Spitfire V ME109. I have found these links on the net.

[Juha]

I'm sorry but i never claimed that the Bf could do everything.Obviously it couldn't escort 4-engine bombers or be a good ground attack aircraft (even though some units used it in that role).The Bf and FW had the necessary capability for the missions that the LW intended them to do.Germany was in the middle of Europe not an island like UK or a continent like the US.IF there was a German strategic bombing force then obviously they would need something close to the P-51.Sadly(for them) they never built one.Like you said the Bf-110 and occasionally the Ju-88 were used in areas were range was needed but these were exceptions.The idea that the P-51 was some sort of gift from heaven and every AF would need it is ridiculous. You can't take weapon systems from one country where they performed well and ''transplant '' them elsewhere. By the same logic the Tiger would not be a good tank for US army...

Hello Ctrian
OK, I combined Your message #41 and Tante Ju's message #73 in my mind.
As I wrote extra tankage would have helped even the defence of Reich, it would allowed to fly certain distance faster, ie allowed interception faster or longer distance at given speed. I agree that P-51/Mustang was very important to USAAF and RAF and LW had no immerse need for such a long range fighter but IMHO LW would have had use of a fighter which would have a range to escort its medium bombers as far as those could carry reasonable loads.

On Bf 109, knowing Finnish experience with it I haven't ever believed the worst claims in English literature on the problems with 109G. But I don't see it a super fighter either. IMHO German fighter performance ran into plateau between mid 42 to mid 44, 109G up to G-6/AS meant that the performance stayed in same level or slightly lower than that of the superb 109F-4 while there were airframe and equipment improvements which were necessary but increased weight. Same to 190A series. The problem was that enemy fighters got faster and better during that period so relatively quality wise Germany lost ground during that time. That was fatal because quantity wise LW could not compete with its enemies.

Juha

 

[Juha]

Fuel consumption of Bf 109G-2 (DB605A-1) according to Finnish tests at
T/O and Emergency power 1475hp/2800rpm, not allowed in Finnish Bf 109Gs but in 2 a/c a short time for test purposes and allowed in LW 109Gs from Oct 43 onwards, also very early on and in July-Aug 43, 465 l/h,
Climb and Combat power, 1310hp/2600rpm, max allowed in Finland, max allowed use 30min, 388 l/h
Max continuous 1075 hp/2300rpm 312 l/h
Economic continuous 890 hp/2100rpm at 5,7km, 246 l/h

Juha

 

[Shortround6]

The short range of the "E" was solved in two ways. One was the drop tank, Just a few weeks or months late late to make a big difference. Two was the change to the "F" series fighter, the cleaned up nose, modified radiators, elimination of tailplane struts and other details offered a reduction in drag which not only increased both speed and climb but range as well, fast speed at same power level=more range.
The range issue starts creeping back in with the "G"s. More weight doesn't mean that much more drag at a given speed but it does mean more fuel burn in a climb to given altitude. As lumps and bumps start to appear on the aircraft drag starts to increase. While the "G" may be able to cruise at very similar power settings to an "F" using the extra power of the 605 engine over the 601 will increase full consumption for the minutes the extra power is used. Any power boosting system (MW-50/GM1) will also significantly increase fuel consumption for the few minutes it is used. The more powerful 605 engines used in the later "G"s used fuel at an even higher rate in combat. With an essentially "fixed" fuel supply something has to give and it's range. The difference between the normal take-off rating (1475Hp?) of the 605AM and it's emergency rating of 1800-2000hp for 5 minutes is the same amount of fuel as it needs for 9-10 minutes of economical cruising flight.

Much the same thing can be said about the Spitfire. The advantage the Spitfire "design" had was that there was more space for fuel (not taken advantage of anywhere near what it could have been) and the bigger wing/lower wing loading allowed for bigger increases in take-off weight before handling deteriorated too badly. Please note that this may have been a totally unanticipated benefit at the time of the Spitfires design, I mean that increases in take of weight of 30-43% were probably not considered when selecting the wing size. The Spitfire was still a higher drag air frame than the Mustang and would never equal it's range on the same amount of fuel even if you could get it in. The Spitfire may also have a weight issue with large quantities of fuel. An extra 30-50 gallons might not present too many problems but an extra 100 -180 gallons might require a restressing of the air frame.

On another note, I am talking abut the potential of the airframes, not the aircraft as used as weapons systems in WW II. The fact that the US struggled mightily for 5 years and spends large sums of money on multiple projects and in the end managed to only increase the rate of fire of the Browning .50 cal by 50% and copy a Russian API bullet can only be considered a national embarrassment that should in no way reflect on the aircraft designers.

 

[Tante Ju]

The short range of the "E" was solved in two ways. One was the drop tank, Just a few weeks or months late late to make a big difference. Two was the change to the "F" series fighter, the cleaned up nose, modified radiators, elimination of tailplane struts and other details offered a reduction in drag which not only increased both speed and climb but range as well, fast speed at same power level=more range.

You are right. There was also issue of engine better fuel consumption. 601E better than 601. Less consumption. This plus less drag = 20% more range for 109F. Equal conditions. Droptank added bonus.

The range issue starts creeping back in with the "G"s. More weight doesn't mean that much more drag at a given speed but it does mean more fuel burn in a climb to given altitude. As lumps and bumps start to appear on the aircraft drag starts to increase. While the "G" may be able to cruise at very similar power settings to an "F" using the extra power of the 605 engine over the 601 will increase full consumption for the minutes the extra power is used. Any power boosting system (MW-50/GM1) will also significantly increase fuel consumption for the few minutes it is used. The more powerful 605 engines used in the later "G"s used fuel at an even higher rate in combat. With an essentially "fixed" fuel supply something has to give and it's range. The difference between the normal take-off rating (1475Hp?) of the 605AM and it's emergency rating of 1800-2000hp for 5 minutes is the same amount of fuel as it needs for 9-10 minutes of economical cruising flight.

Theory is correct, but you much overstate. In practice, 109G range same as 109F. Reason again is 605A is better fuel factor than 601E. Keep reasoning that compression ratio of engines increased.

For example. 605A max. power until almost 1944 - 1310 HP. Fuel consupation - 400 liter. For 601E - 1350 HP, for 445 liter. This is 1942-43. 1944. 605A, 1475 HP - 480 liter. With 605AM, 1800 HP, 560 liter.

This is paper form. Thanks to Juha, we know Finn measured in practice better consumption. This is probably to safety tolerance by manufacturer - statng higher consumption in manual, just in case.

Example needs to as five minutes you say, maximum power allowed, ie. combat. 601E vs..
605A 1942/43 -40 liter consumption per hour for 5/60: + 3,3 liter in tank. So actually G model is better using fuel in combat..
605A 1943/44 +35 liter consumption per hour for 5/60: - 2,9 liter in tank.
605AM 1944 +115 liter consumption per hour for 5/60: - 9,6 liter in tank.

See worst case, 605AM engine. How less range can be due to WEP use? We assume worst condtion for 109G. Meaning, how less range will be, how much less 9,6 liter fuel makes difference in range if best range condition would be used? I will assume same cruising speed/consumption as 601E/109F: 130 liter/410 km/h Note 605A is consuming fuel better probably. 9,6 liter is 7,4% of 130 liter. This is how less time can be spent at best cruise. Ie. 7,4% less time - 4,5 mins less - at 410 km/h cruise allowed - 30 km covered.

Meaning. Difference between 109F range and 109G-14 range (605AM) due to "The more powerful 605 engines used in the later "G"s used fuel at an even higher rate in combat. " - only 30 km..!!

Very insignificant IMHO. Difference in serial manufacturing will mean more.. this is within scatter error. On other hand, its quite possible that overall better consumption of 605A in cruise more than makes up for this. Germans considered 109G longer ranged than 109F. Power boosting system on overall fuel consumption, range - insignificant. You overstate this in analysis.

Also, increase tankage on 109 is possible. It was done. 109B to 109C. 109C to 109E. 109G to 109K. Very easy. I am thinking you are wrong in conclusion it was done in Spitfire because it was more room, in 109 no room. On Spitfire it is more difficult - tanks are sandwhiched between cocpit and engine, not possible to increase their size, only if another tank is placed elsewhere. In 109, tank is in rear fuselage, there is space until tail. It is fact that it was increased. Also in general you may overstate difficulty. For example, Jakovlev 9 series. Range was really short in base variant. But when people wanted - easy to increase. 9D and 9DD variants - very long range. Extra fuel was added. It is no black magic.
Here's error - Spitfire range went down with later variant, always. So need to increase tankage to keep range. 109 - range always went up. Range went up from 109E to 109F. Same tankage. Range went up from 109F to 109G. Same tankage. 109K - only limited information. Rare plane at war end, much destroyed. But datasheet suggest range went up again, too, in high speed cruising conditions. Same as 109F - cleaner airframe, better engine - higher ratio of compression always increasing. 601A - 6.9. 605A - 7.5. 605D - 8.5. Better effiency. Adding fuel tankage - possible. But why add more fuel, is there need when with same fuel tank and better engines, range actually goes up..? It is not question of lack of possibility, but lack of will. What technical reason do you think exist increasing fuel by say + 25 %? I am cheating - this was done.. MW tank could hold +115 liter.. you say it is impossible, but it was done. General tank can be increased too. I do not see reason why cannot make it bigger, to hold more fuel. Space is there. Weight is there. They considered making K-6 some 500 kg heavier than, do not tell me impossible.. or give good reason why you think why.

We can put big MYTH stamp on it. 109 had no range issues - after 109E of course. Actually, 109E is shortest ranged variant. Lower than Jumo powered versions. Lower than later versions. Unfortunate for Germans this happened variant present when they critically needed range - BOB. But afterwards - range is good, almost triple 109E. Same as Fw 190. Less than Ta 152 of course.

 

[stona]

They did manage to up the capacity of the main tank on the Spitfire to 96 gallons. Some variants crammed another 27 gallons into the wing tanks.
Steve

 

[Milosh]

You do know Tante Ju that when the rear fuselage tank was added to the Spitfire that there was flight restrictions until the tank was emptied.

The Spit VIII could fly 2000+ miles (3200+km) with drop tank.

I read many time of red light coming on. If the 109 had such good range then why was this light coming on?

 

[Tante Ju]

It signified tank was low on fuel. Yes, iconic in BoB!

@Stona,

I read 85 sometimes 96 gallon. Which is true? I believe latter is Mark VIII Spitfire. Correct if wrong..

 

[Shortround6]

The early Spitfires had 85 imp gallons (385.4 litres), later ones MK VIII, IX and later could but didn't always have 97 in the front fuselage tank. MK VIIIs also had 27-28 gallons in wing tanks as did some of the Griffon powered planes. Some planes were fitted with 30 gallon rear fuselage tanks and some had up to 74 gallons in rear fuselage but I doubt they were combat capable with anywhere near that load. see: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire9-fuelsystem-lr.jpg

unless you think it is a made up diagram.

I believe procedure for Mustangs was to take off on main fuel tanks to 5000ft then switch to rear fuselage tank until that was down to 30 gallons or so then switch to drop tanks. this was to ensure a combat ready plane if the tanks were dropped as the plane could NOT fight with a full rear tank.

I would imagine that the Spitfire would have to operate under some sort of similar limit. MK IX Spitfires carried 87.5lbs of ballast in the tail so the weight of a single empty 30 or so gal tank or so shouldn't present a problem. How much fuel it can have and still be able to perform combat maneuvers is the question. The 109 could put about 25IMP gallons in back of it's main tank so if we say the Spitfire could do the same plus the wing tanks plus the bigger lower fuselage it would have been possible for the Spitfire to carry 144 Imp gallons internally. Not exactly a long range fighter but 69% increase in fuel was quite possible if the demand from higher authority had been there.

 

[Hop]

The RAF imposed similar restrictions on the Spitfire and Mustang with rear fuselage tanks. From memory, on the Spitfire it was gentle flying only until the rear tank was down to 30 gallons or less.

The fuel options for the Spitfire would be:

96 gallon forward tanks. Fitted to the VIII and late IX/XVI. Could have been fitted to any Merlin Spitfire.

75 gallon rear fuselage tank. Fitted to late IX/XVI and XIV.

28 gallon wing tanks. Fitted to all Spitfire VIII/XIV. Would have need some wing modification to fit to the IX.

 

[Njaco]

I just had to comment....

The idea that the P-51 was some sort of gift from heaven and every AF would need it is ridiculous. You can't take weapon systems from one country where they performed well and ''transplant '' them elsewhere.

Countries that operated the P-51 (besides the US)

The RAF
The Swiss AF
the French Air Force (Armée de l'Air),
the Swedish Air Force (Flygvapen)
the Italian Air Force (AMI)
Republic of Korea Air Force (RoKAF)
Royal Australian Air Force
Bolivia
China
Canada
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Guatemala
Haiti
Indonesia
Philippines
Poland
New Zealand
South African Air Force
Uruguay

need I say more?

 

[vikingBerserker]

 

[stona]

They did manage to up the capacity of the main tank on the Spitfire to 96 gallons. Some variants crammed another 27 gallons into the wing tanks.
Steve

Already clarified by the chaps above. I was just pointing out that the tank capacity of the Spitfire was not as fixed as you had implied. Clever people these engineers!
Cheers
Steve

 

[claidemore]

Long Range, one of those things that definately fits into the category: it is better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

I'd like to point out that the venerable P40 also had restrictions on flying until the rear tank was depleted. You just can't put weight back behind the CoG without consequences. I think it was pointed out in an earlier post that the 109 had space in the rear fusealge clear back to the tail. That space is simply not useable.

Here's a list of Spitfire users: (if we're havin a pi$$in contest! )
Australia
Belgium
Burma
Canada
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Egypt
France
Germany (captured Spits)
Greece
Hong Kong
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Poland
Portugal
Southern Rhodesia
South Africa
Soviet Union
Sweden
Syria
Thailand
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Yugoslavia

 

[Marcel]

I just had to comment....



