Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Regarding the Spitfire, there are a couple factors that I have not seen mentioned yet.
First of all, the Mk.V and Mk.IX were only "interim" versions but the "definitive" Mk.VIII was a heavier aircraft that did not perform quite as well. With the lighter Merlin engine, you really didn't need the extra structure as you might with the Griffon in the Mk.XIV.
It takes a war to turn pic 1 into pic 3.
I meant the rate of progress S/R, look at all the planes in production and on the drawing board in Sept 1939 and compare the same in Aug 1945.View attachment 502426
Lockheed Super Electra first flight July 27th 1937.
There were a number of other flap designs.
Verry enlightening answers to things I have wondered about. I'm sure there are many more examples like this like leaving the supercharger off the p39 or p40 but I want to leave at least a few picks for others.
All good points. I was thinking that even a tiny increase in wieght of fuel could have huge benefits in certain situations. I suppose once you head down that road at the drawing board you could end up in a never ending" what about 10 more gallons" and 10 more after that and 10 more after that until you end up with as someone said a flying fuel truck. I guess you have to draw the line somewhere and they drew it where the thought it needed to be but it does seem if modification for a small amount of additional fuel was possible later it certainly would have yielded large benefits. Maybe it wasn't practical or maybe it's one of those looks obvious with the benefit of hindsight but didn't seem so at the time things. One of those missed opportunities.
Sorry i was referring to not upgrading to a two stage supercharger latter on when it was available. Guess I drastically missworded that. My bad.The P-39 and P-40 both have superchargers.
They do not have turbochargers although the P-39 was designed with one.
Could this not have been located behind the cockpit ala p51( an honest question not a retorical one). Might have caused some handling issues with the rear tank full like again the 51 but if this were used up in warm up/ take off the same way then the benefits would seem to out way the downside no?To fit that extra ten gallons in a Spitfire main tank means making the tank longer and leaving out all the instruments and maybe the instrument panel. Pilots are known to bitch about various things and in this case it I think it would definitely be warranted.
There was a rear tank in some spitfires, it had the same issue as on the P-51. However this wouldn't solve the problem. The P-51 was faster on maximum speed, but it was also faster when cruising, on the same engine setting it was 30mPH quicker which is a long way on a 6 hr mission much of which is cruising. The Spitfire could use external slipper tanks of varying sizes, but the bigger the tank the more performance was affected, with the biggest slipper tank it was possible to fly to somewhere you cannot fly back from.Could this not have been located behind the cockpit ala p51( an honest question not a retorical one). Might have caused some handling issues with the rear tank full like again the 51 but if this were used up in warm up/ take off the same way then the benefits would seem to out way the downside no?
So if I understand that corectly 10 gallons additional on a spitfire would not be enough to materially impact combat radius at least in some part due to a lower cruising speed as compaired the the p51 for instance. And just continueing on with the same lime of reasoning here, I'm guessing a maybe a larger tank mounted in the same manner would cause unacceptable instability issues on take off?There was a rear tank in some spitfires, it had the same issue as on the P-51. However this wouldn't solve the problem. The P-51 was faster on maximum speed, but it was also faster when cruising, on the same engine setting it was 30mPH quicker which is a long way on a 6 hr mission much of which is cruising. The Spitfire could use external slipper tanks of varying sizes, but the bigger the tank the more performance was affected, with the biggest slipper tank it was possible to fly to somewhere you cannot fly back from.
Cruising a Merlin uses 50 gals/hr, at maximum it uses 150galls hr. (as ball park figures). So it gives you an extra 12 minutes cruising or 6 minutes range about 25 miles.So if I understand that corectly 10 gallons additional on a spitfire would not be enough to materially impact combat radius at least in some part due to a lower cruising speed as compaired the the p51 for instance. And just continueing on with the same lime of reasoning here, I'm guessing a maybe a larger tank mounted in the same manner would cause unacceptable instability issues on take off?
Seems an extra 12 minutes could have been more than useful in some situations or maybe say 18 minutes with a slightly larger tank if that was doable without causing to much of a instability on take off issue? but I suppose as was said earlier you have to draw the line somewhere with the fuel thing and guys alot smarter than me drew it where they thought it should go. I just can't help but think what an extra18 or even 12 minutes might have meant in alot of situations in a plane with a limited combat radius.Cruising a Merlin uses 50 gals/hr, at maximum it uses 150galls hr. (as ball park figures). So it gives you an extra 12 minutes cruising or 6 minutes range about 25 miles.
The other side is what missions would a long range spitfire do? The RAF didn't have a suitable day bomber. A fighter doesn't do much damage on its own and in any case the Mustang MkI was ordered by the British who received 500 of them, they also had Typhoons to shoot up locos in France.Seems an extra 12 minutes could have been more than useful in some situations or maybe say 18 minutes with a slightly larger tank if that was doable without causing to much of a instability on take off issue? but I suppose as was said earlier you have to draw the line somewhere with the fuel thing and guys alot smarter than me drew it where they thought it should go. I just can't help but think what an extra18 or even 12 minutes might have meant in alot of situations in a plane with a limited combat radius.
Agreed. I think its fair to say, ya a little more endurance would have certainly been useful in some situations but you can't expect guys at the drawing board years earlier to envision every possible future situation especially when the mission profile they had in mind when designing the spit was not one that requires a particularly long range. So now I have a much better idea " why the heck did they designed it that way" Thanks!The other side is what missions would a long range spitfire do? The RAF didn't have a suitable day bomber. A fighter doesn't do much damage on its own and in any case the Mustang MkI was ordered by the British who received 500 of them, they also had Typhoons to shoot up locos in France.
Yes thats one of the things that has always been kinda frustrating for me to read that for many types just as improvements in hp came along so would a wheelbarrow full of new required wieghtYou also have to remember that when many of these aircraft were designed (pencils/pens put to paper) self sealing tanks, armor and BP glass were not required.
These added hundreds of pounds to fighters and often resulted in smaller fuel tanks. In some cases in 1940 the improvements in the engines barely kept pace with the increase inoperational weight let alone allowed large increases in fuel storage. Radio equipment was also added. For the British IFF so their own planes would show up on the ground radar as friendly is an often overlooked change.
I am not sure if endurance/range was actually sacrificed as much as it was pretty much left alone.
How is the Spitfire a contemporary? Only 500 Mustang Mk I arrived in UK with Allison engines. When did the Mustang Mk II (P-51A) appear in service? The contract was placed in June 1942 and 360 were built before production switched to P-51B/C, since it only performed at low level did it out perform Griffon Spitfire Mk XII which was in production from Oct 1942. How many P-51As (Mustang II) were deployed to Europe, they must have been needed if they were so much better than everything else.