|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
August 19th 03, 11:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids, with added nationalistic abuse (was: #1 Jet of World War II)
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:56:13 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote: [snip agreed points... err, I mean customary imperialistic Yankee insults and abuse] They'd just re-allocate the bases to the relevant groups. Swap a grass strip for an asphalt one in another Group. I don't think it's a major issue. Not quite that simple, if you want to base them close to the U.S. daytime units. Who's going to use the grass strips 2 Gp. would be giving up? The heavies aren't. Ironically they did have to operate heavies from grass strips in 1940-42 with all that that suggests in terms of all-weather operational effectiveness, but in this case 3 Group has a larger allocation of asphalt runways. They can have some of 5 Group's more southerly ones as well, if neccessary. In this case we don't have Harris fulminating about the USAAF getting a disproportionate allocation of the all-weather base construction program. Really? I thought it had a better range and bombload, but I'm no expert. Slightly (but not significant in a tactical sense) better range, but only 3,000 lb. vs. 4,000 lb. bombload. Going into the Ruhr by day in 1943/early '44 at 10-15,000 feet (vs. the 20,000 feet plus of the heavies) would be a 'really bad idea' (tm). Yes, but not a hell of a lot worse than the "Daylight Lanc" fantasy, I mean, operational evaluation platform. I'm certain the B-25 carried more than 3,000lbs, but maybe only over shorter distances. I saw it fulfilling a diversionary/supporting role, hitting airfields and less-heavily defended targets outside the major heavy Flak belts and giving the Luftwaffe controllers headaches trying to identify the main raiding force formations. In other words, doing for the B-24s in 3 Group what the 2nd Bomb Division B-24s did for the B-17s in the rest of the 8th AF historically at this point. The mediums were doing what you say, but at shorter ranges, and there was never much doubt by the Luftwaffe who they were owing to the very different cruise and bombing altitudes. I still think hitting Schipol and Alkmaar with regular medium strikes and sequential fighter sweeps before and during B-17/B24 raids being routed over them is a good idea, and better than trying to do the same over the Pas de Calais. Put enough B-25 raids below the higher heavies, with enough fighter support, and the fighters with the best opportunity for bouncing the heavies escort and forcing them to drop external tanks will get sucked into their own private war and divert attention from the main force. The tactical bombers had to face the Flak when operating over western Germany in 1945, and it was suvivable given adequate support and decent planning. In 1945, when much of the defense was in a state approaching collapse, and where our airpower was overwhelming. And when the Flak threat, which is the main issue we both have with them in 1943-44, was much higher. If they were usable in 1945, their main threat in regard to operational altitude was less capable in 1943. Obviously, the fighter threat is the real issue in 1943, but the Luftwaffe could not afford to treat them like a Circus over the Pas De Calais, and so their ability to concentrate on them and inflict heavy attrition at their own leisure would be constrained. And many of the tactical targets they did hit had substantive flak defence (albeit nowhere near 1943 Ruhr levels, let alone 1945 Politz levels). Even so, I wouldn't suggest using them as a deep-penetration strategic force. Seems we agree on that, then. I see them hitting targets in Belgium, Holland and on the fringe of the German Bight and the Ruhr. I think that's credible: the Luftwaffe in 1943 could have given them a hard time, but only at the expense of ignoring the heavies which would be right behind them. Of course, the key difference between a USAAF daylight strategic bombing effort and an RAF one would be the greater efficiency of the latter. I mean, once we factor out all those ludicrous PX requirements for Coca-Cola, ice-cream and signed movie star's underwear, we should free up about 50% extra import capacity for bombs and replacement aircraft..... Ha! And if we could eliminate all the manhours lost/opportunites missed to morning and afternoon tea/brewing up, we could have won the war in 1944 at the latest;-) I thought we were resorting to ridiculously hyperbolic stereotypes for comic effect. I can't see anybody disputing this*. Which reminds me, time for a large wet. [* Notice the British war effort defeding tea-production against the encroaching Japanese prove this: note the tea-producing areas marked with a * 1941: Malaya - Have it. 1942: Singapore - Can't be bothered 1942: Burma - Knock yourselves out. 1943: Arakan - Yawn. 1944: Imphal & Kohima en route to Assam*: Fight to the death! also in terms of naval history: 1941: Force Z - You've got working torpedos? Rats. 1942: Java Sea - You've still got those torpedos? Ah well. 1942: Ceylon* - Back, you slant-eyed fiends!] Next: the impact of Dougout Doug's massive personal consumption on the coffee supply and the consequent fall of the Phillipines, 1942. Gavin Bailey -- Another user rings. "I need more space" he says. "Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell 
|
|
#2
August 20th 03, 03:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote in message ...
And when the Flak threat, which is the main issue we both have with them in 1943-44, was much higher. If they were usable in 1945, their main threat in regard to operational altitude was less capable in 1943. Obviously, the fighter threat is the real issue in 1943, but the Luftwaffe could not afford to treat them like a Circus over the Pas De Calais, and so their ability to concentrate on them and inflict heavy attrition at their own leisure would be constrained. While the amount of flak guns went up it appears the standard "window" was an effective jammer until the end of the war, so flak effectiveness seems to have gone down on a per gun basis from mid 1943. Hence the USAAF's use of it. I will drop this in since I have not seen it elsewhere, From the British history Design and Development of Weapons, M M Postan, D Hay, J D Scott. It claims there were 4 basic Spitfire airframes which it labels A, B, C and D D was the mark 21 onwards, C was the mark VII, VIII and most griffon marks up to XIX A was the original which served for the marks I, II, IV. It was stretched to do the Va, Vb, VI, PR VII and XIII and the Seafire I. B was the airframe developed from the abortive mark III fighter, it was used for the Vc, IX and XII, and presumably XVI. The main change appears to be the "universal" wing. I doubt this makes a major difference to CoG calculations in the mark V though. It seems the fighter had quite a tight margin, the report that for AB186 noting handling was worse with a Rotol propeller, rather than the standard de Havilland propeller, they were testing a modified elevator balance. BR202 (tropical Vc) was tried with a 29 gallon rear fuselage tank, requiring repositioning of the water tank, oxygen bottle and the R3002 radio, the certificate of design was issued on 7th July 1942 along with official approval. Some Spitfire Vs were flown from England to Gibraltar in early 1942, January I think, 5.5 hour flight. Seen Morgan and Shacklady, page 150 in my copy, map of Spitfire V range with extra fuel arrangements? Ferry, full overload tanks, 5 minutes take off, cruise at 240 mph with 20% fuel reserve, reinforcing radius 1140 miles. Escort, 5 minute take off, 10 minute climb, 15 minutes maximum power, remainder cruise at 240 mph, radius 540 miles. Given the need for higher cruise and problems of slower bombers this still should have meant around the German border at least. Note the extra range required a bigger oil tank, from 7.5 or 8.5 to 14.4 gallons. Note the deeper noses on the PR versions. The book does not state what fuel tankage is being used. In early 1942 Sholto-Douglas was asking for tanks of up to 30 gallons in the wings. Fighter Command had realised it needed more range to fight over France, it does not seem to have come up with the idea it should try for Germany. Apparently with drop tanks the Typhoon could make the German border. The RAF in Ceylon recognised the need for longer range as well, noting the Japanese capabilities. Fuel tankage according to Morgan and Shacklady, VIII 47 (upper) + 49 (lower) in front fuselage + 2 x14 (1 in each wing) IX 48 (upper) + 37 (lower) in front fuselage (same as V) later 2x18 (1 in each wing) and 33 or 41 in rear fuselage. XIV 36 (upper) + 48 (lower) in front fuselage + 2x12.75 (1 in each wing) XVIII 36 (upper) +48 (lower) in front fuselage + 2x12.75 (1 in each wing) +2x33 in rear fuselage. By the looks of it the FR version a camera replaced one of the rear fuselage tanks. The PR X, 47 (upper) + 48.5 (lower) in front fuselage + 2x66 (1 in each wing) the cameras were in the rear fuselage. The text mentions the mark IXe weights with 66 gallon rear tank. As far as I can tell the idea of major Spitfire modifications keeps running into the problem that until the P-47 was proven the allies did not have another fighter that could be considered a match for the Fw190A and Bf109G, hence the rush for the IX instead of awaiting the mark VIII. The middle east had to do without Spitfires until early/mid 1942 (Malta then Egypt), the major withdrawal of mark IXs from fighter command to the squadrons in Tunisia in early 1943. As far as I can see the long range Spitfire requires a Merlin 60 series to be competitive, and for the forward CG, wing fuel tanks, preferably a cut down rear fuselage for weight reasons, a bigger tail (at least XIV size) and the rear fuselage tanks, taking the best from the above you end up with 47 + 49 in the front fuselage 2 x 18 (1 in each wing) and 66 gallons in the rear fuselage, total 198 gallons. Then add external tanks, and remembering these are imperial gallons. Vickers apparently had a proposal for 197 gallons of internal fuel, in the above configuration. This would give a still air range of around 1,400 miles. The mark IX ML186 was apparently trialed in January 1945 with a 66 gallon rear tank and maybe some of the other tanks, take of speed was 78 mph, longitudinal stability started at 140 mph, flaps and undercarriage down tended to make the aircraft stable again. The pilot had to have his hand on the control stick at all times, cruising at 245 mph at 12,000 feet meant the aircraft could not be trimmed. After 35 gallons of fuel from the rear tank had been burnt the aircraft "stabilised". Spitfire output by Supermarine works, (from a graph in Design and Development of Weapons, which goes from January 1941 to December 1943, with a small quota of error when adding the totals up) columns are date / total for month / IV / VII / VIII / IX / XI / XII / XIV / Seafire. There was 1 mark VI in November 1942. Nov-42 112 / 3 / 3 / 6 / 58 / 3 / 1 / 0 / 37 Dec-42 106 / 5 / 2 / 8 / 54 / 8 / 2 / 0 / 27 Jan-43 130 / 4 / 4 / 10 / 63 / 10 / 3 / 0 / 36 Feb-43 114 / 2 / 1 / 20 / 48 / 11 / 6 / 0 / 26 Mar-43 117 / 0 / 4 / 40 / 24 / 12 / 20 / 0 / 17 Apr-43 98 / 0 / 4 / 46 / 10 / 8 / 17 / 0 / 13 May-43 126 / 0 / 10 / 43 / 18 / 27 / 0 / 28 / 0 Jun-43 110 / 0 / 7 / 76 / 6 / 14 / 7 / 0 / 0 Jul-43 105 / 0 / 5 / 81 / 0 / 12 / 7 / 0 / 0 Aug-43 124 / 0 / 5 / 96 / 0 / 19 / 4 / 0 / 0 Sep-43 133 / 0 / 5 / 104 / 0 / 20 / 4 / 0 / 0 Oct-43 133 / 0 / 3 / 108 / 0 / 19 / 0 / 3 / 0 Nov-43 125 / 0 / 8 / 88 / 0 / 19 / 0 / 10 / 0 Dec-43 124 / 0 / 16 / 76 / 0 / 22 / 0 / 10 / 0 Geoffrey Sinclair Remove the nb for email.
|
|
#3
August 21st 03, 08:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:27:07 +1000, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
wrote: [snip yet more tiresome rationality and logical discourse] I will drop this in since I have not seen it elsewhere, From the British history Design and Development of Weapons, M M Postan, D Hay, J D Scott. [snipadoodledo] B was the airframe developed from the abortive mark III fighter, it was used for the Vc, IX and XII, and presumably XVI. The main change appears to be the "universal" wing. I doubt this makes a major difference to CoG calculations in the mark V though. Actually, I think it does for the Vb vs Vc. The longitudinal stability problems were worse in the Vb, while the Vc had some useful things to factor into consideration like re-raked undercarriage and bomb/drop-tank plumbing, not to mention a different internal wing structure which might have allowed small wing tanks. I don't think the Vb wing had that capacity due to strength issues. It seems the fighter had quite a tight margin, the report that for AB186 noting handling was worse with a Rotol propeller, rather than the standard de Havilland propeller, they were testing a modified elevator balance. Yes, but also note the constant buggering about with different ballast displacements for the different props, CSUs and fuselage equipment fitting. The Vb Trops are the worst, I think, as they carried more weight in the rear fuselage behind the existing CoG and more weight overall. BR202 (tropical Vc) was tried with a 29 gallon rear fuselage tank, requiring repositioning of the water tank, oxygen bottle and the R3002 radio, the certificate of design was issued on 7th July 1942 along with official approval. Some Spitfire Vs were flown from England to Gibraltar in early 1942, January I think, 5.5 hour flight. October 1942 was the date I have for ferry flights from Gibraltar to Malta, using the 170 gallon Boulton Paul tank and 29 gallon rear fuselage tank tested in the summer of '42. So far as I know they were all shipped to Gibraltar beforehand though, just like they were shipped to Takoradi, Egypt and later on Casablanca. The ferry Spits weren't in combat trim. Seen Morgan and Shacklady, page 150 in my copy, map of Spitfire V range with extra fuel arrangements? Yes, but this seems to be related to the October 1942 Gib-Malta ferry range, and doesn't reflect a realistic combat radius with operational load and operational fuel reserves (the escort range given would need a 5 hour endurance on external fuel and a 270 mile range on internal fuel excluding 15 mins combat allowance). I honestly have difficulties seeing any LR Spit, especially a V, getting back from Berlin on internal fuel only as that chart seems to indicate. Relying on external tankage to get into combat and return to base is a non-starter, and that's how I see that chart personally. Escort, 5 minute take off, 10 minute climb, 15 minutes maximum power, remainder cruise at 240 mph, radius 540 miles. Given the need for higher cruise and problems of slower bombers this still should have meant around the German border at least. Note the extra range required a bigger oil tank, from 7.5 or 8.5 to 14.4 gallons. Note the deeper noses on the PR versions. The book does not state what fuel tankage is being used. The extra oil was less of a problem with later single-piece engine blocks (Merlin 50 and 60 upwards). 540 miles is a problematic figure for a Mk V escort range on existing fuel, the deciding factor of which would be the range on internal fuel to get home, not just the tankage available in external stores. That's why I've been ranting about rear-fuselage tanks in the Mk V. We're still not approaching the ranges and endurance required for PR Spits, but even so the fitting of a PR XI oil tank and nose profile is entirely possible. In early 1942 Sholto-Douglas was asking for tanks of up to 30 gallons in the wings. Fighter Command had realised it needed more range to fight over France, it does not seem to have come up with the idea it should try for Germany. If BC were wedded to a daylight campaign against Germany, this would follow, pushed along by a torrent of invective in memos from Harris and the CAS. The text mentions the mark IXe weights with 66 gallon rear tank. As far as I can tell the idea of major Spitfire modifications keeps running into the problem that until the P-47 was proven the allies did not have another fighter that could be considered a match for the Fw190A and Bf109G, hence the rush for the IX instead of awaiting the mark VIII. The middle east had to do without Spitfires until early/mid 1942 (Malta then Egypt), the major withdrawal of mark IXs from fighter command to the squadrons in Tunisia in early 1943. The RAF in the MTO were still, even after Eisenhower had pushed for Mk IXs to supplement promised deliveries of Mk VIIIs in December 1942, on the short end of the stick for Mk IX allocations. What we need in this TL is a senior RAF staff constituency able to take on Fighter Command and win, in terms of dictating fighter operations, development and production. [snip basically agreed spec of LR Mk IX] [Mk VIII production figures from Postan] That gives ACM Kramer about 550 Mk VIIIs in the second half of 1943, or about 90 per month as I suspected. Gavin Bailey -- Another user rings. "I need more space" he says. "Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell
|
|
#4
September 3rd 03, 05:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#5
September 3rd 03, 08:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
September 11th 03, 03:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Guy alcala wrote in message
Vader states that the Mk VIIIs had the 'C' wing, which implies that the Mk. IXs should have been able to be given LE tanks with little difficulty. I'm under the impression that the substantive changes to the Mk. VII/VIII were in the fuselage, and except for the tanks the wings were identical. Does anyone actually KNOW what the structural/internal changes were from the Mk.V/IX etc. to the Mk. VII/VIII? We all know about the tail wheel, but there had to be more than that. More information from Morgan and Shacklady, Spitfire weights, tare / take off / maximum VA 4,981 / 6,416 / 6,700 VB 5,065 / 6,622 / 6,700 VC (B wing) 5,081 / 6,785 / 7,300 VC (C Wing) 5,081 / 7,106.5 / 7,300 So if this is correct an extra 16 pounds was added, presumably to the fuselage, between the B and C versions. The book is also saying the VC version is not defined by the wings fitted, A or B or C wings, there is something else. The VC was a definite change, and able to carry 600 pounds more weight, presumably mainly by strengthening the undercarriage. The second production VC AA874 (Merlin 45) was weighed with A, then B then C wings, weights in pounds, CoG in inches wing / tare / tare CoG / all up weight / all up CoG A / 5,048 / 2.31 / 6,499 / 10.9 B / 5,048 / 2.31 / 6,737 / 10.9 C / 5,048 / 2.31 / 6,969 / 7.65 The mark VI, the pressure cabin version of the V, weights, tare 5,227 pounds, take off 6,797, maximum 6,850. AB450 was the prototype mark VII. It was a standard mark V with the following modifications, extended wing tips, 4 bladed propeller, retractable tail wheel, tail parachute fin guard, Merlin 61 with twin underwing radiators. The certificate of design general description was "This aeroplane is the prototype of the F Mk VII and F Mk VIII production Spitfires. Components of existing types with some modifications as used as indicated. Fuselage Spitfire Mk VI with the forward bay reinforced for Merlin 61 engine. Spitfire F Mk 20 tail unit, Spitfire Mk V elevator and rudder. Mainplane Spitfire F VC with spar flanges reinforced and lead ballast added in outer portions of the wings. Main chassis Spitfire F Mk VC leg and support structure. Spitfire F Mk VII production wheel and tyre equipment. Tail chassis, Spitfire F Mk VII production. Tare weight 5,201 pounds, maximum all up 8,000." Production VII tare weight 5,947 pounds or 5,887 pounds, depending on the hood used, take off 7,928 pounds, maximum 8,000 pounds. This indicates there probably was some fuselage strengthening between the prototype and production. Morgan and Shacklady state the mark VIII had the fuselage further strengthened over the mark VII, with the VIII weights as Tare 5,806 pounds, take off 7,779 pounds maximum 8,000 pounds. This looks like the VII without the extra wing tips and pressure cabin gear. Mark VIII 2 cannon and 4 browning, weights in pounds and CG in inches tare 5,861 and 0.2 landing 6,710 and 4.9, normal load 7,831 and 5.9, 30 gallon overload tank 8,131 and 6.4, 90 gallon overload tank 8,648 and 7.0. The figures are repeated for a 4 cannon version, interestingly tare weight is the same but all the other weights are around 200 pounds more, and the CG figures 0.1 to 0.3 greater. CG measured aft of datum. Since a pair of 20 mm cannons came in at around 200 pounds and 4 brownings at around 100 pounds this would seem to indicate tare weights are with the armament removed. F Mark IX tare 5,816 pounds, take off 7,295.5 pounds, maximum 7,500 pounds. After notes about overload tanks and bombs comes the entry "ballast 92.5". F IXE tare 5,816, take off 7,181.5, max 7,500. Perhaps a look at the PR IV which was the PR version of the V and normally had the cameras located behind the cockpit, they also carried radio, TR 1133 or 1143. Tankage front fuselage 48 upper 37 lower, same as mark V, 2 x wing leading edge tanks 66.5 gallons each, total 218 gallons. Oil tank 18 gallons in port wing between ribs 9 and 12. Tare weight 4,935 pounds, take off weight 7,148 pounds (W), 7,155 (X), 7,119.5 (Y). Max permissible 6,500 pounds (yes six thousand five hundred, a typo I presume). Tail ballast 17.5 pounds. W version 2 x F8 20 inch split vertical fanned between fuselage frames 13 and 15 inclined 10 degrees to the vertical and 20 degrees to each other. X version 2 F24 14 split vertical fanned and 1 F24 8 or 14 inch oblique mounted as W version with oblique over front F24. Inclined 8.5 degrees to the vertical and 17 degrees to each other. Y version, F52 36 inch vertical used only for bomb damage assessment, mounted between frames 13 and 14. PR VII, same as IV except, Tankage front fuselage 48 upper 37 lower, same as mark V, rear fuselage 29, total 114. Oil 5.8 gallon, in tank under engine. No radio. Weights tare 4,985 pounds, take off 6,584 pounds, maximum 6,590. CoG moved forward as fuel was consumed. Cameras, G installation, F24 5 or 8 inch vertical (front) and F24 8 or 14 inch vertical (rear) between frames 13 and 14 and 1 F24 8 or 14 inch oblique mounted above front camera. Some PR VIII had A wing armament. From Spitfire by Peter Moss, the initial hand converted PR versions from Spitfire I had a 29 gallon fuel tank under the pilot's seat and a 64 pound camera installation behind the cockpit, no radio though. It all worked because there was 32 pounds of removable ballast in the tail to compensate for the mark I moving to a heavier 3 bladed propeller. If the ballast figures are correct there is obviously some room for extra fuselage tanks, the maximum take off weight comes into play though. It appears 315 British gallons of 100 octane fuel comes to 2,240 pounds, for 80 Octane fuel 300 gallons weigh 2,240 pounds. Geoffrey Sinclair Remove the nb for email.
