Early Mustangs-performance/experience?

[wuzak]

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.

Maybe if any Spitfire IX could do 390mph at sea level.

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

Nah. It is agenda.

 

[Peter Gunn]

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

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.

 

[drgondog]

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.

It was a 'forgettable' dissertation..

 

[Peter Gunn]

Nah. It is agenda.

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.

 

[Peter Gunn]

It was a 'forgettable' dissertation..

For a dyed in the wool Mustang lover such as myself it's an unforgivable travesty. I go to penalty box two minutes... feel shame.

 

[Shortround6]

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".

 

[Peter Gunn]

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".

True, but then again...

OK, that might be a bit off track...

 

[tomo pauk]

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,

 

[Peter Gunn]

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,

No real argument from me really, I agree totally, but I wouldn't make it my personal first choice going into front line combat in January 1944.

 

[Shortround6]

True, but then again...

OK, that might be a bit off track...

this is streeeeeetch.

which can be traced back to

 

[Peter Gunn]

One might argue that's more "bloat" than "stretch", this however...

 

[EKB]

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.

 

[EKB]

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.

Exactly. One serial did not define the whole series.

There was a wide variety of results when Spitfires, Seafires and other fighters were performance checked with the same
engine specs. What is average or normal depends on which data is used as a baseline.

 

[EKB]

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.

You are the only member to use the word "crap" in this discussion.

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.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
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.

We actually do know how fast the Fw 190As were on 'emergency boost'. The Fw 190A-5 making 580 km/h (360 mph) at SL with 1880 PS: link
Fw 190A-8 on emergency boost - again ~580 km/h: link
Methanol injection on BMW 801? Germans tested it and decided it is bad idea. Nitrous oxide at SL???
If you have probem with LJ165, there is plenty of other Spitfire IX specimen making 400-410+ mph (eg. here), and if Merlin Spitfire is not enough, there were Griffon Spitfires around.
Sorry for naming things as they are.