So did the Mk VIII really had 2100 miles range ?

[MiloMorai]

Guppy you can always tell when Barbi 'is on the ropes'. That burr is in his knickers. He does have trouble distinquishing between reality and theory.

If the 109 had such long range Barbi, why were none seen over East Anglia disrupting the bomb and fuel heavy B-17s and B-24s assembling for their missions into Germany? With 35-36000 produced the sky of GREAT BRITAIN should have been filled with 109s. What was only seen, occasionally, was Jabo 109s over southern GREAT BRITAIN running like scared chickens.

Why were LW bombers un-escorted on bombing missions into deep USSR if they had such great range? With 3 drop tanks (you have stated they could carry) the range of 2240mi should have made this possible.


Spitfires did fly over Berlin regularly. Even into Czechoslovakia.

[J_A_B]

This thread, perhaps more than any other, illustrates the difference between "maximum theoretical range on paper" and "useable real combat range".


If you could help it, you didn't fly a fighter into enemy airspace plodding along at just above stall speed.   You certainly didn't want your pilots to be flying a single engine fighter for 10 or more hours at a time.

Then there's concerns you HAVE to deal with.  In a fighter, you need combat time, and they use a LOT of fuel at combat power settings.  This will take a couple hundred miles off of your "potential" range even if you limit yourself to only 10 minutes of combat.  Then there's fuel for warmup, taxiing, take-off, forming up, climbout, landing (remember they didn't all land at once!), plus a built-in reserve.  

Add all those factors up, and it quickly becomes clear that the "2100 mile" combat Spitfire exists only on paper.  

J_A_B

[gripen]

Assuming 75 gallon rear fuselage tank (as in the MT818), the Spitfire VIII could have endurance quite close to the Mustang with fuselage tank (with internal fuel). The Mustang certainly had a longer range due to faster cruising speed and the Mustang could carry more fuel externally.  Anyway, the MT818 flew in summer 1944 and as noted elsewhere, there is no proof if the Spitfire VIII with rear fuselage tank saw service.

gripen

[simshell]

so when is AH going to get a SpitMkVIII:D

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
In any case, 109s would only need to circle over England at best, pick and shoot spitties into the channel, not much fuel is required for that, especially considering the excellent fuel economy of the 109/DB605 combo.

One can see how dillusional Barbi is with his above comment.

After their defeat in BoB, the LW gradually reduced their time over GB until the spring of '41 when it was almost impossible to find a LW a/c over GB. Nuances raids by jabos mostly from then on. Even RAF a/c over France (rhubards, circuses) had a hard time getting LW to engage in combat.

[niklas]

Originally posted by J_A_B
Then there's concerns you HAVE to deal with.  In a fighter, you need combat time, and they use a LOT of fuel at combat power settings.  This will take a couple hundred miles off of your "potential" range even if you limit yourself to only 10 minutes of combat.  Then there's fuel for warmup, taxiing, take-off, forming up, climbout, landing (remember they didn't all land at once!), plus a built-in reserve.  

Add all those factors up, and it quickly becomes clear that the "2100 mile" combat Spitfire exists only on paper.  

J_A_B [/B]

Exactly. Furthermore it would be interesting to know how much the C.o.G was shifted backward with the additional fuel for the spitfire. When even the somewhat heavier Mustang has problems with additional fueltanks in the rear fuselage, it would have influenced even more the flying characteristics of a spitfire (which was often described as very sensitiv to the elevator already with normal fuelload btw.)

niklas

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by niklas
When even the somewhat heavier Mustang has problems with additional fueltanks in the rear fuselage, it would have influenced even more the flying characteristics of a spitfire (which was often described as very sensitiv to the elevator already with normal fuelload btw.)

niklas

The very  sensitive elevators were corrected. A 109 pilot would find the Spits elevators very sensitve. When power steering first came out, cars were all over the road. Once one got used to it, the cars went straight. Same for any Spit pilot.

