Which is the best Spitfire mark?

[Navalwarrior]

It's a bit of a hard question to answer. My head is saying the Mk lX as it pretty much rained supreme for the rest of the war.
But my heart says i have to agree with Stoner, the Spitfire Mk l interceptor was the first no frills advanced fighter to really make a huge tactical & psychological impact on German aircraft during the bob. And for a fighter that Luftwaffe generals described as and i quote: "A pretty little toy" that just wouldnt compare to the advanced Bf - 109. Ignorance and complacent thought are a dangerous ignorance to have. The end of the day the Spitfire Mkl did exactly what it was designed to do. Keep British skies clear of enemy aircraft. And it did that extremely well....

Resp:
There are many variants that kept the design alive, but it was the early Marks that kept England in the fight.

 

[fubar57]

N Navalwarrior PM sent

 

[Smokey Stover]

The Griffon powered Spits were reaching the limit of the aircrafts design evolution. And with jets looking set to take over the future of aircraft design and production its days were numbered, at least in England. And with ac like the Tempest and Meteor the Spit was no longer the single driving force for the RAF. Nothing will beat the mkl simply because of its history, pedigree and amazing achievement in the BOB. The Mkl was then, and still is now, the most beautiful fighter ever to be designed in Britain. My heart will always be with the Mkl

 

[Navalwarrior]

The Griffon powered Spits were reaching the limit of the aircrafts design evolution. And with jets looking set to take over the future of aircraft design and production its days were numbered, at least in England. And with ac like the Tempest and Meteor the Spit was no longer the single driving force for the RAF. Nothing will beat the mkl simply because of its history, pedigree and amazing achievement in the BOB. The Mkl was then, and still is now, the most beautiful fighter ever to be designed in Britain. My heart will always be with the Mkl

Resp:
Well said. I just ordered a print of a MkIX in D-Day markings for my work room. There is a very good book on Britain's behind closed doors, about their research, particularly inre to aircraft/radar, etc that on the eve of WWII was shared with the United States. "A Man Called Intrepid," written by William Stevenson, 1976. England just did not have the facilities for mass production, so they shared their research.
PS. Which Mark had the longest range, and what was it miles?

 

[Smokey Stover]

Well, of the top of my head it would have to surely be the PR (photo recon) unless of course you mean a combat loaded spit? And which engine, the merlin or the griffon, or both...?

Early merlin spits Mk Vl (AB200) Combat range 428 miles
Ferry range 1530 miles with various drop tanks

Late Merlin/Early Griffon. Mk Xll combat range 493 miles

Ferry range Spitfire L.F Mk lXe 980 miles

Should be noted these are rough guesstimates, i havent looked into my manual yet​

 

[Navalwarrior]

Well, of the top of my head it would have to surely be the PR (photo recon) unless of course you mean a combat loaded spit? And which engine, the merlin or the griffon, or both...?

Early merlin spits Mk Vl (AB200) Combat range 428 miles
Ferry range 1530 miles with various drop tanks

Late Merlin/Early Griffon. Mk Xll combat range 493 miles

Ferry range Spitfire L.F Mk lXe 980 miles

Should be noted these are rough guesstimates, i havent looked into my manual yet​

Resp:
I am interested in air combat missions rather than photo recon.
Does the term combat range, mean from liftoff to target area AND back to base?
Also, using external fuel stores (drop tanks) for combat missions only. Which Mark had the longest combat range?

 

[Smokey Stover]

Resp:
I am interested in air combat missions rather than photo recon.
Does the term combat range, mean from liftoff to target area AND back to base?
Also, using external fuel stores (drop tanks) for combat missions only. Which Mark had the longest combat range?

The F Mk VIII's top speed was 408 mph (657 km/h) at 25,000 ft (404 mph for the LF.Mk VIII at 21,000 ft (6,400 m) and 416 mph (669 km/h) for the HF Mk VIII at 26,500 ft), with a service ceiling of 43,000 ft (41,500 ft for the LF Mk VIII and 44,000 ft (13,000 m) for the HF Mk VIII). The two main tanks were given an extra 11 gal for a total of 96 gal which, along with the wing tanks, allowed the fighter to fly for a maximum distance of 660 mi (1,060 km) with a full internal fuel load and 1,180 miles (1,900 km) with a full internal load and a 90 gal drop tank. Provision was made to allow the Mk VIII to carry a single "slipper" drop tank of 30, 90 or 170 gal capacity. With a 170 gal tank, the aeroplane could fly over 1,500 mi (2,400 km). When carrying the 90 or 175 gal tank the aircraft was restricted, once airborne and at cruising altitude, to straight and level flight.[25] A maximum external bomb load of 1,000 pounds (1 × 500 lb (230 kg) bomb attached to the centre bomb-rack plus a 250 lb (110 kg) bomb under each wing) could be carried.

I pulled this off the net, but if you need some serious technical data i can dust off my old manual and find the results. But tbh, i think these numbers are pretty close to being accurate.....

 

[Navalwarrior]

The F Mk VIII's top speed was 408 mph (657 km/h) at 25,000 ft (404 mph for the LF.Mk VIII at 21,000 ft (6,400 m) and 416 mph (669 km/h) for the HF Mk VIII at 26,500 ft), with a service ceiling of 43,000 ft (41,500 ft for the LF Mk VIII and 44,000 ft (13,000 m) for the HF Mk VIII). The two main tanks were given an extra 11 gal for a total of 96 gal which, along with the wing tanks, allowed the fighter to fly for a maximum distance of 660 mi (1,060 km) with a full internal fuel load and 1,180 miles (1,900 km) with a full internal load and a 90 gal drop tank. Provision was made to allow the Mk VIII to carry a single "slipper" drop tank of 30, 90 or 170 gal capacity. With a 170 gal tank, the aeroplane could fly over 1,500 mi (2,400 km). When carrying the 90 or 175 gal tank the aircraft was restricted, once airborne and at cruising altitude, to straight and level flight.[25] A maximum external bomb load of 1,000 pounds (1 × 500 lb (230 kg) bomb attached to the centre bomb-rack plus a 250 lb (110 kg) bomb under each wing) could be carried.

I pulled this off the net, but if you need some serious technical data i can dust off my old manual and find the results. But tbh, i think these numbers are pretty close to being accurate.....

Resp:
I should be able extrapolate with what you furnished. I know that Spitfires did shuttle work for the 8th AF bomb runs, but it looks like they could have flown some distance. I had assumed that the Spitfires did the initial escort, or possibly the last leg of egress. But with a 90 gallon drop tank, perhaps they could have gone farther.

 

[Smokey Stover]

Resp:
I should be able extrapolate with what you furnished. I know that Spitfires did shuttle work for the 8th AF bomb runs, but it looks like they could have flown some distance. I had assumed that the Spitfires did the initial escort, or possibly the last leg of egress. But with a 90 gallon drop tank, perhaps they could have gone farther.

As a matter of fact you are right. It's really quite an enigma. During the B.O.B the German Bf -109 as we know had a very limited fuel tank. Crossing the channel + later having to stick close to their bombers the 109's had an average of ten minutes fighting time over England before they had to disengage to have enough fuel to get back to France. There are many accounts of fighter pilots recalling how their squadron mates one by one over the radio described how the fuel warning light was on, and eventually having to ditch into the channel. The French coast was littered with fighter and bomber ac that barely made it home. But my point is, the Bf-109E did have the capability to carry extra fuel drop tanks. It's a serious failure by the Luftwaffe to not implement those measures straight away, as many ac were converted in the field. Especially German ac.

Now getting to the original question bare with me. The same thing happened with the Spitfire once the roles were reversed and it was England flying fighter sweeps across the channel to the French coast. This started out as mostly fighter v fighter combat missions and England were loosing a lot of ac by the end of 1941. Especially around the time the Focke Wulf Fw-190 came into operation. It's nickname "butcherbird" given to it by the British pilots flying their Spitfire Mk V's certainly lived up to it's name. And the Spitfire Mk lX design (mainly more powerful merlin 65 with twin stage superchargers) the Mk lX was a direct result of 190's introduction and produced as an effective adversary. (Side note: Many German pilots upon first meeting the Mk lX mistook it for the slower less powerful Mk V, to their cost. Very similar to the Wildcat & Hellcat v Zero experience in the Pacific. The changes for both US and UK fighters were so minimal many enemy pilots simply were shot down for using dogfighting tactics based on the older planes performance parameters.) But i digress...

Back to the Spitfire's and escort duty. Like the Germans and the experiences with short fuel ranges, the British had perfectly capable resources to fit droptanls or extra fuel pods to the Spitfire. After all they were basically just paper and plaster, meant to be discarded after the fuel was expended. The Spitfire escorting actual bombing missions usually would make the first escort then be relieved by either another squadron of Spits or sometimes American P-47's and P-38's. But this wasn't really common practice as both the RAF & USAAF didn't have much cooperation when it came to missions. The British pretty much bombed by night and the US by day. The RAF offered advice to the USAAF but they were confident the mighty B-17 would shoot its way in and out of a mission. The truth was it simply couldn't even defend itself especially when the Luftwaffe literally loitered around the same airspace as the escorting allied fighters knowing full well they would simply have to turn around and leave the bombers to their fate because of lack of fuel. Some say resources were not enough but the fact is no squadrons were carrying extra fuel tanks adequate to stay with the bombers all the way to the target and back. I don't want to guestimate on fuel range for combat escort ac right now, but i will look up my references. I know more figters could have given a lot longer cover for bombers flying deep penetration raids. The 8th and bomber command were rather ruthlessly treated as canon fodder unfortunately. That's why the numbers of k.i.a are so huge compared to any other branch of the armed forces.

P.S. The book you mentioned sounds very interesting and i have not heard of it before. I will certainly look it up thanks

 

[Navalwarrior]

As a matter of fact you are right. It's really quite an enigma. During the B.O.B the German Bf -109 as we know had a very limited fuel tank. Crossing the channel + later having to stick close to their bombers the 109's had an average of ten minutes fighting time over England before they had to disengage to have enough fuel to get back to France. There are many accounts of fighter pilots recalling how their squadron mates one by one over the radio described how the fuel warning light was on, and eventually having to ditch into the channel. The French coast was littered with fighter and bomber ac that barely made it home. But my point is, the Bf-109E did have the capability to carry extra fuel drop tanks. It's a serious failure by the Luftwaffe to not implement those measures straight away, as many ac were converted in the field. Especially German ac.

Now getting to the original question bare with me. The same thing happened with the Spitfire once the roles were reversed and it was England flying fighter sweeps across the channel to the French coast. This started out as mostly fighter v fighter combat missions and England were loosing a lot of ac by the end of 1941. Especially around the time the Focke Wulf Fw-190 came into operation. It's nickname "butcherbird" given to it by the British pilots flying their Spitfire Mk V's certainly lived up to it's name. And the Spitfire Mk lX design (mainly more powerful merlin 65 with twin stage superchargers) the Mk lX was a direct result of 190's introduction and produced as an effective adversary. (Side note: Many German pilots upon first meeting the Mk lX mistook it for the slower less powerful Mk V, to their cost. Very similar to the Wildcat & Hellcat v Zero experience in the Pacific. The changes for both US and UK fighters were so minimal many enemy pilots simply were shot down for using dogfighting tactics based on the older planes performance parameters.) But i digress...

Back to the Spitfire's and escort duty. Like the Germans and the experiences with short fuel ranges, the British had perfectly capable resources to fit droptanls or extra fuel pods to the Spitfire. After all they were basically just paper and plaster, meant to be discarded after the fuel was expended. The Spitfire escorting actual bombing missions usually would make the first escort then be relieved by either another squadron of Spits or sometimes American P-47's and P-38's. But this wasn't really common practice as both the RAF & USAAF didn't have much cooperation when it came to missions. The British pretty much bombed by night and the US by day. The RAF offered advice to the USAAF but they were confident the mighty B-17 would shoot its way in and out of a mission. The truth was it simply couldn't even defend itself especially when the Luftwaffe literally loitered around the same airspace as the escorting allied fighters knowing full well they would simply have to turn around and leave the bombers to their fate because of lack of fuel. Some say resources were not enough but the fact is no squadrons were carrying extra fuel tanks adequate to stay with the bombers all the way to the target and back. I don't want to guestimate on fuel range for combat escort ac right now, but i will look up my references. I know more figters could have given a lot longer cover for bombers flying deep penetration raids. The 8th and bomber command were rather ruthlessly treated as canon fodder unfortunately. That's why the numbers of k.i.a are so huge compared to any other branch of the armed forces.

P.S. The book you mentioned sounds very interesting and i have not heard of it before. I will certainly look it up thanks

Resp:
Thanks, Smokey. After a disastrous bombing raid to Germany in Sept 1943 by 8AF Bomber Command, Gen Arnold (visiting England) 'jumped' Air Marshall Portal (spelling ?) for not using his fighters to attack German fighter airfields (while they were refueling after attacking ingress bombers) to reduce available fighters for egress attacks. When the incident filtered down to RAF pilots, they thought Arnold justified, as they believed 'command' was not adjusting to the changing needs of the air war! Part of the blame fell to Eaker, as he communicated little with RAF Command.

 

[pbehn]

Resp:
Thanks, Smokey. After a disastrous bombing raid to Germany in Sept 1943 by 8AF Bomber Command, Gen Arnold (visiting England) 'jumped' Air Marshall Portal (spelling ?) for not using his fighters to attack German fighter airfields (while they were refueling after attacking ingress bombers) to reduce available fighters for egress attacks. When the incident filtered down to RAF pilots, they thought Arnold justified, as they believed 'command' was not adjusting to the changing needs of the air war! Part of the blame fell to Eaker, as he communicated little with RAF Command.

Some details would be nice, like which country the airfields were in?

 

[Navalwarrior]

Some details would be nice, like which country the airfields were in?

1943: Occupied France.

 

[pbehn]

1943: Occupied France.

Which part of France wasn't occupied in 1943?

I am trying to narrow things down.

 

[Airframes]

The best Spitfire ?
Any Mark that I could afford to own !!!

 

[Navalwarrior]

As a matter of fact you are right. It's really quite an enigma. During the B.O.B the German Bf -109 as we know had a very limited fuel tank. Crossing the channel + later having to stick close to their bombers the 109's had an average of ten minutes fighting time over England before they had to disengage to have enough fuel to get back to France. There are many accounts of fighter pilots recalling how their squadron mates one by one over the radio described how the fuel warning light was on, and eventually having to ditch into the channel. The French coast was littered with fighter and bomber ac that barely made it home. But my point is, the Bf-109E did have the capability to carry extra fuel drop tanks. It's a serious failure by the Luftwaffe to not implement those measures straight away, as many ac were converted in the field. Especially German ac.

Now getting to the original question bare with me. The same thing happened with the Spitfire once the roles were reversed and it was England flying fighter sweeps across the channel to the French coast. This started out as mostly fighter v fighter combat missions and England were loosing a lot of ac by the end of 1941. Especially around the time the Focke Wulf Fw-190 came into operation. It's nickname "butcherbird" given to it by the British pilots flying their Spitfire Mk V's certainly lived up to it's name. And the Spitfire Mk lX design (mainly more powerful merlin 65 with twin stage superchargers) the Mk lX was a direct result of 190's introduction and produced as an effective adversary. (Side note: Many German pilots upon first meeting the Mk lX mistook it for the slower less powerful Mk V, to their cost. Very similar to the Wildcat & Hellcat v Zero experience in the Pacific. The changes for both US and UK fighters were so minimal many enemy pilots simply were shot down for using dogfighting tactics based on the older planes performance parameters.) But i digress...

Back to the Spitfire's and escort duty. Like the Germans and the experiences with short fuel ranges, the British had perfectly capable resources to fit droptanls or extra fuel pods to the Spitfire. After all they were basically just paper and plaster, meant to be discarded after the fuel was expended. The Spitfire escorting actual bombing missions usually would make the first escort then be relieved by either another squadron of Spits or sometimes American P-47's and P-38's. But this wasn't really common practice as both the RAF & USAAF didn't have much cooperation when it came to missions. The British pretty much bombed by night and the US by day. The RAF offered advice to the USAAF but they were confident the mighty B-17 would shoot its way in and out of a mission. The truth was it simply couldn't even defend itself especially when the Luftwaffe literally loitered around the same airspace as the escorting allied fighters knowing full well they would simply have to turn around and leave the bombers to their fate because of lack of fuel. Some say resources were not enough but the fact is no squadrons were carrying extra fuel tanks adequate to stay with the bombers all the way to the target and back. I don't want to guestimate on fuel range for combat escort ac right now, but i will look up my references. I know more figters could have given a lot longer cover for bombers flying deep penetration raids. The 8th and bomber command were rather ruthlessly treated as canon fodder unfortunately. That's why the numbers of k.i.a are so huge compared to any other branch of the armed forces.

P.S. The book you mentioned sounds very interesting and i have not heard of it before. I will certainly look it up thanks

Resp:
We can't change history, nor should we try, but as students of WWII aviation history it is important to know as much as possible. There are reasons why the USAAF, RAF, etc evolved the way they did. The Japanese Zero had a phenomenal range by late 1940 (even w/o its ability to carry one drop tank), while the USAAF (formerly USAAC) placed a restriction on aircraft manufacturers against building fighters capable of carrying external fuel stores (drop tanks) since 1939. Most historians believe that this was due to infighting between Bomber Command and Fighter Command (since late 1920s/early 1930s) as the capability of fighters carrying external fuel stores was a 'threat' to Strategic Bombing (may have also influenced where money was allotted). Regardless, as you said, 8th AF Bomber Command suffered extremely heavy loses from German (Luftwaffe) air attacks on ingress and egress, with ack ack artillery over target area. HOWEVER, it was my understanding that when RAF Bomber Command went to 'night' missions only (or mostly), they flew w/o fighter escort. If so, how where RAF fighters used by mid 1943? As was mentioned, after the B.O.B. the Liftwaffe and RAF roles were reversed; RAF defending their territory against German air attacks, to Liftwaffe defending French held territory against Allied (RAF & USAAF) power projection. So how was RAF Fighter Command utilizing their air assets in the ETO in mid-1943, now that they were in the air offensive mode? We know that RAF Spitfies did provide Ingres/egress over occupied France, but to what extent and when, is my question. And most importantly, could or were drop tanks used to extend their coverage on B-17s and B-24s? P-47s in England were not fitted (retro for single 75 gal belly tank) for external fuel stores until Sept 1943. Plumbed wing hard points didn't arrive until P-47D-15 arrived in Mar/Apr(?) 1944, so there was a need for daylight bombing escorts. [My info indicates that 8 AF Commander Gen Eaker and RAF Air Marshall Portal rarely interacted/met with each other to exchange info, etc..]. I know that when USAAF Commander Gen Hap Arnold visited 8th AF in Sept 1943, he also met with AM Portal, where he gave Portal 'hell' for not using his fighters/fighter bombers to attack German air fields in France on the days when the 8th AF bombers had missions. Knowing full well that some Luftwaffe airfields were w/in striking distance. Arnold pointed out that RAF could catch the fighters on the ground when they landed to refuel/rearm, after attacking his bombers on ingress. When the story of their meeting filtered down to RAF fighter pilots, they thought Arnold's point had merit, as they saw RAF Command as stagnate, by not adjusting to the needs of the changing conflict. Portal, shocked . . . did act.
So, I am interested in how the RAF assisted 8AF. I know that RAF fighters did perform escort duties for 8AF, but I am interested in to what extent; details please. Were drop tanks used on Spitfires for this assist?

 

[Smokey Stover]

Two Spitfire IXs were fitted with Mustang drop tanks in the US. (US National Archives

Ok, i will get you some figures. But just for now, to answer one of your questions about bomber command flying at night without fighter escort (As escorting fighters in the dark, would hardly have been very effective if at all) The bomber crews were pretty much left to their own. Although it should be noted that from late '42' to '43' onwards, the RAF were flying night intruder missions in and around German night fighter bases. These missions were undertook by the Mosquito FB's and were very successful. Either shooting down twin engine night fighters such as the Bf - 110 & Me - 410's. Even if they weren't shooting down enemy planes it was an effective method of keeping some German units on the ground as they knew full well Mossies were likely orbiting their airbases. It was pretty standard for night fighter pilots to stick very close to ground level when taking off for at least two miles before making their climb up into the bomber stream. I interviewed a Canadian Mosquito pilot who went on such missions and said sometimes it was simply bad practice by enemy pilots. One Me -410 pilot landed after shooting down 5 RAF bombers that very night, so he could refuel and rearm only in his rush to get back up had left his landing lights on. This was enough for the Mossie to sneak in behind the 410 and blow it out of the sky. The guy probably never even knew what hit him. The German pilots called these mossie intruders "The bandits of the air!" They were based at Hunsdon airfield i believe. There was a pub at the end of the runway called the turkey cock. Apparently patrons would almost duck their heads while holding a pint when the mossies were taking off and landing....

But as for the Spits range and operational duties, It has to be noted that while various extra fuel tanks were fitted or adapted to nearly all Spitfire Mk's, the aircraft was designed as a short range home interceptor. So a large capacity fuel tank was simply not a requirement in the original design. And infact the front fuel tank, located just forward of the cockpit firewall resulted in many pilots being horribly burned or killed if trapped inside the cockpit. s The Mk I carried 85 gallons of petrol internally in two tanks immediately ahead of the cockpit. The upper tank held 48 gallons and the lower 37. This arrangement was used in the majority of the Merlin fighter marks: II, V, IX and XVI. (By comparison, the Bristol Bulldog of 1928, with only 490 hp, carried 106 gallons). Later examples of the Mk IX and Mk XVI featured two tanks behind the cockpit with 75 gallons (66 gallons in the versions with the cut down rear fuselage). The principal versions of photo-reconnaissance Spitfires used the majority of the leading edge structure as an integral fuel tank holding 66 gallons per side. As this required the removal of the armament, it was not an option for the fighter variants. Capacity was increased in the Mk VIII (which followed the Mk IX into service) with the lower tank enlarged to fill its bay and holding 48 gallons. Each wing also held a 13-gallon bag tank in the inboard leading edge (between ribs 5 and 8) to give a total internal load of 122 gallons, a 44% increase on its forerunners. Eighteen gallon leading edge bag tanks were also fitted in some late Mk IXs. Fitting the Griffon in the Spitfire's slim nose displaced the oil tank from its original 'chin' position to the main tank area. This reduced upper tank capacity by 12 gallons but all Griffon Spitfires, bar some Mk XIIs, featured the 48-gallon lower tank. It is worth noting that the PR Mk VI had a 20-gallon tank fitted under the pilot's seat although no other mark of Spitfire appears to have used this option. On 85 gallons of internal fuel, the Mk IX had a range of only 434 miles; the Mk VIII, reaching 660 miles on 122 gallons, was still short on reach.

Try this article below, just follow the link
Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach?

 

[Navalwarrior]

Ok, i will get you some figures. But just for now, to answer one of your questions about bomber command flying at night without fighter escort (As escorting fighters in the dark, would hardly have been very effective if at all) The bomber crews were pretty much left to their own. Although it should be noted that from late '42' to '43' onwards, the RAF were flying night intruder missions in and around German night fighter bases. These missions were undertook by the Mosquito FB's and were very successful. Either shooting down twin engine night fighters such as the Bf - 110 & Me - 410's. Even if they weren't shooting down enemy planes it was an effective method of keeping some German units on the ground as they knew full well Mossies were likely orbiting their airbases. It was pretty standard for night fighter pilots to stick very close to ground level when taking off for at least two miles before making their climb up into the bomber stream. I interviewed a Canadian Mosquito pilot who went on such missions and said sometimes it was simply bad practice by enemy pilots. One Me -410 pilot landed after shooting down 5 RAF bombers that very night, so he could refuel and rearm only in his rush to get back up had left his landing lights on. This was enough for the Mossie to sneak in behind the 410 and blow it out of the sky. The guy probably never even knew what hit him. The German pilots called these mossie intruders "The bandits of the air!" They were based at Hunsdon airfield i believe. There was a pub at the end of the runway called the turkey cock. Apparently patrons would almost duck their heads while holding a pint when the mossies were taking off and landing....

But as for the Spits range and operational duties, i will get you some info shortly. But while your waiting i suggest you check out this article below.....


Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach?

Resp:
Thanks Smokey. I didn't think fighters could be used as escort on night missions, but I didn't want to assume that it wasn't done (you know, 'assume' makes an 'ass out of u and me!).

 

[Shortround6]

But as for the Spits range and operational duties, i will get you some info shortly. But while your waiting i suggest you check out this article below.....


Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach?

Unfortunately the authors made a few errors in their calculations or operations.


Start-up, taxi and take-off with rear tank selected

Just about everybody else performed this on the main tanks. For one thing one of the main tanks on most aircraft was the "reserve tank" with a seperate fuel tap/standpipe. Most planes also had a return line from the Carb/injector that returned excess fuel. Using this main tank first not only assured safer fuel supply but gave room for the excess fuel to be returned to rather than vented overboard.

Climb to height and cruise commenced on remaining rear tank fuel

This is where the Mustang switched to the rear tank, at least until it had been drawn down to the desired amount. Planes without a rear tank CG problem switched to drop tanks. Nobody took off on drop tanks.

Outbound cruise continued on underwing tanks fuel – jettisoned when empty (or on entering combat)

Pretty much standard

Combat on slipper tank fuel

Slipper tank better have very postive feed and be self sealing.

Return on internal fuel

here is the kicker, it doesn't matter how much fuel you had going in, what matters is how much fuel you have after you drop the the tanks and fight for 15-20 minutes.
Mustangs drew the rear tank down to about 35 gallons(?) then switched to the drop tanks. with drop tanks gone they had most of the 180 gallons in the wing tanks to fight and get home with. depending on the length of the flight some of the fuel used to start-up/taxi and take off had been replaced by the return fuel.
The 35 gallons in the rear tank became the 'reserve' for finding airfield and landing. With tanks gone the Mustang had a max of 215 US gallons but might be down to 200 gallons. A Spitfire with full fuselage tanks and 18 gallon wing bags has 154 US gallons, add in 25-30 gallons for a rear tank and you are still abit short, you also have 5 possible fuel tanks for the pilot to juggle compared to the 3 tanks on the Mustang and this is after the drop tanks are gone (5 tanks total on the Mustang vs 7 tanks (or 8 if a slipper is used?)
How many pilots/planes lost due to pilot either putting the fuel selector in the wrong position or the engine cutting out on an air bubble in the line/system (one reason take-off was always done on a main tank and not an auxiliary tank)

 

[Smokey Stover]

Unfortunately the authors made a few errors in their calculations or operations.


Start-up, taxi and take-off with rear tank selected

Just about everybody else performed this on the main tanks. For one thing one of the main tanks on most aircraft was the "reserve tank" with a seperate fuel tap/standpipe. Most planes also had a return line from the Carb/injector that returned excess fuel. Using this main tank first not only assured safer fuel supply but gave room for the excess fuel to be returned to rather than vented overboard.

Climb to height and cruise commenced on remaining rear tank fuel

This is where the Mustang switched to the rear tank, at least until it had been drawn down to the desired amount. Planes without a rear tank CG problem switched to drop tanks. Nobody took off on drop tanks.

Outbound cruise continued on underwing tanks fuel – jettisoned when empty (or on entering combat)

Pretty much standard

Combat on slipper tank fuel

Slipper tank better have very postive feed and be self sealing.

Return on internal fuel

here is the kicker, it doesn't matter how much fuel you had going in, what matters is how much fuel you have after you drop the the tanks and fight for 15-20 minutes.
Mustangs drew the rear tank down to about 35 gallons(?) then switched to the drop tanks. with drop tanks gone they had most of the 180 gallons in the wing tanks to fight and get home with. depending on the length of the flight some of the fuel used to start-up/taxi and take off had been replaced by the return fuel.
The 35 gallons in the rear tank became the 'reserve' for finding airfield and landing. With tanks gone the Mustang had a max of 215 US gallons but might be down to 200 gallons. A Spitfire with full fuselage tanks and 18 gallon wing bags has 154 US gallons, add in 25-30 gallons for a rear tank and you are still abit short, you also have 5 possible fuel tanks for the pilot to juggle compared to the 3 tanks on the Mustang and this is after the drop tanks are gone (5 tanks total on the Mustang vs 7 tanks (or 8 if a slipper is used?)
How many pilots/planes lost due to pilot either putting the fuel selector in the wrong position or the engine cutting out on an air bubble in the line/system (one reason take-off was always done on a main tank and not an auxiliary tank)

Oh indeed. It's not just about turning the plane into a flying gas tank. I know from P-51 pilot testimony if the fuel tanks were not used up in a certain order all kinds of stability problems occur. Any aircraft adding extra weight has to be effected. And the Spits were very thirsty beasts. As i said before though, the spitfire was only ever supposed to be a fighter/bomber interceptor. And for that job it excelled. All sides found once distance became an issue, new methods and compromises had to be made. A lot of people forget WW2 aircraft technology and understanding was still a tough learning curve.

 

[Navalwarrior]

Oh indeed. It's not just about turning the plane into a flying gas tank. I know from P-51 pilot testimony if the fuel tanks were not used up in a certain order all kinds of stability problems occur. Any aircraft adding extra weight has to be effected. And the Spits were very thirsty beasts. As i said before though, the spitfire was only ever supposed to be a fighter/bomber interceptor. And for that job it excelled. All sides found once distance became an issue, new methods and compromises had to be made. A lot of people forget WW2 aircraft technology and understanding was still a tough learning curve.