Note when you compar fuel capacities with US planes convert to common measure, either imperial or US, otherwise the figures can seem a bit funny and can make some US planes seem to have huge amounts more fuel. For example, the common amount given for Mustang drop tanks is 150 gals (2 x 74), thats in US gals. In UK gals it is 125 gals (2 x 62.5). On the Mustang (all in imperial) we have 150 gals internal, plus 71 gals rear tank, 221 gals in total. Not a huge diff to a Mk VIII with a 75 gal internal tank (96+27+75=198). Interestingly the mpg figures for both are quite similar, except that the Mustang had a higher cruse speed (250mph). It used more gals/hr, but covereed a greater distance per hour so the mpg was about the same ballpark. The advantage of being a bit less draggy, though in some ways it could have worked against them. 250mph was a bit higher than the bombers cruise speed (going there at least), so they must have lost a bit weaving around. Then again with its fuel reserves it wouldn't make much difference. When you've got another 30-40 gals up your sleeve you have a lot of flexibility.

And my typing is rubbish tonight, reading over the posts looks like a dyxlexic having a fit. Sorry.

D--d disrespectful keyboards! How dare they!

remeber that long range escort wasnt a high prioity for the RAF, and the Mk9 was sufficient to do the majority of the roles asked of it. by the way regarding drop tanks test during the war showed that even if a drop tank was hit and ignited(not as easy as it would seem) then it caused virtually no damage to the aircraft. the idea that range was required is mainly a US viewpoint, the RAF whilst not adverse to more range were more intersted in other aspects of the perfoamance profile. a recent read details some of the testing on droptanks "fighter aircraft" by alfred price

Didn't Yeager describe how they tried to set fire to drop tanks without much luck?

To MustangFlyer: You cannot use fuel in the rear tank to return from combat because you cannot fly combat with any fuel left in that tank. How did you double the capacity of the leading edge wing tanks?? This was only done in real world in the MkXVIII by using a wing internal redesign made possible with extruded member wing spars, that were developed too late in the war for use in actual combat (the MkXVIII was too late for combat).

Another matter to be considered in a long range Spitfire was the control sensitivity. Following quote from Brig. General Ben Kelsey, chief of USAAF Fighter Projects form 1934 to 1943, who flew a SpitfireV from Wright Field in Ohio to Los Angeles and back. "The marginal stability that added so much to the superb maneuvering of the plane for combat and short flights became tiring and uncomfortable on long flights in rough air" [most of the time over Norther Europe -- Larry]. I've already pointed out that a three hour flight in a Spitfire resulted in pilots that had to be lifted out of the pit. Try a five hour flight??? Kelsey also commented on the MkVs short range, requiring several extra fueling stops, and inadequate radiator cooling capacity and wheel brakes. He attributed these problems to an a/c designed strictly for the UK environment and not suitable for other climates or conditions without serious modification.

2 things about the rear tank. The Mk8 could easily do a 400 mile radius even with the rear tank emptied (Option 1). I'm not so sure that it would have been necessary to completely empty the tank. Some tests (in the Spitfire bible) showed that it settled down after a half to 2/3 were burned off. Even having another 10 gals (roughly 90lb) left would have put it on, or very close to, a 500 mile radius. Remember that the Spit was sentive to rear weights, but not that sensitive. Some people seem to think that if you put your sandwich box in the back the plane became unflyable. Cotton (another great Ozzie) proved that when he fitted cameras to the rear of a Spit, after being told it was impossible, most pilots didn't even notice it. About comfort, well recon Spits did amazing dustances throughout the war, 3,4,5,6,7 & 8 hour flights were common for them. They got used to it. In my earlier post the test pilot didn't seem too phased about the equivalent of a UK-Berlin trip. To put it in context, a lot of seamen and army guys would have killed for the 'discomfort' of a 6 hr Spit flight compred to what theu endured, so its a matter of perspective. Many Spit fighter pilots did 6 hr total stints in repeated sorties, in the BOB, Malta, Nth Africa, Italy and North Europe. It was war, they got on with it. Thise who could cope did, those who didn't died or were replaced. The extra leading edge idea has come up a few times and I put it out as another possible addition that might later have been added the MkVIIIs, after suitable research and testing (say drop the .303s?). Another topic for another time. Even without extra edge tanks and having to empty the rear tank fully the Mk VIII easily made 400 miles.

I should add long range ferry flights as well. UK-Gibralter-North Africa ferry flights were routinly made throughout the Nth Africa campaign. The Brig sounds like a bit of a big girls blouse to me. Heck, Luftwaffe guys did this in 109s which were even more cramped. Pilots did 3 hour flights in Swordfish - which were open, in the rain, over the Atlantic, in winter. Compared to that a Spit pit was a dream. Never read of any pilot having to be lifted out, except maybe in the BOB, where 3 hours meant 3 hours of constant combat (over several sorties of course).

I still question the use of the rear tank this way. The rear tank in the Spit was MUCH farther from the center of lift than the rear tank in the Mustang, and the Spitfire was a much lighter a/c, and so the weight would have had a greater proportionate effect on c/g. Also note that this argument would only apply to the MkVIII. The MkXIV had all the same fuel cells as the VIII (same basic airframe), but only about 2/3's the range due to the Griffin being much more thirsty than the Merlin. The VIIIs advantage over the IX was due to the wing fuel cells, and the improvements in streamlining. As I said before, I feel the RAF would have been better served to switch production entirely to the MkVIII airframe, and reduce production of the IX while forgoing the XVI entirely. Even better, cut a deal and produce Mustangs in place of some of the Spitfire reduction and end the question of range completely.