000ft and 5,000ft. Whatever it takes to give you the option of a "safe" landing (gliding) if the fuel system doesn't switch over to the new tank.
Standard procedure is also to have the fuel return line piped to the main tank/s. If you take off on a non main tank the over flow from the return line is lost and may or may not create a fire hazard. For instance on a P-40E the warming up and tank off was done on the forward wing tank. Once the "safe" altitude was reached they switched to the drop tank, once the drop tank was used the tank was switched to the rear fuselage tank. and then sequencing back to the forward wing tank as the reserve as 1-2 gallons an hour should have been going back to it from the fuel return line.
Last, you may have switch tanks well before you get 25,000ft. The Mustang was heavier but even running clean it could burn 36-41 us gallons just getting to 20,000ft from sea level (take off not counted let alone warm up.) Normal climb power could burn another 6 US gallons to get to 25,000ft.

33 Imp gallon is not going to be enough to start/warm up, taxi, take-off and get to 25,000ft.

 

[PAT303]

Plumb the rear return lines to the main so it fills up after take off that way you have a full main and weight shifted forward at the same time, win win. All I'm saying is the Spit could have done much more ''if'' it was given more fuel, all MkXVI's had rear 66 or 75G rear tanks fitted from the factory in 1944 so there's nothing stopping the MkIX from having them 2 years earlier.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Which is even more baffling as the USAF was fitting ferry tanks to P47's in 1943 which only gave them an escort range of around 370 miles give or take when at the same time Spitfires could have gone to 450-500 miles. Why the RAF were so against adding fuel when the need for escort fighters was there is mind blowing.

There are a whole lot of moving parts involved and which are selected often says more about the writer. The USAAF delayed its order for drop tanks from British sources in the first half of 1943, the need became more urgent as the year went on, but it took until October for the final decision of no unescorted raids. The P-47 could range out to 280 miles with a 75 gallon drop tank in August 1943, 325 miles with a 108 gallon tank in September 1943, and 375 miles with a 150 gallon tank in February 1944. The standard Spitfire VIII with a 20 gallon fuel reserve allowance could range out to around 300 miles with a 90 gallon external tank and the ability to transfer fuel from the external tank to the main ones, a 33 gallon rear fuselage tank would add another 80 miles. As it was Spitfires did insert and withdrawal cover and did score kills on these missions, there is a story about James Stewart's B-24 formation having the arrival of Spitfires drive off attacking Luftwaffe fighters.

As of end 1942 the Spitfire had just had a major upgrade, was needed in numbers as soon as possible, no one was asking for even longer range, the RAF had number of a longer range and faster fighter on the way, and as we know the Spitfire had stability problems when rear fuselage tanks were fitted that took time to resolve. The 1943 priorities became production and an even higher performance. You make your predictions of the future and then wait for time to reveal how correct you were.

The RAF did not think in terms of US long range, rather something like being able to fight over say all of France, from both the point of view of a performance penalty from the extra fuel and the workload on the pilots, like the time in the air and need for navigation. The phased fighter escort tactics had the bonus an escort mission to a target around 500 miles away at fighter speeds took around an hour less than at heavy bomber speeds.

Consider the war situation at the end of 1942, capturing North Africa was behind schedule, with the Luftwaffe contesting the airspace quite well. The U-boats had been very effective in 1942, and were moving back into the North Atlantic in numbers. Would the allies be able to sustain even defensive operations in Europe against continued U-boat successes? The eastern front had established the pattern of German advance in summer, Red Army advance in winter, would that continue? Given this how important was it to be able to insert an allied ground force into France in 1943, what had to be done for a 1944 invasion? The Luftwaffe still had a viable bomber force and Britain had plenty of targets the Luftwaffe wanted to attack. Day fighter defences had to be maintained and quality improved as the average Luftwaffe bomber improved, rotating the RAF home fighter forces through southern England to give them combat experience was important. Both the German and Japanese advances seemed to have been stopped but that had taken a lot of fighting and evicting them from further territory was, if anything, proving even harder.

At the end of 1942 the Spitfire was the only allied single engine fighter proven to match German fighter performance, with a pushing year long gap in 1941/42 where it did not. Given the level of improvement in German fighters 1938 to 1942 what chance their performance would keep improving, say like the Bf109K and Fw190D arriving in late 1943 or early 1944?

The British economy was working flat out in 1942/43, major changes to an aircraft would reduce the numbers produced and in 1942/43 every front wanted Spitfires and the 2 stage Merlin ones in particular, special shipments were sent to Tunisia and an elite fighter unit formed to use them (The Polish Fighter Flight) with a brief to only hunt for Luftwaffe fighters for example. The demands helped push mark IX production, versus switching to mark VIII. The invasion of France was expected to provoke a major air fight, so lots of reserve aircraft were needed to replace the expected losses, the fights happened but the Luftwaffe was much less effective than any planner was willing to believe.

The USAAF indifference to the P-51, versus the RAF's only US fighter we want attitude end 1942 meant the RAF could look forward to a large Merlin P-51 force in 1943/44 as per the current deliveries schedule, the P-51 easily reaching the France Germany border at least. And the USAAF would have the remainder available for Europe. Production was delayed and a greater percentage allocated to the USAAF versus that original schedule.

The USAAF build up in Britain was behind schedule due to delays and diversions, would the USAAF force grow to the planned size and when? The USAAF in Britain was not talking about long range escort, even as the USAAF in the Mediterranean was moving to escorting all raids. In any case as flown by the 8th Air Force the early B-17F radius of action was around 300 miles. If the USAAF wanted escorts, how many? Was there a difference in the number of escorts needed for say a B-17 versus B-26 or versus a Lancaster? How would the Luftwaffe react, keep its fighters dispersed near the front lines or pull many of them back to Germany and/or France? Would it increase the size of the force? Would the escort missions be flown at bomber speeds?

The planned standard USAAF fighter was the P-47, would all that extra weight provide the performance to at least break even with the 1943 and 1944 German fighters?

The allies had plenty of potential fighter bombers, the Hurricane and P-40 for a start, along with twin engine bombers whose day targets tended to be within fighter escort range. Fundamentally an allied escort fighter needed to range out a couple of hundred miles to cover most operations being run or would be run in support of the armies, the tactical targets. As Germany had not really used the economies of France, Belgium and Holland, plus most Italian Industry was in the north of the county, plus places like Ploesti in Romania, there was a disconnect between the fighter range required for tactical operations and the 500 to 600 miles needed for the strategic strikes. As we know now the Spitfire extreme limit, assuming it could handle the fuel load, was around 500 miles radius under European conditions, and more under Pacific conditions.

The longest range missions are when you are sure enemy reaction will only be around the target, the shortest is probably when you have to cope with layered defences where your aircraft could easily find themselves in multiple combats on the way in and out. Would there be a layered defence of Germany and if so would shorter range allied airpower help defeat or push the first defence line further back? How much could the allies control the 1943 air war, where, how, when and why missions were undertaken?

To the Spitfire, the 1941/42 changes had increased the internal fuel from 87 to 124 gallons, giving a 150 miles radius, less reserves, a 45 gallon external tank would add around 100 miles, at 320 mph, and longer at 240 mph. Which covered range requirements wanted at the time. In 1943 the main effort was upgrading to the Griffon engine at 1,980 pounds versus the Merlin 66 at 1,650 pounds, 6 mark VIII airframes allocated to the program, the intention being to give either a superior performance versus the German fighters or at least matching any upgrades.

In early 1943 the Spitfire was still mostly needed as an interceptor, it had just received a major performance and range upgrade, the P-51 was on the way which was faster and longer ranged, while every Spitfire was needed at once. We now know the outcomes, 1943 would be a year of allied advances, the 8th Air Force could do with every escort it could find in 1943, even getting standard Spitfire VIII into Fighter Command would have helped, adding a 33 gallon rear fuselage tank helping further, medium term switching to VIII instead of IX would have given the RAF a more effective Spitfire for the operations it ended doing. However the Spitfire was sensitive enough work was needed to allow for rear fuselage fuel tanks and that took a while, it became the 1944 project. The expected upgrades in German fighter performance were delayed until the final quarter of 1944.

