Recent content by Clean32

  1. C

    P-51D maneuvrability - what it was in reality ...

    posting the other trash artist concepts to finish the story of the previously posted artists trash concepts. being that all these trash concepts were presented to the British air ministry. More so when that arthur wrote "Congrats - you managed to score zero on your last several posts. That...
  2. C

    P-51D maneuvrability - what it was in reality ...

    Nice if you dig really deep, the Naca coding of the P 51 wing came post wing development. as i understand it both the spitfire and P51 did not use Naca developed airfoils. " wing thickness" yes it was a thick wing, had a lot to stuff in there, add to that the British air ministry's...
  3. C

    P-51D maneuvrability - what it was in reality ...

    after your insulting post i have just proved you wrong.
  4. C

    P-51D maneuvrability - what it was in reality ...

    and your point is?
  5. C

    100-octane fuel in the RAF in 1940

    more interesting if the different wings were noted. or do we take the assumption? would explain more of the Mk2s speed?
  6. C

    100-octane fuel in the RAF in 1940

    Nice but not quite correct. BAM was the USA produced fuel, which was as someone has posted above a lower grade fuel with additives. IE Sweeney's blend the Venezuela high octane fuel with was as you have posted was a british concern developed fuel, Hydrogenated. this was pre war and this...
  7. C

    P-51D maneuvrability - what it was in reality ...

    please read what i have written and not what you think i have written before posting a reply. first up chin radiator North americans original drawings as shown to the british air ministry. there was another 4 months of redesign before an agreement was reached and constructions started...
  8. C

    P-51D maneuvrability - what it was in reality ...

    that he did. intrestinthough, north american did not uses a Nacc profile. neither did super marine. to the best of my knowledge the only two who didn't.
  9. C

    P-51D maneuvrability - what it was in reality ...

    correct correct, i did say built but was the original North american design. correct i have a 51B 65 imp gallons and 220 knots and spitfire lX at 55 imp Gallons at 200 Knts. as i said hard to get data at 8000 feet you are comparing Griffon powered spits. apples with Lemons. correct, and...
  10. C

    P-51D maneuvrability - what it was in reality ...

    B24, was a true laminar flow wing. laminar flow as designated by the aviation industry. because the P51 wing was a near identical profile top and bottom. and the spitfire profile was a more traditional profile with a larger length top of the wing than the bottom of the wing. the spitfire...
  11. C

    P-51D maneuvrability - what it was in reality ...

    compare British ww2 models as used.
  12. C

    P-51D maneuvrability - what it was in reality ...

    first to shock, the first part of the airframe to accelerate the airspeed into compressibility, not a low speed issue but a high speed problem. the bucketts were in the boundary layer. so were taking up air that had already been slowed down. so you could call then 1/2 bucketts they were...
  13. C

    P-51D maneuvrability - what it was in reality ...

    Qute correct, add to that the dragging of ammo boxes over the wing, denting the shit out of them
  14. C

    P-51D maneuvrability - what it was in reality ...

    the spitfire wing? which one? the short answer is the browning .303 as modified by the RAF was 1/2 the weight and 1/2 the size of a .50 browning. the .50 browning is about the same size and weight as a 20mm cannon as for fitting the browning this started before BOB and was a hard path. the...
  15. C

    P-51D maneuvrability - what it was in reality ...

    uummm i said you can look at the profile of the P51 wing and compare it to a profile of a laminar flow wing and see the difference. i didn't say NAA claimed the P51 had a laminar flow wing. but i have observe may posts claiming that. and it these posts i am addressing. the P51 was not more...
Back