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

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

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