Because it's fun. And, besides, under all the detail fussing is a serious point about what a 'fighter' actually is. The Spitfire was the definition of one particular type of fighter: the local area defensive interceptor. Much of the ink being spilled here is the relative importance of other qualities, particularly range, which was the Spitfire's primary weakness.

Twofer the price of one! First Ausengineer then OBNW! RE: mission profile >>So if you include 10 gallons warm up and taxi, which is very generous, you end up with a 25 minutes reserve instead of 45.<< Just how do you compute this? Reserve is flown at the most economical rate of 22-28 gallons per hour depending on engine and moddel. How do you equate the required fuel burn to start, warm and taxy to 20 minutes at econocruise? Both expenditures are REQUIRED! In addition you continiously understate consumption and ignore other requirements. Why do you do that? It is a mater of historical record that the average spit mission lasted 40 minutes at altitude. It is also a mater of historical record that less than half of all Spitfire intercept sorties were successfull. Where do you get these numbers from? >>That 40 gallons equates to between 77 and 81 miles more RADIUS of intercept! How many more successfull missions would that equate to?<< Just what on earth make you think that you would have 40 gallons of gas left? Exactly what was wrong with my flight plan/senario? State exactly which of my figures was off and why. You can not make a generalised statement and expect it to stick. Untill you and the rest can answer the last set of questions you do not have a valid argument. >>The burden of proof is not on me shooter. If you want to argue that 50-70 miles more radius would have resulted in some huge increase in effectiveness you have to provide the proof to back up your claim. << Yes it is! I have listed a typical flight profile and you have not answered it point by point. You have made generalised claims which do not reflect actual facts or realistic flight profiles. You have not answered the question as to why less than half of all intercept missions met the enimy. It is my contention that short range caused by the lack of fuel tankage was the main cause. >>I have shown that the radius of action of a spitfire easily encompasses all of southern england.<< Only by ignoring many of the required fuel expendatures that do not relate to the specific mission, such as warm up and taxiing. >> Myself and others have pointed out time and time again the multitude of problems and holes in your supposedly brilliant strategy<< Faulty arguments do not refute valid theories! No one on theis board has made a valid refutation to any of my points. You continue to post fractional scenarios without answering the exact charges. Why were less than half of the Spitfire's intercept missions successfull? Exactly how many planes did Spits down? How many sorties did Spits fly durring the war? You have never answered these BASIC questions and untill you do, you are not perswasive. Now on to OBNW. >>well as the p40 would have required an extra 20 minutes to get to altitude to intercept the aircraft would have been scrambled whilst the germans were forming up over france,<< Since the time to climb to 15K' was only 5.1 to 5.3 minutes and the initial rate was 2700 to 3100 F/M, AT LEAST ACCORDING TO rAY WAGENER'S BOOK aMERICAN cOMBAT pLANES PAGES 208-209, I sincerely dought that it would have taken anywere near 20 additional minutes to climb to the absolute cieling of any German bomber of the BoB era! Spouting bogus numbers without referances makes your argument look, well, bogus and weak! >>The p40D/E of 1942 was completely outclassed by the me109e above 9000ft as was proved beyond doubt in the PTO so why would the inferior P40(no suffix) have been better in 1940? nearly all the bob was fought at altitudes of 15000ft+ << I suppose that the Hurricane was a match for the Me? The facts that you so convieniently ignore are that none of the planes involved had the range to get the job done and that range can be converted into speed. With the restrictions to throttle use neccessitated by the requirement to be able to fly home to the fields in France, even the lowely hawker had better performance than the Me-109E durring most of it's time over England! In fact the performance stats of the origional P-40(NO Suffix) from page 209 of Ray wagoner's book American Combat Planes, Curtis P-40, power1040HP, DIMENTIONS; Weights;5376Lbs EEW, Gross 6787, Max=7215 Lbs. Fuel=120-181 GALLONS! Top Speed @15K'=357MPH, cRUISING 277mph!, Absolute cieling 33,800', Climb=3,80FPM, 15,000'/5.3Minutes and RANGE 650Miles@277MPH, 950Miles@250MPH AND 1400Miles@188MPH! The realivant numbers for the early BoB Spit, from page six of Stewart Wilson's newest book are; Speed 355MPH(OTHERS LIOST VARIOUS NUMBERS UP TO 362MPH),MAX CLIMB 2530FPM, TIME TO 20K' 9.4 Minutes!, time to 30K'=16.4Min. Note that ALL OF THESE NUMBERS ARE LESS THAN THOSE OF THE P-40! It is clear from these figures that the origional P-40(No Suffix!) was closer to the Spitfire in performance than the Hawker and vastly supirior to either RAF plane in range and cruise speed! While the early Spit could cruise <450 miles at less than 200MPH, the P-40 could c

>>only if there had been more p40/39 than hurricanes and as the first p40 didnt reach service till april 40 and the first p39 was december 40 the chances of being more than a handfull of p40 available would have been slight so even if the p40 scored as many as the hurricane(on later war experiance an unlikely occurance) then the spit would have shot down some 20 - 30 times as many (based on the likelyhood of there being 20-30 times as many spits as p40s) so that makes makes (by your own accounting methods) the spit a vastly superior fighter!<< You miss the entire idea! I posit that the P-40 replaced the Spitfire! It was much easier to build, had as good or better performance in most things that counted. (Although it did not turn as well it rolled quicker!) Therefore, think two P-40s instead of each Spitfire! Twice as many P-40 as Spits would have downed significantly more germans that the Spits did historicaly. In addition it would have made many more successfull intercepts/mission/sortie, because of it's longer range and higher cruising speed! >>the spit was used as the test bed for dive trails, yes the spit achived it in recorded dives ones that only the foolhardy would re atempt,<< ENOUGH SAID! >> however it was always credited at being able to survive dives that would pull apart other aircraft,<< Thje published VNE was 455MPH! the realivant numbers for the P-38 you site later in this PP is 505MPH! >> it certainly would survive better in a dive than the p38 which was renown for coming apart in midair.<< Only if you assume that the P-38 did not pull out between the 455 a Spit could do and the 505MPH it was good for. >>yet the mustang was never fitted with the bigger griffin why?<< Remember the D'stang was faster than the MkXIV without installing the griffon engine! Cruise and at range where the -14 required drop tanks and the 'stang did not. Tanks caused a 15-17MPH reduction in speed. The P-51H was the single fastest piston engined plane of the entire war! At 487MPH it was about 30MPH faster than any griffon engined service Spitfire! >> (actually it was tried but the only place they could get it to fit was behind the pilot ala p39 and it was a dog and wouldnt get close to the speeds of a merlin vesion so was abandond)<< This is simply not true at all. Read any of the Mustang books to refute this totaly! >>by the way you think the 109F was one of the best fighters of ww2?<< Again you missquote me! I stated that I prefered the Me-109K-10? Since it was fastyer than any service Spit, durring or after the war and had much supirior weapons system. In addition, any of the nose gun Me's was a better mount than it's contemporary Spit competiter. >> an aircraft that was slower, climbed slower, rolled slower, dove slower, turned slower, was out gunned by and had less range than a spit was somehow the best? << That you continue to make false statements like the one above is not excusable! Acording to page 97 of the book "AN ILLISTRATED ANATOMY OF THE WORLDS FIGHTERS, by William Green and Gordon Swanborough, ( both noted experts of unasailable standing!) "The Bf-109 concept was the more advanced: it was to place the German fighter at a disadvantage to the Spit in agility, but gave it the edge in CLIMBING, DIVING AND LEVEL SPEED BELOW 20,000 FEET!" Many other experts have remarked that the Me-109 also rolled faster than any Spit, but I do not have a book handy at the moment to quote as a refferance. But should you persist in this type of argument, I will certainly find serveral to use against you. Please refrain from making unsupported claims or silly statements in the future. Again I ask how many planes did the RAF actualy down/destroy and how many Spits were lost? Untill you can answer these two questions, you are unarmed in this battle of wits!

>>The tank effected handling no worse than on the Mustang.<< Another falshood! The CG limets were much longer in the 'Stang than the Spit who's eliptical wing was notorious for narrow CG limets! >>If 40 minutes was the average flight time for a spitfire mission in the BoB range and endurance must have definately not been an issue. There is no way with a 40 minute flight that a spit can even come close to emptying the tanks, that includes start up and taxi.<< Again you do not have a clue what you are saying! Takeoff and climb to 20K' left 40-46 m inutes worth of fule on board at METO power! Five minutes of combat at full power would reduce this to only 33-36 minutes of fliing time! Because combat was inevitably flown at "FULL RICH" mixture to prevent damage to the engine with sudden throttle changes, the planes used much more gas in combat than in test! All of the widely published numbers are for "Lean" mixture as used in test and training. Full rich reduced the economy of the engine by as much as 45% depending on throttle poss! You realy should learn how to fly before you make such statements! >> So either spits were taking off with less than full tanks or coming back after exhausting their ammunition with plenty of fuel to spare. If one of these was indeed what was happening it doesn't really indicate a need for a longer range or endurance. << Just one more example of lack of actual knowledge! Buy a Spitfire pilots manual for petes sake! They are only 30-45 bucks and you won't look like such a ignoramious when you write this BS.

from OBNW>>Range was only an advantage for escort roles and as only the US had a need for single seat escort fighters!<< Another failure of the thought proccesses!

To OBNW; >>and this statement is proved how? you claim that the P38 was less likely to come apart in a dive yet it was issue with the model till the end of its life, the dive brakes was a fudge to get rround the problem not a fix.<< The pilots amnuals for both state 455MPH VNE for the Spit and 505MPH VNE for the P-38! Thin is a realitive term! The Spit's wing was acualy thicker than the P-38's over most of it's span! The T/C ratio was only 6% for the Spit but the cord was three times that of the -38s outer wings! Visit The AF Museum at daton where you can see and measure both to prove this for your self! >>Can you provide evidence that the spit was weaker? as stated before the spit had the record for the highest dive speed achived and survived of any straight wing piston aircraft, this would imply that the spit could and did survive dives that caused the total loss of P38s << Wrong on several counts! The lack of strength in the wing was well known and documented in many books. The dive speed was because compressability hit later due to the low T/C ratio. This refered to a loss of controle problem not the strength or lack of it. >>yet shooter claims the opposite, that the p38's wing was less lift producing threfore less drag, which of you is correct ?<< Again you miss quote me and miss the point entirely! I was refering to Aspect ratio not shape! >>Ithink this is rubbish as the IL2 was by far and away stronger(and it was a single seater to begin with the gunner was a later addition) as was the tempest, typhoon to name a few. << Again you confuse damage resistance and tollerance to strength! The Il-2 was limeted to a 4.5/6 G maneuver due to it's limeted design strength! Does that sound like a stronger plane to you?

"Another falshood! The CG limets were much longer in the 'Stang than the Spit who's eliptical wing was notorious for narrow CG limets!" yet the manuals say exactly the same thing. Flight with the rear fuselage tank full is restricted to straight and level. Sounds like the Mustang suffered from exactly the same problems as the spitfires with rear fuselage tanks.

---

Here are some facts about the fuel consumption of the MkI spitfire shooter: Capacity: 85 Imp Gallons Consumptions All out level: 89 gal/hr Climbing/METO: 81 gal/hr Most economical cruising: 25 gal/hr Time to climb to 20,000 feet was 8 minutes Now, I'm going to use some maths here shooter, don't be alarmed it's fairly simple, -Ok, so we start with 85 gallons of fuel, 10 gallons used in startup, warm up and taxi. We now have 75 gallons. - Climb for 8 minutes to 20,000 feet at climb power, refering to the above information fuel is used at a rate of 81 gallons/hour. Therefore the fuel consumed is = (8/60)*81 = 10.8 gallons, round that up to 11 gallons to be conservative. Thus after climb the fuel remaining is = 75-11 = 64 gallons - Now for the outbound cruise of 100 miles, we will say there is a 20 mph headwind, so the ground speed at economical cruise is = 220-20 = 200 mph, so the spit has to fly at economical for 30 minutes. Therefore fuel consumed = (30/60)*25 = 12.5 gallons. Fuel remaining after outbound cruise is = 64-12.5 =51.5 gallons. - At the interception point we want to fly at maximum continuous for 20 minutes. Although 5 minutes of this may be spent at WEP, it's rate of consumption is only 8 gal/hour greater than METO and the additional gallon or two used would most likely be cancelled out by times in combat when the throttle was not opened up to METO. So we can safely use 81 gal/hr as an average figure for fuel consumption during combat. So fuel used = (20/60)*81 = 27 gallons. Total fuel used thus far is = 51.5-27 = 24.5 gallons of fuel remaining. - Now the return leg of cruise, we will assume that there is a 20 mph headwind again, and that the decent from cruise altitude uses fuel at the same rate and is done at the same speed as level cruising in order to be conservative. Fuel used = (30/60)*25 = 12.5 gallons used. Total fuel remaining = 24.5-12.5 = 12 gallons. - 12 gallons remaining is equivilent to 29 minutes of additional flight time at most economic cruise speed. Summary of the Above 85 gallons to start with 10 gallons used in warm up and taxi, 75 gallons remaining 11 gallons used in climb to 20,000 feet, 64 gallons remaining 12.5 gallons used in cruise to 100 miles, 51.5 gallons remaining 27 gallons used in combat, 24.5 gallons remaining 12.5 gallons used in return cruise, 12 gallons remaining 12 gallons is a 29 minute reserve at economical cruising speed. Greater endurance could be achieved by throttling back to maximum endurance settings, probably greater than 45 minutes. I actually have a number of spitfire manuals and they agree with everything above.

The redline on the airspeed indicator of a P-38 is 420 mph, that is straight from the P-38 POH. TAS is limited to between 440 and 460 mph, this is again from the P-38 POH.

To Shooter: ref the Mustang's fuselage tank. Burning off 30 gal put it within CG limits, but there were still problems. Quote from a P51 pilot, Capt. Jess Thompson, 55th FG UK, '44.: "We always took off on the main fuselage tank (right behind the pit) and tried to retain the remainer of that tank to come home and land on. So we always ... had a half tank of fuel to slosh around unpleasantly during combat. A pilot who had not developed techniques to allow for this could get into serious difficulties ..." The 50% interception rate for BoB sories came from me. I got it from DUEL OF EAGLES by Peter Townsend.

To AussieEngineer: The trouble with you mission profile is that you assume too much time at economical cruising. Once GCI had decided where to send the squadron, they were given a steer and ordered to 'buster' (maximum practical speed) for the interception. Assume interception was made, after combat the a/c are scattered in 1s and 2s and eager to get out of the combat zone before some wandering '109 comes by, so return isn't going to be at economical cruise either. Assuming no interception (CGI misdirected, or fail to spot a course change by the target formation) after the 'buster' interception run, they don't have fuel enough to do it again, then fight and return, so they'll be returned to base. Since GCI wants them ready to go again as soon as possible, that won't be at economical cruising either, if there's any indication of further enemy activity. If the Spitfire had 30-40% more endurance (range) they would have been able to make another intercept attempt (second 'buster' run), improving the percentage of sorties that engaged.