Which is exactly what I thought when I read the account.
Personal memory is extremely fallible.
Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190
- Thread starter Chiron
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Which is exactly what I thought when I read the account.
Personal memory is extremely fallible.
Shortround6
Major General
Different countries or companies also handled the set up of the two pitches a bit different. In some cases instead of "climb" or "cruise" it was "take-off" and "everything else."
The manual for an early Spitfire for instance telling the pilot to shift to coarse pitch after take-off and wheels up at about 140mph. The French Caudron racer and even the DH 88 used props that automatically shifted to coarse once a certain airspeed had been reached.
flat disc on prop hub was pushed back and allowed air to bleed out of a bladder that held the prop in fine pitch.
BTW the first Spitfires to use the DH 2 position airscrew may have had a pitch range of 32½° - 45° or 12 1/2 degrees.
The first Hurricanes to get DH 2 position air screws had a pitch range of 20 degrees.
Last edited:
What type of air cleaner arrangement did the P 40 and Zero have that made them immune to dust?
Mike Williams
Senior Airman
- 572
- Oct 19, 2006
Nothing personal intended. I've studied the introduction of constant blade props in some depth and had material to share that clarified the narrative.
The biggest advantage for the P-40 was the position of the intake. The Merlin's up draught carburettor obviously caused the position of the intake to be under the Spitfire.
The P-40 was not immune to dust, but I don't now what the filter arrangement was and I'm not at home.
I'm not the person to comment on the 'Zero'.
Last edited:
The Spitfire drew air from under the engine, updraft carb. The P40 drew air from on top of the engine, down draft carb. Essentially it would be like driving a truck down a dusty dirt road and having the air intake under the truck behind the front axle (Spitfire) or having the air intake on top of the hood (P40). I have no idea where the Zero or Wildcat drew their air from.
Shortround6
Major General
The P-40 wasn't immune to dust/dirt. It just didn't suffer as bad as the Merlin, engine life dropped to around 1/3-1/2 instead of 1/4 or so.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 868
- Feb 16, 2013
Where the Mk.III wings actually clipped, or re engineered to be shorter and stiffer, sort of like the Mk.21?
Hello Pinsog,
Carburetor intake on A6M2 is here:
Carburetor intake on A6M3 & A6M5 is here:
- Ivan.
A 3.5 ft section was removed from each side of the 'normal' Spitfire wing. Wing area reduced to 220 sq ft.
Per 'Spitfire, the history', by Morgan and Shacklady, pg. 127.
Pg. 128: The wing area is slightly reduced without interfering with the main structural members,...
Of the 3 planes in this thread the Spitfire was the best developed, so much that the last "Spitfires" 20.x series had nothing left of the original 1936 design as the wings, fuselage and engine were changed.
The Fw190 was developed to its maximum but its end development the long nose Fw190D->Ta152 was stalled by Germanys war situation, and it also had little left of the original 1938 Fw190 concept by then.
The Zero definately was under-developed, never getting the engine upgrade to cope with increased weight and speeds necessary. A 1945 Zero had fallen well behind global standards unlike the Spitfire and Fw190.
Zero development took a mis-step in 41-42 with the new clipped wing A6M3 model 32 with a slightly boosted Sakae 21 motor (interesting performance benefit/flaws very similar to the clipped Spitfire V) improved high speed handling but worse sustained turn and not really better speed at all heights. The insane range demands of Guadalcanal led development down another wrong path to the A6M3 model 22 that put longer wing and more fuel back for early 1943 (just as newer bases were been made that made it not necessary) and now along with the increasing numbers of P-38's the Corsair began appearing in large numbers!
Hello Pat303,
Actually this was an issue that was addressed in later model P-40s, I believe starting with the P-40M.
Please see item 9 in the attached image.
There was a bypass that pulled air through a filter when necessary.
The holes in the side of the cowl near the Spinner are the identifying feature though with modern aircraft, it isn't an indication because the panels are interchangeable and older aircraft may have had the panel replaced.
