Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The OK for 1940 supercharger but failed to improve supercharger over the next 3 years.
Spitfire V used single speed supercharger and the Spitfire VI used a single speed, single stage supercharger (granted they didn't build very many of them)
The Spitfire VI had a pressure cabin, extend wings, 4 bladed prop, 364mph at 22,000ft and a service ceiling of 40,000ft. All with a single speed, single stage supercharger.
But Hooker was already working on the two speed, two stage supercharger.
There was no real magic about multi-speed superchargers. But they needed to be big enough to get the job done. Using a small impeller was not going to get the job done no matter how many speeds you used.
Correct.
Nobody else was trying to use an 8300-8500lb fighter with a 1150hp engine.
Once it got above 12-13,000ft on the D-E-K s that is all the power you had,
and once of got above 17,000ft (in level flight) you had 1125-1150hp on the M & Ns.
This is for the stripped P-40N-1, 4 guns, no electric start, forward wing tank removed, etc.
you can put lipstick on a pig, The pig may be able to move pretty quick for a short distance. It is still a pig.
And with a 30 miles per hour deficit in top speed and unprotected fuel tanks getting chased by 8 gunned Spitfires loaded with very effect De Wilde ammunition is not going to be fun either.Trouble is that at 190kts it went to 24.04 gph and at 200kts it went to 26.15gph. Still very good but with the tank gone and trying to cover hostile ground at much more than loiter speed you don't get anywhere near the ranges they got in the Pacific.
For the Zero in Europe thing.
The A6M2 held about 141 US gallons of fuel in internal tanks.
The Zero's secret was big drop tank (84-87 US gallons) and an absolutely miserly fuel burn at 180kts. 16.4 US gallons per hour.
Trouble is that at 190kts it went to 24.04 gph and at 200kts it went to 26.15gph. Still very good but with the tank gone and trying to cover hostile ground at much more than loiter speed you don't get anywhere near the ranges they got in the Pacific.
And with a 30 miles per hour deficit in top speed and unprotected fuel tanks getting chased by 8 gunned Spitfires loaded with very effect De Wilde ammunition is not going to be fun either.
True but in any place except Australia the MK Vs were allowed to use 12-16lbs of boost depending on the date.but also keep in mind in any tropical Theater, including the MTO, Spit V is going to be using those Vokes filters until (IIRC?) some time in 1943.
As well as its cousin across the pond, the Hurricane.The P40 is the most underrated fighter of the war, as stated in another thread, it was the willys Jeep of fighters.
True but in any place except Australia the MK Vs were allowed to use 12-16lbs of boost depending on the date.
And a British test site got a Vb tropical up to 337mph at at 17,400ft with a loaded 90 imp gal drop tank underneath.
Without the drop tank they got 354mph.
And they were using only 9lbs of boost.
" This aircraft was fully tropicalised; this included an air cleaner installation whose fairing produced an external bulge beneath the nose, and tropical radiator and oil cooler installations. In addition various items of desert equipment were carried"
The Russian aircraft are not quite that bad. OK maybe the Lagg-3.On the Russian Front, on the Axis side, an A6M would be facing aircraft with poor high altitude performance that didn't normally loiter at high altitude, so if it needed to cover some distance I would think they could cruise at say, 18 or 20,000 ft at their best cruise speed, and speed up if needed (with a dive) if they saw enemy planes approaching. That is to some extent what they did in the Pacific.
On the Russian side (facing the Axis) they couldn't get away with that, but they would still have the considerable range advantage (2 or 3 times) over the Bf 109, and about twice that of a Fw 190.
There are no Guarantees, There are only improved odds. And the A6M2 in many places around the globe did not have good odds or at least not the odds they enjoyed in early 1942 vs the Allies in the the SW Pacific/Asia.354 mph is decent, and I think some marks of Spit V made better speed than that in North Africa. But so did P-40s and P-39s in the Pacific, and they were by no means guaranteed victory over an A6M or Ki-43. Nor was a P-51A even a P-38.
As SR posted earlier a 1940 MkII is a very different animal to a 1942 Darwin MkV.I'm not convinced A6M was really outmatched by Spitfires until Mk VIII or IX. (I wouldn't say the other way around either mind you, Spit V could hold it's own with an A6M under normal conditions)
Below 200mph like every other aircraft, stay above that and especially above 250mph and the Zero loses it's trump card.Spitfire still should not get into a turning fight with Zero.
You are defining air combat as day fighters which a very narrow view.I am well aware, but how many day-fighters were accompanying RAF Bomber Command on their raids?
I would also add that radar systems of WWII had difficultly in determining altitude. There are several examples in the carrier battles of 1942 of F4Fs patrolling at the wrong altitude and being unable to intercept due to their sluggish rate of climb.If someone is going to bomb your city (or base, etc.) and you have limited warning time, the ROC is more important than fuel. If you can't get to the enemy, he will bomb his target. If you CAN get to your enemy, then getting there with more fuel is the best option, assuming enough ammunition to make a difference.
So, ROC doesn't take a back seat to more fuel unless you can get to altitude in time to stop the bombing attack. If you can't get there in time, all the fuel and / or ammo doesn't count, at least for that particular attack.
I am curious as to the use of WER by RAF pilots on V-1 duty. Speed is paramount and you are over friendly territory. Does anyone have data on Merlin and Sabre engine life for that duty.Yeah, that's max speed with the engine about to explode ... at WER. Hardly anyone used that as a regular matter of course. If they did so frequently, they were likely a POW soon thereafter. WER was saved for really bad circumstances, when you needed to escape.
Again, a quote from a real WWII pilot, "WER was for test pilots over the home airfield and company sales pitches."
Roll rate alone doesn't neccessarily make for a fighter with the agility of a Zero.
Look at the P-40. Superior roll rate to a lot of fighters, and yet NO ONE hails its agility as a fighter. Most just seem to harp on it being an overweight turd that couldn't fight its way out of a paper bag.
First, it's OK to disagree.Sorry but I disagree, the British could see the bombers forming up before they crossed the channel, they also tracked them right across into British airspace before scrambling the fighters at the last minute because they didn't have the fuel to do otherwise resulting in them almost always climbing up from underneath, numerous BoB pilots have stated this, with another 30G tank behind the seat the fighters could have launched earlier and been at altitude before the bombers crossed the channel or had time to climb higher still to engage the top fighter cover, not just that with another 20 minutes of fuel the fighters could have been vectored to better positions to attack instead of straight up, lastly the extra fuel wouldn't inhibit the fighting qualities of the Spitfire because it would be gone before entering combat, just like any other fighter with aux or drop tanks. The only time a fighter has too much fuel on board is if it's on fire.
See, what did I tell you ...
And, actually, it depends on what your objective is. If someone starts a war, your objective is to either win or get him/her to the peace table and talking. If you get the upper hand then, by all means, go ahead and win. If you don't, your objective usually shifts to the peace table to get the war to stop when it starts going badly for your civil population.
You are defining air combat as day fighters which a very narrow view.