Spitfire Combat Radius (range) evolution, limitations?

[pbehn]

D-Day was 18 months after the German disasters at Stalingrad and in North Africa. Let's not make an elephant out of a mouse, like terror the 'tip and run' attacks were sometimes described.
Hawker Hurricane was not a 'top class short range interceptor', yet it was happily made in more than 2700 copies in 1943, and almost 690 pcs in 1944.
D-Day was made possible via the aerial offensive WAllies mounted through 1943 and 1st half of 1944 (plus the earlier efforts, often futile), it would not have been possible if the WAllies were twiddling their fingers above the UK airspace.



The guys on the ground were there because Luftwaffe was trashed by the time the guys were actually there. Air cover was never in question, with RAF and USAAF displaying the many:1 superiority in numbers vs. LW, while also having the qualitative edge.
WAllies not having an all-LR force in the ETO between June of 1943 and July of 1944 at was the thing that supplied some oxygen to the Luftwaffe in 1944, lest they suffocate.

I wasnt, that is why I posted "But even after that, the possibility ". We now know what Germany had and what it could do or have done, that was not the case for people responsible for UK air defence in WW2. They had to assume that there could be another generation of planes, to improve on the Fw190, maybe a jet, in fact what happened was the V1 and V2 and Me 262s and Arado 234s. The Hurricane was not considered a top class interceptor after 1940, it was produced but not for the air defence of UK.

 

[PAT303]

No.

It's a photographic airplane and had best not get tangled up with ANY fighter with that much fuel as it would be meat on the table.

Greg, fighter variants of the Spitfire had all manor of aux and drop tanks fitted, you seem to think only PR Spits did, I'll post this photo again

This is NOT a PR Spitfire, ALL production MkXVI spits had this tankage arrangement, as has already been posted the MkXVI is just a Packard engined MkIX, which is nothing more than a modified re-engined MkV, which are nothing more than modified re-engined 1940 era MkII's, Spits could have had aux tanks as soon as the engine power allowed the increase in weight.

 

[pbehn]

The guys on the ground were there because Luftwaffe was trashed by the time the guys were actually there. Air cover was never in question, with RAF and USAAF displaying the many:1 superiority in numbers vs. LW, while also having the qualitative edge.
WAllies not having an all-LR force in the ETO between June of 1943 and July of 1944 at was the thing that supplied some oxygen to the Luftwaffe in 1944, lest they suffocate.

That is what happened, it wasnt certain that that would happen in 1942 to 43 when decisions had to be made. If long range and single engined fighters escorting bombers was so important why didnt the USA take it seriously until mid 1943?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Why would everyone want something like a Bearcat, bar as a carrier-vessel bird?

I'd say the Bearcat was pretty close to a sweet spot in terms of range, performance, armament, agility, and so on. A good balance of traits.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

That is what happened, it wasnt certain that that would happen in 1942 to 43 when decisions had to be made. If long range and single engined fighters escorting bombers was so important why didnt the USA take it seriously until mid 1943?

Well the US had longer ranged fighters than a Spitfire, with the exception maybe of the P-39 and the F2A, the main US Pursuit types like P-40 and F4F, had ~700 - 800 mile range (equivalent of a Spitfire Mk VIII or a bit better). They needed longer still particularly for China and the Pacific, and they kept pushing the boundaries, but the P-51 wasn't the only long-ranged US fighter. The (twin engined) P-38 eventually had a range of 1,000-1,300 miles, the P-47, F6F and F4U each managed ~800 -1,000 miles or (depending on various conditions and configurations).

Arguably the main reason the US were in fact pushing for longer ranged aircraft was the necessity or possibility to have to fight over the Pacific. But the extra range was helpful in many Theaters.

Seeing as Spitfires were being used in North Africa from mid-1942 (actually 145 squadron was there in February) and in the South Pacific by early 1943, they certainly could have used better range. By the time of second El Alamein, the DAF was limited in the use of their Spitfire Mk Vs which flew sorties only half of the days in October. Kittyhawks were having to escort the medium bombers. Toward the end of the battle, P-38s became available in the Theater.

I've already mentioned the range / endurance related issues over Darwin though I could get into more detail.

Seeing as some of the PR Spitfires from the Mk X and XI actually had quite good range, it seems like there should have been some way to make a long range fighter version, maybe a two gun variant would have been possible?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

They could, and they did. In late 1944, that is, when there was such a thing like rear-fuselage tankage for Spitfire IX for example, by what time Allies were firmly in France.
There was no 'long range escort fighter' doctrine at the RAF, just like at other air forces/services (bar Luftwaffe and what Japanese had). Thus no long range escort fighters.

Initially I'd agree with you, but by the time the British Army was engaged in North Africa and the ANZAC forces were engaged with the IJA in the Pacific, the need for a fighter that could fly to Axis bases in Tunisia say, or across the Owen Stanley range in New Guinea, was certainly noted. They had time to come up with something. Some Spitfires were in Theater in the Pacific but had little effect on the war due to range.

Spitfire was one of the biggest 1-engined fighters when introduced. Similar size like the P-40 or P-51. Thus the ability to carry a lot of firepower, fuel and to receive much bigger and more powerful engines as war progressed, without paying the penalty in handling after the upgrades.
Bf 109 was indeed small.

Spitfire was big for 1936, but by say, 1941 it's fairly small. The fuselage is comparable to the Bf-109 IMO, though it has larger wings. It's a slender, slim aircraft. It certainly looks small next to say a P-38, an F4U, or a BF 110. Not that small was bad.

 

[tomo pauk]

I wasnt, that is why I posted "But even after that, the possibility ". We now know what Germany had and what it could do or have done, that was not the case for people responsible for UK air defence in WW2. They had to assume that there could be another generation of planes, to improve on the Fw190, maybe a jet, in fact what happened was the V1 and V2 and Me 262s and Arado 234s. The Hurricane was not considered a top class interceptor after 1940, it was produced but not for the air defence of UK.

WAllies have historically taken care for the possibility of the new-gen German fighters, by making Tempest, Spitfire XIV, Merlin Mustang and P-47.

That is what happened, it wasnt certain that that would happen in 1942 to 43 when decisions had to be made. If long range and single engined fighters escorting bombers was so important why didnt the USA take it seriously until mid 1943?

LR SE fighters were important. That USAAF took a long time to make them shows that the monopoly on institutional inertia does not exist.

I'd say the Bearcat was pretty close to a sweet spot in terms of range, performance, armament, agility, and so on. A good balance of traits.

Bearcat was a short-range fighter, armed with .50 HMGs when it entered the service. That is despite being a post-war machine.
Performance was great for 1943, but there was a lot of - especially Allied - fighters that were faster, particularly above 25000 ft.

 

[tomo pauk]

Initially I'd agree with you, but by the time the British Army was engaged in North Africa and the ANZAC forces were engaged with the IJA in the Pacific, the need for a fighter that could fly to Axis bases in Tunisia say, or across the Owen Stanley range in New Guinea, was certainly noted. They had time to come up with something. Some Spitfires were in Theater in the Pacific but had little effect on the war due to range.

Same thing of 'institutional inertia' - everyone has it, some institutions being with smaller, other with greater inertia. The smaller inertia, the faster the changes to answer the operational needs.

Spitfire was big for 1936, but by say, 1941 it's fairly small. The fuselage is comparable to the Bf-109 IMO, though it has larger wings. It's a slender, slim aircraft. It certainly looks small next to say a P-38, an F4U, or a BF 110. Not that small was bad.

Care to post some measurements wrt. why is Spifire a small fighter?
Should not we compare the like with the like, ie. 1-engined V12-powered fighters vs. 1-engined V12 powered fighters?

Bf 109 was able to carry 110-115 imp gals worth of fuel+MW50 in the fuselage by the end of the war, Spitfire was able to carry 160+ imp gals of fuel. Spitfires were operationally using 4 big 20mm cannons, all tucked in the wing, not something Bf 109 was capable for due to wing being small.

 

[EwenS]

Let's pause for a moment and look at the whole history of bomber offensive v defensive fighters. Is the issue really one of fighters being short of range OR the period from 1943 to c1950 being unique in that the technology existed to allow the bomber to be escorted all the way to its target from bases near its home.

No escorts for Gothas in WW1. Interwar, the bomber will always get through. 1939/40 errrr, no! So RAF and Luftwaffe resort to night bombing. USAAF, no we can still bomb in daylight from high altitude, all we need is enough 0.5" guns. 1943 errrrrr, no! But wait if we stick enough fuel in the fighter designs we already have, we can make long range escort of the bomber fleet work!

But by 1945 even that philosophy is changing. Over Japan, LeMay resorts to night bombing from lower altitudes, despite the coming availability of fighter escort from Iwo Jima. Note, a base not near the bomber base but half way to the target.

Post WW2 ranges that the bomber has to operate over increase further and we have ever faster jet bombers. By 1950 the project to design a jet fighter escort via the XF-88/XF-90/XF-93 is canned as impractical (problem being to provide enough fuel for thirsty jets to escort bombers from the USA to their targets in USSR). Briefly resurrected in the Korean War for escort to slower B-29/B-50/B-36 bombers it finally dies around 1954.

And so the Mosquito concept of the fast, (almost) unarmed bomber relying on fancy electronics to defeat the defences wins out!

There is just that sweet spot for the escort fighter around 1943-45 where the range of the fighter can be extended with drop tanks just far enough to make bomber escort from base to target and back a viable concept.

I'll get my hat and coat and head for the door!!

 

[EwenS]

Seeing as Spitfires were being used in North Africa from mid-1942 (actually 145 squadron was there in February) and in the South Pacific by early 1943, they certainly could have used better range. By the time of second El Alamein, the DAF was limited in the use of their Spitfire Mk Vs which flew sorties only half of the days in October. Kittyhawks were having to escort the medium bombers. Toward the end of the battle, P-38s became available in the Theater.

I've already mentioned the range / endurance related issues over Darwin though I could get into more detail.

While 145, 92 and 601 squadrons left Britain on 10-12 Feb 1942, they did not arrive in the Middle East until mid-April (145 & 92) and June (601) as they had to sail via the Cape. There was then a shortage of Spitfires in that area so 145 didn't head up the desert until late May with 601 following in June. 92 had to wait until Aug to receive its aircraft.

The first Spitfires outwith Britain began to be shipped to Malta in March 1942 to equip squadrons already on the island and then to send additional units like 601 & 603 (601 later flying to Egypt to join its ground crews).

On 28 May 1942 Churchill agreed to supply a Spitfire wing to protect Darwin. The squadrons selected were 54, 452(Australian) and 457(Australian). These sailed for Australia in late June 1942 but 42 of the 48 aircraft sent with them were diverted to Takoradi to be flown across Africa to the Middle East to allow 92 to become operational there. So it was late Oct before the first major shipment of replacement aircraft reached Australia. No 1 Fighter Wing then became operational in Darwin from Jan 1943.

Spitfires didn't arrive in India /Burma until Nov 1943.

 

[wuzak]

USAAF, no we can still bomb in daylight from high altitude, all we need is enough 0.5" guns. 1943 errrrrr, no! But wait if we stick enough fuel in the fighter designs we already have, we can make long range escort of the bomber fleet work!

They were right about having enough 0.50" HMGs, but not right about which aircraft the guns were in.

 

[drgondog]

I'd say the Bearcat was pretty close to a sweet spot in terms of range, performance, armament, agility, and so on. A good balance of traits.

Not a candidate for high altitude, long range bomber escort.. Only 150gal internal fuel. Compare vs P-47D-1 through D-22 w/305gal internal fuel and max combat radius of ~400mi.

 

[GregP]

Greg, fighter variants of the Spitfire had all manor of aux and drop tanks fitted, you seem to think only PR Spits did, I'll post this photo again View attachment 661839This is NOT a PR Spitfire, ALL production MkXVI spits had this tankage arrangement, as has already been posted the MkXVI is just a Packard engined MkIX, which is nothing more than a modified re-engined MkV, which are nothing more than modified re-engined 1940 era MkII's, Spits could have had aux tanks as soon as the engine power allowed the increase in weight.

And you seem to think they all used this entire fuel capacity when they didn't except by special approval, and it wasn't often given. Spitfires were never long-range airplanes. They got longer-legged than early version, but they weren't long-range, by any means. You may WANT them to be long-range, but they were, at best, medium-range fighters. And, if you're going to fly a top-tier air-superiority fighter, that's not a bad type of airplane to be flying. There is NOTHING wrong with the Spitfire flying it's intended missions. It did that quite well, among the best in the world, in fact.

You can speculate all you want, but you can't turn the Spitfire into something it wasn't. None of them were going to be in the air much more than 3 - 4 hours at economy cruise without any combat or reserve, and most were on the ground by the time 2.5 hours or less had gone by. If they flew patrol, then they could stay up a longer using drop tanks, but they were careful not to venture out beyond the "get home on internal fuel" range, at least until alternate friendly airfields were a possibility beyond D-Day. Once they had basing in continental Europe, then they could start to come into their own as medium-range fighters by virtue of having friendly place to land and refuel within range, and they did.

Of course, once these fields were in Allied use, the P-51s didn't have to take off with full fuselage tanks either and everyone had an easier time planning missions, not just Spitfire planners.

 

[GregP]

Same thing of 'institutional inertia' - everyone has it, some institutions being with smaller, other with greater inertia. The smaller inertia, the faster the changes to answer the operational needs.



Care to post some measurements wrt. why is Spifire a small fighter?
Should not we compare the like with the like, ie. 1-engined V12-powered fighters vs. 1-engined V12 powered fighters?

Bf 109 was able to carry 110-115 imp gals worth of fuel+MW50 in the fuselage by the end of the war, Spitfire was able to carry 160+ imp gals of fuel. Spitfires were operationally using 4 big 20mm cannons, all tucked in the wing, not something Bf 109 was capable for due to wing being small.

The Ha-1112 had two 20 mm cannons in the wings firing through a hole in the wing spar. It was basically a Bf 109G-2 with a Merlin in front, so the Bf 109 was capable of having the same mod done during WWII instead of hanging them from gondolas under the wing. Makes one wonder.

In the real world of production BF 109s, though, you are spot on.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Ha-1112 had two 20 mm cannons in the wings firing through a hole in the wing spar. It was basically a Bf 109G-2 with a Merlin in front, so the Bf 109 was capable of having the same mod done during WWII instead of hanging them from gondolas under the wing. Makes one wonder.

Ha 1112 have indeed had two (big) 20mm cannons in the wing; post-war. Makes it half as good as the Spitfire VC with 4 (big) 20mm cannons in the wing in early 1942.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

LR SE fighters were important. That USAAF took a long time to make them shows that the monopoly on institutional inertia does not exist.

Knowing how to make one - that can still perform well enough to compete at the highest levels, it's a pretty significant design challenge. I think they kind of got lucky with the high efficiency / low drag design of the Mustang.

Bearcat was a short-range fighter, armed with .50 HMGs when it entered the service. That is despite being a post-war machine.
Performance was great for 1943, but there was a lot of - especially Allied - fighters that were faster, particularly above 25000 ft.

Maybe I'm not reading this chart right, or maybe I've got a poor grasp of what a baseline is for range but Wikipedia says 1,100 miles, and this 1949 document seems to indicate a range in the ballpark of 1500 nautical miles (1726 miles) in 'escort configuration' (3 x external fuel tanks). If I am reading that right, this looks pretty impressive to me. The speed as well, 388 knots at 28,000 ft is 448 mph right?

As for the .50 cals, they could and did put 20mm Hispanos in it. The .50 cals are just another example of 'institutional inertia' you are speaking of specific to the Americans.

Maybe that's not so impressive for 1945, compared to a jet or a P-47M, but my point was exactly that, - this is kind of what they wanted a bit earlier but didn't put it all together in time.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Not a candidate for high altitude, long range bomber escort.. Only 150gal internal fuel. Compare vs P-47D-1 through D-22 w/305gal internal fuel and max combat radius of ~400mi.

Apparently they could carry a lot of external fuel, and I suspect based on the size, bearcat could get a little further on a gallon of fuel than a P-47 though I'm ready to be proven wrong...

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Not a candidate for high altitude, long range bomber escort.. Only 150gal internal fuel. Compare vs P-47D-1 through D-22 w/305gal internal fuel and max combat radius of ~400mi.

Anyway, when I talk about longer ranged fighters or bomber escort, I guess I am alone in thinking of things other than strategic bombing. There was more to air-war in ww2 than strategic bombing.

WW2 also took place on a tactical level! It's debatable how effective the strategic bombing even was, but it certainly wasn't the only thing. Battles like El Alamein, Stalingrad, Kursk, Midway, Malta, Milne Bay, Guadalcanal, Philippine Sea etc. etc. were also quite important to overall victory, IMO. And tactical bombers need fighter protection too!

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Care to post some measurements wrt. why is Spifire a small fighter?
Should not we compare the like with the like, ie. 1-engined V12-powered fighters vs. 1-engined V12 powered fighters?

Bf 109 was able to carry 110-115 imp gals worth of fuel+MW50 in the fuselage by the end of the war, Spitfire was able to carry 160+ imp gals of fuel. Spitfires were operationally using 4 big 20mm cannons, all tucked in the wing, not something Bf 109 was capable for due to wing being small.

I have models right behind me with every pretty much mid-war WW2 fighter represented in the same scale. Spitfire looks smaller and slimmer than most of them, (for example Hurricane, Typhoon, Wildcat, Hellcat, P-40, P-51, Fulmar, P-47, Corsair, Bf 110) though I'll grant you many of the Japanese, Italian and Russian fighters are as small or smaller. And the BF 109 is also quite small of course.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

But by 1945 even that philosophy is changing. Over Japan, LeMay resorts to night bombing from lower altitudes, despite the coming availability of fighter escort from Iwo Jima. Note, a base not near the bomber base but half way to the target.

I think that is reflective of a different attitude toward the Japanese on the part of the Americans than toward Continental Europe.

Post WW2 ranges that the bomber has to operate over increase further and we have ever faster jet bombers. By 1950 the project to design a jet fighter escort via the XF-88/XF-90/XF-93 is canned as impractical (problem being to provide enough fuel for thirsty jets to escort bombers from the USA to their targets in USSR). Briefly resurrected in the Korean War for escort to slower B-29/B-50/B-36 bombers it finally dies around 1954.

And so the Mosquito concept of the fast, (almost) unarmed bomber relying on fancy electronics to defeat the defences wins out!

There is just that sweet spot for the escort fighter around 1943-45 where the range of the fighter can be extended with drop tanks just far enough to make bomber escort from base to target and back a viable concept.

I think maybe missiles kind of make escort fighters pointless by some point in the 60s. At least until you have fighter aircraft which can effectively shoot down air to air and surface to air missiles. But with the advent of air to air refueling fighters can go farther than ever, and when it comes to tactical bombing, fighters are in fact what are used most often, with the fast / unarmed / fancy electronics fighter bomber type ala Mosquito playing a smaller role (B-1B for example or maybe F-111, Panavia Tornado etc.) and the heavy / strategic bomber basically relegated to the slowest branch of the nuclear deterrence "triad".

I'll get my hat and coat and head for the door!!

Nah you made good points bruv! lol