PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire fuel tankage and range



Blutarski2004
04-20-2007, 06:13 AM
For whatever it's worth, here is some data on the growth of fuel tankage of the Spitfire through its various Mks.

Mk1 -
85 gal internal capacity in two fuselage tanks, one above the other. Range described as "allowed for take-off, a climb to altitude, 1.65 hours cruising and 15 minutes combat at full bore".

A later re-design of these internal tanks increased their capacity by 10 gals. It is not clear whether these re-designed tanks were retro-fitted to early production a/c.

Installation of wing tanks added a total of 36 gals capacity.

Additional internal fuel tanks were fitted behind the pilot cockpit in later Mks, adding 33 gals.

Internal tankage capacity for the latest Mks was therefore 85 + 10 +36 + 33 = 164 gals. Although internal fuel capacity had been nearly doubled, range did not increase commensurately. Maximum engine horsepower had also nearly doubled as well, which considerably increased fuel consumption at full throttle setting.

Photo-recon Spitfires were additionally fitted with leading-edge fuel tanks of 133 gal total capacity.

- - -

A variety of external fuel tanks were fitted to the Spitfire over its wartime career -

30 gal c/l slipper tank

90 gal c/l tank (used by Malta Spitfires: one-way transit range approx 800 miles)

170 gal c/l tank

45 gal streamlined c/l tank

90 gal streamlined c/l tank

- - -

The absolute maximum operating range of a Spitfire occured in the case of the unarmed photo-recon types, which had a range of "well over 2,000 miles and a consumption ... of nine miles per gallon". Fuel stowage would have included 297 gals of internal fuel + 170 gal drop tank (by my arithmetic).

mynameisroland
04-20-2007, 06:30 AM
Posted in the 'other' thread but worth posting here to show some range figures for actual Spitfire VIIs, VIIIs and Mk XIVs on operational fighter sweeps in 1944.

Wing Commander Pete Brothers
Culmhead Wing
April to October 1944

"During deep penetration fighter sweeps over France in 1944 my three squadrons would spread out in pairs in a near line abreast formation, thus allowing us to cover a vast swathe of sky. This formation comprised of two squadrons equipped with Spitfire F VIIs and a solitary unit with Mk XIVs. Range was never a great problem.

I remained at Culmhead with a wing comprising Spit VIIs and XIVs, both which boasted superb range that allowed us to sweep as far east over the continent as the Swiss border.

We also flew daylight bomber escort missions in our long-range Spits, with three and a half hour sorties becoming quite common place."

Spitfire - Flying Legend
John Dibbs and Tony Holmes
pgs 130 and 132

WOLFMondo
04-20-2007, 06:43 AM
What does he know? He was only a Wing Commander. Kurfurst will set him right. Did you know he actually mean the Swiss boarder as in the town of Swiss in Scotland?

ploughman
04-20-2007, 06:46 AM
No, the Swiss Boarder was the bloke who lived in the spare room round the back, very nice he was too though he was always sat on the fence.

horseback
04-20-2007, 10:04 AM
Are those figures in Imperial gallons or US gallons (there's a significant difference, as anyone who's had an Imperial pint bottle of beer can confirm).

I have a British reference that states that the Seafire L Mk IIc had a fuel capacity of 85 Imperial gallons (386 liters) plus provisions for an auxiliary tank of 30 Imp gallons (136 liters). What's that in American?

cheers

horseback

Kurfurst__
04-20-2007, 11:24 AM
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/AI1945_range109G-190A.jpg

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/182mileage.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-lfix-ads.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit8performance-n.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit21ads.jpg

Spitfire V manual :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/spit5_flyinglimits1.jpg

Late Spitfire IX and XVI manual :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/spit9-16_limitations.jpg

Spitfire IX mileage :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/spit9_milleage1.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/spit9_milleage2.jpg

Spitfire XIV mileage :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/spit14_mileage.jpg

Blutarski2004
04-20-2007, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
Are those figures in Imperial gallons or US gallons (there's a significant difference, as anyone who's had an Imperial pint bottle of beer can confirm).

I have a British reference that states that the Seafire L Mk IIc had a fuel capacity of 85 Imperial gallons (386 liters) plus provisions for an auxiliary tank of 30 Imp gallons (136 liters). What's that in American?

cheers

horseback


..... The information comes from the wartime chief designer of Supermarine, so I would imagine that the quantities must be given in imperial gallon. However, nowhere in the text does it explicitly say so.

hop2002
04-20-2007, 12:30 PM
Yes, those are imperial gallons.

Only the early rear fuselage tanks were 33 gallons. The later ones, fitted to all Spitfire XVIs and many late mark IXs and XIVs, were of up to 75 gallons (less for those aircraft with cut down rear fuselage)


well over 2,000 miles and a consumption ... of nine miles per gallon"

Do you have an exact quote? That fits very nicely with the Australian test of the Spitfire VIII with Merlin 66, which achieved 10 mpg at 20,000 ft.

The reason I ask for the quote is that a certain person maintains the Spitfire couldn't do better than about 6.5 mpg...

Blutarski2004
04-20-2007, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/AI1945_range109G-190A.jpg

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/182mileage.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-lfix-ads.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit8performance-n.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit21ads.jpg

Spitfire V manual :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/spit5_flyinglimits1.jpg

Late Spitfire IX and XVI manual :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/spit9-16_limitations.jpg


..... Thanks for posting all the documents, even one from Mike Williams. Hmmm.

Nothing in the documents which you posted contradicts what I posted, provided that they are read carefully. The data comes from a paper entitled "The Development of the Spitfire and Seafire", presented to the R.A.S. in 1946 by J Smith, chief designer for Supermarine from 1938 through the war. The tankage was decribed in terms of capacity when full.

The enlarged internal forward tank, the wing tanks, and the rear internal tanks were all introduced into the production line over the course of the war. Then, of course, there is the question of which drop tank might be fitted. The various combinations of internal tanks and external tanks give the following spectrum of possible tankage capacities over the war career of the Spitfire series:
- 85, 95, 105, 115, 121, 128, 131, 140, 151, 154, 158, 161, 164, 173, 175, 176, 184, 185, 194, 209, 211, 218, 221, 244, 254, 255, 265, 291, 298, 301, 324, and 344 gals.

Xiolablu3
04-20-2007, 01:20 PM
SOme good info here, thanks!

Some serious range in those Spit IX's with drop tanks, 1350 miles!

Basically it would be quite obvious that the plane would be unstable when heavily loaded with fuel and drop tanks. You should always burn off the fuel in the drop tanks and rear tank first. Using them for take off and flight to target. P51 was the same when rear tank was full I believe?

SPitfire VIII , 740 miles on internal tankge only....

Kurfurst__
04-20-2007, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
The enlarged internal forward tank, the wing tanks, and the rear internal tanks were all introduced into the production line over the course of the war.

Onto selected Marks, yes. Most had 85 gallons internal capacity through the war as the documents show.

Mk VII (140 built), VIII (1658), XII (100 built) and XIV (957) had wing tanks AND enlarged for. Due to the increased consumption of the Griffon, only the VII and VIII (~1800 aircraft) could actually take advantage of it in range and endurance.

"Some aircraft, generally those with rear-view fuselage" ie. very late 1944/45 production XVIs had enlarged forward tank by 10 gallon for 95 gallon capacity instead of the usual 85 gallon capacity.

"Later IX and all XVI aircraft" had 75/66 gallon rear tank. Flight limitations were excessive though, and those tanks "were only filled for special operations at the discretion of the appropiate Area commander"

The vast majority, ie. the main Marks Mk V and IX) had only 85 gallons internal and 434 miles range (IXLF) on it on economic cruise, or 240 miles range at maximum weak mixture cruise.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-lfix-ads.jpg

If 5 minutes are spent at combat rating, this being reduced to 352 miles at economic cruise, or to 195 miles on maximum weak mixture cruise. This latter represented the furthest distance most Spitfires could realistically venture from it's base and return on internal fuel capacity, after jettisoning the droptank before combat, unless it wanted to fly over German held territory for 1+ hours at a mere 220 mph (ie. economic cruise), and risking being caught by an over-ambitious pursuing Stuka.

The 195 miles, which would include 5 minutes at Combat, and withdrawal at 328 mph apprx. equals the distance from London to Paris or Normandy.

The Mk VII/VIII of course was much longer range, hence it's primarly deployment to the Med and the Pacific, where operational distances absolutely demanded it.

Blutarski2004
04-20-2007, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
The enlarged internal forward tank, the wing tanks, and the rear internal tanks were all introduced into the production line over the course of the war.

Onto selected Marks, yes. Most had 85 gallons internal capacity through the war as the documents show.

Mk VII (140 built), VIII (1658), XII (100 built) and XIV (957) had wing tanks AND enlarged for. Due to the increased consumption of the Griffon, only the VII and VIII (~1800 aircraft) could actually take advantage of it in range and endurance.

"Some aircraft, generally those with rear-view fuselage" ie. very late 1944/45 production XVIs had enlarged forward tank by 10 gallon for 95 gallon capacity instead of the usual 85 gallon capacity.

"Later IX and all XVI aircraft" had 75/66 gallon rear tank. Flight limitations were excessive though, and those tanks "were only filled for special operations at the discretion of the appropiate Area commander"

The vast majority, ie. the main Marks Mk V and IX) had only 85 gallons internal and 434 miles range (IXLF) on it on economic cruise, or 240 miles range at maximum weak mixture cruise.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-lfix-ads.jpg

If 5 minutes are spent at combat rating, this being reduced to 352 miles at economic cruise, or to 195 miles on maximum weak mixture cruise. This latter represented the furthest distance most Spitfires could realistically venture from it's base and return on internal fuel capacity, after jettisoning the droptank before combat, unless it wanted to fly over German held territory for 1+ hours at a mere 220 mph (ie. economic cruise), and risking being caught by an over-ambitious pursuing Stuka.

The 195 miles, which would include 5 minutes at Combat, and withdrawal at 328 mph apprx. equals the distance from London to Paris or Normandy.

The Mk VII/VIII of course was much longer range, hence it's primarly deployment to the Med and the Pacific, where operational distances absolutely demanded it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Nice, reasonable, well supported post. I'm cool with everyrhing you say. A few comments -


(1) The references which you posted have changed my position from uncertain to agreement with your statement that the majority of Spits still had 85gal internal tank stowage even into the later war years.


(2) I ran the numbers on your Spit IX document attachment to get ranges under both cruise speed, allowing for 15 minute at combat power -

-----------------87 gal---+45gal/dt---+90gal/dt
220mph cruise----188 m------439 m-------654 m
328mph cruise----105 m------252 m-------385 m

A Spitfire on 85 gal internal tank only is, without question, a point interceptor.

Adding a 45gal drop tank permit the lpane to fight over coastal France.

Fitted with a 90gal drop tank, the Spitfire now has legitimate legs to reach and fight over western Germany and the Swiss frontier. The logic here is that the plane will not being flying at 328mph from the moment it lifts off. some portion(s) of the flight will be over friendly or undefended territory, or perhaps over water. This implies that the true operational range likely lies somewhere between that obtained at fast cruise and that economical cruise. Assuming use of a 90gal drop tank, this suggests to me a real-world operational range of 400-450 m .... a little more than fast cruise range, but less than economical cruise range.

- - -

All that having been said, it's worth remembering that the above ranges are based upon still air, standard atmosphere, and the assumption that no enemy attack will cause a premature jettison of the external tank.

- - -

(3) You wrote - "...unless it wanted to fly over German held territory for 1+ hours at a mere 220 mph (ie. economic cruise), and risking being caught by an over-ambitious pursuing Stuka."

..... Now THAT's legitimately funny.

ImpStarDuece
04-20-2007, 07:31 PM
An imperial gallon is equal to 1.2 US gallons.

So:

85 imp gal = 102 US gal (Mk I,II,V,IX)
95 imp gal = 114 US gal (Mk IX, XVI)
120 imp gal = 144 Imp gal (Mk VIII, XIV, XXI)
128 imp gal = 153.5 imp gal (Mk VII)


The most curious thing is why the Air Ministry ignored the recommendations of the A&AEE and Geoffry Quill and never introduced the 29 gallon rear tank and the enlarged lower foward tank as standard from the Mk V, which would of increased total tankage from 85 to 122 gallons. The majority of the rear tank would of been used on warm-up, taxi and climb, and wouldn't of affected combat performance, unless they are fighting as soon as they took off.

The problem is that the 'interim' designs - Mk V, Mk IX and Mk XIV - always seemed to get produced over the intended mainline designs - Mk III, Mk VIII and Mk XXI - for a variety of reasons.

The foward tank mod could be done on the production line, while the additional rear tank seems to be (at least on the Mk Vs used for the Malta ferry flights) and 'after market' addition.

This would of given the "standard" Spitfire an 800 mile combat radius with a 90 gal external tank.

The largest mistake the British made with Spitfire was not introducing Mk III production in late 1940 as originally intended (1,000 Mk IIIs ordered in October 1940). They then spent the next 3 years incrementally introducing some of the design features of the Mk III (strengthened fuselage, revised alierons, clipped wings, Hispano mounting, retractable tailwheel, larger foward tanks) into the production line.

Blutarski2004
04-20-2007, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">well over 2,000 miles and a consumption ... of nine miles per gallon"

Do you have an exact quote? That fits very nicely with the Australian test of the Spitfire VIII with Merlin 66, which achieved 10 mpg at 20,000 ft.

The reason I ask for the quote is that a certain person maintains the Spitfire couldn't do better than about 6.5 mpg... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Hop, the exact wording is as follows -

"The result was an unarmed aircraft capable of Spitfire speed with a range of well over 2,000 miles and a consumption in propelling 3-1/2 tons through the air of nine miles per gallon."

Blutarski2004
04-20-2007, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Yes, those are imperial gallons.

Only the early rear fuselage tanks were 33 gallons. The later ones, fitted to all Spitfire XVIs and many late mark IXs and XIVs, were of up to 75 gallons (less for those aircraft with cut down rear fuselage)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">well over 2,000 miles and a consumption ... of nine miles per gallon"

Do you have an exact quote? That fits very nicely with the Australian test of the Spitfire VIII with Merlin 66, which achieved 10 mpg at 20,000 ft.

The reason I ask for the quote is that a certain person maintains the Spitfire couldn't do better than about 6.5 mpg... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SirPapps
04-20-2007, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
SOme good info here, thanks!

Some serious range in those Spit IX's with drop tanks, 1350 miles!

Basically it would be quite obvious that the plane would be unstable when heavily loaded with fuel and drop tanks. You should always burn off the fuel in the drop tanks and rear tank first. Using them for take off and flight to target. P51 was the same when rear tank was full I believe?

SPitfire VIII , 740 miles on internal tankge only....

The Spitfire Mk.VIII had 2x 48 Imp. Gal. fuel tanks as main fuel tanks. In addition, it had 2x 14 IG fuel tanks in the wings. Max. int. fuel range was about 660 - 680 incliding warmup and other factors. May seem short, but not bad for a Spitfire. Gotta love those rear fuel tanks (1x 41 IG tank; 1x 34 IG tank) lol. With this mod, (MOD. 1335) those Mustang pilots couldnt laugh at the spitfire anymore. too bad it was in 1945 when it was implemented.

hop2002
04-21-2007, 04:15 AM
.... Hop, the exact wording is as follows -

"The result was an unarmed aircraft capable of Spitfire speed with a range of well over 2,000 miles and a consumption in propelling 3-1/2 tons through the air of nine miles per gallon."

Thanks. That fits very well with this:
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/2640/90bcroppedyn4.th.jpg (http://img179.imageshack.us/my.php?image=90bcroppedyn4.jpg)


The references which you posted have changed my position from uncertain to agreement with your statement that the majority of Spits still had 85gal internal tank stowage even into the later war years.


Every Spitfire VII had extra fuel, usually 121 gallons. 140 built

Every Spitfire VIII had extra fuel, usually a minimum of 123 or so gallons. 1,658 built

Every Spitfire XIV built had extra fuel, usually 110 gallons 957 built

Every Spitfire XVI had extra fuel. All carried at least the rear fuselage tank of up to 75 gallons, many had the enlarged forward tank as well. 1054 built

The rear fuselage tanks were also fitted to late mark IXs, as was the enlarged forward tank.

Note that Isegrim's highlighting of the prohibition of the use of rear tanks comes from the post war Spitfire manual. Post war the RAF also removed rear tanks from its Mustangs.

During the war, the Spitfires had slightly less restrictions on their rear tanks than RAF Mustangs. The Spitfire IX manual notes:

"When the rear fuselage tanks are full there is a very marked reduction in longitudinal stability, the aircraft tightens in turns at all altitudes and, in this condition, is restricted to straight flying, and only gentle manoeuvres; accurate trimming is not possible and instrument flying should be avoided whenever possible."

The RAF Mustang III manual:
"Stability."”Except when earning full fuselage tank, the aircraft is stable longitudinally, laterally, and dircc-tionally. When the fuselage tank is full, the aircraft is longitudinally unstable in all conditions of flight, and tends to tighten up in turns; until at least 40 Imp. gallons (48 U.S. gallons} have been consumed from the fuselage tank, no manoeuvres other than very gentle turns should be attempted."

Regarding aerobatics the manuals note:

Spitfire
"Acrobatics are not permitted when carrying any external stores (except the 30-gallon " blister " drop tank) nor when the rear fuselage tanks contain more than 30 gallons of fuel, and are not recommended when the rear fuselage tanks contain any fuel."

Mustang
"Flick manoeuvres arc not permitted. When carrying bombs or drop tanks, or with fuel in fuselage tank, aerobatics are prohibited."

So the RAF prohibited aerobatics in the Mustang with any fuel in the rear tank, but allowed them in the Spitfire with up to 30 gallons in the rear tank.


SPitfire VIII , 740 miles on internal tankge only.

That appears to be for the Merlin 61 engined version. The Merlin 61 was the last of the major marks to have the old SU carb, the later ones like the Merlin 66 had the Bendix Stromberg carb, and as the Australian test shows, and Blutarski's quote confirms, the later engines were capable of much better consumption.


The most curious thing is why the Air Ministry ignored the recommendations of the A&AEE and Geoffry Quill and never introduced the 29 gallon rear tank and the enlarged lower foward tank as standard from the Mk V, which would of increased total tankage from 85 to 122 gallons.

I think it was simply they felt they didn't need it for normal use. There were no technical problems, and the cost of the slightly larger forward tank would have been little different.

When they did have a requirement for it, like in the Spitfire VIII for overseas, or the recce Spits, it got fitted.

The easy otpions for increasing the range were:

enlarged forward tank. Increase capacity by 10 gallons in Merlin versions

Wing tanks. Adds up to 36 gallons, although 26 - 28 was more common

Rear fuselage tank. Adds 75 gallons in aircraft with normal fuselage.

Each of these options was common, fitted to more than 1,000 Spitfires. Taken together they would increase the internal fuel load to a minimum of 196 gallons.

Kurfurst__
04-21-2007, 05:11 AM
The usual old stuff.

Basically Hop doesn't like the RAF's data, so he relies the RAAF data, which is higher. I wouldn't say it's better, since the the RAAF is giving it's figures for entirely different conditions.

As for the arguement, Hop claims that the Merlin 61 engined 'with the old SU fuel carb' had much worser comsumption than the 'new Bendix Stormberg carb. Needless to say, Hop is the only one who'd claim (rather, make up) the story about the 'much improved' Bendix Stormberg, which is not supported by any engine or aircraft literature, so I must wonder where it originates from (answer, Hop made it up).
Most likely the new carburattor maker had negligable relevance in performance or consumption.Similiarly the 'post war manual' excuse is just smokescreen, as the only manual publicly available is the latest, post war ones. In any case I can post war time testing with rear tanks and they say the same about the effect on handling.

If anybody wants to cross check if there was any improvement in fuel consumption between the Merlin 61 and Merlin 66 which at least according to Hop had allegadly, not 5, not 10%, but 50% better fuel consumption (MEGAROFLOL), please check the range figures given by the RAF for Merlin 61 and 66 Spitfires.

If the latter engine would have better consumption, that would certainly show up in the range figures, ie. the Merlin 66 engined fighter would have listed with far greater range. It isn't the case.

The RAF range figures are consistent, however :

Mk IXF (Merlin 61) : 450 miles / 85 gallons = 5,29 mpg on avarage
Mk IXLF (Merlin 66) : 434 miles / 85 gallons = 5,10 mpg on avarage
Mk XVI (Merlin 266) : 434 miles / 85 gallons = 5,10 mpg on avarage
Mk VIII (Merlin 66) : 740 miles / 120 gals. = 6.16 mpg on avarage

In fact the RAF lists the IXLF at 434 miles vs. 450 miles. The Merlin 61 'old SU carburattor' has actually better range.

The mileage figures are consistent between the same engines, in fact the higher-powered Merlin 66 seems to be a bit worse, the aerodynamically cleaner Mk VIII is better, which is probably down to it's better drag, and even more so that range figures would include fuel spent on climbing (poor mileage) and economic level cruise (good milage); the Mk VIII's avarage mileage is obivously a result of a higher proportion of economic cruise, since the same amount of fuel is spent on climb in both cases, but the VIII has more fuel overall.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">SPitfire VIII, 740 miles on internal tankge only.

That appears to be for the Merlin 61 engined version. The Merlin 61 was the last of the major marks to have the old SU carb, the later ones like the Merlin 66 had the Bendix Stromberg carb, and as the Australian test shows, and Blutarski's quote confirms, the later engines were capable of much better consumption. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Range with the Merlin 66 had the Bendix Stromberg carb, from the same Australian archives - 740 miles it seems :

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit8performance-n.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit8adsaussie.jpg

Basically one can choose between the opinion of a lone Spitfire partisan who never respected the facts and simply strives for the highest figures or simply take what the RAF's documentation says. I wouldn't even say the RAAF's tested figures are wrong, they just probably refer to some different condition or to something different. Simple thing is that if the Spitfire VIII would realistically capable of 10 mpg it would be listed at some 1100-1200 miles range instead of 740, and the Allies would have never needed the Mustang. Comparison of the milage achieved on armed fighter versions with the unarmed, cleaned up (cannon-less, polished, streamlined canopy and shallower radiators) 20-30 mph faster PR versions is really reaching. It's perfectly reasonable that those cleaned up planes using high altitude engines and operating in thin air would reach up to 9 mpg vs. the ca 6.76 measured on fighters. Anyway, I am sure this is not the last time Hop will sell this story again, as said, for the 6 years I know him, he argues exactly the same over and over again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I think we shouldn't bother.

HellToupee
04-21-2007, 07:59 PM
dont they factor climb/combat/reserve in their ranges.




Basically Hop doesn't like the RAF's data, so he relies the RAAF data, which is higher.

dont you do that with the g2 and finnish tests?


I wouldn't say it's better, since the the RAAF is giving it's figures for entirely different conditions.

what conditions are differnt to invalidate it?

Got any similar charts that display mpg and have the engine and altitude settings to achive it.

Xiolablu3
04-21-2007, 09:53 PM
Good call on the Finnish 109/Aussie Spit tests, Wolf. Totally true of course. If someone is going to use the high figures from the FInns for the 109, then they should also use the high figures for the SPitfire and other planes from whereever they come from.

We must remember to cherry pick these Aussie tests when Kurfie comes out with his top end tests of the Bf109.


Whether its 'the usual' stuff or not, its very interesting to those who have not seen it before.

Anyway..

The RAF didnt seem to see the SPitfires range as a problem during WW2, looking back now and comparing it with the P51 and such the range looks short, but when you are doing fighter sweeps, you are usually over the front lines, or just behind, not reaching deep into Germany. During 1940-43 when Germany was still strong it would have been extremly dangerous to go very deep behind the German lines, it only really became necesary with the US daylight bombing campaign.

The US used the Mustang for bomber escort work, but it wasnt planned for this, its just how it happened. It was actually ordered by the RAF and used by the USAAF afterwards. The P51 was capable of extreme range and it was lucky it came along when it did as it slid right into that role. SO saying that 'if the Spitfire was capable of long range then the Allies would never have NEEDED the P51 is a moot point. A fully armed SPitfire could never have escorted bombers from London to berlin and back even with the ranges listed above. It could however do certain legs of the journey and escort bombers a far way behind the lines. As the Germans were pushed back through France and RAF bases opened up there, then Spits would have ranged far into Germany.

Most of the hard fighting on the West front between 1939-44 would have taken place either over England, the channel and France as the Brits went slowly onto the offensive as the Luftwaffe got pushed back and became weaker. Gotta remember that the channel is only 20 miles wide so planes ranging deep into France and the border of Germany was very sufficient for most of the War. Even a Spit with no extra tanks reaching 250 miles from a Southern airfield is going to reach far into France and into the German lines, easily reaching the main German airfields in France when it was occupied 1940-44.

Had range been such a major issue to the RAF in Britain, then more effort would have been put in to making more long range SPits like the MkVIII and the others mentioned above.

RAnge was seen as very important in the Med and the desert, not in Britain/France/Germany (except of course for the US daylight heavy bomber escort), which is why all the Spitfire VIIIs were sent abroad to the Aussies, Italy, MAlta, the Med and the Desert.

Xiolablu3
04-21-2007, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


Basically one can choose between the opinion of a lone Spitfire partisan who never respected the facts and simply strives for the highest figures or simply take what the RAF's documentation says. I wouldn't even say the RAAF's tested figures are wrong, they just probably refer to some different condition or to something different. Simple thing is that if the Spitfire VIII would realistically capable of 10 mpg it would be listed at some 1100-1200 miles range instead of 740, and the Allies would have never needed the Mustang. Comparison of the milage achieved on armed fighter versions with the unarmed, cleaned up (cannon-less, polished, streamlined canopy and shallower radiators) 20-30 mph faster PR versions is really reaching. It's perfectly reasonable that those cleaned up planes using high altitude engines and operating in thin air would reach up to 9 mpg vs. the ca 6.76 measured on fighters. Anyway, I am sure this is not the last time Hop will sell this story again, as said, for the 6 years I know him, he argues exactly the same over and over again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I think we shouldn't bother.



Look at this, I just replaced a few words :-

'Basically one can choose between the opinion of a lone BF109 partisan who never respected the facts and simply strives for the highest figures or simply take what the Luftwaffes's documentation says. I wouldn't even say the FINNISH tested figures are wrong, they just probably refer to some different condition or to something different. Simple thing is that if the BF109 would realistically capable of everything Kurfust says, and the Germans would have never needed the FW190/Me262. Comparison of the Speeds/perforamnce achieved on armed bog standard fighter versions like the 109G6 or dirsty battered planes at the end of the war which made up most of the BF109 numbers, with the , alcohol, cleaned up (amrament-less, polished, streamlined canopy, retractable tail wheel and shallower radiators) 20-30 mph faster versions is really reaching. It's perfectly reasonable that those few cleaned up planes using perfect engines and operating away from the front line would reach up to the speeds in the Finnish tests. Anyway, I am sure this is not the last time Kurfurst will sell this story again, as said, for the 6 years I know him, he argues exactly the same over and over again.

I think we shouldn't bother. '

The-Pizza-Man
04-22-2007, 01:29 AM
Kurfurst, read the documents fully. You've neglected the reserve fuel allowance, which is 23-25 gal. This gives an MPG of 7.6 to 7.8 when averaged with take off and climb. Figures of 8-9 MPG for cruising are not unreasonable.

Ratsack
04-22-2007, 01:55 AM
I'd suggest the RAAF tests of the MkVIII are particularly relevant, given that they were one of - if not the - biggest users of the type. The RAAF received nearly half the total MkVIII production.

cheers,
Ratsack

luftluuver
04-23-2007, 04:15 AM
LOL X. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Here are some numbers for the Bf109E-1,3 to compare to the Spit MkIs and IIs.

Sea Level
max continous - 2200rpm - 1.05hr - 267mi
Max economy - 1300rpm - 2.20hr - 404mi

9842ft
max continous - 2200rpm - 1.00r - 280
Max economy - 140rpm - 2.05 - 410mi

16404ft
max continous - 2400rpm - 0.55hr - 286mi
Max economy - 1400rpm - 1.50hr - 413mi

19856ft
max continous - 2400rpm - 1.10hr - 323mi
Max economy - 1600rpm - 1.40hr - 395mi

One should not expect to see the 109F with much more range, dispite the lack of warts the 109E had. As for the 109G with with the DB605 engine, all one has to do is look at the mileage big engine cars get compared to what a smaller engine in the same car will get.

Now Kurfurst like to use British reference data. Well here is another,

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/109grange4-1.jpg

Now a clean Fw190A-8 will have a range from 351 to 550mi depending on altitude flown and the boost used. This includes a 12.5% reserve and climb and decent but no combat.

Compare these numbers to the data posted above. Both the 109 (less than the 190) and 190 have less range when combat is included. As can be seen, the range distances Kurfurst states for the 109 are 'ferry' ranges while in the Spit documents posted, the range includes combat time.

One must remember that Kurfurst will lie, cheat, fabricate, twist and manupulate to show that his aryan supermen are supreme.

badatflyski
04-23-2007, 11:57 AM
Luftluuver: from what rapport is this page?(seeing it's pg n?8)
Can you show all the pages please?
Or is this another "rapport" of the A3 that accidentaly land in britain and was then flow with fouled sparkplugs,wrong fuel,Gerrät beeing set "by feeling" and ailerons out of balance?
Or is this just an extrapolation (in another words :a guess )of data found here and there?
What is the date of this rapport?
Thanks mate!

luftluuver
04-23-2007, 12:27 PM
badatflyski, it is pg 2, not pg 8.

Here are the other pages,
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/109grange5.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/109grange3-1.jpg

As you can see the report is dated May 11 1943.

The Brits had other 190s besides Fabers.

Ratsack
04-24-2007, 12:44 AM
Although Faber's was the only fighter version they captured intact.

cheers,
Ratsack

Kurfurst__
04-24-2007, 03:31 AM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Kurfurst, read the documents fully. You've neglected the reserve fuel allowance, which is 23-25 gal. This gives an MPG of 7.6 to 7.8 when averaged with take off and climb. Figures of 8-9 MPG for cruising are not unreasonable.

The fuel allowance is noted to be reserved for takeoff (ie. taxy, warmup, take off run) and climb.
During takeoff the mileage is of course 0 mpg.

Climbs is another matter. From the Spit XIV manual graph we can see during the climb (which's speed and angle, hence the distance covered is rather similiar on all Marks) something like 28 miles is being covered.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/spit14_mileage.jpg

So in the case of the Mk IX, ca 23 gallon is held for reserve for take off and climb. 0 miles is covered a takeoff, ca 28 miles on climb. The rest, 85-23= 62 gallon is available for cruise for 434-28 (that we already covered in climb) = 406 miles. That gives 406/62 = 6,54 mpg mileage for the cruise at most economic speeds.

Ding the same for the LF Mk VIII, ca 23 gallon is held for reserve for take off and climb. 0 miles is covered a takeoff, ca 28 miles on climb. The rest, 120-23= 97 gallon is available for cruise for 740-28 (that we already covered in climb) = 712 miles. That gives 712/97 = 7,34 mpg mileage for the cruise at most economic speeds.

This agrees extremely well what the RAAF gives as figures :

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit8performance-n.jpg

Look at range, it notes :

True Speed 220 mph
Fuel consumption/hour : 30 gallon
That would be 7,33 mpg for the IX LF.

I presume this comes from the fact that the Mk VIII was aerodynamically cleaner, having a retractable, faired tailwheel and the entire body was flush riveted (the Mk IX had fixed tailwheel and mixed dome/flush rivet construction). Also keep in mind that initially Mk VIIIs were built with extended wingtips (a feature that Quill strongly criticized because it's implications on roll rate). This would mean that they had less span- and wing-loading than normal aircraft, much like a glider, and their drag would be lower (and hence their mileage greater) during the slow-speed ecomomic cruises, than the normal winged versions that characterized the Mk IXLFs.



Originally posted by Ratsack :

I'd suggest the RAAF tests of the MkVIII are particularly relevant, given that they were one of - if not the - biggest users of the type. The RAAF received nearly half the total MkVIII production.

I doubt you'd be equally happy with the speed performance results the RAAF measured on the very same Mk VIII that's fuel consumption tests some like to cherish (or rather cherry pick) so much.

In any case, both the RAAF's and the RAF's papers are totally consistent about Mk IX and XIV range figures.

OD_79
04-24-2007, 03:50 AM
Of course...it's all fictional, it makes sense now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
Guys you must realise the Spitfire was just there to make the aifrield look pretty and become a gate guard once the war was over. It never really even flew, it's just propaganda to make the Luftwaffe believe that the RAF had some super fighter which would clear them from the skies.

Or is this just one of Kurfursts dreams?

Kurfurst__
04-24-2007, 03:58 AM
Ignore list was extended. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I really wonder if someone can explain what's the problem with the Finnish tests - it's just another of the many 109G tests, in rather good agreement with others (which can't be told about Aussie Mk VIII consumption tests). Yet prominent Spitfire fans seems to hate it like mad, which is somewhat odd. Anyway, some people's fixation on that certain 109 tests need to be dismissed and ignored in a Spitfire thread is reeaally off-topic.

ploughman
04-24-2007, 04:37 AM
A wingspan of 40'2" would make it an extended wingtip Mk VIII.

John_Wayne_
04-24-2007, 05:19 AM
Look a me! I made the list! LMAO
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b71/Big_Duke/spitfirea1.jpg


http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b71/Big_Duke/untitledtftf.jpg

MEGILE
04-24-2007, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

I really wonder if someone can explain what's the problem with the Finnish tests - it's just another of the many 109G tests, in rather good agreement with others (which can't be told about Aussie Mk VIII consumption tests). Yet prominent Spitfire fans seems to hate it like mad,

Disagree 100%
No one is discrediting the Finnish Data.. the point they are merely alluding to is that you are hypocritical in the extreme.

The Finnish data is subject to all of the rather vague comments you made towards the Australian data.


they just probably refer to some different condition or to something different

It appears we have a regular Sherlock holmes on the board.
Elementary, dear Kurfurst..

Have a nice day.

Kurfurst__
04-24-2007, 06:13 AM
I am just asking because all this nonsense about the Finnish test emerged suddenly out of no-where by the usual suspects who can't even tell what's the problem with it, nor why they brought it up, or what the heck it proves at all apart that they had long traded away reality for conviniently living in the protection offered by self-created, in-bred conspiracy theories.

For such a closed circle, the mere mentioning of the magic words 'Finnish tests' can be equally proof to anything about from Al-Quada operations through the origin of the Universe to a possible excuse for Australian-performed Spitifire tests. Ironically, it appears that the only ones giving special importance, literrally being hung up onto the Finnish tests are the ones who complain about it so loudly, who then they project out that great conspiracy idea to the outside world, as if it's not only them who are overly concenrned with it, but others, even if those others have never expressed such. That's the very nature of conspiracy theories, they distance themselves from the actual world, and create their own alternate universe, which always proves them right. Pardon me if I was analysing the pschychological background too deeply.

So what's the trouble about the Finnish data if I may ask, or it's just the usual sidetracking smokescreen we've got used to always emerge instead of valid arguements on the subject ? And no, I really don't expect an actual answer. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stathem
04-24-2007, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
That's the very nature of conspiracy theories, they distance themselves from the actual world, and create their own alternate universe, which always proves them right.

And they would display this by, say, publicly declaring with righteous indignation that they are ignoring anyone who proves them to be an outright liar?

I see where you're coming from Kurfurst.

(Apologies to Bewolf)

LStarosta
04-24-2007, 06:40 AM
I think I'll be a big boy just like Kurfurst and ignore everyone who ever said something mean to me and then let everyone else know how naughty they are by putting a list of said people in my signature block. That ought to teach everyone to be nice to me and agree with everything I post.

BillyTheKid_22
04-24-2007, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by John_Wayne_:
Look a me! I made the list! LMAO
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b71/Big_Duke/spitfirea1.jpg


http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b71/Big_Duke/untitledtftf.jpg



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif and http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif



http://dabrat.lbbhost.com/CAT/AN_LMAO_CAT.GIF

The-Pizza-Man
04-24-2007, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Kurfurst, read the documents fully. You've neglected the reserve fuel allowance, which is 23-25 gal. This gives an MPG of 7.6 to 7.8 when averaged with take off and climb. Figures of 8-9 MPG for cruising are not unreasonable.

The fuel allowance is noted to be reserved for takeoff (ie. taxy, warmup, take off run) and climb.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nevertheless, MPG is still greater than you originally thought. Not to be nit picking, but the Merlin spits would climb at a lower speed than Griffon engine spits because of their lower wing loading and would thus cover less distance in the climb. The difference in climb speed is probably 10-20 mph. I still think that 8-9 MPG is reasonable from a well maintained aircraft.

Kurfurst__
04-24-2007, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Kurfurst, read the documents fully. You've neglected the reserve fuel allowance, which is 23-25 gal. This gives an MPG of 7.6 to 7.8 when averaged with take off and climb. Figures of 8-9 MPG for cruising are not unreasonable.

The fuel allowance is noted to be reserved for takeoff (ie. taxy, warmup, take off run) and climb.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nevertheless, MPG is still greater than you originally thought. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not. You're comparing apples to oranges. The MPG for the whole trip (takeoff, climb, cruise) is lower than the MPG under the most economic cruise conditions alone. There's nothing amazing in that.


Not to be nit picking, but the Merlin spits would climb at a lower speed than Griffon engine spits because of their lower wing loading and would thus cover less distance in the climb. The difference in climb speed is probably 10-20 mph.

Which would lead to 1-2 miles difference covered in climb, if what you're saying is true.


I still think that 8-9 MPG is reasonable from a well maintained aircraft.

You're welcome to be entitled to your opinion, RAF datasheets however clearly and consistently show they've calculated with ca. 6.5 mp for Mk IX, and ca. 7.3 mpg on cruise for the Mk VIII with extended wingtips in the range tables. I'll stick to the hard data instead of assumptions.

OD_79
04-24-2007, 07:10 AM
I think Kurfurst needs to be able to understand sarcasm! Not that I am bothered if he ignores me!

The fact is Kurfurst you're always trying to discredit data on the Spitfire if it says it is anywhere near half decent. Of course the 109 is always better - in your opinion, we know that and to be honest know your agenda well. Lighten up!

The 109 had it's good points, but come on, honestly...by the end of the war it was past it's sell by date, it had expired, it should have been pushing up the daisies, if it hadn't they wouldn't have been trying to replace it with the 209 and the 309, shame for the Luftwaffe that they needed fighters and the 109 took priority...or am I going to be told I am wrong on that and that the 109 was just better than them!

This was about the range of Spitfires, if the Autralians could get that range out of a Spitfire then it could do it...it wasn't a document for publishing, it's marked secret, there is no point them lying to themselves. Therefore a Spitfire could do it. Just as the Finnish stuff you come up with for the G-2 may well be right, though it may differ to what the Germans said it might not actually be wrong.

Hence the range of a Spitfire could well be what is quoted in the documents, it might not reach those figures in Europe with different atmospheric conditions but it could do it, and it clearly did it!

OD.

Whirlin_merlin
04-24-2007, 07:24 AM
Kurf' most right minded people do not really believe the Spitfire was indeed the second coming of Christ. What annoyes them is your instistance that it was POS. As to Finnish or Australian tests, have you heard the phrase 'what's good for the gander is good for the goose.' . In other words it's not that people reject the Finnish tests it's more that your double standards (i.e ignoring higher values for Spit tests or lower values for 109 tests) are extremly fustrating to those aflicted with the curse of sanity.

Kurfurst__
04-24-2007, 07:27 AM
It's an amazing phenomenon, that for some, discussing a particularity of the Spitfire is simply unthinkable without comparing it to the 109.

It's rather tellingof the mindset, too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

OD_79
04-24-2007, 07:37 AM
My mention of the 109 came from your documents where you have outlined the 109, 190, Spitfire, Mosquito, Tempest (and I think something else) in red and underlined the Spitfire, the 190 and 109. So who was comparing?

OD.

Kurfurst__
04-24-2007, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
Kurf' most right minded people do not really believe the Spitfire was indeed the second coming of Christ. What annoyes them is your instistance that it was POS.

Well we have a few very noisy souls around here lately who will hold this convinction every time regardless of what was actually posted, say the RAF's own datasheets which list Spitfire fuel tankage and range, oddly enough in a thread titled 'Spitfire fuel tankage and range'. Somehow I fail to see how the RAF's datasheets could possibly constitute proof as to that the Spit 'was a POS', unless these people actually hold the conviction that the Spitfire was indeed 'the second coming of Christ', and as such deity, any eartly factuality may desacrate it and confine it within earthy boundaries.

It's entirely their social problem if they don't like the figures the RAF rates it's own fighters, I am afraid - I can't care less about that, most who just browse and learn can't either, and I can assure you the loud ones are just a dwarf minority.


As to Finnish or Australian tests, have you heard the phrase 'what's good for the gander is good for the goose.' . In other words it's not that people reject the Finnish tests it's more that your double standards (i.e ignoring higher values for Spit tests or lower values for 109 tests) are extremly fustrating to those aflicted with the curse of sanity.

You see that's the point where I have to disagree about the part dealing with the presence of sanity, though I fully agree with you about frustration. Please note that there are opinions for which I care, and there are opinions for which I don't care. Appearantly, the more reasonable posters in this thread appear to have no problem agreeing with me, and this leaves me entirely satisfied and happy.

Really it just doesn't matter if there are a few who want to suppress things they don't like to hear by rattling their little troll cages as loud as they could. At best they will attract the moderators, but little else shall be achieved.

hop2002
04-24-2007, 08:45 AM
I think I'll be a big boy just like Kurfurst and ignore everyone who ever said something mean to me and then let everyone else know how naughty they are by putting a list of said people in my signature block. That ought to teach everyone to be nice to me and agree with everything I post.

Don't forget, for the full effect you must put them in your signature but continue replying to their comments. (I've been on Kurfurst's "ignore" list since before this thread started, but he still manages to reply to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

As to the Australian data sheet Isegrim is posting, it's a summary sheet printed some months before they tested the range. As such it's probably based on the same consumption figures taken from the Merlin 61.

Note now there are two sources talking of much higher mpg figures for the Spitfire. The Australian test report (which Isegrim dismisses as "my" figures, despite the fact they were found on a test conducted decades before I was born) and the chief engineer of Supermarine, who says consumption of 9 mpg.

faustnik
04-24-2007, 09:42 AM
I have a simple reality chart:

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Kurfurst's Spitfire</span> < Real Spitfire < <span class="ev_code_RED">Hopp's Spitfire</span>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Blutarski2004
04-24-2007, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Please note that there are opinions for which I care, and there are opinions for which I don't care. Appearantly, the more reasonable posters in this thread appear to have no problem agreeing with me, and this leaves me entirely satisfied and happy.


..... I must admit - the above is a truly cosmic statement.

OTOH, I hesitate to say that the 9 mile per gallon fuel consumption figure achieved by a lightened and streamlined PR Spitfire, probably flying at a rather high altitude, would be a good benchmark for the performance of Spitfires in their conventional fighter roles.

Kurfurst__
04-24-2007, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
OTOH, I hesitate to say that the 9 mile per gallon fuel consumption figure achieved by a lightened and streamlined PR Spitfire, probably flying at a rather high altitude, would be a good benchmark for the performance of Spitfires in their conventional fighter roles.

Agreed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

horseback
04-24-2007, 12:35 PM
Theoretical range is all well and good as a pointer, but from a practical operational standpoint, I'd always take the lower figure. The fact is that if you're operating in 'Injun country', you'll be operating in pairs at the very least, unless of course you're one of those suicidal photo reconn lunatics.

The leader of a formation is the only one who is able to make the maximum use of economical cruise; even in a loose formation, everyone else in the formation has to adjust his speed and attitude to stay with the leader, and that requires constant little fuel-sucking adjustments. Add in the fact that a senior officer or leader in a squadron usually has a newer or exceptionally well maintained aircraft, and, well, his range advantage just gets better.

