MB5 and Spiteful

[PMN1]

I've read that the MB-5 had a range of 1,100 miles - was this on internal fuel only or did this need drop tanks.

The Spiteful despite being developed from November 1942 ish only had a range of 564 miles. Considering they were using a new wing and were modifying the Spitfire MkXIV fuselage why was there no apparent attempt to carry more fuel - the need for range was clear to everyone by then and the Mustang had shown what was possible.

Does anyone have the internal fuel capacity of the MB5 and Spiteful.

[GregP]

My database says normal range for the Martin-Baker MB-5 was 1995 km or 1240 miles. I assume that is statute miles, but wouldn't swear to it.

I also have 564 miles for the Spiteful. Again, I assume statute miles.

I do not have the internal fuel capacity of either aircraft, but what does it matter. The range is the range, and was usually quoted at cruise power plus 15 minutres of combat power.

That means it could go 564 miles, fight 10 or 15 minutes, and make it 564 miles back to home. The fuel burn of the Griffon 69 and 83 engines should not be all that hard to find out. Out of curiosity, why do you want to know?

The range is much more telling than the fuel capacity.

Just in case anyone here has not heard, there is an MB-5 under construction in the USA. It will have a faithful MB-5 fuselage, but will use P-51 wings to speed up the construction of the aircraft. I have heard that they will build the MB-5 wings while they fly it with the P-51 wings, but cannot confirm the information ... i just heard that. The project had a Griffon engine of unknown type, and also has a contra prop of the proper type.

Now, maybe someone will build another CAC-15!

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by GregP
[br Out of curiosity, why do you want to know?

It seems to me that British fighters always had a problem with range - I was just wondering if the designers of the Spiteful had decided to remedy that situation when designing a new aircraft - the designers of the MB5 appear to have done so if that range is on internal fuel.

Incidently, I've been reading Norman Friedman's 'British Carrier Aviation - the developmnet of the ships and their aircraft and he mentions a plan to put a RR Eagle into a Seafang - it was expected to make 525mph at 25,000ft using 8 bladed contraprops compared to 480mph for the initial Seafang with 6 bladed contraprops.

[simon]

I always understood range to mean the ability of the aircraft to fly from Point A to Point B. What Greg refers to I always understood was not range but what was refered to as Combat Radius, i.e. the ability to take off at Point A, fly to Point B then return to point A.

This would give the Spiteful a Range of 564 Miles or a Combat Radius of 282 Miles.

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by PMN1

[quote][i]Incidently, I've been reading Norman Friedman's 'British Carrier Aviation - the developmnet of the ships and their aircraft and he mentions a plan to put a RR Eagle into a Seafang - it was expected to make 525mph at 25,000ft using 8 bladed contraprops compared to 480mph for the initial Seafang with 6 bladed contraprops.





Given the Eagle was a 24 cylinder engine, how much modification of the feselage would this require?

[GregP]

An interesting subject, range. When specifying range, most civilian aircraft are specified one-way. Most military aircraft are specified with "combat range", which can loosely be translated as "combat radius with a bit extra added on by crusing at best range speed for some specified period."

The rangte of a bomber, as an example, is NOT usually specified as an absolute maximum one-way value, but rather as a radius ... even though they don't usually SAY it.

I wish the process of reporting range were more "standardized." That way, we would all know what the specifications are talking about. However, many military manufacturers engage in "specsmanship," and report fictitious figures that can only be achieved by unarmed or "special" aircraft.

The altitude and speed records of the F-15 Eagle are a case in point. The plane used for the "Streak Eagle" flight in the 1970s was stripped, polished, and waxed. The jets engines were super tuned, and the aircraft was held on the runway with explosive bolts while the engines were un to max power. It was then explosively released and flew the record profile. A standard Eagle with a weapon load won't do anywhere NEAR the numbers that the record indicates, but IS a potent weapon.

The SR-71 Blackbird is another example. It has two maximum speeds: Absolute maximum speed and maximum controllable speed. They are some 150 knots apart.

So ... maybe we shuould all look into exactly what is meant by the reported range numbers in WWII specifications. It is probably easier to look up fuel capacity and then look up fuel burn at max power and at cruise, and calculate it from there!

One last point. My sources do not usually state what configuration and conditions apply to the the range specification, so the reader is left to make assumptions. There was a thread a while back in which I stated a range for the B-17. I was taken to task by several people since the range spec was for an unloaded bomber in ferry condition. The people who said that turned out to be right ... but my sources never stated the range was ferry range ... they only gave a range, normal and maximum. Nowhwere does it say thta maximum range is with no bomb load and is a 1-way, unrefuled range used only in ferry missions.

Personally, I thonk that a no-load ferry range is a useless specification unless you happen to own one and need to fly it to Europe from California. The ranges in the books SHOULD be quoted with a bomb load, or else a bomber cannot fulfill its intended purpose.

What do YOU think?