Long range Spit seems pretty unlikely without total replacement of the wing. Supermarine did build on capable of flying the Atlantic (wanted to send it to the US for PR tour) but they couldn't put meaningful tankage in the very thin wings without total rebuild that reduced structural strength well below combat requirements. Never heard of anyone suggesting US build Spitfires except Seversky in his 1942 book VICTORY THROUGH AIR POWER that recommended scrapping all US designs in favor of Spitfire and Lancaster.

Oldbutnotwise, who developed this long range escort Spitfire in the US? I've never heard of it. Did some research on this. Original Spit carried no fuel in wing, only 85 Imp.Gal. in fuselage. In first redesign (Mk VIII) they managed to shoe horn a small (14 Imp.Gal.) tank into the leading edge of each wing, which is why Mk VIII hand longest range of any fighter Spitfire. PR Spits had fuel in wings, but had to take the armament out to make room. Spit wing was very thing with very wide cord. Gave excellent low speed handling qualities, but needed a lot of internal structure to give adequate strength and stiffness. Add armament and the wheels from the outward folding landing gear and there wasn't much space to add fuel. The leading edge tanks were possible because of armament changes. Most of the P51's fuel was carried in the wing, between the spars. P38J's added leading edge wing tanks (46 Imp. Gal. each)when they changed the cooling system for the supercharger air.

It wasnt my book and I am unable to recall the title (othyer than spitfire obviously) I think it was by the boeing corparation as atempt for them to provide a fighter to the US services after failing to win any figter contracts of the early war years - but that may be just me filling in the gaps, it was just a paragraph i seem to recall and the only bit i remeber is that the work was carried out in the US which is why i stuck in my memory. if i can find the book or recall more i will post again

Thanx. Please do. From my research Supermarine made all sorts of efforts to increase Spit range with little success. They did install various fuel tanks in rear fuselage of the Mk IX in several sizes up to about 40 Imp.Gal. but they were not self sealing and threw the CG of the a/c way off. Were used to ferry a/c but not usable for combat. They even had problems with the conformal drop tanks they used as these would sometimes hit and damage the tail when dropped. Still don't see what could have been done for a major increase in fuel capacity without completely changing the wing. Wouldn't have been a Spitfire any more at all.

when you bear in mind what they did do to the spit would that not just have been a different chapter? The perort as far as i remember didnt give details just that it occured. bear in mind that the late model spits had an internal fuel range of 700- 800 miles which compairs with that of the p51/p38 it was only that the the spit never got the drop tank issue sorted it seems

The FR XVIII, had around an extra 100 gallons of internal fuel. 66 gallons extra in the fuselage, and 26 extra in each wing. That should have given it a fuel load of over 200 gallons. It was basically a MkXIV with a strengthened wing, it was too late for the war though, although 300 were built. However, it goes to show that the spit was capable of carrying much more fuel than it did, even if only in a rear fuselage tank like the FR.XVIII and the Mustang. I always wondered why there was no effort to put 3 drop tanks on the spit, a 90 gallon one on the centerline, and a pair of smaller ones under the wings would have allowed for much greater flexibility than a single large one.

Reply. Ref Spit Mk XVIII. The construction methods used to reinforce the wing for the added fuel tankage caused enough problems that the method was not used in the later Mk 20 series. Except for the XVIII there wasn't much range (internal fuel) increase in the whole line. From the William Green WAR PLANES OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR series, Vol. 2. All are ranges at most economical speed: Mk IIA - 500 miles, Mk Vc - 510, Mk LFIXE - 430, Mk VIII - 660, Mk XIVE - 460. Note hat the VIII had the small wing tanks added, but the Griffin engine in the XIV ate that back up. For comparison (same source, Vol. 4. P38F - 900 miles, P38J - 1175, P51D - 1300. Can't find figures for the P47 at economical speed. Numbers for range at maximum cruise suggest it would have been about 700 to 750 for the P47D-35.

[quote]ps why is the spits short range an issue? the spit was designed for home defense not as a long range escort, the british never intended to escort bombers over berlin by day it was only when you yanks tried it and were shot to pieces did a long range escort fighter become desirable, and why the spit was nt replaced by the P51, the short range was not that much of a downside[/quote] The reason that the short range is such a big problem, is that it also entails a very slow cruising speed. The most extencive studdies have shown conclusively that low cruising speed is detrimental to the pilot's health. [quote]why when the US was gouing to fly these high level bomb range had the US not got a suitable fighter escort?[/quote] Like the P-38, P-47 and P-51 don't have enough range? [quote]using post war figures based on actual losses by both side the following ratios of USAF forces in europe were complied Kill ratio: P-51, 1.96 to 1; Spitfire, 1.34 to 1; P-38, 1.01 to 1. Loss rate: Spitfire 0.66%; P-51, 1.18%; P-38, 1.35%. not so hot for P38 as your figures are they [/quote] Where did you get these figures from? I note that the Germans list the P-51 as the cause of 48.9% of ALL COMBAT LOSSES of aircraft! That leaves 51.1% to split between all the rest!

[quote]the length of a merlin was 5ft 9 inches the length of the hispano cannon was 7ft 9 inches, the length of the fuewl tank was 2 ft 2inchs at the top and 1ft 8 inches at the bottom(to allow for pilot) so mounting your cannons in the nose would require the moving of the pilot back by at least 6 inches and the loss of the lower fuel tank![/quote] Since the length of the engine has NOTHING to do with the length of engine bay, from spinner boss to firewall, which is 1.873 by 0.855 wide x 1.262 meters tall! The Merlin is only 0.771 meters wide across the cilinder heads and LESS THAN HALF that wide threw the oil pan! Since the cowling is nearly a perfect oval over the bottom half and the ~0.9 meter tall motor sits very near the top there is about 0.36 meters under the engine and a 0.36M by 0.174M high and wide space on either side of the lower engine, INSIDE THE COWL! If those spaces were used for mounting guns, you could put SIX 20MMs under the cowl, WITHOUT firing threw the prop boss. Two on either side of the oil pan and two more under neath it. This would require re-design of the engine mounting along the lines of the P-51H, but is eminently do-able! I recomend that you make photo copies of the engine cross section from any of a dozzen books and then make some same scale photo copies of the front of the plane. This will quickely show you the huge space left there, when you cut out the engine and place it over the plane! [quote]also i was taliking to one of the team that designed the venom and he pointed out that the twin boom layout that the venom shared with the P38 is the worst config for aircraft near the speed of sound, seemly the air from the nose creates terrible vortexs in the area between it and the tail causing the tail surfaces to be badly effected at lower speed than the single tail aircraft [/quote] This is a design detail that often flumoxes all designers of all types of planes! Look at the Airbus whos' tail fell off over New York with much loss of life a few years ago! Or the English Electra Fighter that took three tries to get almost right?

Nice post larryjcr! I also note that with drop tanks the P-51D could go 2,250 miles at a cruise speed that was 40 MPH faster than the Spit's econo cruise speed that typicaly gave <500 miles!