A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #8  
Old September 13th 03, 08:58 PM
Guy Alcala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Guy Alcala wrote:

Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:


snip

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


Okay, I've got Price's "The Spitfire Story," which is very helpful. Here's
what Wing Commander Tuttle, former head of the PRU, told Price about the
handling of the hand-modified PR.1Ds (normal 84 gallons forward, 114 gallons
in the wing L.E., 29 gallons behind the pilot, plus two cameras further back
(but no radio):

"You could not fly it straight and level for the first half hour or hour after
takeoff. Until you had emptied the rear tank, the aircraft hunted the whole
time. The center of gravity was so far back you couldn't control it. It was
the sort of thing that would never have got in during peacetime, but war is
another matter."

What may be barely acceptable for a PR bird flying solo in VFR conditions by
experienced pilots not making any radical maneuvers, is definitely
unacceptable for formation or combat flying by less experienced pilots.
Later, the production PR.1Ds had the aft tank removed, the radio reinstalled,
and the L.E. tanks enlarged from 57 to 66.5 gallons each side, to improve the
handling (L.E. tanks were forward of the datum). They also got somewhat
heavier Merlin 45s.

Guy


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.