RAF Fighters & Ranges

[KJ_Lesnick]

This is not some kind of nationalistic critique, but one of a scientific kind: I'm curious as to why the early Hurricanes and Spitfires had such short-ranges compared to planes like the USAAC's P-40's and even the USN's F4F's?

[Captain Canada]

Because they were smaller and faster and so awesome that the ground crews wanted them back quickly 

[jcf]

Geography.

[kitnut617]

Because they were designed as 'defence' fighters, where they didn't have to leave the borders of the country or just out into international airspace (which at the time was 3 miles off the coast).  As an aside, the Bf.109 was also a 'defence' fighter only it was used as in an 'offence' role. Just reading books about just how long a Bf.109 had over the south coast of Britain would clue you in there --

Just so you have an idea what the defensive role the RAF had, answer this. What State do you live in ?

[KJ_Lesnick]

Firstly: This raises a whole new set of questions.

1. When did international waters change from 3nm to 12nm?

2. As I understand it, what missions were our fighters (USN/USAAF) designed for exactly?  I'm pretty sure defensive was one of them as well as offensive fighter-sweeps, protection of small bombers (USN predominantly), some strafing and CAS work (USN/USAAF)

3. I'm not sure if I factored in the range of the Me-109 into the equation (especially with drop tanks) though planes like the Me-110 had very long range (admittedly, they weren't terribly maneuverable)

4. I've lived in many states: I currently live in NY


Secondly: I honestly thought the difference in range had to do with various things like

1. Gun placement: Guns were spaced further apart, the RAF usually packed more guns in the wings.

2. Wing thickness: It didn't apply to the Hawker Hurricane or Typhoon, but the Supermarine Spitfire, and Hawker Tempest had very thin wings: Thinner wings leave less room in the wing for fuel

3. Different differences in maximum normal and maximum ultimate positive, negative, and transverse g-loads: I'm not sure exactly how this would affect range, but it's a difference I'm aware of.

[sandiego89]

Secondly: I honestly thought the difference in range had to do with various things like

1. Gun placement: Guns were spaced further apart, the RAF usually packed more guns in the wings.

2. Wing thickness: It didn't apply to the Hawker Hurricane or Typhoon, but the Supermarine Spitfire, and Hawker Tempest had very thin wings: Thinner wings leave less room in the wing for fuel

3. Different differences in maximum normal and maximum ultimate positive, negative, and transverse g-loads: I'm not sure exactly how this would affect range, but it's a difference I'm aware of.

I think you find fuel capacity is much more a factor on range than any of those reasons.  Examine the fuel capacities of some aircraft, especially early versions.  More range comes at a cost however, and putting long large range requirements into a design specification will often result in a larger aircraft with the needed structure to carry all that fuel.  As others have stated it is based on what you need the aircraft to do.  For point defense, you may not need as much range. Speed, maneuverability and climb are vitally important- you don't want to be carrying extra weight in fuel and structure in a big airplane.  

The fighters you mention, especially the early marks of the Hurricane and Spitfire, did not carry a great deal of fuel.  Yes the size, shape and space within the wing can impact carrying fuel in the wing (like if there are lots of guns and ammo in the wing).  Later marks got more fuel.   

Two single engine fighters noted for range are the Zero and the P-51.  The Zero had exceptional range for its size/weight, but did this by sacrificing structure, self sealing tanks, etc.  The P-51 carried a lot of fuel.        

[kerick]

The mustang had the laminar flow wing that cut drag and allowed greater range. Nobody planned for long range escort fighters because people thought bombers could fight their way in and out.

[kitbasher]

Not just fuel carried, but consumption rate.

Fuel carriage - often in in the fuselage, not the wings. Cutaways of Spits, Hurris and types before and after will indicate that to be the case.

[PR19_Kit]

The thin-ness of the Spitfire's wings didn't seem to lessen it's range capabilities all that much. The PRXI and XIV could reach Berlin and return without any problems, and they had the same shaped wings as the earlier versions. OK, so they didn't carry any guns, but the shape of the wing itself didn't preclude fitting wing tanks.