|
|
#8
September 12th 03, 07:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
Guy alcala wrote in message Vader states that the Mk VIIIs had the 'C' wing, which implies that the Mk. IXs should have been able to be given LE tanks with little difficulty. I'm under the impression that the substantive changes to the Mk. VII/VIII were in the fuselage, and except for the tanks the wings were identical. Does anyone actually KNOW what the structural/internal changes were from the Mk.V/IX etc. to the Mk. VII/VIII? We all know about the tail wheel, but there had to be more than that. More information from Morgan and Shacklady, Spitfire weights, tare / take off / maximum VA 4,981 / 6,416 / 6,700 VB 5,065 / 6,622 / 6,700 VC (B wing) 5,081 / 6,785 / 7,300 VC (C Wing) 5,081 / 7,106.5 / 7,300 So if this is correct an extra 16 pounds was added, presumably to the fuselage, between the B and C versions. The book is also saying the VC version is not defined by the wings fitted, A or B or C wings, there is something else. I suspect they meant it wasn't defined by the 'armament fitted' in the wing. The something else was probably the slight change in the landing gear angle, as well as the strengthening. The VC was a definite change, and able to carry 600 pounds more weight, presumably mainly by strengthening the undercarriage. The second production VC AA874 (Merlin 45) was weighed with A, then B then C wings, weights in pounds, CoG in inches wing / tare / tare CoG / all up weight / all up CoG A / 5,048 / 2.31 / 6,499 / 10.9 B / 5,048 / 2.31 / 6,737 / 10.9 C / 5,048 / 2.31 / 6,969 / 7.65 Again, I suspect these refer to armament differences, i.e. 8 x .303, 2 x 20mm + 4 x .303, and 4 x 20mm respectively. snip Mk. VI and Mk. VII data Morgan and Shacklady state the mark VIII had the fuselage further strengthened over the mark VII, with the VIII weights as Tare 5,806 pounds, take off 7,779 pounds maximum 8,000 pounds. This looks like the VII without the extra wing tips and pressure cabin gear. Mark VIII 2 cannon and 4 browning, weights in pounds and CG in inches tare 5,861 and 0.2 landing 6,710 and 4.9, normal load 7,831 and 5.9, 30 gallon overload tank 8,131 and 6.4, 90 gallon overload tank 8,648 and 7.0. The figures are repeated for a 4 cannon version, interestingly tare weight is the same but all the other weights are around 200 pounds more, and the CG figures 0.1 to 0.3 greater. CG measured aft of datum. Since a pair of 20 mm cannons came in at around 200 pounds and 4 brownings at around 100 pounds this would seem to indicate tare weights are with the armament removed. F Mark IX tare 5,816 pounds, take off 7,295.5 pounds, maximum 7,500 pounds. After notes about overload tanks and bombs comes the entry "ballast 92.5". F IXE tare 5,816, take off 7,181.5, max 7,500. snip PR data From Spitfire by Peter Moss, the initial hand converted PR versions from Spitfire I had a 29 gallon fuel tank under the pilot's seat and a 64 pound camera installation behind the cockpit, no radio though. It all worked because there was 32 pounds of removable ballast in the tail to compensate for the mark I moving to a heavier 3 bladed propeller. If the ballast figures are correct there is obviously some room for extra fuselage tanks, the maximum take off weight comes into play though. snip fuel weights Price says the Mk. I was designed to take either the two-blade wooden FP prop or three blade metal two-pitch prop, and ballast had to be provided accordingly. With the wooden prop (83 lb. vs. ca. 350 lb. for the metal prop), 135 lb. of lead ballast had to be carried in the nose, on both sides of the front of the engine at the bottom, roughly under the first two cylinders and the aft end of the coolant tank. He includes a picture showing the weights installed. By the time the MK.V came around the CS prop was standard, which I believe was even heavier (can't find the figure yet). As always, thanks for posting the data. Guy
|
|
#9
August 21st 03, 10:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
snip Spit production data, fuel capacities Thanks for all this, Geoffrey. Guy
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids (was: #1 Jet of World War II) | The Revolution Will Not Be Televised | Military Aviation | 20 | August 27th 03 09:14 AM |
Hybrid Mode