Effort in man hours, Spitfire production, mark / design / jigging and tooling

I / 339,400 / 800,000
II / 9,267 / unknown
III / 91,120 / 75,000
V / 90,000 / 105,000
VI 14,340 / 50,000
IX 43,830 / 30,000
XII / 27,210 / 16,000
VII / 86,150 / 150,000
VIII / 24,970 / 250,000
XIV / 26,120 / 17,000
21 / 168,500 / unknown
PR XI / 12,415 / unknown
Seafire I / 10,130 / 18,000
Seafire II / 3,685 / 40,000
Seafire III / 8,938 / 9,000
Seafire XV / 9,150 / unknown
Spitfire on floats 22,260 / 35,000

 

[SaparotRob]

There are a whole lot of moving parts involved and which are selected often says more about the writer. The USAAF delayed its order for drop tanks from British sources in the first half of 1943, the need became more urgent as the year went on, but it took until October for the final decision of no unescorted raids. The P-47 could range out to 280 miles with a 75 gallon drop tank in August 1943, 325 miles with a 108 gallon tank in September 1943, and 375 miles with a 150 gallon tank in February 1944. The standard Spitfire VIII with a 20 gallon fuel reserve allowance could range out to around 300 miles with a 90 gallon external tank and the ability to transfer fuel from the external tank to the main ones, a 33 gallon rear fuselage tank would add another 80 miles. As it was Spitfires did insert and withdrawal cover and did score kills on these missions, there is a story about James Stewart's B-24 formation having the arrival of Spitfires drive off attacking Luftwaffe fighters.

As of end 1942 the Spitfire had just had a major upgrade, was needed in numbers as soon as possible, no one was asking for even longer range, the RAF had number of a longer range and faster fighter on the way, and as we know the Spitfire had stability problems when rear fuselage tanks were fitted that took time to resolve. The 1943 priorities became production and an even higher performance. You make your predictions of the future and then wait for time to reveal how correct you were.

The RAF did not think in terms of US long range, rather something like being able to fight over say all of France, from both the point of view of a performance penalty from the extra fuel and the workload on the pilots, like the time in the air and need for navigation. The phased fighter escort tactics had the bonus an escort mission to a target around 500 miles away at fighter speeds took around an hour less than at heavy bomber speeds.

Consider the war situation at the end of 1942, capturing North Africa was behind schedule, with the Luftwaffe contesting the airspace quite well. The U-boats had been very effective in 1942, and were moving back into the North Atlantic in numbers. Would the allies be able to sustain even defensive operations in Europe against continued U-boat successes? The eastern front had established the pattern of German advance in summer, Red Army advance in winter, would that continue? Given this how important was it to be able to insert an allied ground force into France in 1943, what had to be done for a 1944 invasion? The Luftwaffe still had a viable bomber force and Britain had plenty of targets the Luftwaffe wanted to attack. Day fighter defences had to be maintained and quality improved as the average Luftwaffe bomber improved, rotating the RAF home fighter forces through southern England to give them combat experience was important. Both the German and Japanese advances seemed to have been stopped but that had taken a lot of fighting and evicting them from further territory was, if anything, proving even harder.

At the end of 1942 the Spitfire was the only allied single engine fighter proven to match German fighter performance, with a pushing year long gap in 1941/42 where it did not. Given the level of improvement in German fighters 1938 to 1942 what chance their performance would keep improving, say like the Bf109K and Fw190D arriving in late 1943 or early 1944?

The British economy was working flat out in 1942/43, major changes to an aircraft would reduce the numbers produced and in 1942/43 every front wanted Spitfires and the 2 stage Merlin ones in particular, special shipments were sent to Tunisia and an elite fighter unit formed to use them (The Polish Fighter Flight) with a brief to only hunt for Luftwaffe fighters for example. The demands helped push mark IX production, versus switching to mark VIII. The invasion of France was expected to provoke a major air fight, so lots of reserve aircraft were needed to replace the expected losses, the fights happened but the Luftwaffe was much less effective than any planner was willing to believe.

The USAAF indifference to the P-51, versus the RAF's only US fighter we want attitude end 1942 meant the RAF could look forward to a large Merlin P-51 force in 1943/44 as per the current deliveries schedule, the P-51 easily reaching the France Germany border at least. And the USAAF would have the remainder available for Europe. Production was delayed and a greater percentage allocated to the USAAF versus that original schedule.

The USAAF build up in Britain was behind schedule due to delays and diversions, would the USAAF force grow to the planned size and when? The USAAF in Britain was not talking about long range escort, even as the USAAF in the Mediterranean was moving to escorting all raids. In any case as flown by the 8th Air Force the early B-17F radius of action was around 300 miles. If the USAAF wanted escorts, how many? Was there a difference in the number of escorts needed for say a B-17 versus B-26 or versus a Lancaster? How would the Luftwaffe react, keep its fighters dispersed near the front lines or pull many of them back to Germany and/or France? Would it increase the size of the force? Would the escort missions be flown at bomber speeds?

The planned standard USAAF fighter was the P-47, would all that extra weight provide the performance to at least break even with the 1943 and 1944 German fighters?

The allies had plenty of potential fighter bombers, the Hurricane and P-40 for a start, along with twin engine bombers whose day targets tended to be within fighter escort range. Fundamentally an allied escort fighter needed to range out a couple of hundred miles to cover most operations being run or would be run in support of the armies, the tactical targets. As Germany had not really used the economies of France, Belgium and Holland, plus most Italian Industry was in the north of the county, plus places like Ploesti in Romania, there was a disconnect between the fighter range required for tactical operations and the 500 to 600 miles needed for the strategic strikes. As we know now the Spitfire extreme limit, assuming it could handle the fuel load, was around 500 miles radius under European conditions, and more under Pacific conditions.

The longest range missions are when you are sure enemy reaction will only be around the target, the shortest is probably when you have to cope with layered defences where your aircraft could easily find themselves in multiple combats on the way in and out. Would there be a layered defence of Germany and if so would shorter range allied airpower help defeat or push the first defence line further back? How much could the allies control the 1943 air war, where, how, when and why missions were undertaken?

To the Spitfire, the 1941/42 changes had increased the internal fuel from 87 to 124 gallons, giving a 150 miles radius, less reserves, a 45 gallon external tank would add around 100 miles, at 320 mph, and longer at 240 mph. Which covered range requirements wanted at the time. In 1943 the main effort was upgrading to the Griffon engine at 1,980 pounds versus the Merlin 66 at 1,650 pounds, 6 mark VIII airframes allocated to the program, the intention being to give either a superior performance versus the German fighters or at least matching any upgrades.

In early 1943 the Spitfire was still mostly needed as an interceptor, it had just received a major performance and range upgrade, the P-51 was on the way which was faster and longer ranged, while every Spitfire was needed at once. We now know the outcomes, 1943 would be a year of allied advances, the 8th Air Force could do with every escort it could find in 1943, even getting standard Spitfire VIII into Fighter Command would have helped, adding a 33 gallon rear fuselage tank helping further, medium term switching to VIII instead of IX would have given the RAF a more effective Spitfire for the operations it ended doing. However the Spitfire was sensitive enough work was needed to allow for rear fuselage fuel tanks and that took a while, it became the 1944 project. The expected upgrades in German fighter performance were delayed until the final quarter of 1944.

Effort in man hours, Spitfire production, mark / design / jigging and tooling

I / 339,400 / 800,000
II / 9,267 / unknown
III / 91,120 / 75,000
V / 90,000 / 105,000
VI 14,340 / 50,000
IX 43,830 / 30,000
XII / 27,210 / 16,000
VII / 86,150 / 150,000
VIII / 24,970 / 250,000
XIV / 26,120 / 17,000
21 / 168,500 / unknown
PR XI / 12,415 / unknown
Seafire I / 10,130 / 18,000
Seafire II / 3,685 / 40,000
Seafire III / 8,938 / 9,000
Seafire XV / 9,150 / unknown
Spitfire on floats 22,260 / 35,000

Great post!

 

[Shortround6]

From the test report I listed above.

The changes of loading due to fitting the metal airscrew are as follow:

I.​	Increase of airscrew weight 262 lb., that is Wooden airscrew 83 lb., Metal 345 lb.​
II.​	Removal of 135 lb. lead from engine bearers.​
III.​	Fitting 40 lb. lead in the rear end of the fuselagefor normal load, with an additional 22 lb. to give the extended aft position of the centre of gravity.​

The above ballasting does not represent armour plating and blind approach apparatus in weight or position but it was estimated by thy Royal Aircraft Establishment that the inertia of the aeroplane about the lateral axis would not exceed this arrangement of ballasting when the above items are subsequently fitted.

