Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Having 20 more gallons of fuel in an under seat/rear tank allows Spitfires to be climbing before the Luftwaffe crosses the channel in 1940 instead of waiting until the last minute and climb up from underneath, in 1941 extra fuel allows MkV's to maintain higher speeds over France to negate to a degree being bounced so easily, in 1942-43 MkIX's could have been doing deep raids into France supporting the daylight bombers, more fuel allows more flexibility, it's that simple.What I find interesting is idea that because something was doable in 1942 then they should have been doing it in 1939 or 1940.
Having 20 more gallons of fuel in an under seat/rear tank allows Spitfires to be climbing before the Luftwaffe crosses the channel in 1940 instead of waiting until the last minute and climb up from underneath, in 1941 extra fuel allows MkV's to maintain higher speeds over France to negate to a degree being bounced so easily, in 1942-43 MkIX's could have been doing deep raids into France supporting the daylight bombers, more fuel allows more flexibility, it's that simple.
Adding enough internal fuel to compete with Mustang range would have rendered the Spitfire into a fat waddling fuel truck suitable for soon to be needed mid air refueler role.There we go, all the more reason to add fuel to the Spit wouldn't you say?.
I think you are trying to solve a problem the RAF did not have in 1940. The limiting factor for RAF fighter responses during the Battle of Britain was not range, but how good they thought they knew what the Luftwaffe was going do to over the next hour or two. Given the ranges involved the Luftwaffe bombers could stay in a holding pattern over France, fake setting course for England before returning to the holding pattern and still have the fuel to conduct a raid. The Luftwaffe could run feints, try saturation of an area, timing multiple raids to catch RAF aircraft on the ground, make course changes and so on, with a limited fighter defence it was always a judgement call about when to put fighters into the air, too early and they could be reacting to a decoy or be left behind by a course change. A main point of the system was to minimise flying hours and so strain on pilots and ground crew.Having 20 more gallons of fuel in an under seat/rear tank allows Spitfires to be climbing before the Luftwaffe crosses the channel in 1940 instead of waiting until the last minute and climb up from underneath, in 1941 extra fuel allows MkV's to maintain higher speeds over France to negate to a degree being bounced so easily, in 1942-43 MkIX's could have been doing deep raids into France supporting the daylight bombers, more fuel allows more flexibility, it's that simple.
Adding enough internal fuel to compete with Mustang range would have rendered the Spitfire into a fat waddling fuel truck suitable for soon to be needed mid air refueler role.
Why should so much discussion lead to making design decisions for the Spitfire that did not have much value in 1944-1945?Why should a long-range Spitfire compete with Mustang?
Why should so much discussion lead to making design decisions for the Spitfire that did not have much value in 1944-1945?
Having 20 more gallons of fuel in an under seat/rear tank allows Spitfires to be climbing before the Luftwaffe crosses the channel in 1940 instead of waiting until the last minute and climb up from underneath, in 1941 extra fuel allows MkV's to maintain higher speeds over France to negate to a degree being bounced so easily, in 1942-43 MkIX's could have been doing deep raids into France supporting the daylight bombers, more fuel allows more flexibility, it's that simple.
Of course it would have. The same can be said for Bf 109 and Fw 190 in 1940. Ditto for instant access and design integration into the Mustang with Rolls engine hierarchy. But having a plausible, sellable solution approach to make it happen was impossible, technically and politically.Because a long-range Spitfire would've been an asset from 1940-43, as well as in 1944-45. Even in 1939, if the RAF is allowed to bomb Germany.
Your totally missing my point, the radar operators tracked incoming raids and Hurricane and Spitfires were launched only after they were certain what the target was, the reason being that they lacked endurance, an extra 20G of fuel gives them the freedom to launch earlier to get above the bombers and more importantly the fighters, it even allows the radar operators to direct them to the optimum position for an attack.Depending on your cruise speed at over 20,000ft the extra 20 gallons may only give you around 30 minutes.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to make the Spitfire into a Mustang, I'm just trying to get more than 85G of fuel into it.Adding enough internal fuel to compete with Mustang range would have rendered the Spitfire into a fat waddling fuel truck suitable for soon to be needed mid air refueler role
No idea, apparently if a fighter can't carry enough fuel to fly to Berlin and back it's not worth perusing.Why should a long-range Spitfire compete with Mustang?
I think you should read and understand what I am saying, more fuel allows more flexibility, flying feints and bogus raids is part of warfare, flexibility gives you options to deal with it instead of guessing your enemy's intensions.I think you are trying to solve a problem the RAF did not have in 1940
Why does more fuel mean less armament?, the fuel is going in behind the seat, not in the wings.And nobody wanted the extra weight at the expense of less armament.
What front line fighter didn't have it's fuel capacity increased throughout the war?.The Spitfire was already a pretty darned good fighter, and adding fuel might or might not make it better in their eyes
Spitfires had 85G because they started with two bladed props, then two speed props with less than 1000hp, by 1939 they had constant speed props, 100 octane fuel and 1200hp, the reason for weight saving was no longer there as it's performance increased, and kept on improving.Of course it would have. The same can be said for Bf 109 and Fw 190 in 1940. Ditto for instant access and design integration into the Mustang with Rolls engine hierarchy. But having a plausible, sellable solution approach to make it happen was impossible, technically and politically.
Why didn't we realize this before ????????????Why does more fuel mean less armament?, the fuel is going in behind the seat, not in the wings.
Hmmmm,What front line fighter didn't have it's fuel capacity increased throughout the war?.
The British had tested the better propellers 1939 (other countries had bee using them for 3 years or so) but it wasn't until 1940 that they were in production unless you have dates?Spitfires had 85G because they started with two bladed props, then two speed props with less than 1000hp, by 1939 they had constant speed props, 100 octane fuel and 1200hp, the reason for weight saving was no longer there as it's performance increased, and kept on improving.
Of course it would have. The same can be said for Bf 109 and Fw 190 in 1940. Ditto for instant access and design integration into the Mustang with Rolls engine hierarchy. But having a plausible, sellable solution approach to make it happen was impossible, technically and politically.