Spitfires were used for the first and last leg out and back in daylight raids but only to about 150 miles which really was pointless, at the same time the P47 was limited to about 350 miles before turning back, the Spit ''if'' fitted with aux/drop tanks that were approved for service it could have gone out to 450-500 miles depending on circumstances, my argument is the Spit could have done more if they simply filled them with more fuel but they weren't, the P47 started escorting with ferry tanks, that's how desperate the USAF were for escort fighters.
Spitfire Combat Radius (range) evolution, limitations?
- Thread starter IdahoRenegade
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
We keep going round and round on this.
Battles and Blenheim's used the Ardennes were based (at least Battles) in France. Distance for the Hurricane escorts would have been?????
Of course it would have helped if the Battles and Blenheims were only attacking things 2-20 miles over the front lines instead scores of miles behind the front lines.
Major error in targeting that was not solvable by changing the type of fighter.
You also have to change the way you escort.
In 1940 British "escorts" tended to fly a fighter sweep in the general area that the bombers were expected to fly and at the general time the bombers were expected to be there with no real effort expended on seeing that the fighters actually saw the bombers they were supposed to be escorting. Makes the German fighter sweeps in the BoB look like close escort.
Then we get back to
How much weight added to the MK I Spitfire to make it a long range fighter in April of 1940 in France?
We do know what the performance penalty was for the Spitfire MK II with the 40 gallon tank.
We also have several performance tests of MK V Spits. Like the one with four 20mm cannon costing around 350fpm in climb compared to a MK V with just two 20mm and four .303s.
guns. For some reason the RAF thought that the weight of four 20 mm guns over the weight of the standard cannon/mg armament was too great a penalty but the addition 40 gallons or so extra fuel and tank/s would have been no problem?
See MK V with 90 gallon drop tank and split the difference to estimate 45 gallons.
Double check to see what engine ratings were being used when. A MK V using 9lb of boost doesn't have the same options as a MK V using 12 or 14lbs of boost.
A MK V doing escort duty has to be able to fight a Bf 109F-4 in the summer of 1941. The British may not have known this in April/May of 1941 but by Aug/Sept it would have been all too apparent.
The MK IX has a set of tests both with and without a 30imp gallon drop tank. The difference is not as great due to the fact than the MK IX is 700-800lbs heaver than the MK V to begin with so addition of 30 gallons of fuel + tank is a smaller percentage. Then you have the much greater power of the Merlin 61.
A Spitfire V without extra fuel at around 25,000-26,000ft is climbing about 2/3rds as well as a Spitfire IX was carrying a 30 gallon drop tank and using "normal" power.
At lower altitudes the MK V is a lot closer but you better pick what planes you want to escort and at what altitudes.
I have tried comparing climb performance for several reason, it cuts down on the drag difference which internal fuel will minimize compared to external fuel
and climb performance is not just getting to altitude. The climb performance is an indicator of the surplus power available at climbing speed to assist in maintaining performance while doing maneuvers. Two planes otherwise identical but with plane B having 10% more climbing power will be able to sustain speed in a turn better without descending for instance.
Battles and Blenheim's used the Ardennes were based (at least Battles) in France. Distance for the Hurricane escorts would have been?????
Of course it would have helped if the Battles and Blenheims were only attacking things 2-20 miles over the front lines instead scores of miles behind the front lines.
Major error in targeting that was not solvable by changing the type of fighter.
You also have to change the way you escort.
In 1940 British "escorts" tended to fly a fighter sweep in the general area that the bombers were expected to fly and at the general time the bombers were expected to be there with no real effort expended on seeing that the fighters actually saw the bombers they were supposed to be escorting. Makes the German fighter sweeps in the BoB look like close escort.
Then we get back to
And some people want to back it up further.
How much weight added to the MK I Spitfire to make it a long range fighter in April of 1940 in France?
We do know what the performance penalty was for the Spitfire MK II with the 40 gallon tank.
We also have several performance tests of MK V Spits. Like the one with four 20mm cannon costing around 350fpm in climb compared to a MK V with just two 20mm and four .303s.
guns. For some reason the RAF thought that the weight of four 20 mm guns over the weight of the standard cannon/mg armament was too great a penalty but the addition 40 gallons or so extra fuel and tank/s would have been no problem?
See MK V with 90 gallon drop tank and split the difference to estimate 45 gallons.
Double check to see what engine ratings were being used when. A MK V using 9lb of boost doesn't have the same options as a MK V using 12 or 14lbs of boost.
A MK V doing escort duty has to be able to fight a Bf 109F-4 in the summer of 1941. The British may not have known this in April/May of 1941 but by Aug/Sept it would have been all too apparent.
The MK IX has a set of tests both with and without a 30imp gallon drop tank. The difference is not as great due to the fact than the MK IX is 700-800lbs heaver than the MK V to begin with so addition of 30 gallons of fuel + tank is a smaller percentage. Then you have the much greater power of the Merlin 61.
A Spitfire V without extra fuel at around 25,000-26,000ft is climbing about 2/3rds as well as a Spitfire IX was carrying a 30 gallon drop tank and using "normal" power.
At lower altitudes the MK V is a lot closer but you better pick what planes you want to escort and at what altitudes.
I have tried comparing climb performance for several reason, it cuts down on the drag difference which internal fuel will minimize compared to external fuel
and climb performance is not just getting to altitude. The climb performance is an indicator of the surplus power available at climbing speed to assist in maintaining performance while doing maneuvers. Two planes otherwise identical but with plane B having 10% more climbing power will be able to sustain speed in a turn better without descending for instance.
Shortround6
Major General
It is "possible" for a P-40 to fly over 1000 miles. And that is with just a 52 US gallon drop tank. But you aren't going to escort much of anything.
A P-40 with a 52 gallon tank could burn 30 gallons just taking off and getting to 10,000ft. It could take another 30 gallons to reach 25,000ft.
That 30 gallons was worth around 50 minutes or 150 miles at low latitude and very economical cruising speed.
15 minutes at military power on the P-40E was worth about 33 gallon depending on altitude.
A P-40E held about 123 IMP (148US gallons) gallons not including the drop tank.
The P-40E is not that far off an early Spitfire at lower altitude for speed compared to power for a guestimate on drag.
So which Spitfire, the
MK I
MK II
MK V
Or the MK IX (or MI VIII)
are we going to to turn into the early long range escort? Or several versions with increasing ranges?
Or try to compare the P-40F with the Merlin engine to what kind of escort it would make (can't climb well but it could over 360mph at 20,000ft using the Merlin XX so it shouldn't be that far off the Spit the V.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,356
- Jan 31, 2021
Not in the European theatre. In the Pacific, this quote from Development of the Long-Range Fighter Escort may be of interest:
I was curious about two matters
1. There was a mention on of an early PR variant that possessed a 20 imperial gallon tank underneath the pilot's seat: I can't seem to find anything specific on this one. I can find mention of a 29 gallon tank that was located behind the pilot (this was also fitted to the Spitfire Mk.V for ferrying), as well as one variant that had a 30 gallon tank in a blister under one wing (it counterbalanced the weight of a cam in the other wing). I'm curious if it existed at all, or was mixed-up with these developments (This keeps getting lost in the discussion, and honestly, it's like trying to nail jello to a wall).
2. I remember that, when the early Spitfire Mk.I's were switched from a fixed propeller, to a twin-pitch propeller, to a constant-speed propeller, that there was ballast added in the aft fuselage to balance this out. In the Mk.VII/VIII/IX and beyond, was this ever removed in non PR variants? I remember this was done on the P-51B/C's that were fitted with the 85 US gallon tank since it would have put the plane out of the C/G limits, and when the fuel was lowered to either 55-60 gallons, you'd end up with the C/G in roughly the same position you'd be in if the ballast was retained.
3. When did the Seafire's adopt the 89 US gallon P-40 tank? I know it was definitely in place by 1945 (and that might very well be the year it was adapted to the aircraft, for all I know).
1. There was a mention on of an early PR variant that possessed a 20 imperial gallon tank underneath the pilot's seat: I can't seem to find anything specific on this one. I can find mention of a 29 gallon tank that was located behind the pilot (this was also fitted to the Spitfire Mk.V for ferrying), as well as one variant that had a 30 gallon tank in a blister under one wing (it counterbalanced the weight of a cam in the other wing). I'm curious if it existed at all, or was mixed-up with these developments (This keeps getting lost in the discussion, and honestly, it's like trying to nail jello to a wall).
2. I remember that, when the early Spitfire Mk.I's were switched from a fixed propeller, to a twin-pitch propeller, to a constant-speed propeller, that there was ballast added in the aft fuselage to balance this out. In the Mk.VII/VIII/IX and beyond, was this ever removed in non PR variants? I remember this was done on the P-51B/C's that were fitted with the 85 US gallon tank since it would have put the plane out of the C/G limits, and when the fuel was lowered to either 55-60 gallons, you'd end up with the C/G in roughly the same position you'd be in if the ballast was retained.
3. When did the Seafire's adopt the 89 US gallon P-40 tank? I know it was definitely in place by 1945 (and that might very well be the year it was adapted to the aircraft, for all I know).
While I thought the lines making the Mk.VII & VIII were converted to the Mk.XIV/XVIII, what happened to the lines that produced the Mk.VII?
