Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I don't disagree, if you take all the possible internal fuel and put it in a Mk VIII then you have maybe 140-150 gallons. The Merlin uses about 150 G/hr at maximum and 50 G/hr on cruise. So you have 20 minutes on combat power and enough for 2 hrs cruise home, but the Spitfire doesn't cruise as far as a Mustang on the same settings so they are 60 miles shorter than a Mustang with the same internal fuel. Then there are the other issues, the British made Mk VII and VIII and sent them to Malta and the far east. What aircraft would they escort? Neither the British nor the USA had suitable bombers for daylight raids until 1943. To have an escort force on a long range mission you need at least three waves, very quickly you need 1000 planes and pilots to mount the campaign. The British had invested massively in night bombing and bombed Cologne with 1000 bombers in May 1942, how do you make a case for more investment in day bombers and fighters to do the same job?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).
Regarding fuel capacity, if I recall (I should know this but don't), the baseline fuel load was 85 (imp) gallons in the forward fuselage; then for reconnaissance variants: A tank (uncertain as to volume) was added in the rear fuselage (a ballast, which was added to correct for the weight of the constant-speed propeller, was removed for this), then an additional rear tank (unsure as to size), and one under the pilot's seat (which I'm uncertain of what its capacity was, or why it was later removed), of which, at least one of the rear-tanks were carried over onto some of the Mk.V's; The wings would see, on the PR variants: 66 (imperial) gallons in each leading edge, ahead of each of the wing's main-spars; on the VII, VIII, IX: 13 or 14 (imperial) gallons to each leading edge ahead fo the spar.
Anybody have anything more?
Thats OK as long as no pesky bandits make you put your foot down.I don't know why you guys are having such a hard time figuring range, on my way back from Michigan last week I just hit the "Range" button on the touch screen in my XT4 and it gave me the number of miles/km I could go at my current speed with what was in the fuel tank.
I mean, c'mon guys, it ain't rocket science...
Yep, it is much more complicated than thatI don't know why you guys are having such a hard time figuring range, on my way back from Michigan last week I just hit the "Range" button on the touch screen in my XT4 and it gave me the number of miles/km I could go at my current speed with what was in the fuel tank.
I mean, c'mon guys, it ain't rocket science...
And what's your favorite color?
The Griffon engined variants had LESS internal fuel?AFAIK the maximum fuel load of a Merlin engined Spitfire was 286/296 IG, 266 IG for a Griffon engined one.
Its easy enough to find on the net. The Griffon took up more space and needed a bigger oil tank.The Griffon engined variants had LESS internal fuel?
S Shortround6 W wuzak do you have any figures for the rear tanks used on the Spitfire and the tank used on early PR variants under the pilot's chair?
So max combat radius should be about 270 miles.
610 Squadron flew a fighter sweet from Tangmere to Isselburg, almost 400 miles with 90G D/T's and landed with 50-60G of fuel still on board. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/610-ORB-1sept44.jpg
Yes, an interesting route. I've just looked it up, you go via the Channel Tunnel. Now me, I'd have flown by air from Rochford airport just outside Southend on Sea to Isselburg.610 Squadron flew a fighter sweet from Tangmere to Isselburg, almost 400 miles with 90G D/T's and landed with 50-60G of fuel still on board. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/610-ORB-1sept44.jpg
Any combat action on that sweep?
The longest flights were England to La Pallice, France and Darwin, Australia to Timor, Indonesia, both over water so you can do them using econ cruise.No, likely explains returning with so much fuel remaining.
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.
What criteria did the AAC use for establishing the combat radius of escort fighters?