Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Despite all that is written on 120 posts?The spitfire would win due to its better maneuverability.
Hi PAT 303,
I don't believe anybody dogfights with drop tanks on unless they get jumped and get off a few shots before or as they drop tanks. It isn't from thinking the tanks might break off in maneuvering as much as from the effect on flight characteristics with the extra weight and the effect on performance.
If we have a full 150-U.S. gallon drop tank that weighs 25 pounds, and if it is held on by four 1/4" - 28 bolts, we have a theoretical limit of 11 g's or so if we use yield strength rather than tensile strength, but most WWII pilots didn't spend the time to calculate the reserve strength, the effect on stall speed, or on rolling ability. They'd drop tanks because they were going into combat with an enemy who might not have drop tanks installed and didn't want to lose performance while in combat. It was dangerous enough without unnecessarily giving away performance.
NAA were recording the ACTUAL weight of components on their Technical Drawings as far back as 1937 on the BC-1 so destroying an aircraft just to weigh various parts was never necessary on NAA aircraft.Joking apart Bill, as I read it recently NAA and Supermarine compared data, so it was the average weight of components for aircraft under construction and then a discussion of how those fitted the standards in UK. Cheaper and quicker than actually destroying an aircraft just to weigh various parts of it?
The spitfire would win due to its better maneuverability.
Add to that the Spitfire tanks are an inverted aerofoil so they not only produce drag but are also cancelling some of the lift the aircraft wing is producing. This would definitely reduce aerobatic performance and that is what you need in most combat situations.
This is why the flight manual says the aircraft is difficult to fly with external tanks - the reduction in total lift means you are flying much closer to the aircrafts stall speed at all times those tanks are fitted.
View attachment 594849
Although the Spit was pressed into service for some CAS and other roles, only the Recon versions were tasked for longer range. The Spit primary role was air superiority. Typhoon/Tempest (or Mustang III/IV) better suited for intermediate to long range multi-tasking.It's one of WW2's mysteries that despite having access to internal auxiliary tanks from 1940 and drop tanks from '41 Spitfires were still being used in '45 with just the forward tank, and a slipper.
It's one of WW2's mysteries that despite having access to internal auxiliary tanks from 1940 and drop tanks from '41 Spitfires were still being used in '45 with just the forward tank, and a slipper.
It's one of WW2's mysteries that despite having access to internal auxiliary tanks from 1940 and drop tanks from '41 Spitfires were still being used in '45 with just the forward tank, and a slipper.
Keeping the C of G within reasonable limits?
Doctrine left over from 1920s/30s.
Fighters were supposed to have enough of range to cover UK. Any combat beyond UK by aircraft located in the UK was to be done by Bomber Command.
Greetings OrzelThe spitfire would win due to its better maneuverability.
The engines would recognise a brother or cousin and refuse to fight, forcing the pilots to dance the skies on laughter silvered wings and join the tumbling mirth of sun split clouds.Greetings Orzel
I think that if these aircraft were opponents, the actuality of such a combat would have more variability. If I understand what has been posted here and on other threads correctly, the outcome would depend a great deal on the speed at which the engagement is fought and how much of the combat is speed related versus turning and climbing. If the speed of engagement is lower than yes, the Spitfire has a definitive advantage but if its speed (boom & zoom) then I think the advantage shifts to the Mustang. One area where the Mustang has an absolute advantage is endurance. In longer fights the Mustang can simply outlast the Spitfire. A couple of the Mustang pilots I knew growing up mentioned several times how their opponents would run out of gas in the middle of combat and need to quit.
It is often pointed out on this thread that the pilot is the difference between closely matched planes and whichever pilot is able to use their advantages most successfully would determine the outcome between these two.
Kk
Add to that the Spitfire tanks are an inverted aerofoil so they not only produce drag but are also cancelling some of the lift the aircraft wing is producing. This would definitely reduce aerobatic performance and that is what you need in most combat situations.
This is why the flight manual says the aircraft is difficult to fly with external tanks - the reduction in total lift means you are flying much closer to the aircrafts stall speed at all times those tanks are fitted.
View attachment 594849
Nailed It!The engines would recognise a brother or cousin and refuse to fight, forcing the pilots to dance the skies on laughter silvered wings and join the tumbling mirth of sun split clouds.
The Mustang's history is not unlike the Spitfire's, in that until it got the Merlin 60 - 70 series in them, they then became really awesome aircraft - For the Spitfire Mk.IX, it was a progressive interim model to overcome the advent of the new German Focke Wulf FW-190 which was decimating the then workhorse Spitfire Mk.V's -
- The Spitfire was 'born' to be a 'defensive' fighter, over it's own territory essentially, it's wing profile gave it exceptional manouevrability, 'like a leaf falling' shall we say, whereas the Mustang D was built to have 'longer-legs' and was made to 'protect' the bombers which it did with supreme ability -
I don't pop into Google like some folk, I've spent years reading & researching from factual accounts of the War,