BoB after: how would you like to see Spitfire further developed?

[tomo pauk]

I wonder if at Spitfire it would be possible to do something akin to what the Soviets were managed with their Yak-9T - in order to accommodate the 37mm cannon ammo, the cockpit was relocated aft some 40cm (circa 16in). In Spitfire's case, the space gained could contain a new fuel tank.

 

[Juha]

It was not possible to put motorcanon in Merlin powered a/c.

I still think that Spit Mk III with metal ailerons and the fuel system of Mk VII/VIII was one good way to go.

Juha

 

[tomo pauk]

Perhaps I was not being 100% clear: the purpose of relocation of cockpit 40cm further back is to make space for an additional fuel tank. I know that Merlin was not allowing for motor-cannon

 

[wuzak]

I agree with switch to the p51. The last gasp spitfire designs ( seafire, spiteful) started to look like mustangs' it was a better design. Those eliptical wings had a shelf life, the p51 laminar angular shape was the way to go.

No Seafire ever looked like a Mustang - they shared the wing with the equivalent Spitfire.

The Spiteful and Seafang had the square shaped laminar flow wings, but still looke nothing at all like the Mustang.

The main advantage the Mustang over the Spitfire was range. Surely that would take less time to fix than changing production over to the P-51? If the desire was truly there.

There's a saying I've seen befoe: "The P-51 can't do what a Spitfire can, but can do it over Berlin".

 

[pbfoot]

.

The main advantage the Mustang over the Spitfire was range. Surely that would take less time to fix than changing production over to the P-51? If the desire was truly there.

[QUOTE/]It might have but they didn't. It only took North American 102 days to put out an airframe .The Brits never did make an equal of the P51 for range

 

[wuzak]

It might have but they didn't. It only took North American 102 days to put out an airframe .

And how long to put it into production?

The Brits never did make an equal of the P51 for range

Did they really ever try?

 

[Shortround6]

Perhaps I was not being 100% clear: the purpose of relocation of cockpit 40cm further back is to make space for an additional fuel tank. I know that Merlin was not allowing for motor-cannon

It all depends if you can keep the CG in place. With a rear tank you can restrict maneuvers until full is burned off to allow the full maneuver capability, with the cockpit moved aft (along with the pilot armor and radio/electronics installation) the weight shift is not so easily changed back. How much of the rearward cockpit movement on the YAK-9T was due to the need for space for the breech and how much was keep the CG in place when replacing a 42kg cannon with a a 170kg cannon is subject to question. I have no doubt that room was needed for the breech but something had to moved to balance that cannon. Maybe they killed two birds with one stone?

 

[Siegfried]

It all depends if you can keep the CG in place. With a rear tank you can restrict maneuvers until full is burned off to allow the full maneuver capability, with the cockpit moved aft (along with the pilot armor and radio/electronics installation) the weight shift is not so easily changed back. How much of the rearward cockpit movement on the YAK-9T was due to the need for space for the breech and how much was keep the CG in place when replacing a 42kg cannon with a a 170kg cannon is subject to question. I have no doubt that room was needed for the breech but something had to moved to balance that cannon. Maybe they killed two birds with one stone?

Stabillity of an aircraft requires that it be 'nose heavy' (ie center of gravity ahead of the center of lift). The tail provides down force to lift the nose and 'balance' the aircraft. It is much easier for an aircraft to cope with being nose heavy, almost impossible for it to cope being tail heavy. The solution to an aircraft being nose heavy is easy: one adds counter weights to the tail, or lengthens the tail slightly or possibly increases surface area. Often moving devices such as the compass and radio to the tail provides the counter weight. The beauty of the P-51's laimiar profile wings combined with the radiator being placed underneath was that it allowed 93 US gallons to be placed in each wing at the neutral point. Fuel depletion did not change C if G. The solution for the Spitifre and A6M was a tank above the wing and the pilot behined. A nasty way to get burned. The solution for the German aircraft was an L shaped tank behined and beneath the seat.

 

[tomo pauk]

It all depends if you can keep the CG in place. With a rear tank you can restrict maneuvers until full is burned off to allow the full maneuver capability, with the cockpit moved aft (along with the pilot armor and radio/electronics installation) the weight shift is not so easily changed back. How much of the rearward cockpit movement on the YAK-9T was due to the need for space for the breech and how much was keep the CG in place when replacing a 42kg cannon with a a 170kg cannon is subject to question. I have no doubt that room was needed for the breech but something had to moved to balance that cannon. Maybe they killed two birds with one stone?

Thanks for pointing out about that; the drawings suggest that most/heaviest part of the cannon was above the wing, so the CoG was not that much effected?
In the Spitfire's case, the ever heavier engines were being installed, so there is another bird to be killed with a single stone.

 

[Juha]

Perhaps I was not being 100% clear: the purpose of relocation of cockpit 40cm further back is to make space for an additional fuel tank. I know that Merlin was not allowing for motor-cannon

Hello Tmo
after rereading your message #61, I must admit that your message was clear but I wasn't thinking clearly enough.

Juha

 

[Shortround6]

Thanks for pointing out about that; the drawings suggest that most/heaviest part of the cannon was above the wing, so the CoG was not that much effected?
In the Spitfire's case, the ever heavier engines were being installed, so there is another bird to be killed with a single stone.

It could work, some Spitfires were carrying around 90lbs of ballast in the tail. Of course view over the nose just gets worse

 

[pbfoot]

Did they really ever try?

not that I'm aware of but Portal said it couldn't be done or so he told Churchill who asked about long range fighters to escort BC . Portal said a fighter with range to Berlin would cease to be a fighter

 

[fastmongrel]

The solution for the Spitifre and A6M was a tank above the wing and the pilot behined. A nasty way to get burned. The solution for the German aircraft was an L shaped tank behined and beneath the seat.

So instead of being burnt by a fuel tank in front of you behind a fire wall you are burnt by a fuel tank that you sit in. I bet loads of dead and disfigured Germans were grateful for that one.

 

[Glider]

I admit that I thought the Spit was developed pretty well as it was. The only difference would be to install the rear tank from the Mk V onwards. It would have made a huge difference in so many ways.

 

[woljags]

fitting some drop tanks to increase its range would have been a good idea

 

[Edgar Brooks]

I admit that I thought the Spit was developed pretty well as it was. The only difference would be to install the rear tank from the Mk V onwards. It would have made a huge difference in so many ways.

Especially by ensuring that the pilot couldn't see what was behind him, also that the airframe was completely out of balance as long as there was fuel in the tank. The only way to keep the Spitfire V balanced, with a fuel tank behind the pilot, was to fit a 270-gallon ferry tank under the fuselage (check the manual.)

 

[Edgar Brooks]

It could work, some Spitfires were carrying around 90lbs of ballast in the tail. Of course view over the nose just gets worse

The Spitfires with that sort of weight were the XIVs, in which the Griffons had a downthrust angle, as well, which made the view over the nose better, not worse.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

fitting some drop tanks to increase its range would have been a good idea

They were carried under the fuselage from 1941; by mid-1943 the IX could fly non-stop from Gibraltar to Malta and Egypt.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

This would be the stalling characteristics at 1G or the landing configuration. A Spitfire stall at high g showed a pronounced tendancy to flip inverted..

Your source for this is......? At whatever speed, fast or slow, the Spitfire warned the pilot of an impending stall, but remained controllable; by easing off, slightly, a pilot could hold it just under the stall, and remain in control. Only a ham-fisted pilot would, with the buffeting warning him, keep pulling harder on the controls.

 

[Shortround6]

The Spitfires with that sort of weight were the XIVs, in which the Griffons had a downthrust angle, as well, which made the view over the nose better, not worse.

According to this: Spitfire Mk IX Weights and Loading

there were 5 X 17.5lb ballast weights in the MK IX but this may be an early aircraft an later ones had other equipment or in different locations that eliminated the weights?

I believe some of the MK Is also required ballast when refitted with heavier constant speed propellers.