Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: VO101_Isegrim on August 06, 2004, 06:43:17 PM
-
Nashwan in the other topic states that his Spitfire Mk VIII with Merlin 66 had 10 miles per gallon fuel economy.
This plane carried 120 gallon fuel internally, and according to Nashwan, 90 gallon tank was very widespread in service. That woud gives 2100 miles range with 210 gallon fuel.
I wonder why these allegadly hyper-long range Spitfires didn`t blackended out the skies over Berlin, and all over Germany since they were already available in 1943.
There was no need for the Mustang at all, with these really long range Spitfires around.
I am not sure about what the P-51`s milage wa, but wouldn`t that 10 mpg put it into ashame? Since they had the same engine, this really speak about aerodynamics.
-
I seriously doubt it.
I cannot see any way that it could have that kind of efficiency.
-
Personally I don`t believe either, mostly I do see 6-7 mpg figures for the MkIXs, including one report with Merlin 61 engined one. Were there big improvements over the 61 in the 66 for fuel economy?
But Nashwan appears to be quite sure that this is a correct figure, and this leads to the 2100 miles figures (120+90)*10. But in this case, 2100 miles must-be possible, it`s labeled "a.m.p.g" iirc, in other words, it`s an avarage value.
In fact, AFAIK from him, even 170 gallon tanks were used, and that would mean some 2900 miles, plus there was a rear tank, too, which would raise the Spitfire Mk VIII`s range to well over 3000 miles.
If this is true, this would change the POV on WW2 air war quite radically, and would set a series of questions, ie. why didn`t the Brits used MkVIII as escort fighter in Europe in place of the Mustangs they also got, why the birth of the Mustang at all, wouldn`t it be simplier and even better to produce Spits instead of them?
I mean, even 2100 miles would mean that you can do 1-way sorties not only to Berlin, but Kiev...
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1090515978_spitviiirange.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1091830845_95bcropped.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1091830791_85bcropped.jpg)
The tests say yes. Isegrim's anecdotal evidence says no.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Nashwan in the other topic states that his Spitfire Mk VIII with Merlin 66 had 10 miles per gallon fuel economy.
This plane carried 120 gallon fuel internally, and according to Nashwan, 90 gallon tank was very widespread in service. That woud gives 2100 miles range with 210 gallon fuel.
I wonder why these allegadly hyper-long range Spitfires didn`t blackended out the skies over Berlin, and all over Germany since they were already available in 1943.
There was no need for the Mustang at all, with these really long range Spitfires around.
I am not sure about what the P-51`s milage wa, but wouldn`t that 10 mpg put it into ashame? Since they had the same engine, this really speak about aerodynamics.
You gotta remove that Spitfire burr from under your saddle. It gets you way too worked up.
Mk. VIII was not used from England as it was tropicalized and used in the Med, Burma and the Pacific.
Standard drop tanks in 43 were the 30 and 45 gallon tanks. The 90 was available but not used much until later in 44 from what I've seen.
Normal range on the VIII as I have it was 660 without drop tanks. Do the math from there with the 30, 45 and the 90.
And as I said, I don't see the 90 in regular service until later in 44 where I've seen them on both XIIs and IXs. The IXs were escorting RAF bombers in daylight in that particular case., and the XIIs were hunting V2 sites. I posted a photo of one of those birds in another thread.
Dan/Slack
-
it`s labeled "a.m.p.g" iirc, in other words, it`s an avarage value.
AMPG stands for AIR miles per gallon, not average.
In fact, AFAIK from him, even 170 gallon tanks were used, and that would mean some 2900 miles, plus there was a rear tank, too, which would raise the Spitfire Mk VIII`s range to well over 3000 miles.
I can't see the 170 gallon tank and the rear tank being used together, and I'd be willing to bet it was never done. It would take you well over the weight limit, I'd have thought.
If this is true, this would change the POV on WW2 air war quite radically, and would set a series of questions, ie. why didn`t the Brits used MkVIII as escort fighter in Europe in place of the Mustangs they also got,
Because they shipped the Spit VIIIs abroad, and because it still didn't have the range of the Mustang.
