RAF Fighters & Ranges

[Captain Canada]

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

Or eight or ten....

[KJ_Lesnick]

kerick

The mustang had the laminar flow wing that cut drag and allowed greater range.

Actually, the laminar-flow wing never really worked as well as it was supposed to: Paint, dirt, squashed bugs, possibly the rivets all interfered with the flow.  Admittedly, it did have various characteristics that allowed relatively high mach performance.  Interestingly, the Spitfires could out-dive it

• The early spitfires might have had structural issues, but once they were fixed the maximum safe dive speed was increased
  
• The maximum safe diving speed for the P-51 and Mustang were theoretically the same: Mach 0.85
  
• I do not know what the absolute maximum dive-speed the P-51 was good for, but the Spitfire did achieve dives of Mach 0.891 mach (holy poo-poo)
  

.

Nobody planned for long range escort fighters because people thought bombers could fight their way in and out.

Yes, and no.

• Once Billy Mitchell had become a proponent of precision day-time bombing, he felt it was absolutely essential to have fighter-escort.
  
• The USAAC had looked into the idea of escort fighters: The RAF might have as well.  Both did feel them to be inherently useful.
  
• The USAAC felt that it would either be very difficult to achieve, and/or very expensive to produce such a long-range fighter: They also imposed upon themselves various stipulations and restrictions that ended up hurting themselves
  
• The RAF felt that anything with such range would cease to be a fighter and gave up on it.
  
• Planes like the Martin B-10 lead them to believe they could fly fast enough to avoid intercept (This wasn't actually valid as the YP-24 was faster, and later fighters would start to outperform the B-10 and B-17)
  
• Some escorts were used even in early WW2 but they lacked the range to do deep-escort missions so they simply escorted to their maximum radius.
  

.

kitbasher

Not just fuel carried, but consumption rate.

How did the early Merlins compare to the early V-1710's?

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.

Actually, I thought they carried even the early Spitfires had a small amount in the leading-edge wing-root...


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

Uh, that's how they added the extra fuel... the tankage pretty much ran the whole leading-edge of the wing if I recall right instead of just a little bit of the leading-edge root.

the shape of the wing itself didn't preclude fitting wing tanks.

Well, if you're going to fly unarmed: Not the most desirable quality for a fighter.  Admittedly stuffing the guns in the wings closer together may very well have allowed more wing tankage to be laid from the root to the position of the innermost gun at least.


kitnut617

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.

For defensive missions, of course.  For offensive missions, the use is quite limited -- we seemed more offensively oriented in this respect.  While I'm pretty sure the Supermarine Spitfire out-climbed the Curtiss P-40, I'm not sure if the Hawker Hurricane compared any better than the Curtiss P-40.

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.

Was it possible to have stuffed the two guns and gun-bays closer together and lay more fuel across the extra leading-edge span freed up?


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.

Fascinating if true, how would one go about finding out if this was true or misinformation?

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.

When you say "their Airships" does that mean like "their Lordships"?  Because I don't recall a Spitfire being launched from an airship ever...


rickshaw

British thinking about fighters were that they were initially intended for defence of the UK and secondarily for offensive use over the battlefield.

And with defense first, the goal was to be able to be light, climb, and accelerate rapidly above all else?

As the war progressed, those roles reverse.  As the war progressed, the range on the Spitfire increased enormously.

How much of this was due to engine, exhaust, and propeller developments, and how much was due to actual changes in fuel-load?

By war's end, Spitfires were regularly escorting daylight raids deep into Germany from the UK.

Were these RAF day-bombing sorties?  I know the RAF did fly daytime missions, though they didn't fly as many as we did.

In the US, fighters were seen primarily (initially) as an Army tactical force.  Their secondary role was defence of the US.

Is this also why our planes were built with differences in maximum positive/negative and transverse g-loads?


MaxHeadroom

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.

Well modern day it's a good thing we didn't update that too much otherwise the US, Russia, and China's international waters would cover the whole ocean (We can hit any area on Earth with ICBM's)

In 1921 the Sovjetunion was the first state, who claimed a 12-miles-zone, this becomes common in 1958.

I'm surprised the update was as late as 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).

Not true actually

• The P-51 was designed as an export fighter which NAA felt it could get online faster than developing a P-40 production line under license: It wouldn't surprise me if it's range was superior to the P-40 even at the P-51A stage
  
• The P-47 was designed as an interceptor: The plane ballooned up in weight as they kept modifying it as time went on and it's climb performance fell off (except at higher altitudes when everybody else sucked equally or worse), new propellers and modified engines helped fix this
  
• The P-51B/C featured new engines offering a higher critical altitude (and with it a radiator for the intercooler it used), a new exhaust pipe system (produced some thrust) a new four-bladed propeller of larger diameter (more thrust), drop tanks fitted (and then enlarged considerably), and a center-tank added behind the pilot
  
• The P-51D also included improved aerodynamics and an extra pair of guns
  
• The P-47's modified propeller, as well as increasing fuel-load, and redesigned aft fuselage all probably served to drive up range; the P-47N had a wet-wing and a maximum all out range of 2,300 or so miles (statute or nautical, I'm unsure)
  

They became used for strategic-bomber escort because the bombers could not successfully penetrate airspace on their own, and we were generally more favored to precision strike over night-bombing.  Ironically we'd end up fire-bombing cities as well (we'd also actually even carry out low-level strafing attacks on civilians as part of Operation Clarion, something we would periodically carry out in Japan as well), and by the time we got to Japan we may very well have incinerated more people than the RAF did (which is no small feat, the RAF may very well have been arsonist's organization in history up to that point with the Luftwaffe preceding it -- smaller bombers ultimately hampered their firebug impulses fortunately)

[rickshaw]

All your questions about the Spitfire could be answered if you did your own research, Kendra/Robyn.  Its all out there in googleland.  Just go here.   

[PR19_Kit]

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

Uh, that's how they added the extra fuel... the tankage pretty much ran the whole leading-edge of the wing if I recall right instead of just a little bit of the leading-edge root.

the shape of the wing itself didn't preclude fitting wing tanks.

Well, if you're going to fly unarmed: Not the most desirable quality for a fighter.  Admittedly stuffing the guns in the wings closer together may very well have allowed more wing tankage to be laid from the root to the position of the innermost gun at least.

Yes, I KNOW that, which is why I mentioned it!  My Dad flew the things!

But the 'bowser' wing of the PR aircraft could have been used as the basis of an armed wing too, thus my comment about 2 x 20 mm cannon.

[NARSES2]

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.

Fascinating if true, how would one go about finding out if this was true or misinformation?

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.

When you say "their Airships" does that mean like "their Lordships"?  Because I don't recall a Spitfire being launched from an airship ever...

As for the supposed US redesign I've know idea where I read it and to be honest I'm not going to look for it amongst my book collection

Airships is just a UK euphemism for those in charge at the Air Ministry. Their Lordships tends to refer to the Admiralty as they were indeed First Sea Lord, Second Sea Lord etc. The Army doesn't tend to get a similar designation and the reason why is way to complicated for this subject

[MaxHeadroom]

Yes, KJ_Lesnick, you're right: neither the P-47 nor the P-51 were originally designed for making europe and asia free.
Both were planned long before 1940.
I think, my english is not always perfect, so I'd used wrong words.
I've meant the versions, which were used when the USA joined the european and asian theatre and had seen, their bomberfleets needs better support.
The Mustang Mk. I (for the Royal Airforce) only had a 1,150-HP-engine and a range of 650 kms (without drop-tanks)/1,200 kms (with drop tanks).
The P-43 (the direct predecessor of the P-47) only had a 1,200-HP-engine and a range of 1,050 kms, so, from 1940 on, the P-47 becomes reality.
You can compare these datas to the Me 109's datas.

So, sorry again for the wrong use of words.

Norbert

[Rheged]

For information;  I have heard the Lords of Admiralty referred to as "Their Warships!!"

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

All your questions about the Spitfire could be answered if you did your own research, Kendra/Robyn.  Its all out there in googleland.   Just go here.  

Actually, that site while good doesn't have nothing on this...

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/concise-guide-to-spitfire-wing-types.html


PR19_Kit

Yes, I KNOW that, which is why I mentioned it!  My Dad flew the things!

I didn't know your dad flew the Spitfires...

But the 'bowser' wing of the PR aircraft could have been used as the basis of an armed wing too, thus my comment about 2 x 20 mm cannon.

You mean the fuel tank would be inboard of the guns and outboard?


