- Thread starter
-
- #61
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The only other problem was that the Americans wouldn't sell us their superchargers; it's why the P-38 turned out to be useless.
The rear hull tank(s) for Spitfires were much far aft than it was the case for P-40 (though they were shoving there some ~70 gals in the Spits). Or, as can be seen down, for the proposed Hurricane's installation:
Hi, Edgar,
Would you be so kind to elaborate a bit about that?
The difference is that the P-36 was designed from the start to have that fuel tank where it was, it was not added several years later. The P-40 inherited the tank set-up and the rear tank was part of the P-40 design process from the first day pencil was put to paper. In fact it was such an integrated part of the design that when the "L" and "N" stripper models were built and a tank left out to lighten the plane, of the 3 tanks available the rear tank was left in and one of the tanks in the wing center section was the one that came out. Without knowing all the the different weights and balance arms involved it would be very difficult for an engineer to figure it out let alone most us on this forum.
Some wings (airfoils) were more tolerant of CG shifts than others. Some governments were a little more tolerant of certain flight characteristics at aft CG limits than others ( I have heard it said that the DC-3 Could not be certified under today's rules at it's aft CG limit).
Just because one or two airplanes could be flown with aft tanks doesn't mean all fighters could be.
Batteries can spark; spark + fuel = explosionThere is plenty of room in Hurri; battery can go above the fuel tank that is, in preliminary 30 gal version, less than 2/3rds of P-40 rear tank's volume. The 12V is 12V, no matter what type of battery it is, anyway..
Purchase A.P.1565E (the manual for the Spitfire V); you'll find the instruction in there.Granted, you are very knowledgeable person when it comes down about British planes, yet, in the Spit V pilot's notes such a procedure is nowhere to be found.
You're forgetting (again) that the Hurricane was no longer a fighter, and that side of its use was over; where it was forced to continue (e.g. Malta) it was decimated. Add bombs, rockets, 40mm cannon, etc., and the Hurricane is no longer 1000lbs lighter than the P-40. You wouldn't have found many dirt strips, here, either; grass fields tend to be quite soft during three of the four seasons in the U.K.As for the kind of runaways the Hurri would be taking off, it was lighter than P-40F by some 1000 lbs as-is, with 10% more wing area. Nothing to worry there; P-40 was renown for it's ability to use dirt strips
No; that's how it's been reported, here, for years. If anyone has evidence that refutes it, I'll withdraw it.Would you be so kind to elaborate a bit about that?
If you check back, you'll see that I was responding to another contributor's suggestion; that is permitted, I presume?As for Hurricane with V-1710 - why bother?
If you check back, you'll see that I was responding to another contributor's suggestion; that is permitted, I presume?
The 29gal tank was not to be used for combat, just for ferrying; it could only be used in combination with the 170gal ferry tank. You might not like the rule, but that's how it was.The rear hull tank(s) for Spitfires were much far aft than it was the case for P-40 (though they were shoving there some ~70 gals in the Spits). Or, as can be seen down, for the proposed Hurricane's installation:
As I've already pointed out, the Hurricane had been written off, as a fighter, and was not projected beyond early 1941; it was only continued because of its ground-attack capablities. Stop considering it as a fighter, since the Air Ministry certainly had.
Merlin XX, not XXIV, which was a boosted engine intended for the Lancastrian; the Spitfire V did not "miss out," since it was never planned to take the XX. It was possible to get the Merlin 45 into the same space as the Merlin II/III, so, apart from eventually strengthened engine bearers, the V was an easy conversion. The XX-powered Spitfire III needed a redesigned engine compartment, strengthened fuselage, extended engine bearers, strengthened and extended (forwards) u/c, and, after all that, its top speed still didn't reach 400 mph.
That's what happened, anyway.
The only other problem was that the Americans wouldn't sell us their superchargers; it's why the P-38 turned out to be useless.
As I've already shown, it could not, since the Spitfire III's top speed was only 395; the two-stage Merlin was absolutely essential, to give the VIII/IX an even chance against the 190
Safe? You're putting the fuel tank and the battery right beside the upward-firing pyrotechnic recognition device. Rather you than me; there was also a chute, back there, which contained a downward-firing parachute flare, and the I.F.F. radio had an explosive device fitted to it. And don't say that they could be moved back, since theCofG considerations wouldn't have allowed it.Okay, then the battery is going above the fuel tank, just to be on the safe side .
I'm not really interested in whether you accept it (though I would prefer you not to call me a liar); it happens to be the truth. The XX was 4" longer than the III and II, so the fuselage also had grow by 4". This entailed longer, and stronger, engine bearers, a stronger (and raked-forward) undercarriage, and a stiffened fuselage. The XX also needed extra cooling, which means a larger radiator, which means more drag.I don't accept that the Spitfire V with a two speed Merlin needed the extensive modifications you state.
So you're saying that Supermarine didn't know what they were doing (with their own aircraft,) when they felt the need to strengthen the fuselage and engine bearers, even to cope with the extra torque from the Merlin 45-series? According to Rolls-Royce, the XX developed 1280hp @ 3000rpm, not 1480, and was also far more complicated than the II, III, 45, etc. The carburettor was separate from the blower, for a start.The two speed Merlin XX barely had more power than the single stage (maybe 1480 instead of 1280 hp) but the key to performance was that it could maintain this level of power over a broader range of altitudes. Only 200 extra hp (15%) isn't going to rip appart the airframe.
The Fw190 is something of a red herring, since the Spitfire V was introduced as a counter to the 109F; at the time construction was started the 190 was unknown.When the FW 190 started decimationg Spitfire V's and the Two stage Merlin was rushed into the Spitifre V to create the Spitifre IX non of these extensive modifications were introduced.
Not according to Rolls-Royce, who carried out the first 285 IX conversions, and the XX also needed extra cooling.Placing a Merlin 20 series (with a two speed supercharger) is going to be much easier than a two stage intercooled Merlin 60 series with its greater length and much greater cooling requirements (due to the intercooler).
Only if you know of the existence of the 190, remember? The Air Ministry was hardly likely to know about the early 190's limitations, until they captured one, and test flew it; it's very easy to apply hindsight to a discussion like this, try going back 70+ years, with the knowledge tat the time.If the Spitifre V with Merlin XX could manage 395 it is still 25mph faster than the Spitifre V with a Merlin 45 (single speed). This is enough to cope with the FW 190A2 and early A3 since these aircraft indidn't have the full 1700hp 1.42 ata rating but were restricted to 1.3 and 1.37 ata initially and were sub 400mph aircraft as well.
They were not seen as "precious" by R-R, they were a confounded nuisance. They were also used in the Halifax II, Defiant II, Beaufighter II, and Lancaster I, so putting them into another airframe was not a good idea.Of course the reason the Spitifre was never scheduled into production with the Merlin 20 series is because these precious engines were being absorbed by Hurricane prioduction.
Cropping superchargers did not start until mid-war, and work started on the Merlin 60-series in March 1940; originally planned for high-level bombers, it was moved sideways into fighters.Putting a cropped supercharger (Merlin 45M) into the Hurricane II makes more sense as the Hurricanes only use is ground attack it should be engaging in combat above 10000ft or even be in the danger zone that long. The Spitifre V/Merlin 20 however would seem to gain a potent 20-25mph