PDA

View Full Version : long range Spitfire



luftluuver
09-24-2008, 06:37 AM
Jeffrey Quill's Spitfire , a test pilot's story'

Long range escort was the role in which the Merlin Mustang was particularly excellent because of the large load of fuel it was able to carry. True, the Spitfire Mk VIII, in service in 1943, was carrying additional fuel in its wing roots and also in jettosonabale tanks under the fuselage, but it was serving overseas and the problem of accommodating larger loads of fuel in the Spitfire at home was acute. The only available space was in the fuselage behind the pilot, but a tank of significant size there would have a major effect on the centre of gravity.

However, it seemed to both Joe Smith and myself that, for the purpose of escorting bomber formations in daylight, a degree of longitudinal stability in the early stages of a sortie would be acceptable. Therefore the fuel in the rear fuel tank could be used for take off and climb and during the early stages of the sortie, the main tanks and wing tanks remaining full. In this case the centre of gravity would be moving forward to an acceptable position by the time the aircraft reached hostile airspace. It was decided therefore to embody a rear fuselage tank in a derivative of the MkXIV shortly due to come into production, the Mk XVIII.

In the meantime a 75-gallon tank was fitted in the fuselage of a Mk IX behind the pilot and we also fitted a bob-weight in the elevator circuit, so what with this and the large horn-balance on the elevator we hoped for the best. However the best and most expedient way to test this aeroplane was to fly it a good long way and see how everything worked. So I took off from High Post on Salisbury Plain with all tanks full, carrying a 45-gallon drop tank in addition, and set off at economical cruising boost and RPM in the general direction of Scotland. The weather was unsettled, so I decided to fly at low altitude which was not, of course, a favourable height for optimum air miles per gallon: but I thought that if I could fly a distance equivalent to John o'Groats and back non-stop at that rather unfavourable height, keeping to the east of the Pennines and the Grampians, it would be a useful demonstration.

The aeroplane was unstable to start with, but as soon as I had used up the rear fuselage fuel the handling was back to normal and I settled down to a long and enjoyable flight over a great variety of countryside from Salisbury Plan to the Moray Firth and back again, all below 1,000ft. In distance, and not taking into account the various diversions for weather and terrain, it was the equivalent to flying from East Anglia to Berlin and back. It took five hours.

This flight demonstrated, if nothing else, that there was no fundamental reason why the Spitfire should not be turned into a long-range escort fighter provided that certain problems could be solved.

A demonstration of this basic fact was also given by the Americans. They had two Mk IX Spitfires at Wright Field and by local modification they added two Mustang overload fuel tanks under the wings and some additional fuel inside the wings. They flew them across the Atlantic by the Northern Route via Greenland and Iceland and eventually they were thoroughly examined by the Supermarine design department. Unfortunately some of the structural modifications carried out were detrimental to the strength of the aircraft and so could not be considered for production

luftluuver
09-24-2008, 06:37 AM
Jeffrey Quill's Spitfire , a test pilot's story'

Long range escort was the role in which the Merlin Mustang was particularly excellent because of the large load of fuel it was able to carry. True, the Spitfire Mk VIII, in service in 1943, was carrying additional fuel in its wing roots and also in jettosonabale tanks under the fuselage, but it was serving overseas and the problem of accommodating larger loads of fuel in the Spitfire at home was acute. The only available space was in the fuselage behind the pilot, but a tank of significant size there would have a major effect on the centre of gravity.

However, it seemed to both Joe Smith and myself that, for the purpose of escorting bomber formations in daylight, a degree of longitudinal stability in the early stages of a sortie would be acceptable. Therefore the fuel in the rear fuel tank could be used for take off and climb and during the early stages of the sortie, the main tanks and wing tanks remaining full. In this case the centre of gravity would be moving forward to an acceptable position by the time the aircraft reached hostile airspace. It was decided therefore to embody a rear fuselage tank in a derivative of the MkXIV shortly due to come into production, the Mk XVIII.

In the meantime a 75-gallon tank was fitted in the fuselage of a Mk IX behind the pilot and we also fitted a bob-weight in the elevator circuit, so what with this and the large horn-balance on the elevator we hoped for the best. However the best and most expedient way to test this aeroplane was to fly it a good long way and see how everything worked. So I took off from High Post on Salisbury Plain with all tanks full, carrying a 45-gallon drop tank in addition, and set off at economical cruising boost and RPM in the general direction of Scotland. The weather was unsettled, so I decided to fly at low altitude which was not, of course, a favourable height for optimum air miles per gallon: but I thought that if I could fly a distance equivalent to John o'Groats and back non-stop at that rather unfavourable height, keeping to the east of the Pennines and the Grampians, it would be a useful demonstration.

The aeroplane was unstable to start with, but as soon as I had used up the rear fuselage fuel the handling was back to normal and I settled down to a long and enjoyable flight over a great variety of countryside from Salisbury Plan to the Moray Firth and back again, all below 1,000ft. In distance, and not taking into account the various diversions for weather and terrain, it was the equivalent to flying from East Anglia to Berlin and back. It took five hours.

This flight demonstrated, if nothing else, that there was no fundamental reason why the Spitfire should not be turned into a long-range escort fighter provided that certain problems could be solved.

A demonstration of this basic fact was also given by the Americans. They had two Mk IX Spitfires at Wright Field and by local modification they added two Mustang overload fuel tanks under the wings and some additional fuel inside the wings. They flew them across the Atlantic by the Northern Route via Greenland and Iceland and eventually they were thoroughly examined by the Supermarine design department. Unfortunately some of the structural modifications carried out were detrimental to the strength of the aircraft and so could not be considered for production

JSG72
09-24-2008, 02:18 PM
Interesting.

But just an experiment. IMHO. The Spitfire was best used asis. Why modify the Spitfire when the USA could churn out the "Perfectly adequate" P-51.

(Notice I say "Perfectly Adequate" as opposed to "Superlative" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

MB_Avro_UK
09-24-2008, 02:33 PM
Hi all,

Maybe Spitfires in this fuel configuration could have escorted RAF Lancasters in daylight raids with their HUGE bombload capacity?

Just a thought...


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

b2spirita
09-24-2008, 03:01 PM
That sounds quie possible avro, but i suspect bomber command would still have preffered night raids. Would have made the bomber offensive that much more effective if it was done during daylight tho

JSG72
09-24-2008, 04:08 PM
One has to remember that:

1) Britain. Did not have the capacity to build fighters of this type. Remembering We had to defend as well as attack.

2)Don't, you think? That "Round the Clock" Raids were a perfect solution?(You don't need escorts at night. So more bombers can be built/flown.)

3) The Spitfire was initially designed as A Point Interceptor. The later marks being Brutalised for power(BTW. I love The MKxiv).It just is not "An Escort Fighter" and seriously was never used as such within the European conflict. Sure. Spitfires of most marks. Were asigned to be. But limitation showed that they were far to dedicated to the "Original" design. To be of much use. The MKxvi was "Too late to be of much consequence."

4)To build a craft that would be able to survive European Escort missions would require a New Design altogether. Something more akin to the Tempest IMHO.

War was won by then?

leitmotiv
09-24-2008, 05:01 PM
Air Marshal Portal, AOC RAF, put paid to the concept of the long-range Spitfire when it was mooted to him, thus, the idea was quashed from the very top---thus, dooming the Spitfire to being a tactical fighter for the duration of the war. Interesting to see Quill's remarks about the fuselage tank Spitfire---mirrored the qualities of the P-51B/C/D with its notorious fuselage tank. Spitfires did range far all over Europe---the photo recon variants.

Xiolablu3
09-24-2008, 11:33 PM
One interesting point of discussion - the Bf109 had its main fuel tank behind the pilot, well behind the centre of gravity.

Surely this meant that the centre of gravity changed as the plane used up its fuel?

The SPitfire designers were careful to put the main fuel tank right into the centre of gravity, right in the middle of the wing, so that fuel state was of no consequense in manouvres.

WTE_Galway
09-25-2008, 12:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
They had two Mk IX Spitfires at Wright Field and by local modification they added two Mustang overload fuel tanks under the wings and some additional fuel inside the wings. They flew them across the Atlantic by the Northern Route via Greenland and Iceland and eventually they were thoroughly examined by the Supermarine design department. Unfortunately some of the structural modifications carried out were detrimental to the strength of the aircraft and so could not be considered for production </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


yeah boring old boffins, no sense of adventure ....


The engineers at North American had similar uncomplimentary things to say about the way the RAAF at Townsville had managed to shoehorn a ludicrous number of 0.50 cal into each wing of their B25 Mitchells as an unauthorised field mod. The comments were along the lines of you were lucky the wings did not come off. They were awesomely effective in combat though, especially strafing and ground attack, and the experiment eventually led to the later "official" multiple gun B25J Mitchell with the extra guns guns in the nose and blisters instead.

ImpStarDuece
09-25-2008, 01:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Air Marshal Portal, AOC RAF, put paid to the concept of the long-range Spitfire when it was mooted to him, thus, the idea was quashed from the very top---thus, dooming the Spitfire to being a tactical fighter for the duration of the war. Interesting to see Quill's remarks about the fuselage tank Spitfire---mirrored the qualities of the P-51B/C/D with its notorious fuselage tank. Spitfires did range far all over Europe---the photo recon variants. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was a perfectly good, armed, long-range Spitfire deployed a little way into the war.

The PR Type B (later known as the PR Mk II) had an additional 29 imp gal (35 US gal/ 132 litre) fuel tank in the rear fuselage. This is an extra 40% fuel capacity over the standard 85 imp gal front tanks.

The same rear fuselage tanks were later adapted to the Mk Vs flown off carriers to Malta.

Pilots reported only a minor instability with the rear fuselage tank full, which quickly disappeared as the tank emptied. It has always puzzled me as to why the small rear tank was never fitted. I have never found a satisfactory answer, other than that the RAF did not believe that a single engine fighter was appropriate for long-range escort duty.



There were two other modifications to the Spitfire increasing its range. The first was the enlarged forward tanks increasing them from 85 to 95 Imp gal. The second was the two 13 Imp gal wing tanks.

The prototype Mk IX had the 95 gal front tanks, as did some late production Mk IXs and most Mk XVIs. The 'long range' Mk VII and VIIIs had both large forward tanks and wing tanks.

M_Gunz
09-25-2008, 02:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
One interesting point of discussion - the Bf109 had its main fuel tank behind the pilot, well behind the centre of gravity.

Surely this meant that the centre of gravity changed as the plane used up its fuel? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would get nose heavy. But since pitch trim is by changing the incidence of the tailplane
it's trimmable at no extra loss.

Buzzsaw-
09-25-2008, 02:39 AM
Salute

Range is not just a function of the amount of fuel loaded.

You could load a Spitfire with just as much fuel as a P-51, and it still wouldn't go as far.

The invisible factor is drag. The Spitfire has to consume a higher quantity of fuel to keep at the same cruise speed as a Mustang. So it burns fuel faster, and thus has shorter range.

The Spitfire VIII and IX had the same engine as the P-51, but the far cleaner airframe of the P-51 allows it to attain a higher speed on the same horsepower, and to cruise at the same speed at a lower throttle setting.

It is doubtful that a Spitfire could have fulfilled the requirements of a long range escort. Maybe with a lot of work on adding extra tanks, it could have escorted to the Ruhr, but not much further. And who knows what negatives would have been imposed on its performance with all that extra fuel.

The other issue is speed at altitude, and dive acceleration. An escort should be faster than its opposition, and must be able to accelerate in a dive very quickly. (escorts normally sat up above the bombers) It has to be able to catch and shoot down enemy interceptors before they get to the target bombers. This is one of the reasons the P-51 excelled, as did the P-47.

The Spitfire was just not that fast, at least the Spitfires which were available in quantity in 1943 and 1944. (Spit XIV was mainly a mid '44 and '45 aircraft) And its dive acceleration was worse than the 109 or 190.

The Spitfire was superb in its role as a shortrange Interceptor and Air Superiority Fighter. Take it past that, and it starts to show its limitations.

leitmotiv
09-25-2008, 04:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Range is not just a function of the amount of fuel loaded.

You could load a Spitfire with just as much fuel as a P-51, and it still wouldn't go as far.

The invisible factor is drag. The Spitfire has to consume a higher quantity of fuel to keep at the same cruise speed as a Mustang. So it burns fuel faster, and thus has shorter range.

The Spitfire VIII and IX had the same engine as the P-51, but the far cleaner airframe of the P-51 allows it to attain a higher speed on the same horsepower, and to cruise at the same speed at a lower throttle setting.

It is doubtful that a Spitfire could have fulfilled the requirements of a long range escort. Maybe with a lot of work on adding extra tanks, it could have escorted to the Ruhr, but not much further. And who knows what negatives would have been imposed on its performance with all that extra fuel.

The other issue is speed at altitude, and dive acceleration. An escort should be faster than its opposition, and must be able to accelerate in a dive very quickly. (escorts normally sat up above the bombers) It has to be able to catch and shoot down enemy interceptors before they get to the target bombers. This is one of the reasons the P-51 excelled, as did the P-47.

The Spitfire was just not that fast, at least the Spitfires which were available in quantity in 1943 and 1944. (Spit XIV was mainly a mid '44 and '45 aircraft) And its dive acceleration was worse than the 109 or 190.

The Spitfire was superb in its role as a shortrange Interceptor and Air Superiority Fighter. Take it past that, and it starts to show its limitations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. The Mustang was designed according to the latest research to significantly reduce drag, and it had much less than the Spitfire. The whole story of the Mustang's fuel efficient design is in this superb book:

http://www.amazon.com/P-51-Mustang-Development-Long-Ran...id=1222340026&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.com/P-51-Mustang-Development-Long-Range-Fighter/dp/1903223148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222340026&sr=1-1)

The Mustang had excellent range performance even before being fitted with the Merlin, drop tanks, and the infamous fuselage tank.

leitmotiv
09-25-2008, 05:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
One interesting point of discussion - the Bf109 had its main fuel tank behind the pilot, well behind the centre of gravity.

Surely this meant that the centre of gravity changed as the plane used up its fuel?

The SPitfire designers were careful to put the main fuel tank right into the centre of gravity, right in the middle of the wing, so that fuel state was of no consequense in manouvres. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 109's fuel tank was under and behind the pilot which placed it perfectly at the CG of the aircraft (I would have felt distinctly uncomfortable with this arrangement). What was directly behind the cockpit in late 109s was the tank for gasses used to boost the engine performance.

Kettenhunde
09-25-2008, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The 109's fuel tank was under and behind the pilot which placed it perfectly at the CG of the aircraft (I would have felt distinctly uncomfortable with this arrangement). What was directly behind the cockpit in late 109s was the tank for gasses used to boost the engine performance.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Having a self sealing tank or tank of consumed inflammables at the CG and behind the pilot does two things for any design.

1. The stability and control points do not shift as the fuel is consumed. The stick force per G remains constant.

Weight X Arm = Moment

Weight X Zero = Zero

2. The tank makes for extremely good protection for the pilot.

All the best,

Crumpp

leitmotiv
09-25-2008, 10:28 AM
Speaking for myself, I'd prefer to not be sitting on a bomb which would explode if hit by a cannon shell!

Kettenhunde
09-25-2008, 10:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Speaking for myself, I'd prefer to not be sitting on a bomb which would explode if hit by a cannon shell! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That is not the case, Leitmov. You need fuel, oxygen, and spark to create a fire.

Generally speaking, there was not enough oxygen in the self sealing tank with fuel to support combustion. Only a tiny handful of WWII fighter weapons were capable of creating such massive destruction.

All the best,

Crumpp

Frequent_Flyer
09-25-2008, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Speaking for myself, I'd prefer to not be sitting on a bomb which would explode if hit by a cannon shell! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That is not the case, Leitmov. You need fuel, oxygen, and spark to create a fire.

Generally speaking, there was not enough oxygen in the self sealing tank with fuel to support combustion. Only a tiny handful of WWII fighter weapons were capable of creating such massive destruction.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



The Spitfire had a notorious reputation. When hit in the fuel tank directly in front of the pilot, if the pilot survived he suffered horrendous burns. The engine in front of the fuel tank provided no protection, generally speaking.

Kettenhunde
09-25-2008, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The Spitfire had a notorious reputation </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's not confuse things or misunderstand what I wrote. I did not say aircraft will not ignite and burn. I said it is very unlikely that fuel inside a tank will burn.

Every time a fuel tank gets hit, some fuel will leak. According to WWII vulnerability testing, in general it takes a considerable amount of hits to leak enough fuel so that the fumes will ignite if given a spark. Airplanes are extremely flammable and vulnerable to fire however as most fuel systems will leak considerable amounts of fuel just on their own in normal operations.

Mounting the fuel tank behind the pilot greatly increases his protection from primary and secondary missiles. It also increases his survival by placing the source of combustion behind him as opposed to in front of and consequently on him.

The chances of igniting the fuel in the tank are extremely small. There are many other things on board a WWII fighter that will catastrophically explode long before the fuel tank itself.

All the best,

Crumpp

Frequent_Flyer
09-25-2008, 11:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Range is not just a function of the amount of fuel loaded.

You could load a Spitfire with just as much fuel as a P-51, and it still wouldn't go as far.

The invisible factor is drag. The Spitfire has to consume a higher quantity of fuel to keep at the same cruise speed as a Mustang. So it burns fuel faster, and thus has shorter range.

The Spitfire VIII and IX had the same engine as the P-51, but the far cleaner airframe of the P-51 allows it to attain a higher speed on the same horsepower, and to cruise at the same speed at a lower throttle setting.

It is doubtful that a Spitfire could have fulfilled the requirements of a long range escort. Maybe with a lot of work on adding extra tanks, it could have escorted to the Ruhr, but not much further. And who knows what negatives would have been imposed on its performance with all that extra fuel.

The other issue is speed at altitude, and dive acceleration. An escort should be faster than its opposition, and must be able to accelerate in a dive very quickly. (escorts normally sat up above the bombers) It has to be able to catch and shoot down enemy interceptors before they get to the target bombers. This is one of the reasons the P-51 excelled, as did the P-47.

The Spitfire was just not that fast, at least the Spitfires which were available in quantity in 1943 and 1944. (Spit XIV was mainly a mid '44 and '45 aircraft) And its dive acceleration was worse than the 109 or 190.

The Spitfire was superb in its role as a shortrange Interceptor and Air Superiority Fighter. Take it past that, and it starts to show its limitations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. The Mustang was designed according to the latest research to significantly reduce drag, and it had much less than the Spitfire. The whole story of the Mustang's fuel efficient design is in this superb book:

http://www.amazon.com/P-51-Mustang-Development-Long-Ran...id=1222340026&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.com/P-51-Mustang-Development-Long-Range-Fighter/dp/1903223148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222340026&sr=1-1)

The Mustang had excellent range performance even before being fitted with the Merlin, drop tanks, and the infamous fuselage tank. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Also, inherient to the design was the Mustang's superlative high speed handling. [/QUOTE]

Frequent_Flyer
09-25-2008, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The Spitfire had a notorious reputation </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's not confuse things or misunderstand what I wrote. I did not say aircraft will not ignite and burn. I said it is very unlikely that fuel inside a tank will burn.

Every time a fuel tank gets hit, some fuel will leak. According to WWII vulnerability testing, in general it takes a considerable amount of hits to leak enough fuel so that the fumes will ignite if given a spark. Airplanes are extremely flammable and vulnerable to fire however as most fuel systems will leak considerable amounts of fuel just on their own in normal operations.

Mounting the fuel tank behind the pilot greatly increases his protection from primary and secondary missiles. It also increases his survival by placing the source of combustion behind him as opposed to in front of and consequently on him.

The chances of igniting the fuel [i]in the tank[/i\ are extremely small. There are many other things on board a WWII fighter that will catastrophically explode long before the fuel tank itself.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire and to a lesser degree the Corsair both had an above average incidence of cockpit fires.The corroalation being a fuel tank forward of the cockpit. Since the vast majority of fighter vs. fighter engagements were either from directly a stern or from the quarter. This may have some logic to the engineer who was not sitting in harms way. Conversely, a fuel tank aft of the pilot is exposed to a much greater likelihood of combustion. The fact that most fighters had multiple fuel cells, and that by weight the most combustable substance carried by an aircraft is fuel. They do not need to explode. Once the cockpit fills with smoke, the pilot will abondoned the craft. The subsequent explosion usually hopefully,follows evacuation or impact. No confusion here, if the fuel igniges, unless extinguished, an explosion will follow. "When "? is the varible subject to the mathimatical gymnastics.

Aaron_GT
09-25-2008, 02:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Maybe Spitfires in this fuel configuration could have escorted RAF Lancasters in daylight raids with their HUGE bombload capacity? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And this is did on daylight raids over Northern France in summer 1944...

Aaron_GT
09-25-2008, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Maybe Spitfires in this fuel configuration could have escorted RAF Lancasters in daylight raids with their HUGE bombload capacity? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2)Don't, you think? That "Round the Clock" Raids were a perfect solution?(You don't need escorts at night. So more bombers can be built/flown.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ultimately escorts -were- required and deployed at night by using NF Mosquitos both in the bomber stream and as Intruder (a for of 'Frei Jagd').

Kettenhunde
09-25-2008, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> No confusion here, if the fuel igniges, unless extinguished, an explosion will follow. "When "? is the varible subject to the mathimatical gymnastics.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Let's not confuse things or misunderstand what I wrote. I did not say aircraft will not ignite and burn. I said it is very unlikely that fuel inside a tank will burn.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC the ammunition magazines and oxygen system are the most vulnerable to explosion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spitfire and to a lesser degree the Corsair both had an above average incidence of cockpit fires.The corroalation being a fuel tank forward of the cockpit. Since the vast majority of fighter vs. fighter engagements were either from directly a stern or from the quarter. This may have some logic to the engineer who was not sitting in harms way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The logic is most likely due to the particular stability and control limits of the design and nothing to do with the pilot's protection other than keeping the aircraft controllable.

All the best,

Crumpp

Aaron_GT
09-25-2008, 02:11 PM
In the F4U the fuel tank was placed ahead of the pilot, as Crumpp notes, for control reasons as it kept the fuel near the CofG.

Xiolablu3
09-25-2008, 03:15 PM
The Fuel tank was placed right over the wing in the Spitfire so that whether it had a full or empty tank made no difference to its manouverability, I have read.

"The Spitfire's two fuselage fuel tanks were directly over the wing, ideal for handling qualities. As the fuel load is reduced with useage, the plane's balance remains unaffected. If the tank was hit and burned, however, the flames and smoke would either envelop the cockpit, or on the unfortunate Spits with no real firewall, the pilot would be lucky to "only" need severe burn care"


Its a case of deciding which is most important, the planes flying characteristic quality and handling, or the danger to the pilot of the plane burning. The Spitfire designers went with the former option.

If you look at a cutaway diagram, its right in the middle of the wing.

Viper2005_
09-25-2008, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Range is not just a function of the amount of fuel loaded.

You could load a Spitfire with just as much fuel as a P-51, and it still wouldn't go as far.

The invisible factor is drag. The Spitfire has to consume a higher quantity of fuel to keep at the same cruise speed as a Mustang. So it burns fuel faster, and thus has shorter range.

The Spitfire VIII and IX had the same engine as the P-51, but the far cleaner airframe of the P-51 allows it to attain a higher speed on the same horsepower, and to cruise at the same speed at a lower throttle setting.

It is doubtful that a Spitfire could have fulfilled the requirements of a long range escort. Maybe with a lot of work on adding extra tanks, it could have escorted to the Ruhr, but not much further. And who knows what negatives would have been imposed on its performance with all that extra fuel.

The other issue is speed at altitude, and dive acceleration. An escort should be faster than its opposition, and must be able to accelerate in a dive very quickly. (escorts normally sat up above the bombers) It has to be able to catch and shoot down enemy interceptors before they get to the target bombers. This is one of the reasons the P-51 excelled, as did the P-47.

The Spitfire was just not that fast, at least the Spitfires which were available in quantity in 1943 and 1944. (Spit XIV was mainly a mid '44 and '45 aircraft) And its dive acceleration was worse than the 109 or 190.

The Spitfire was superb in its role as a shortrange Interceptor and Air Superiority Fighter. Take it past that, and it starts to show its limitations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire would certainly cruise slower than a P-51 on the same horsepower but since both would cruise rather faster than the bombers they would be escorting if flown for best range, this isn't necessarily an issue.

Both would end up parked above the bomber stream, weaving to keep pace.

Since both the P-51 and the Spitfire had essentially identical engines, they'd burn fuel at the same rate. Therefore a Spitfire, if given the same amount of fuel as a P-51 would be expected to fly for exactly the same length of time. Whilst the P-51 would gain an advantage on the return leg, this would obviously be rather smaller than the difference in cruise speed suggests since both aircraft would have spent the majority of their time following the bombers rather than flying home.

For example, imagine following a 180 mph bomber stream for 4 hours. That puts you about 720 miles away from home.

Now the P-51 goes home at it's best cruise speed of 253 mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-III-ads-7.jpg

The Spitfire goes home at its best cruise speed of 220 mph
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitlf8ads.jpg

It takes the Spitfire 3 hours 13 minutes to get home.
It takes the P-51 2 hours 50 minutes to get home.

So the P-51 gets about another 10-15 minutes with the bombers (bearing in mind that the further out it goes, the further it must fly back).

***

The secret to long range escort was of course to break the escort process up into stages. This allowed the escorts at the far end to transit at their best cruise speed, and therefore attain a longer range.

But you now need several escort teams, some of whom will be working at short range.

It made sense to use Spitfires for this short range task since they could do it without modification, and to then use the faster P-51s to handle the long range work.

***

I don't buy the idea that you need to catch and kill the fighters before they get to the bomber stream, or that you necessarily need to be fast to do this.

The bombers were quite cynically used as bait to draw the fighters into combat; the idea was to subject the Luftwaffe to attrition. The Germans generally had difficulty competing with the Allies at high altitude because of their inferior fuels and supercharger technology. Therefore the best way to kill German fighter pilots was to entice them to high altitude. B-17s cruising up at contrail height were ideally suited to this task.

As long as the Allies were causing damage to the enemy faster than they were being damaged, they were winning. Whilst strategic bombing certainly did damage, arguably low level tactical aircraft were better able to damage military ground targets. The thing about the daylight bombing campaign was that politically the Germans were unable to simply leave defence to anti-aircraft guns, and therefore expended a large number of their tactical pilots in combat under conditions (especially altitude) placing them at a clear disadvantage.

For example, had more experienced tactical pilots been available and deployed to provide CAS to advancing German forces during the Battle of the Bulge, it is possible that things would have been different...

From a cost/benefit perspective, the Luftwaffe's night fighters were far more effective against the British area bombing campaign.

You don't need to be flying a particularly fast fighter to catch interceptors because in order for them to do their job they've got to climb up to the bombers. You can therefore climb above the bombers and then drop down on the unfortunate interceptors like a tonne of bricks.

The P-51 was selected as the primary US escort fighter because this was essentially the tactic used; both the P-47 and especially the P-38 had a low tactical Mach number and therefore tended to dive straight past the interceptors completely out of control.

The Spitfire had a superior tactical Mach number to the P-51 and would have arguably been better suited to this task.

You don't need dive acceleration superior to the interceptors because the interceptors are climbing towards the bomber stream. If the escort spots them and dives on them, they'll already be diving at high speed and the acceleration of the interceptors won't matter much. We aren't talking about a drag race here.

***

Once the Luftwaffe started to show weakness, the escort fighters were encouraged to press them harder and lower, and indeed to engage targets of opportunity on the way home rather than to bring rounds home in order to cause the maximum amount of mayhem.

This is where the P-51, with its higher cruise speed and duration of fire was clearly superior to the Spitfire, and of course the P-47, with its extreme resistance to ground fire was superior to both.

***

The P-51 was a very good aeroplane, but one of its most under-appreciated advantages was the fact that it could be manufactured in large numbers in American factories essentially immune to air attack. It took quite a long time for Packard to start churning out Merlins because they were trying to make somebody else's engine. NAA designed the P-51 to fit their production capability and were able to build them in not many more man-hours than a T-6. Part of the reason for the P-51's existence was the length of time that it takes to tool up for production. NAA thought they could design the P-51 in the time it would have taken them to tool up for P-40 production.

The RAF didn't care what aeroplane they got as long as it could do the job and they could get it soon, so NAA were allowed to get on with it.

Unless the US had had almost no fighter design capability it would always have made more sense for them to build their own designs in their own factories because this avoided the need to learn a whole raft of foreign manufacturing techniques. As it happened they had an excellent design capability.

Packard ended up building Merlins not just because the Merlin was better than the V-1710, but also because there were large numbers of existing British airframes flying off the shadow factory production lines for which Rolls-Royce and Ford GB simply couldn't produce enough engines. It would have taken a long time to re-design the powerplant installations of those aeroplanes to accept alternative engines (though this was done for the heavy bombers, it wasn't an unqualified success), so there would have been little point in asking Packard to churn out large numbers of V-1710s or R-2800s for example.

Even so, some re-design work was necessary because American engines were built on American tooling (using different gear cutting machines for example, resulting in different reduction gear ratios), and had different, locally sourced ancillaries. So you would have needed a slightly different toolkit for a Spitfire XVI than for the equivalent Spitfire IX.

This worked both ways; the P-38 might have benefited from the installation of Merlins, but it never happened. Cynics might also suggest that Allison needed to be given something to do.

Xiolablu3
09-25-2008, 03:36 PM
I'm not so sure about the comments made about why the SPitfire was unsuitable for escort work because of its slower dive speed.


Adolf Galland definitely felt that the SPitfire made a better defensive escort fighter than the Bf109 because of its better manouverability and turn rate. Despite the 109's faster dive rate.

Which is why he asked Goering for Spitfires when Goering told him to give up the 'Free Hunt' style escort, and stay close to the bombers.

stalkervision
09-25-2008, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
One interesting point of discussion - the Bf109 had its main fuel tank behind the pilot, well behind the centre of gravity.

Surely this meant that the centre of gravity changed as the plane used up its fuel?

The SPitfire designers were careful to put the main fuel tank right into the centre of gravity, right in the middle of the wing, so that fuel state was of no consequense in manouvres. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 109 fuel tank I believe is shaped like a big "L' sausage and goes under the pilot seat and right to the back of the pilot. It is probably right on the cg that way. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"A large panel under the wing centre-section could be removed to gain access to the L-shaped main fuel tank, which was sited partly under the cockpit floor and partly behind the rear cockpit bulkhead"

Bremspropeller
09-25-2008, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Adolf Galland definitely felt that the SPitfire made a better defensive escort fighter than the Bf109 because of its better manouverability and turn rate. Despite the 109's faster dive rate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you have to bring this feck up over and over again?

He wanted to p1ss off his superriors, nothing else.
He didn't give a sh1t about the Spitfire.

stalkervision
09-25-2008, 03:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Adolf Galland definitely felt that the SPitfire made a better defensive escort fighter than the Bf109 because of its better manouverability and turn rate. Despite the 109's faster dive rate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you have to bring this feck up over and over again?

He wanted to p1ss off his superriors, nothing else.
He didn't give a sh1t about the Spitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got that right. They were ordering the 109 pilots to fly close formation with the bombers. Something the spit would have done far better as Galland said.

Frequent_Flyer
09-25-2008, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Range is not just a function of the amount of fuel loaded.

You could load a Spitfire with just as much fuel as a P-51, and it still wouldn't go as far.

The invisible factor is drag. The Spitfire has to consume a higher quantity of fuel to keep at the same cruise speed as a Mustang. So it burns fuel faster, and thus has shorter range.

The Spitfire VIII and IX had the same engine as the P-51, but the far cleaner airframe of the P-51 allows it to attain a higher speed on the same horsepower, and to cruise at the same speed at a lower throttle setting.

It is doubtful that a Spitfire could have fulfilled the requirements of a long range escort. Maybe with a lot of work on adding extra tanks, it could have escorted to the Ruhr, but not much further. And who knows what negatives would have been imposed on its performance with all that extra fuel.

The other issue is speed at altitude, and dive acceleration. An escort should be faster than its opposition, and must be able to accelerate in a dive very quickly. (escorts normally sat up above the bombers) It has to be able to catch and shoot down enemy interceptors before they get to the target bombers. This is one of the reasons the P-51 excelled, as did the P-47.

The Spitfire was just not that fast, at least the Spitfires which were available in quantity in 1943 and 1944. (Spit XIV was mainly a mid '44 and '45 aircraft) And its dive acceleration was worse than the 109 or 190.

The Spitfire was superb in its role as a shortrange Interceptor and Air Superiority Fighter. Take it past that, and it starts to show its limitations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire would certainly cruise slower than a P-51 on the same horsepower but since both would cruise rather faster than the bombers they would be escorting if flown for best range, this isn't necessarily an issue.

Both would end up parked above the bomber stream, weaving to keep pace.

Since both the P-51 and the Spitfire had essentially identical engines, they'd burn fuel at the same rate. Therefore a Spitfire, if given the same amount of fuel as a P-51 would be expected to fly for exactly the same length of time. Whilst the P-51 would gain an advantage on the return leg, this would obviously be rather smaller than the difference in cruise speed suggests since both aircraft would have spent the majority of their time following the bombers rather than flying home.

For example, imagine following a 180 mph bomber stream for 4 hours. That puts you about 720 miles away from home.

Now the P-51 goes home at it's best cruise speed of 253 mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-III-ads-7.jpg

The Spitfire goes home at its best cruise speed of 220 mph
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitlf8ads.jpg

It takes the Spitfire 3 hours 13 minutes to get home.
It takes the P-51 2 hours 50 minutes to get home.

So the P-51 gets about another 10-15 minutes with the bombers (bearing in mind that the further out it goes, the further it must fly back).

***

The secret to long range escort was of course to break the escort process up into stages. This allowed the escorts at the far end to transit at their best cruise speed, and therefore attain a longer range.

But you now need several escort teams, some of whom will be working at short range.

It made sense to use Spitfires for this short range task since they could do it without modification, and to then use the faster P-51s to handle the long range work.

***

I don't buy the idea that you need to catch and kill the fighters before they get to the bomber stream, or that you necessarily need to be fast to do this.

The bombers were quite cynically used as bait to draw the fighters into combat; the idea was to subject the Luftwaffe to attrition. The Germans generally had difficulty competing with the Allies at high altitude because of their inferior fuels and supercharger technology. Therefore the best way to kill German fighter pilots was to entice them to high altitude. B-17s cruising up at contrail height were ideally suited to this task.

As long as the Allies were causing damage to the enemy faster than they were being damaged, they were winning. Whilst strategic bombing certainly did damage, arguably low level tactical aircraft were better able to damage military ground targets. The thing about the daylight bombing campaign was that politically the Germans were unable to simply leave defence to anti-aircraft guns, and therefore expended a large number of their tactical pilots in combat under conditions (especially altitude) placing them at a clear disadvantage.

For example, had more experienced tactical pilots been available and deployed to provide CAS to advancing German forces during the Battle of the Bulge, it is possible that things would have been different...

From a cost/benefit perspective, the Luftwaffe's night fighters were far more effective against the British area bombing campaign.

You don't need to be flying a particularly fast fighter to catch interceptors because in order for them to do their job they've got to climb up to the bombers. You can therefore climb above the bombers and then drop down on the unfortunate interceptors like a tonne of bricks.

The P-51 was selected as the primary US escort fighter because this was essentially the tactic used; both the P-47 and especially the P-38 had a low tactical Mach number and therefore tended to dive straight past the interceptors completely out of control.

The Spitfire had a superior tactical Mach number to the P-51 and would have arguably been better suited to this task.

You don't need dive acceleration superior to the interceptors because the interceptors are climbing towards the bomber stream. If the escort spots them and dives on them, they'll already be diving at high speed and the acceleration of the interceptors won't matter much. We aren't talking about a drag race here.

***

Once the Luftwaffe started to show weakness, the escort fighters were encouraged to press them harder and lower, and indeed to engage targets of opportunity on the way home rather than to bring rounds home in order to cause the maximum amount of mayhem.

This is where the P-51, with its higher cruise speed and duration of fire was clearly superior to the Spitfire, and of course the P-47, with its extreme resistance to ground fire was superior to both.

***

The P-51 was a very good aeroplane, but one of its most under-appreciated advantages was the fact that it could be manufactured in large numbers in American factories essentially immune to air attack. It took quite a long time for Packard to start churning out Merlins because they were trying to make somebody else's engine. NAA designed the P-51 to fit their production capability and were able to build them in not many more man-hours than a T-6. Part of the reason for the P-51's existence was the length of time that it takes to tool up for production. NAA thought they could design the P-51 in the time it would have taken them to tool up for P-40 production.

The RAF didn't care what aeroplane they got as long as it could do the job and they could get it soon, so NAA were allowed to get on with it.

Unless the US had had almost no fighter design capability it would always have made more sense for them to build their own designs in their own factories because this avoided the need to learn a whole raft of foreign manufacturing techniques. As it happened they had an excellent design capability.

Packard ended up building Merlins not just because the Merlin was better than the V-1710, but also because there were large numbers of existing British airframes flying off the shadow factory production lines for which Rolls-Royce and Ford GB simply couldn't produce enough engines. It would have taken a long time to re-design the powerplant installations of those aeroplanes to accept alternative engines (though this was done for the heavy bombers, it wasn't an unqualified success), so there would have been little point in asking Packard to churn out large numbers of V-1710s or R-2800s for example.

Even so, some re-design work was necessary because American engines were built on American tooling (using different gear cutting machines for example, resulting in different reduction gear ratios), and had different, locally sourced ancillaries. So you would have needed a slightly different toolkit for a Spitfire XVI than for the equivalent Spitfire IX.

This worked both ways; the P-38 might have benefited from the installation of Merlins, but it never happened. Cynics might also suggest that Allison needed to be given something to do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



The American built Packard/Merlin improved the Merlin another benefit from the Mustang.

" In September of 1940, the Packard Motor Car Company began licensed production of the Merlin engine at it's Detroit facility. Initially the Mark X, after conversion of more than 2,000 left hand drawings, and making their own special tooling, an exact copy of the Merlin 28, it became the V-1650-1 in US Army terminology. The V-1650-1 represented 1649 cubic inches, rounded up so to speak, the -1 included U.S. modifications.
Packard would preform more than 70,000 checks on the 14,000 parts in a Merlin, burn 80,000 gallons of hi-test fuel a day in running tests, disassemble the engines, checks again, then reassemble the engines an prepare them for shipping.
The English version of the Merlin's main bearings were of a silver alloy. To increase engine life, Packard would adopt the black matte process of a silver and lead alloy. Packard also produced in-take and exhaust valves that were made with a coating of a nickel chromium alloy to increase heat resistance. This would allow the use of the highest octane fuels. Some history reports that a new Wright-designed supercharger drive put the finishing touches on the Packard built Merlin V-1650-3, the power plant destined for the P-51. Other information says the supercharger was an English design. We will let aviation experts sort that out.
However, it was Packard's light measuring device, to check tooling to with-in 1,000,000 of an inch, and Packard's procedure of freezing parts for an exact fit, that allowed the new supercharger to rase the Merlin's operational ceiling more that 10,000 feet.
After the Pearl Harbor attack, Great Britain, Australia, India, and China were no longer alone. Now we all needed weapons of war and fast! Packard's 1650-3 Merlins would be placed in the P-40 and that aircraft would become the Warhawk. Another of the new weapons would be the North American Mustang powered with the Packard built, Merlin.
Contrary to folk lore, the installation of a Merlin in a P 51 was not exclusively an English idea. In the summer of 1942 North American placed a 1650-3 engine in one of two planes held back from the original contract. Independent work had been underway concerning a Merlin-Mustang merger. In Great Britain, and at Inglelwood California, a marriage was taking place. P-51, 41-37352, as with the British test, needed all new engine mounts and sheet metal had to be fabricated to fit the larger Merlin. North American added an 11' 4" four-blade Hamilton Standard prop with cuffs. The carburetor air scoop on top of the nose was deleted and tests proved that the intercooler was not needed when a new Bendix pressure carburetor was used and the scoop could be cut down, making the nose more aerodynamic. The full story of Packard's involvement will come later in this story of MEN BET THEIR LIVES ON IT."

Aaron_GT
09-25-2008, 04:34 PM
One aspect not mentioned so far is pilot fatigue.

Low requirement for trimming, comfortable cockpits, pressurisation*, etc. are all issues here. The P-51 wins over the Spitfire in most respects.

* There were pressurised versions of the Spitfire and 109 in small numbers, but I am not aware of any service of P-51s with pressurisation. Oddly pressurisation reduced the Spitfire's roll rate due to the friction of the sealing gaskets on the control cables.

Bremspropeller
09-25-2008, 05:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You got that right. They were ordering the 109 pilots to fly close formation with the bombers. Something the spit would have done far better as Galland said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no such thing as "close escort".

You either escort the bombers, reach out and do your stuff seriously, or you're flying in close, showing presence to your own guys, which does nothing than provide nice photos for post-war fanbois.

The Spit would have failed just as any other plane in that "role".

HuninMunin
09-25-2008, 05:48 PM
If we're talking about the efficiency of the escort itself then yes.
I'd rather have a plane with the ability to break hard and break time and time again in that kind of situation though, 'cause my only thought would be to get home alive anyway.

But then again, I'd probably want to dive and haul @$$ rtb... so... we probably end up with the conclusion that the situation the OKL put the fighters in was fubar without end anyway.

WTE_Galway
09-25-2008, 05:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You got that right. They were ordering the 109 pilots to fly close formation with the bombers. Something the spit would have done far better as Galland said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no such thing as "close escort".

You either escort the bombers, reach out and do your stuff seriously, or you're flying in close, showing presence to your own guys, which does nothing than provide nice photos for post-war fanbois.

The Spit would have failed just as any other plane in that "role". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually close escort worked for the p38's escorting B17's in New Guinea. They had enough firepower to scare away any zeroes that tried to get close.

Buzzsaw-
09-25-2008, 06:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:

The Spitfire would certainly cruise slower than a P-51 on the same horsepower but since both would cruise rather faster than the bombers they would be escorting if flown for best range, this isn't necessarily an issue.

Both would end up parked above the bomber stream, weaving to keep pace.

Since both the P-51 and the Spitfire had essentially identical engines, they'd burn fuel at the same rate. Therefore a Spitfire, if given the same amount of fuel as a P-51 would be expected to fly for exactly the same length of time. Whilst the P-51 would gain an advantage on the return leg, this would obviously be rather smaller than the difference in cruise speed suggests since both aircraft would have spent the majority of their time following the bombers rather than flying home.

For example, imagine following a 180 mph bomber stream for 4 hours. That puts you about 720 miles away from home.

Now the P-51 goes home at it's best cruise speed of 253 mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-III-ads-7.jpg

The Spitfire goes home at its best cruise speed of 220 mph
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitlf8ads.jpg

It takes the Spitfire 3 hours 13 minutes to get home.
It takes the P-51 2 hours 50 minutes to get home.

So the P-51 gets about another 10-15 minutes with the bombers (bearing in mind that the further out it goes, the further it must fly back).

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, not quite as simple as that.

The P-51's did not cruise at 253 mph, they reduced speed to closer to 200 mph. That was one of the reasons they had a problem with plugs fouling.

They needed to cruise at that speed because they needed even better gas mileage than at normal cruise.

The other factor was that with all the drop tanks loaded, their drag was increased, and speed at cruise decreased.

If Spitfires were loaded with similar drop tanks, their drag would also be increased.

They would have had even worse gas mileage and less speed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:

I don't buy the idea that you need to catch and kill the fighters before they get to the bomber stream, or that you necessarily need to be fast to do this.

The bombers were quite cynically used as bait to draw the fighters into combat...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Completely wrong. The Bomber Commanders were running the show, and the Fighter boys were under their authority. And there was no way they would allow themselves to be intentionally placed in danger. Casualties were very high as it stood anyway. That was one of the reasons that Doolittle, who took over from Eaker as overall 8th commander, ordered the Fighters out from the bombers, to intercept the Germans BEFORE they could get close. 'Hub' Zemke, the most successful USAAF Fighter Group commander, pioneered the 'Zemke Fan', which was a system of placing sections of an escorting Squadron out in front of the bombers to attack and break up the Luftwaffe before they got close.

The USAAF bomber offensive still had as its primary goal, the destruction of Germany's industrial capacity, not the shooting down of its fighter force. That was a secondary goal, but always subsidiary to the real aim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:

You don't need to be flying a particularly fast fighter to catch interceptors because in order for them to do their job they've got to climb up to the bombers.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong again. Luftwaffe intercept doctrine for the standardly equipped Fighter Geschwader units required the German fighters to climb to an altitude slightly higher than the bombers before they made their attack, and ahead of them. They would then turn and begin a shallow dive headon to the bomber formation. This gave them the best opportunity to hit the B-17's and B-24's in the vulnerable cockpit area, which was their primary aiming point.

The Sturm units would attack from the rear, but again, they would climb to altitude, and come in from either side in a shallow dive.

Jet units started at a higher altitude behind the bombers, dove down below them in their approach, and then zoom up into a point blank firing position directly below.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:

The Spitfire had a superior tactical Mach number to the P-51 and would have arguably been better suited to this task.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again, not correct. The Spitfire in EXPERIMENTAL testing, was able to show results in the high .8 mach range, (many people dispute these results pointing to inaccurate measuring systems) but this was not a standard aircraft. 1943/44 era Combat equipped Spitfires were limited to 470 mph dive speeds, far slower than the 505 mph or 550 mph limits for the P-51 and P-47.

This whole argument that the Spitfire would have made a good escort is actually quite ridiculous. The aircraft was studied very carefully by RAF Technicians for ways to modify it for longer range, and although there was some improvement, it simply wasn't up to the task of longrange work. Those who want to insist that they know better than the whole design staff of Rolls Royce probably should think again... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Spitfires from AIR DEFENCE GREAT BRITAIN, were routinely used for the first leg of escort of the 8th AAF from Britain, but that leg ended over Holland, short of the German border. If there was a possibility of extending that range, then it would have been done, especially in the early days of '43, when the USAAF was actually quite short of escorts.

Here is a typical scenario for a bomber intercept, where the speed of the escorts is critical in breaking up the attack before it happens:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/4-blakeslee-18march44.jpg

Viper2005_
09-25-2008, 06:22 PM
Pressurised Spitfires caused all sorts of trouble, with high cockpit temperatures, an inability to fly with the cockpit open, questionable escape options in emergency and so on.

The P-51 probably wins in terms of comfort; I wouldn't expect trim to be a big issue because cruising is essentially a constant speed operation (save for periodic bursts of high power to clear lead from the plugs).

***

Frequent_Flyer, I'm not sure that I agree with the content of your post.

For example, V.1650/3 was the 2-stage, 2-speed engine fitted to the P-51; it wasn't ever fitted to a production P-40 AFAIK.

The P-40 got a single stage, two speed Merlin; V.1650/1 IIRC. It would have been interesting to fit a two stage Merlin to the P-40 but it was probably better used on the P-51 and Spitfire...

Merlin engined P-40s were called Kittyhawk II, not Warhawk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_P-40_variants

The two stage Merlin, which delivered the great improvement in FTH was British. AFAIK it was something of a "scrapheap challenge" affair. The Vulcher supercharger impeller was used as what would today be called a "zero stage" in front of the existing Merlin supercharger. This resulted in the Merlin 60 for the Wellington, which delivered about 1000 bhp at 30,000 feet.

This all came about because of Barnes Wallis' calculations regarding the merit of bombing from extremely high altitudes, later embodied (to a limited extent) in the Tall Boy and Grandslam bombs; though the Lancaster was incapable of delivering either from full altitude for which they were originally designed (that would have fallen to the Vickers Windsor).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Windsor

There were certainly considerable subsequent improvements made to the Merlin's supercharger arrangement, with continual growth in impeller diameter and incremental improvements in isentropic efficiency; but AFAIK the centre of gravity of supercharger development was (later Sir) Stanley ****** at Derby.

The thing about engine development under production conditions is that the experimental shop must inevitably run considerably in advance of production. Each change to the production design stops the line, so several things happen:

1) Changes shown to improve the engine are incorporated into mods which may then be embodied during maintenance.
2) Once a significant number of changes have built up, the line may be stopped so that they may all be embodied at the production stage.
3) When a new line is started, it obviously uses the most up to date methods.

Packard started new lines, so they produced more advanced engines.

They used American gear cutting machines, so they abandoned the Farman drive and went for American epicyclic gearing from V.1650/3 onwards. They also had to change the prop reduction gear. For this reason, charts which show the Merlin 66 and V.1650/7 as being identical are incorrect; they had different FTHs because of different supercharger gear ratios. The real pedant in me would also point out that there was always a tendency to rate in round numbers. So for example 67" Hg is actually about 18.2 psi boost; 66" Hg would have been 17.7 psi, so because +18 was a reasonably conservative rating they rounded their "Hg up rather than down.

These decisions were pragmatic; they had different tools so they couldn't easily make gears as per the original RR design. It would obviously have been stupid to fit British Ancillaries which would have been subject to the U-Boat menace both ways, so they fitted American ancillaries. Engines destined for American aircraft also got SAE prop splines for obvious reasons. No pilot or mechanic was going to really keep the engine at its rating within a tolerance less than 1"Hg...

Packard certainly produced engines to a finer tolerance than Derby had in 1939; but ****** credits the step change from hand finishing to mass production to Ford in the UK who had the temerity to demand that RR provide them with more accurate drawings!

BTW, AFAIK Ford USA were offered the Merlin gig but declined for political reasons (this being prior to US entry into WWII).

This is not intended to belittle Packard's contribution. But at the end of the day we're talking about a Rolls-Royce engine here. Packard were a subcontractor who did an extremely good job.

Viper2005_
09-25-2008, 06:43 PM
Going in reverse order:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Once again, not correct. The Spitfire in EXPERIMENTAL testing, was able to show results in the high .8 mach range, but this was not a standard aircraft. 1943/44 era Combat equipped Spitfires were limited to 470 mph dives speeds, far slower than the 505 mph or 550 mph limits for the P-51 and P-47.

This whole argument that the Spitfire would have made a good escort is actually quite ridiculous. The aircraft was studied very carefully by RAF Technicians for ways to modify it for longer range, and although there was some success, it simply wasn't up to the task of longrange work.

Spitfires from AIR DEFENCE GREAT BRITAIN, were routinely used for the first leg of escort of the 8th AAF from Britain, but that leg ended over Holland, short of the German border. If there was a possibility of extending that range, then it would have been done, especially in the early days of '43, when the USAAF was actually quite short of escorts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

470 mph was the factory design IAS limit used for production testing. AFAIK the actual POH limit for Merlin Spitfires was 450 mph IAS.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Flying Limitations of the Spitfire IX (from Pilot's Notes)
Maximum speeds in m.p.h I.A.S.
Diving (without external stores), corresponding to a Mach No. of -85:

Between S.L. and 20,000 ft. -450
20,000 and 25,000 ft. -430
25,000 and 30,000 ft. -390
30,000 and 35,000 ft. -340
Above ..................35,000 ft. -310 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note the correspondence between the dive limit and Mach 0.85 on a standard day. This is confirmed by Quill in his book.

Henshaw's book however confirms that 470 mph IAS was used for all production test flights prior to delivery.

Mach 0.9ish was actually obtainable from PR.XI Spitfires, as demonstrated by RAE High Speed Flight.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/sd2011.jpg

Naturally there are doubters. However you can cross reference this with Eric Brown's various books, in particular "Wings On My Sleeve".

Compare and contrast the Spitfire's dive limits with those of the Mustang IV:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangIV-divetest.html

Note that the limiting Mach number suggested was 0.80.

Note also that the 505 mph limit was actually somewhat "questionable", though test pilots were, as with the Spitfire, able to exceed the recommended limit by about 0.05 M.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51d-dive-27-feb-45.pdf

As for the P-47, I'm afraid all I can do is laugh. It was certainly built like a brick out-house and could go downhill at a terrific rate of knots, but beyond about M0.72 its pilot was nothing more than a passenger; again see Eric Brown's various books.

I think that the problem here is that you have failed to understand the difference between Mach number limits and dynamic pressure limits. The Spitfire's dynamic pressure limit was certainly not as high as that of the P-47, though as suggested above the practical limit for the P-51 appears to have been closer to 470 mph IAS than 505. However, at high altitude you will hit the limiting Mach number long before you hit the limiting dynamic pressure. It was at high Mach number that the Spitfire shone, because Mitchell had uniquely understood the importance of low t/c ratio at high Mach number.

I will tackle your other points later; it's quite late here and frankly I'd rather fly than argue.

I guess I'll have to dig out my Mustang III Pilot's notes to find the best long-range cruise speed...

hop2002
09-25-2008, 06:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Once again, not correct. The Spitfire in EXPERIMENTAL testing, was able to show results in the high .8 mach range, but this was not a standard aircraft. 1943/44 era Combat equipped Spitfires were limited to 470 mph dives speeds, far slower than the 505 mph or 550 mph limits for the P-51 and P-47. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At lower altitudes the P-47 and P-51 had higher allowed speeds. At higher altitudes, where mach speed is the limiting factor, the Spitfire had higher limits.

The limits for the Spitfire IX were:

0 - 20,000ft - 450
20 - 25,000ft - 430
25 - 30,000ft - 390
30 - 35,000ft - 340
above 35,000ft - 310

For the P-51B:
0ft - 505
10,000ft - 505
20,000ft - 420
30,000ft - 340
40,000ft - 270

And the P-51D:
4,000ft - 505
16,000ft - 430
20,000ft - 400
28,000ft - 340
32,000ft - 310
36,000ft - 285

The Spitfire manual notes the limiting mach number was 0.85, Eric Brown notes the P-51B was limited to 0.75 in the RAF, and the USAAF pilot notes for the P-51D give a limit of mach 0.77

The P-47 had a lower limit than the Mustang.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The P-51's did not cruise at 253 mph, they reduced speed to closer to 200 mph. That was one of the reasons they had a problem with plugs fouling.

They needed to cruise at that speed because they needed even better gas mileage than at normal cruise.

The other factor was that with all the drop tanks loaded, their drag was increased, and speed at cruise decreased.

If Spitfires were loaded with similar drop tanks, their drag would also be increased.

They would have had even worse gas mileage and less speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not so sure about that.

The Mustang certainly had much lower parasitic drag than the Spitfire. That's why it went faster with the same power. However, at lower speeds induced drag is a large part of the total, and the Spitfire was lighter and had much lower wing loading than the Mustang. That means the induced drag of the Spitfire will be considerably lower than the Mustang.

The slower they cruise the less advantage the Mustang has, and at very slow speeds the Spitfire will have lower drag.

Buzzsaw-
09-25-2008, 07:01 PM
Salute

Ok fellas, I am going to end my comments here.

You are both obviously quite knowledgeable, (although I could rebut quite a few of the above assertions, for example, the 'Longrange' Spitfire wouldn't have much better wingloading, in fact might have worse because it would need to carry all that extra fuel, therefore Hop's comments don't apply, or using a PR Spit as a example for dive speed also doesn't apply since it is not combat equipped) but I really don't think it is important enough to waste my time. I still think you are barking up the wrong tree.

If you want to create an imaginary Spitfire, jammed full of fuel, which could escort all the way to Berlin and beyond without suffering any ill effects to its performance or structural integrity, then there is really nothing I can do to dissuade you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Certainly there is no way to prove or disprove your assertion. You are number crunching imaginings.

Just remember, the best engineers the Western world could find in 1942-43 were looking for a Fighter which could provide a solution to the long range escort problem, and if they didn't consider the Spitfire as a candidate, then I think it might have been for a reason. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

P.S. I love Spits. Great planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Frequent_Flyer
09-25-2008, 07:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Ok fellas, I am going to end my comments here.

You are both obviously quite knowledgeable, (although I could rebut quite a few of the above assertions, for example, the 'Longrange' Spitfire wouldn't have much better wingloading, in fact might have worse because it would need to carry all that extra fuel, therefore all the Hop's comments fall apart) but I really don't think it is important enough to waste my time. I still think you are barking up the wrong tree.

If you want to create an imaginary Spitfire, jammed full of fuel, which could escort all the way to Berlin and beyond without suffering any ill effects to its performance or structural integrity, then there is really nothing I can do to dissuade you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Certainly there is no way to prove or disprove your assertion. You are number crunching imaginings.

Just remember, the best engineers the Western world could find in 1942-43 were looking for a Fighter which could provide a solution to the long range escort problem, and if they didn't consider the Spitfire as a candidate, then I think it might have been for a reason. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

P.S. I love Spits. Great planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To augment your point,all that is necessary is to examine the poor results the RAAF had with the Spit in the defense of Darwin. It is a case study in why the RAF needed the Mustang.Furthermore, the Mustang replaced the Spitfire in many RAF, RAAF and other units. Not the inverse. The men who were living and dying in aerial combat made this decesion, because their lives depended on it. Not withstanding some theoretical chart and performance testing on a prototype of course http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

hop2002
09-25-2008, 07:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">although I could rebut quite a few of the above assertions, for example, the 'Longrange' Spitfire wouldn't have much better wingloading, in fact might have worse because it would need to carry all that extra fuel, therefore all the Hop's comments fall apart </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire was a lighter aircraft. Even with the same fuel as a Mustang it would remain lighter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you want to create an imaginary Spitfire, jammed full of fuel, which could escort all the way to Berlin and beyond without suffering any ill effects to its performance or structural integrity, then there is really nothing I can do to dissuade you. Roll Eyes Certainly there is no way to prove or disprove your assertion. You are number crunching imaginings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not just imaginings. Here's an Australian test of a standard production Spitfire VIII:
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/1929/90bcroppedlu4.jpg

In that configuration, with 90 gallon drop tank, it carried 213 imperial gallons (254 US gallons)

That could of course have been increased with the addition of a rear fuselage tank, as was fitted to large numbers of Spitfire IX/XVIs.

The range is still not going to be as long as a Mustang's, because the Mustang carried 357 imperial gallons, and 288 would be about the limit on the Spitfire without major work.

Berlin should have been doable, though.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just remember, the best engineers the Western world could find in 1942-43 were looking for a Fighter which could provide a solution to the long range escort problem, and if they didn't consider the Spitfire as a candidate, then I think it might have been for a reason. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually they did consider the Spitfire as a candidate, hence the US experiments at Wright Field.

The problem is the US needed a lot of escort fighters, and Spitfire production just wasn't high enough.

Frequent_Flyer
09-25-2008, 07:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">although I could rebut quite a few of the above assertions, for example, the 'Longrange' Spitfire wouldn't have much better wingloading, in fact might have worse because it would need to carry all that extra fuel, therefore all the Hop's comments fall apart </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire was a lighter aircraft. Even with the same fuel as a Mustang it would remain lighter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you want to create an imaginary Spitfire, jammed full of fuel, which could escort all the way to Berlin and beyond without suffering any ill effects to its performance or structural integrity, then there is really nothing I can do to dissuade you. Roll Eyes Certainly there is no way to prove or disprove your assertion. You are number crunching imaginings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not just imaginings. Here's an Australian test of a standard production Spitfire VIII:
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/1929/90bcroppedlu4.jpg

In that configuration, with 90 gallon drop tank, it carried 213 imperial gallons (254 US gallons)

That could of course have been increased with the addition of a rear fuselage tank, as was fitted to large numbers of Spitfire IX/XVIs.

The range is still not going to be as long as a Mustang's, because the Mustang carried 357 imperial gallons, and 288 would be about the limit on the Spitfire without major work.

Berlin should have been doable, though.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just remember, the best engineers the Western world could find in 1942-43 were looking for a Fighter which could provide a solution to the long range escort problem, and if they didn't consider the Spitfire as a candidate, then I think it might have been for a reason. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually they did consider the Spitfire as a candidate, hence the US experiments at Wright Field.

The problem is the US needed a lot of escort fighters, and Spitfire production just wasn't high enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem was the Spitfire. That is why they choose the P-38 to go deeper into Germany

struth
09-25-2008, 08:00 PM
In bombing Northern Australia the Japanese flew from the Celebes on a round trip. I believe it's about 1200 miles from the Celebes to Darwin (many hours). Bombers reached the target and Zero escorts also made it. Zeros could fly to and from Guadalcanal back to the Bismark Archipelago even after spending fuel in fighting. Saburo Sakai did this when wounded once.

the Spitfire, essentially, could only intercept the japanese raiders over the target. Particularly the Dinah posed problems because of its speed and range.

Kettenhunde
09-25-2008, 08:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The Spitfire manual notes the limiting mach number was 0.85, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is post war after a design change which raised the q-limits.

luftluuver
09-25-2008, 09:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The Spitfire manual notes the limiting mach number was 0.85, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is post war after a design change which raised the q-limits. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What design change would that be?

Kettenhunde
09-25-2008, 09:10 PM
A redesign of the vertical stabilizer.

Viper2005_
09-25-2008, 09:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The Spitfire manual notes the limiting mach number was 0.85, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is post war after a design change which raised the q-limits. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quill and Henshaw's books both disagree with you on this point.

The Griffon spits were dive tested to 520 IAS which might be the q increase to which you refer.

However, 470 IAS was the design limit of the Mk I.

K5054 had a lower q limit (400 IAS IRRC).

I don't think that the limiting Mach number changed throughout the service life of the aeroplane; indeed I'm not even sure if the re-designed wing was as good as Mitchell's original in this regard (though it did have a significantly higher aileron reversal speed).

Frequent_Flyer
09-25-2008, 09:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by struth:
In bombing Northern Australia the Japanese flew from the Celebes on a round trip. I believe it's about 1200 miles from the Celebes to Darwin (many hours). Bombers reached the target and Zero escorts also made it. Zeros could fly to and from Guadalcanal back to the Bismark Archipelago even after spending fuel in fighting. Saburo Sakai did this when wounded once.

the Spitfire, essentially, could only intercept the japanese raiders over the target. Particularly the Dinah posed problems because of its speed and range. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Japanese attacked at high altitude ,further exascerbateing the spits inadequate range. Leaving little fuel for the actual intercept. Many flights never made contact with the enemy as lack of fuel necessitated a return to base. The pilots that attempted to engage the bombers/fighters as they egressed did not return to base as they ran out of fuel.

luftluuver
09-25-2008, 09:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
A redesign of the vertical stabilizer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What Mk?

Kurfurst__
09-26-2008, 01:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">although I could rebut quite a few of the above assertions, for example, the 'Longrange' Spitfire wouldn't have much better wingloading, in fact might have worse because it would need to carry all that extra fuel, therefore all the Hop's comments fall apart </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire was a lighter aircraft. Even with the same fuel as a Mustang it would remain lighter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you want to create an imaginary Spitfire, jammed full of fuel, which could escort all the way to Berlin and beyond without suffering any ill effects to its performance or structural integrity, then there is really nothing I can do to dissuade you. Roll Eyes Certainly there is no way to prove or disprove your assertion. You are number crunching imaginings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not just imaginings. Here's an Australian test of a standard production Spitfire VIII:
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/1929/90bcroppedlu4.jpg

In that configuration, with 90 gallon drop tank, it carried 213 imperial gallons (254 US gallons)

That could of course have been increased with the addition of a rear fuselage tank, as was fitted to large numbers of Spitfire IX/XVIs.

The range is still not going to be as long as a Mustang's, because the Mustang carried 357 imperial gallons, and 288 would be about the limit on the Spitfire without major work.

Berlin should have been doable, though.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just remember, the best engineers the Western world could find in 1942-43 were looking for a Fighter which could provide a solution to the long range escort problem, and if they didn't consider the Spitfire as a candidate, then I think it might have been for a reason. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually they did consider the Spitfire as a candidate, hence the US experiments at Wright Field.

The problem is the US needed a lot of escort fighters, and Spitfire production just wasn't high enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its funny though that every single other document prepeared by the RAF shows circa 6.7 mpg mileage, and that is what they give in their datasheets, too.
Perhaps that single Mk VIII test wasn't that standard at all, or the test conditions were not practical and/or standard. Curiosuly, it was done with the same Spitfire VIII airframe Hop actually denies to may have been even existed, and he doesn't really like the performance test done with it. Now, the fuel flow test and the calculated milage, now that is something entirely different. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Truth is that Hop would like to have a Spitfire that would go to Berlin and back. The RAF back then wanted one too, but there were none, expect for unarmed PR aircraft.

Here are the RAF's official view on the Spitfire's mileage, rather than Hop's own opinion.

Mk VIII:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfirehfviii-ads.jpg

This one is from the same source as Hop's, an Australian datasheet for the Spit VIII:

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

Mk IX:

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

Mk XIV mileage:

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

Comparison of ranges by Central Fighter Establishment:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109G_51B_Spit_Tempest_RANGE.jpg

Aaron_GT
09-26-2008, 02:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Pressurised Spitfires caused all sorts of trouble, with high cockpit temperatures, an inability to fly with the cockpit open, questionable escape options in emergency and so on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Escape was only questionable of the prototypes. In its limited production this was sorted out. The problems with high temperature at low altitudes weren't resolved. Given that the Spitfire wasn't ultimately used for long range, high altitude escort it certainly wasn't worth perfecting it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The P-51 probably wins in terms of comfort; I wouldn't expect trim to be a big issue because cruising is essentially a constant speed operation (save for periodic bursts of high power to clear lead from the plugs). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That and trim required as the fuel is used up. Some aircraft required almost constant retrimming, although the Spitfire certainly wasn't one of these.

Bremspropeller
09-26-2008, 06:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Actually close escort worked for the p38's escorting B17's in New Guinea. They had enough firepower to scare away any zeroes that tried to get close. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a totally different context.
A Zero will cut in half/ turn into a blowtorch, just watching a single round being fired.


The concept of the "close in escort" is flawed - just ask the 8th AF.
"Freeing the fighters" was the most important step towards aireal superiority.

Xiolablu3
09-26-2008, 07:25 AM
But when the USAAF 'freed the fighters', didnt a new bunch appear to take over the close escort job?

I dont think they just left the bombers unattended as soon as they saw fighters.


I was under the impression that one bunch escorted then were freed, then a new bunch took over the escort duty.

Spitfires very often did the return leg and nursed home damaged bombers being harrased by German fighters. Johnnie Johnson describes these Ops in his book 'Wing Leader'. Also his frustration at the SPitfires low fuel load and how it would make the perfect escort fighter if it had longer legs.

The usual way was to send 3 Spitfires to nurse each damaged bomber lagging behind and fend off the German fighters which were always attracted to a lone damaged bomber.

The fact is that the Spitfire was a great defensive fighter, while the P51 was great for attack. You need both.

Bremspropeller
09-26-2008, 07:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You need both. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope.

You need just one. The latter.

Kettenhunde
09-26-2008, 09:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Quill and Henshaw's books both disagree with you on this point.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, Morgan and Shacklady do not disagree.

The evidence does not disagree either. The investigations into high speed speed flight from the appropriate research agencies are listed, the design changes from the manufacturer incorporated in post war timeframe, and the appropriate entry into the post war POH is noted.

The answer is quite simple. Find a wartime POH that list's such high q-limits.

It does not exist as the aircraft was never cleared for it and did not have the structural changes needed to increase these limits until after the war.

All the best,

Crumpp

luftluuver
09-26-2008, 09:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Quill and Henshaw's books both disagree with you on this point.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, Morgan and Shacklady do not disagree.

The evidence does not disagree either. The investigations into high speed speed flight from the appropriate research agencies are listed, the design changes from the manufacturer incorporated in post war timeframe, and the appropriate entry into the post war POH is noted.

The answer is quite simple. Find a wartime POH that list's such high q-limits.

It does not exist as the aircraft was never cleared for it and did not have the structural changes needed to increase these limits until after the war.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The last Mk IX came of the production line in June 1945. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kettenhunde
09-26-2008, 09:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The last Mk IX came of the production line in June 1945. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly.

It is extremely easy to spot the design changes on the post war Spitfires.

luftluuver
09-26-2008, 09:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Exactly.

It is extremely easy to spot the design changes on the post war Spitfires. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And these design changes were ........

I can only find the manual for the MK IX, XI XVI stating a mach number.

Bremspropeller
09-26-2008, 09:58 AM
You don't need to, it's below 1.0 anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Kettenhunde
09-26-2008, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I can only find the manual for the MK IX, XI XVI stating a mach number.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good! Look at the date on it.

luftluuver
09-26-2008, 11:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Good! Look at the date on it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

So what changes were done to the Mk IX in the 15 months after the last one came off the production line in June 1945?

What were the mach limits for the Griffon Spits?

Kettenhunde
09-26-2008, 11:34 AM
Hey Luftluver,

Go back and read the thread, please. I answered your question about specific design changes the first time you asked it. If you do not understand it I would be glad to explain further. I think it is pretty self explanatory, however.

Continuing to troll is not productive to the advancement of a discussion and certainly highlights the fact you do not read others input.

You have a copy of Morgan and Shacklady's, "Spitfire: The History", right?

What is the date on your POH you reference? Why not simply post it and enlighten us all?
We can all then learn something!

The design change and research into the q-limit increase is well documented by the RAE and Supermarine. It was incorporated into the design post war.

You seem to think that making a change to the design requires new production or re-issuance of a serial number as well. That is simply not true as any aircraft owner who has to comply with an AD will tell you.

Lastly I really do not care if you wish to believe otherwise despite the physical evidence and published procedures. You are free to set in your mind whatever performance you wish for your favorite aircraft. If it pleases you then I say more power to you.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
09-26-2008, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> What were the mach limits for the Griffon Spits?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those are published in the POH. Do you need help in finding them?

Aaron_GT
09-26-2008, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nope.

You need just one. The latter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It depends on what the mission parameters are given your strategic situation. If you are on the defensive, short of fuel, with relatively little advanced warning of attack the you need something with a high climb rate, and that wouldn't be the P-51. Long range would be a distraction. This is the mission for which the Spitfire was designed, although its climb rate in 1940 was poor by 1944 (but the climb rate of 1944 Spitfires was excellent).

In the USA the Air Corps requirements in the 1930s were very different as the enemy was anticipated to be thousands of miles away, not potentially tens of miles, and given the scale radar coverage was likely to be patchy. Hence long loiter time at altitude for patrols was the requirement, and fuel was plentiful. The P-38 is the exemplar of this. So the USA produced what matched its interception requirement.

In neither the UK nor the USA was it presumed that bombers would be escorted. It was assumed that a formation flying over enemy territory fast, and at altitude, would be very hard to intercept, and then only from the lower rear quarter. Hence British bombers at the time were generally designed with tail and ventral turrets (Wellington, Stirling, Whitley, Halifax, and to some extent the Hampden) as was the B-17. Obviously in the end it turned out that escort was required, and this lesson was learned twice at least.

The country that did presume the need for escort was Germany.

By the time the UK and USA started the air offensive in earnest the P-51 did prove useful for Rhubarbs and the like, but was only available in small numbers due to diversion of effort into the A-36. In 1942 the P-51 didn't cover all bases as its altitude performance was lacking. If the P-52B had been available in 1942 I bet the RAF would have bought as many as they could have afforded.

Buzzsaw-
09-26-2008, 11:44 AM
Salute

My God! Kettenhunde and Kurfurst are supporting my points!

Argghhhhhh..... May have to reconsider.

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

Buzzsaw-
09-26-2008, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Escort for their tactical missions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was assumed that there would be a requirement for long range escort for the strategic force too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In a departure from Imperial Germany's strategy in WWI, Nazi Germany did not have any plans for a Strategic bombing offensive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At the time the requirements that led to the Bf. 110 were laid down it did. It was deprioritised but after the 110 had been designed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Luftwaffe was designed as a tactical support force </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It became a tactical support force but in the mid 1930s it was intended to be a strategic force and four engined bombers
of a class roughly equivalent to the B-17 were planned, and prototypes flown although these first generation four engined types were not adopted.

The strategic bombing requirement was kept but it was intended to be a jack-of-all-trades capable of tactical work too, and that hampered the He-177. A number of other strategic bombers were in development (E.g. Fw. 191) but they didn't receive enough resources to really get anywhere.

So really it's a failure of implementation due to lack of priority at key points rather than an intention to field only a tactical force.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They did not have plans to systematically bomb the industrial centers of enemy countries. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They did, the so called 'Ural bomber'.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In the BoB, their battle plan was all about attacking tactical targets, and achieving air superiority over the area where the invasion would take place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The presumption was that the forces at hand would be sufficient to achieve an avowedly strategic aim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
They did have a longrange escort fighter in the Me-110, (which failed in this role) but it was not created as part of a plan for a strategic bombing offensive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was specifically intended for just such a role.

Aaron_GT
09-26-2008, 12:00 PM
Crumpp - I would be curious to know what changes were made to the Spitfire IX post was as it seemed to vanish rapidly from the inventories of the RAF and RAAF (Auxiliary, not Australian). Even the 21-24 series saw only relatively short post war service in the RAF.

Aaron_GT
09-26-2008, 12:12 PM
Apologies, Buzzsaw - I meant to reply to your post but hit the edit button for it by mistake http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Aaron_GT
09-26-2008, 12:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Escort for their tactical missions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was assumed that there would be a requirement for long range escort for the strategic force too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
In a departure from Imperial Germany's strategy in WWI, Nazi Germany did not have any plans for a Strategic bombing offensive.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


At the time the requirements that led to the Bf. 110 were laid down it did. It was deprioritised but after the 110 had been designed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The Luftwaffe was designed as a tactical support force </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It became a tactical support force but in the mid 1930s it was intended to be a strategic force and four engined bombers
of a class roughly equivalent to the B-17 were planned, and prototypes flown although these first generation four engined types were not adopted.

The strategic bombing requirement was kept but it was intended to be a jack-of-all-trades capable of tactical work too, and that hampered the He-177. A number of other strategic bombers were in development (E.g. Fw. 191) but they didn't receive enough resources to really get anywhere.

So really it's a failure of implementation due to lack of priority at key points and some inappropriate specifications rather than an intention to field only a tactical force. It wasn't felt possible to field a separate strategic and tactical force given Germany's limited metals resources, hence the hobbling of the likes of the 177 with dual duty.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
They did not have plans to systematically bomb the industrial centers of enemy countries.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They did, the so called 'Ural bomber'.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
In the BoB, their battle plan was all about attacking tactical targets, and achieving air superiority over the area where the invasion would take place.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The presumption was that the forces at hand would be sufficient to achieve an avowedly strategic aim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

They did have a longrange escort fighter in the Me-110, (which failed in this role) but it was not created as part of a plan for a strategic bombing offensive.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was specifically intended for just such a role. It was designed before Wever was killed and Udet managed to deprioritise the strategic bomber effort to some extent (it didn't stop entirely).

I am glad that the Nazis failed to get their act together in this area.

Xiolablu3
09-26-2008, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You need both. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope.

You need just one. The latter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, of course, who cares about defending your homeland anyway? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Battle of Britian? Totally unimportant you know, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Air battle at Kursk? Pffft the Russians should have just let the Germans attack all they want. German Defense vs the 8th airforce? Forget it, defense is overrated.

If only Britain had Bremms to tell Park and Dowding in 1940 that defense was pointless. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The most important work a fighter can do is defend its own homeland. If it cant do that then the war will be lost very quickly and there will be no chance to attack anyway.

Bremspropeller
09-26-2008, 12:40 PM
The best defense is offense.
Maybe you should look that quote up. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Not losing aerial superiority in the first place or achieving it should be your goal.
Therefore, you're in need of air-superiority fighters, not interceptors.
Interceptors are cr0ppy fighters anyway.


And stop twisting my words. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kettenhunde
09-26-2008, 12:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Crumpp - I would be curious to know what changes were made to the Spitfire IX post was as it seemed to vanish rapidly from the inventories of the RAF and RAAF (Auxiliary, not Australian). Even the 21-24 series saw only relatively short post war service in the RAF. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simply put, they increased the size and shape of the tail thereby increasing the stability and altering the frequency harmonics of the flutter. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge is a great example of what happens at resonance.

Our critical airspeed occurs at the resonance point of the pitch and plunge forces. This is where the frequencies come together to form one stronger frequency.

By uncoupling the Center of Twist in relation to the Center of Gravity we can sometimes increase the critical airspeed our limit cycle oscillation occurs.

All the best,

Crumpp

luftluuver
09-26-2008, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Hey Luftluver,

Go back and read the thread, please. I answered your question about specific design changes the first time you asked it. If you do not understand it I would be glad to explain further. I think it is pretty self explanatory, however. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The 'redesign of the vertical stabilizer' doesn't say very much. Are you also saying that the Mk IXs had new vertical stabs installed after production had ended?

luftluuver
09-26-2008, 03:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> What were the mach limits for the Griffon Spits?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those are published in the POH. Do you need help in finding them? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yup, as the April 1946 for the Mk XIV, XIX one I have in Part II, 54. (iii) only gives speed in IAS.

Frequent_Flyer
09-26-2008, 04:30 PM
When the topic is Spitfire vs. Mustang its the same dance every thread. There truely is no comparision, the Mustang was superior design and its performance demonstrated this.

Mustang D:
Power Plant 1,695 hp
Top speed: 442
normal loaded weight: 9,800 lbs

Spit IX
Power Plant 1,720hp
Top Speed 404
normal loaded weight 7,800

The Mustang going into combat weighted 2,000lbs more. I used essentially the same power plant and developed 40 mph faster top speed !!!!! All this and twice the range, more depending on altitude and cruising speed. The Mustang was considerable faster,better in a dive, a zoom climb, could carry much more ordanace,its high speed manuverability was much better, and twice the range. These are not debatable points.


Small wonder it replaced the Spit in many of the RAAF,RAF, USAAF and Polish units.

Ace from the 357th, General Chuck Yeager Says it best, " Regarding the fighters themselves, I flew the P-47,P-38,Bf 109, Spitfire and several lesser known types, and the P-51D was by far the best war machine: the Mustang would do for eight hours what the 'Spit' would do for 45 minutes!"

Kurfurst__
09-26-2008, 04:40 PM
This thread needs more Corum.

Kettenhunde
09-26-2008, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Are you also saying that the Mk IXs had new vertical stabs installed after production had ended?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Modifying a vertical stabilizer is not difficult for any airframe qualified mechanic.

Here we can clearly see the pilot's notes are post war, dated September, 1946.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4598560/Pilots-Notes-Spitfire...-61636670266-Engines (http://www.scribd.com/doc/4598560/Pilots-Notes-Spitfire-Mk-IXXIXVI-Merlin-61636670266-Engines)

If you have some wartime notes please post them, otherwise I think that RAE reports and Pilot's notes do not back up your assumption.

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
09-26-2008, 05:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
When the topic is Spitfire vs. Mustang its the same dance every thread. There truely is no comparision, the Mustang was superior design and its performance demonstrated this.

Mustang D:
Power Plant 1,695 hp
Top speed: 442
normal loaded weight: 9,800 lbs

Spit IX
Power Plant 1,720hp
Top Speed 404
normal loaded weight 7,800

The Mustang going into combat weighted 2,000lbs more. I used essentially the same power plant and developed 40 mph faster top speed !!!!! All this and twice the range, more depending on altitude and cruising speed. The Mustang was considerable faster,better in a dive, a zoom climb, could carry much more ordanace,its high speed manuverability was much better, and twice the range. These are not debatable points.


Small wonder it replaced the Spit in many of the RAAF,RAF, USAAF and Polish units.

Ace from the 357th, General Chuck Yeager Says it best, " Regarding the fighters themselves, I flew the P-47,P-38,Bf 109, Spitfire and several lesser known types, and the P-51D was by far the best war machine: the Mustang would do for eight hours what the 'Spit' would do for 45 minutes!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, would be good to see a P51D outclimb a SPitfire IX for 1 minute never mind 45. How about firepower? Or turn rate? COuld a P51 outurn a SPitfire for even 1 minute?


Hehe, who would of thought it, a 5 year newer design being 'better'?

Hang on, it didnt 'replace' the Spitfire, the Spitfire carried on with the Mk XIV, Mk 21 and after in RAF service. SOME squadrons moved to P51's. Hang on, it wasnt 'better' at a lot of things than the Spit.


The De Havilland Vampire was a superior war machine than the P51 and replaced it in RAF squadron service. It was the better war machine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kettenhunde
09-26-2008, 05:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yup, as the April 1946 for the Mk XIV, XIX one I have in Part II, 54. (iii) only gives speed in IAS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Do you know how to convert IAS to TAS and then to Mach number?

Aaron_GT
09-26-2008, 05:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Modifying a vertical stabilizer is not difficult for any airframe qualified mechanic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Late IXs were built with the board chord tail from the VIII but this was in WW2 and I am unaware of any retrofit of anything after WW2 (a few IXs got a broad chord retrofit, but mostly as an adjunct to repair of damage - you see earlier chord machines into 1945 even when all new production was broad chord). The only obvious candidates would be the XIV tail, or the Mk. 22 tail but I can't see a great enthusiasm for retrofitting old airframes that were going to the auxiliaries, foreign air forces, or the scrap heap (or all three in succession).

Frequent_Flyer
09-26-2008, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Wow, would be good to see a P51D outclimb a SPitfire IX for 1 minute never mind 45. How about firepower? Or turn rate? COuld a P51 outurn a SPitfire for even 1 minute? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It did'nt need to. They were'nt adversaries, check your history books the RAF and the USAAF were allies. That same history book will tell you the RAF,RAAF and the Polish spitfire units that converted to P-51's.

Nothing would be more frustrating than to fly four hours to a target and have as little ammunition as the Spitfire. I'll take the 6 X .50's fully loaded-Thanks for asking.

Not only was the engineering and design of the airframe far superior to the Spitfire.

Packard significantly improved, the albeit solid, Merlin engine.

" In September of 1940, the Packard Motor Car Company began licensed production of the Merlin engine at it's Detroit facility. Initially the Mark X, after conversion of more than 2,000 left hand drawings, and making their own special tooling, an exact copy of the Merlin 28, it became the V-1650-1 in US Army terminology. The V-1650-1 represented 1649 cubic inches, rounded up so to speak, the -1 included U.S. modifications.
Packard would preform more than 70,000 checks on the 14,000 parts in a Merlin, burn 80,000 gallons of hi-test fuel a day in running tests, disassemble the engines, checks again, then reassemble the engines an prepare them for shipping.
The English version of the Merlin's main bearings were of a silver alloy. To increase engine life, Packard would adopt the black matte process of a silver and lead alloy. Packard also produced in-take and exhaust valves that were made with a coating of a nickel chromium alloy to increase heat resistance. This would allow the use of the highest octane fuels. Some history reports that a new Wright-designed supercharger drive put the finishing touches on the Packard built Merlin V-1650-3, the power plant destined for the P-51. Other information says the supercharger was an English design. We will let aviation experts sort that out.
However, it was Packard's light measuring device, to check tooling to with-in 1,000,000 of an inch, and Packard's procedure of freezing parts for an exact fit, that allowed the new supercharger to rase the Merlin's operational ceiling more that 10,000 feet.
After the Pearl Harbor attack, Great Britain, Australia, India, and China were no longer alone. Now we all needed weapons of war and fast! Packard's 1650-3 Merlins would be placed in the P-40 and that aircraft would become the Warhawk. Another of the new weapons would be the North American Mustang powered with the Packard built, Merlin.
Contrary to folk lore, the installation of a Merlin in a P 51 was not exclusively an English idea. In the summer of 1942 North American placed a 1650-3 engine in one of two planes held back from the original contract. Independent work had been underway concerning a Merlin-Mustang merger. In Great Britain, and at Inglelwood California, a marriage was taking place. P-51, 41-37352, as with the British test, needed all new engine mounts and sheet metal had to be fabricated to fit the larger Merlin. North American added an 11' 4" four-blade Hamilton Standard prop with cuffs. The carburetor air scoop on top of the nose was deleted and tests proved that the intercooler was not needed when a new Bendix pressure carburetor was used and the scoop could be cut down, making the nose more aerodynamic. The full story of Packard's involvement will come later in this story of MEN BET THEIR LIVES ON IT."

Kettenhunde
09-26-2008, 07:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The only obvious candidates would be the XIV tail, or the Mk. 22 tail but I can't see a great enthusiasm for retrofitting old airframes that were going to the auxiliaries, foreign air forces, or the scrap heap (or all three in succession). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK, the Spitfire Mk XI continued to serve well into the 1950's.

In September of 1946 it was still a premier tactical recon aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp

Aaron_GT
09-27-2008, 01:29 AM
Good point, Kettenhunde - I forgot about the XI!

Aaron_GT
09-27-2008, 01:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nothing would be more frustrating than to fly four hours to a target and have as little ammunition as the Spitfire. I'll take the 6 X .50's fully loaded-Thanks for asking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most of the RAF units converting were doing so to Mustang IIIs with 4 guns. At 375rpg you have 28 seconds firing time. In a IXe you have 135 rounds, 13 seconds with the cannon - half the time, and 250 rpg for the M2, or 19 seconds.

Total destructive power is three times greater for the cannon, so the effective power of the Mustang III is a notional 4x28 = 112, for the Spitfire IXe it is 116, so essentially a dead heat.

The Mustang IV will beat the IXe in total destructive power, and the III will beat the IXc.

Per second the III has power 4, the IV 6, the IXc 7 (maybe not even that), the IXe 8.

So the Mustang IV has a pretty decent armament but the III is too lightly armed, which is why more guns were added.

To me the ideal would have been the III with the armament of the IA at power per second of about 12, and likely total power of 160 ish. Shorter firing time, but any short burst would be devastating againt a LW fighter.

The Tempest V trounces the lot of course.

EmKen
09-27-2008, 05:43 PM
Frequent_Flyer states

"Packard significantly improved, the albeit solid, Merlin engine".

As far as the Brits were concerned, by the time they gave the Merlin technology away, it was old hat. There were great expectations for the 24 cylinder Vulture and Sabre engines as well as the sleeve valve radials that Bristol were producing.
I suppose it's a bit like comparing Indy car engineering with Formula 1 -you take your choices as to what is the better engineering solution.

Frequent_Flyer
09-27-2008, 07:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nothing would be more frustrating than to fly four hours to a target and have as little ammunition as the Spitfire. I'll take the 6 X .50's fully loaded-Thanks for asking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most of the RAF units converting were doing so to Mustang IIIs with 4 guns. At 375rpg you have 28 seconds firing time. In a IXe you have 135 rounds, 13 seconds with the cannon - half the time, and 250 rpg for the M2, or 19 seconds.

Total destructive power is three times greater for the cannon, so the effective power of the Mustang III is a notional 4x28 = 112, for the Spitfire IXe it is 116, so essentially a dead heat.

The Mustang IV will beat the IXe in total destructive power, and the III will beat the IXc.

Per second the III has power 4, the IV 6, the IXc 7 (maybe not even that), the IXe 8.

So the Mustang IV has a pretty decent armament but the III is too lightly armed, which is why more guns were added.

To me the ideal would have been the III with the armament of the IA at power per second of about 12, and likely total power of 160 ish. Shorter firing time, but any short burst would be devastating againt a LW fighter.

The Tempest V trounces the lot of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I do not beleive this was ever a consideration however: A 20mm firing thru the prop spinner and 4 X .50 wing mounted guns on the Mustang would have been perfect. The .50 have a better effective range. As you close, use the 20m.

M_Gunz
09-27-2008, 09:19 PM
Effective range of wing guns, greater than a nose cannon?
And just how do you place a nose cannon in a Merlin engine?

Aaron_GT
09-28-2008, 02:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The .50 have a better effective range. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whilst that might be true in a theoretical ballistics sense, given the practicalities of WW2 air combat the effective range is identical. The ballistics are very similar out to 300 to 400 yards and beyond that, even with lead computing sights, you are unlikely to hit anything.

It is true to say that in 109s the guns were often fired before the cannon but that is because there were relaively few cannon rounds and so the use of the guns was to check you were on target. The fact that you could use MG131s to check shows that the ballistics at typical firing ranges were not so different.

M_Gunz
09-28-2008, 07:54 AM
The 80 cal (20mm) are going to hit a lot harder at long range than the .50's.
That's why IRL 20mm AA has a much longer range than 50 cal AA even with more barrels.

What is effective range air to air includes time to target and dodging of the target.
If the target holds steady then super long shots can bring him down as the bullets and shells
we model can still drive nails at 800+ yards if they hit them and many parts of the plane are
vulnerable to that as well as being much bigger than nail heads.

20mm with explosive will have the full explosive energy even when the shell velocity is less.
In many cases that alone is equal or more than the .50 started with so what all this about
.50's having longer effective range is about, I dunno.

Frequent_Flyer
09-28-2008, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The .50 have a better effective range. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whilst that might be true in a theoretical ballistics sense, given the practicalities of WW2 air combat the effective range is identical. The ballistics are very similar out to 300 to 400 yards and beyond that, even with lead computing sights, you are unlikely to hit anything.

It is true to say that in 109s the guns were often fired before the cannon but that is because there were relaively few cannon rounds and so the use of the guns was to check you were on target. The fact that you could use MG131s to check shows that the ballistics at typical firing ranges were not so different. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-38 pilots routinely fired the .50s prior to engaging the.20M . Historically,the Luftwaffe hit its tagert aprox. 2% of the time. lets assume the other combatants were the same. The trectory of the .50 is flater than the 20m further from the muzzle. This makes deflection shots, lead time, etc. a trickier proposition when firing both cannons and HMG ( this could be a reason you cannot simultaneously fire the MG's and cannon's on the zero, If my memory serves) . True you can harmonize both to converge at a certain point. However, as you point out and the statistical analysis will support most pilots missid 98-95% of the time. The pilots were impatient and fired too soon. Prior to the target being within the convergence of the guns/cannons. Therefore they fired the HMG's first as way to " bracket " their target theoritically conserving cannon rounds.

The US Navy was the only arm of the US that taught and trained " deflection Shooting". If memory serves, there was only one other Air force in WW II that likewise trained their pilots in "deflection shooting". The units that used 20M armed F6F's and F4U's both agreed the .50's were better at hitting the target at greater distance than the 20M. The .50 were more reliable and had greater ammunition capacity. Less muzzle flash at night. The 20m blinded the pilots to a greater degree than the .50's

Also, an atvantage the US had over its adversaries in all theaters was speed. The P-51 chased down anythig the Luftwaffe had except the 262. The could get in close and use the .50's In the PTO the speed disparity was greater. The Spit was slow, your opportunity's are almost limited to a surprise attack, if you had enough fuel. Unless leathal or crippling damage was delivered the Luftwaffe could disengage and engage at will.

Bottom line is with the .50's you have a greater volume of lead in the air , with a flater trajectory. You can fire longer with more and further out. Therefore if you only connect 2-3% of the time,the math is in the "more" and "longer " favor. further I would argue the.50 API round has greater probability to disable an aircrft than a 20m round. Also more likely to hit , per the referenced math.

A graphic demonstration is the Kill ratio of the Hellcat vs. cannon armed Zero.One round had devastaing effects. There are other factors of course.

The P-47, Hellcat,Wildcat, Corsair and P-38 could withstand more punishment from a 20M than the Bf-109,Spit or Zero.

Tux_UK
09-28-2008, 04:14 PM
Unfortunately mate, history disagrees with you on a couple of points:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
The Spit was slow, your opportunity's are almost limited to a surprise attack, if you had enough fuel. Unless leathal or crippling damage was delivered the Luftwaffe could disengage and engage at will. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your suggestion that Spits were 'limited' to "surprise attacks" is confusing:
1. They were no more 'limited' to this attack type than any other aircraft.
2. "surprise attacks" (known as 'bounces' to allied pilots) were the engagement tactic of choice for all pilots in all types.

A fighter pilot 'limited' to suprise attacks is a very happy one, lol.

The suggestion that Spitfires didn't have enough fuel to engage the luftwaffe is laughable. They lacked the range to delve deep into German airspace, yes, but they didn't try to do that - that would have been stupid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Spits were simply stationed near the front line and engaged targets that were within their range.

Luftwaffe pilots 'engaging or disengaging at will' is just a fabrication. If a Spit misses its opening shot the LW can simply 'decide to disengage' and immediately remove the threat, yes?



On another subject, if you're trying to argue the .50's superiority to the 20mm in air-air combat, the entire world disagrees with you mate. In fact, everyone but the U.S. had (more or less) converted to cannon armament as standard by 1945. The U.S. had very good reasons for sticking with it for so long (one of which was adequate performance against enemy fighters) but they don't include general superiority over cannon.

Bloody H, it's hard to type coherently when you're tired!

Aaron_GT
09-28-2008, 04:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">P-38 pilots routinely fired the .50s prior to engaging the.20M </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This does not mean that the effective range is better. The Luftwaffe did the same with 109s and the MG131 round was much less effective than the M2 round. The P-38 pilots did this does not mean we can surmise that the range was more effective. It would be safer to assume the use of a weapon with more ammunition, allowing ranging in as the distance closes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The trectory of the .50 is flater than the 20m further from the muzzle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I noted before it only begins to make a significant difference beyond normal engangement range and at a range outside convergence and when the chances to hit is tiny. It may be flatter but you'd be pretty much wasting your ammunition. At typical engagement ranges (200 to 400 yards) the difference is so slight that if you are missing with one type of gun you'd be missing with both.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">this could be a reason you cannot simultaneously fire the MG's and cannon's on the zero, If my memory serve </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In planes armed with a mix of MGs there were routinely used simultaneously. If you have a firing solution at, say, 200 yards all your guns will hit so you will use all the guns at your disposal.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Therefore they fired the HMG's first as way to " bracket " their target theoritically conserving cannon rounds.[quote]

Agreed, and at ranges where they were likely to hit anything the trajectories were very similar that it made sense, at least for 20mm weapons. Some 30mm and higher calibe weapons did have very different ballistics.

[quote]The units that used 20M armed F6F's and F4U's both agreed the .50's were better at hitting the target at greater distance than the 20M. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet the USN felt the 50 cal was insufficiently effective and was keen to change (in fact in 1940 the USAAC was keen too, but this was a saga long ago summarised by Kocur so no point rehashing it in this thread!)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spit was slow </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At low altitude, generally yes (apart from the XII which was fast at SL at the time of introduction). At high altitude it was generally competitive. It did loose out to the P51B in early 1944 at altitude until the XIV came along which left a small gap 20,000 to 25,000 ft and was tested as slightly faster above. Given the small difference it means a dead heat, in reality from 20,000 ft and above, and an iffy paint job or a dent in the leading edge would swap the places on service aircraft.

Down low the XIV on +18 was getting speeds that the P51 execeeded when boosts above +15 were available. In theory the XIV could get 389 at SL on +25, but AFAIK nothing above +21 was ever approved for service use.

The IX, though, is around 30 mph slower at altitude - the Spitfire was showing is age then. The XIV kept it in the game a bit longer, but even the 21-24 series with the new wing wasn't going to make it a performance beater (although the new wing boosted the high speed roll to that of the P-51). If the XIV, 20, or Spiteful had received more resources it might have led to the Spitfire family leading the pack again, but the emphasis was on stopgaps, in a sense (tying it to another thread) why the P-40 was kept going even when eclipsed by the P-47 and P-51.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A graphic demonstration is the Kill ratio of the Hellcat vs. cannon armed Zero. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That has virtually nothing to do with the guns they carried and everything to do with strategic and tactical advantage and relative aircraft performance (speed primarily).

Kettenhunde
09-28-2008, 04:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> At low altitude, generally yes (apart from the XII which was fast at SL at the time of introduction). At high altitude it was generally competitive. It did loose out to the P51B in early 1944 at altitude until the XIV came along which left a small gap 20,000 to 25,000 ft and was tested as slightly faster above. Given the small difference it means a dead heat, in reality from 20,000 ft and above, and an iffy paint job or a dent in the leading edge would swap the places on service aircraft.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Generally speaking, all of the design contemporary first line fighters were within the 10%. In combat, it would be very difficult to realize any advantage. The Spitfire and P51 would be equally effective given equal pilots.

The most notable difference would be in initial engagement speeds which generally depend on the cruise velocity of the aircraft.

That detail seems to be missing from games.

All the best,

Crumpp

R_Target
09-28-2008, 07:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Yet the USN felt the 50 cal was insufficiently effective and was keen to change... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If Commander Monroe's comments (frequently mistakenly referred to here as the "Official U.S. Navy Report" that says three .50=one 20mm) at the Joint Fighter Conference are to be accepted as representative of the USN's position in October 1944, then:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As it is now, we have the 50-cal gun which has reached it's peak. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

However, with an eye to the future, the USN was certainly planning to switch to 20mm.

M_Gunz
09-28-2008, 09:40 PM
It's funny how during the war that German interceptors with 20mm were able to engage bombers
from beyond effective range of 50 cal defensive guns.

Frequent_Flyer
09-28-2008, 10:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
It's funny how during the war that German interceptors with 20mm were able to engage bombers
from beyond effective range of 50 cal defensive guns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the head on attck was employeed , to give the Bomber a " sporting chance ". Because the rear or quarter attack was just too easy. More German aircraft were lost to the West than in the East. Check the numbers and review which allied combatant had more comfirmed kills. Also, check to see which aircratf was responsible for shooting down the greatest number of Luftwaffe " exparten ".

The LaGG, LA-5 or 7 and the Yak all are armed with at least a single cannon.The Bf-109 and the FW-190 are cannon armed. Yet more Luftwaffe air craft were destroyed in the West. The daylight bombing of German targets was carried out by largely HMG armed US aircraft. For the west the duration of the war was shorter as well. Which weapon was more effective ? The cannon armed Luftwaffe/ JAAF/IJN lost the war-Not so effective. The cannon armed VVS fought a longer war, in a much more "Target rich " environment and attained fewer kills.

Obviously the .50 was an effective enough weapon.

WTE_Galway
09-28-2008, 11:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:

Obviously the .50 was an effective enough weapon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"effective enough"

That is the key, it was "effective enough", cheap to produce and ammo abounded as even jeeps fired 0.50 cal.

When you get down to it the RAF came out on top in the Battle of Britain using aircraft with 0.303 calibre ammunition.

You need guns that are "effective enough" not optimal or world beating or superlative, just guns that will get the job done and get you home.

Tux_UK
09-29-2008, 04:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
More German aircraft were lost to the West than in the East. Check the numbers and review which allied combatant had more comfirmed kills. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If by 'combatant' you mean combatant nation, then more german aircraft were employed in the Defence of the Reich (i.e. almost exclusively fighting U.S. aircraft) than in any other theatre of operations. The average skill of german pilots was relatively low by the time the campaign really got going and plummeted from then on. The average skill of U.S. pilots increased steadily throughout the war. If you mean individual combatant then the name Ivan Kozhedub rings a bell. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Also, check to see which aircratf was responsible for shooting down the greatest number of Luftwaffe " exparten ". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lmao! You're saying a Mustang with cannon armament wouldn't have shot down as many german aircraft?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The LaGG, LA-5 or 7 and the Yak all are armed with at least a single cannon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and often an ill-trained rookie at the controls.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Bf-109 and the FW-190 are cannon armed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and they destroyed more aircraft in the East than the Western Allies did in the West! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif By your logic this makes the 20mm + 13mm combination the most effective aircraft armament of all time. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The cannon armed Luftwaffe/ JAAF/IJN lost the war-Not so effective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Irrelevant.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The cannon armed VVS fought a longer war, in a much more "Target rich " environment... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wasn't more "Target Rich"'.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...and attained fewer kills. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Average VVS pilots were severely lacking in combat flying skills until relatively late on in the war. Once better-trained pilots began to reach front-line squadrons in force the fight became much more even.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Obviously the .50 was an effective enough weapon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As Galway noted, it certainly was effective enough. It wasn't the best though, and had the U.S. faced anything resembling what the germans did over Germany in 1944-45 they'd have dropped it in favour for cannon just as quickly as everyone else did.

On a wider note, you seriously need to consider factors other than aircraft armament when you evaluate air-air combat. Any aircraft with adequate armament can defeat any other aircraft given a sufficient performance advantage and/ or, more importantly, a sufficiently superior pilot. Your argument that the U.S. killed more LW fighters than any other combatant nation and therefore the .50 was the most effective air-air weapon is based on unbelievably flawed logic. Far more Pz VIE Tigers were killed by 75mm-armed Shermans and 76mm-armed T-34s than by Archers or Fireflies. By your logic that makes the short 75 and 76mm weapons better AT guns than the 17-lber! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif Care to join me in a little rofl? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M_Gunz
09-29-2008, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
It's funny how during the war that German interceptors with 20mm were able to engage bombers
from beyond effective range of 50 cal defensive guns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the head on attck was employeed , to give the Bomber a " sporting chance ". Because the rear or quarter attack was just too easy. More German aircraft were lost to the West than in the East. Check the numbers and review which allied combatant had more comfirmed kills. Also, check to see which aircratf was responsible for shooting down the greatest number of Luftwaffe " exparten ".

The LaGG, LA-5 or 7 and the Yak all are armed with at least a single cannon.The Bf-109 and the FW-190 are cannon armed. Yet more Luftwaffe air craft were destroyed in the West. The daylight bombing of German targets was carried out by largely HMG armed US aircraft. For the west the duration of the war was shorter as well. Which weapon was more effective ? The cannon armed Luftwaffe/ JAAF/IJN lost the war-Not so effective. The cannon armed VVS fought a longer war, in a much more "Target rich " environment and attained fewer kills.

Obviously the .50 was an effective enough weapon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The head-on is the best attack esp when there's escorts for the bombers.
Head-on attacks do not negate 151/20 armed interceptors from engaging bombers beyond 50
cal range.

You mix in a whole slew of ingredients with your east/west comparison and tell me that the
result is 50 cal effective range is longer? Numbers and training now affect ballistics!

Well if the 20mm if MGFF or some other anemic 20mm then you can play about the trajectories.
Trot out some ballistics tables if you will. Be sure and include Hispano AP and HE.

Yes the 50 cals were good enough for WWII. Hurrah.

Frequent_Flyer
09-29-2008, 07:37 AM
I am traveling and do not have the number available However, I seem to recall the Hurricane was credited with more victories than the Spit in BOB. Of the Spit claims how many were actually from just MG armed variant? So the majority of the victories were from MG armed aircraft. Of course this is because the Luftwaffe was poorly trained with inexperienced teenagers piloting their aircraft.The very same inexperienced teenagers the US fought against late in the war. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif When the Luftwaffe was at its peak in the west the P-47 ( HMG armed ) turned the tide against the Luftwaffe.

In the East virtually every aircraft was cannon armed or had a variant that was cannon armed. including the lend lease P-39 and the Spit. The airwar was tactical one. Serving up many opportunites to shoot down the slower Stuka and He-111 and Ju-88 all poorly armed compared to the B-17, 25 and 24. The " fight" was so close to the airbases both sides could rearm and refuel and get back to it. Yet, the west accounted for more aircraft destroyed. The fighting in North Afrika was done primarily by the MG armed P-40,s and Hurricanes of the RAF, RAAF and the USAAF. When the the Germans fled back to Italy and the surrounding area again P-40s, P-47's and P-51's were the majority of the fighters The Spit and the P-38 were not as prevelant. Certainly when the bombing campaign was under taken the cannon armed Spit was not the primary escort from Italy. The day light bombing campaign fought by the 8th AF was escorted by HMG armed fighters. Accounting for the majority of the victories of the late war.

The Finnish Buffalo had a 26:1 kill ratio armed only with .50's. Neither the Bf-109 nor the FW-190 had this favorable of a kill ratio, fighting the same cannon armed VVS. Not even touching on the PTO, where again the HMG armed aircraft did better than the cannon armed Spit. Against the Zero, by far the most numerous aircraft the Japanese produced.The Hellcat has the best kill ratio of any signficant aircraft flown by the allies.

The facts support the .50 as being the most effective weapon placed in an aircraft during WW II.

You can trot out all the charts. I've seen them all. In fact the best 20m cannon was argueably the one employeed by the VVS. again, fewer kills with greater opportunities than in the west.

How can you argue that the 20m was more effective. Numbers do not lie.

M_Gunz
09-29-2008, 08:11 AM
Statistics are used to make lies all the time.
All that's needed is to compile numbers with one set of meanings and assign a new label.

For example; kill counts = aircraft performance
That's a big one with who won teh war = who had the best being the king-daddy whopper.

You want to tell about trajectories, striking power or effective range then use ballistics.
Throwing in kill counts that depend on large numbers of other factors is BS.

here's Tony Williams miltary tech page (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/miltech.htm)

Here's the WWII fighter armament page. (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm)

If you look at Table 2 and take Gun Power which is damage x ROF, WWII M2 is far from the best.
6 of those is less than 2 Hispano II's alone. 8 is less than 2 Hispano V's.

The Hispanos fire with slightly less muzzle velocity (97%/93%) by shell type. If you want to
say that the 20mm slowed down quicker then please.. data. Ratio of mass to frontal area is
at least as important as form factor which is why slower MV artillery out-ranges MG's easily.

HuninMunin
09-29-2008, 09:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
I am traveling and do not have the number available However, I seem to recall the Hurricane was credited with more victories than the Spit in BOB. Of the Spit claims how many were actually from just MG armed variant? So the majority of the victories were from MG armed aircraft. Of course this is because the Luftwaffe was poorly trained with inexperienced teenagers piloting their aircraft.The very same inexperienced teenagers the US fought against late in the war. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif When the Luftwaffe was at its peak in the west the P-47 ( HMG armed ) turned the tide against the Luftwaffe.

In the East virtually every aircraft was cannon armed or had a variant that was cannon armed. including the lend lease P-39 and the Spit. The airwar was tactical one. Serving up many opportunites to shoot down the slower Stuka and He-111 and Ju-88 all poorly armed compared to the B-17, 25 and 24. The " fight" was so close to the airbases both sides could rearm and refuel and get back to it. Yet, the west accounted for more aircraft destroyed. The fighting in North Afrika was done primarily by the MG armed P-40,s and Hurricanes of the RAF, RAAF and the USAAF. When the the Germans fled back to Italy and the surrounding area again P-40s, P-47's and P-51's were the majority of the fighters The Spit and the P-38 were not as prevelant. Certainly when the bombing campaign was under taken the cannon armed Spit was not the primary escort from Italy. The day light bombing campaign fought by the 8th AF was escorted by HMG armed fighters. Accounting for the majority of the victories of the late war.

The Finnish Buffalo had a 26:1 kill ratio armed only with .50's. Neither the Bf-109 nor the FW-190 had this favorable of a kill ratio, fighting the same cannon armed VVS. Not even touching on the PTO, where again the HMG armed aircraft did better than the cannon armed Spit. Against the Zero, by far the most numerous aircraft the Japanese produced.The Hellcat has the best kill ratio of any signficant aircraft flown by the allies.

The facts support the .50 as being the most effective weapon placed in an aircraft during WW II.

You can trot out all the charts. I've seen them all. In fact the best 20m cannon was argueably the one employeed by the VVS. again, fewer kills with greater opportunities than in the west.

How can you argue that the 20m was more effective. Numbers do not lie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No they don't but I could't imagine an easier thing to missinterpret.
As Max ( ? ) pointed out, a statistic is always fashioned to reflect or highlight a certain element of the facts.
All statistics only make sense in their given context - although not all of them are there to suit an agenda - all of them make little or even no sense when applied to the wrong thought.

Kill ratios and the factors influencing them are perhaps the most complex things in warfare.
The number of factors influencing them borders the infinite and are therefor completely open to any form of mathematical statement / influence.
To base an argument on weapon efficiency on kills / losses is futile.
Especialy in WW2 airwar where there was virtually no single instance of equal force ( do not read numbers here but force as a sum of all aspects concerning combat capability ) between the given opposing powers.
In the end the weapons and even airplanes used play a minor role in actual combat.
The means to achive tactical superiority in any given engagement are deciding the outcome, these reach from smart or not so smart leadership, over morale and training standard to luck / bad luck.
Very impressivly demonstrated by say the Flying Tigers or the FAF.
To be frank, I think we should argue how the later was able to achive such a tremendous effectiveness despite the rather weak armament, not the other way round.

The reason why the .50s were absolutely sufficient lies in the absence of any heavy opposition ( bombers ).
And strangely enough in the MTO the loss figures for axis strike packages are slightly lower then on comparable sections of the eastern frontline.

In aircombat, where the maxim is to deliver the hardest hit in the shortest time, a cannon is the only multypurpose alternative.

thefruitbat
09-29-2008, 12:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> At low altitude, generally yes (apart from the XII which was fast at SL at the time of introduction). At high altitude it was generally competitive. It did loose out to the P51B in early 1944 at altitude until the XIV came along which left a small gap 20,000 to 25,000 ft and was tested as slightly faster above. Given the small difference it means a dead heat, in reality from 20,000 ft and above, and an iffy paint job or a dent in the leading edge would swap the places on service aircraft.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_RED">Generally speaking, all of the design contemporary first line fighters were within the 10%. In combat, it would be very difficult to realize any advantage. The Spitfire and P51 would be equally effective given equal pilots.</span>
The most notable difference would be in initial engagement speeds which generally depend on the cruise velocity of the aircraft.

That detail seems to be missing from games.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What an important point, something that illustrates how much it was the pilot not the plane.

The quality of training and tactics that were developed, had much more significance to pilots of all airforces, to there success, than whether they were armed with 20mm, or 50's.

To cite an example from this thread, that of the hellcats performance vs the zero, and to say that that is proof that 50's are better than 20mm's because of the kill ratio, is farcical. its simply attaching a fact to an attribute to suit, and completely ignoring all the actual reasons, such as tactics, quality and experience of pilots, and the standard of training of said pilots.

fruitbat

Aaron_GT
09-29-2008, 12:28 PM
You can't look at bald statistics of kill ratios and make prouncements on what the underlying factor is without doing the appropriate analysis otherwise you are 'data pooling' in which you through a series of seemingly related tests together when in fact they are weakly related.

As an example two reports of aircraft loss of the same type may appear to be related whereas one might be due to enemy action, one due to mechanical failure. They might appear to be related but are not.

There are a number of recognised techiques for statistical analyses, although the best would need more data on a fighter combat than is likely to be available. In the Bomber Command thread you can see Dyson trying to apply them with limited data, in fact he is tring to 'unpool' the data first, as much as he could with what limited data there was. Sometimes (as happens in the medical field) the results of such analyses are counter intuitive.

Really, to be objective, you need all manner of data. Maybe pancakes for breakfast in the US mess halls was a better start than knockwurst and that was a factor. That's meant as slightly humorous but not entirely - studies have recently shown that having a sugary drink can improve concentration a lot so a breakfast that delivers slow-release carbohydrates might boost your concentration enough to not be bounced. Unless you look at as many factors as possible in a structured way you might miss something vital.

Tux_UK
09-29-2008, 02:21 PM
Frequent_Flyer, your insistence on grossly oversimplifying the factors affecting such complex statistics as kill ratios means your arguments simply aren't worth the bytes they occupy.

Seriously, I have nothing against you personally, but implying that a WWII fighter's gun-type alone will account for it killing more enemies than it suffers losses is almost beyond ridicule.

I am honestly having difficulty in expressing my disdain for your arguments and their 'supporting' points. I'm sorry, and I want to emphasize again that it is nothing personal, but there you have it.

M_Gunz
09-29-2008, 02:39 PM
This being an election year the fashion is toward loyalties and pre-conceptions.
Actual thinking is out of style and actually checking whole pictures is definitely OUT.

He's a fanboy who already knows the answer. Those aren't arguments, they're justifications.

50 cal won teh war!

Frequent_Flyer
09-29-2008, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tux_UK:
Frequent_Flyer, your insistence on grossly oversimplifying the factors affecting such complex statistics as kill ratios means your arguments simply aren't worth the bytes they occupy.

Seriously, I have nothing against you personally, but implying that a WWII fighter's gun-type alone will account for it killing more enemies than it suffers losses is almost beyond ridicule.

I am honestly having difficulty in expressing my disdain for your arguments and their 'supporting' points. I'm sorry, and I want to emphasize again that it is nothing personal, but there you have it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

. If it truely upsets you to the point you cannot find expression for your distain, why respond? That is a form of expression.- brilliant -nothing personal.

Frequent_Flyer
09-29-2008, 06:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
You can't look at bald statistics of kill ratios and make prouncements on what the underlying factor is without doing the appropriate analysis otherwise you are 'data pooling' in which you through a series of seemingly related tests together when in fact they are weakly related.

