Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
There are many variants that kept the design alive, but it was the early Marks that kept England in the fight.
Last edited:
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Resp: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: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, 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
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.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?
Resp: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.....
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.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.
Resp: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
Some details would be nice, like which country the airfields were in?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.
1943: Occupied France.Some details would be nice, like which country the airfields were in?
Which part of France wasn't occupied in 1943?1943: Occupied France.
Resp: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: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?
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?
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.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.