Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
.
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
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
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?
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?
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
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.
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 fighterDid they really ever try?
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.
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.)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.
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.It could work, some Spitfires were carrying around 90lbs of ballast in the tail. Of course view over the nose just gets worse
They were carried under the fuselage from 1941; by mid-1943 the IX could fly non-stop from Gibraltar to Malta and Egypt.fitting some drop tanks to increase its range would have been a good idea
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.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..
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.