I mean, even 2100 miles would mean that you can do 1-way sorties not only to Berlin, but Kiev...
Certainly, if you cruise over hostile airspace at 220 mph TAS, without manoevering. It's not a practical range, as Gripen has tried to tell you.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
The tests say yes. Isegrim's anecdotal evidence says no.
Actually, I didn`t qouted any 'anecdotal evidence', just a report, a brief summary on MkVIIIs from the australian archieves which say the range is 740 miles on 120 gallons. That`s all.
But if you are right, and indeed the test you are qouting shows 10 mpg, then it appears a revision is needed about fighter ranges. The Spitfire was a very long ranged, if not THE longest ranged fighter of WW2, according to these specs.
That gives 2100 miles range for the Spitfire Mk VIII in common configuration (internal + 90 gallon DT).
That`s as much as the P-51D/K`s range with droptanks and rear tank (2055 miles). BUT, the Spitfire Mk VIII could employ a 170 gallon tank AND a rear fuselage tank in addition, which would mean the range would be at least 1000 miles greater than the Mustang`s.
http://www.mustangsmustangs.net/p-51/p51specs.shtml
So, I am just figuring out what that 10 mpg means.
Originally posted by Guppy
Mk. VIII was not used from England as it was tropicalized and used in the Med, Burma and the Pacific.
Standard drop tanks in 43 were the 30 and 45 gallon tanks. The 90 was available but not used much until later in 44 from what I've seen.
Normal range on the VIII as I have it was 660 without drop tanks. Do the math from there with the 30, 45 and the 90.
[/b]
Guppy, if the 90 gallon tank was available, why wasn`t it used? It would sure be a good choice for longer patrol missions over the channel etc. And, since MkVIIIs had more tankage than the others, they could be effectively used in escorting heavies than the others - why the decision to send them far away in remote places like the Med ?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
I can't see the 170 gallon tank and the rear tank being used together, and I'd be willing to bet it was never done. It would take you well over the weight limit, I'd have thought.
But then, probably the 170 gallon tank could and I am quite sure it was used. That would give 290 gallon fuel, in optimal case, enough for 2900 miles on the Spit Mk VIII. I think you said the 170 gallon was quite possible, in fact not uncommon.
Because they shipped the Spit VIIIs abroad, and because it still didn't have the range of the Mustang.
Certainly, if you cruise over hostile airspace at 220 mph TAS, without manoevering. It's not a practical range, as Gripen has tried to tell you. [/B]
Why would they ship Mk VIIIs abroad, and buy US Mustangs instead of them at high price, if they already had a plane capable of reaching Berlin ?
Nashwan, looking at your figures, it did have the range of the Mustang. Let`s ignore the 'non-practical' milage of 10 mpg at 220 mph, and let`s use similiar figures at higher cruising speeds.
The site above says the Mustang`s range was 2055 miles at 280 mph cruise speed at 20k ft.
Your document states 7.2 ampg at 282 mph TAS (2200/+2). This means, with 120+170 gallon fuel, according to your data, the Spitfire outranged the Mustang, ie. 290x7.2 = 2088 miles range at the same cruise speed as the Mustang.
-
But if you are right, and indeed the test you are qouting shows 10 mpg, then it appears a revision is needed about fighter ranges. The Spitfire was a very long ranged, if not THE longest ranged fighter of WW2, according to these specs.
How come? The Mustang carried far more fuel, with the same engine.
Internal fuel for the Spit VIII was 123 gallons, for the Mustang it was 220+, iirc.
The Mustang also carried 180 gallons in a pair of drop tanks, iirc, for a total of 400+ gallons, compared to just over 210 gallons for a Spit VIII with drop tank.
BUT, the Spitfire Mk VIII could employ a 170 gallon tank AND a rear fuselage tank in addition
Says who?
