wuzak
Captain
Weren't the LF/HF versions of the IX and VIII later than the specified time period?
1943, sea level to 15000 ft: the best fighter?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Weren't the LF/HF versions of the IX and VIII later than the specified time period?
Not according to the RAAF:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit8adsaussie.jpg
the above report is dated 24 June 1943.
Sure!
However, little DP845 with the single-stage Griffon – by then almost my favourite aircraft, with its spectacular rate of climb 'off the deck' and very good low-level performance – did not become entirely redundant. As we have seen, there had been much concern in high places about the low- and medium-level performance of the Fw 190. Because of this I was told one day in July 1942 to fly a Spitfire to Farnborough to take part in a demonstration for a small audience of Very Important People. Jimmy Bird had no information on what was afoot, so I immediately telephoned Willy Wilson at Farnborough to find out what it was all about. All I could gather was that it was to be a comparative demonstration of the low-level speed performance of the Fw 190, the Typhoon and the Spitfire.
"'How are you going to organise this, Willy?" I asked.
"God knows," he said. "I suppose we shall have to have some sort of a race."
On reflection the general scheme became clear. The Spitfire was to be a sort of datum pacemaker – Mr Average Contemporary Fighter. Its job would be to come in last, the real excitement of the proceedings being a) by how much it would be beaten by the Fw 190 and the Typhoon and b) which of these two bright stars would beat the other and by how much. Outside on the tarmac at Worthy Down stood the inoffensive-looking but highly potent DP845. Nobody had said what sort of Spitfire I should bring. Just a Spitfire. . .
I rang up Joe Smith. "Joe," I said, "about this thing at Farnborough. I reckon if I take DP845 I will beat the pair of them. Will that upset any applecarts?"
"You bet it will," he said. "Take it."
At Farnborough I parked DP845 as inconspicuously as I could and walked into Willy Wilson's office. Kenneth Seth-Smith of Hawkers had arrived with his Typhoon, and together we discussed the plan. We would all three take off and fly to a point west of the nearby aerodrome at Odiham. We would then head back towards Farnborough in open line abreast at a moderate cruising speed at 1,000ft, Willy Wilson in the centre with the Fw 190 and Seth-Smith and myself on each side of him. At a signal from Willy we would all open up simultaneously to full power and head for the finishing line at Farnborough, where the assembled VIPs would be waiting.
All went according to plan until we were about half-way between Odiham and Farnborough and going flat out. I was beginning to overhaul the Fw 190 and the Typhoon. Suddenly I saw sparks and black smoke coming from the Fw 190's exhaust, and at that moment Willy also saw them and throttled back his BMW engine. I shot past him and never saw him again. The Typhoon was also easily left behind. The eventual finishing order was the Spitfire in first place with the Typhoon second and the Fw190 third.
This was precisely the opposite result to that expected, or indeed intended. As far as the VIP audience was concerned, the cat was well and truly among the pigeons. When I taxied in and shut down, everybody crowded round DP845 and the message sank in that the Griffon Spitfire had handsomely beaten what were then supposed to be the two fastest fighters in service. The sensation was considerable, especially since the date was 22 July – exactly one day after the Secretary of State for Air, Sir Archibald Sinclair, had addressed his letter to the Minister of Aircraft Production saying 'our mastery of the daylight air is threatened'. It was also only a very few days after the Chief of the Air Staff had issued his lengthy 'Most Secret' memorandum. I was, of course, quite unaware of these matters at the time, and I must say I was somewhat startled by the general stir which our simple little exercise seemed to be causing.
F4U has greater range and payload.
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
I am not certain if enough were produced in 1943 for the criteria, but if so, my curve ball pick would be the P-38J. 15k feet and under, not worry about compressability. Great climb, great firepower, great range, good speed, good turn.
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Hi Guys,
Just for fun I went through my files and dug out graphs and charts on many of the aircraft that have been mentioned on this thread so far. All performance figures are from military test graphs or charts. I used the performance figures from four altitudes from sea level to 15,000ft. The figures are speed (mph.)/climb rate (fpm):
A/C.................S.L.........5,000ft.....10,000ft.....15,000ft.
Spit.VIII.....330/4610...349/4610...363/3840...377/4150
Spit.LF.IX...336/4620...358/4675...380/4280...394/3860
Spit.XII......346/3760...368/3485...370/2900...384/2760
MustangI....378/1905...377/1925...374/1640...366/1140
P-51(Mk.Ia).359/2300..371/2650...384/2620...387/1600
P-51A.........376/3800..394/3690...413/3365...411/2650
P-51B.........371/3600..389/3570...406/3605...417/3275
P-38H.........365/4600..379/4500...395/4330...411/4065
P-39N.........338/4135..368/4250...396/3900...390/3230
La-5FN.......362/4370...380/4130...381/3325...378/2750
Fw-190A-5..352/3290...371/3070...366/2390...385/1550
Bf.109G-1...326/4113...342/4113...362/3775...380/3200
These are just cold hard figures and cannot show the handling, acceleration or full performance of these aircraft from S.L. to 15,000ft. They are just a comparison basis at certain given altitudes within the height limitations of this thread.
I oppologise that I do not have any graphs/charts on the Bf.109G-2 or 5 and what i have on the G-6 is the gun ship model. The Spitfire XII is with the Griffin IIB engine and is not fully representitive of that model. I have some information on Griffin IV but there were only 15 examples of this A/C produced and the MK.XII doesn't qualify with only 100 produced anyway.
The Mustang I and Ia figures are at about 60"Hg boost which while it was sanctioned by Allison and the USAAF, was not the limit being used in combat. From Australia and the Middle East boost limits were set at 66" and 70".
The British officially admitted that they were setting there boost limits to 72"Hg. Unfortunately I have not seen any graphs or charts displaying the performance of the early Allison aircraft P-39, P-40, P-51 at these boost limits.
One note on the figures I posted on the P-38H. The Lightning could reach these figures posted but could not stay at these limits for very long without overheating.
If anyone has any other information, please post it.
Thanks, Jeff
Just for fun I went through my files and dug out graphs and charts on many of the aircraft that have been mentioned on this thread so far. All performance figures are from military test graphs or charts. I used the performance figures from four altitudes from sea level to 15,000ft. The figures are speed (mph.)/climb rate (fpm):
A/C.................S.L.........5,000ft.....10,000ft.....15,000ft.
Spit.VIII.....330/4610...349/4610...363/3840...377/4150
Spit.LF.IX...336/4620...358/4675...380/4280...394/3860
Spit.XII......346/3760...368/3485...370/2900...384/2760
MustangI....378/1905...377/1925...374/1640...366/1140
P-51(Mk.Ia).359/2300..371/2650...384/2620...387/1600
P-51A.........376/3800..394/3690...413/3365...411/2650
P-51B.........371/3600..389/3570...406/3605...417/3275
P-38H.........365/4600..379/4500...395/4330...411/4065
P-39N.........338/4135..368/4250...396/3900...390/3230
La-5FN.......362/4370...380/4130...381/3325...378/2750
Fw-190A-5..352/3290...371/3070...366/2390...385/1550
Bf.109G-1...326/4113...342/4113...362/3775...380/3200
These are just cold hard figures and cannot show the handling, acceleration or full performance of these aircraft from S.L. to 15,000ft. They are just a comparison basis at certain given altitudes within the height limitations of this thread.
I oppologise that I do not have any graphs/charts on the Bf.109G-2 or 5 and what i have on the G-6 is the gun ship model. The Spitfire XII is with the Griffin IIB engine and is not fully representitive of that model. I have some information on Griffin IV but there were only 15 examples of this A/C produced and the MK.XII doesn't qualify with only 100 produced anyway.
The Mustang I and Ia figures are at about 60"Hg boost which while it was sanctioned by Allison and the USAAF, was not the limit being used in combat. From Australia and the Middle East boost limits were set at 66" and 70".
The British officially admitted that they were setting there boost limits to 72"Hg. Unfortunately I have not seen any graphs or charts displaying the performance of the early Allison aircraft P-39, P-40, P-51 at these boost limits.
One note on the figures I posted on the P-38H. The Lightning could reach these figures posted but could not stay at these limits for very long without overheating.
If anyone has any other information, please post it.
Thanks, Jeff
wuzak
Captain
Not sure about those numbers.
Mustang I's best height should be higher, and faster than that.
Spit XII should be faster down low?
Mustang I's best height should be higher, and faster than that.
Spit XII should be faster down low?
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
wusak,
You are absolutely right on the Spit XII. With the Griffin IV the Spitfire speeds were 375/4600ft. and 389/12,800ft. and rate of climb 4,960fpm/1,900ft. But as I said, only 15 combat Spitfires had this engine. I would guess that the Griffin III engined Spitfire which made up the majority of Mk.XIIs had performance somewhere between the Griffin IIB and IV models.
The Mustang I used the V-1710-F3R and F21R engines. If I am reading the charts correct there best heights of performance are 7,900ft. and 4,000ft. respectively. The maximum speeds of the Mk.I were 392mph/7900ft. and 378mph/4,000ft. respectively "officially". However, as I said, overboosting of the early Allisons with 8.77 supercharger gearing was pretty much "standard operating procedure" in the field. Speeds of 400+ and 385+ for these engines were highly likely.
A/C.........S.L...........5,000ft.....10,000ft...15,000ft.
F4U-1...348/3160....344/2510..359/2450..378/2300
F4U-1a..365/3210...377/3120..397/3020..415/2575....(with water injection)
One note: I am not sure when the USN or USAAF started using water injection for there aircraft so the F4U-1a figures may not apply.
If anyone has this information, I would greatly appriciate the insight.
Thanks, Jeff
You are absolutely right on the Spit XII. With the Griffin IV the Spitfire speeds were 375/4600ft. and 389/12,800ft. and rate of climb 4,960fpm/1,900ft. But as I said, only 15 combat Spitfires had this engine. I would guess that the Griffin III engined Spitfire which made up the majority of Mk.XIIs had performance somewhere between the Griffin IIB and IV models.
