IIRC P-51Ds, at least those operating against Japan in 45, had a tail warning radar.
Juha
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Rear warning radars were fitted to British and German nightfighters, and also to RAF night bombers (at least to the heavies).
Not to s/e fighters, though.
Monica tail warning radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You could paint the undersides like the Ta 152s, or Doras that were detailed to protect Me262s in the RTB and landing phase.
But i'm sure that'd be a little too wild for most of the gliders owners. And reds are the most expensive colors.
All P-51D-25 and above series had tail warning radar.. first showed up in ETO in Jan 45. Having said that I am not aware of any instance in which it was cited as saving a Mustang.
All P-51D-25 and above series had tail warning radar.. first showed up in ETO in Jan 45. Having said that I am not aware of any instance in which it was cited as saving a Mustang.
Low drag...Shenstone wanted a small fin, something he had learnt from Lippisch and during his time at Junkers.
So the tail fin was fine tuned to the thin fuselage?It was designed to reflect the properties of slim fuselage boom and tuned wing wake spillage.
The thin fuselage, the wing and tail position on it?But the same (absolutely brilliant) work meant that a Spit would have good elevator authority even at very high speeds.
I wonder if it was just a wild ass guess, because let's face it, a fair number of those shot down pilots died before they had a chance to tell anyone what happened.
With reference to the BoB very few planes flew alone, an individual pilot may have been shot down and unable to tell the tale but a squadron as a whole always knew it had been "bounced"I wonder if it was just a wild ass guess, because let's face it, a fair number of those shot down pilots died before they had a chance to tell anyone what happened.
Low drag...
So the tail fin was fine tuned to the thin fuselage?
I'm not sure I would say that, it seemed more maneuverable than the P-51 at lower speeds, similar to the P-40 at some speeds.The Germans did, it was called the 109, which fortunately for them was just manoeuvrable enough to be competitive when often forced into that situation.
The F-105 had to do more with the fact that the US didn't have an attack category, or more accurately some kind of small light-bomber category that was suitably to meet the tactical needs. As a result fighters filled the roles up and, to make it worse, the nuclear delivery role mattered more than agility.The US did too later, with things like the F-105, F-104 and so on, all rather less than successful....
The Hurricane was originally intended to be a fighter and later converted into an interceptor design with 8 x 0.303's. I'm not sure if the Spitfire was totally designed for interception off the bat, but the eight 303's came later, and that in turn actually played a role in leading to the elliptical wing (a decent airfoil that could stuff all eight guns in), also the company had an interest in the idea before. As for little being said about agility, I'm not sure if I would say that even about the spitfire: There was a stipulation for 6g with an overload of 9g (1.5).Interestingly the British requirements that led to the Spitfire and Hurricane also had little about manoeuvrability.
I'm confused here... are we talking about the P-51 or Me-109?So the 109 was good enough in most flight regimes to be (and stay) competitive. For example, against a Mustang, below 250-275mph it would hold its own (at least), above that the Mustang had the advantage in terms of turning (and definitely rolling). If they had just fixed up those rubbish elevators and ailerons it would have been even more dangerous that it was.
So the configuration of the thin fuselage, the tail based on the size of the wings, and the wings based on the massive fillets, played a role in the Spitfire's high dive-mach?But the same (absolutely brilliant) work meant that a Spit would have good elevator authority even at very high speeds.
When you're talking about stall characteristics you mean issues with the tendency to spin? As for the mach limit, from what I remember Mach 0.75 was considered decent for the time, and it could be pushed up to 0.80-0.84 without coming unglued. Compared to the Spitfire, sure it was inferior, but almost everybody was.Everyone says that the Mustang was a superior aerodynamic design, personally I disagree totally . . . . then it's mach limit, then it's stall issues then
Unqualified air-racer?Superb radiator design and superb frontal design (thanks to an 'unqualified air racer', NA's genius was to use him properly) and far (far) better quality control.
What's with him and his desire to distort or fudge information?FLYBOYJ said:The Rand article is headed by Pierre Spey, he was part of the old Fighter mafia that brought the F-15 into play, a jealous old man who doesn't like Lockheed or being retired.
While I'm not an aerospace engineer, I do remember it being said by people who served in the US Navy, and some people who did seem to have some engineering expertise, that it was best to build strength into a design off the bat, rather than attempt to add it in later.That 5G limit may be expanded at a later date - I think comparing this to Shermans or F-4s lack of cannons is a bit far reaching however as we do know history has a way of repeating itself.
by this stage the Australians had no faith in the British leadership, and fought their battles as they saw fit...not officially, of course, but thats how it was back then.
The lesson here is that experiewnce tells you when to go for it and when to keep your mouth shut and your head down.
I expect the same applies in the air.....the experienced guys know to keep a constant lookout....the ones that dont, generally dont live to tell the story
It's hard to explain his motives, ignorance, jealousy, or the fact that he's not in the spotlight anymoreWhat's with him and his desire to distort or fudge information?