To OBNW. The Spitfire was eventually given a retractable tailwheel in the MkVIII. The original Spitfire prototype had a skid. Zero was introduced to combat in China early in '40. Channault sent reports about them to the USAAC which ignored them. Best operating height of the first model was about 19K. Equal to a Spitfire MkI. By the time AVG saw action most of the IJN fighters were busy elsewhere. Ki44 first saw action in China in Nov. '41. The Ki43 entered service in summer of '41. Best operating height was again about 19K (that for '109E was 12.5K) and rate of climb at least equal to a '109E, although considerably slower top speed. Hardly low altitude a/c.

point i was making was 1 the p40 in the avg didnt meet the zero in combat. the ki43 although had the altitude it didnt perform well at altitude(the p40 was the same whilst it could get to altitude it was out performed) just because an aircraft can get its best speed at a certain height doesnt mean that it works well at that height. the spit mk 1 all had tail wheels it was the prottype that had a skid as the mk was to work from metalised runways a skid was not an option. the late spits did recieve the retracting tail wheel as when speeds exceeded 400mph the difference started to become noticable, the first spit to get the tail wheel was the mk3 but it was never carried though to the production mk5s the oil cooler and radiator in the spit were of a very effiecent design and allowed the cooling for the minimum of drag, they were actaully an american design that was superior to anything we had.

Problem in '41 and '42 in the Pacific was that combat was at higher altitudes than expected by the pre-war AAC planning, (not lower) and the Japanese pilots were the best trained in the world at the time. In China, Channault had developed tactics to deal with the situation, and they worked. USAAF in SWPAC didn't do nearly as well and was on the defensive until arrival of P38s in Nov. '42. Nothing wrong with the P40s except lack of a good blower, and pilots not experienced enough to find a counter for the situation. Around Guadelcanal, the USMC had a/c (F4F) with better high altitude performance than the Army birds, and an advantageous operational position. In North Africa, until late in '42 the situation was somewhat similar -- Hurricane was no match for a '109, and Curtiss types usually being attacked from above, but RAF had an growing numberical superiority and the German fighters were fixated on 'free hunting' in small groups. If the Brits were getting the radiators from the US they should have bought propellers while they were at it. The P36 had 3-blade metal CS props from the beginning and the Spits and Hurris barely got rid of the 2-blade, 2-position wooden props before they got into combat.

"Problem in '41 and '42 in the Pacific was that combat was at higher altitudes than expected by the pre-war AAC planning, (not lower)." Wars have a lousy way of not working out the way you planned. Thats why building a plane that could fight at all altitudes would have been the smart move. "Nothing wrong with the P40s except lack of a good blower...." ... and that it had about 1300lb too much weight, a problem that couldn't be solved. It was also underarmed until the 6 x .5's came onboard.

A spit still has half a tank of gas left after a climb to 20,000 feet and a half house at most economical cruise. That is enough fuel left for 20 minutes of METO power and 30 minutes of most ecnomical. That also includes a 45 minute reserve at most economical. That is enough for a about a 110 mile radius of action with a fair bit of combat. You are also missing the point that the P-40 would most likely not have had the rear fuselage tank filled because the danger it would have caused if it wasn't completely empty before engaging the enemy. Without the rear tank filled the P-40 has no range advantage over the Hurricane or Spitfire. The P-40 was simply an inferior aeroplane compared to the Spitfire.

just as a side note, the early (1942) maltese spitfires had rear fuselage tanks fitted - which gave them a range of 650miles. Later maltese spits had conformal drop tanks which gave them a 1100miles range and still had a suffient reserve. They were thus able to fly the distance between London to St Petersburg. (let alone Gibralter to Malta). They had a total of 284 imperial gallons on board.

True, but the conformal tanks could not be dropped in flight, were not self sealing, and even when empty reduced the a/c performance radically. The rear fuselage tank was also for ferry flights. When even partly full it put the cg so far off normal combat maneuvers weren't possible, and it wasn't self sealing, so that, even if emptied in flight was still a bomb waiting for a single tracer bullet to set it off. Two .50s and four .30s was still at least as good as eight .303s for armament. The Tomahawk was equal or superior to the Hurricane (which was good enough for the BoB) in everything except rate of climb up to 15K with the Allison, and to any height with the Merlin, which is why Luft fighter pilots who flew against both in North Africa considered the Curtiss's much better than the Hurris. RAF fighters in the BoB spent most of their time either climbing hard or running to intercept, not at cruising power. That's why barely 50% of BoB sorties actually intercepted.

"True, but the conformal tanks could not be dropped in flight, were not self sealing, and even when empty reduced the a/c performance radically." this is way outside my knowledgebase - but are you sure? I was under the impression that the final version of the tanks was able to be released in flight. They were 170 imp gallon tanks. I know that the Mk1 and Mk2 tanks could be released manually within 15mins of landing, but I was pretty sure that the final was releasable, but, as a definitive statement, this is way outside my comfort zone... ;)

The fuselage tank in a Tomahawk was self sealing, so could be used (like the one in the P51) for combat missions, as long as enough of the fuel was burned off before actual combat so that the cg was within proper limits. Combat-usable internal fuel was 148 gal. compared to the Spitfire Is 85 gal. The Tomahawk could also carry a drop tank of up to 150 gal.

Oop. I was wrong on one point about the conformal fuel tank. It could be dropped. And it would probably have been very useful in the BoB if it had been available. It's weakness was that it wasn't pressurized and so wouldn't feed fuel at high altitude, which wouldn't have been that bad a problem in the BoB where most of the fighting was below 20K anyway. On the otherhand, bringing it up, kind of conceeds my basic argument about the importance of range, as carrying it crippled the climb capability of the Spitfire. The preceeved need for max. climb rate is the justification for not building adequate range into the Spit.