What you are in effect saying is the Spit VIII, with the same engine as the Mustang, and the same fuel load, would have roughly the same range.
Yes, of course it would. More, I'd have thought.
The Mustang certainly had lower parasitic drag, but at 160 IAS, ie very low speed, I'd expect the Spitfire's weight advantage to mean lower induced drag, and lower overall drag.
Of course, the Spit didn't carry the same fuel load as the Mustang. I've no doubt it could have carried a rear tank and drop tank at the same time, and if the USAAF had been building the Spitfire when they found the need for a long range escort, it probably would have.
That would give it around 270 gallons though, which is still nowhere near the fuel load of the Mustang.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Guppy, if the 90 gallon tank was available, why wasn`t it used? It would sure be a good choice for longer patrol missions over the channel etc. And, since MkVIIIs had more tankage than the others, they could be effectively used in escorting heavies than the others - why the decision to send them far away in remote places like the Med ?
I don't believe the 90 was produced in large numbers at that point for one thing.
The Spits were primarily escorting the mediums over France of 2 TAF or the Marauders of the 8th so the 30 and 45 did the job.
You'd have to look at the 8th AF policy on escorts too. Remember the 8th sent their 38s, which had the range to cover the bombers, to North Africa early on. Jugs weren't initially equipped to carry drop tanks. There was a segment of 8th AF leadership that wanted to prove the bombers could do it alone so outside of covering parts of the return trips, the RAF wasn't asked to provide escort in 43.
The race to get the escorts involved didn't reall get moving til late 43 early 44 and it was still the 8th Fighter Command's job to provide the escort which it finally did with the 51s, 38s and later model Jugs with drop tanks.
Also keep in mind the VIII entered production in mid 443 after the IX and because it was more refined and tropicalized it was sent to the areas where that was more useful, ie; the Med, Burma and the Pacific where it was needed. This would also be a reason for sending the VIII with the added internal fuel as range was more of an issue while the IXs, Vs, XIIs etc could manage the airwar over France with what they had including the 30 and 45 gallon tanks.
The IX equipped squadrons didn't start getting the tropical nose intakes until problems arose in Normandy from the dust on unfinished airfields.
Image is from the logbook of the late Tom Slack, a Spit XII pilot who was a friend and whose last name I use for my AH name. It shows a drawing he did in his logbook commenting on "this long range tank business". Certainly they saw the differences. This was from January 44.
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1091839009_slacklog.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
How come? The Mustang carried far more fuel, with the same engine.
Nashwan, the report says 10 miles per gallon is possible. At least, if not anybody else, stand by that.
But that`s only true for the Spit8/Merlin 66 combination, or perhaps the reports is wrong, the other reports give about 6.5 avmpg for the Merlin 61 engined Spit IX.
Put the same engine into a Boing 747, and you will get different milage. Put it into a Mustang, and you get different milage. Possible worser, possibly better.
What I noticed, that if I take your data and compare it to similiar data of the Mustang, they look equal ranged.
But even regardless of the Mustang, your data shows the Spit VIII had no problem reaching Berlin. So why wasn`t they over there, I ask ?
Says who?
What you are in effect saying is the Spit VIII, with the same engine as the Mustang, and the same fuel load, would have roughly the same range.
Yes, of course it would. More, I'd have thought.
The Mustang certainly had lower parasitic drag, but at 160 IAS, ie very low speed, I'd expect the Spitfire's weight advantage to mean lower induced drag, and lower overall drag.
[/B]
Actually I don`t say it, and find it rather hard to believe. But your dataset clearly suggests that. Add the lower drag on the Spitfire than the Mustang as you suggest, and it`s possible in theory, if the dataset, and drag-theory is correct (I wonder if that low speed/lower weight/lower drag theory can be applied to the 109s as well, though).
Naswhan, mounting rear tanks into the MkVIIIs was possible, according to Gripen, who quoted it from Spitfire the History.
I don`t know if using both was possible or not, but there`s nothing that says it was impossible.
-
Nice cartoon.
