![]() Unique p 51 mustang posters designed and sold by artists. Until it runs out of fuel, the pilot falls asleep or the engine breaks. I Need To Know Which Countries This Plane Fought For, What Battles It Fought For, What It Was Used For And, What Countries Used This Air Plane. No raf or usaaf aircraft were good tank busters, even those modified for that role. Who needs elliptical wings, stylish P-51 radiator doghouses or retractable landing gear on a bomb truck intended to fly to a target little farther away than its pilot can see, do a job and rumble. Not especially, though it was sometimes used in the role. See more ideas about p51 mustang, vintage aircraft, fighter planes. Lets Look At Some Examples From Kursk Again. No need to register, buy now! No difference at all in europe or the pacific theatres. Lightningmcqueen2007 Has Uploaded 65 Photos To Flickr. For the german's, it's a constant threat to panzers that a mustang will come with it's tank buster rockets and hit the tanks. Sketched Out In A New York City Hotel Room In April 1940, The North American Aviation Corporation Na73X Went On To Become One Of The Best Fighters To Come Out Of World War 2.Ĭheatham date added view count 1,174 comment count 0 rating Find the perfect a10 tank buster stock photo. 3Rd Panzer Division Only Had 90 Tanks And The Division Fought Against Soviet At Guns And Afvs Which Likely Caused The Majority Of The Divisions.Īny body plse help me. Source: No raf or usaaf aircraft were good tank busters, even those modified for that role. Free shipping on orders over $25 shipped by amazon. Source: And at more than 10,000 pounds empty, it was about 50 percent heavier than the mustang and nearly twice the weight of of the british spitfire. ![]() Secondly, the Spit also benefitted from a boost (at certain speed ranges) from a cleverly-designed radiator, just like the Mustang.Source: No difference at all in europe or the pacific theatres. 92 mach - while true 'laminar flow' efficiency gains (as per the P51) are only achievable (as another contributor has said) where the surface is completely unblemished. The Spitfire wing was remarkably efficient - at least up to. The most extreme ranges were squeezed out of PR marks using a combination of rear fuselage tanks and leading edge tanks. Later marks of Spitfire carried fuel behind the pilot as well as in front. This boosted range considerably.Ĭertain photo recon spits had, in effect, 'wet wings' - The D-section leading edge torsion box ahead of the main spar being sealed and filled with fuel (this space being available was legacy of early spitfire design drafts, at a time when the aircraft's power plant was intended to be evaporatively cooled by condensers in these cavities). The Spitfire could (and often was) fitted with a jettisonable 'slipper' tank under the fuselage, with capacities ranging from 30 imperial gallons up to (I believe, but am at work, so no references) 180 gallons. These design specification differences drive different solutions. One was designed as a shorter range interceptor, and the other a long range escort. "What would it take for a spitfire to have the same range as a p-51D? I guess it was tested and the mustang came out best but i wonder why?" - they are two different aircraft. "The Mustang also has a more advanced and efficient wing" - For flying from A to B.Īerodynamically it is not as good as the Spitfires for example in dogfighting, tight turns, etc. A fully fuelled Spitfire on the other hand was still better balanced. The dogfighting ability of the Mustang with full fuel load in the rear fuselage and wing/drop tanks was poor. It's mostly about fuel capacity with the Mustang. The Mustang also has a more advanced and efficient wing, so it's not all about the fuel capacity. There was a tank in the fuselage behind the pilot, but the main tanks are in the wings.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |