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.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell