Spitfire Combat Radius (range) evolution, limitations?

pbehn · May 6, 2022

PAT303 said:
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.

In the Battle of Britain 1940 Park used his fighters to put up a screen to cover possibilities as an attack developed. The RAF would always have more fuel in their fighters than the LW because the LW had to form up and cross the channel, the LW also had to go back whereas an RAF plane could force land in a field if out of fuel. There were many cases where the RAF were taken by surprise and had to scramble to altitude, in that case you cannot take the additional fuel out and all it does is increase your take off run and decrease your rate of climb.

pbehn · May 6, 2022

tomo pauk said:
What were the numbers' odds during the 'leaning into France', RAF Spitfires vs. LW Fighters?

If you are asking how many on each side of the Channel the actual numbers changed a lot especially after Barbarossa, but they didnt really matter. The area of France across the Channel from England didnt have a huge number of targets that would damage Germany if destroyed. After a few initial successes bouncing German interceptors the L/W got wise to what the RAF were doing, and only engaged on their terms. Most of the time if they bombed something the Germans told the French to repair it. If you wreck a port it is a French port that discounts it from any invasion plan like Dieppe etc.

Milosh · May 6, 2022

Shortround6 said:
Range or radius?

radius
To lazy to go looking for the post by PAT303.

Shortround6 · May 6, 2022

A lot of times operational radius was less than even the hasty numbers I gave which worked out to over 250 miles of radius.
I didn't figure in dogleg courses or flak detours or try to estimate prevailing winds out of the west. Or try to figure in forming up at the end of combat. It also assumes that the planes will be exactly on course and the proper distance from home at the end of 15 minutes of combat flying.

pbehn · May 6, 2022

Shortround6 said:
A lot of times operational radius was less than even the hasty numbers I gave which worked out to over 250 miles of radius.
I didn't figure in dogleg courses or flak detours or try to estimate prevailing winds out of the west. Or try to figure in forming up at the end of combat. It also assumes that the planes will be exactly on course and the proper distance from home at the end of 15 minutes of combat flying.

There are many ways to calculate things. I was surprised to read that the Mustang Mk I used on tactical recon didnt have a radius as as such, they did their missions in a different way and generally it boiled down to 90 miles in from the enemy coast. The actual plane could of course go much further but not the way those missions were conducted.

Zipper730 · Dec 5, 2022

don4331 said:
Per Spitfire: the History, Spitfire with

2 blade wooden propeller - 9.4 minutes from S.L to 20k'; 363 mph @ 12.5k', 31.9k' ceiling
3 blade metal,2 pitch propeller - 11.4 minutes from S.L to 20k'; 367 mph @ 12.5k', 34.4k' ceiling
3 blade metal, CS propeller - 10.7 minutes from S.L to 20k'; 364 mph @ 12.5k', 34.5k' ceiling

Wait, those numbers don't look right. There's a site called WWII Aircraft Performance which indicates for the Supermarine Spitfires full-throttle heights were a bit higher...

Reluctant Poster · Jul 7, 2024

wuzak said:
I did not know that the elevator was upgraded that late.

But it was not actually a required modification to make the IX, as had been claimed. It was more of a general improvement.

The fin is the same in the I, II, V, IX, VIII and XIV. It was the rudder that was changed. Obviously for directional stability.

Late model Spitfires (20-series) got the fin and rudder from the Spiteful, which was larger and had a different shape.

Of this I was aware.

Was pointing out that the difference between the IX and the XVI was that the former had a Rolls-Royce engine and the latter had a Packard engine. Some XVIs had the cut down rear fuselage, just as some XIVs had the cut down rear fuselage.

Here is a XVI without the bubble canopy

VH-XVI | Supermarine Spitfire Mk.XVI | Private | Thimo van Dijk | JetPhotos

VH-XVI. Supermarine Spitfire Mk.XVI. JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 6 million screened photos online!

www.jetphotos.com

Actually the XIV had a bigger fin and rudder than the VIII

Supermarine Spitfire – IPMS Salisbury

ipmssalisbury.co.uk

Zipper730 · Jul 8, 2024

Reluctant Poster said:
Actually the XIV had a bigger fin and rudder than the VIII

Supermarine Spitfire – IPMS Salisbury

ipmssalisbury.co.uk

Makes sense since it had a Griffon powering it

Spitfire Combat Radius (range) evolution, limitations?

More options

pbehn

Colonel

pbehn

Colonel

Milosh

Senior Master Sergeant

Shortround6

Major General

pbehn

Colonel

Zipper730

Chief Master Sergeant

Reluctant Poster

Tech Sergeant

VH-XVI | Supermarine Spitfire Mk.XVI | Private | Thimo van Dijk | JetPhotos

Supermarine Spitfire – IPMS Salisbury

Zipper730

Chief Master Sergeant

Supermarine Spitfire – IPMS Salisbury

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads