RAF Fighters & Ranges

[KJ_Lesnick]

See Kitnut617's reply above, and it would depend what the prospective mission was, wouldn't it?

Long range bomber escort & shooting the crap out of fighter planes

I'll have to dig out my files to see what version they renumbered to be the PR4, but I have an idea it was a PR1e, and that was quite early, in 1940 or '41.

Understood...

[PR19_Kit]

I've got that book Robert.  

In fact I have two of them for some reason, but it would take a lifetime to search through it. I remember the pic of the raised leading edge though.

[kitnut617]

I've got that book Robert.  
I remember the pic of the raised leading edge though.

Yes, that was quite revealing, the two pics side by side showing the difference.  I don't remember it saying, but it would suggest that the Mk.VIII wing was converted, not the later Mk.21 wing. I do remember reading that it had showed 'promise' in increasing performance, which oddly, the Mk.23 wing didn't when compared to a Mk.21

[KJ_Lesnick]

PR19_Kit

What do you mean "raised leading edge"?  Do you mean a decrease in camber, an inverse camber, what?


kitnut617

Yes, that was quite revealing, the two pics side by side showing the difference.

You have an image?

[kitnut617]

PR19_Kit

What do you mean "raised leading edge"?  Do you mean a decrease in camber, an inverse camber, what?

The wing leading edge was raised 2", this was done by revising the rib chord profile from the leading edge nose, back to the main spar. All the ribs from the wing root to wing tip were changed to a new profile.  It was an attempt to make a high-speed wing, note though: this was not a laminar flow wing because the thickest part of the wing was still in the original position.

kitnut617

Yes, that was quite revealing, the two pics side by side showing the difference.

You have an image?

Yes, it's in the book ----- and no --  I can't scan it.

[wuzak]

I read somewhere that the US played with one of the Spitfires they received (may have been pre Pearl harbour) and redesigned the internal arrangements. End result was they got more fuel in and thus more range. Their Airships weren't that interested as the aircraft did what they needed it to do, which at the time was to defend the British Isles.

Anyone know if this is true or just some miss-information I read somewhere ?

As Kit mentions the PR variants had plenty of range so it was horses for courses

It was a Mk IX, converted ~1944. It had additional fuel tanks in the fuselage, the wing and carried two USAAF type drop tanks. I'm away from references at the moment, but the range was increased markedly.

[wuzak]

The thin-ness of the Spitfire's wings didn't seem to lessen it's range capabilities all that much. The PRXI and XIV could reach Berlin and return without any problems, and they had the same shaped wings as the earlier versions. OK, so they didn't carry any guns, but the shape of the wing itself didn't preclude fitting wing tanks.

You could imagine a longer ranged fighter based on the PRXI carrying, say, only 2 x 20 mm cannon and still using some of the wing tank design of the PR versions.

Indeed I wouldn't be at all surprised if The Wooksta hadn't already built one or two of them. 

I have wondered about that too. The LE fuel tanks for the PR types was 66 UKG. If you used 4 x 20mm or 2 x 20mm + 2 x 0.50"  (like the e-wing) then the outer wing could possibly hold 25-20UKG each. The only issue I see is getting the fuel from the outer wing tanks past the cannon bays.

One of the 2 seaters, as shown in Morgan and Shackalady had a fuel tank in the gun bays - but I think it was the cannon bay.

[KJ_Lesnick]

The wing leading edge was raised 2", this was done by revising the rib chord profile from the leading edge nose, back to the main spar. All the ribs from the wing root to wing tip were changed to a new profile.

You mean lower camber?

It was an attempt to make a high-speed wing

I thought some Spitfires could already do a maximum normal dive-speed of Mach 0.85?

[wuzak]

It was an attempt to make a high-speed wing

I thought some Spitfires could already do a maximum normal dive-speed of Mach 0.85?

IIRC the highest speed the Spitfire was dived to M0.91 It was a PRXIX, which went into the dive after it staled at an indicated 50,000ft (actual ws over 51,000ft).

But the high speed wing referred to is not ultimated mach limit - it is a lower drag profile allowing increased level speed and improved fuel consumption.

[kitnut617]

I have wondered about that too. The LE fuel tanks for the PR types was 66 UKG. If you used 4 x 20mm or 2 x 20mm + 2 x 0.50"  (like the e-wing) then the outer wing could possibly hold 25-20UKG each. The only issue I see is getting the fuel from the outer wing tanks past the cannon bays.

One of the 2 seaters, as shown in Morgan and Shackalady had a fuel tank in the gun bays - but I think it was the cannon bay.

That's Shacklady

[wuzak]

I have wondered about that too. The LE fuel tanks for the PR types was 66 UKG. If you used 4 x 20mm or 2 x 20mm + 2 x 0.50"  (like the e-wing) then the outer wing could possibly hold 25-20UKG each. The only issue I see is getting the fuel from the outer wing tanks past the cannon bays.

One of the 2 seaters, as shown in Morgan and Shackalady had a fuel tank in the gun bays - but I think it was the cannon bay.

That's Shacklady

So it is.

[wuzak]

I read somewhere that the US played with one of the Spitfires they received (may have been pre Pearl harbour) and redesigned the internal arrangements. End result was they got more fuel in and thus more range. Their Airships weren't that interested as the aircraft did what they needed it to do, which at the time was to defend the British Isles.

Anyone know if this is true or just some miss-information I read somewhere ?

As Kit mentions the PR variants had plenty of range so it was horses for courses

It was a Mk IX, converted ~1944. It had additional fuel tanks in the fuselage, the wing and carried two USAAF type drop tanks. I'm away from references at the moment, but the range was increased markedly.

From Alfred Price The Spitfire Story the aircraft in question was a IXC. It was fitted with a 43 gallon rear fuselage tank, 16 1/2 gallons in flexible fuel tanks in the leading edge and 2 x 62 gallon drop tanks under the wings. This gave a total of 285 gallons of fuel.

No word on range, though the aircraft did fly to the UK via Iceland to do tests.

[Librarian]

I vaguely remember that this http://www.super-hobby.es/products/item_name-922868.html was one of the ladies in question.

[KJ_Lesnick]

wuzak

IIRC the highest speed the Spitfire was dived to M0.91 It was a PRXIX, which went into the dive after it staled at an indicated 50,000ft (actual ws over 51,000ft).

I didn't know that, though that is quite remarkable as it might be faster than the Me-262 could dive!  I do remember reading something which indicated a Spitfire F.8 (not sure if it had a raised leading edge or not) being rated for 0.85 mach maximum safe dive, and they did 0.895 or something whether that damaged the plane or not I don't know.

But the high speed wing referred to is not ultimated mach limit - it is a lower drag profile allowing increased level speed and improved fuel consumption.

Did not know that...

From Alfred Price The Spitfire Story the aircraft in question was a IXC. It was fitted with a 43 gallon rear fuselage tank, 16 1/2 gallons in flexible fuel tanks in the leading edge and 2 x 62 gallon drop tanks under the wings. This gave a total of 285 gallons of fuel.

How many gallons did the Spitfire F.5 and normal F.9C carry?

[PR19_Kit]

How many gallons did the Spitfire F.5 and normal F.9C carry?

Being pedantic, it's a 'Mk V' and a 'Mk IXC'. They didn't start using Arabic numbers until the Mk 21, and they didn't use the 'F' prefix during the WWII years.