The P-38J and L in the European theater.

[pbehn]

Spitfire XIV as opposed to Spitfire V which was the most numerous Fighter Command fighter until 1943. Less than 1000 Spitfire IX's were built between 1942 and 1943 and these had to be allocated between Britain, the Commonwealth, our European allies and the Americans being assigned to both the ETO and MTO. In my comments, I should have made it clearer that I was referring to the use of the slipper tanks by Spitfire V's, although I thought the restrictions on the larger tanks use continued.

True, but if you are doing anything that involves conflict with Germany's best you would always use squadrons which had the latest model. The RAFs front line strength of Spitfires was rarely more than 1000 in Europe. The wastage of fighter aircraft in WW2 is hard to believe in the modern era. A Merlin engine was in need of overhaul after 250 hours service, some were overhauled but many more were just replaced with the latest model.

 

[Kevin J]

True, but if you are doing anything that involves conflict with Germany's best you would always use squadrons which had the latest model. The RAFs front line strength of Spitfires was rarely more than 1000 in Europe. The wastage of fighter aircraft in WW2 is hard to believe in the modern era. A Merlin engine was in need of overhaul after 250 hours service, some were overhauled but many more were just replaced with the latest model.

It was about 50 aircraft per squadron for every 6 month period in the front line. IIRC, there were 57 squadrons of Spitfires at the end of 1941, that means the RAF was going to lose 2850 (total) / 3 (proportion in the front line) * 2 (6 months period in year) or 1900 per year just in front line operations whether through accidents, write offs or destroyed in combat. No wonder the Luftwaffe claimed the Spitfire as the second on the list for enemy fighters destroyed.
3300 Typhoons built in a three and a half year period, 18 in the 2nd TAF, 9 in ADGB, replacements at 950 pa, only 260 aerial victories, so (27 * 50 ) / 3 * 2 or 900 losses pa.
Life expectancy of a new Thunderbolt pilot in a fighter bomber unit, 3 weeks, worst than an officer in the trenches in WW1 which was 6 weeks.

 

[Mike Williams]

Further to the issue of Spitfire XIV range, prior to joining the 2nd TAF on the continent, Spitfire XIV squadrons based in the UK and equipped with 90 gallon drop tanks were escorting bombers to the Ruhr area in Germany, considered by the units to be "to the limit of endurance".
For example:
11 Sept. 1944: 350 and 402 Squadrons - Hawkinge to Kamen/Ruhr, Germany – 282 mile radius.
610 and 130 Squadrons – Lympne to Gelsenkirchen, Germany – 264 mile radius.
12 Sept. 1944: 130, 350 and 610 Squadrons – Lympne to Wanne Eickel, Germany – 269 mile radius.
402 Squadron - Hawkinge to Wanne Eickel, Germany – 262 mile radius.
Also on 12 Sept. 1944 : 130 and 350 Squadrons – Lympne to Dortmund, Germany – 280 mile radius.
Refer back to:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/350-ORB-11Sept44.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/130_Oprep-12Sept44.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/402-Form541-12Sept44.jpg

 

[pbehn]

Further to the issue of Spitfire XIV range, prior to joining the 2nd TAF on the continent, Spitfire XIV squadrons based in the UK and equipped with 90 gallon drop tanks were escorting bombers to the Ruhr area in Germany, considered by the units to be "to the limit of endurance".

It would have to be the limit of endurance unless more internal fuel could be carried. More external fuel would result in a plane reaching a place it couldn't fly back from unless it went into combat with a 90+ gallon tank attached.

 

[Mike Williams]

It would have to be the limit of endurance unless more internal fuel could be carried. More external fuel would result in a plane reaching a place it couldn't fly back from unless it went into combat with a 90+ gallon tank attached.

Considering the Spitfire XIV had a range of 350 miles with internal fuel, operating at max continuous and subtracting 55 miles to allow for 5 minutes combat, the Spitfire XIV squadrons' own assessment would seem to be in reasonable agreement with the range shown on the aircraft data card.

 

[pbehn]

I agree, the problem comes when 5 minutes combat becomes 15 minutes or more.

 

[BiffF15]

I agree, the problem comes when 5 minutes combat becomes 15 minutes or more.

That's a problem still in existence today. The fuel gauge has an adjustable bingo bug / setting and when reached says "bingo fuel" in your headset. Training almost removes this from today, as in we learn how much fuel is used for a 360 degree turn in full afterburner, along with always flying with an eye on the fuel gauge. Also you learn how to fly a min fuel recovery as well.

Success means you get the plane and pilot back.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[pbehn]

That's a problem still in existence today. The fuel gauge has an adjustable bingo bug / setting and when reached says "bingo fuel" in your headset. Training almost removes this from today, as in we learn how much fuel is used for a 360 degree turn in full afterburner, along with always flying with an eye on the fuel gauge. Also you learn how to fly a min fuel recovery as well.

Success means you get the plane and pilot back.

Cheers,
Biff

There are many things overlooked in the discussion, a 5 minute combat usually means descending and therefore climbing back up, which is the same as combat in terms of fuel consumption and just gets you back you where you were in terms of the formation but may have you even further from base. Also frequently forgotten when drawing a radius of range is that the formations rarely flew from base to target. Any allied raid from East Anglia straight to Dresden takes you nicely over the Dutch ports and the Ruhrgebiet which had massive flak defences. The calculation for range on a P-51 was not the actual range of the plane doing a peacetime test, it was practical calculation of what a squadron could do in war time while doing its job. An escort group having the choice of staying with the bombers or dropping in the North Sea is a disaster but was a real possibility.

 

[pbehn]

Another thing over looked in term of range is that a single engine fighter can fly to berlin and back and its path would be a straight line. The turning radius of a bomb group is so huge it adds to the length of the trip, Fubar posted a map of an actual mission there is a huge loop over the target which adds miles to the mission, in general, everything you can think of, and lots of things you cant add to the missions actual range.

 

[pbehn]

Tail winds would obviously be an advantage in terms of range, however winds over Europe are in streams, if they result in an escort group missing the bomb group at the RDV point they gain no advantage because they must stooge about waiting or race to catch up. so nothing is gained from the tail wind and it can be a headwind returning home. This is why the allies USA and UK had a massive joint investment in a basically joint operation to make sense of the weather.

 

[Kevin J]

Further to the issue of Spitfire XIV range, prior to joining the 2nd TAF on the continent, Spitfire XIV squadrons based in the UK and equipped with 90 gallon drop tanks were escorting bombers to the Ruhr area in Germany, considered by the units to be "to the limit of endurance".
For example:
11 Sept. 1944: 350 and 402 Squadrons - Hawkinge to Kamen/Ruhr, Germany – 282 mile radius.
610 and 130 Squadrons – Lympne to Gelsenkirchen, Germany – 264 mile radius.
12 Sept. 1944: 130, 350 and 610 Squadrons – Lympne to Wanne Eickel, Germany – 269 mile radius.
402 Squadron - Hawkinge to Wanne Eickel, Germany – 262 mile radius.
Also on 12 Sept. 1944 : 130 and 350 Squadrons – Lympne to Dortmund, Germany – 280 mile radius.
Refer back to:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/350-ORB-11Sept44.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/130_Oprep-12Sept44.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/402-Form541-12Sept44.jpg

So the question here is: have Supermarine sorted out the 'no manoeuvres with 90 gal slipper tank' problem or is it the fact that the Luftwaffe has been cleansed from the skies over Western Europe which enables these tanks to be used as drop tanks?

 

[wuzak]

COMBAT PERFORMANCE WITH 90 GALLON LONG-RANGE TANKS
50. As the Spitfire XIV has a very short range it has been assumed that when a long-range tank is to be carried, it is most likely to be the 90 gallon tank rather than the 30 gallon or 45 gallon. Pending further instructions, no drops or trials have been carried out with the 30 gallon or 45 gallon tanks. The aircraft's performance with either can be estimated from the results given below of trials with the 90 gallon long-range tank.
Drops
51. The aircraft was fitted with assistor springs as for the Spitfire IX. Two drops were made with empty tanks at 50 ft and 25,000 ft, A.S.I. 250 mph, with no trouble. Cine photographs were taken and show the tank dropping quite clear of the aircraft. Further trials would be necessary to check these results thoroughly.
Speeds
52. About 20 m.p.h. is knocked off the maximum speed and correspondingly off the speed at intermediate throttle settings. The aircraft is still faster than the FW.190 (BMW.801D) and the Me.109G above 20,000 ft.
Climb
53. Climb is most affected. With a half-full tank its maximum climb becomes identical with the Spitfire IX without the tank. Even with a full tank it can therefore climb as fast as the FW.190 or Me.109G. Its zoom climb is hardly affected.
Dive
54. So long as the tank is more than 1/3 full, the dive acceleration is similar.
Turning Circle
55. The Spitfire XIV now has a definitely wider turning circle than before, but is still within those of the FW.190 (BMW.801D) and Me.109G.
Rate of Roll
56. Similar.
Conclusions
57. Even with the 90 gallon tank, the Spitfire XIV can equal or outclass the FW.190 (BMW.801D) and the Me.109G in every respect. Its main advantages remain the tight turn and maximum climb.

