The data for the RAAF Spitfire performance @ 16lb boost, in Greyman's chart, came from RAAF test flights.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I understand that. I addressed that in the part where I said: post #432
"I know what a Spitfire in Britain could do, Ive read the tests. But this wasn't in England, it was in a nasty, dusty, primitive condition area where the Spitfire had to use a big bulky filter, the boost wasn't up where it was in England etc. Under these conditions the Zero, which didn't care about primitive conditions, was the better combat aircraft."
See I addressed the higher boost. If it was that simple, why didn't they simply turn up the boost? Apparently that was done on Russian P39's, P40's about everywhere and Allison engine P51's. If I was a commander or a mechanic or another pilot watching my pilots and friends fall out of the sky right and left, I would have reset the boost regulator on the Spitfire. Does the filter keep you from running more boost? If not, why didn't they simply adjust them to have more boost?
Wonder why they didn't turn up the boost? Worried about engine wear at the end of a long supply line? Seems like not getting them shot down would be a priority as well but military chain of command can be pretty stupid: Germans, we don't need winter clothes. Americans: torpedoes cost too much to test etcThe data for the RAAF Spitfire performance @ 16lb boost, in Greyman's chart, came from RAAF test flights.
Wonder why they didn't turn up the boost? Worried about engine wear at the end of a long supply line? Seems like not getting them shot down would be a priority as well but military chain of command can be pretty stupid: Germans, we don't need winter clothes. Americans: torpedoes cost too much to test etc
AL794 - 6 SEPT YOUR L847 4 SEPT [1943]
SPITFIRE AIRCRAFT (.)
3 SPITFIRE MARK 5 AIRCRAFT GIVEN EXTENSIVE TEST FLIGHTS HERE
SUCCESSIVELY WITH EACH OF FOLLOWING TYPES OF AIR INTAKE ASSEMBLY AND ENGINE COWLING (A) ORIGINAL TROPICAL (B) NEW TROPICAL WITH BYPASS VALVES AND (C) TEMPERATE. AVERAGE MAXIMUM SPEEDS WERE AS FOLLOWS.
(1) AT SEA LEVEL (A) 312 (B) 318 (C) 316.
(2) AT10,000 FEET (A) 355.5 (B) 355. 6 (C) 360 MPH.
AT FULL THROTTLE HEIGHT (A) 357 (B) 358.5 (C) 363 MPH.
CONSIDERED THAT IMPROVEMENTS IN SPEED WERE TOO SMALL TO WARRANT DEPARTURE FROM ORIGINAL TYPE TROPICALISATION.
HENCE NEW SCHEME WILL NOT BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY TO MARK 5 AIRCRAFT.
LATEST TROPICAL AIR INTAKE WITH BYPASS VALVE WILL BE INCORPORATED MARK 8 AIRCRAFT.
But first the Spit has to attain high speed without being shot down by the faster accelerating Zero.The Zero could not get into a firing position behind the Spitfire if the latter evaded in diving aileron turns at high speed
Only if commenced with both aircraft already at high speed. If at "dogfight speed" (Zero bounces Spit) Zero's superior acceleration and initial climb allow it a lethal burst before the Spit can climb away.A vertically-banked climbing turn was difficult for the Zero to follow
Less than optimum fuel? Primitive maintenance conditions? Hot, humid, dusty operating conditions? Tired airframes and engines? Poor parts availability? Any one of these would suffice, though I suspect all were present to a greater or lesser extent.If it was that simple, why didn't they simply turn up the boost?
Like maybe a bombing raid on the home islands in April, 1942? Or the foiling of their Port Moresby invasion in May, with the loss of a carrier, and two more rendered inoperative at an especially awkward time?I wonder if the Japanese would have done better in the Pacific War if they had some early defeats or big scares. Perhaps a major IJN defeat at the Battle of the Yellow Sea in August 1904, or even more recently, losing a carrier to RAF attacks during the April 1942 Ceylon raid. The Japanese need to be pushed to respect their enemy.
Look at post #432I've lost track of all of the trials somewhat -- which test said the Zero accelerated faster than the Spitfire?
But first the Spit has to attain high speed without being shot down by the faster accelerating Zero.
Only if commenced with both aircraft already at high speed. If at "dogfight speed" (Zero bounces Spit) Zero's superior acceleration and initial climb allow it a lethal burst before the Spit can climb away.
Gotcha coming and going.
Cheers,
Wes
The Zeros may have seen the Spitfires first because Caldwell was a supporter of the "Big Wing" as mention in a blog Blog - The Battle for the Skies of Darwin - Osprey Publishing or in Anthony Cooper's book Darwin Spitfires. It must be easier to see three squadrons of Spitfires than three Zeros.
Bullpucky! Post #432 is a direct quote of the source document which was referenced by link several pages earlier upthread. I followed the link and read it. Did you? It was a generally acknowledged fact that the Spit V suffered an acceleration deficit relative to other fighters of its time. Speedmongers of the armchair dogfighter variety often discount the importance of acceleration in ACM, as it's not an easily accessible statistic like top speed.That's an interpretation from the website author. Was superior acceleration ever indicated by any of the trials/veteran anecdotes?
When you've burned most of your fuel getting your formation assembled you don't have much choice than to follow the advice of Lord Nelson: "Never mind maneuvers, go straight at 'em!".That might be the case if Caldwell was tactically naive and simply flew directly towards the attacking formation.
When you've burned most of your fuel getting your formation assembled you don't have much choice than to follow the advice of Lord Nelson: "Never mind maneuvers, go straight at 'em!".
Cheers,
Wes
Post #432 is a direct quote of the source document which was referenced by link several pages earlier upthread. I followed the link and read it. Did you? It was a generally acknowledged fact that the Spit V suffered an acceleration deficit relative to other fighters of its time.
At low altitudes especially, the Zero was close on hp and weighed over a 1000 pounds less, so it would makes sense that it also had much better acceleration than that model SpitfireI did read it ( http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero ).
All references to superior acceleration in the Zero look to be the words of the website author. I've certainly read direct references to the Spitfire's acceleration deficit -- but in relation to the 109 and 190.
You're right, they are, but they're a direct paraphrase of the words of the pilots that flew the trials and regularly flew against the Zero in combat. Are you insinuating the author is cooking up a nonexistent shortcoming of the Almighty Spitfire? Does that shake the foundations of your temple? That happens to temples built on sand.All references to superior acceleration in the Zero look to be the words of the website author. I've certainly read direct references to the Spitfire's acceleration deficit -- but in relation to the 109 and 190.