Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I understand the Spitfire was more limited in range than some other fighters. I'm curious, year by year, what was the combat radius that could be achieved (with a combat-suitable, drop tank (not a fixed ferry tank)). How much did this harm it's usefulness once past the BOB, when the fighting turned towards offensive war, rather than as a point defense fighter? And how much did the Griffin engine drop the range (I'm assuming the larger, more powerful engine returned poorer fuel efficiency). Wikipedia shows a 470 mile combat radius, but doesn't tell what variant or aux tanks it would be equipped with. I haven't found much else definitive. Specifically, fighter variants, not recon versions.
Fuel Consumption:- |
Spitfire I | Me 109 E |
Capacity | 85 gallons | 88 gallons | |
All-out level | 89 gal/hr at 17,000' | 5 minute Kurzleistung | 69 gal/hr at 14,763' |
Climbing | 81 gal/hr at 12,000' | 30 minute erhöhte Dauerleistung | 66 gal/hr at 16,404' |
Cruising Rich | 68 gal/hr at 14,500' | Dauerleistung (Continuous) | 59 gal/hr at 16,076' |
Cruising Weak | 49 gal/hr at 18,500' | ||
Most economical cruising | 25 gal/hr at 14,000' | Sparsamer Dauerflug (Most economical) | 55 gal/hr |
I wonder what had a bigger effect, the extra 1000lbs or a lack of dive brakes in the increased dive speed? I wonder if the Brits tried adding drag with the gear down and the old tried and true pilot sticking his cupped (more efficient than a flat hand because you are literally catching air in the cup of the hand) hand out the canopy?The biggest problem dive bombing with the Spit was speed, during training they practiced with smoke bombs but when they started operations over Normandy with real 500 pounders they found they would hit 400+ mph within seconds giving the pilots very little time to adjust, also the bombs fuses wouldn't work effectively, they were designed to arm after being dropped horizontally from a bomber not vertically in a dive.
Did anyone ask in 1943?If that is so, I wonder why they mostly didn't?
Surly the people flying them might have been interested. Yes, they participated in a few "Rhubarbs," but most of the strafing was done by long-range escorts returning at low altitude from escort duty when the Luftwaffe was mostly not an issue.
London to Berlin is about 580 miles, East Anglia to Berlin is about 510 miles, warm up taxi take off and climb to 25,000ft on the top rear 33G tank, that fixes the handling problem, cruise on the DT as far as you can go which is most of Germany leaving you 42G in the rear, 96G in the main and 26G in the leading edge tanks, if the leading edge tanks are extended inwards to rib 1 like the PR versions you have 50G. Read my post #34, the Spit could have roamed all over Germany from 1943 onwards.
With 42G in the rear tank, 96G in the main tank and 26G in the leading edge tanks, should get him home shouldn't it?He is 400 miles away
Extend the tank inwards to rib one or two using the available space, that would give you 25-6G per side, 50-2G total.Is 50 UKG the total you expect for wing tanks extended inward? Double (Ish) what was in the VIII.XIV wings?
The MkXIV could take on all the current models of the 109 and 190 with the 90G slipper fitted giving even more range.the wing fuel bags for the VIII/XIV was 13,5 UKG (IIRC).
But, just eyeballing it quickly, at cruise the Merlin burns only about 55 gph, so a 100-gallon (Imperial gallons) drop tank is really 120 U.S. gallons and the Spitfire will go very slightly more than another 2 hours.
Extend the tank inwards to rib one or two using the available space, that would give you 25-6G per side, 50-2G total.
I think they were there because they were fitted without really being tested, they had severe effects on stability.Ya'll have to excuse my ignorance here but, I'm using G Geoffrey Sinclair post, but have seen reference elsewhere re:
"while the 66 gallon tanks for "rear view" fuselages "they must not be used in any circumstances"."
OK, if the Spit had fuselage tanks that were never supposed to be used, wth were they there for? Looks?
I'll assume it's a weight/balance issue then? Or did they just say screw it, we got some room back here let's just slide some unusable fuel tanks in here for giggles?
If that is so, I wonder why they mostly didn't?