Ref the pit, I already gave you the quote on that one. Take it up with Flt.Lt. Baxter.

As to Kelsey, he flew a standard MkV more than four thousand miles!!! Figure it yourself. The P-38 PROTOTYPE flew from the west coast to New York with TWO fueling stops. No drop tanks, no leading edge tanks, nothing but the mains. A MkV could barely do that with maximum external fuel, and on internal only would need at least FIVE stops. Assuming most economical cruise, the MkV could stay up just barely five hours. Of course, the pilot wasn't expected to do combat during that time. Even pre war in peacetime, US Army a/c routinely flew from the west coast to Florida or Louisiana for exercises, or from the east coast to Arizona and Nevada. They were expected to be able to handle high elevation airfields (Montana and Utah), deserts (Arizona and Nevada), jungle (Panama Canal Zone) as well as UK-type climate (Maine). The only US fighter that had typical European range limitations was the P39, and it was NOT well liked. And it didn't need special mods for desert or jungle. Kelsey had been in charge of the boards and committees that had to pass on fighter aircraft suitability for conditions. He granted that the Spitfire was superior for the particular job it was designed to do: short range interceptor in the UK environment, but it would not have passed the USAAF acceptance boards without serious modifications. The Swordfish pit was nice and roomy (although it certainly could get wet in the rain.) The crew were able to move around a good deal. The Spitfire pilot wore the a/c like a vest.

Agree with you on the MkVIII, arguably the finest Spit ever made. Personally I'm unsure about leaving fuel in the rear tank, just raised it as a possibility, since some test reports said that it evened out steadily as the fuel went down. Sloshing could be a problem though under heavy manuevours. I put down 10 gal as a possibility as it was a similar weight to cameras, which were at least as far or further back.

Is it possible this thread approaches a thousand posts? What are you guys, nuts? ;>

Not quite true about the MkXIV, yes the Giffen used more more fuel, so it had less endurance then the MkVIII, but the crusing speed was higher. So the range was similar. yes the US always had an emphasis on range, which given their tactical environment is logical. My (and a few others) argument is that the RAF missed a strategic opportunity in 43 that could have had a tremendous effect on the war (as well as save a lot of Allied lives), through sheer dunderheadedness and blindness and not through any technical or manufacturing issues. A lot of the 8th would have given their eye teeth (probabaly a lot more) to have a few more escorts around. Even the US's manufacturing capacity took time to spin up to speed on Mustangs, with large numbers not being available until early-mid 44. Even just a few wings of long range MkVIIIs in mid-late 43 would have made a tremendous contribution to the hardc pressed bombers. Can't see any US fighter pilots complaining either, they were pretty hard pressed themselves. At one point the US tried to get the P51Bs that the RAF had been delivered back, which shows how desperate they were.

Well laddie, it sure beat rabitting away about billion dollar crap. Whee, we can waste billions on a computer program = F-35. Whee, we can waste billions on a vastly inferior plane - F-18 E/F Whee, we can waste billions on the capacity to bomb the crap out of .. well nothing. Rubble to rubble. Oh, whee, we can waste arguments about US vs EU planes. They way some people think you really get the impressions that the the US got on the wrong side in the war. Whee, those who dont learn from history ..... Ok, the rest of us .. lets go for the 1,000!!!!

Well, my sources quote internal fuel range for the MkVIII as 660 miles, and the MkXIV as 460 miles, compared to 434 miles for a MkIXLF. Something must have happened to the other 200 miles. Only differences between the VIII and XIV were the engine fuel consumption and the a/c weight. I seem to recall reading that the RAF took the rear fuselage tanks out of most or all of the Mustangs it got due to distrust of the effect on handling of fuel sloshing around in the tank during combat. It's certainly true enough that the 'stang didn't handle as well as the Spit. The stall characteristics of the Mustang were downright nasty!!

Crazy?? I prefer to think of us as 'inquisitive' and 'dedicated'. And I will ignore that crack about the A/F18 as being off subject.

Hey, you go, dawg. Whatever ;> See, I'm doing my part. Go 1000!

after reading these and other threads i have come to the oppinon that the main reason the spit is put down is its range, now as it was designed as a short range interceptor this was always going to be likely, however the main argument i see used agaist it was that it didnt meet the requirement of the long range escort, now take this requirement as seen from the raf point of view(leaving aside hindsight) we have the raf of prewar under the mistaken belief that the bomber didnt need an escort so to build one was a waste of resource at a time when the production of fighter for home defence was the main priority. so now we have the war years, now 39 can be seen to be the same as pre war the need to build for home defense was paramount 40 was a case of repacing losses and shoring up defense so again no resource availible for building long range fighters. now by the end of 40 it was already clear the bomber command needed to operate at night to survive - even with fighter escort it was regarded as suffing to many losses to be viable(perversly the escorted raids losses were lower than bomber command later suffered) so by mid 41 we have BC flying by night and FC now getting to a level where a long range fighter would be helpfull, what happens the Luftwaffe introduces the fw190, priority shifts to a fighter with the ability to combat the fw190, not extending the range but the performance. now by 42 the usaaf arrive to opperate in daylight, and they insist that thier bomber dont need a fighter escort. the raf is flying intruder missions so arming the spit with bombs is a bigger priority! so with the increasing losses by both RAF and USAAF bomber there is sudenly a need for long range escorts, now the RAF requirements are clearly not matched by a single engined fighter, they need a long range nightfighter and so get the mossie! the USAAF however do need a long range single seater, now to condem the spit for not meeting a US requirement is a bit much, what can be said is that the USAAF was in error for not developing its own ( I know the p38 was about but even it didnt have the range needed for the eto) so a long range fighter was needed and the p51 with the less thirsty merlin came just in time, now look at the role played by the p51 in RAF service, other than USAAF escort missions the RAF P51 rarely used the range, few missions even requied the drop tanks. so in short the range issue was primary a US requirement and a nice to have for the RAF, so your argument is that the RAF should have spent time effort and money building a nice to have whilst not spending the same time effort and money on things it regarded as a priority. especially bearing in mind it had already got the long range fighter in the guise of the p51! ps it was mentioned that the spit would not have been accepted by the US prewar, as it was never proposed and its design criteria were vastly different to those required by the usaaf it is hardly supprising! however, as the spit was actually used in preference to those very same fighters that were accepted by the prewar US fighter program it shows that the spit was something a bit special. it was to some extent lucky that the US had fallbacks to its "fighters" the P38, designed and built as a long range bomber destoyer for home defence, its ability as a fighter was a bonus rather than a design requirement. the p51 as we know only came about when north american's boss conviced the RAF that it could build a better fighter than the P40 when they were approached to build p40's for the RAF.