The test was from July 12th 1939. Date of the report, not date of tests.

I don't know if there were any modifications made to the DH 2 speed propellers.
The Rotol propeller had a total pitch change of 35 degrees. And may not have been in final form as the plane was 4mph faster at 2800rpm than it was at 3000rpm.

We also know that they were having trouble with the Spitfire handling at this time due to the elevators being too sensitive/too powerful. They did several things to help fix that but with the center of gravity changing as equipment was added/moved there may have been a bit of chasing back and forth?
Also the early Spitfires (and Hurricanes and Gladiators and????) had a pair of flare tubes in behind the cockpit.

Now the 29 gallon tank fitted to some MK Vs may have been between the pilots and seat and flare tubes.
The MK II Spits used for ASR used the flare tubes to hold the dingy and recue supplies.

Also note that the 29 gallon tank was ONLY to be used when the 170 gallon tank was fitted. I don't know it that was solely because of the ferry tank tank or if it was to help balance out the large oil tank they mounted in the nose. Or if the 170 gallon tank shifted the CG forward by itself?

The fattest part of the tank is forward of the CG?

 

[tomo pauk]

And nobody was going to do that.
Standard procedure in just about any air force was to warm up, taxi and take off on one of the main tanks.
You can switch tanks to drop tanks OR internal auxiliary fuel tank/s at somewhere between 2,000ft and 5,000ft. Whatever it takes to give you the option of a "safe" landing (gliding) if the fuel system doesn't switch over to the new tank.
Standard procedure is also to have the fuel return line piped to the main tank/s. If you take off on a non main tank the over flow from the return line is lost and may or may not create a fire hazard. For instance on a P-40E the warming up and tank off was done on the forward wing tank. Once the "safe" altitude was reached they switched to the drop tank, once the drop tank was used the tank was switched to the rear fuselage tank. and then sequencing back to the forward wing tank as the reserve as 1-2 gallons an hour should have been going back to it from the fuel return line.
Last, you may have switch tanks well before you get 25,000ft. The Mustang was heavier but even running clean it could burn 36-41 us gallons just getting to 20,000ft from sea level (take off not counted let alone warm up.) Normal climb power could burn another 6 US gallons to get to 25,000ft.

33 Imp gallon is not going to be enough to start/warm up, taxi, take-off and get to 25,000ft.

The SOP on Spitfire V was to warm up, take off and climb to 2000 ft on main tanks, switch to drop tank, and then switch back on main tanks (or the 29 gal rear tank if used).
On Spitfire IX and XVI with rear tanks, SOP was: main tanks to 2000 ft, rear tank until there is 30 gals left, drop tank, back to the rear tank, back to the main tanks. Without the rear tanks, it was main tank up to 2000 ft, drop tank, then main tanks again.

At the end of 1942 the Spitfire was the only allied single engine fighter proven to match German fighter performance, with a pushing year long gap in 1941/42 where it did not. Given the level of improvement in German fighters 1938 to 1942 what chance their performance would keep improving, say like the Bf109K and Fw190D arriving in late 1943 or early 1944?

The USAAF build up in Britain was behind schedule due to delays and diversions, would the USAAF force grow to the planned size and when? The USAAF in Britain was not talking about long range escort, even as the USAAF in the Mediterranean was moving to escorting all raids. In any case as flown by the 8th Air Force the early B-17F radius of action was around 300 miles. If the USAAF wanted escorts, how many? Was there a difference in the number of escorts needed for say a B-17 versus B-26 or versus a Lancaster? How would the Luftwaffe react, keep its fighters dispersed near the front lines or pull many of them back to Germany and/or France? Would it increase the size of the force? Would the escort missions be flown at bomber speeds?

The planned standard USAAF fighter was the P-47, would all that extra weight provide the performance to at least break even with the 1943 and 1944 German fighters?

