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

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

(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) wrote in message ...
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.

snip

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.

Guy

On 2 Sep 2003 21:17:46 -0700, (Guy alcala) wrote:

snip

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.

I don't know, but the internal wing spars, which I suspected would
show a difference, appear to be identical between the Vc and the VII,
in which case there should be no problem with deleting the outboard MG
positions in favour of more fuel tank capacity in the Vc-airframed IX.
The shorter-span ailerons appear to be shortened at the wing-tip end.

If there were any fuselage differences, they didn't stop the
late-production IXs getting rear-fuselage tanks anyway.

Gavin Bailey
--

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

In article ,
(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) writes:
On 2 Sep 2003 21:17:46 -0700, (Guy alcala) wrote:

snip

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.

I don't know, but the internal wing spars, which I suspected would
show a difference, appear to be identical between the Vc and the VII,
in which case there should be no problem with deleting the outboard MG
positions in favour of more fuel tank capacity in the Vc-airframed IX.
The shorter-span ailerons appear to be shortened at the wing-tip end.

If there were any fuselage differences, they didn't stop the
late-production IXs getting rear-fuselage tanks anyway.

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.

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. 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. I
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.


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

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) writes:
On 2 Sep 2003 21:17:46 -0700, (Guy alcala) wrote:

snip

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.

I don't know, but the internal wing spars, which I suspected would
show a difference, appear to be identical between the Vc and the VII,
in which case there should be no problem with deleting the outboard MG
positions in favour of more fuel tank capacity in the Vc-airframed IX.
The shorter-span ailerons appear to be shortened at the wing-tip end.

If there were any fuselage differences, they didn't stop the
late-production IXs getting rear-fuselage tanks anyway.

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.

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


I
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.

Guy

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

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

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.

Right.

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

Probably not an option, as we'd need the limited number of .50 cals for flexible nose
guns in the Halifax IIIs, if the B-24 deal doesn't come off.

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).

Guy

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

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

Peter Stickney wrote:

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:

snip Spit comments

BTW, I know we've been sidetracking you with work on the Spit, but were you able
to run any numbers for the Lanc B.2?

Guy