Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Bill - I'd agree that Mustang was great, but it does not belong in "1-engined fighters in squadron service, what airframe(s) " for 1941.NA-73 Mustang I would seem to be the best delivered production fighter airframe. It had the lowest drag airframe/wing combination and largest internal fuel combined with heavy firepower in 1941 timeframe. The 4x0.50 and 4x0.30 caliber armament was in a wing that easily converted to 4x20mm delivered in mid 1943 as Mark IA. Despite the drag of the 4x20's, the P-51 was deemed superior by AAF Flight Test to P-38/39/40 and P-47 below 15000 feet. The extremely low drag gave it performance matching much higher available horsepower airframes - with respect to top speed and range.
...
Credit must go to the Bf109 and Spitfire, when put into production they had engines well below 1000BHP and fixed 2 blade props. To survive through the war and eventually be fitted with 2000BHP engines and variable pitch props is a credit to the original designs.
The Fw 190 AIRFRAME was quite advanced for the time. The 28v electrical system and components, pushrod control surfaces, relative ease of maintenance with actual forethought put into panel placement, and excellent control harmonization. Not to mention the engine control system, and overall adaptability. It was truly a generation ahead in 1941
Except it took massive manhours to build so ease of production is a NO as is ease of maintenance.Mk111 Spitfire, first designed in 1940 and was still the RAF's front line fighter in 1945, nothing else comes close.
Not being 'married' to just a single engine type was also a criteria and it [Spitfire] almost fails there. Fortunately the Merlin had multiple iterations and had a big brother.
Bill - I'd agree that Mustang was great, but it does not belong in "1-engined fighters in squadron service, what airframe(s) " for 1941.
By the time war was declared Spitfires had Merlin MkII engines and the Mk III was starting to come into service, but the first Spitfires couldn't have been fitted with MkIIs because they didn't start getting delivered until 1938 this is when the Spitfire went into squadron service but it was obviously produced before. My point was actually about available power with fixed blade props. With a fixed pitch prop take off climb and top speed depend entirely on the prop chosen, because the prop is "stalled" at max revs on the ground the engine had to be throttled back such that only about 650BHP was available.IIRC Spitfire was always with 1000 HP or more, includin the 1st production aircraft.
.
By the time war was declared Spitfires had Merlin MkII engines and the Mk III was starting to come into service, but the first Spitfires couldn't have been fitted with MkIIs because they didn't start getting delivered until 1938 this is when the Spitfire went into squadron service but it was obviously produced before. My point was actually about available power with fixed blade props. With a fixed pitch prop take off climb and top speed depend entirely on the prop chosen, because the prop is "stalled" at max revs on the ground the engine had to be throttled back such that only about 650BHP was available.
When I said put into production I meant when it was ordered, that is what it had to perform with to win a contract. It may have been and was foreseen that power would increase but that is never guaranteed, they could have had problems like they had with the Vulture. 1030BHP appears regularly on power outputs of the Merlin, maybe something to do with the testing equipment. However a power output of "all out level flight" for a Spitfire is of little import, what power did it have for take off and climb? My post was based on what I understood to be its continuous output maximum of about 850-900 BHP. The Spitfire got the later engines because Supermarine were so chronically slow in producing Spitfires, so slow they almost lost the contract completely.The 1st production Spitfires were powered by Merlin II. Merlin I was also 1030 HP engine.
View attachment 603295
When I said put into production I meant when it was ordered, that is what it had to perform with to win a contract. It may have been and was foreseen that power would increase but that is never guaranteed, they could have had problems like they had with the Vulture. 1030BHP appears regularly on power outputs of the Merlin, maybe something to do with the testing equipment. However a power output of "all out level flight" for a Spitfire is of little import, what power did it have for take off and climb? My post was based on what I understood to be its continuous output maximum of about 850-900 BHP. The Spitfire got the later engines because Supermarine were so chronically slow in producing Spitfires, so slow they almost lost the contract completely.
Not at all, it was in 1938 for a short time, in 1940 for as long as you wanted but it wasn't in the years before when the Spitfire was designed and first flew. It would have been great if they told Mitchell that the Merlin will have 1100 BHP so design your plane around that, but that is what happened with the Typhoon and Tornado and the engines took years to get right. My point is really that Mitchell and Supermarine had to win a contract between 1934 and 1936. Wiki says this "On 5 March 1936,[15][nb 2] the prototype (K5054), fitted with a fine-pitch propeller to give more power for takeoff" The prop doesn't give more power it makes the power more useable, that is my point, things were on very fine margins at the time.Is it that hard to accept that Merlin was a 1000+ HP engine?
Not at all, it was in 1938 for a short time, in 1940 for as long as you wanted but it wasn't in the years before when the Spitfire was designed and first flew. It would have been great if they told Mitchell that the Merlin will have 1100 BHP so design your plane around that, but that is what happened with the Typhoon and Tornado and the engines took years to get right. My point is really that Mitchell and Supermarine had to win a contract between 1934 and 1936. Wiki says this "On 5 March 1936,[15][nb 2] the prototype (K5054), fitted with a fine-pitch propeller to give more power for takeoff" The prop doesn't give more power it makes the power more useable, that is my point, things were on very fine margins at the time.