Under "Isegrim" rules, if this was a 109 it would prove it had the range to reach Japan with a single drop tank.
:rofl
-
Isengrim: as I said in the other thread, that 10 mpg figure is for very slow speeds.
But you should not commit the same mistake Angus was making in the other thread--trying to compare anecdotal information with flight tests , when the conditions of the former are not known. In this case, cruise speed.
As for why they weren't used over Berlin, probably because if they went that slow the war would be over by the time they got there. ;)
-
Well actually, there no need to prove that, IIRC there was a number of 109s that didn`t even need droptank to reach Japan.
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.
I can prove that with a cartoon, too :
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/GallandvsMolders.jpg)
Some WW1 pilot named Udet or something like that did this one.
Now, back to the allegedly 2100 mile ranged Mk VIII that rivaled the Mustang`s range. ;)
-
But then, probably the 170 gallon tank could and I am quite sure it was used. That would give 290 gallon fuel, in optimal case, enough for 2900 miles on the Spit Mk VIII.
The mpg would go down with the extra weight and drag of the 170 gallon tank, and you have to allow about 25 gallons for warming up and climbing to altitude.
Why would they ship Mk VIIIs abroad, and buy US Mustangs instead of them at high price,
Britain wasn't buying Mustangs by this stage of the war, they were getting them free under Lend Lease.
The site above says the Mustang`s range was 2055 miles at 280 mph cruise speed at 20k ft.
Is that IAS or TAS? Does it include an allowance for combat, a safety reserve?
Joe Baugher quotes 950 miles for a P-51D on internal fuel at 395 mph at 25,000ft.
Allowing for about 30 gallons to get to 25,000ft, that's about 5 mpg for the Mustang at 395 mph.
That test shows 5.8 mpg for the Spit at 314 mph, which I think is pretty consistent with Baugher's figures. Certainly the Mustang will have much better economy at high speeds because of it's lower drag.
But even regardless of the Mustang, your data shows the Spit VIII had no problem reaching Berlin. So why wasn`t they over there, I ask ?
It was, as a recce aircraft.
The RAF did not go in for long range daylight bombing. Why would they build a long range escort?
Actually I don`t say it, and find it rather hard to believe.
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?
Parasitic drag dominates at high speed. No-one is going to argue, the Mustang had lower drag at high speeds.
At low speeds, induced drag is far more important, parasitic drag less so. At low speeds, I'd expect the Spit with it's lower weight and lower wingloading, to have less drag, although I don't think there'd be much in it either way.
I don`t know if using both was possible or not, but there`s nothing that says it was impossible.
170 gallons in a drop tank and 70 in a rear tank equals 240 gallons, which is 1728 lbs of extra fuel alone, without the weight of the tanks. I think we can safely assume it's going to be over 2000 lbs extra.
That's going to push a Spit VIII over 10,000 lbs. It might be possible, but I doubt the RAF would allow it.
Don't forget, the RAF didn't even like the rear tanks on the Mustang, and didn't always allow their use.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
so when is AH going to get a SpitMkVIII:D
-
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.:p
-
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
-
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 :rolleyes: 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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..
-
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.
I haven't said anything about what you think, I've pointed out what you are claiming.
I don't want people to think I'm claiming the Spit had a greater range than the Mustang, or could fly 2100 miles on 210 gallons of fuel.
I'm just trying to distance myself from your straw man argument.
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,
I haven't posted range figures for the Spitfire, I've posted consumption figures. They match the consumption figures you posted for the 109.
Range depends on how much fuel you allow for warm up, climb, reserves, combat, head winds, safety margin etc, but the consumption figures are the rate at which fuel is consumed per distance travelled, and by themselves do not contain reserves etc.
The rest of your story is just to complicated to understand what and how exactly I`d gain with that..
It's a straw man argument.
I posted figures which show at very low speed, the Spitfire could achieve 10 mpg.
To discredit that, you multiply 10 by theoretical capacity figures, ignoring all the other factors that make range much less, and then use the much higher than actual figure in an appeal to reason.