NARSES2

As for the supposed US redesign I've know idea where I read it and to be honest I'm not going to look for it amongst my book collection

Oh well... regardless with the Spitfire site, this could help some modeler and artist types do some of their own "redesigns"

Airships is just a UK euphemism for those in charge at the Air Ministry. Their Lordships tends to refer to the Admiralty as they were indeed First Sea Lord, Second Sea Lord etc.

I didn't know that was a commonly used nickname.  Admittedly I know little about the British (the royalty stuff) and the alphabet soup after some names like GCB, OBE, WTF stuff...

The Army doesn't tend to get a similar designation and the reason why is way to complicated for this subject

Their groundships...

[PR19_Kit]

PR19_Kit

Yes, I KNOW that, which is why I mentioned it!  My Dad flew the things!

I didn't know your dad flew the Spitfires...

But the 'bowser' wing of the PR aircraft could have been used as the basis of an armed wing too, thus my comment about 2 x 20 mm cannon.

You mean the fuel tank would be inboard of the guns and outboard?

He did, mostly the PR types, which is why I have such an interest in the genre.

Yes, there was no reason why they could not have used the leading edges outboard of the guns for fuel, and indeed the site you linked shows the Type C wing and onwards had a wing fuel tank just inboard of the guns. I don't know why they never used the outboard section on the fighters, but they didn't.

[KJ_Lesnick]

He did, mostly the PR types, which is why I have such an interest in the genre.

Pretty cool actually

Yes, there was no reason why they could not have used the leading edges outboard of the guns for fuel

1. The only thing I can think of is weight (one can keep the outboard tanks empty except on missions of long-range) and roll-inertia (Admittedly I don't know if that's really valid).

2. The PR.4 was the first recon variant?  Does this mean it flew around the same time as the Spitfire Mk.5?

3. Your proposal was to use 2 x 20mm in each wing or just 2 x 20mm total?

[PR19_Kit]

1. The only thing I can think of is weight (one can keep the outboard tanks empty except on missions of long-range) and roll-inertia (Admittedly I don't know if that's really valid).

2. The PR.4 was the first recon variant?  Does this mean it flew around the same time as the Spitfire Mk.5?

3. Your proposal was to use 2 x 20mm in each wing or just 2 x 20mm total?

I meant 2 x 20 mm overall, but with 4 x 20 mm they could still have used the outer sections for fuel too, just not as much.

No, the  PR variant's Mk Nos. were very complicated, and went from PR1 through PR1g, and then they re-numbered them and out of sequence with the fighters. The first mark that was in sequence was the PRXI and that came before the PR10. 

[kitnut617]

I don't know why they never used the outboard section on the fighters, but they didn't.

In the late variant Spitfires which did away with the outboard two guns in each wing (they had just two cannon in each wing), the space was taken up with a fuel tank. This was geared towards use in the Pacific.

[KJ_Lesnick]

I meant 2 x 20 mm overall

Would that be considered enough firepower?

No, the  PR variant's Mk Nos. were very complicated

When did PR.4 come out?

[PR19_Kit]

I don't know why they never used the outboard section on the fighters, but they didn't.

In the late variant Spitfires which did away with the outboard two guns in each wing (they had just two cannon in each wing), the space was taken up with a fuel tank. This was geared towards use in the Pacific.

That's exactly how I imagined it Robert, but I can't find any record of them doing it. Can you tell us which Mark and which wing type they did that on please? That Spitfiresite link doesn't mention that version.

I meant 2 x 20 mm overall

Would that be considered enough firepower?

No, the  PR variant's Mk Nos. were very complicated

When did PR.4 come out?

See Kitnut617's reply above, and it would depend what the prospective mission was, wouldn't it?

I'll have to dig out my files to see what version they renumbered to be the PR4, but I have an idea it was a PR1e, and that was quite early, in 1940 or '41.

[kitnut617]

In the late variant Spitfires which did away with the outboard two guns in each wing (they had just two cannon in each wing), the space was taken up with a fuel tank. This was geared towards use in the Pacific.

That's exactly how I imagined it Robert, but I can't find any record of them doing it. Can you tell us which Mark and which wing type they did that on please? That Spitfiresite link doesn't mention that version.

IIRC I read that in the Morgan/Shacklady book Kit, I'll try to dig out the relevant information. That book is a minefield of info which you don't find anywhere else, like the Mk.VIII that trialed the raised wing leading edge which then got tried on the Mk.23