Originally posted by gripen
Dear Isegrim,
I see your ignore list does not work or why do you reply my post?
Regarding range of the Bf 109, I wonder why do you use theoretical values for the Bf 109 and practical values for the Spitfire IX; I don't see any practical difference between them.
Poor Gripen,
The reason why I waste my time correcting you is not because of your person, but my hate of ignorance and short sightedness. You have displayed enough of both in your post to make me decide to waste time on a reply.
I am puzzled what part you don`t understand about the posted Bf 109 ranges, or Spitfire ranges. Both are 'theoretical', in the same league and are comparabl, even if the similiarity of conditions between a cruise at 210 mph yielding 750 miles on the Bf 109G and a cruise of 220 mph yielding 450 miles on the Spitfire is well beyond your abilities to grasp.
If you don`t see practical differencies between 450 miles range and 750 miles range under comparalble circumstances, that only speaks of how much your talants worth in the area of mathemathics.
Oh well... let me help you out : 750 > 450.
The '>' symbol means 750 is the bigger one.

And if you still don`t get it, it measn that the 109G had 66% more range on internal fuel than the Spitfire Mk IX. I know you hate 109s more than anything, and this hurts your ego quite a bit, but what can I do about it, you see, these are facts you have to put up.
It should be also noted that the Spitfire VIII could take more than 600l fuel internally if the rear fuselage tank was installed (over 50% more than the Bf 109G).
Brilliant, and what that is good for if it`s largely wasted on the poor aerodynamics of the Spitfire and the fuel is poured down in the thirsty throat of the Merlin ? Same range, but with 50% more weight carried in fuel. Good way to waste performance and fuel, it is.
Statistically :
Bf 109 G-2 : 755 miles @ 210mph with 88 gallons
Spitfire Mk VIII : 740 miles @ 220mph with 120 gallons
(See the docs already posted.)
I mean, WOW!, that 'over 50% more than the Bf 109G'
really makes a difference, espeically if the rear fuselage tank makes the plane a real pig in the air, as per the Spitfire manuals.
In fact the 109 maintains a small edge with 2/3 the fuel being carried. Guess way they never really needed to expand that fuel tank - they never needed that, only the 109K allowed for an extra 115 liter DP rear tank in the fusalage, and was probably used very rarely. It was simply never neccesary, range, unlike on the Spits, was never a problem on 109s after the Friedrich appeared. Guess why Mk VIII were extremely rare in Europe, with that tankage, they were desperately needed in the PTO, where MkIX would be next to useless for combat.
Basicly your own argument on Bf 109 fuel consumption is rather rhetorical, range at practical speed was more important than consumption. Merlin powered planes (namely Mustang and Mosquito) had very longer range despite what ever was the consumption.
You make awfully poor arguements, Gripen, but I have to admit, nobody I ever met surprassed yet your ability to parrott the same stupidness again and again like you do.
The Mustang and Mosquito was only long range because they carried an awful lot of fuel. Period. Nothing to do with the Merlin. In fact, the range could be a lot longer if ANY other engine than the Merlin would be fitted.
Stuffing a lot of fuel was a direct consequence of operational requirements, and the Merlin`s ****ty fuel consumption. The 109 was never required to fly to Berlin like the Mosquito and Mustang, all it had to do is to climb up to them twice as fast as they ever could, loiter in the airspace it had to defend, and shoot them down enemies - which it did, just like that it could escort any German bomber wherever it went. It could fullfill any of the challanges it`s class is supposed to do. It was fully capable to be upgraded to an escort fighter range with ~2000 miles, in fact such variants of it existed for long range recce work, and produced in large numbers, but it was never required, never done.It`s
practical range was already a lot more than that was required, and more than the majority of it`s rivalling fighters.
So, basically, WTF are you talking about? The 109 not having triple the range it ever needed to have, as it already swept clear the continent of every single enemy fighter in 1940 ? The Mustang having great range,
despite the fact it had to put up in an escort role probably the worst fuel economy engine of the war, because nothing else was available?
Your post lack the concept, logic and any comprehension, basically it`s just a desperate reaction and outcry to the facts posted in this thread.