Spitfire Mk XIV Tactical Trials

 

[Mike Williams]

COMBAT PERFORMANCE WITH 90 GALLON LONG-RANGE TANKS
50. As the Spitfire XIV has a very short range it has been assumed that when a long-range tank is to be carried, it is most likely to be the 90 gallon tank rather than the 30 gallon or 45 gallon. Pending further instructions, no drops or trials have been carried out with the 30 gallon or 45 gallon tanks. The aircraft's performance with either can be estimated from the results given below of trials with the 90 gallon long-range tank.
Drops
51. The aircraft was fitted with assistor springs as for the Spitfire IX. Two drops were made with empty tanks at 50 ft and 25,000 ft, A.S.I. 250 mph, with no trouble. Cine photographs were taken and show the tank dropping quite clear of the aircraft. Further trials would be necessary to check these results thoroughly.
Speeds
52. About 20 m.p.h. is knocked off the maximum speed and correspondingly off the speed at intermediate throttle settings. The aircraft is still faster than the FW.190 (BMW.801D) and the Me.109G above 20,000 ft.
Climb
53. Climb is most affected. With a half-full tank its maximum climb becomes identical with the Spitfire IX without the tank. Even with a full tank it can therefore climb as fast as the FW.190 or Me.109G. Its zoom climb is hardly affected.
Dive
54. So long as the tank is more than 1/3 full, the dive acceleration is similar.
Turning Circle
55. The Spitfire XIV now has a definitely wider turning circle than before, but is still within those of the FW.190 (BMW.801D) and Me.109G.
Rate of Roll
56. Similar.
Conclusions
57. Even with the 90 gallon tank, the Spitfire XIV can equal or outclass the FW.190 (BMW.801D) and the Me.109G in every respect. Its main advantages remain the tight turn and maximum climb.

Spitfire Mk XIV Tactical Trials

Exactly, thanks wuzak!

 

[wuzak]

Exactly, thanks wuzak!

You're welcome.

And thank you for digging up such reports and hosting them on your site.

 

[Navalwarrior]

The NA-73 first flew 7 months before the XP-47B. It also took quite a while to sort out the drop tank situation on both aircraft. Proper drop tanks being in very short supply in Europe in the fall of 1943.
The Initial P-51Bs arrived in England without either rear tanks or being drop tank capable (or drop tanks were not available) and their first few missions were without drop tanks. On their first missions with tanks they used 75 gallon ones, Lightings flying on the same missions are also using 75 gallon drop tanks. despite having used much larger tanks well before this. But there is a problem using some fuel tanks at high altitudes.
A few P-47s had been ferried to England using a pair of P-38 165 gallon tanks at the end of Aug 1943 but it is only in Jan 1944 that a program is started to re-equipe/refit ALL P-47s to take under wing fuel tanks or bombs.

Somewhere we may have the dates that various tanks went into service but it is a confused affair with some tanks being able to be used at low altitudes only and/or different pumps having to be fitted to the aircraft.

Resp: All Mustangs from the A-36A/P-51A onward, including P-51Bs came drop tank capable from the NAA factory. Part of the drop tank problem in the ETO was due to a miscommunication (or an assumption) by Gen Eaker that the British would build drop tanks for the 8th AF. Eaker initially requested an order (sometime in 1943) for drop tanks from the US, but cancelled this request after meeting with British authorities. Eaker failed to follow-up on his request. Gen Hap Arnold was not happy. Just FYI.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

During a Lockheed Management Club meeting I attended around 1982/ 83, Kelly Johnson was a guest speaker. I distinctly remember him saying that he wanted to put a stick in the P-38 as well as several other mods. You'll find that a lot of items installed on aircraft aren't always decided by the manufacturer.

See my earlier post (247) uploading the NACA study of control forces. I assume the inertia of the twin engines required the greater force that could be exerted by a wheel. Perhaps the boosted controls would have allowed a stick to be substituted.
I find it interesting that bad features on aircraft are always forced on the designers. It reminds me that the referee is always the one to blame when your team loses.

 

[BiffF15]

Don't forget that the pilot is the ultimate chump in that food chain...

 

[Greyman]

Perhaps the boosted controls would have allowed a stick to be substituted.

I would assume this was the case. Testing on the boosted aileron Lightning showed that aileron control forces were a non-issue.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Unfortunately that story, while correct in some parts, perpetuates some of the anti-P-38 myths.
The pilots might have still froze but if the planes were flown at lower rpm and higher boost there may have been less trouble with turbochargers and the oil and the coolant and the fuel puddling in the intake manifolds. (the lead never came out, other compounds did, they were anti-knock compounds but they were not lead)
If, for example, you use more boost from the turbo, the intake temperature will be higher. If you raise the intake temperature 100 degrees the peak temperature in the cylinders goes up 100 degrees and the exhaust goes up 100 degrees. Now the higher boost used at cruise may not result in a full 100 degrees but you get the idea.
The article gives a couple of gas mileage figures but doesn't say at what speed or altitude. A P-38L could get around 3.3 mpg at 210mph indicated (over 300mph true) at 25,000ft while burning about 98 gallons an hour. 210mph indicated at 25,000ft was the standard speed the USAAF used for figuring combat radius. A MUstang was good for over 5 miles to gallon in such conditions.
Unfortunately the USSAF was operating it's P-38s against the wishes of both Allison and Lockheed and using high rpm and low boost. This burned more fuel than needed and helped keep the intake tract cold (there were other reasons). The Article mentions Lindberg in the Pacific but ignores Tony Levier going to Europe and telling the pilots there pretty much the same thing at about the same time (May/June?) of 1944. which helped but was a bit late.

However the article fails to mention that the P-38Gs, Hs and early Js only had 300 gallons of internal fuel in the fall 43/winter44 and it took a while for the Js and Ls with 410 gallons internal to show up. That 110 gallons was worth 200-300 miles of radius depending on exit speed.
The photo recon planes had a lot less trouble with engines, in part because they cruised faster (engines hotter) but the pilots may still have froze.

Actually the F-5 suffered the same problems as the P-38
Dr Alfred Price from "Spitfire in Combat"
"Initially the 7th Photo Group flew the F-5, the reconnaissance version of the P-38 Lightning fighter. This aircraft was vulnerable to interception during deep penetrations into enemy territory, however, and it has serviceability problems. One squadron in the group was therefore equipped with Spitfire PR XIs, and operated the type for the rest of the conflict."
Roger Freeman from "The Mighty Eighth War Manual"
"Even before the first 8th Air force F-5As became operational, some disquiet was expressed in USAAF circles as to their suitability for the task."
"Short comings of the F-5A and F-5B were principally insufficient ceiling and range for the type of operations conducted. Further, it could not accommodate cameras of 36-inch focal length which were desirable to obtain more detailed images."
"On 14 December 1943 General Eaker informed the RAF that the current model P-38 used for photographic reconnaissance by 7th group was not to the standard required. As improved models would not be available for a few months, he inquired if it would be possible to obtain the use of 12 Spitfire XI's to tide them over."
"The Spitfires were used almost exclusively for the deepest penetrations of enemy airspace or to areas where the risk of interception was the greatest. Pilots with F-5 experience found the Spitfire cockpit cramped and noisy by comparison, plus a degree of vibration not evident with the smoother running Allisons. Performance was another matter for the Spitfire provided speed, range and altitude that could not be achieved with the Lightning models on hand in the winter of 1943-44. Few technical problems arose with the Spitfire in 7th Group service, although there was some trouble with the fuel system vapour lock during July/August 1944 caused by hot weather at ground level. The Group's Spitfires had only a 5 per cent mechanical failure rate over their operational period. It was estimated that the Spitfire took but one third of the maintenance time required for the F-5 and had a 70 per cent availability, which 7th Group stated would have been even higher if the supply of spare parts had been simplified."
"The F-5A suffered the same operating problems as contemporary P-38s operating at high altitudes, cutting out and pre-detonation, which sometimes prevented operation above 22,000 feet – although the minimum safe altitude for photo reconnaissance was advised as 24,000 feet. Little could be done about this problem."
"Both versions (talking about the F-5B & C(my note)) were prone to the same engine troubles experienced with the fighter P-38Js. In March 1944 the position was critical with aircraft grounded through engine failures."

