Which is the best Spitfire mark?

[Navalwarrior]

Resp:
I do not know why we are talking about the Merlin Mustang. The question was a rather simple two fold one. If the Spitfire (whatever variants were available around the time frame of Sept 1943) was providing escort for 8th AF bombers, which I believe it was . . . what would the maximum (radius) that it could fly? If drop tanks were available, what would the combat radius be with those tanks? It may not be a significant distance.
NOTE: A standard escort chart of Allied fighters shows the Spitfire (unknown Mark) flying 175 miles before turning for home.

 

[Navalwarrior]

View attachment 503068 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?

Resp:
I just got to briefly scan the 'Escort Spitfire - a missed opt for longer reach.' I need to re-read to digest its impact.
In reviewing info on how the 8th AF set up in England, it was interesting to find that the RAF offered, in July 1942 to 'provide bomber escort for the USAAF via the Spitfire. Apparently, the British wanted to test the MkIX's ability at sustained high altitude against the FW-190. The USAAF accepted the offer (funny how hard the USAAC fought its own Fighter Command against the idea of fighter escorts for the B-17, etc.). First escort mission was on Aug 17, 1942 to Rouen/Sottervulle marshaling yards. More to follow!

 

[Navalwarrior]

Resp:
I just got to briefly scan the 'Escort Spitfire - a missed opt for longer reach.' I need to re-read to digest its impact.
In reviewing info on how the 8th AF set up in England, it was interesting to find that the RAF offered, in July 1942 to 'provide bomber escort for the USAAF via the Spitfire. Apparently, the British wanted to test the MkIX's ability at sustained high altitude against the FW-190. The USAAF accepted the offer (funny how hard the USAAC fought its own Fighter Command against the idea of fighter escorts for the B-17, etc.). First escort mission was on Aug 17, 1942 to Rouen/Sottervulle marshaling yards. More to follow!

Cont:
I would think using the chart's 175 miles range w/o drop tanks (am assuming they were Spitfire MkIXs) as a basis to extrapolate range WITH various drop tanks. In so doing, that 175 mile distance X 2 would provide enough fuel 1) on ingress, 2) air combat, and 3) for egress. So 350 total miles on internal fuel would cover all three? Can't we just add in half the distance for each capacity drop tank, for the additional range?

 

[pbehn]

The issue with the Spitfire compared to the P-51 is not only internal fuel or external fuel. The P-51 was faster on maximum speed but also about 30MPH faster on most engine settings, after 2 hrs cruising it was 60 miles ahead of a Spitfire or still had 60 miles more fuel on board, The Spitfire had less fuel but actually required more which is why the difference in terms of an escort fighter was huge.

 

[pbehn]

Resp:
I just got to briefly scan the 'Escort Spitfire - a missed opt for longer reach.' I need to re-read to digest its impact.
In reviewing info on how the 8th AF set up in England, it was interesting to find that the RAF offered, in July 1942 to 'provide bomber escort for the USAAF via the Spitfire. Apparently, the British wanted to test the MkIX's ability at sustained high altitude against the FW-190. The USAAF accepted the offer (funny how hard the USAAC fought its own Fighter Command against the idea of fighter escorts for the B-17, etc.). First escort mission was on Aug 17, 1942 to Rouen/Sottervulle marshaling yards. More to follow!

The RAF/RCAF used 4 squadrons of Spitfire MkIXs to escort USAAF B-17s on a raid at Abbeville airfield during Dieppe August 1942. On the Schweinfurt raid (Aug 1943) 96 Spitfires escorted to Antwerp and from St Niklaas

 

[Navalwarrior]

The issue with the Spitfire compared to the P-51 is not only internal fuel or external fuel. The P-51 was faster on maximum speed but also about 30MPH faster on most engine settings, after 2 hrs cruising it was 60 miles ahead of a Spitfire or still had 60 miles more fuel on board, The Spitfire had less fuel but actually required more which is why the difference in terms of an escort fighter was huge.

Resp:
Thanks pbehn. All good info, which explains a lot. I know when I attended a local Air Show, where a Spitfire IX was about 2/3rds the size of a P-51D, when parked next to each other. And the Mustang could out run the MkIX. I recently read where Supermarine was contemplating moving the air intakes from the wings to the fuselage at the aft wing root area . . . to reduce drag. However, I think the wing design did not lend itself to low drag.
BACK TO my question: Knowing what you know, what would the range with drop tanks on the Spitfire operating with the 8th AF during the Sept 1943 time frame? Or put another way, what would the range be where the spitfire would turn for home? Thanks.

 

[pbehn]

Resp:
Thanks pbehn. All good info, which explains a lot. I know when I attended a local Air Show, where a Spitfire IX was about 2/3rds the size of a P-51D, when parked next to each other. And the Mustang could out run the MkIX. I recently read where Supermarine was contemplating moving the air intakes from the wings to the fuselage at the aft wing root area . . . to reduce drag. However, I think the wing design did not lend itself to low drag.
BACK TO my question: Knowing what you know, what would the range with drop tanks on the Spitfire operating with the 8th AF during the Sept 1943 time frame? Or put another way, what would the range be where the spitfire would turn for home? Thanks.

I have no idea but the question is purely hypothetical. On the repeat raid on Schweinfurt in October 1943 there were 24 squadrons of Spitfires equipped with drop tanks, but they handed over to P-47s that didn't have drop tanks fitted (according to Wiki and one identical other source).

 

[Navalwarrior]

I have no idea but the question is purely hypothetical. On the repeat raid on Schweinfurt in October 1943 there were 24 squadrons of Spitfires equipped with drop tanks, but they handed over to P-47s that didn't have drop tanks fitted (according to Wiki and one identical other source).

Resp:
The 8th AF Commander Gen Eaker met with British officials in mid 1943 inre to producing drop tanks for his fighters. However, Eaker failed to confirm the order. In the meantime, Eaker cancelled a US order to produce drop tanks. By the time Eaker realized his mistake, many months had passed. One can only guess the cost in human life/aircraft.
I read where USAAF Gen Hap Arnold gave RAF Commander Portal a 'hard time' in Sep 43 (visit to England) after the 1st Schweinfurt mission by 8th AF Bomber Command. Arnold expected RAF to attack Luftwaffe fighter airfields while they landed to refuel and rearm. This was after the Luftwaffe attacked the bombers on ingress. When the story filtered down to RAF fighter pilots, they thought Arnold's complaint had merit, in that RAF Command was not keeping up with the changes as the war progressed. According to the info I read, Portal did act (likely the drop tank equipped Spitfires on the Oct Schweinfurt raid was but one area of support). If Spitfires did not have the range, aircraft such as Mosquitos would have sufficed.

 

[pbehn]

If Spitfires did not have the range, aircraft such as Mosquitos would have sufficed.

What is this? Pull a well known British aircraft name out of the air? How many Mosquitos? Do you want bomber and photo recon variants too. What use is a Mosquito as a bomber escort apart from being easy to shoot down. If you can conjure unlimited numbers of aircraft as and when you want why not just have Mosquitos do the whole lot until Big Week starts? Your post shows complete ignorance of the situation and a very clear willingness to blame the British for US losses with no more evidence required than "I heard" or "I read" you have not learned anything at all since you first posted here, you have just got a few more "factoids" that you can selectively quote to support your nutty ideas. Now you show me where and when you read quote "Gen Hap Arnold gave RAF Commander Portal a 'hard time' in Sep 43 (visit to England) after the 1st Schweinfurt mission by 8th AF Bomber Command. Arnold expected RAF to attack Luftwaffe fighter airfields while they landed to refuel and rearm." What were the RAF supposed to attack with and where and was this requested by anyone, how did "Hap" expect anything? How do you expect coordinated airfield attacks? When at the time coordinating bomber escort and actually met recon was beyond everyone involved? Be aware that I am no longer an idle poster and a bystander in this discussion, you are quite clearly trying to pin some latterday accusation of cowardice or lack of care on the RAF in particular, and the British people in general, for US bomber losses. Produce a FACT to support what you claim to have heard and read, or STFU. I have given you specific dates and numbers, you respond with nothing more than accusations of what amounts to witchcraft, whataboutery and couldashoulawoulda, my parents generation are not at your disposal for that. Stop making accusations dressed up as questions and produce some evidence for your tin pot theories.