As an example two reports of aircraft loss of the same type may appear to be related whereas one might be due to enemy action, one due to mechanical failure. They might appear to be related but are not.

There are a number of recognised techiques for statistical analyses, although the best would need more data on a fighter combat than is likely to be available. In the Bomber Command thread you can see Dyson trying to apply them with limited data, in fact he is tring to 'unpool' the data first, as much as he could with what limited data there was. Sometimes (as happens in the medical field) the results of such analyses are counter intuitive.

Really, to be objective, you need all manner of data. Maybe pancakes for breakfast in the US mess halls was a better start than knockwurst and that was a factor. That's meant as slightly humorous but not entirely - studies have recently shown that having a sugary drink can improve concentration a lot so a breakfast that delivers slow-release carbohydrates might boost your concentration enough to not be bounced. Unless you look at as many factors as possible in a structured way you might miss something vital. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In advancing an "argument" legal or otherwise statistics are generally distilled to what supports the point we are trying to demonstrate. I'm sure this is not a revalation for you. You and I could examine every conceivable factor which may or may not influence a particular outcome. Assign a number to this factor, run through all the mathamatical gymnastics and ultimately we will have proved nothing.If 2-3% of the rounds fired by the average pilot hit there intended target, maybe what you had for breakfast is as meaninful as any other statistic. Very few posters on these boards practice " good sceince ". Here is my assertion:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The facts support the .50 as being the most effective weapon placed in an aircraft during WW II. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which Luftwaffe fighter destroyed the most allied aircraft The BF-109, FW-190 or the ME 262, making it the most effective LW fighter?This statistic alone makes it the most effective LW fighter. Does that make it the best LW fighter ? Statistics say the ME 262 had the least kills of the 3. You can make an arguement it was the best, not the most effective, the facts do not support that assertion.

The following is useless information: The ROF is ( insert chart ) the weight of fire is ( insert chart ).Results are what matter. Arguements work backwards from the result. Trying to demonstrate why this particular factor or statistic should be given greater consideration for the result.

The US aircraft were given, lent or used by many different allies. Each with different training, needs,and breakfast as well as theaters of operation. The same holds true for the USAAF, USN and USMC and AVG.

Can you demonstrate why US designed,built and armed aircraft account for the majority of the western Allies kills? Your line of reasoning would more than likely be different than mine.The results are still the same, this group of aircraft combined to be the most effective.

If their adversaries were young,inexperienced, out of fuel,poorly trained, flying obsolete aircraft, or took off without breakfast is irrelavant.

JFK said, " Success has a thousand fathers. Failture is an orphan. "

Maybe there is a breakfast of champions?

M_Gunz
09-29-2008, 07:23 PM
Still can't finger out the difference between fighter, pilot, doctrine and mission effectiveness
and weapons effectiveness, huh?

Still playing the justification game?

At the start of Operation Torch, US fighters were controlled by ground commanders.
Losses of US fighters were HIGH since they were scattered over the front as top cover.
LW fighters would attack with local superiority every time.

Then Fighter Command was formed and the high losses ceased because of NEW STRATEGY AND TACTICS.

Before, during and after, the guns used by both sides were the same. Yet the effectiveness
of the fighters varied WIDELY.

You still want to go about fighter effectiveness = weapons effectiveness, there's many more
examples of the same thing before and after Operation Torch.

Why don't you research your subject more instead of coming back with the same lost approach?
It's clear you're not following very well what's being posted. I doubt you even know what
you're trying to argue because if you did then you'd know it's less than weak.

Are you having trouble with Tony William's site or did you just not bother looking?
You see the books he's published on weapons? He's not some fanboy playing games.

M_Gunz
09-29-2008, 07:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Can you demonstrate why US designed,built and armed aircraft account for the majority of the western Allies kills? Your line of reasoning would more than likely be different than mine.The results are still the same, this group of aircraft combined to be the most effective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wasn't mainly because of the guns, if that's your point, much as you'd have everyone believe.

ImpStarDuece
09-29-2008, 07:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
I am traveling and do not have the number available However, I seem to recall the Hurricane was credited with more victories than the Spit in BOB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, that might of been something to do with the Hurricane outnumbering the Spitfire 2:1 during the Battle of Britian period

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Of the Spit claims how many were actually from just MG armed variant? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of the 12 or so Spitfire Mk IBs that flew during the BoB period? About 5 kills and 1 probable with No 19 squadron. No 92 got their Mk IBs in mid November, too late for the battle.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> So the majority of the victories were from MG armed aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, this is true. Possibly though, it is because of the 1200 or so RAF fighters used in the Battle of Britain, about 1% were armed with cannon

When the Luftwaffe was at its peak in the west the P-47 ( HMG armed ) turned the tide against the Luftwaffe.[/quote]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The facts support the .50 as being the most effective weapon placed in an aircraft during WW II... In fact the best 20m cannon was argueably the one employeed by the VVS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So why, at every possible opportunity, did every nation who had a working 20mm cannon available, opt to replace their .50 class weapons with cannon?

The IJN, IJAF, VVS, RAF, Regia Aeronautica and USN all appear to be misguided in their assessment of the relative merits of HMGs vs 20mm cannon. Only the mighty USAAF, with its M2 Browning 12.7x99 wonderweapon, chose the right path (oh, and then went crazy and during the Korean war, even with the faster firing M3 on their aircraft, and found the 20 mm was more effective after all).

Might it have something to do with the fact that the US bolloxed up their redesign of the Hispano, resulting in 55,000 or more weapons of marginal reliability being manufactured? The RAF recieved thousands of American-made Hispanos under Lease-Lend, and yet none was ever installed in RAF aircraft.

Draw your own conclusions...

PS: The ShVAK, the standard Russian 20 mm was probably not the most effective 20 mm class weapon of the war. The later, lighter, faster firing B-20 was certainly an improvement though, but it was not available until the end of the war.

Frequent_Flyer
09-29-2008, 11:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The IJN, IJAF, VVS, RAF, Regia Aeronautica and USN all appear to be misguided in their assessment of the relative merits of HMGs vs 20mm cannon. Only the mighty USAAF, with its M2 Browning 12.7x99 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually yes. Good call

Kocur_
09-29-2008, 11:37 PM
How comfortable it must be then not to know that USAAC actually did the very same thing others did in late 1930s, that is they chose 20 mm cannon (lets not forget US own failed program of .90 cannon) for main fighters armament http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif Only after messing US Hispano up in most shameful way, they were forced to use .50, for they had nothing else. The shame had to be covered up, so we have .50 myth going on until today vs. almost nobody knowing of 20 mm AN M1 and AN M2 cannons and fact that they were ever licensed, adopted and mass produced, reaching over 130.000 examples usually of quality too low to do anything else but scrap them... It's always funny when someone belives in his own propaganda, and exactly that happened to USAF in Korea http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
In short: .50 never was a choice, wise or not. Not that I hope to change your happy views http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tux_UK
09-30-2008, 03:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tux_UK:
Frequent_Flyer, your insistence on grossly oversimplifying the factors affecting such complex statistics as kill ratios means your arguments simply aren't worth the bytes they occupy.

Seriously, I have nothing against you personally, but implying that a WWII fighter's gun-type alone will account for it killing more enemies than it suffers losses is almost beyond ridicule.

I am honestly having difficulty in expressing my disdain for your arguments and their 'supporting' points. I'm sorry, and I want to emphasize again that it is nothing personal, but there you have it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

. If it truely upsets you to the point you cannot find expression for your distain, why respond? That is a form of expression.- brilliant -nothing personal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Difficulty is different to inability. Here's a a sentence to help you remember: "Tux_UK has difficulty expressing his disdain for the ramblings of Frequent_Flyer, who has shown an inability to post an intelligent argument."

M_Gunz
09-30-2008, 05:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The IJN, IJAF, VVS, RAF, Regia Aeronautica and USN all appear to be misguided in their assessment of the relative merits of HMGs vs 20mm cannon. Only the mighty USAAF, with its M2 Browning 12.7x99 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually yes. Good call </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bad call actually. You've taken ImpStar's obvious sarcasm, stripped the context from it
and tagertized it into what you claim as a supporting statement.

IOW you've sank to troll tactics rather than admit your horse is dead.

M_Gunz
09-30-2008, 05:08 AM
BTW, a person can be killed just as dead with a .22 rimfire as with a 30-06.
That doesn't make the two equal.

Frequent_Flyer
09-30-2008, 12:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
BTW, a person can be killed just as dead with a .22 rimfire as with a 30-06.
That doesn't make the two equal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

However, if both were designed to "kill" and the .22 killed a greater number of persons in a prescribed amount of time vs. the 30-06. Than the .22 was more " effective ". Not the Best, nor does it matter.What matter's were the results.

As an aside. the .22 while not as powefull generally did more internal damage. It typically tore up the internal organs as it richchet off of bones within the body cavity.



Not as powerful, not the best, but more effective in this example.

HuninMunin
09-30-2008, 01:03 PM
Now even I am sure that you are trolling.
A major achivement I have to add.

Frequent_Flyer
09-30-2008, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The IJN, IJAF, VVS, RAF, Regia Aeronautica and USN all appear to be misguided in their assessment of the relative merits of HMGs vs 20mm cannon. Only the mighty USAAF, with its M2 Browning 12.7x99 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually yes. Good call </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bad call actually. You've taken ImpStar's obvious sarcasm, stripped the context from it
and tagertized it into what you claim as a supporting statement.

IOW you've sank to troll tactics rather than admit your horse is dead. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I gave the gentlemen the benefit of the doubt. I thought he know the HO-103 was a Browing .50, the IJN and IJAF modified, with a lighter vickers round in memory serves. Either way the Japanese kept them on their aircraft but prefered the harder hitting US Brownings. Per intelligence reports.

The Breda-Safat was also a Browning .50 , modified for the Regia Aeronatica. They kept these guns on their aircraft thruout the conflict.

He was being sarcastic you say. There goes my faith in humanity.

Aaron_GT
09-30-2008, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In advancing an "argument" legal or otherwise statistics are generally distilled to what supports the point we are trying to demonstrate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but if in the 'distillation' you data pool you may find that the expert witness on the other side will rip your argument to shreds. In areas where finding causes is important with large amounts of sometimes incomplete and even innaccurate data there are certain prescribed methods to tease out underlying causes and these are used extensively in the medical field.

As I noted before you see Dyson trying to do this with limited calculation resources in WW2 to analyse Bomber Command losses. Similar analytical techniques were used to examine downed enemy aircraft to determine cause, and again in the USSBS. This was done because it was critically important to the war to make policy based on evidence, not marshall analyses to fit a preconceived notion that might be wrong.

The problem during WW2 is that advances in theory and computational resources were not such that you could do the full analyses which is why Dyson made so many approximations. But WW2 gave a big boost to computer technology, control theory, statistics, operational theory and project management techniques that together produced a flowering of disciplines in the early 1950s.

JSG72
09-30-2008, 02:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In advancing an "argument" legal or otherwise statistics are generally distilled to what supports the point we are trying to demonstrate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but if in the 'distillation' you data pool you may find that the expert witness on the other side will rip your argument to shreds. In areas where finding causes is important with large amounts of sometimes incomplete and even innaccurate data there are certain prescribed methods to tease out underlying causes and these are used extensively in the medical field.

As I noted before you see Dyson trying to do this with limited calculation resources in WW2 to analyse Bomber Command losses. Similar analytical techniques were used to examine downed enemy aircraft to determine cause, and again in the USSBS. This was done because it was critically important to the war to make policy based on evidence, not marshall analyses to fit a preconceived notion that might be wrong.

The problem during WW2 is that advances in theory and computational resources were not such that you could do the full analyses which is why Dyson made so many approximations. But WW2 gave a big boost to computer technology, control theory, statistics, operational theory and project management techniques that together produced a flowering of disciplines in the early 1950s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And a meltdown of society as we used to know it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Statistics. Are the most inhumane practice known to man. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kocur_
09-30-2008, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
I thought he know the HO-103 was a Browing .50, the IJN and IJAF modified, with a lighter vickers round in memory serves. Either way the Japanese kept them on their aircraft but prefered the harder hitting US Brownings. Per intelligence reports. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those were then very crappy Intelligence reports for IJN did NOT use 12.7 mm x 81 Vickers round (as IJA did) but 13.2 mm x 99 Hotchkiss, which was basically identical to US .50 BMG, save for the projectile diameter of course.
IJN would NEVER use anything more than smallarms coming from IJA and vice versa.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
The Breda-Safat was also a Browning .50 , modified for the Regia Aeronatica. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. Breda-Safat was completely independent Italian design, starting form Giuseppe Mascarucci, who in turn started by modifying Revelli design. And those Italian .50s were fed with 12.7 mm x 81 cartridge, not .50 BMG.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
They kept these guns on their aircraft thruout the conflict. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

... making them auxiliary weapon as soon as they adopted MG 151/20.

Aaron_GT
09-30-2008, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And a meltdown of society as we used to know it? Wink2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that too, unfortunately - uncredibly bloody, no doubt about that. But I was talking about the science that came up in the period as that was the subject at hand (or related to it).

JSG72
09-30-2008, 04:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And a meltdown of society as we used to know it? Wink2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that too, unfortunately - uncredibly bloody, no doubt about that. But I was talking about the science that came up in the period as that was the subject at hand (or related to it). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I repeat.Statistics!(A Science I beleive.) Are the most inhumane practice known to man.

Urufu_Shinjiro
09-30-2008, 04:36 PM
I read somewhere that 94% of all statistics are made up.....

stalkervision
09-30-2008, 04:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
I read somewhere that 94% of all statistics are made up..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and probably that one too buddy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Aaron_GT
09-30-2008, 05:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And I repeat.Statistics!(A Science I beleive.) Are the most inhumane practice known to man. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given that some of the most intensive uses are in epidemiology and clinical trials I can't agree.

M_Gunz
09-30-2008, 05:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
BTW, a person can be killed just as dead with a .22 rimfire as with a 30-06.
That doesn't make the two equal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

However, if both were designed to "kill" and the .22 killed a greater number of persons in a prescribed amount of time vs. the 30-06. Than the .22 was more " effective ". Not the Best, nor does it matter.What matter's were the results.

As an aside. the .22 while not as powefull generally did more internal damage. It typically tore up the internal organs as it richchet off of bones within the body cavity.



Not as powerful, not the best, but more effective in this example. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're justifying poorly. The Rifle does not do anything on it's own.

M_Gunz
09-30-2008, 05:44 PM
The first use of statistics I know of was to pinpoint the sources of a disease in London
to the water wells and from there they decided to build the sewer system to literally
drain the c.r.a.p out of London.

Not all use of statistics is bad but bad use of statistics is the hallmark of the charlatan.

It's still troll season at The Zoo.

Frequent_Flyer
09-30-2008, 07:04 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kocur_:Wrong. Breda-Safat was completely independent Italian design, starting form Giuseppe Mascarucci, who in turn started by modifying Revelli design. And those Italian .50s were fed with 12.7 mm x 81 cartridge, not .50 BMG.[\QUOTE]

You left this out:

" Breda based their designs off Browning machine-guns, adapted for Italian exigences, in particular with the change of cartridges from 7.62x63mm to 7.7x56R and from 12.7×99 to 12.7×81mm. The latter especially weakened the weapon and the goal of a lighter machine-gun with a high rate of fire proved a failure. In any case, the completed gun saw the concurrence of similar projects from the powerful industrial group Fiat, which proposed new weapons designed by its subsidiary factory, the SAFAT. But Breda/Browning machine guns proved superior, and the heaviest Browning machine gun was five kilograms lighter than the Fiat-SAFAT."

M_Gunz
09-30-2008, 07:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And I repeat.Statistics!(A Science I beleive.) Are the most inhumane practice known to man. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given that some of the most intensive uses are in epidemiology and clinical trials I can't agree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Industrial Quality Control makes effective use of statistics as well.

Chemistry also behaves by statistics but since even small samples have huge populations the
results come out at rock solid probabilities. However if I were to examine a sample of
boiling water I would not find every molecule at anything like a uniform energy state.

Kocur_
09-30-2008, 11:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
You left this out: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it's Col. Chinn vs. Wikipedia... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif