a combat range of 800 miles could be achieved (this comapirs tio? the P47 of the time which also had a combat range of 800 miles WO drop tanks! But we measured range under different conditions than they did in Europe!

but basically the Spit with a bit of effortr? could have matched the range of a P51, Not with a major effort and a new Laminar flow wing!

What laminar flow wing - laminar flow was unachieveable in practice even today they can only get laminar flow over the 1st quarter of the wing, the late model spits didnt have laminar flow wing as thyey were shown to be no more effective that conventional wings
So you are stating that the filled rivits and sanded finnish did absolutely nothing to make the plane faster and longer ranged?

The last Spits never equaled the Mustang's range, ever!    

They never tried, will you get it into your thick skull that the RAF never needed the P51 massive range so never looked to producing a fighter with it
Then why did the Mk-XIV have an 850 mile range with DTs and 460 miles WO?

why did they ONLY get 400 miles with DT when the Mustang got 1200? could it be that they didnt fit the large DT to the Spit that they fitted to the P51?
    
The P-51 had three things going for it when it came to range, that also helped other areas too.
1. Laminar flow wing. The last few dozen Spits got this too! - didnt work, the revised profile did but this was not laminar but was purely a "new" developement

2. Divergent/convergent radiator duct and much larger radiator meant less installed cooling drag. This is the biggy as it was never addressed or equalled in any Spitfire, ever!

The initial work on radiator thust was carried out on spitfires, it was the FIRST aircraft to have radiators that added to the total trust rather than producing drag, if it wasnt for the SPit work the P51 would have had those radiators
The idea that the radiators added thrust has since the war been absolutely disproven! There are only degrees of how much drag comes from cooling and the Spitfire's instalation was woefully bad in this result.

3. More volume in which to cary more stuff in a stronger structure!
yet you yourself state that a smaller aircraft is better

Yes, and I still do, but all things aerodynamic larger is better IF you are trying to go faster, farther, higher, etc...
I like smaller planes in that time fraim because they were harder to see, all other things being equal! So the secret to vastly improved effectiveness is to cram as much as possable into the smallest possable plane, preferably with the lowest possable polar moment of inertia, highest strength and aspect ratio surfaces and most sophisticated aerodynamics as you can!

 

 

  Because Spit-B has less wetted area than Spit-A, it is faster and longer ranged by the ratio of the differances in total wetted area! Say 35-45 MPH in top speed and 25-35 MPH in cruise at standard throttle settings.
I disagree with these figures.

 

What I in Spit-B loose is some ability to turn-n-burn AS the ability to turn while slowing less for any given rate of turn and power.

It also losses out in climb as less lift = higher angle of attack = more power usuage to maintain the same Rate of climb, the angle of attack also applies to level fight less inherent lift requires more power to maintain the same level speed

Plus the stall speed may or may not be higher or lower depending on the slat performance

(those leading edge slats were not the goldern BB you think, they always deployed unevenly so much so in a lot of cases that they pitch the aircraft into a stall, a large proportion of Me109 piloys had them wired shut)

 at the new lower weight. ( The smaller wing weighs less.) IF the stall speed is higher, take off roll will be longer, but that is not really significant. Now for the big question, would you rather have the speed in hand to catch or out run the other guy and the range to make it stick, OR the ability to turn-n-burn?

 

But thats not the issue, the issue is that in your world you have all zoom and boom and no turn, in the real one a compromise is required, a reduction in zoom and boom to get enough turn to stop the fighter becomeing a siting duck
 

  This is a major failure of the thought processes! You do not defend youself in a dogfight! You avoid getting killed, or not, after you failed to detect the attacker before he tries to kill you! The fight is won by the first pilot to see the other!

So by your argument any pilot on the recieving end is either dead or not worth the effort in saving, nice to know as a pilot

Also its stange that the US has such a infrastructure in place to teach A2A when its a simple process, "get above and behined and you win else you lose"

 

UNLESS he can see him in time to turn into the attack and force Head on Pass, or H2H as is also the monicker, for the initial starting point of the classic fur-ball. But he is still disadvantaged by his lack of speed!

 

Pointless trying to argue this with you, it has been done by many and countless times yet you cling to your simplist beliefs

You see the absurdity of that argument? Faster is better.

Yes they do, spped without the ability to defend is a poor characteristic for a fighter

 

but speed in a fighter is not the ONLY critriea as ^the Me262 clearly demonstrated

One last time, defence is seeing the attack before it developes into life or death fur-ball! No amount of turn can help you after the attack starts.