[Angus]

From phoocat:
"But you should not commit the same mistake Angus was making in the other thread--trying to compare anecdotal information with flight tests "
My "anecdotal" information concerns flight legs over a known distance being completed with a known fuel load. Also, aircraft being shot down over locations of which Issy's calculations leave out of range.
Anyway, on that thread there was an excellent test bench sheet, showing the Merlin having rather similar fuel burn as the DB,- sometimes better,sometimes worse.

About longe range Spitties, it must be noted that they could easily be equipped with a lot more fuel. PR Spitties easily took the London-Berlin leg and back, and at times at uninterceptable speeds. Just live with it.

Why they didn't enter mass production, I have no clue. I guess the RAF high command did not put so much emphasis on long range escort untill the US fighters proved its value.

The latest model Spitties as well as Seafires and the Fury had insane range.

A fury putting a Speed record only had to fuel up once between London and Cairo. The average cruising speed (Landing and refuelling included) was around 360 mph.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Angus

Why they didn't enter mass production, I have no clue. I guess the RAF high command did not put so much emphasis on long range escort untill the US fighters proved its value.

 [/B]

The RAF night bombing might be a reason. Not much use for a Spit to fly at night escorting the bombers, especially with the operational method of BC. Spits had enough range to escort day-light mediums over France and the Low Countries.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Nashwan

Britain wasn't buying Mustangs by this stage of the war, they were getting them free under Lend Lease.

[/B]

Not exactly free. The equipment had to be returned in the end, and if lost, paid in cash. Figure why the financial situation of Britain at the end of the war - lot of money invested in underwater seawrecks etc.

It was, as a recce aircraft.

[/B]

I didn`t know the Mk VIII had an fighter-recon version. AFAIK, only completely unarmed and heavily modified (lots of fuel in wing leading edge etc.) PR Spits did recon work over as far as Germany. That`s hardly comparable to any of the armed fighter variants, being much cleaner without the armament etc.

The RAF did not go in for long range daylight bombing. Why would they build a long range escort?

[/B]

Actually, the RAF-BC tried that early in 1939, but it ended in a bloodbath - Spitties couldn`t escort them to the German bay. Hence why the RAf switched to night bombing, during daylight, the bombers had no chance vs. daylight fighters, if they flew unescorted. And by 1943, night bombing wasn`t safe either.

You find it hard to believe that with the same amount of fuel, the same engine, the Spitfire could have had the same range as the Mustang at low speeds?

[/B]

Actually, no, though I would think the Mustang is superior in drag at low speeds, too. Clean lines just don`t vanish at low speeds.

Though I wonder what would you think if the Mustang had an engine with lower fuel consumption, lower induced drag, and the same amount of fuel? Would that make the Mustang higher ranged ?

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by J_A_B
This thread, perhaps more than any other, illustrates the difference between "maximum theoretical range on paper" and "useable real combat range".

Then there's concerns you HAVE to deal with.  In a fighter, you need combat time, and they use a LOT of fuel at combat power settings.  This will take a couple hundred miles off of your "potential" range even if you limit yourself to only 10 minutes of combat.  Then there's fuel for warmup, taxiing, take-off, forming up, climbout, landing (remember they didn't all land at once!), plus a built-in reserve.  

Add all those factors up, and it quickly becomes clear that the "2100 mile" combat Spitfire exists only on paper.  

J_A_B

Yep. That`s why I wonder about those figures. I suppose they are right for the part of the flight where best fuel economy is, ie.  when a cruise speed already set up after taxiing, warmup, climb, waiting for others, setting up the formation etc.

There`s another fuel economy test for a similiar Mk IX, with Merlin 61 according to Nashwan, and it states 6.76 miles/gallon including the climb itself.

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/spit/9/182.jpg

Now, personally I don`t think there was much difference between the Merlin 61`s and the Merlin 66`s fuel consumption during economy cruise, certainly the latter wasn`t 50% better.


In fact the 2100 mile range is only existing if we mechanically mulitple the 120+90 gallon tankage of the MkVIII w. DT with the stated 10 miles/gallon mileage. Not even other docs mention it, another Aussie source states the following for the Mk VIII`s range at 220 mph (same speed as the above doc Nashwan posted):

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/spit/8/109.jpg


740 miles on 120 gallon internal

960 miles on 120 gallon internal, + 30 gallon DT

1265 miles on 120 gallon internal, + 90 gallon DT


All the above including an allowance of 23-24 gallons.

I think these are far more believable figures than the 10 mpg ones for the whole flight, especially as they are good agreement with the other range figures posted for Merlin 6x engined Spits.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by niklas
Exactly. Furthermore it would be interesting to know how much the C.o.G was shifted backward with the additional fuel for the spitfire. When even the somewhat heavier Mustang has problems with additional fueltanks in the rear fuselage, it would have influenced even more the flying characteristics of a spitfire (which was often described as very sensitiv to the elevator already with normal fuelload btw.)

niklas

Perhaps this was the reason rear fuselage tanks were never used widespread in service. In the Mustang`s case, after the introduction of the rear tank, under certain conditions, it compromised the sructural integrity of the plane, wings were being lost. There was some discussion of this, and it seems the problem was not structural weakness relarted, or to other factors like opening ammo bay, undercarriage doors opening, but to strong pitching movements developing with the rear fuselage tank full. In case of the Spitfire, with it`s very sensitive elevators, and admittedly poor longitudal stability, I think such phenomenon would apply even stronger than in the Mustang`s case (which had rather heavy elevator and good longitudal stability).

[Angus]

Both the P51 and the Spitfire had a C of G problem with the Tanks full.

Umm, I have somewhere in my archives a nice chapter of a recce flight over Berlin. I'll try to find some time to hair out interesting factors there.

[Nashwan]

This thread, perhaps more than any other, illustrates the difference between "maximum theoretical range on paper" and "useable real combat range".


If you could help it, you didn't fly a fighter into enemy airspace plodding along at just above stall speed. You certainly didn't want your pilots to be flying a single engine fighter for 10 or more hours at a time.

Then there's concerns you HAVE to deal with. In a fighter, you need combat time, and they use a LOT of fuel at combat power settings. This will take a couple hundred miles off of your "potential" range even if you limit yourself to only 10 minutes of combat. Then there's fuel for warmup, taxiing, take-off, forming up, climbout, landing (remember they didn't all land at once!), plus a built-in reserve.

Add all those factors up, and it quickly becomes clear that the "2100 mile" combat Spitfire exists only on paper.

Exactly. For those who haven't been following the other thread, this one is all about Isegrim setting up a straw man argument to try to argue the Spitfire had higher fuel consumption than it did.

Isegrim posted a British document saying the 109G2 could cruise at 160 IAS at 18,000ft with a drop tank at 9.1 mpg. I posted an Australian test that showed the Spit VIII with Merlin 66 could cruise at 160 IAS with a drop tank at 10 mpg.

In an effort to prove this wrong, Isegrim is multiplying the maximum amount of fuel the Spitfire could carry, and in some cases a lot more fuel than the Spitfire could carry, by 10 mpg and claiming that is the range.

He's ignorng warmup, climb, time in combat, reserves, and even assuming a cruise to target at 160 IAS.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Nashwan, it looks rather cheap if you start telling questionable versions of what others really think, instead of letting themselves telling their own point of view.

As for the 109G and 10mpg Spit8 source, they are surely not comparable, as the 109G figures are for avarage consumption with reserves for the whole trip, the Spit`s are most likely raw data for the eco-cruise itself, which is probably why they don`t agree with other Spitfire mileage data.
Even common sense tells it`s hardly possible for a high consumption  engined(Merlin), high drag plane to have as good milege as an other with more economic engine (DB) with less drag. Common sense has little to do however when people are around who are fixated on proving the Spit is best in everything.
Perhaps that`s why you bring up Spitfire ranges in threads about 109 range, and 109 range in threads about Spitfire range. You can`t see the topic from any other angle.

The rest of your story is just to complicated to understand what and how exactly I`d gain with that..