Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Didn't Griffon Spitfires get stronger longerons?
Maybe made of steel instead of aluminium?
Interesting with one question: Empennage sizing/strengthening. The Attach joint, load path to H.Stab and V.Stab spars have to be carefully scrutinized for not only AoA increases due to increased gross weight, but also asymmetric load increases - I would think.They did compared to previous Spitfire models as strengthened longerons were an addition to the 60-Series Merlin-engined Spitfires that were converted from earlier fuselages. They weren't steel, which would have induced dissimilar metal corrosion with the surrounding ali frames. Also, you certainly don't need to waste time redesigning the structure to increase the strength of the longerons. They were fitted with a doubler insert that fit within the U shape of the longeron. Bear in mind that the first batch of Mk.XIIs were ordered as 500 Mk.Vcs in August 1941 and underwent conversion on the production line between November 1942 and August 1943, the first XIVs were originally ordered as Mk.VIIIs, 700 of them in July 1942. They underwent conversion on the production line between December 1943 and October 1944 and so on...
The Spit Mk.VIII was the basis for the modifications that went into subsequent Griffon-engined Spitfires as examples were trialled with Griffons after these were fitted to the Mk.IV prototypes. The Mk.VIII had the modified fuselage of the Mk.VII, which was essentially similar in structural detail to the Mk.V, but for the strengthened longerons, (slightly wider and cross-member strengthening to cater to the Griffon when those were fitted), but the number of frames and structural details were exactly the same Frames 5 through 19 making up the fuselage. The Mk.VII fuselage also had a ballast mounting in the rear fuselage, that was carried through into the Mk.VIII and Griffon-engined Spitfires.
Interesting with one question: Empennage sizing/strengthening. The Attach joint, load path to H.Stab and V.Stab spars have to be carefully scrutinized for not only AoA increases due to increased gross weight, but also asymmetric load increases - I would think.
Hawker Tornado, compared to the Defiant it had almost 3 ft more wingspan. about 33 sq ft more wing (13%) but the fuselage was about 2 1/2 ft shorter.
Accounts differ but it never hit 400mph and either had a Vulture II with 1710hp at 15,000ft when it hit 398mph or it had a Vulture V with ???? power.
How good was FLAK directors and control in 1940-42?, it's okay for the FLAK to be able to reach the bombers but mechanical fuses were not accurate at any range and height, so inaccurate in fact it directly lead to the development of the VT fuse. Bomber Command switched to nights because of losses, at least during the day if they had escort Spitfires they had a chance of seeing their intended target, the early years of BC night bombing they were lucky to get bombs within tens of kilometers of them.Even the much-vaunted Lancaster topped out at 21,400ft which still is nowhere close to the operating altitudes of B-17s or B-24s and is still right in the sweet spot for Flak 88s. Maybe...just maybe....the RAF leadership were smarter than some give them credit?
Their is more than enough room for 30G per side by extending the tank inboard from rib 7 to rib 1, PR Spitfire's used this arrangment. Once the upper rear aux 42G is burnt off change to the 90G dropper which gets you searching for trouble over the Ruhr, with it dropped you still have 96G left in the main, 60G in the leading edges and 33G in the lower rear tank, more than enough fuel to do the job. In 1940-41 both the .50 BMG and 20mm Hispano are rubbish, stick with the .303's loaded with AP, De Wilde and tracer harmonised to converge within a 1m square at 250 meters.From my perspective, the first approach would have been wing re-design (internally) to see if 50+ gal in each wing could be accomodated but still retain 4x20mm or even 4x50 cal with same airfoil section.
With fused AA fire the errors are exponential.How good was FLAK directors and control in 1940-42?, it's okay for the FLAK to be able to reach the bombers but mechanical fuses were not accurate at any range and height, so inaccurate in fact it directly lead to the development of the VT fuse. Bomber Command switched to nights because of losses, at least during the day if they had escort Spitfires they had a chance of seeing their intended target, the early years of BC night bombing they were lucky to get bombs within tens of kilometers of them.
For escort, SOP would cause use of 90gal droptank first. At moment of enemy engagement, no pilot wants 90 gal unsealed 'napalm to still be attached and unused;Their is more than enough room for 30G per side by extending the tank inboard from rib 7 to rib 1, PR Spitfire's used this arrangment. Once the upper rear aux 42G is burnt off change to the 90G dropper which gets you searching for trouble over the Ruhr, with it dropped you still have 96G left in the main, 60G in the leading edges and 33G in the lower rear tank, more than enough fuel to do the job. In 1940-41 both the .50 BMG and 20mm Hispano are rubbish, stick with the .303's loaded with AP, De Wilde and tracer harmonised to converge within a 1m square at 250 meters.
View attachment 742965
No it isn't, the Spitfire was only cleared for combat with 33G the P51 35G in the rear tanks.For escort, SOP would cause use of 90gal droptank first. At moment of enemy engagement, no pilot wants 90 gal unsealed 'napalm to still be attached and unused;
Neither the 1940-41 era .50BMG or 20mm Hispano worked as designed, eight .303's loaded with appropriate ammunition did.It occurs to me that the Spitfire's 4x.303 add little to the effective firepower of an escort fighter attacking incoming fighters so perhaps leave in the 2x20mm cannon and have the extra space left for fuel?
The escort Spitfire would be the MkIII with two speed Merlin XX's.Now perhaps we can solve some the power problem in 1941 by jamming Merlin XX engines into the escorts instead of Merlin 45s?
P51's, P38's P47's couldn't climb either at the start of their flight out, no fighter that had the fuel load to fight 400 miles out could except the P47, it couldn't climb empty and they were used as escorts. None of the arguments against the Spitfire stack up because the issue's were still their in 1943-44 when escorting bombers hit full swing.There are performance figures for this MK II in "the Spitfire Story" by Alfred Price (page 137 in my copy). I am perfectly willing to concede that 30mph speed difference at 20,000 between this configuration and a standard MK II would pretty much disappear with internal fuel storage what would not disappear would be the difference in climb. Which at 20,000ft was 2,175fpm for the standard plane and 1,420fpm for the loaded one. At 25,000ft the difference was 1,600fpm to 1,050fpm.
This was for 40(?) IMP gal. With internal tank/s the difference would be a bit closer but if you want another 40imp gal inside??????
Not sure what your point was here. 'Burn 25-40gal in fuse tank was 'recommended', not a condition for 'combat clearance'. The mission dictated the actual process. Additionally, the stricture was for the extremely low stick force in accelerated turn with aft cg. The bob weight mitigated that issue - but the solution was to avoid turning fight.No it isn't, the Spitfire was only cleared for combat with 33G the P51 35G in the rear tanks.
Kind of misses the point.P51's, P38's P47's couldn't climb either at the start of their flight out, no fighter that had the fuel load to fight 400 miles out could except the P47, it couldn't climb empty and they were used as escorts. None of the arguments against the Spitfire stack up because the issue's were still their in 1943-44 when escorting bombers hit full swing.
???? Did you miss the memo that P-38s and P-51s were fighting 600mi out when P-47s were turning back for home at 400mi out?P51's, P38's P47's couldn't climb either at the start of their flight out, no fighter that had the fuel load to fight 400 miles out could except the P47, it couldn't climb empty and they were used as escorts. None of the arguments against the Spitfire stack up because the issue's were still their in 1943-44 when escorting bombers hit full swing.
It was in regards to SR reply in regards to handling and climb when loaded with fuel. You also have to take into account the time frame, the Luftwaffe had a very strong presence on the channel coast in 1941-42, you wouldn't want to be caught by an FW190 with full rear tanks, the full drop tank could at least be dropped as a last resort.I don't understand your point about climb with a full load of fuel. ALL were piggish in climb to altitude.
We aren't trying to get the Spit to match the Mustang, we are just trying to get worthwhile range out of it, that's why we are focused on the Ruhr valley from 1941.Internal fuel remaining at the point of attack was the determinant for Combat Radius. For a Spit to have the same combat radius as any model P-51