In other words, you are overstating the Spitfire's range, saying everybody knows it couldn't fly that far, and then trying to discredit the original figures with that.
It's a classic straw man argument.
From Nizkor's explanation of a straw man argument:
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
-
Oh, for the record:
Spitfire Mk IX's with a little extra fuel within the Wings plus two Mustang under-wing overload tanks were flown from wright field USA to the UK via Iceland.
A production Mk IX was fitted with a 75 gallon fuselage tank + a 45 gallon drop tank. At rough weather and low flying at the most economical cruise available due to cirkumstances, the Aircraft cruised the distance to Berlin and back, duration was 5 hours.
Hope this adds something for the calculus.
BTW, this was an experiment for the development job of the later long ranged Mk VIII's.
From Jeffrey Quill's data, the Spit I is rated with a 575 miles range on 85 gallons. How does that compare with the 109E?
-
You could at least show some appreciation for a drawn image of a pilot that flew the sorties and a pic you'll never see again since it was privately owned.
No, instead you post a well known image, attempt a flame, and don't even know who Udet is.
Real class act..
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
I can prove that with a cartoon, too :
-
Hehe, Issy should know who Ernst Udet was. Well, I'll give some facts about thim.
He was a WW1 Ace and a friend of Göring....
He was a stunt pilot, Bon vivant, heavy drinker and a hobby cartoonist.
He commited suicide in 1941 (rather than 42).
Werner Mölders had a fatal crash on the way to (rather than from) his funeral.
Anyway, some figures.
Additional 120 gallons gave the Mk IX at Almost SL,easily the range of 1200 miles,speed actually being 240.
That gives me 6 miles a gallon under rather unfavourable cirkumstances.
(climb, descent, windy and low flying).
-
Originally posted by Delirium
You could at least show some appreciation for a drawn image of a pilot that flew the sorties and a pic you'll never see again since it was privately owned.
No, instead you post a well known image, attempt a flame, and don't even know who Udet is.
Real class act..
Barbi nows who Udet is. He knows all the heros of nazi Germany.:)
-
The P-51 carried two 150 gallon drop tanks on missions to Japan. Thats alot of fuel.
-
Hi Angus,
>From Jeffrey Quill's data, the Spit I is rated with a 575 miles range on 85 gallons. How does that compare with the 109E?
Using the 0.43 L/km figure from the Emil manual, I get 578 miles for the Me 109E, so it compares quite nicely :-)
(Assuming you're quoting still air range, too.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Jab,
>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.
Good point :-)
I'd say rather than comparing relatively unimportant still air range figures, we should try and find a realistic mission profile we can apply to all aircraft we're comparing in the same manner.
The P-51 manual doesn't even contain data for the same minimum power cruise as the British used for the Me 109 and the RAAF for the Spitfire VIII, nor does the Luftwaffe's Emil range table. This tells us a bit about the operational impact of minimum power settings :-)
At one point in the war, the Air Ministry actually advised all Spitfire pilots to fly at maximum cruise power settings whenever in airspace where contact with enemy planes might be expected!
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Milo, cool it a bit.
Udet was a WWI vet. Although high in ranks within Nazi Germany, it was not all really his cup of tea.
His suicide note read "Iron man, you let me down"
(Iron man was Göring)
More of the Heroes.....
Mölders did not wear his medals on his later missions as a protest to his authorities.
Galland was late in the war confined to his quarters, with a subtle suggestion to take poison.
On an occation, when Göring blurted out that the LW pilots were cowards, Galland ripped his medals (Iron Cross) off and flung them on the table, with the words "you can then have that" or something in the direction.
Rommel participated in the Plot to kill Hitler. He was given an option to take poison which he did.
It's a dark history indeed.
Anyway, getting back to the point, at SL under bad conditions the Spit IX seems to burn near a gallon on the 6 miles. Maybe an authentic MAX cruise consumption figure?
(What Issy considers normal)