An important factor in the design of the Mustang airframe was the fact that it would tolerate a greater rearward shift in the CG thus allowing the greater load of fuel provided by the large rear fuel tank. When combined with the fuel economy of the Merlin and the addition of drop tanks it then had the range to escort the bombers and have fuel in hand to loiter and maintain air superiority. This was something planned and achieved in late models of the Griffon powered Spitfires, most notably the XX series with much enlarged tail surfaces, but the necessities of maintaining war production worked to delay these developments, the main production of Spitfires being focused more upon reaction to tactical necessities, such as uprating the Mk.V airframe with the two stage supercharged Merlin 60s series making the main production type IX (as a counter to the appearance on the Channel front of the FW190) and the Packard powered equivalent Mk.XVI, and later the uprated Mk. VIII airframe as a basis for the Mks. XIV & XIX utilising the Griffon with its increased power. The limited range of the earlier marks of Spitfire (and the Me109 and Fw190) were a consequence of the design limitations of a smaller "low drag" tailplane, inevitably restricting the potential for rearward CG loading, a consequence of design thinking in what were initially designed as a singe engined fighters intended for use where range was not the primary consideration. It should also be noted that although the Mustang had a very efficient airfoil section, that it had a laminar flow airfoil is not really true. Laminar flow was not attainable in practical terms since a minute imperfection anywhere on the wing surface of a laminar flow wing would cause laminar flow to break down and this would have been a major problem in production to the necessary degree of accuracy and would in service conditions have been quite impractical. One view is that the promulgation of the "laminar flow" story was (a) merely propaganda and PR fabrication, and quite possibly (b) astute misdirection in the hope that the Germans might waste valuable time and effort in trying to produce a workable laminar flow wing.
The germans actually knew the laminar airflow didn't work. They tested a captured Mustang wing and saw it gave 60% less drag then comparable german wings primarily due to superior build quality and clean design (no wing radiatiors and fully enclosed wheels).
An important factor in the design of the Mustang airframe was the fact that it would tolerate a greater rearward shift in the CG thus allowing the greater load of fuel provided by the large rear fuel tank. When combined with the fuel economy of the Merlin and the addition of drop tanks it then had the range to escort the bombers and have fuel in hand to loiter and maintain air superiority.
This was something planned and achieved in late models of the Griffon powered Spitfires, most notably the XX series with much enlarged tail surfaces, but the necessities of maintaining war production worked to delay these developments, the main production of Spitfires being focused more upon reaction to tactical necessities, such as uprating the Mk.V airframe with the two stage supercharged Merlin 60s series making the main production type IX (as a counter to the appearance on the Channel front of the FW190) and the Packard powered equivalent Mk.XVI, and later the uprated Mk. VIII airframe as a basis for the Mks. XIV & XIX utilising the Griffon with its increased power.
The limited range of the earlier marks of Spitfire (and the Me109 and Fw190) were a consequence of the design limitations of a smaller "low drag" tailplane, inevitably restricting the potential for rearward CG loading, a consequence of design thinking in what were initially designed as a singe engined fighters intended for use where range was not the primary consideration.
It should also be noted that although the Mustang had a very efficient airfoil section, that it had a laminar flow airfoil is not really true. Laminar flow was not attainable in practical terms since a minute imperfection anywhere on the wing surface of a laminar flow wing would cause laminar flow to break down and this would have been a major problem in production to the necessary degree of accuracy and would in service conditions have been quite impractical.
One view is that the promulgation of the "laminar flow" story was (a) merely propaganda and PR fabrication, and quite possibly (b) astute misdirection in the hope that the Germans might waste valuable time and effort in trying to produce a workable laminar flow wing.
The germans actually knew the laminar airflow didn't work.
They tested a captured Mustang wing and saw it gave 60% less drag then comparable german wings primarily due to superior build quality and clean design (no wing radiatiors and fully enclosed wheels).
loving the adds