spitfire v mustang mpg

[Eric Mc]

I listened to a lecture by test and warbird pilot Dave Southwood on you tube a few days ago and he says the following about some classic fighter warbirds -

As a pure joy to fly and instilling confidence in the pilot - the Spitfire

As a lean, mean, killing machine but tricky for novices - the Messerschmit 109

For running away from a fight - the Mustang

He actually thinks that for the best all round single engined fighter of WW2, he would select the F6F Hellcat.
He hasn't ever flown an Fw190 but I reckon he'd give that a good rating too.
He also has a soft spot for the P-39 Airacobra.

[wolfracesonic]

Some interesting reading here Mk xiv Spitfire tactical trials

[tdm34]

Here's what appears to be an amalgum of the best points of both fighters... The Martin-Baker MB5

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/martin-...

[AER]

dr_gn said:

It's clearly not pointless: Why did NAA keep it on the Mustang if it gave no benefit AND gave the aircraft compromised handling? Why would Hawker and Supermarine subsequently select it for the later versions of the Tempest and Spitfire? Neither had particularly different skin smoothnesses form previous versions, definitely nowhere near that required for true laminar flow. Plus the gun ports and prop wash etc. produce turbulent flow for the vast majority of the wing surface. A gun port (or any other discontinuity from a tiny squashed fly upwards) produces a triangle of turbulent air streaming back over the wing.

As I said, the section itself gives lower drag without needing a perfectly smooth surface finish. Even today no aircraft in volume production has a true laminar flow wing through surface finish alone.

Maybe pointless was too strong a word...

However, it is possible to achieve the definition of laminar flow (50+% laminar). Akaflieg Braunschweig seems to have done it more or less on one of their glider prototypes.

[dr_gn]

Yes, but a prototype glider winglet with no panel joints is a far cry from a mass produced aircraft wing: Its dimensions and construction method make it more like a wind tunnel test piece. Plus of course it looks like a laminar flow section.

[jamieduff1981]

Reynolds Numbers are at the lower end of the scale on gliders due to low speed and low weight. It's easier to keep the flow laminar for longer in such conditions.

The same winglet attached to an A320 or a Typhoon would almost certainly display turbulence far earlier in the chord.

In short, if anyone's going to achieve laminar flow, it's going to be on light and relatively slow aircraft. Achieving laminar flow on airliners and fighters where it's desired the most is somewhat in to the future as yet.

[TheProfessor]

hidetheelephants said:

FourWheelDrift said:

tank slapper said:

Although aerodynamics probably made a difference, fuel capacity was a bigger factor. A Mk XIV Spitfire could carry about 500 litres internally, while the P-51D could carry 1000 litres and close on another 1000 litres in drop tanks.

Although smaller internally Spitfires also carried external tanks, from the VB mark they were designed to use "slipper" drop tank of 30, 90 or 170 gal capacity plus others were modified to carry the same tanks as used on the Mustang.

On my mobile to pain to search for images clear enough to show but this computer image shows it clearly, on the centreline between the undercarriage.

I recall reading in Jeffrey Quill's Spitfire that the slipper tanks could be used as drop tanks, but they 'flew' rather too well and tended to hit the airframe after being released! They were also definitely not stressed for combat!

At lot of the "longer reach" PRU Spits carried the slipper tank configuration.

I recall reading about PRU pilots being relived after releasing the slipper tanks and not feeling it bounce off the underside as it left the airframe.....

[Dr Jekyll]

tdm34 said:

Here's what appears to be an amalgum of the best points of both fighters... The Martin-Baker MB5

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/martin-...

Or this. Basically a rewinged Spitfire designed long after RJ MItchell's death and which didn't catch on partly because it didn't stall as benignly as a Spifire.