You could imagine a longer ranged fighter based on the PRXI carrying, say, only 2 x 20 mm cannon and still using some of the wing tank design of the PR versions.

Indeed I wouldn't be at all surprised if The Wooksta hadn't already built one or two of them. 

[kitnut617]

4. I've lived in many states: I currently live in NY


Secondly: I honestly thought the difference in range had to do with various things like

2. Wing thickness: It didn't apply to the Hawker Hurricane or Typhoon, but the Supermarine Spitfire, and Hawker Tempest had very thin wings: Thinner wings leave less room in the wing for fuel

4. If you take the area of Maine and New York State (89935 sq.miles), you have the about the whole area of the UK (94058 sq.miles). Do you see why RAF fighters didn't need huge range factored in, also considering the hostile nation's border was only 40-50 miles away.

2. British fighters mostly carried their fuel in the fuselage, Spitfires for instance was two tanks in between the engine and the cockpit, later ones had an extra rear fuselage tank fitted and some used the space in the leading edge of the wing between the fuselage and gun bays. Hurricanes didn't have wing tanks either.

[NARSES2]

I read somewhere that the US played with one of the Spitfires they received (may have been pre Pearl harbour) and redesigned the internal arrangements. End result was they got more fuel in and thus more range. Their Airships weren't that interested as the aircraft did what they needed it to do, which at the time was to defend the British Isles.

Anyone know if this is true or just some miss-information I read somewhere ?

As Kit mentions the PR variants had plenty of range so it was horses for courses

[rickshaw]

British thinking about fighters were that they were initially intended for defence of the UK and secondarily for offensive use over the battlefield.   As the war progressed, those roles reverse.  As the war progressed, the range on the Spitfire increased enormously.  By war's end, Spitfires were regularly escorting daylight raids deep into Germany from the UK.  That would have been impossible for an early mark.   Different situations create different solutions.

In the US, fighters were seen primarily (initially) as an Army tactical force.  Their secondary role was defence of the US.  Because the continent of North America is considerably larger than the UK and Europe, their ranges were therefore commensurately larger.

As Jon suggested, the answer is ultimately because of geography.   

[PR19_Kit]

How far from the US were the potential enemies at the time? Did they seriously expect Canada or Mexico to become adversaries? I doubt it, so short range interceptors would have been of little use.

[MaxHeadroom]

Hello, KJ_Lesnick!

In the early 1600-years the 3-miles-zone were founded because of national sovereignty: potestatem terrae finiri, ubi finitur armorum vis, that means: the national influence ended, where the power of weapons ended ---> the gun-range of 3 miles.
In 1921 the Sovjetunion was the first state, who claimed a 12-miles-zone, this becomes common in 1958.

US-fighters like P 51 and P 47 were designed to free the occupied Europe and Asia and to escort the long-range bomber-fleets, so they need long ranges (strategic war).
The early fighters like Hurricane, Spitfire and Me 109 were only designed for tactical (short range) use.
The Me 109 only had 10 minutes over south of London! The Me 110 was intended to have a longer range to fight offensively and to escort the german bombers, but they were too big, too heavy and not agile to succeed over the Hurricane and Spitfire in air-fight.
In the early war the fighter engines were too weak to give speed AND range because of the weight of the gasoline.
Later, the engines becomes stronger.
Me 109 E: ca. 2,200 to 2,500 kg - 990 HP
Me 110 C: ca. 6,750 kg - 2 x 1,000 HP
Hurricane Mk II: ca. 2,500 (empty)/3,700 kg (start) - 1,280 HP
P 51 D: ca. 5,200 kg - 1,700 HP
P 47 D: ca. 4,800 (empty)/up to over 8,000 kg (start) - 2,500 HP
q.e.d.

Norbert

[NARSES2]

How far from the US were the potential enemies at the time? Did they seriously expect Canada or Mexico to become adversaries? I doubt it, so short range interceptors would have been of little use.

Well at least one of the "coloured" war plans from the 30's envisaged a British attack from bases in the West Indies, but then the military have to plan for all contingencies especially if the budget is being squeezed in one of the greatest depressions ever seen