Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The problem is with any external tank, because there is a reason why miliatary airplanes in particular are made aerodynamic. The slipper tank, particularly the big one, decidedly isn't.
The rear fuselage tank would be Ok except that it causes severe stability issues in the Spitfire (and in a P-51)
What they really needed was a wing tank, a real one not that tiny one they used, but that would have required a new wing.
Which is where we started.
I'm not hung up on STs but they were a very inexpensive way to give the Spitfire a lot more fuel with only minimal performance loss during combat. Again, over Schweinfurst there were no Allied fighters so any fighter would be huge advantage for the 8th AF.
I agree with you but why stuff around, just put a rear tank in, even if it's just 40G plus add a slipper as required.
By people who did not understand how it was made.
Not true.
Ford UK was one of the contractors to build the Merlin, and it is true they tightened the tolerances for manufacture.
The only engines that were hand made were in Rolls-Royce's own experimental department.
The story is that Rolls-Royce thought Ford UK could not make the Merlin because the tolerances were too tight, but Ford said they were too loose.
This was before Packard was involved (or Ford US, who the BPC first approached).
Packard redrew the drawings to US standards so their fitters could make the parts.
Rolls-Royce drawings were in 1st angle, US standard was 3rd angle.
Huh?
As they were contracted to manufacture the engine and not design them, they would not have been allowed to redesign the engine without permission.
As it was, Packard was the first to introduce the two piece block, Rolls-Royce having to delay their changeover due to production and, you know, trying to win the fucking war.
Packard introduced their own system for connecting the block cooling passages to the cooling passages in the head. But they changed back to the definitive Rolls-Royce solution later.
The improvements they made weren't that many.
The materials were, mostly, the same. Except where they couldn't get the same as what Rolls-Royce used.
They used some US parts, because it was convenient - such as the carburettor.
The two stage engines used a different supercharger drive system - but Packard did not design it. From what I understand, it was done by Wright. (Rolls-Royce Merlins and the single stage V-1650-1 used a Farman type gear drive, for which a royalty had to be paid to Farman. Maybe this is why it was ditched in US production.)
That the bearing material that Packard used was better than the one Rolls-Royce used, does not make the original bearings "horrible".
No, they really didn't.
The parts count may be not as big an advantage for the Allison as you think. Many of the extra parts in a Merlin were fasteners, used to secure covers, such as the cam covers.
The Allison never did get on the same performance terms as the Merlin, mainly because the supercharger wasn't as good.
While its true 3 Hurricanes are better than one Spitfire something to consider is can you pruduce 3 competent pilots to fly them and 3 times the fuel, parts etc. I don't know the answer to that something to think about.Side note here...!
The combatants all designed Combat planes suitable for their combat terrains.
US and Japanese aircraft built with long range considerations.
Japan because of China, Korea and Pacific Ocean.
USA with a large continent and two oceans.
Europe thought in terms of the next country, including Russia..!
Planes tended short ranged though lighter and slightly more maneuverable.
Heck they fought each other for centuries.
Few considered another far away country could support a war from long distances.
Had the British relied on the Spitfire as a prime fighter they would have lost the war quickly.
It was a tough plane to build using fitment technology vs mass manufacturing.
Much like the Watch Maker Rolls Royce Merlin's...and a lousy engine as far as durability.
It was an outstanding aircraft but every plane builder could turn out 3 combat planes for every Spitfire.
Except for maybe the P-38 Lighting but it was a bomber sized fighter.
Three Hurricanes will shoot down one Spitfire in combat.
The Spitfire was never that much better than any other combat fighter aircraft.
I stressed this before...range and ability to hit at your opponent effectively from a distance was the winning formula.
All the combat planes had useful performance even if they were a generation younger than their opponent.
Late war Zero with seasoned pilots proved that fighting against British and US carrier group fighters off the coast of Japan.
Cost effectively and Performance wise the Mustang was the best most effective & versatile fighter in WW2.
IMHO should have developed the A and B/C/D Mustangs at the same time.
Would have filled a huge performance envelop.
The Mustang was used in every role including Bomber.
Lighten up became an interceptor !
You (Shoulda Coulda Woulda ) put the H-Tail on it and made a fine Carrier plane too.
WW2 was a short war that required everything built to be fault free quickly.
The unsung players of the war were the Engineers, Designers and Testers, some to their demise !
For all the wind about the Spitfire..
IMHO it was a bit player compared to other Combat Aircraft.
D
Called the Watchmakers engine by those who built and rebuilt the Merlin
Again you are arguing for the sake of arguing, who cares where the fuel is, there is plenty of room in the rear fuselage and by the time you are at 25,000ft and set up for cruise it's down around 30G so instability is a mute point. You seem determined to make a non issue a major one.
Actually, I was being half serious, if you look at that power egg on the M20, it doesn't provide much extra boost from the engine exhaust. So, replace it with a Merlin 61 with individual exhausts and put a Mustang style radiator underneath to take advantage of the Meridith effect. Now would we then have a fighter with twice the internal fuel of a Hurricane and the speed of a Spitfire? Any takers on this idea?
Dan,
Do you have any sources used to get to your opinion?
Cheers,
Biff
While its true 3 Hurricanes are better than one Spitfire something to consider is can you pruduce 3 competent pilots to fly them and 3 times the fuel, parts etc. I don't know the answer to that something to think about.
No I meant did they have the capacity to train that many more pilots to the same degree in the same amount of time.YES you always train pilots to be competent or they are washed out or dead..
The M.20 seems like a really neat and promising design, but was the extra fuel capacity related to the fixed undercarriage? Wheels and wheel struts seem to take up a lot of that wing space...
No I meant did they have the capacity to train that many more pilots to the same degree in the same amount of time.
YES you always train pilots to be competent or they are washed out or dead..
I wasn't trying to be flip, I like the M.20 as a design, I really do think it was quite promising. What I mean is, as a quick fixed undercarriage design it had extra space in the wings because the wheels didn't retract. Could they put in retractable wheels and still have space for fuel in the wings? If so ... it seems like it could have been a great fighter and a good alternative to or replacement for the Hurricane...
IIRC there was a paper project with a retraction system like the P-35.