The wing tanks in an a/c like the Mustang were much larger targets, and were not protected by armor. Any of them could catch fire, but it took a good deal of damage first. Unless the fuel vapor and air were prevented from mixing, a single tracer bullet going thru the tank above the level of the fuel would nearly always cause an explosion, but in fact, even when they were damaged enough to defeat the system, the result was almost always a fire instead of explosion. The only problem with the Mustang fuselage tank (about 55 gal.) was that if it was full the cg was screwed up, so on long missions they always burned about 30 gal. fuel from it before switching to the drop tanks so as to be able to maneuver freely if jumped. This is why the internal fuel range of a P51 is slightly greater than that for a P38J, but the combat radius is slightly less. I've seen nothing to suggest that the fuselage tank was considered a particular fire hazzard in either the P51 or P40. As to the other tanks in the P40. Yes, they were below the pit, but with some wothwhile seperation and structure between, so leaking (or burning) fuel went out through the bottom instead of in with the pilot. The '109s tank was formed to fit under the seat, and I don't think the early Spits even had a firewall between the tank and pit.

I've nothing against leading edge radiators, except maybe that they were a larger target for hostile fire. I believe some Mks of the Firefly used them quite successfully. As to convenience, in a tail dragger, the beard radiator just requires removal of lower cowling for full access. The boom side radiators in the Lightning about the same. Both could be worked on easily standing flat footed on the ground, and removed and replace without any special gear. I mentioned the Mossie as it was probably the most famous case. The leading edge radiator didn't save as much drag as you might think. Much of the drag is the unavoidable result of the air going thru it (which is the purpose of having it, after all) and refining the outside shape only goes so far.

Ref the metal 3-blade propeller on the Spitfire prototype (all the photos I've seem show a two blade) was this a fixed pitch item similar to that on the Gladiator?? I believe the wooden ones were two-setting adjustable. I seem to recall reading that Douglas Bader wrecked a Spit once trying to take off with the prop set at 'course' pitch. Didn't accelerate well at all, and there was this stone wall at the edge of the field ... I've also read that Gladiator pilots in North Africa weren't happy with the fixed pitch metal 3-blades as the Italians CR's had CS propellors and as a result a much better climb rate.

larry firstly the p40 that entered service in 1940 with both the US and the RAF didnt have selfsealing tanks or armour! they got those in the later p40b's of 1941. the kittyhawks I of the desert airforce never met the 109F as the afrika korp was only allowed to have the 109E on Hitler's orders, the first p40 to meet the F were the D model of the usaf. the first prototype of the p40 was built in 1938 not 36 and was built after the boys at curtis relised how far behind the spit/hurricane and 109 the p36 was. strange that the mk2 hurricanes couldnt mix it with the 109e's at 15000ft after they were so succesfull in the bob! the prototype spit was fitted with a fixed pitch 3 bladed prop that gave a actual decrease in speed at altitude but more on takeoff, the first production spits were fitted with 2 bladed fixed pitch props, but these were all replaced with DeHavalind twin pitch props prior to 1939, it is likely that this is the prop you refer to. by mid 40 the dh unit was being replaced by rotol constant speed units that maximised the power at all revs. as to wing vs nose vs belly vs wing root positioning of radiators the nose mount was regarded as the most inefficentas it required a larger size for the same cooling (check the size of a P40f rad against the mk2 spit or hurricane) the under wing mounts were very efficient and better than the belly (the mustang was the exception as they managed to produce a jet effect that was a factor greater than anyone else managed, the wing root was the most efficent but didnt produce the jet effect as much as the under wing/belly, in short it depended on the aircraft.