The XV's flight manual indicates 9-3/4 imperial gallons per wing not 19.5 per wing.
Which variant are we talking about? As for the wing-capacity, do you mean 25 imperial gallons in the wing-root, or 50 gallons in each wing? I remember hearing that it was possible to put room for 53 imperial gallons of fuel in the wing-leading edge inboard of and outboard of the 20mm cannon, though I'm not sure the RAF would have accepted such a configuration even if it was possible to work a fuel line around the back side of the Hispano cannon.
Shortround6
Major General
Something to remember about the photo recon aircraft.
They weren't supposed to dogfight/ do hi G maneuvers.
Which means they could operate at higher gross weights and also operate at Center of gravity locations that might be dangerous for a plane trying to pull 5-6 gees.
They weren't supposed to dogfight/ do hi G maneuvers.
Which means they could operate at higher gross weights and also operate at Center of gravity locations that might be dangerous for a plane trying to pull 5-6 gees.
I understand that detail: I'm mostly curious if the tank even existed to begin with (there's lots of information that ends up getting written down by mistake, and then it ends up becoming myth instead of fact).
As for the matter of center of gravity: That is a legitimate issue, but i'd be more concerned about the aft tanks than an underseat tank since the underseat tank is further forward (and smaller.
When the British Pacific Fleet formed in Nov 1944, Indefatigable was the only carrier with Seafires as its main fighter type. The others three were using Corsairs and Hellcats. Due to its short range and good performance at lower levels Indefatigable's Seafire squadrons were initially used to provide CAP for the Fleet. At that time only the 30 & 45 gal slipper tanks seem to have been available to them. However in June 1945 it became apparent that both Indefatigable and the newly arrived Implacable, also with Seafires, would need to play a far greater offensive role in upcoming operations over Japan itself. Why? Because Seafires would form a much greater proportion of the fighters on the carriers (Indomitable with Hellcats was in refit so it was going to be 2 with Corsairs and 2 with Seafires). Both ships then began looking for a solution to increase the range of their Seafire III.
Indefatigable, being in Australia at the time, after operation Iceberg, talked to the RAAF, and obtained a supply of 90 gal slipper tanks from them.
Implacable was in Manus in the Admiralty Is at the beginning of June 1945. Her Seafire squadrons experimented with the 30, 45 and 90 gal slipper tanks but they experienced problems with the connections on them. After talking to the Americans, it was discovered that there was a supply of 89 or 90 imp gal drop tanks (sources vary on the exact size) at a base in New Guinea that looked, from the drawings they were able to obtain, like they might prove suitable. A deal was done (currency changed hands - 2 "crates" of Johnny Walker whisky according to Commander Mike Crosley, the 880 squadron CO on Implacable) and a destroyer despatched to collect them. 100 "rusty" P-40 drop tanks were put aboard the carrier on her return to Manus on 17 June from Operation Inmate to Truk. The Seafire bomb racks were then modified by the ship's engineering staff to allow these tanks to be carried. That work was complete by the time she sailed for Japanese waters with the rest of the Fleet on 28 June 1945. And very successful they proved in July/Aug operations off Japan. But there was never an official clearance for the use of these tanks.
That is not to say that they
Supermarine was solely responsible for production of the Mk.VII, VIII, XIV and XVIII. A couple of points:-
1. There was a war on. While stating the obvious it affected production in Britain in ways that the US was not affected by, which necessitated a different approach to aircraft production in many cases. After its factory in Southampton was bombed in 1940 Supermarine used a system of dispersed production. There was then not a single Supermarine production line / factory. Sub-assemblies were built all over the south of England and then brought together at a number of airfield sites to create complete Spitfires to be test flown. You will find much information about the production of Spitfires by Supermarine here:-
Supermarine
The name “Supermarine” is inextricably linked to “The Spitfire”, the iconic aircraft that symbolised British defiance during World War II, but the name masks a more complex …
The shadow Castle Bromwich Aircraft Factory was an entirely different kettle of fish. It was set up for mass production, which took some time to achieve. But it only built a limited number of Marks. (Mk.II/V/IX/XVI/XXI)
2. There was not a clean movement from one mark to another at Supermarine as happened with most US types (e.g. P-51 to P-51A to P-51B/C to P-51D/K to P-51H). Supermarine produced various marks in parallel. So the various marks and their production periods were as follows:-
Mk.VII - 140 produced between August 1942 and May 1944. Final assembly for all was at Eastleigh
Mk.VIII - 1,654 produced Nov 1942 and Dec 1944. Final assembly was at a number of sites starting at Eastleigh and then expanding to places like Chattis Hill, Keevil etc
Mk.XIV - 957 produced Oct 1943 to Dec 1945. Final assembly started at Eastleigh then expanded to other sites like Chattis Hill, Keevil & Aldermaston
Mk.XVIII - 300 produced June 1945 to Jan 1946. Final assembly at Eastleigh, Keevil & Aldermaston
Where did I say 19.5gal in "each" tank? What I said was ".... 19.5gals in wing-root tanks...." Note the use of the plural. 2x9-3/4 = 19.5 total per my maths.