- Ivan.
Actually this was an issue that was addressed in later model P-40s, I believe starting with the P-40M.
Please see item 9 in the attached image.
There was a bypass that pulled air through a filter when necessary.
The holes in the side of the cowl near the Spinner are the identifying feature though with modern aircraft, it isn't an indication because the panels are interchangeable and older aircraft may have had the panel replaced.
- Ivan.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 868
- Feb 16, 2013
I agree that the Spitfire was EVENTUALLY developed as far as it could practically be taken, but the types that did almost all the heavy lifting during the war years were "interim" types. Models knowingly lacking features and refinements were thrust into service for fear of leaving a gap.
In another universe, as was stated on this thread previously, the Mk.III would have followed the BOB era Mk.II's, and to be superseded by the Mk.VIII. I am not sure what development model the Mk.XIV was an interim for, perhaps the Mk.XVIII or 21? If the UK had the breathing room available, perhaps the Mk.V developmental "low point" and subsequent performance deficit wouldn't have happened
So when I read about changing the prop pitch for a climb, that was one of the two speed props?
Climbing or diving do not necessarily correlate precisely with speed, right? Or do they I'm not sure? pitch changes seem necessary or at least beneficial. Diving I guess means you are likely to faster and of course you'll pull back on the throttle. But I wasn't sure about climbing.
Yeah a lot of these birds seem to be right on the tipping point of high vs. low performance, balancing on just about 500 lbs or so.
But the P-39 seems a little more so. On paper, very fast - 380 mph on up even from the earlier versions, but you don't read about phenomenal climb performance in places like New Guinea, where I think they did do some field stripping and so forth. I'm not sure if they did in North Africa, but why wouldn't they? They stripped everything else even Spitfires.
Interesting, and I partly agree with you, but it's quite interesting that this Australian celebrity Shirely Aboucir had a father who was an officer in the RAAF, an odd coincidence. It might be an overlapping of two things that sound similar. Gibbes was an old man when he did that interview but I've listened to and read a lot of those pilot interviews and quite a few of them had a pretty good memory (some didn't, admittedly), and Gibbes in particular was a pretty sharp guy with a good memory. He designed and build his own aircraft in his 70's and flew until he was 85. So he wasn't all that addled...
I'd like to know who this guy - who ever Shirley Abicairs father was, I did find an interview where she mentioned he was an RAAF Wing Commander at East Sale, Victoria.
Shortround6
Major General
Perhaps, sorry we can't really give a better answer, but it sometimes depends on the plane. Some of these planes used a fine pitch for take-off and initial climb out, prop might work at best climb speed (160-185mph IAS) but be too fine for combat use (trying to climb at 250mph for instance).
for a very poor analogy try thinking of the prop as a transmission in a car/truck. (prop also takes the place of the tires but that is a different thing) a single pitch prop is like a single speed transmission, you can only go so fast before you hit the readline on the engine OR you lug the engine and struggle like hell at low speeds and climbing. A two pitch prop is like a two speed transmission, if you keep high gear as is for speed you need a compromise low gear for taking off and climbing at low speed (the most serious compromise made with most fixed pitch props on military planes) and then a big gap when you go to high gear (coarse pitch), how well does the 3000rpm V-12 run at 2000rpm?
The variable pitch or constant speed props allowed for an infinite variation between the high and low limits. like a 12-18 speed transmission in a truck. In theory you could always keep the engine at best power and never have to lug it.
The 109E used a controllable variable pitch prop, pilot had an electric rocker switch to adjust the pitch as he saw fit for different flight conditions. but he did have quite a range to choose from. It was more than many newbie pilots could deal with.
Absolutely perfect analogy/example
The Aero-Vee filter on this MkIX was designed for the MkVIII, which was based on the MkIII. Had the UK had some breathing space the Spitfire could have followed the MkIII development line instead of the interim models it wouldn't have suffered from a lack of range, roll performance and dusted engines.
