Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The test data showed a 14mph drop in Vmax and a 10mph drop at 20k ft (15mph using lower gear or stage). You've read the data incorrectly as there are dual entries for some altitudes that are close to the supercharger gear and stage changes.
[/QUOTE]I was reading that directly from Table IV ("Level Speed Without 30 gallon tank ") and Table V ("Level Speed With 30 gallon tank ") here: Spitfire F Mk IX BF274 Test
Spit IX
20k without tank 380 mph
20k with tank 365 mph
That is 15 mph. And more importantly it's 365 mph which ain't fast enough for an escort in NW Europe.
Why the hang up on slippers?, put 30 gallons in the rear fuselage, or better yet 66 gallons, problem solved.
[/QUOTE]I was reading that directly from Table IV ("Level Speed Without 30 gallon tank ") and Table V ("Level Speed With 30 gallon tank ") here: Spitfire F Mk IX BF274 Test
Spit IX
20k without tank 380 mph
20k with tank 365 mph
That is 15 mph. And more importantly it's 365 mph which ain't fast enough for an escort in NW Europe.
Why the hang up on slippers?, put 30 gallons in the rear fuselage, or better yet 66 gallons, problem solved.
You are presuming (conveniently) that all LW fighters are going to be configured for taking down B-17s, but that is not what I understand to be the case - some were configured to attack bombers, others were configured to attack the fighter escort. To do otherwise would be suicidal.
So you can't assume that any interceptors are going to be laden down with heavy guns.
If the Spit were escorting Lancasters that would be at 20,000' or lower, not 'vmax'
Depending when in 1943 you will certainly find faster messerschmitts, but the problem for the ~ 360 mph Spit V was the Fw 190, and a Spit IX or VIII with a slipper tank is going to have the same problem, clearly.
I guess it's a circular argument - they were using all the heavy cumbersome stuff at Schweinfurt because there were no escorts, but would they still send them in, without any normally configured fighters if they didn't? I think that is a bit unlikely.
If your aim though is to be able to handle Ju 88s though then fine, you are probably safe there lol... just watch out for those Fw 190s
Much like the Watch Maker Rolls Royce Merlin's...and a lousy engine as far as durability.
IMHO should have developed the A and B/C/D Mustangs at the same time.
How far do they need to go?, no one is saying the Spit can match the P51 but if set up like this http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire9-fuelsystem-lr.jpg they could cover a lot of territory.
Instead of flying over contested airspaces they would have been flying over trees so better ranges could have been achieved.
Three Hurricanes will shoot down one Spitfire in combat.
Wait until September 1943, then you have 3 squadrons of P-38H in ETO
You really need to stop reading the history of WW II by M. A. Larkey
The Merlin was not a watchmaker engine, or else Packard and Ford of Englane would not have been able to turn them out by the 10s of thousands.
If fact the Men from Ford of England complained that the tolerances were too loose.
Durability is relative, The Merlin being much more durable than any German, Italian, French, Russian or Japanese engines.
It is also evolving, a 1945 Merlin had about 40-50% more life than a 1939 Merlin despite making much more power.
Would have been a real great idea, had they access to a time machine to get a 2 stage Merlin engine in 1940 or 1941, of course they would also have needed the 1942/43 fuel in 1940.early 1941 to get the two stage Merlin to work like it did in 1943.
Over the course of the war 20k Spitfires were built.I don't agree about the Spitfire, there was a need in the war for different combat types. Not every aircraft could be a generalist. You needed escort planes and fighter-bombers and carrier fighters and you definitely needed interceptors especially early in the war. The Spitfire was the only fighter in the Allied arsenal through 1943 that could reasonably be claimed to be as good as, or arguably better than the German fighters. That mattered. And for the Battle of Britain I think you did need a purpose-built interceptor. Casualties were high enough as it is, the British could not have afforded three times more casualties.
The Rolls Royce Merlin was probably the best inline engine of the war, in my book. Only close comparison was the DB 600 series.
After all, it was the engine in the Mustang right?
I read a ton on the Merlin Engine...it was coined the Watch Makers Engine.
Because it had so many little parts and before Packard engines were handmade.
You could not easily interchange parts from one engine to another.
Was not until Ford and Packard shut down the arrogance of Merlin.
Who thought their engines were built with high tolerances.
Packard redesigned the drawings so it could be manufactured and made identically.
Did their best not to redesign the engine and oil and cooling system.
Though made many improvements, used better materials especially the horrible bearings.
Packard double the life of the Merlin yet would never be an Allison.
The Allison was key making the venerable P40 into a great aircraft.
Did not have need all the work arounds.
Allison was just a much tighter engine platform and took half as long to rebuild.
Because it had half the parts and progressed to be a better platform as the war progressed.
D
If only the Air Ministry had told Rolls-Royce to put the Merlin 61 into the Miles M20 and ordered mass production. The Merlin powered Mustang would have been unnecessary and the RAF could have provided escorts for the US VIII from the start.