Get where?, the Spit could carry 197G internally plus dropper, that covers every square inch of enemy territory as far as Dortmund, including the Ruhr.
A Critical Analysis of the RAF Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya in 1941-45
- Thread starter Kevin J
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Get where?, the Spit could carry 197G internally plus dropper, that covers every square inch of enemy territory as far as Dortmund, including the Ruhr.
- Thread starter
- #1,162
Kevin J
Banned
So? Not in 1943, it was 96 main, 36 wing, 30/45/90 slipper.
- Thread starter
- #1,163
Kevin J
Banned
Eventually, in 1945.
- Thread starter
- #1,164
Kevin J
Banned
In 1943, the Spitfire VII/VIII had max fuel of.221 IG, on 225 the Mustang had a combat radius of 325/350 miles. Say 10% less for the Spitfire. Even if you add the Spitfire Vc Trop rear fuselage tank of 29 IG, that's only going to get you back to the Mustang's combat radius. Schweinfurt is another 100 miles.
Rear tanks plus DT's were introduced from the MkV in '41.
- Thread starter
- #1,167
Kevin J
Banned
Rear tank was introduced in 1942.
- Thread starter
- #1,168
Kevin J
Banned
No, only used on Vc Trop in late 42.
- Thread starter
- #1,169
Kevin J
Banned
Battle of the Ruhr, March to July 1943. By September 1943, 2 squadrons of VII and 8 squadrons of VIII available. It's not a goer.
Was not trying to get emotional about SAE rated fittings..
Every country was moving to these standards because there were so many custom designed parts.
SAE started because of consensus of pitch shape depth strength of materials yields of fasteners.
Moving to SAE fitting would have made the Merlin easier less costly to build.
It was just a decision to not to do that as the topic also lead to redesign of the whole engine.
Like with other programs tools and jigs had to be custom made to manufacture those parts..
I know about developing SAE standards working on a program decades ago to get what engineering design SAE certified.
Merlin did adopt some SAE standard and processes like how and what to tighten each bolt.
Topic two....Merlin engineers did offer a solution to Allison Engines.
Allison was struggling to put the engine in the F82 and make enough power but having severe backfiring problems.
You can dig this up reading about F82.
Take time to view building schematics of the Merlin and Allison.
Allison was just a much better design. Starting with half the parts.
Rebuilds were quick compared to a Merlin.
It had Roller Rockers, much better oiling System and was just cleaner engine.
Like the Merlin got useful upgrades as RPM and power increased.
The Allison could go to 1500 hours before rebuild.
Few Merlin got past 500 hrs...
Every country was moving to these standards because there were so many custom designed parts.
SAE started because of consensus of pitch shape depth strength of materials yields of fasteners.
Moving to SAE fitting would have made the Merlin easier less costly to build.
It was just a decision to not to do that as the topic also lead to redesign of the whole engine.
Like with other programs tools and jigs had to be custom made to manufacture those parts..
I know about developing SAE standards working on a program decades ago to get what engineering design SAE certified.
Merlin did adopt some SAE standard and processes like how and what to tighten each bolt.
Topic two....Merlin engineers did offer a solution to Allison Engines.
Allison was struggling to put the engine in the F82 and make enough power but having severe backfiring problems.
You can dig this up reading about F82.
Take time to view building schematics of the Merlin and Allison.
Allison was just a much better design. Starting with half the parts.
Rebuilds were quick compared to a Merlin.
It had Roller Rockers, much better oiling System and was just cleaner engine.
Like the Merlin got useful upgrades as RPM and power increased.
The Allison could go to 1500 hours before rebuild.
Few Merlin got past 500 hrs...
Widen the flight performance as they were still using and shipping the P40 to combat theaters to end of war.
Would have even been a better ground attack fighter than the P47.
- Thread starter
- #1,172
Kevin J
Banned
If us Brits buy the M20, isn't the Mustang prototype going to languish in some hanger somewhere until December 7th 1941? If it gets ordered then by when? Does it only get into squadron service same time as the Kingcobra?
BULLCRAP!! Clearly you've never flown a plane loaded out of limits aft. It wallows like a wounded pig, over reacts to every control input, won't trim up for level flight, and has to be "herded" by hand every inch of the way. And that was in a normally highly stable commuter airliner with 400 pounds of illegal undocumented cargo in the aft baggage compartment, for which the captain and I almost lost our licenses. Now try that in an at best neutrally stable overloaded fighter plane climbing in formation through the soupy skies over the UK, and you've got a recipe for disaster. There's a reason they didn't do it back then.
DON'T LET PAT303 ANYWHERE NEAR A REAL AIRPLANE!!
But they did do it back then. Both the Spitfire and the Mustang operated with rear fuselage tanks and both planes required the rear tanks to be about half emptied asap to restore normal handling and control. This has all been quite adequately covered in this thread.
I'm aware of that; so, I presume, is p303. That's why I took his statement to advocate another tank even further aft. It was the comment: "Who cares where the extra fuel is, there's plenty of room in the rear fuselage" that set me off. Fallout from many a battle with UPS drivers when I had to refuse additional packages in my freighter, even though there was visible empty space in the way-back fuselage compartment. Non-pilots seem to have a hard time comprehending CG as an item of worship.
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #1,177
Kevin J
Banned
Except max overload weight is 9500 lbs, so you need to remove 70 IG from somewhere.
Mk VIII with a 90IG ST = 8650lb;with 90IG ST and 77IG rear tank = ~9200lb.
So @ 9200lb we have 200IG internal fuel and a 90IG ST = 290IG (348USG) compared to the 269USG for the Mustang and a 350 mile radius.
or
MkVIII with a 45IG slipper and 77IG in rear tank = ~8800lb + 2 x 44IG (860lb) Hurricane DTs = ~9650lb ( 2x Hurricane DTs were ~150lb heavier than later tanks).
So this combo might get us down to ~9500lb, and a total of ~335IG (400USG) which the stronger MkVIII airframe should handle. Extrapolating from the Mustang figures this should give us our ~500 mile radius and a Schweinfurst mission.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #1,179
Kevin J
Banned
Maybe 90 IG ST and 30 IG underwing. I'm dubious about putting anything under the wings unless you clip them. Okay, the document posted says problem with 250 lb bombs underwing is dive and pullout, but do you tell your guys that it's unsafe to carry underwing bombs without clipping, or the official line. The XVIII had strengthened wing, not the VIII IIRC. You can carry 284 IG in and under fuselage, that's a fact. The XVIII only 266 with no underwing drop tanks, but it's not going to happen on the VII/VIII. Developing systems is an iterative process. Most you're going to get in 1943/44 is 29 IG rear fuselage and 90 IG ST, total 241 IG or 290 USG, or 10% more than Mustang on internal only, so same combat radius, and you're 100 miles short of target. Or 90 IG underwing and 30 IG ST and clip the wings. You're still 100 miles short.
Lets see a mission plan instead of theoretical.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
