wuzak
Captain
Maybe if any Spitfire IX could do 390mph at sea level.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I think he was pointing out that JL165 was down on performance (compared to other Mk.IX examples tested), not the Spitfire as a whole.
I think he was pointing out that JL165 was down on performance (compared to other Mk.IX examples tested), not the Spitfire as a whole.
The problem with the F was that there was no 'Interceptor' buy and the F/G had no internal fuselage tank. To add it and extend the range, while maintaining the stress allowables, the airframe needed a complete 'structural re-do' ------------> which led to P-51H
It was a 'forgettable' dissertation..Mein Gott, I just realized you answered a similar question late last year regarding all the development marques of the Mustang, among them the F/G interceptor and the long range tank issue, structure redesign with end result P-51H.
I apologize for my short memory and greatly appreciate you patience, thank you.
Nah. It is agenda.
It was a 'forgettable' dissertation..
Well, it wasn't doing too bad for an airframe that first flew in May of 1935. Not all aircraft have the same amount of "stretch".I must admit, much of this P-40 discussion has left me scratching my head. By January 1944 I'd think it was rather academic what the P-40 could do, it was already living on borrowed time and then some.
Well, it wasn't doing too bad for an airframe that first flew in May of 1935. Not all aircraft have the same amount of "stretch".
Indeed, the XP-40Q pointed to what kind of the performance can be 'bought' with up to-date engine. The P-40 always rolled and dived well, most of the times well armed, all while it was sturdy,
this is streeeeeetch.
It was tested at full military power.
If you are running an Allison at 3000rpm and 44.5in MAP (or anything close depending on model) you are running at full Military power.
WEP or WER was only available below FTH and have nothing to do with service ceiling or speed or climb at altitudes above FTH.
Purpose of the test was to get data for range charts. Stressing the engine and possibly having to delay tests while waiting for replacement engine or aircraft wouldn't have been smart.
Please note that any flight that used WEP/WER required notation in the log books and this could result in more frequent spark plug changes and extra checks for metal in the oil and depending on number of times and length of time at WEP it could shorten time before overhaul.
I think he was pointing out that JL165 was down on performance (compared to other Mk.IX examples tested), not the Spitfire as a whole.
Yay, crusade is on - it is not just that Merlin is crap (never mind the 2000 HP figure), but Spitfire is, too.
It does not matter that Fw 190 with 1.56 ata boost (= 1950 PS) was good for 370 mph, nor it does not matter that oh so good Fw 190D-9 was about as good as Spit with 2000 HP, but while using 2100 HP provided by series engine that used MW 50. The another oh so good fighter, Bf 109K-4, also can't do it with either 1800 or 2000 HP.
It does not matter that Fw 190 with 1.56 ata boost (= 1950 PS) was good for 370 mph, nor it does not matter that oh so good Fw 190D-9 was about as good as Spit with 2000 HP, but while using 2100 HP provided by series engine that used MW 50. The another oh so good fighter, Bf 109K-4, also can't do it with either 1800 or 2000 HP.
Nah. It is agenda.
...
At least one FW-190 (USAAF No. EB-104) was taken prisoner and brought to Wright Field. Obviously not factory fresh, but good enough to return 415 mph at 22,000 feet and 340 mph at sea level.
The BMW-801D radial engine was limited to about 1,750 hp because methanol injection and nitrous oxide were not tested. Max rate of climb was pretty good at 4,000 ft/min, even though the Focke-Wulf was about 1,150 lbs. heavier for climbing trials when compared to Spitfire JL165. We'll never know how much better EB-104 might have been with emergency boost.
And yes, let's never mind about the Merlin 66 having 2,000 hp at lower altitudes. Spitfire IX No. JL165 did not break 389 mph at any height or power setting, by A&AEE accounting.
Surely you must have noticed all this. Presumably you decided to argue about it anyway because that's your agenda.