 

[Navalwarrior]

What is this? Pull a well known British aircraft name out of the air? How many Mosquitos? Do you want bomber and photo recon variants too. What use is a Mosquito as a bomber escort apart from being easy to shoot down. If you can conjure unlimited numbers of aircraft as and when you want why not just have Mosquitos do the whole lot until Big Week starts? Your post shows complete ignorance of the situation and a very clear willingness to blame the British for US losses with no more evidence required than "I heard" or "I read" you have not learned anything at all since you first posted here, you have just got a few more "factoids" that you can selectively quote to support your nutty ideas. Now you show me where and when you read quote "Gen Hap Arnold gave RAF Commander Portal a 'hard time' in Sep 43 (visit to England) after the 1st Schweinfurt mission by 8th AF Bomber Command. Arnold expected RAF to attack Luftwaffe fighter airfields while they landed to refuel and rearm." What were the RAF supposed to attack with and where and was this requested by anyone, how did "Hap" expect anything? How do you expect coordinated airfield attacks? When at the time coordinating bomber escort and actually met recon was beyond everyone involved? Be aware that I am no longer an idle poster and a bystander in this discussion, you are quite clearly trying to pin some latterday accusation of cowardice or lack of care on the RAF in particular, and the British people in general, for US bomber losses. Produce a FACT to support what you claim to have heard and read, or STFU. I have given you specific dates and numbers, you respond with nothing more than accusations of what amounts to witchcraft, whataboutery and couldashoulawoulda, my parents generation are not at your disposal for that. Stop making accusations dressed up as questions and produce some evidence for your tin pot theories.

Resp:
WOW! I don't know how you can jump so high. I was referring to strategy and tactics. Having served over 25 yrs, I am well aware of how military leadership is often slow to change. I always allowed my junior officers to speak, as often my head may be focused in an area that causes me to give less time to others. Having worked 11.5 hour days for nearly 12 mos (forward deployed) it is easy to miss things that I haven't paid attention to. I often kept a pen and paper on my nightstand, so I could write down items I missed (one morning I awoke to find 8 items listed). Command is demanding! ! ! RAF pilots, from their agreement, saw this happening at the higher level. Portal was where he was because of his ability, which was significant. There was no disrespect toward any Service. Mosquitos, or any suitable aircraft, could have attacked the airfields.

 

[pbehn]

Resp:
WOW! I don't know how you can jump so high. I was referring to strategy and tactics. Having served over 25 yrs, I am well aware of how military leadership is often slow to change. I always allowed my junior officers to speak, as often my head may be focused in an area that causes me to give less time to others. Having worked 11.5 hour days for nearly 12 mos (forward deployed) it is easy to miss things that I haven't paid attention to. I often kept a pen and paper on my nightstand, so I could write down items I missed (one morning I awoke to find 8 items listed). Command is demanding! ! ! RAF pilots, from their agreement, saw this happening at the higher level. Portal was where he was because of his ability, which was significant. There was no disrespect toward any Service. Mosquitos, or any suitable aircraft, could have attacked the airfields.

Where is the evidence to support your claims? In Big Week Mosquitos and others were used for airfield attacks but I consider that one of many lessons learned. I am waiting for your evidence, and believe me I will badger you for it until you produce it or admit you just made it up since I have not seen any evidence and I was one of the people you were pumping for information. I now suspect that your constant harping on about the Spitfires range is part of your conspiracy theory, prove me wrong.

 

[Navalwarrior]

Where is the evidence to support your claims? In Big Week Mosquitos and others were used for airfield attacks but I consider that one of many lessons learned. I am waiting for your evidence, and believe me I will badger you for it until you produce it or admit you just made it up since I have not seen any evidence and I was one of the people you were pumping for information. I now suspect that your constant harping on about the Spitfires range is part of your conspiracy theory, prove me wrong.

Resp:
Book: To Command The Sky: The Battle for Air Superiority Over Germany 1942-1944, by Stephen L. McFarlore & Wesley Phillips Newton, 2006, Pub by The University of Alabama Press, pages 106, 112, 114, 133, and 144-146. Details USAAF Gen Eaker's Command issues, to include Gen Hap Arnold's lack of confidence in him. The decision of Arnold to replace Fighter Commander Hunter with Kepner in June 1943, and replace Bomber Commander Longfellow with Anderson. Arnold would relieve Eaker in Nov/Dec 1943, to be replaced by Doolittle.
Paper: American Air Power Comes of Age - General H. H. "Hap" Arnold's World War II Diaries, Vol 2, Air University Press, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, Jan 2002, ISBN 1-58566-094-9, p 48-50. Details Arnold's relationship/discussion with Air Marshall Portal. Covers his visit and correspondence between Arnold and Portal. I believe the first book, To Command The Sky, also mentions communications between Portal and Arnold. You will also see that Arnold was disappointed with Eaker, as his many communications show.
Also: The Spitfire's record stands on it own.

