By: Skyraider3D - 22nd April 2006 at 23:11
I found this link today and thougt I’d stick it in:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200001/ai_n8884926
Less drag per chance?
I wouldn’t think so! A blunt backside gives a lot of turbulent air, i.e. drag.
If it is indeed used for napalm attacks, perhaps it makes the tank tumble more upon release, mixing the contents? Or perhaps it allows for more accurate napalm drops? (more drag/tumbling = less “floating” = more accurate placement of napalm tank on target)
By: italian harvard - 29th December 2004 at 01:50
uhm, I kinda thought so, but I’m not sure how much less drag it would be…
Alex
By: Chad Veich - 29th December 2004 at 00:11
jeeeez, pretty expensive cropduster isnt it? 😀
I remember it was in combat service though, was it maybe use to spread DDT around or something?Alex
The cover of the Squadron Signal “P-40 in Action” book has a painting of an 89th FS, 80th FG P-40N shown with the drop tank on backwards. On page 49 there is a picture of the actual aircraft depicted in the cover painting but no explanation for the drop tank being on backwards. Less drag per chance?
By: galdri - 28th December 2004 at 20:29
From memory, this was a US attempt to make an escort fighter out of the Spitfire, dated early 1943. With the drop tanks and a big fuel tank behind the pilot, it had the range to fly to Berlin and back. Only three were ever modified (Again from memory, don’t have the references at hand). As someone mentioned earlier, they were flown across the pond and ended up at Supermarine’s. There it was found that in order to fit the rear-fuselage fuel tank, some important structural members had been weakened. This idea was scrapped.
Supermarine did, however, modify a Mk IX themselfs, and Jeffery Quill flew it on endurance tests that proved it to be useful as an escort fighter. IIRC, it was in 1944, and Mustangs were available in sufficent numbers and the idea was dropped.
By: tbyguy - 28th December 2004 at 15:48
80th FG carried out quite a bit of ground attack. Wouldn’t be carrying napalm, would it?
By: italian harvard - 28th December 2004 at 12:34
jeeeez, pretty expensive cropduster isnt it? 😀
I remember it was in combat service though, was it maybe use to spread DDT around or something?
Alex
By: DazDaMan - 28th December 2004 at 12:21
I seem to recall reading of one used as a cropduster…
By: italian harvard - 28th December 2004 at 12:19
about strange fuel tank installations, i remember having seen a picture of a P-40 with an inverted belly tank installed, do any of u guys know why?
cheers
Alex
By: VoyTech - 28th December 2004 at 12:08
You can see the nose of this Spitfire in much nicer finish at my favourite thread (the one about small regular white areas on Spitfires), posted by Mark 12. There’s also quite a bit about MK210 in Ventura’s “American Spitfires”.
By: DazDaMan - 28th December 2004 at 09:43
IIRC there’s quite a bit on this aircraft in one of Alfred Price’s books (possibly one of the “Spitfire At War” titles, or “Spitfire Story”, I can’t remember which).
By: Mark12 - 28th December 2004 at 09:41
MK210
Mark
By: Dan Johnson - 28th December 2004 at 08:52
Spit tested at Wright field and modified to carry the two drop tanks. It was flown back across the Atlantic this way. But due to the modifications it wasn’t stressed/adaptable to combat situations.
I guess the stress on the wings would have been too much.
I’m thinking those are the later 110 gallon metal tanks that were so common on the Iwo Mustangs.
Dan
Sign In
December 28, 2004 at 8:37 am