RAF Fighters & Ranges

[wuzak]

Morgan and Shacklady have a picture of two Mk IIs with underwing fuel tanks. These look to be similar to a Mk I with an underwing overload tank fitted to one wing. The latter is certainly a fixed tank, not a drop tank. The former looks to be the same.

In any case, they are experiments aimed at extending the range of the Spitfire, not production models.

[kitnut617]

I've another book on the Spitfire (I'll look for the title later as I'm off to work soon). There's a series of photos of a Spitfire dropping a cylindrical center line drop tank. Going by memory it looked like something that was later fitted to a Spiteful/Seafang

[KJ_Lesnick]

The only drop tank options for the Spitfire used in service was the slipper tank.

There were some tank designs to be carried under the wings I've seen -- they were right under the guns

Rear fuselage, not the upper and lower tanks in front of the pilot.

I'm aware of exactly what I'm saying: I know the plane normally had an upper and lower fuselage tank.  However, I do remember a statement that stated an aft tank that had a 33 Imperial Gallon upper and 41 gallon lower tank.  I'm just operating on what I read

Where did you check?

Google-searches, and wikipedia

[wuzak]

The only drop tank options for the Spitfire used in service was the slipper tank.

There were some tank designs to be carried under the wings I've seen -- they were right under the guns

Was it a test airframe or a service aircraft?

Rear fuselage, not the upper and lower tanks in front of the pilot.

I'm aware of exactly what I'm saying: I know the plane normally had an upper and lower fuselage tank.  However, I do remember a statement that stated an aft tank that had a 33 Imperial Gallon upper and 41 gallon lower tank.  I'm just operating on what I read

I believe that the two different rear tank sizes were for the normal fuselage and the cut-down fuselage with bubble canopy.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Wuzak

Was it a test airframe or a service aircraft?

Unsure

I believe that the two different rear tank sizes were for the normal fuselage and the cut-down fuselage with bubble canopy.

Makes sense

[KJ_Lesnick]

I'm looking at something here and I'm not sure if this is right: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/flight-test-data/ww2-fighter-critical-mach-speed-802.html

According to some things here, supposedly the wing was good to Mach 1.3, but the propeller produced massive turbulence that rendered the tail useless, along with shockwaves on the tail impairing elevator control: Is this correct?  Under this logic, one could just build a jet around a Spitfire wing, put a stabilator in the design, and strengthen the fuselage and you'd have a supersonic design...

[wuzak]

It was stated that the wing was good structurally for Mach 1.3, not that it was low drag at that speed.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Wuzak

The question is was it aerodynamically good, and how well would the tail work if you had no propeller?  Would you need an all moving tail?