Rick Ansell wrote > On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 22:59:03 -0000, "Jim Wilson" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip> > > >As for the thrust from the oil cooler, I'm skeptical of > that as well. > >Estimates I've seen have been more modest anyway. This > article might account > >for the 80% figure since it's reference claims that the p51d > duct design > >reduce cooling system drag by 7/8 (not the aircraft drag!). > This article is > >about models but the first five paragraphs deal with the > real world reference: > > > >http://www.mfarchive.modelstuff.co.uk/mf073/airspace.htm > > That looks like a portion of the same article. Atwood began > by saying that the wing wasn't the key, as often supposed. > > BTW I never said 'whole aircraft drag' - always just the drag > due to the cooling system. In this article we have some better > numbers: 350lb of additional thrust on an aeroplane > generating c. 1000lb of thrust via the prop. Or 400lbs worth > of drag reduced to 50lbs. > > The Spitfire MkIX wasn't a particularly inefficient > aeroplane, there has to be a reason why the Mustang (unquoted > Mk but assumed to be roughly equivalent) was (according to this > article) 30mph faster. Wing, duct or both? > > Rick >
The Spitfire also had a drag-reducing radiator. I think the key _was_ the wing section. The Spitfire was eventually fitted with a Mustang-like laminar flow wing, which enabled the aircraft to reach 450+ mph. it was to be known as the Spiteful. 373 aircraft were originally ordered from a revised Spitfire F21 contract although production was cancelled with the end of the war and the introduction into service of the new jet powered Meteor and Vampire. The aircraft eventually evolved into the Seafang for Royal Navy service which in its turn was also cancelled. Regards Vivian Meazza _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