 Total rubbish - read Mike Spick

You live or die by what he does, nothing you do can FORCE the attack to miss.

Total rubbish - read Mike Spick

 You can only lower his odds of him killing you, there is absolutely nothing you can do to ELIMINATE those odds!

Total rubbish - read Mike Spick

The ace shooter will get you no mater how many Gs you pull!

Total rubbish - read Mike Spick

yet the BEST defense against a zoom and boom is the turn,
Absolutely true! IF you want to die!

Total rubbish - read Mike Spick

 The best deffense is to see him coming before he is close enough to attack! Seeing IS the Defence, maneuver is the prayer to hope he does not kill you. 

Total rubbish - read Mike Spick

Oh and by the way it its terrible form to correct someones spelling whilst littering your own post with incorrect spellings

 

Joke right? you do realise that the vast majority of the3 cost of a modern fighter is the design, the actual cost of the materials etc is a minor consideration, this is why the MORE you produce the less per unit cost is
Not at all! Aircraft are bought by the pound and those in the know, understand that. Go back and read the history of the French/others debate over the soon to become Eurofighter, that became Rafale, Typhoon and eventually the Grippen too. Why has no other Nation bought the Rafale.

 

 

They never tried,
Then why did the Mk-XIV have an 850 mile range with DTs and 460 miles WO?

why did they ONLY get 400 miles with DT when the Mustang got 1200? Why do you ignore the 2,200 mile range with the larger DTs? could it be that they didnt fit the large DT to the Spit that they fitted to the P51? But they did fit the larger DTs to the Spit in Korea!
    
The P-51 had three things going for it when it came to range.
1. Laminar flow wing. The last few dozen Spits got this too! - didnt work, the revised profile did but this was not laminar but was purely a "new" development That they bought from NACA and used right out of the box, on not one or two but three subsequent planes to the pre laminar flow Spits!

2. Divergent/convergent radiator duct and much larger radiator meant less installed cooling drag. This is the biggy as it was never addressed or equaled in any Spitfire, ever!

The initial work on radiator thrust was carried out on spitfires,
But the design idea was vastly different between the two planes. The 'stang wanted the largest possible radiator to minimize pressure drop, nothing else!

 

I like smaller planes in that time frame because they were harder to see,

 

Also its stange that the US has such a infrastructure in place to teach A2A when its a simple process, "get above and behined and you win else you lose"
Did you know that switchology is the number one thing taught at Red Flagg, and all the other "Fighter Weapons Schools"?

UNLESS he can see him in time to turn into the attack and force Head on Pass, or H2H as is also the monicker, for the initial starting point of the classic fur-ball. But he is still disadvantaged by his lack of speed!

 

Also its stange that the US has such a infrastructure in place to teach A2A when its a simple process, "get above and behined and you win else you lose"
Did you know that switchology is the number one thing taught at Red Flagg, and all the other "Fighter Weapons Schools"?

UNLESS he can see him in time to turn into the attack and force Head on Pass, or H2H as is also the monicker, for the initial starting point of the classic fur-ball. But he is still disadvantaged by his lack of speed!

 

They never tried,
Then why did the Mk-XIV have an 850 mile range with DTs and 460 miles WO?

why did they ONLY get 400 miles with DT when the Mustang got 1200? Why do you ignore the 2,200 mile range with the larger DTs? could it be that they didnt fit the large DT to the Spit that they fitted to the P51? But they did fit the larger DTs to the Spit in Korea!

 

Nope they never used the 110 gallon wing DT that the P51 used to get its massive range
    
The P-51 had three things going for it when it came to range.
1. Laminar flow wing. The last few dozen Spits got this too! - didnt work, the revised profile did but this was not laminar but was purely a "new" development That they bought from NACA and used right out of the box, on not one or two but three subsequent planes to the pre laminar flow Spits!

 

The profile was used but it was not for any laminar flow as this just didnt happen, is this getting too omplex for you again?

Why did Supermarine at the time call it a "Laminar flow wing"?because it used the Laminar flow profile but just like the US it didnt result in a Laminar flow Yes it did! Just not as much in practice at they hoped it would after extensive tests!  The fact that they DID fit it to post war Spits and Scimitars and??? tells the entire story. It worked, just not as well in real life as they tested at Langley Field! 

wo "yes it did" what a counter claim, no support no rational arguement just a staement by you!

 

2. Divergent/convergent radiator duct and much larger radiator meant less installed cooling drag. This is the biggy as it was never addressed or equaled in any Spitfire, ever!

The initial work on radiator thrust was carried out on spitfires,
But the design idea was vastly different between the two planes. The 'stang wanted the largest possible radiator to minimize pressure drop, nothing else!

I like smaller planes in that time frame because they were harder to see,

and yet you will trumpet the P47 and P38 the biggest fighters of the war, inconsistant at best.

It is obvious to me that you never understood the argument for either plane. The P-47 was the best single engine fighter from the Allied side because, It had a whopping big air cooled Radial engine that gave it extraordinary performance and it was extremely tough.

You have completely ignored the many defects that I stated, such as size and cost. The P-38 IS the BEST fighter of WW-II because it was very fast,

 quick climbing,

long ranged,

 very agile ( rate of roll),

 best pointability due to the CR props

 and guns install and it could bring you back after an engine quit.

 Against it, I have stated it's size, cost and ergonomics were crap. But of ALL of those great attributes, usable speed, pointability, guns and rate of roll made it the greatest fighter plane of WW-II! Bar None!

UNLESS he can see him in time to turn into the attack and force Head on Pass, or H2H as is also the monicker, for the initial starting point of the classic fur-ball. But he is still disadvantaged by his lack of speed!

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright-Patterson_Air_Force_Base">Wright Field</a> on 11 February 1939 to relocate the aircraft for further testing. <a title="Henry Arnold" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Arnold">General Arnold</a>;, commander of the USAAC, approved and recommended a cross-country flight to New York. The flight set a speed record by flying from California to New York in seven hours and two minutes, not counting two refueling stops,<sup id="cite_ref-Aviation_Museum_19-1"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning#cite_note-Aviation_Museum-19">;[19]</a></sup> The YPs were substantially redesigned and differed greatly in detail from the hand-built XP-38. They were lighter, included changes in engine fit, and the propeller rotation was reversed, with the blades rotating outwards (away) from the <a title="Cockpit (aviation)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockpit_(aviation)">cockpit</a> at the top of their arc rather than inwards as before. This improved the aircraft" stability="" as="" a="" gunnery="" platform. [31]

 quick climbing,

Nope behind again See; Specifications (P-38L)

Data from Lockheed P-38 Lightning Pilot's Flight Manual^[117]

General characteristics

• Crew: One
• Length: 37 ft 10 in (11.53 m) (11.53 m)
• Wingspan: 52 ft 0 in (15.85 m) (15.85 m)
• Height: 12 ft 10 in (3.91 m) (3.91 m)
• Wing area: 327.5 ft² (30.43 m²)
• Airfoil:NACA 23016 / NACA 4412
• Empty weight: 12,800 lb^[118] (5,800 kg)
• Loaded weight: 17,500 lb^[118] (7,940 kg)
• Max. takeoff weight: 21,600 lb (9,798 kg)
• Powerplant: 2 × Allison V-1710-111/113 V-12 piston engine, 1,725 hp ^{[N 7]} (1,194 kW) each
• Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0268^[118]

• Drag area: 8.78 ft² (0.82 m²)^[118]
• Aspect ratio: 8.26^[118]

Performance

• Maximum speed: 447 mph (713 km/h) (712 km/h) on War Emergency Power: 1,725 hp at 64 inHG and 28,000 ft (8,530 m)^{[N 8][N 9]}
• Stall speed: 105 mph (169 km/h) (170 km/h)
• Range: 1,300 mi (2,100 km) combat (1,770 km / 3,640 km)
• Service ceiling: 44,000 ft (13,000 m) (13,400 m)
• Rate of climb: 4,750 ft/min (24.1 m/s) maximum
• Wing loading: 53.4 lb/ft²^[118] (260.9 kg/m²)
• Power/mass: 0.16 hp/lb (0.27 kW/kg)

• Lift-to-drag ratio: 13.5

long ranged,

But that was a US requirement not a Eurpoean one so it can be ignored, No, range is fungible, Range can be converted to cruise speed,  So yes, range is a very good indicator of total performance.

 very agile ( rate of roll),

nope, and certainly not in turn Yes, the late model P-38 could out roll any Spit ever made and the early versions were better than most Spits made during the war. But what is worse you confuse turn rate with rate of roll. You are right, under some conditions, most early spits will turn inside most if not all P-38s, but again no spit ever flown could roll with a late 38!

 best pointability due to the CR props

but not according to the test pilots, A source for this canard?

and it could bring you back after an engine quit.

Which it needed to as they often did But what happened when the spit's engine quit, which it also did quite often? Right!