Last edited:
Hi
Here is the brief bio for JEJ from 'Aces High':
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="642px" width="910px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="1203px" width="920px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
It is interesting to note that he was only hit once (August 1944) by enemy fire in air to air combat (lucky or skilled or a bit of both) even though he was in combat with FW 190s during 1941/42 while flying Spitfire Vs. His biggest gap in flying was when he was on a 6 month ground tour. His book 'Wing Leader' (published 1956 originally) is a useful read for those interested.
Mike
Mike
Hi
The first 8th AF B 17 operation was escorted by Spitfires Part 3 of the 'Fighter Command War Diaries' by John Foreman, page 170, has the following:
Roger Freeman's 'The Mighty Eighth' page 12 has this on it:
The same author's 'The Mighty Eighth War Diary' pages 9-10 has this information:
A lot of the RAF's Spitfire IXs, then available, appear to have been used to protect the US bombers.
Mike
The first 8th AF B 17 operation was escorted by Spitfires Part 3 of the 'Fighter Command War Diaries' by John Foreman, page 170, has the following:
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="945px" width="674px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
Roger Freeman's 'The Mighty Eighth' page 12 has this on it:
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="1570px" width="1139px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
The same author's 'The Mighty Eighth War Diary' pages 9-10 has this information:
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="585px" width="1147px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="718px" width="1127px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
A lot of the RAF's Spitfire IXs, then available, appear to have been used to protect the US bombers.
Mike
No need to feel sorry.
The long-range fighters can do short-range escort, opposite is not true. RAF needs to achieve air superiority over Belgium and the closest 1/2 of France - ain't gonna happen on short notice and with short-ranged fighters.
I'd start with Hurricane I; Gloster makes the Hurricanes instead of Gladiators from early 1938 (no Gladiator) so there is a lot of Hurricanes to have.
Spitfire I gets a LR version, to be produced at Boulton Paul (no Defiant). Carry on with improved versions.
Shortround6
Major General
You are going to need a crap load more Hurricanes. And a major change in operations.
Trying to establish air Superiority over Belgium and France from bases in England isn't going to work very well for a number of reasons.
1. No radar.
2. Very poor communications./No command center/fighter direction centers.
Even with a fighters with double the endurance of a Hurricane I or Spitfire you won't get any more time on station, if as much, from planes flying from England than from the short range planes flying from France.
In some cases the British were doing recon work in the very early morning, information was going to headquarters and target selection was sometimes decided by staff in England which passed the orders back down to the strike squadrons and escort squadrons. This meant the strike aircraft and the fighters that were supposed to clear the way for them (actual escort was very rare) were setting out hours after the recon flights had landed and reported. In many cases the strike aircraft passes over targets of opportunity and flew several dozen miles further into German held territory to reach the designated strike points, except the German columns of troops/equipment were no longer there.
You can base planes in England but adding 1/2 hour to an hour flight time each way for tactical response isn't going to do much good.
It is about 190 miles (300km) from Folkstone/Dover to Sedan. About 150 miles from Ipswich to Antwerp.
You don't have the command structure to control the planes to intercept or counter the the German aircraft raids/missions.
Flying long range standing patrols just sucks up fuel and wears out engines and pilots.
Shortround6
Major General
Not sure that building more fabric wing Hurricanes get you very much.
Do you have an extra 500-700 Merlins in 1938/early 1939?
Gloster was able to get into building Hurricanes quickly when they stopped building Gladiators, in part because they had a large and well trained work force.
You can have Boulton Paul build Spitfires instead of Defiants but until you sort the engine and propeller situation (summer of 1940?) you aren't going to get a very good even mid range Spitfire.
drgondog
Major
No, the left wing tank is used and fuel system has a overflow/return flow to left main tank only. The C/L tank frequently used after forming up and starting climb.
The fuel is burnt off, the guns aren't.
They only went just inside French territory to the limit of their 85G tanks, Rouen is just over the channel.
I'm not arguing with you, the fact is they did it, it's that simple. Once the 60 series Merlin arrived the Spit had the engine power to get more fuel off the ground that was it and every other single engined fighters biggest problem pre 1942.
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="1px" width="1px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="16px" width="16px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)