The woodmans favourite axe (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Smith's version of the Spitfire - the much improved Mk III - was ordered and tested but never produced as a result of a very real fear that Germany would resume its aerial offensive in 1941 and a typical Air Ministry short-sightedness, poor prioritisation and petty-mindedness.

Instead, the easier to produce, but less ambitious and lower performing Mk V was produced. It was an incremental step in performance at a time when Fighter Command should have been learning its lesson from the superior altitude performance that the 109F displayed at the end of 1940.

As a result, the balance of performance in fighter operations swung decisively in favour of the RAF's enemies in 1941-1942. With the exception of Malta and Italy, the Mk V suffered heavily to its opponents in most theaters: the Channel front, Burma, North Africa, Australia.

The Spitfire III may not have redressed the balance completely - the 109F/G and 190A were fearsome opponents, not to mention the Spitfire's rough handling at the hands of the Japanese - but it would have certainly helped. Better RAF tactics, better small unit coordination and better training - most important of all gunnery training, such as was developed over 1942/1942 - for pilots were all needed.

Smith's developments of the Spitfire: flush riveting, more rake on the landing gear, retractable tail wheel, larger fuel tanks, reinforced wing structure, ect, ect all eventually made their way into production models. The Mk VIII, considered by several test pilots to be the best of the breed, was perhaps the ultimate expression of what Smith wanted from the "woodman's favourite axe".
 
How much larger?

The Spitfire had great aerial performance but relatively short endurance. IMO increased endurance would have been the single most useful improvement. Replacing machineguns with 20mm cannon was the second most needed improvement.
 
How much larger?

The Spitfire had great aerial performance but relatively short endurance. IMO increased endurance would have been the single most useful improvement.

Endurance of the Spitfire was commensurate with that of other European inline engine fighters from Germany, Italy and Russia. Of the major combatants, only the US and Japan possessed truly long-range single engine fighters during the war, and even the US fighter was a johnny-come-lately.

Spitfire fuel capacity increased through the war, with the introduction of slipper tanks, drop tanks (in 30,45, 60, 90 and 170 gal varieties) and then increased internal fuel. This was tempered by - and somewhat related to - the increasing thirstiness of the Merlin engines, and then the introduction of the even more thirsty Griffon. Range on internal fuel dropped compared to the early marks, but was more than made up for with the addition of D/Ts.

Merlin engine:

Spitfire Mk I, II, IV, V, IX: 85 imp gal (102 US gal). Range (still air cruising at most economical, with allowances for warm-up, take-off, climbing and combat): 580 miles for the Mk I - decreasing to 445 miles for Mk IX, on internal fuel.

Spitfire Mk VII, VIII: 122 imp gal (147.5 US gal). Range: 740 miles on internal fuel. Range with 90 gal drop tank: 1265 miles

Griffon engine:

Spitfire Mk XII: 84 imp gal (101 US gal) Range: 330 miles on internal fuel. With 30 gal drop tank: 435 miles. With 45 gal drop tank: 500 miles.

Spitfire Mk XIV: 110 imp gal (132 US gal) Range: 460 miles on internal fuel.

Spitfire 21: 122 imp gal (147.4 US gal). Range: 490 miles on internal fuel.

Spitfire XVIII: 159 imp gal (191 US gal). Range: 640 miles on internal fuel. With 90 gal drop tank: 1050 miles.


Very late in the war, some Mk XI and XVIs had rear fuselage fuel tanks installed, increasing internal fuel to 143 gal.

The Spitfire III had 98 gal forward tanks, giving it a ~10% range improvement over Mk II. However, the larger forward tanks would have allowed the aircraft to use the 60 gal slipper tanks more effectively.

Smith also proposed two smallish (4.5 gal each IIRC) wing tanks for the Mk III, but they may not have been introduced until later in production, had the aircraft ever gone into production.

Replacing machineguns with 20mm cannon was the second most needed improvement.

Not until the British could get the Hispano working reliably, and that wasn't until mid- to late-1941.

The RAAF experience with unreliable Hispanos over Darwin (15-18 bomber shoot downs from at least 130 firing passes, but perhaps 25-30% damaged) shows that a RELIABLE machine gun, even the .303 Browning, was better than an UNRELIABLE cannon.
 
Endurance of the Spitfire was commensurate with that of other European inline engine fighters from Germany, Italy and Russia.
I agree. But that doesn't mean Spitfire combat radius was adequate. Especially from 1941 onward when the RAF was projecting combat power into France and over the Medittranean.
 
I maintain that by mid 43 the Spit was past its best by date it was a wonderful point interceptor but there was little to intercept , IMHO it would have nehooved the powers to be to swap over to the easier and cheaper P51
 
I maintain that by mid 43 the Spit was past its best by date it was a wonderful point interceptor but there was little to intercept , IMHO it would have nehooved the powers to be to swap over to the easier and cheaper P51

Not again...the Spitfire was not past its best by 1943. Please read my original post and you'll see how the Spitfire evolved.
The Spitfire did everything and more that it was asked to do.
Cheers
John
 
If the Spitfire was past it's due date in 1943 the P-39 and P-40 were past their due date on Dec 7 1941.

The Spitfire was held back in some ways like the P-38 was, The need for a "good" fighter that can be delivered to the squadrons next week or next month trumps an "improved" model that won't be delivered for several months but does require shutting down production for several weeks if not longer.
 
If the Spitfire was past it's due date in 1943 the P-39 and P-40 were past their due date on Dec 7 1941.

The Spitfire was held back in some ways like the P-38 was, The need for a "good" fighter that can be delivered to the squadrons next week or next month trumps an "improved" model that won't be delivered for several months but does require shutting down production for several weeks if not longer.

True enough Shortround,the Spitfire's evolution meant it was a different fighter by 1945 from the BoB version. The name remains the same (to paraphrase Led Zeppelin)
When we look at the new fighters that came on stream as WW2 progressed, jets included, it makes you realise that development was going ahead at a frantic pace behind the scenes.
Cheers
John
 
According to RAF pilot Michael Spencer, in May 1945 a competition occurred between a P-38 (no model letter given) and a Mk FXVIII at an American airfield near Southhampton. From a standing start both aircraft began their take-off run. When the P-38 lifted off and began gear retraction at just past the half way point of the runway; the Spitfire had already executed a 180 degree turn and performed a head on pass at the P-38. - paraphrased from "Spitfire" by Ethell and Pace, a very flawed book with numerous errors.

Not bad performance for being past the "best by date" if the story is true.
 
According to RAF pilot Michael Spencer, in May 1945 a competition occurred between a P-38 (no model letter given) and a Mk FXVIII at an American airfield near Southhampton. From a standing start both aircraft began their take-off run. When the P-38 lifted off and began gear retraction at just past the half way point of the runway; the Spitfire had already executed a 180 degree turn and performed a head on pass at the P-38. - paraphrased from "Spitfire" by Ethell and Pace, a very flawed book with numerous errors.

Not bad performance for being past the "best by date" if the story is true.

I'm thinking that the Griffon would out power the Allison's so, the story is not improbable.

I like 'Spitfire The biography' by Jonathan Glancey. Published in 2006.
A brilliant book for all Spitfire lovers.
Worth a read.
Cheers
John
 
An Me-109K would probably achieve a similiar result vs the P-38. But the Me-109 and Spitfire were both limited by low endurance. Such aircraft cannot project combat power very far even with drop tanks. If the target is more then 250 miles away I'll take the P-38.
 
I think the Spitfire VIII could have served as an 8th AF escort fighter, as it had better range than the early P-47. With DTs and shuttle missions it could have provided escort to about 400 miles.
 
Not again...the Spitfire was not past its best by 1943. Please read my original post and you'll see how the Spitfire evolved.
The Spitfire did everything and more that it was asked to do.
Cheers
John
I probably have spent more time with Spits then you and have listened to more pilots who flew them , including sitting with John Romaine sucking back cold beers and the Spit was a wonderful aircraft but in 44 its main job was ground attack not chasing the Hun that was done by the P51 . During the Channel campaign the kill to loss with the 190 was what?Its an Iconic aircraft of the Commonwealth forces and how many were retained post war by the RCAF ? None they rearmed with P51's
 
To JabberW - what defined Johnny on Time? The MK I and IA's were delivered to RAF three months after Pearl harbor. It didn't have fuse tanks but did have twin 90 gallon wing tanks from first production models. The internal fuel combined with drag at 60% levels of Me109F and Spit V gave it immediately ~ 2X range.

True the killer high altitude performance didn't come until Brit and US Merlin experiments concluded in November 1942 with full production ops rolling them off in mid 1943 but it had great range with the Allison in 1941
 
I think the Spitfire VIII could have served as an 8th AF escort fighter, as it had better range than the early P-47. With DTs and shuttle missions it could have provided escort to about 400 miles.

The Spitfire VIII could have done the job, but I do not think it would have improved over the early P-47s in performance or range. The P-47 had 305 US gallons internal and coupled with 200 gal. external tank, would have 305 gallons for combat at 400 miles, plenty to fight and return home. It looks to me that these two aircraft were very similar in performance, except in fuel consumption, which the P-47 made up for in more internal fuel.
 
To JabberW - what defined Johnny on Time? The MK I and IA's were delivered to RAF three months after Pearl harbor. It didn't have fuse tanks but did have twin 90 gallon wing tanks from first production models. The internal fuel combined with drag at 60% levels of Me109F and Spit V gave it immediately ~ 2X range.

True the killer high altitude performance didn't come until Brit and US Merlin experiments concluded in November 1942 with full production ops rolling them off in mid 1943 but it had great range with the Allison in 1941

The Allison Mustang's operational debut was August 1942, a full eight months after Pearl Harbour and 35 months after the start of hostilities in Europe.

In comparison, the other great long-range single engine fighter, the A6M, made its combat debut in August 1940, fully two years earlier than the P-51.
 
I maintain that by mid 43 the Spit was past its best by date it was a wonderful point interceptor but there was little to intercept , IMHO it would have nehooved the powers to be to swap over to the easier and cheaper P51

Firstly, the P-51 was more expensive than the Spitfire, not cheaper.

Secondly, if the powers that be wanted more range from the Spitfire, all they had to do was ask for it.

The basic Spitfire had 85 gallons of fuel.

There was room for 96 gallons of fuel if the lower fuselage tank had been enlarged to fill the space available. That was a trivial change that was adopted later on.

There was room for a tank behind the pilot. The first were fitted for ferry flights to Malta (30 gallons, iirc). Again an easy modification to make.

Tanks in the leading edges of the wing required some structural changes, made in the Mk VIII and later variants. 27 gallons iirc.

Drop tanks went as large as 170 gallons.

Take a basic Spit, add the enlarged forward tank, the 30 gallon rear tank and the wing tanks and you have something over 150 imperial gallons internal. No major modifications necessary.

The USAAF had a requirement for long range escorts. As soon as that became obvious, they had their aircraft fitted with more fuel tankage. The RAF didn't have the same requirement, so didn't show the same urgency getting the fuel capacity increased.
 
I probably have spent more time with Spits then you and have listened to more pilots who flew them , including sitting with John Romaine sucking back cold beers and the Spit was a wonderful aircraft but in 44 its main job was ground attack not chasing the Hun that was done by the P51 . During the Channel campaign the kill to loss with the 190 was what?Its an Iconic aircraft of the Commonwealth forces and how many were retained post war by the RCAF ? None they rearmed with P51's

Maybe you have.

It also doesn't stop you drawing the wrong conclusions.
The Spitfire also served as PR, buzzbomb interceptor and with the RAF until the 1950's.
The rearming of the RCAF with P51's is, with respect, irrelevant.

Cheers
John

Cheers
john
 
Last edited:
I probably have spent more time with Spits then you and have listened to more pilots who flew them , including sitting with John Romaine sucking back cold beers and the Spit was a wonderful aircraft but in 44 its main job was ground attack not chasing the Hun that was done by the P51 . During the Channel campaign the kill to loss with the 190 was what?Its an Iconic aircraft of the Commonwealth forces and how many were retained post war by the RCAF ? None they rearmed with P51's

It would make a lot of sense for the RCAF to rearm with P51s. They were essentially free off the USAF they were also more suited to defending Canadian airspace.

As to your great experience with Spitfires thats very nice and I am happy for you but whats that got to do with WWII air combat. I have a collection of WWII and WWI bolt action rifles that I fire most weekends at a club that has many members who fired them in anger in Korea, Malaya and Cyprus plus various other actions. Doesnt make me an expert on WWII or WWI infantry fighting.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back