My ref to 1936 is to the P36. The P40 was just a P36 airframe with the Allison engine in place of the aircooled. Curtiss didn't even slim the fuselage down until the 'D' model. I don't think that the Tomahawk I actually saw action in the Desert, they were used for training. The Tomahawk II (P40B-C equivalent) when to Norht Africa. The Germans in North Africa didn't 'mix it up' with either the Hurricane or Tomahawk at all. They considered it stupid (not to say suicidal) to engage in the one type of combat where the opponant had an advantage. They used superior dive, speed and climb to do 'hit and run' on the Hurricanes and 'hawks. They considered the Tomahawk much better because it was faster than the Hurri, and could equal the '109E in both zoom and extended dive. The Hurri could do neither. The '109E was standard for most of the period, but the 'F' arrived in quantity well before the Spitfires arrived. The Spit's reputation preceeded it, and its arrival worried the Germans, but they soon found that the '109F war more than a match for the Spit MkV. The P40D and Kittyhawk I were equivalent types, identical except for British radio gear in the Kittyhawk. Yes on propellors. I've been researching that. It would have been either the D.H. or Rotal 2-position that Bader had the problem with. The Rotal was also 2-position. During June-August, D.H. modified their 2-position propellor into a genuine C.S. unit which greatly improved climb and ceiling for the Spitfire I. For radiators, the internal units (wing root intakes like the P39) usually required a lot of trial and error mods to work properly. Superior cooling effciency for belly and underwing is something I'd question. Boundry layer effects weren't well understood at the time, and affected both belly and, especially, underwing units, but not nose mounted. I'm not sure I can agree on size. The Tomahawk radiator was somewhat smaller than the unit in the Kittyhawk, and not mounted as far forward. The underwing on the Spitfire was not nearly as tall, but was wider and longer than the radiator in the Kittyhawk. I'd say the most extreme example of the nose radiator was the annular unit on the German FW190D and Ta152, and they seem to work very well indeed! These were the best full production fighters the Germans produced -- arguably equal to the best the Allies had -- and they seem to have had no complaints about the 'power egg' unit with the annular on the front.

It is a much more elegant aircraft, much more like the spitfire, I'd go so far as to call it a "she" rather than a beast. http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/BARC/images/tempest-10.jpg">

Agreed, The lack of a gaping great "mouth", due to the leading edge radiators enhance the appearance of her considerably. "Sigh", what could have been.

Sweet looking a/c, no doubt, but it had to have an engine, and when Napier decided to terminate developement of the Sabre IV, that was it.

>>yes the hurricane scored more than the spit in the BOB there was more of them!<< If the hurry downed more planes than the Spit, a plane like the P-39/40 would have downed more than the hurry. >>againg justify your flimsy structures, remember that the spit is credited with the fastest speed ever achieved by a piston aircraft! << Dives dont count, unless you average them with the ones that crashed because of failures! Under these rules the Spit IS the slowest plane on the planet! No Spit of the several that have tried has ever made the main event at any air race in the world. The fastest Mk-XIV hit 370.110MPH or more than 44MPH slower than the winner. When Modern air racers hit more 530MPH, in level flight, at low altitude, (Under 5,000') 370 seems a might slow to me? By the way, what was the VNE of the various models of Spitfire? Not the dive it till I survive(1 at over 600MPH) or auger in(7 or 8) test flights that you are thinking of, but honest to god speed in level flight!

>>shooter explane please how you are going to get more speed from the spit? every thing you sugest would actually slow it down, more fuel, thick wings, more frontal area, more wieght!<< I am glad that you have such a great understanding of aerodynamics that you failed to understand my origioal post. But here goes! 1. The smaller wing has less skin friction and makes the plane both faster and longer ranged. 2. The only increase in frontal aria would come from a taller rudder/vert fin. Something that I did not espouis to cure the snaking and horizontal instability of later models of plane. 3. You are right, adding more fuel and other weight would slow the plane down! If you take those items in abstencia, you are right. But no one ever takes it by it self! The reduced area covers some of that but the single biggest factor is that with more fuel on board, the pilot can use more throttle for any given range and that makes the plane much faster than any other factor! To illistrate this in absurdium, I ask how fast would a Spitfire go to cover 15 miles farther than the plackard range for that type. You know if you could win the war by gliding the last 15 miles to base with absolutely dry tanks. (Answer= 190-220MPH depending on the model!) If the plane had smaller wings and more fuel, it could fly that same distance much faster by using more throttle! Or it could fly much farther at a lower speed, say 225-245MPH! Now answer truthfully, which plane would you have rather fought the BoB in?