The woodmans favourite axe

[Lighthunmust]

After WWII, piston engine fighters would not find much opportunity for dog fighting, but if it became unavoidable, a late mark Spit would be comparable to any other in the air. Not bad for a fighter designed in the mid 30's. Sure it was greatly redesigned over the span of development, but it was still a Spitfire. Of course the Bf109 from the mid 30's also had a long career. People use terms of endearment when speaking of Spitfires. People use terms of admiration when speaking of Bf109s. Both are icons.


P.S. Readie you spell favorite funny, don't you know proper english?

 

[Readie]

Right on the money there.


English like what she is spoke


Favourite, Z's for S's and other US English misspelling on Microsoft spell check drives me bonkers Steve.

You need a sense of humour in 2011
Cheers
John

 

[pbfoot]

Maybe you have.

It also doesn't stop you drawing the wrong conclusions.
The Spitfire also served as PR, buzzbomb interceptor and with the RAF until the 1950's.
The rearming of the RCAF with P51's is, with respect, irrelevant.

Cheers
John

Cheers
john

how did you miss glider tug

 

[Readie]

how did you miss glider tug

Thanks PBF, I had overlooked that role.

The towing attachment rather neatly combined with the tailwheel assembly.

Cheers
John

 

[davebender]

Take a basic Spit, add the enlarged forward tank, the 30 gallon rear tank and the wing tanks and you have something over 150 imperial gallons internal.

That's better then running out of fuel. However placing small fuel tanks and connecting fuel lines all over the aircraft sounds like a gasoline fire waiting to happen. The small wing tanks might also have problems with fuel pick up.

 

[Lighthunmust]

That's better then running out of fuel. However placing small fuel tanks and connecting fuel lines all over the aircraft sounds like a gasoline fire waiting to happen. The small wing tanks might also have problems with fuel pick up.

Good point. Concentrating all fuel in the fuselage makes for a smaller target and is easier to protect with airframe and armor. It also aids roll response by eliminating weight in the wings.

 

[davebender]

That's the solution I would prefer. Put all the fuel in the fuselage and ideally it should all be in a single well-protected tank. Of course you need adequate space in the fuselage, which is the achilles heel of small Spitfire and Me-109 airframes.

I wonder if some existing fuselage equipment such as radios could be relocated to the wings to make room for a larger fuel tank. If a 2cm mine shell hits a wing mounted radio it won't cause a serious fire.

 

[Readie]

Unless, the chances of a terminal hit are less with say 3 tanks, one in each wing and one in the fuselage.
Just a thought
Cheers
John

 

[davebender]

If a 2cm mine shell hits a fuel tank it's all over no matter where the tank is located. Installing small fuel tanks in the wing increase the chances for such a hit.

 

[Readie]

If a 2cm mine shell hits a fuel tank it's all over no matter where the tank is located. Installing small fuel tanks in the wing increase the chances for such a hit.

Fair comment.The options for fuel tanks on the Spitfire where rather limited though...

 

[tomo pauk]

on a slightly related issue:
By taking a look at not-that-favourite axe, the BP Defiant, it's pretty clear that plane had pretty wide hull, for a SE fighter. Necessitated by turret, surely. So lets turn a Defiant into a long range fighter:
-delete the turret
-relocate the pilot a good meter/3-4ft aft (so we end up into a F4U-cockpit position)
-install a hull fuel tank of enviable proportions
-bolt as good a Merlin as it gets
-use the now-empty wing for armament

Two versions here (with a little help of my friend ), one with 1940's canopy, other bubble-top. Old aerials look pretty ugly, though :\

 

[Readie]

on a slightly related issue:
By taking a look at not-that-favourite axe, the BP Defiant, it's pretty clear that plane had pretty wide hull, for a SE fighter. Necessitated by turret, surely. So lets turn a Defiant into a long range fighter:
-delete the turret
-relocate the pilot a good meter/3-4ft aft (so we end up into a F4U-cockpit position)
-install a hull fuel tank of enviable proportions
-bolt as good a Merlin as it gets
-use the now-empty wing for armament

Two versions here (with a little help of my friend ), one with 1940's canopy, other bubble-top. Old aerials look pretty ugly, though :\

That's an idea...I wonder why it wasn't done?
It has the space for extra fuel, firepower and the Merlin.
Ummmm..a lost opportunity?
Cheers
John

 

[fastmongrel]

The aerials were only underneath to prevent them being sawn off by 4 .303 Brownings. A normal aerial would be fitted if the Defiant fighter had been produced. Boulton Paul did have a design called the P94 for a single seat fighter.

 

[Readie]

The aerials were only underneath to prevent them being sawn off by 4 .303 Brownings. A normal aerial would be fitted if the Defiant fighter had been produced. Boulton Paul did have a design called the P94 for a single seat fighter.

Boulton Paul "Defiant" Mk.I RAF two-seat fighter-night fighter

Thanks, I didn't know about the P94
Cheers
John

 

[Lighthunmust]

That's an idea...I wonder why it wasn't done?
It has the space for extra fuel, firepower and the Merlin.
Ummmm..a lost opportunity?
Cheers
John

There is a photo in "Aircraft in Profile" V5. Turret removed and eight .303s in the wings.

 

[tomo pauk]

That's an idea...I wonder why it wasn't done?
It has the space for extra fuel, firepower and the Merlin.
Ummmm..a lost opportunity?
Cheers
John

Production of the Defiant ended in 1940, while the long range fighter was required much later.

 

[Readie]

Production of the Defiant ended in 1940, while the long range fighter was required much later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Whirlwind_(fighter)
We also had this, which had it been developed further, could have had a long range fighter role.

Also we had this
Bristol Beaufighter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both crying out for Merlins to be fitted to give them the oooomph.

Cheers
John

 

[Shortround6]

Both crying out for Merlins to be fitted to give them the oooomph.

Cheers
John

Fitting Merlins to the Whirlwind might have been a problem. It was the size of a Hurricane.

Merlin XXs were fitted to the MK II Beaufighter.

How much more "oooomph" are you going to get from a Merlin than from a Hercules at 1590-1735hp depending on version?

 

[Readie]

Fitting Merlins to the Whirlwind might have been a problem. It was the size of a Hurricane.

Merlin XXs were fitted to the MK II Beaufighter.

How much more "oooomph" are you going to get from a Merlin than from a Hercules at 1590-1735hp depending on version?

The Westland Whirlwind I mean was twin engined so fitting Merlins would have been achievable.It had Peregrines but, the Merlin was better.

The Beaufighter? 'Whispering death'. A name to conjure with eh. The Merlin was more streamlined than a radial and that would have made the Beau faster alone plus a Merlin 130/131 would provide the power.
I know Bristol fitted Merlins to the Beau at some stage but, other aircrafts needs were deemed greater.
Only one Merlin with so many uses !

Cheers
John

 

[Shortround6]

The Westland Whirlwind I mean was twin engined so fitting Merlins would have been achievable.It had Peregrines but, the Merlin was better.

The Beaufighter? 'Whispering death'. A name to conjure with eh. The Merlin was more streamlined than a radial and that would have made the Beau faster alone plus a Merlin 130/131 would provide the power.
I know Bristol fitted Merlins to the Beau at some stage but, other aircrafts needs were deemed greater.
Only one Merlin with so many uses !

Cheers
John

I like the Whirlwind and while it was a twin it was a small one, wing had less sq footage than a Hurricane and only 8 more than a Spitfire.

By the time the Merlin 130 came along the Beaufighter had had it's day. By that time if more ooomph was wanted just stuff Hercules 100's into it.