Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I have forgotten the actual numbers. How many RAAF Spitfires were shot down by the Japanese and how many were lost. (out of fuel or mechanical failure)
This part seems to be ignored, the Spit was optimised to fight over 20,000ft, it will always be at a disadvantage to the Kittyhawk in the dogfight scenario posted earlier. Change to the clipped LF version and the outcome would be very different.
Do you suppose maybe the RAAF was looking for a "one size fits all" safe boost limit for all altitudes? IIRC, these were not factory new Spits, but hand me downs that had already cut their teeth in North Africa and similar garden spots. With the available fuel, they may have felt the Merlin was robust enough to withstand the next increment of boost at lower altitudes, but that in the thinner air above FTH the cooling and intercooling systems might be overtaxed. Make sense?I have no idea why the RAAF was limiting the engines to 9lbs of boost at this time
Hey guys,
It is hard for me to discern which particular "scissors" and/or "roll" maneuver the P-40 pilot used do get on the tail of the Spitfire, but as Wes said, it was probably some variant of the Lag Roll he described above. Today it is usually called a Displacement Roll or Lag-Scissors Turn. The aircraft executing this maneuver does not need a superior turn ability to use it, but instead needs superior roll rate and usually higher initial energy (Ps). Also as Wes said, it requires either an advantage in start position, superior timing, superior situational awareness, or any combination of the three.
View attachment 561810
Re the Martlet vs Seafire dogfight, in WWII the term "steep turn" meant a climbing turn, where the Martlet would trade energy (Ps) for increased turn rate. If the Martlet started the maneuver at a higher speed, or if both aircraft started out at the same speed, the heavier Martlet would have higher initial energy and be able to briefly out turn the Seafire, until the Martlet energy drops to the same as the Seafires.
It doesn't make sense, at least to me. AT FTH the supercharger can only deliver 9lbs of boost. There is no more boost to be had since the throttle is wide open and the supercharger impeller is turning at max rpm (if the engine is turning max rpm). The Merlin 46 didn't use an intercooler, it was a single speed, single stage supercharger that used an impeller of 10.85in diameter instead of the Merlin 45s 10.25in impeller, and a few other tweaks to the supercharger.Do you suppose maybe the RAAF was looking for a "one size fits all" safe boost limit for all altitudes? IIRC, these were not factory new Spits, but hand me downs that had already cut their teeth in North Africa and similar garden spots. With the available fuel, they may have felt the Merlin was robust enough to withstand the next increment of boost at lower altitudes, but that in the thinner air above FTH the cooling and intercooling systems might be overtaxed. Make sense?
Cheers,
Wes
In a single stage engine, the only way to lower the engine's FTH is to use overboost. Allowing 16lb boost increases speed by ~45mph at SL. Climb rate would increase by ~40-50%. The clipped wing MkV would indeed do better at low altitude but logically it would only be fitted with a Merlin 45.
http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=5-spitfire-losses-to-enemy-action
http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=7-spitfire-csu-failures
http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=shortages-of-drop-tanks-spares-and-spitfires
1 wing did what they could as best they could in the situation they were dealt with, just posting up the 28-4 loss rate over and over doesn't do those guys justice.
OTOH, if the scenario had been Spitfires achieving a 28-4 exchange rate against enemy fighters, would anyone be pointing out that the enemy overall was doing well going 1-1 against all types?
I wonder what a true Spitfire killer would have looked like.From this thread, if would seem that ANY CONTEMPORARY Spitfire, should outclass a A6M. A Mk.V with the normal boost settings, and no silly carb filter should be a step ahead of an A6M2 or 3. The oft cited Darwin example, which is a worst case scenario as far as Spitfires is concerned, ended up about even as far as total aircraft destroyed.
The Mk.V's, with Volkes filter, Merlin 46 and lower boost settings, and unserviceable armament at the extreme edge of the supply line is about the low point of the entire Spitfire story.
People are smart
If the roles were reversed and 28 clapped out A6M's were lost trying to attack bombers coming in at over 25,000ft I'd be on the Zero's side of the argument.
IIRC it was a Wirraway that shot down a clapped out Ki-43-I.Well. it was more a rhetorical question; but my guess is that most people would be extolling the virtues of the Spitfires and the pilots flying them.
Specifically in the Darwin case, it's not just the Spitfire (clapped out or otherwise) , all the other variables have to be applied, such as pilot quality and experience, tactics, etc.
Take your pick...I wonder what a true Spitfire killer would have looked like.
I meant as a Japanese replacement for the Zero. Nakajima Kikka perhaps?
If you are wiling to wait a little, the EE Lightning might offer a good contender if the correct tactics were used. I quote from the Telegraph obituary of Sir John Nicholls Air Marshal Sir John NichollsI wonder what a true Spitfire killer would have looked like.
I wonder what a true Spitfire killer would have looked like.
No, and that's my point. The Zero design is several years newer than the Spitfire, but was quickly outclassed by the Brit. Take a Spitfire from 1944 and a Zero from 1944, both with good pilots, equally aware of their opponent aircraft's capabilities. The Zero has much less chance. The Zero, like the Spitfire should have been continuously upgraded.View attachment 562083
Apparently it looks like this, but maybe a different color
The Zero, like the Spitfire should have been continuously upgraded.