Best Long Range Fighter of WWII

[renrich]

The combat radius of the P51D at 11,100 TOGW was 700 miles at an altitude of 25000 ft and that with 269 gallons of internal and 150 gallons of external fuel. That assumed warm up, takeoff and climb out, 20 min of mid point combat and 30 min of reserves. I don't believe any 109, 190 or Spitfire ever carried that distribution of fuel load or achieved that combat radius during WW2.

[renrich]

I believe the P51 could get by on less than 48 gph at cruise. The Corsair could use as little as 42 gallons per hour at cruise and it was not nearly as economical as the Mustang.

[Hop]

Thanks for the info on the Spit IX with the long range tanks.
I like the bit about if you have a rear view fuselage then they shouldn't be used in any situations. Not much point fitting them in the first place?

The manual extract Kurfurst posted is from 1946. Post war safety standards were higher, and the RAF went so far as to remove the rear fuselage tanks from most of their Mustangs for safety reasons.

In general, the Spitfire suffered the same stability problems with rear tanks as the Mustang, indeed the RAF manuals for the Spitfire IX and Mustang III (P-51B/C) give slightly greater restrictions for the Mustang:

Spitfire:
"Acrobatics are not permitted when carrying any external stores (except the 30-gallon " blister " drop tank) nor when the rear fuselage tanks contain more than 30 gallons of fuel, and are not recommended when the rear fuselage tanks contain any fuel."

Mustang:
"Flick manoeuvres arc not permitted. When carrying bombs or drop tanks, or with fuel in fuselage tank, aerobatics are prohibited."

I'd expect restrictions to be a bit worse on the P-51D, which wasn't as stable as the B, and a bit better on a Spitfire with wing tanks (more weight forward of the CG)

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by renrich

I believe the P51 could get by on less than 48 gph at cruise. The Corsair could use as little as 42 gallons per hour at cruise and it was not nearly as economical as the Mustang.

Rich I know you are right but the 48 gph was Packard Merlin spec for 1650-7 so that's what I used for calulations... and that applied to low blower at 16,500 feet - cruise in 8th AF would have been 26-30K at high blower

Dad could easily get 42+ but had to watch temperatures pretty close. Would be easy today with EGT/CHT sensor pkg.