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.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It only seems that way PAT because you aren't paying attention. Go back and read the past few pages. The Spit couldn't get there and back on internal fuel alone, if it could there would be no argument. The scenario under discussion (escorting a Schweinfurt raid) is regular (in front of the cockpit) tanks, + rear tanks + slipper tank + probably wing-mounted external tanks too.
"Who cares where the fuel is" is relevant only to the issue of how much can you fit, and how much can you fit inside the airframe vs. outside. Any fuel you can fit inside the airframe has no effect on drag. Outside means it's going to cause drag plus extra problems in dogfighting.
So? Not in 1943, it was 96 main, 36 wing, 30/45/90 slipper.96G main, 66 or 75G rear, 26G wings, 50 or 90G dropper, fixed.
Eventually, in 1945.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.
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.
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.
Eventually, in 1945.
Rear tank was introduced in 1942.Rear tanks plus DT's were introduced from the MkV in '41.
No, only used on Vc Trop in late 42.Rear tank was introduced in 1942.
It's enough to cover the Ruhr Battle of the Ruhr - Wikipedia
Still don't know why you'd build the P-40Q. You already have the P-51B/D/H and P-47D/M/N (and the P-38K in your scenario) by that time.
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.
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.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.
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.There's a reason they didn't do it back then.
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.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.
Furlong 28-7-44. MK317. All tanks full, The engine
apparently running at about 65 gallons/hr, What have Rolls
Royce to say about this? Continuation of trials with one 62
gallon American drop tank on each wing (a) and with British
gallon slipper tank under fuselage (b). The British tank showed
a superiority of speed of up to 12mph @ 10,000ft. It was also
flown with American tanks empty and jettison tanks empty and
rear tank full. Up to 10,000ft the aeroplane was perfectly stable.
Except max overload weight is 9500 lbs, so you need to remove 70 IG from somewhere.I found this in M&S:
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.
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.