Countries that operated the P-51 (besides the US)

The RAF
The Swiss AF
the French Air Force (Armée de l'Air),
the Swedish Air Force (Flygvapen)
the Italian Air Force (AMI)
Republic of Korea Air Force (RoKAF)
Royal Australian Air Force
Bolivia
China
Canada
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Guatemala
Haiti
Indonesia
Philippines
Poland
New Zealand
South African Air Force
Uruguay

need I say more?

You're forgetting the most important one: The Royal Dutch airforce

 

[Njaco]

There ya go Marcel!

And thanks Claide, I think we dispelled the myth!!!

 

[parsifal]

Just remeber there is massive difference between ferry range and operational range. Wildcats have a stated range of around 1100 miles, but could not, in reality undertake escort missions beyond 220 miles. I forget the ferry range of the Seafire IIIs, but it was limited until '45, when 90 gallon drop tanks were unofficially fitted. This enabled them at last to undertake offensive missions out to the 195 mile mark. F6F Hellcats could not operate beyond the 250 mile mark.

The Mustang was exceptioonal. Dont have its operational range to hand, but we all know they could fly escort missions all the way to Berlin.

I dont know the operational range of the 109, but it makes sense that the later marks would have their legs increase, given the great didtances in the East. Just the same, I would be surprised if the operational range....the range to travel to a point, undertake qa useful mission, or incorporate some loiter time, would exceed 150 miles. This is expressede as a radius of action incidentally.

r

 

[Njaco]

"Aircraft of WWII" by Jim Winchester gives the following:

P-51D 326 miles on internal tanks - 752 miles with two 108 gallon external tanks.
Bf 109E-3 410 miles
Spitfire Mk VA 1,135 miles

I dunno. Seems alittle off.

 

[parsifal]

They are probably correct, but not comparable....a spit probably did have a ferry range of 1300 miles....perhaps with armour and armament removed, stripped dwn and lightened as much as possible, with so much additional fuel as to be barely flyable. The P-51B however is probably much closer to an honest capability.

Ask yourself this....can a Spit v, or an Me 109g fly a combat mission from Templhof to Biggin Hill? Can a Spit V fly from Duxford to say Stettin with combat gear installed. in both cases, the answer is no. Now, can a P-51 dod the same, yes it can.

Zero is another example of this. Many sources state that it had a range of more than 2000 miles, but at that range it could fly from Kwaj to Pearl without difficulty. but it couldnt. In fact the maximum effective range at the beginning of the war was about 450 miles. It could just fly escort from Takao (Formosa) to Clark, with about a 20 min loiter. I think they may have extended this a little in the Solomons, because Zeroes could fly, just, from Rabaul to Guadacanal. but im willing to bet there were lots of Zeroes listed as "failed to return" for those missions

I find the best way to look at effective operational ranges is to look at the distance that they are known to have flown combat missions on, and whether, at those ranges ther were any penalties paid, either in armament, or armour, decreased performance, or restricted times over the target. if you do that, you get a much better idea of the "real" combat range of a given type

My games design group went through this excercise some years ago. We found the following rough ranges applicable. I am not saying they are completely accurate, they were a study leading to a new game design, but they at least give an indication of the real ranges that aircraft could operate from. the ranges are those where there are no serious penalties on the aircraft concerned

Me109e 80 miles
Me 109g 150miles
FW190 140 miles
Spit I/II 110 Miles
Zero A6M2 450 miles
Hellcat 250 Miles
Seafire III 190 Miles
Spit V+ 160 Miles
Mustang 500 miles (from memory)

From memory, these were based on the longest ranged missions we could find for those and other types, without any penalty. Some could greatly exceed that, but paid some sort of downgraded performance as a result of that increase in range

 

[DonL]

@ Parsifal

There are some inconsistency with your datas.

Internal fuel capacity of the Bf 109 E, F, G, K = 400Liter
Internal fuel capacity of the FW 190A 1-7 = 525 Liter
Internal fuel capacity of the FW 190A 8 = 525 Liter + 115Liter (fuel or MW 50)
Internal fuel capacity of the FW 190D 9 = 525 Liter + 115Liter (fuel or MW 50)

 

[parsifal]

@ Parsifal

There are some inconsistency with your datas.

Internal fuel capacity of the Bf 109 E, F, G, K = 400Liter
Internal fuel capacity of the FW 190A 1-7 = 525 Liter
Internal fuel capacity of the FW 190A 8 = 525 Liter + 115Liter (fuel or MW 50)
Internal fuel capacity of the FW 190D 9 = 525 Liter + 115Liter (fuel or MW 50)

I concede that. I also concede that our figures were not based on theoretical capabilities. they were based on examples of known missions undertaken....sort of amateur operational research if you like

My post is more a question than a statement....what examples of ranges different to those we settled upon exist to disprove the hypothesis. Do you have examples of the FW190 D undertaking missions of comparable type, to say an Me 109G, at greater range. The fuel carried might not be the only issue....it might be aerodynamics, aircraft weight, that kind of thing