 

[pbehn]

Resp:
Book: To Command The Sky: The Battle for Air Superiority Over Germany 1942-1944, by Stephen L. McFarlore & Wesley Phillips Newton, 2006, Pub by The University of Alabama Press, pages 106, 112, 114, 133, and 144-146. Details USAAF Gen Eaker's Command issues, to include Gen Hap Arnold's lack of confidence in him. The decision of Arnold to replace Fighter Commander Hunter with Kepner in June 1943, and replace Bomber Commander Longfellow with Anderson. Arnold would relieve Eaker in Nov/Dec 1943, to be replaced by Doolittle.
Paper: American Air Power Comes of Age - General H. H. "Hap" Arnold's World War II Diaries, Vol 2, Air University Press, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, Jan 2002, ISBN 1-58566-094-9, p 48-50. Details Arnold's relationship/discussion with Air Marshall Portal. Covers his visit and correspondence between Arnold and Portal. I believe the first book, To Command The Sky, also mentions communications between Portal and Arnold. You will also see that Arnold was disappointed with Eaker, as his many communications show.
Also: The Spitfire's record stands on it own.

How about some actual quotes to support your assertion that the British did not make coordinated attacks on LW airfields as arranged by Hap Arnold? What did he actually say?

 

[wuzak]

Resp:
Thanks pbehn. All good info, which explains a lot. I know when I attended a local Air Show, where a Spitfire IX was about 2/3rds the size of a P-51D, when parked next to each other. And the Mustang could out run the MkIX. I recently read where Supermarine was contemplating moving the air intakes from the wings to the fuselage at the aft wing root area . . . to reduce drag. However, I think the wing design did not lend itself to low drag.
BACK TO my question: Knowing what you know, what would the range with drop tanks on the Spitfire operating with the 8th AF during the Sept 1943 time frame? Or put another way, what would the range be where the spitfire would turn for home? Thanks.

There are several areas where the Spitfire lost out in drag compared to the P-47.

The radiators were one of them. The expansion and contraction ratios and limited movement of the exit control flap weren't as good as the P-51's.

The big cannon and fairings contributed 7 or 8mph speed loss.

The steepness of the front of the cockpit canopy caused significant extra drag compared to that of the P-51.

Fit and finish also contributed to performance losses.

Fix those and you could get a Spitfire quite close to a P-51 without changing the wing.

 

[Navalwarrior]

How about some actual quotes to support your assertion that the British did not make coordinated attacks on LW airfields as arranged by Hap Arnold? What did he actually say?

Resp:
You asked for evidence. I gave you everything you need to read it for yourself. This part requires action on your part.

 

[fubar57]

Resp: LMAO

 

[wuzak]

Resp: LMAO

Resp:

I'm not sure if Resp means Respect or Response.

 

[fubar57]

Resp:
I'm not sure if Resp means Respect or Response.

Resp:

Dang....I forgot the quote, that's why you were confused

 

[Navalwarrior]

There are several areas where the Spitfire lost out in drag compared to the P-47.

The radiators were one of them. The expansion and contraction ratios and limited movement of the exit control flap weren't as good as the P-51's.

The big cannon and fairings contributed 7 or 8mph speed loss.

The steepness of the front of the cockpit canopy caused significant extra drag compared to that of the P-51.

Fit and finish also contributed to performance losses.

Fix those and you could get a Spitfire quite close to a P-51 without changing the wing.

Resp:
Makes perfect sense. I believe I read somewhere that Douglas Bader preferred the 'a' wing Spitfire because he got better shot placement and plenty of rounds on target. I am not sure if it was a MkV or IX.

 

[wuzak]

Resp:
Makes perfect sense. I believe I read somewhere that Douglas Bader preferred the 'a' wing Spitfire because he got better shot placement and plenty of rounds on target. I am not sure if it was a MkV or IX.

Most likely a Mk II.

Not many V went without cannon. I doubt that any IXs went into service without cannons.