Hi Guys,

Just my 2 cents as they say…

I am one of those of which you speak, I would love to hear any advice or leads that may help at least one member of the younger generation get actively involved in what he feels so passionately for!

Great post, B-17 Buff! There IS hope 😀

Advice? Find a project as local as you can get (don’t worry about it being ‘glamorous’, it all looks the same when you’re covered in old oil and freezing your bits off in a big shed), and sign up for the NAHSI scheme if you can.

Of course, we need to be clear that the the NAHSI course (which I am taking) are very much geared to STATIC restoration / preservation / conservation. It’s shocking how the future of the course is in doubt – it’s the last best hope for continuance of aviation preservation in the UK. It costs next-to-nothing to run when compared to the incalculable benefits of imparting knowledge that has been very much kept ‘in-house’, by an aging cohort of preservationists, for far too long.

The future for flyers is not promising, I feel.

Thats because it had more fuel on board. I believe that the P-51’s fuselage fuel was used first, and the drop tanks were jettisoned as soon as required in a combat situation..With a full fuselage tank, the Centre of Gravity was at best very close to, if not beyond, the rearward CofG limit. With the Spitfire, all the fuel was on or near the CofG.

I’d rather go to Berlin and back in a P-51, even if I did have to mix it with the Hun..:D

The Mustang’s rear tank was an adaption, just like the rear tanks etc on the Spit, and was introduced on the P51B (as per Moggy’s comment, the Mustang was never designed specifically to be a long-range aircraft). That’s why it affected the C of G so drastically when full. But it DID prove useful, as it turned out!

The Mustang simply had more room for internal fuel, both as originally designed and with the extra tankage. There was an apparent difference in design philosophies.

I’d rather go to Berlin in a P51 too – if I felt DVT coming on, I could get up and go for a walk.

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. This boosted range considerably.

Certain 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). Again, the range improved markedly.

Later marks of Spitfire carried fuel behind the pilot as well as in front. The most extreme ranges were squeezed out of PR marks using a combination of rear fuselage tanks and leading edge tanks.

Two other points. The Spitfire wing was remarkably efficient – at least up to .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.

Secondly, the Spit also benefitted from a boost (at certain speed ranges) from a cleverly-designed radiator, just like the Mustang.

Shooting Script by Gavin Lyall, no need for authenticity, B25, Vampires, girl et all you need, haven’t read it , you ain’t into B25s.

Or if you want a serious movie

Neville Shute, Round the Bend….anyone here actually read it?

Thought about this one as a film before – a very clever book that I didn’t get first time round – because I’m slow, I didn’t realise that Shute was deliberately writing like an emotional cripple while telling this first person story. It would work superbly as a movie if told from a different point of view.

And think about the lovely aircraft (not made up ones as per the story), but maybe some Airspeed thingies (for relevance to Shute’s own career), and a gathering of 30’s, 40’s and 50’s civvie types, in exotic locations. Loverley.

Oh, and a bloke who might or might not be the messiah. There is that, of course. (one, two, three…. “We are all different”)