Any responsible estimate of maximum operational range is always going to be conservative.

By the way, why hasn't anyone brought up the USAAF's project that flew a pair of modified Spitfire IXs across the Atlantic? I believe that the flight took place in the summer of 1944...

cheers

horseback

Daiichidoku
04-24-2007, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
By the way, why hasn't anyone brought up the USAAF's project that flew a pair of modified Spitfire IXs across the Atlantic? I believe that the flight took place in the summer of 1944...

cheers

horseback

mark IXC MK210 was fitted in may 44 at Wright Field with a 43 gal rear fuselage tank, 16-1/2 gal flexible leading edge tanks and "mustang-type" 62 gal DTs...285gal (mkV's delivered to malta from aircraft carriers in med carried 284 gal, but they could not carry ammo n guns)

it flew to boscome down via iceland for testing, taking place in july 44, possibly sooner



in late 43, the Flight Refuelling Company did testing on mkIX BF274 to increse spits ferry range, by towing it behind a wellington...it was fitted with a fulkly feathering prop, the only spit so modified

longest spit flight ever (and largest spit tankage):

an argentinian mk XI, (civilized) standard tanks, plus a 170 gal slipper-type ferry tank, an extra 20 gals in each wing, totaling 428 gal..may 5 1947, cpt Jamie Storey flew from Dakar to Natal, 1,850 mi., eq to flyign London to past Moscow...flight duration was 8 hours

The-Pizza-Man
04-25-2007, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Kurfurst, read the documents fully. You've neglected the reserve fuel allowance, which is 23-25 gal. This gives an MPG of 7.6 to 7.8 when averaged with take off and climb. Figures of 8-9 MPG for cruising are not unreasonable.

The fuel allowance is noted to be reserved for takeoff (ie. taxy, warmup, take off run) and climb.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nevertheless, MPG is still greater than you originally thought. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not. You're comparing apples to oranges. The MPG for the whole trip (takeoff, climb, cruise) is lower than the MPG under the most economic cruise conditions alone. There's nothing amazing in that.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually you were comparing apples with oranges, I was just correcting you.

Aren't these figures from your previous post



Mk IXF (Merlin 61) : 450 miles / 85 gallons = 5,29 mpg on avarage
Mk IXLF (Merlin 66) : 434 miles / 85 gallons = 5,10 mpg on avarage
Mk XVI (Merlin 266) : 434 miles / 85 gallons = 5,10 mpg on avarage
Mk VIII (Merlin 66) : 740 miles / 120 gals. = 6.16 mpg on avarage


These are "MPG for the whole trip", which you were comparing with MPG during cruise, the 10 MPG from the Australian tests. I just provided the rough MPG from the data sheets.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not to be nit picking, but the Merlin spits would climb at a lower speed than Griffon engine spits because of their lower wing loading and would thus cover less distance in the climb. The difference in climb speed is probably 10-20 mph.

Which would lead to 1-2 miles difference covered in climb, if what you're saying is true. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which it is.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I still think that 8-9 MPG is reasonable from a well maintained aircraft.

You're welcome to be entitled to your opinion, RAF datasheets however clearly and consistently show they've calculated with ca. 6.5 mp for Mk IX, and ca. 7.3 mpg on cruise for the Mk VIII with extended wingtips in the range tables. I'll stick to the hard data instead of assumptions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The fact that "hard data" such as the 10 MPG was achieved under test conditions with a drop tank is enough to suggest that 8-9 is possible. Range tables may be conservative so as to account for the bottom 10% of aircraft that weren't as fuel as efficient as the majority of aircraft.

Kurfurst__
04-25-2007, 05:12 AM
Dear Pizza Man,

Feel free to ignore the mass of RAF's datasheets and be entitled to your position. You may have missed that one below for example http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/spit9_milleage2.jpg

OTOH the whole question of mileage is rather irreveleant, since both the RAF and RAAF gives consistent ranges of 434-450 miles for Mk IXs on 85 gallons and 740 miles for Mk VIII on 120. Whatever the mileage was, that was their maximum range, unless one claims he knows better than the RAF..

Vipez-
04-25-2007, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
I have a simple reality chart:

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Kurfurst's Spitfire</span> < Real Spitfire < <span class="ev_code_RED">Hopp's Spitfire</span>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Amen http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
04-25-2007, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It's entirely their social problem if they don't like the figures the RAF rates it's own fighters

I seem to remember you getting upset about Mike Williams using figures for the 109 from Messerschmitt AG because they werent that great.

Therefore you dont like the way Messerschmitt rates its own planes either.

Kurfurst__
04-25-2007, 06:11 AM
M8 if I step back and see the big picture I see a wagonload of RAF and RAAF documents all stating the same, and ONE RAAF tst saying something different.

BTW if you're problem is that the Australian tests are being ignored, keep in mind that both performance and consumption tests were performed with the Mk VIII JF 934. The highest top speed measured was ~635 km/h. Again, that's the same plane from which the 10 mpg figure originates from.

So, should we use JF 934 as representative, because if we do, we should use the performance figures obtained on it as well.

As for Mike Willians, he seems to ignore tests from Messerschmitt AG as well, if they show high performance, but that's old story. Messerschmitt rated it's planes quite higher and Rechlin rated the planes quite higher and the datasheets issued by the LW Quartermeister rated the planes quite higher than Mike Williams seems to admit.

The-Pizza-Man
04-25-2007, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Dear Pizza Man,

Feel free to ignore the mass of RAF's datasheets and be entitled to your position. You may have missed that one below for example http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/spit9_milleage2.jpg

OTOH the whole question of mileage is rather irreveleant, since both the RAF and RAAF gives consistent ranges of 434-450 miles for Mk IXs on 85 gallons and 740 miles for Mk VIII on 120. Whatever the mileage was, that was their maximum range, unless one claims he knows better than the RAF..

I never disputed the ranges. I only had a problem with you comparing mileages that were inconsistent with each other.

whit666
07-12-2018, 07:45 AM
Does anybody have any links for pictures of the JATO used on the Seafires? I’m diving off Southampton and I have found what seems to be a pair of rockets that have been jettisoned (as well as gas tanks) - it’d be interesting to see them before they’ve been underwater for 60/70 years! Apologies if this has been talked about already!

They’re about 1.5meters long,