Kevin J
Banned
Stick a couple of floats underneath it and we could have had a decent float plane fighter
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Stick a couple of floats underneath it and we could have had a decent float plane fighterOne firm that desperately needed some design help was the fighter department of Martin-Baker.
The same country that made the Spitfire made this POS.
View attachment 565695
Absolutely same engine, same height, its all in wwiiaircraftperformance.org.
One firm that desperately needed some design help was the fighter department of Martin-Baker.
The same country that made the Spitfire made this POS.
View attachment 565695
The LFIII tops out at 296 knots or about 340 mph,Really.
There is only 1 report on the MK.III of that site and two speed charts - for LF.III and F.III which have different FTH.
The LIII max speed is 296 knots so 340 mph at 6000 feet, the FIII at 351 mph at 10500 feet. These would be the figures before the general cleanup, like individual exhaust stacks, close attention to badly fitting panels, and on Cunliffe-Owen built Seafires, flush riveting which increased speed on the LIII to 358 mph. If you believe the lower figures then why not use the FM-2 instead?Really.
There is only 1 report on the MK.III of that site and two speed charts - for LF.III and F.III which have different FTH.
IIRC this was found to be Photoshopped. Enhancement suggests that the leading edge radiators are still in place. I can't find the reference but it was in some modelling forum.Here's the photo that I saved to my laptop. I'll have a look for the forum next.View attachment 565633
The much lauded MB5 essentially used the same structure. Martin Baker were not allowed a Merlin nor immediate access to retracting undercarriage kit. Easy to make and easy to maintain.One firm that desperately needed some design help was the fighter department of Martin-Baker.
The same country that made the Spitfire made this POS.
View attachment 565695
Why is the worst location for coolant/oil radiators under the engine?Under the engine is the Worst location possible from consideration of profile/parasite drag. The P-39/P-51 were much better. Even the Hurricane and Spit and Bf 109F/G were better as the flow around the nose, cockpit and leading edge of the wing is more fully developed with respect to delayed boundary layer build up.
Weight is a function of internal volume required for various fractions (fuel, armament, crew, etc.) as well as the structural design limit and ultimate load factors - for good design. Otherwise take your pick for crappy design. Remember that the P-40 firewall and aft fuselage design originated from the pre-Allison P-36 and Curtiss never figured out a low drag radiator scheme adequate for climb conditions using Meredith Effect concepts of burying the radiator/oil cooler aft of the mid chord of the wing.
The only relief for crappy design is increased horsepower - and lots of it.
You could be right, but theoretically the performance is feasible given the way the radiator on the Mustang gave extra thrust and boosted performance.IIRC this was found to be Photoshopped. Enhancement suggests that the leading edge radiators are still in place. I can't find the reference but it was in some modelling forum.
Re-read my comment.Why is the worst location for coolant/oil radiators under the engine?
You could be right, but theoretically the performance is feasible given the way the radiator on the Mustang gave extra thrust and boosted performance.
Surely the worst location for coolant/oil radiators is above the engine. Everyone put them somewhere below the engine.Why is the worst location for coolant/oil radiators under the engine?
The Whirlwind was being developed at the same time as the P-40 and first flew years before the P-51 was even conceived.The problems with the Whirlwind are twin engine complexity, low diving speed and lack of a suitable engine, then there's cost; why buy the Whirlwind when you can a Warhawk or Mustang for half the price that does the job as well as or better.
I believe Rolls Royce felt the chin radiator was a better solution for the Mosquito. That being said it may have been more difficult to implement with the two stage engines.The Typhoon Mk I with wing leading edge radiators was significantly faster than the Typhoon Mk V with chin radiator. Albeit with a different spec engine.
The Mosquito was trialed with the Beaufighter/Lancaster engine power egg with the chin radiator, and was found to be no faster, slightly better radiator cooling, but worse oil cooling.
The F III used the Merlin 55, the LF III used the Merlin 55M. The difference being that the 55M had a smaller diameter impeller.Really.
There is only 1 report on the MK.III of that site and two speed charts - for LF.III and F.III which have different FTH.
Funilly enough the Germans called it "erdnagel" meaning ground peg.
I like the idea.Forget the Typhoon. Give Wittle more money in 1930s, get the engine sorted out sooner and get Gloster on the ball. Send 5 squadrons of armed E.28/39s to Malaya in the Spring of 1941 and 10 squadrons more by Oct 1941. Japanese are in for a nasty surprise