More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids, with added nationalistic abuse (was: #1 Jet of World War II)

Subject: More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids,

From: Guy Alcala

The question is whether there is room (and shackles) for the

If there was "room" (stations) then shackles could be fitted.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Guy Alcala wrote:

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 05:47:33 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

snip


or even 2 x Hispanos with 2 x .303 MG's in the inboard
cannon position available in the C wing, while stuffing a further 10
gallons or so of fuel in the outboard MG positions, as Pete has
pointed out. This would be additional to the Mk VII/VIII wing tanks
with their (conservative) 25 gallon capacity which were positioned
further inboard of the first cannon mounting. Total here would be for
something like 35 gallons in the wings additional to the 85 gallon
conventional tankage, 29 gallon rear fuselage tankage and external
drop tanks of up to 90 gallons capacity.

Seems like it would be a lot easier to boost the forward fuselage capacity of the Mk.
V/IX up to 96 gallons by swapping in bigger tanks (we know there's room there),
before you add all those other tanks and the associated plumbing. I agree you'd still
want the L.E tanks, but let's do the easiest stuff first. The extra 11 gallons in
the enlarged forward tanks buys perhaps 10 minutes of cruise coming home: let's be
_real_ conservative and call it 30 miles. Then we'll also need to enlarge the oil
tank at some point. The outboard tanks you describe are so small that I wonder if
they're worth the weight of all the plumbing, plus the extra vulnerability (remember
that these tanks feed into the main tanks after room has been made in the latter, so
they won't be used in combat - no one's going to transfer fuel while they're
fighting).

Thinking about it further, I don't think the outboard tanks would pass muster. Where
would you route the fuel piping, through the gun bays? I'd think that would be
absolutely verboten. It makes more sense to try and enlarge the wing L.E. tanks, by not
using the inboard cannon station and move the cannon out one station. Delete the O/B MG
on each side if necessary, as weight/moment compensation. We might also want to consider
developing a drop tank for Mk. VIIIs/IX with VIII tankage to perhaps 125 Imp. Gallons,
roughly the internal capacity, just to boost the endurance a bit. We should still be
within MTOW limits with the armament installed, while use of the 170 gal. tanks puts the
a/c over gross with armament removed. Regardless, it's unlikely we'll ever be able to
get a Spit fighter to Berlin and back from the UK. The PR. XI could do it with 216 Imp.
Gal. internal (132 in the leading edges) plus a 90 gal. drop tank, but an armed a/c just
doesn't have the room for all the fuel. But no matter, by the time we're ready to go
there, the RAF will either have its own Mustangs, or be on the continent.

Guy

In article ,
Guy Alcala wrote:

Compared to the original design wingspan (widely cited as 112 feet)
135 ft. isn't such a stretch.

Compared to the Stirling production wingspan of 99 feet, it is ;-) But it
sure would be nice to see the predicted performance for a Stirling with a
112 foot span, high aspect ratio wing. That wing would be up in B-24
territory. Oh well, I can dream.

The original Stirling wing (mechanical & aerodyanmics), was based
pretty heavily on the Sunderland wing. ISTR Shorts had dismantled the
Sunderland wings, and when the Lerwick turned out to be a flop in
1941, they had to rebuild the jigs to reopen the line to suppliement
lend/lease Catalinas.

Could have been a good window for you and AVM Stickney to order
112-foot wings (maybe *common* wings? on Stirlings.

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Peter Stickney wrote:

That yesterday seemed to be my day for being obfuscative.

I'm back.
I've been examining cutaways & measuring & doing sums like a numerate
Dervish, and, while I can't give a definitive answer, I can make the
following observations:
The Mk Vc wing would certainly be suitable for teh leading edge tanks.
I'd go so far as to say that if you were really concerned about volume
in that area, ditching on or both of the .303 guns in each wing would
open up a bunch of space, withoug compromising much in the way of
firepower.

I don't think that's necessary, as the exploded view of a Mk. XIV in Price's
"Spitfi A Documentary History" shows the L.E. tanks are inboard of the
cannon. If tanks could also be installed outboard in place of the MGs, then I'd
probably go for it and accept the somewhat greater vulnerability in combat, but
just getting standard Mk.VIII tankage (123 Imp. Gal. total) would be fine for a
start.

The big deal with the Mk V, and volume behind the cockpit, is that
hteat's where the radios live. Going with a smaller/lighter set would
allow something like teh Mk IX's 29 Imperial Gallon tank.

Not sure what you mean here, as the Mk. VCs were given a 29 Imp. Gal. ferry tank
for the Gib-Malta ferry flights. The later Mk. IX/XVI had 66 Imp. gal. rear
tanks.

Ah, sorry. Don't forget that I've lagged a bit here. I was just
following up on Gavin's question about squeexzing more fuel into a Mk
V. Since the engine's a lot lighter, they don't have as much moment
on the Good Side of the CG balance, and there isn't any good space
insude a Mk V for a substantial amount of fuel. The 29 Imp. Gallon
tank is all that you can get an have an airplane that isn't too
dangerous for the 1943 RAF. In irder to geep that influence to a
minimum, a medium-sized drop tank would also be necessary, to keep the
CG where it ought to be. My point about the radios was that the early
Brit TR sets were, when you include their rectifiers * transformers,
about 200# of load, and quite a bit of space. If that 200# could be
cut in half, that's 15 Imperial Gallons of fuel that yo could squeeze
in.

Note that
on the Mk IX, the only way to keep the CG acceptable with the aft tank
was to use it only in conjunction with one of the belly tanks.

H'mm, at least with the Mk. XIV, the Cg moves aft when drop tanks are carried,
not forward. See

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/ea...41weights.html

Yep. Yhe Mk IX's got it nearly on the CG datum, though.

I'll get the tracing paper & rulers & see if I can come up with som
emore detail.

don't really view that as a big deal for an escort fighter, unless you
expect to be engaged immediately at the French Coast. The recommended
tank sequence would be, after takeoff, to use the aft fuselage tank,
then the external tank. (I keep wanting to call that marsupial-looking
excrescence the "carbuncle", for some reason) The 29 Imp Gal tank
should last somewhere between 15 minutes to 1/2 hour, depending on
power settings, so that gets you through form-up, climbout, and pretty
much across the Channel.

Part of the pilot's notes for the F./F.R. XIV are online, and the FR. XIV flight
restrictions contains the following statement:

"On F.R. Mk. XIV a/c it is essential, for reasons of stability, that the rear
fuselage tank should be emptied before flying at altitudes in excess of 15,000
feet." It also states that the fuel tank sequence for the F.R.14 is t/o on main
tanks, switch to rear fuselage tank and empty it, then feed from drop tank. See

http://www.geocities.com/spades53.ge...4_notes_13.jpg

ISTR that this tank is ca. 33 gallons.

Which is about enough to climb about 5,000' with a Griffon Spit.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article ,
(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) writes:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 05:47:33 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

[welcome back Peter, with your smoking slide-rule]

The big deal with the Mk V, and volume behind the cockpit, is that
hteat's where the radios live. Going with a smaller/lighter set would
allow something like teh Mk IX's 29 Imperial Gallon tank.

Not sure what you mean here, as the Mk. VCs were given a 29 Imp. Gal. ferry tank
for the Gib-Malta ferry flights. The later Mk. IX/XVI had 66 Imp. gal. rear
tanks.

The standard fuselage Mk IX/XVI got a 75 Imperial gallon rear fuselage
tank, with tear-drop canopy versions with the cut-down fuselage
getting 66 gallons. My thinking was for the 29 gallon Gibraltar ferry
rear tank, or something pressurised/self-sealing with a similar
capacity in the LR Vc, with additional wing tankage for the LR Vc or
LR VIII & IX coming from the outboard MG position's, e.g. using the
E-wing armament or even 2 x Hispanos with 2 x .303 MG's in the inboard
cannon position available in the C wing, while stuffing a further 10
gallons or so of fuel in the outboard MG positions, as Pete has
pointed out. This would be additional to the Mk VII/VIII wing tanks
with their (conservative) 25 gallon capacity which were positioned
further inboard of the first cannon mounting. Total here would be for
something like 35 gallons in the wings additional to the 85 gallon
conventional tankage, 29 gallon rear fuselage tankage and external
drop tanks of up to 90 gallons capacity.

Those were my thoughts. After looking at the Mk IX and Mk XIV weight
& balance stuff, another odd thought just occurred - there's no good
place in a Spitfure to add anything - just about the only thing ahead
of the CG is the engine, with one exception. The 20mm guns actually
shift things forward a pretty fair bit. If the volume taken up by the
ammunition isn't too large, some of these problems could be lessened
by putting the heavier guns aboard.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Guy Alcala wrote in message .. .
Peter Stickney wrote:

As for the Stirling, well, actually, fir all its bulk, it doesn't seem
that heavy.They really should have taken the fuselage out of hte box
before they bolted the wings on, though.

The empty weight (46,000 lb. IIRR) has always seemed far higher than
was the case with the Lanc or Halifax, and the MTOW (70klb. IIRR) not
that much more. It is possible that this is a mistake and isactually the
OWE rather than the empty weight losted for the others. Still, its range
with a comparable bombload is significantly less than either, and while
the wing design undoubtedly plays some part I expect the main factor
is the restricted useful load. Shorts' structural methods seem to stem
from the flying boats, and appear a bit out of date.

From the Stirling file by Michael Bowyer

Early Stirling I, Hercules II engines, the first production aircraft N3635 came
in at 41,160 pounds tare when under trials, max take off weight 64,000
pounds initially.

Stirling III, Hercules VI/XVI tare weight 44,856 pounds, max flying weight
70,000 pounds.

The tare weights appear 2 to 3 tons more than the Lancaster and Halifax.

The books notes the advantages of the "strongly built" airframe as well
as the penalties.

Apparently the outboard sections of the wing were watertight. Interestingly
the Stirling's wing area was 1,460 square feet, Lancaster 1,297, later
Halifaxes 1,275, B-17 1,420, B-24 1,048 and B-29 1,736. The Stirling
wingspan was 99 feet 1 inch versus the B-17 103 feet 9 inches, it was
also the thickest wing, able to carry bombs in cells within the inner wing.
three cells on each side capable of carrying 500 pound bombs at least.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

In article , Geoffrey Sinclair
writes
Apparently the outboard sections of the wing were watertight. Interestingly
the Stirling's wing area was 1,460 square feet, Lancaster 1,297, later
Halifaxes 1,275, B-17 1,420, B-24 1,048 and B-29 1,736.

I'm not disputing the figures above, but I thought the B-24 had a larger
wing area than most contemporary bombers allowing it to fly higher?

--
John

In article , John Halliwell
writes
In article , Geoffrey Sinclair
writes
Apparently the outboard sections of the wing were watertight. Interestingly
the Stirling's wing area was 1,460 square feet, Lancaster 1,297, later
Halifaxes 1,275, B-17 1,420, B-24 1,048 and B-29 1,736.

I'm not disputing the figures above, but I thought the B-24 had a larger
wing area than most contemporary bombers allowing it to fly higher?

Was it not the thick section Davis wing that gave it the improved lift?

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 15:13:14 +0100, Dave Eadsforth
wrote:

In article , John Halliwell
writes
In article , Geoffrey Sinclair
writes
Apparently the outboard sections of the wing were watertight. Interestingly
the Stirling's wing area was 1,460 square feet, Lancaster 1,297, later
Halifaxes 1,275, B-17 1,420, B-24 1,048 and B-29 1,736.

I'm not disputing the figures above, but I thought the B-24 had a larger
wing area than most contemporary bombers allowing it to fly higher?

Was it not the thick section Davis wing that gave it the improved lift?

Cheers,

Dave

The Davis wing was a high aspect ratio wing with a low angle of
attack.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard wrote:


The Davis wing was a high aspect ratio wing with a low angle of
attack.

Al Minyard

Is there something that I'm missing here?...how can a wing's
design decide that?...I'd think that only the elevators could
control the AOA?.
--

-Gord.