You've left out the crucial thing: Germany/RLM/Luftwaffe can't make and fuel enough of these over-performing fighters with enough of capable pilots vs. what Allies can deploy against them. Not in 1943, not in 1944.
BTW - the Fw 190D-9 sported perhaps 60% of the firepower the standard Fw 190A-7 or A-8 had. To have Bf 109K materialzed in late 1943, someone needs to do hand-wave the DB 605D, as well as the airframe clean-up.

 

[Zipper730]

And nobody was going to do that.

Even the P-51 ran on the wing-tanks on the ground? I honestly thought they used the center-tank when they were on the ground and climbing.

drgondog & W wuzak do you have anything on this?

 

[PAT303]

We also know that they were having trouble with the Spitfire handling at this time due to the elevators being too sensitive/too powerful.

No ballooning at speed, they changed to metal elevators which fixed the problem until the speed increased at which point they changed the profile which eliminated it completely and replaced the original hinges with a piano type, all before the BoB.

 

[PAT303]

There are a whole lot of moving parts involved and which are selected often says more about the writer.

The FAA had Seafire MkII's then III's which had folding wings, leading edge tanks, drop tanks from 30 up to 90G, deleted cannon stubs, the cannon bulges were reduced in size and streamlined, streamlined ejector exhaust, streamlined rear view mirrors, streamlined engine air intake and with the Cunliffe-Owen models flush fitting rivets, even JATO rockets were trialed and proofed for service, from 1942, funny how the FAA could get all their moving parts moving in the right direction when the RAF couldn't move past volkes filtered Mk V's with only 85G of internal fuel

 

[ThomasP]

Hey PAT303,

RATOG was first trialled on Seafires (Mk II) in Feb'1943, but to a large degree I agree with you that a longer range Spitfire was a missed opportunity.

 

[PAT303]

Hey PAT303,

RATOG was first trialled on Seafires (Mk II) in Feb'1943, but to a large degree I agree with you that a longer range Spitfire was a missed opportunity.

Okay I'll give you a few months but my argument still stands, the FAA got the best out of their Spits, they even acquired ex RAAF Kittyhawk drop tanks and used them to good effect when again the RAF had nothing but a few 30G slippers on selected squadron aircraft.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The FAA had Seafire MkII's then III's which had folding wings, leading edge tanks, drop tanks from 30 up to 90G, deleted cannon stubs, the cannon bulges were reduced in size and streamlined, streamlined ejector exhaust, streamlined rear view mirrors, streamlined engine air intake and with the Cunliffe-Owen models flush fitting rivets, even JATO rockets were trialed and proofed for service, from 1942, funny how the FAA could get all their moving parts moving in the right direction when the RAF couldn't move past volkes filtered Mk V's with only 85G of internal fuel

Could you put some dates on the changes, the removal of cannon stubs and reduction of cannon bulges was done to Spitfires, when were the leading edge tanks fitted (the mark XV had them) plus the other streamlining done to Seafires?

Armoured Aircraft Carriers has a wing diagram with the tank but not which mark(s) it applied to.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/seafirel2cads.jpg has the IIC fuel loads.

The pilot's notes I have combine the Spifire V and Seafire I, II and III and only list the fuselage fuel tanks, including the 29 gallon rear one, along with the external 30 and 90 gallon tanks plus the 170 gallon ferry tank. The Ministry of Aircraft Production drop tank report has no mention of 90 gallon tanks specifically for Seafires, as of January 1945 it was 90 gallon Spitfire, 50 gallon Spitfire and Seafire, 30 gallon Seafire, all tanks being metal.

June 1942, Supermarine begins Seafire IIc production.
December 1942, Westland begins Seafire IIc production.
February 1943 JATO trials.
April 1943 Supermarine ends Seafire mark IIc production, Westland starts mark III production
August 1943 Spitfire Mark V production ends
September 1943 Westland ends Seafire mark IIc production
November 1943 Cunliffe Owen Seafire mark III production begins.

Morgan and Shacklady state the switch from the bulky air filter at Cunliffe Owen was mark III production number 90, which would be around September 1944.

they even acquired ex RAAF Kittyhawk drop tanks and used them to good effect when again the RAF had nothing but a few 30G slippers on selected squadron aircraft.

The Kittyhawk tanks were a trade done by HMS Implacable in June 1945, one RAN Destroyer cargo capacity worth. Cases of Scotch were valuable in the Pacific area at the time.

 

[EwenS]

All MkXIV's had the rear tanks and like the Mustang in RAF service were wired shut in many cases so they couldn't be used

In my post #505 I was referring to your post #502 in which you referred to all the Mk.XVI (not XIV)having the rear fuselage tanks being factory fitted. You said "....and all MkXVI's had rear 75G tanks fitted from the factory....". That does not seem to have been the case as per my post on another thread.

A Critical Analysis of the RAF Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya in 1941-45

@XBe02Drvr the firewall on the Mk.IX is heavier than the Mk.VII/VIII?

ww2aircraft.net

Johnny Johnson mentioned numerous times in his writings of fly around empty skies and his squadron was elated when they finally got aux tanks in their MkXIV's and flew across the border into Germany for the first time.

The problem I have with this is Johnson's commands in 1944/45. He commanded 144 Wing and then 127 Wing from Feb 1944 to late March 1945. 144 Wing was a Mk.IX wing and never used the Mk.XIV. It was disbanded on 14 July 1944. 127 Wing only had Mk.XIV was during the month of Dec 1944 when 130 & 350 joined 127 Wing temporarily. The rest of the time 127 Wing flew Mk.IX or Mk.XVI when Johnson was in command.

At the beginning of Dec 1944, 350 and 610 with Spitfire XIV, were temporarily attached to 127 Wing, belatedly having moved to the Continent from ADGB, where they had been flying escort cover for bombers operating from the UK. At the end of Dec they then moved to join other Mk.XIV squadrons in 125 Wing. Johnson then moved to command 125 Wing in late March 1945 which, by that point had 3 squadrons of Mk.XIV (41, 130 & 350)

The first two Mk.XIV squadrons moved to the Continent at the end of Sept 1944 (130 & 402) to join 125 Wing and were operating over Germany from the beginning of Oct 1944. And there is photo evidence that they had the drop tanks from the start.

I have a report to hand of an air to air action by 7 Mk.XIV of 350 squadron against Fw190s on the evening of 20th April 1945 just west of Berlin, while the squadron was based at Celle in Germany So distance is 140 miles from base (the account says 175 miles). That is the day that the Russians began their final assault on Berlin. So the RAF 2nd TAF squadrons would not be flying beyond that point. So would a drop tank actually have been necessary?

So Johnson's comments only make sense in terms of a temporary shortage in March / April 1945 if the tanks were necessary. Given that 125 Wing moved 3 times between the end of March, when it was based at Eindhoven, and 6-9 May 1945 when it finally settled on airfields at Fassberg in Germany (130 & 350 squadrons) and Kastrup in Denmark (41 squadron) that seems possible if the logistics couldn't keep up.

 

[MikeMeech]

Johnny Johnson mentioned numerous times in his writings of fly around empty skies and his squadron was elated when they finally got aux tanks in their MkXIV's and flew across the border into Germany for the first time.

Hi
JEJ does not mention much about "empty skies" while flying Spitfire XIVs in Chapter 19 'The Fated Sky' in his book 'Wing Leader', in fact he appears to have had a busy time, what source are you quoting?

Mike

 

[PAT303]

Could you put some dates on the changes, the removal of cannon stubs and reduction of cannon bulges was done to Spitfires, when were the leading edge tanks fitted (the mark XV had them) plus the other streamlining done to Seafires?

All mark III's had leading edge tanks

 

[PAT303]

This is a model but it's a clear image of the deleted stubs and smaller bulges

 

[PAT303]

Compared to the MkIX wing, the smaller bulges and deleted stubs plus the other changes increased the speed by approx 12mph

 

[GregP]

View attachment 665577
All mark III's had leading edge tanks

Both of them? They only made 2.

Edit: Sorry Pat, that's Spitfires, not Seafires. They made 1,218 Seafire Mk. IIIs.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Didn't the British do that 1000 plane raid to show Hitler that the RAF was not down to almost zero planes? It also was made up of pretty
Much anything that would fly that far and overall it was a nuisance bombing and moral builder not unlike Doolittle's raid on Tokyo.

Can't say I agree with this. 16 planes is a gesture, but a thousand is a message.