Tom Ivie in "Aerial Reconnaissance – the 10th Photo Recon Group in World War II"
"The F-5s normally ranged 100-150miles from their bases, but at times they were as deep as 250-275 miles."

Patricia Fussell Keen in "Eyes of the Eighth – A Story of the 7th Photographic Reconnaissance Group"
"About the time the 14th pilots arrived at Mount Farm the USAAF confirmed disturbing evidence of major flaws in its primary photo reconnaissance plane. The Eighth Air Force knew that its primary camera platform could not perform satisfactorily at high altitudes"
"By the middle of July 1943 it became apparent to headquarters that the limitations of the P-38G (F-5A) had probably cost lives. As well as altitude problems, the unarmed F-5A, which used speed to evade pursuit, had problems escaping enemy aircraft when carrying drop tanks on long flights. The high loss of pilots under these conditions prompted the USAAF to issue an order on 15 July 1943 restricting aircraft of Station 231 to a 300 mile radius on operational missions. As a result of this order, the newly formed 7th Group had to turn the jobs over to the RAF."
"Spitfires allowed the 14th Squadron to fly longer missions and deeper missions into Germany. One major target remained primary in everyone's mind, Berlin. When the big raid came, Headquarters would want damage assessment photos. Group Operations considered only 14th Squadron Spitfires capable of the range needed." ((Captain Walter Weitner photographed the first USAAF raid on Berlin on March 6, 1944. Lt Charles Parker photographed the second raid on March 8. Both in Spitfire XIs) my note)
"In December, the Group began received 10 F-5Bs, a photographic version of the P-38J-5. Unfortunately this aircraft and the F-5C, a converted and modified version of the same P-38J, suffered the same engine problems endemic in the early aircraft."

Professor John F. Guilmartin, Jr. in his 2001 lecture to the United States Air Force Academy "The Aircraft that Decided World War II: Aeronautical Engineering and Grand Strategy, 1933-1945, the American Dimension."

"In addition, specially modified Spitfires were the most important Allied strategic photo-reconnaissance aircraft at the outbreak of hostilities in 1939—and the only ones capable of deep penetrations of Axis territory—and so remained until the debut of reconnaissance versions of the Mosquito in the autumn of 1941."
"The Griffon-powered Spitfire PR XIX (PR for photo-reconnaissance), which entered service in the spring of 1944, provides a final commentary on the Spitfire's importance. The Griffon's superior high altitude performance and a pressurized cockpit combined with the Spitfire's refined aerodynamics to give the PR XIX a service ceiling of no less than 48,000 feet—the highest of any operational piston-engined aircraft—rendering it effectively immune from interception. At that point photo-reconnaissance versions of the P-38 were horribly vulnerable to interception by later versions of the Bf 109 and the PR XIX, though produced only in small numbers, satisfied a vital strategic requirement at a critical time. The aerial edge in battle early shifted between allied air forces and the Luftwaffe as the Spitfire underwent growth in engine power, aeronautical performance and increased firepower."
Here is the link to the complete paper:
http://www.usafa.af.mil/df/dfh/docs/Harmon44.doc

 

[FLYBOYJ]

See my earlier post (247) uploading the NACA study of control forces. I assume the inertia of the twin engines required the greater force that could be exerted by a wheel. Perhaps the boosted controls would have allowed a stick to be substituted.
I find it interesting that bad features on aircraft are always forced on the designers. It reminds me that the referee is always the one to blame when your team loses.

All true - it seems the only design creativity the manufacturer will have is when they are asked to produce a prototype or a private venture that will eventually meet a procurement spec