The Mustang I used the V-1710-F3R and F21R engines. If I am reading the charts correct there best heights of performance are 7,900ft. and 4,000ft. respectively. The maximum speeds of the Mk.I were 392mph/7900ft. and 378mph/4,000ft. respectively "officially". However, as I said, overboosting of the early Allisons with 8.77 supercharger gearing was pretty much "standard operating procedure" in the field. Speeds of 400+ and 385+ for these engines were highly likely.
A/C.........S.L...........5,000ft.....10,000ft...15,000ft.
F4U-1...348/3160....344/2510..359/2450..378/2300
F4U-1a..365/3210...377/3120..397/3020..415/2575....(with water injection)
One note: I am not sure when the USN or USAAF started using water injection for there aircraft so the F4U-1a figures may not apply.
If anyone has this information, I would greatly appriciate the insight.
Thanks, Jeff
Last edited:
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I don't believe water was available on the F4U until early '44.
The P-51B was operational late '43 but barely.
The P-51B was operational late '43 but barely.
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
davparir,
April '44 is the first I know of water injection on the F4U-1. I was hoping someone had more information of when it was actually used operationally for all the different US A/C.
The P-51B was accepted by the USAAF in June 1943. I do not have any figures on how many were operational by Oct. 1943. Just an FYI: The Allison engine Mustangs were prefered at the lower levels of operation.
Vincenzo,
The calculation is fairly simple. 3.28 (meters to feet) X 60 (seconds to minutes) = 196.8. That is the multiplier for meters/second to feet/minute. But actually I used the chart at the bottom of the Bf.109G page at www.wwiiaircraftperformance.
Thanks for the reply Guys, Jeff
April '44 is the first I know of water injection on the F4U-1. I was hoping someone had more information of when it was actually used operationally for all the different US A/C.
The P-51B was accepted by the USAAF in June 1943. I do not have any figures on how many were operational by Oct. 1943. Just an FYI: The Allison engine Mustangs were prefered at the lower levels of operation.
Vincenzo,
The calculation is fairly simple. 3.28 (meters to feet) X 60 (seconds to minutes) = 196.8. That is the multiplier for meters/second to feet/minute. But actually I used the chart at the bottom of the Bf.109G page at www.wwiiaircraftperformance.
Thanks for the reply Guys, Jeff
Last edited:
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Vincenzo,
Actually the conversions at Mike William's sight are very close. I did notice one thing though. Sea level climb appears to be converted from 20.9 m/s which would = 4,113 ft./min. that is listed. The original German document lists 21 m/s. This would be 4,132.8 ft./min. for S.L. and 5,000ft.
Have fun, Jeff
Actually the conversions at Mike William's sight are very close. I did notice one thing though. Sea level climb appears to be converted from 20.9 m/s which would = 4,113 ft./min. that is listed. The original German document lists 21 m/s. This would be 4,132.8 ft./min. for S.L. and 5,000ft.
Have fun, Jeff
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Vincenzo,
Ok, ok, you win. I did say very close. I should have left the "very" out of it. But think of it this way, if you have an enemy A/C closing in on your tail and your A/C climbs at 4133 fpm and you know his climbs at 4113, I don't think trying to live on the 20 fpm difference by climbing to dodge his bullets is going to work. If Mr. Williams conversions had been off by 100 or 200 fpm it would be time to call him up so he could make corrections. As I said, I used his chart because it was there and I was in a hurry to put some figures for the 109 down on paper for this thread. The other figures are from my files that I had converted previously. I started puting together information from charts and graphs on several A/C years ago. About six month ago I came up with a standardised form and started transfering figures. It takes a long time and a lot of work to put all these figures together........Oh now look what you made me do. I'm rambling on and on. Sorry Guys, Jeff
Ok, ok, you win. I did say very close. I should have left the "very" out of it. But think of it this way, if you have an enemy A/C closing in on your tail and your A/C climbs at 4133 fpm and you know his climbs at 4113, I don't think trying to live on the 20 fpm difference by climbing to dodge his bullets is going to work. If Mr. Williams conversions had been off by 100 or 200 fpm it would be time to call him up so he could make corrections. As I said, I used his chart because it was there and I was in a hurry to put some figures for the 109 down on paper for this thread. The other figures are from my files that I had converted previously. I started puting together information from charts and graphs on several A/C years ago. About six month ago I came up with a standardised form and started transfering figures. It takes a long time and a lot of work to put all these figures together........Oh now look what you made me do. I'm rambling on and on. Sorry Guys, Jeff
Last edited:
i was agree the number are very near (with the exclusion of conversion of 19.8 m/sec) but is so strange wrong the conversion (almost wrong in so strange way, i can understand the use of a round (down) number for the conversion (like 196 fpm for 1 m/sec) but not change it for each data)
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
21 m/s x 196.8 = 4,132.8. Stick with 196.8 if you are doing the work yourself. You won't go wrong.
19.8 m/s x 196.8 = 3,896.64 or 3,897. You just won't go wrong.
19.8 m/s x 196.8 = 3,896.64 or 3,897. You just won't go wrong.
Last edited:
