The P-40 had a 700 mile
range at 75% throttle. The Spit and Me had ranges under/around 400
miles, but at only 50-55% throttle with lean mixtrue.  Under the American conditions above, they had ranges under 200 miles, so there were very large differances between them. Not quite. With no external fuel: P-40B range at 75% was 620 miles, P-40C range at 75% was 590 miles, P-40E range at 75% was 605 miles, P-40F range at 75% was 540 miles. Generally, 75% power meant a cruise speed of 290 mph to 305 mph for a P-40. Range cruise speeds for the P-40 were 205-210 mph.

Close enough for Government work! I suspect that printed books published some time ago, might be at variance with more modern research? But it makes my point well enough, don't you think?
 

Spitfires had ranges from 329 miles (Mk XII) to 740 miles (Mk VIII) at still air crusing speeds, generally 220-230 mph. 109s had ranges from 560 km (350 miles) to 1050 km (650 miles), at speeds carying from 380 kph (210 mph) for ultra long range cruise, to a more regular 255 mph for the later versions.

Close enough for Government work, so much so that I would not dispute it. I had read a Mk-I-II-III? pilot's manual that listed range cruise speeds well under 200 MPH, lean mixture and about 400 miles range. But this makes my point well enough. So now I guess we think about which plane you would rather be in over enemy land with 160 over water miles required to RTB? Particularly if the bad guys just showed up with a little over half of your gas gone? As a second point, according to your post above, the Spit has a cruising speed of 220-230 MPH and the Me-109 210-255 MPH? I seem to remember that the Mk-XIV had a still air range cruise of 220 MPH? How were the numbers above found? Does not seem like a very large differance between the Spit and 109, at least when Comp'd with the P-40 at 290-305MPH?

 

The Spit was stressed fo +6.5-3.5 G IIRC! That is the wing was able to support the entire weight of the several thousand pound fuse times 6.5 and it could not hold up a 690 pound drop tank on each wing? Right!

but basically the Spit with a bit of effortr could have matched the range of a P51, Not with a major effort and a new Laminar flow wing!

What laminar flow wing - laminar flow was unachieveable in practice even today they can only get laminar flow over the 1st quarter of the wing, the late model spits didnt have laminar flow wing as thyey were shown to be no more effective that conventional wings

The last Spits never equaled the Mustang's range, ever!

They never tried, will you get it into your thick skull that the RAF never needed the P51 massive range so never looked to producing a fighter with it

 
   The major changes that Wight Field identified wereNow they are Major changes, when you wrote above "minimum changes" see the highlighted line above!

Two different sets of developement idiot

 The P-51 had three things going for it when it came to range, that also helped other areas too.
1. Laminar flow wing. The last few dozen Spit got this too! - didnt work, the revised profile did but this was not laminar but was purely a "new" developement

2. Divergent/convergent radiator duct and much larger radiator meant less installed cooling drag. This is the biggy as it was never addressed or equalled in any Spitfire, ever!

The initial work on radiator thust was carried out on spitfires, it was the FIRST aircraft to have radiators that added to the total trust rather than producing drag, if it wasnt for the SPit work the P51 would have had those radiators

3. More volume in which to cary more stuff in a stronger structure!
yet you yourself state that a smaller aircraft is better

What about stall do you understand?Post stall maneuvering is, or more exactly can be good and unintended stall is bad!

so the controlable stall of a Spit is superior to the sudden stall of a 109/190 or P51?
Yes, I would, in my ever so humble oppinion agree! But what I want is speed and if I have to trade stall charicteristics to get it, fine by me. In fact the more the better!

But you arnt are you you getting the sudden stall for no advantage in speed

You do not fix that combination input force error quickly or easily. It is trial by error to fly the modifications into the plane. These are factors of the problem you mentioned, but have almost nothing to do with the problem I mentioned.
none statement! word that sound good but add nothing to the undersatnding of anything
No, they have everything to do with what we were discussing! A naturally unstable plane can be flown by mortal men, just not very many of them and certainly not well! On the other hand a naturaly stable plane can be flown by almost anyone. And experts can fly them to amaizing feats.

and just how do you get that from your previous statement, you seem to be thinking you typed word that arnt there
 
You confuse the traits most wanted by amature pilots playing war games with real advantages sought by real combat pilots who want life and death advantages. So given the choise between two planes, one 150 MPH faster than the other that has 100% more wing loading and a turn rate like a semi tractor comp'd to a Porsche that turns on a dime? Not yes, but hell yes! I'll take the jet to the prop any time! So having setteled that argument, now all we have to do is deside on the degree of the advantage. Do I want an F-86, or an F/A-22 to dog fight your Spitfire?

your statements get worse, we are talking 15mph not 150mph an advantage but if it means losing out on the ability to defend yourself then its a pointless advantage, the Me262 was significantly fastre than a P51 yet the P51 shot then down in significant numbers 

You see the absurdity of that argument? Faster is better. Old fighter pilots have a saying; "Speed is life!" Nobody ever laments more turn for more burn!

Yes they do, spped without the ability to defend is a poor characteristic for a fighter

Which by the way does not meen what you think. Turn and you burn! Zoom and he Booms! Are the original quotes!

yet the BEST defense against a zoom and boom is the turn, if all you can do is zoom and boom then you NEED to have the TACTICAL superiority, if you are forced to fight on equal terms or at a disadvantage the you zoom and boom just makes a bigger hole in the ground, the less adaptable you fighter is the more likely it is to be forced into a poor situation, you need a fighter that is good at most things and very good at  a few
 

There are other historians who think that the Spitfire lost the Battle of France because of it's short range.

Yet the Spitfire rearly few in the BoB with full tanks, so how does range become an issue when they werent even using all the available tankage?

Because when the flew to France to mix it up with the Germans,

So firstly we are talking about a different time period and NOT the BoB ok lets change it (I assume you agree that extra fuel would not have been benificial in the BoB then)

they got shot down at rates exceeding 4 losses for every victory! So they were just bairly over 1.2/1 over England and 1/4.1 over France, that is why they needed more range!

How does that work? have you a sourcew that states that low fuel was a source of losses, because everything I have read points to it being because the Spits were in a terrible tactical position, forcing them down low by using P40s would have made things worse not better

Note that even in modern times, many European AFs think a plane can be had that has considerably less range than we like to have in America. See Rafale, Grippon and proliferation of the Mig-29 family. Note that they all are forced to cary drop tanks all the time inorder to fly missions outside of their own countries.

Could this be because unlike the US european countries do not consider range to be of vital importance, arguing that what the US requires is the ONLY way it can be just show a conceit and a lack of understanding of the world outside of the US

 

 They do this because lack of range saves them huge amounts of money in all facits of it's procurement. IE, less range means less airfraim weight, less engine power to lift that weight, smaller wings and surfaces, etc...

Joke right? you do realise that the vast majority of the3 cost of a modern fighter is the design, the actual cost of the materials etc is a minor consideration, this is why the MORE you produce the less per unit cost is

 

And they build to what they expect the combat of the aircraft to be, and ultra long range is an exception rather than the rule

at last you see it,  

 (1)Note the concept, mechanical feedback loop.

Others have said this, but I will add.

(2) As fuel burns off or weight is jettisoned, if the plane has no trim or weight correction it will pitch in the direction of the load shift, which means nose up or down until it eventually stalls and falls. Or in alternate condition,  it will roll out of control and nose (yaw) over into an eventual stall and fall if control force limits are exceeded. It does not fly 'straight'... ever.

But what if the fuel is all carried at or very near the desired CoG location and any shift in CoG is minor? No correction required at all.

and if you believe this then god help anyone who flys with you

(3) Trim controls had to be adjusted throughout the flight.  As it applied to that plane!

(1) Some planes can fly for hours with out the pilot touching the controls at all!  This is only true if all forces are equalised, but it is never the case, any plane will climb as fuel is used, True, but might not require trim to alter the flight path, IF you do not mind the increase in altitude! also a gust will change the flight of an aircraft, whilst it may stabilise after the gust it will do so ON A DIFFERENT coursePossably! Possibly not!

no possible about it, if you flew you will know that you need to allow for drift cause by winddirection, if that wind direction changes does the aircraft counter it al by itself?

Planes do not fly straight and level. They are corrected by control forces.
(2) SOME planes clearly do fligh straight and level WO pilot imput! At least as long as the fuel holds out. 

 

show a distinct lack of flight knowledge, even autopilots need to adjust aircraft trim, mentioning this to a pilot had him in stitches

Why did Supermarine at the time call it a "Laminar flow wing"? Jusy qurious?
 
Yes, and I still do, but all things aerodynamic larger is better IF you are trying to go faster, farther, higher, etc...
I like smaller planes in that time fraim because they were harder to see, all other things being equal! So the secret to vastly improved effectiveness is to cram as much as possable into the smallest possable plane, preferably with the lowest possable polar moment of inertia, highest strength and aspect ratio surfaces and most sophisticated aerodynamics as you can!

  

 

 

Because when the flew to France to mix it up with the Germans,

So firstly we are talking about a different time period and NOT the BoB ok lets change it (I assume you agree that extra fuel would not have been benificial in the BoB then)
Not at all! tactics could have been changed to greatly increase the defenses effectiveness! IF they had had more range!

So you think making the lanes slower and bigger with less rate of climb will improve things in the BoB then you are are a fool

 They were in terrible tactical possition because they did not have enough range to form up and climb over England before crossing the channel. No.1!

But they did, in fact the missions were planned with fuel in mind allowing sufficent fuel for the raid and with sufficent in hand for both combat and reserve, this is clearly show by the fac that later missions once they had analysised the FW190 were flown with higher cruising speed, if they had been as short of fuel as you claim then this would not have been possible

 

 They were in terrible tactical poss because they were forced by a lack of range to fight at part throttle, or go in the drink before RTB. No.2!

This is just untrue, a complete fabrication, they were not forced to fight on part throttle as you claim and you can provide no source to say otherwise

 

 They were in terrible tacticle poss because the entire idea was ill conceived and poorly exicuted! No.3!

 
It is not conceit if the world market agrees with me. Which planes do they buy? Mig-29s, ot Su-27s? F-16-Block 60s, or Rafale? (Or anything other than Rafale?) Given free choise, do they choose the F-15 or the Su-27 at fair market value?

They do this because lack of range saves them huge amounts of money in all facits of it's procurement. IE, less range means less airfraim weight, less engine power to lift that weight, smaller wings and surfaces, etc...

Joke right? you do realise that the vast majority of the3 cost of a modern fighter is the design, the actual cost of the materials etc is a minor consideration, this is why the MORE you produce the less per unit cost is
Not at all! Aircraft are bought by the pound and those in the know, understand that. Go back and read the history of the French/others debate over the soon to become Eurofighter, that became Rafale, Typhoon and eventually the Grippen too. Why has no other Nation bought the Rafale