Going by the information at WWIIAircraftPerformance (Spitfire Mk XII Performance Testing) I wouldn't hold 325 mph as representative of what the Spitfire XII did on the deck.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Squadron Leader Neil of No. 41 Sqn noted that Spitfires built to Mk XII specs (1735 bhp with +12 lbs. Boost) were good for only 325 mph at sea level; or about 20 mph slower than the prototype.
Squadron Leader Neil of No. 41 Sqn noted that Spitfires built to Mk XII specs (1735 bhp with +12 lbs. Boost) were good for only 325 mph at sea level; or about 20 mph slower than the prototype.
" In the air, the Mk XII behaved much like any other Spitfire except that the engine was a good deal rougher than the Merlin — it grumbled rather than buzzed — and the beat of the big four-bladed airscrew was very pronounced. It was about 30mph faster low down than the Mk V for roughly the same engine settings, the nose wagging about like a terrier's tail with any change of power. There being no provision for emergency boost — there was rather too much 'urge', anyway — 9lb was obtained with the throttle at the gate and 12lb beyond it, at which setting a genuine 325mph could be achieved at sea level.
As with earlier Spitfires, the aircraft's maximum performance was obtained at around 18,000ft, where the second stage of the supercharger was engaged manually, using a lever on the left-hand side of the cockpit. In common with all two-speed superchargers, it came with a slightly worrying 'clump' although we seldom found ourselves using it as, more often than not, we were at 1,800ft rather than 18,000."...
The 'good' final (and only remotely service ready) iteration of the He 100's many different incarnations was the D-1, apparently very different from the D-0s sent to Russia and China (which still used the surface cooling system and was generally closer to the prototype racers). The D-1 is closer to what the thing should have started off with ... a corrected, streamlined/simplified followon to the He 112 with conventional retractable radiator (similar to the He 111, some He 112 variants, or single-seat Fw 187 prototypes) embedded in a slightly extended fuselage. All the aircraft of that limited production run were stationed as Heinkel factory defense and destroyed or otherwise lost during the war.Any source for the MG 151/20mm guns actually going in the wing roots?
A pair of MG 17 machine guns is hardly first class armament. the MG FF may or may not have been fitted in actuality. I don't believe the ones the Russians got had it. ANd even if fitted there are no reports on how well it worked and the 109Es couldn't get the gun through the prop to work reliably. The Fs did but that is a bit after the He 100. There was talk and drawings/sketches of a wing with two MG 17s in each wing root but I am not sure if it was ever built or flown. It probably could have been built but we keep getting further from the condition/configuration the performance numbers are for.
The 'good' final (and only remotely service ready) iteration of the He 100's many different incarnations was the D-1, apparently very different from the D-0s sent to Russia and China (which still used the surface cooling system and was generally closer to the prototype racers). The D-1 is closer to what the thing should have started off with ... a corrected, streamlined/simplified followon to the He 112 with conventional retractable radiator (similar to the He 111, some He 112 variants, or single-seat Fw 187 prototypes) embedded in a slightly extended fuselage. All the aircraft of that limited production run were stationed as Heinkel factory defense and destroyed or otherwise lost during the war.
All that said, with the high wing loading, I really don't see much room for growth required for heavier engines and armaments without at very least extending the wingspan. I also don't see it as clearly superior to the contemporary Fw 190 prototypes (a comparison that would be much more clear had Tank also managed to secure DB-601s for testing on the initial lighter, smaller-wing aircraft). There's also less question of the Fw 190 airframe being adaptable to a variety of engines (including the Jumo 211 if need be) or its ability to carry a useful armament (even the small wing A-0s allowed for 6 Mg-17s).
You can see a different info from the link I posted in my message #49, or if you want to rely on Neil, in the same book (From the Cockpit Spitfire) on the page 68 "In terms of performance, the Mk XII could outdistance a FW 190 - which it was obliged to do when operating in the reconnaissance role - and also the Typhoon..." Neil's personal a/c EN237 EB-V was according to him "one of those rare 'Friday afternoon' Spitfires - in short, a lemon!"
The 'good' final (and only remotely service ready) iteration of the He 100's many different incarnations was the D-1, apparently very different from the D-0s sent to Russia and China (which still used the surface cooling system and was generally closer to the prototype racers). The D-1 is closer to what the thing should have started off with ... a corrected, streamlined/simplified followon to the He 112 with conventional retractable radiator (similar to the He 111, some He 112 variants, or single-seat Fw 187 prototypes) embedded in a slightly extended fuselage. All the aircraft of that limited production run were stationed as Heinkel factory defense and destroyed or otherwise lost during the war.
All that said, with the high wing loading, I really don't see much room for growth required for heavier engines and armaments without at very least extending the wingspan. I also don't see it as clearly superior to the contemporary Fw 190 prototypes (a comparison that would be much more clear had Tank also managed to secure DB-601s for testing on the initial lighter, smaller-wing aircraft). There's also less question of the Fw 190 airframe being adaptable to a variety of engines (including the Jumo 211 if need be) or its ability to carry a useful armament (even the small wing A-0s allowed for 6 Mg-17s).
All of the he-100s produced had surface evaporation cooling. The retractable radiator on the D-1 subtype were to fix the problems with overheating during taxi and climb.
A proposed production version would have had a much larger belly radiator and no surface cooling. You can find a picture of this online.
There was also a plan to extend the wings by something like 1.2m. No drawings have been found of for this as of yet.
What ultimately killed the He-100 was that its performance with guns and armor wasn't much beyond the 109. Extend the wings and using a fully conventional cooling system would probably have brought performance close to parity.
Add to it that the trend then is towards larger fighters that can mount heavier armament and the 100 doesn't appear to offer much over the 109. Same thing happened with the first 209 project, which had some work carry over to the much larger and advanced 309.
...
Add to it that the trend then is towards larger fighters that can mount heavier armament and the 100 doesn't appear to offer much over the 109. Same thing happened with the first 209 project, which had some work carry over to the much larger and advanced 309.
If there was no surface cooling, where was the radiator?
If there was no surface cooling, where was the radiator?
Good post. Just a nitpick - the Me 309 was barely bigger than the Bf 109, at least when we compare wing areas.
The retractable radiator was underneath the cockpit.
."There ain't such thing as a free lunch" applies as ever, along with 'every device is a compromise'. The strong points of the wing were excellent roll rate, plenty of internal space and (reasonably) low drag for good turn of speed. Stick a bigger wing and there is a gain in maneuverability and turn rate; shortcomings are decrease of roll rate (that is also a part of overall maneuverability), decrease of G limit and a small loss of speed. We can note that early Fw 190 was able to handily outclimb the lighter Spitfire V, as well as the USN Corsair and Hellcat, while the high roll rate was rated high in Allied reports about the Fw 190, whether from combat or from testing.
If we're worried about the prodigious rate of C3 consumption - stick the DB 605A on the Fw 190.
Eveything is a compromise. But we can look for the best combination of speed, turn,roll,diving,climbing,range, firepower, handling,potentional of development.In my opinion the italian fighters offered a better package than both the main german fighters
It would be certainly a far better performer than the 190A-8.
But there are flaws in your comparison - the Fw 190 was giving in winter of 1941/42 what the 'G.55AS' would be giving in Spring of 1944; everybody important was a better performer than the 190A-8, too.
No Tomo it wasnt. The Fw had always High wing loading, Young pilots were losing fataly control even in1942, had always poor altitude performance and handling. The 801 had always poor power to weight ratio and was requiring C3 fuel, A LOT of C3 fuel. The Fw in 41/42 had only 2 mg 151s. After middle 43 with thw wing of the A6 could mount 4 Mg151s
The bolded part would be expected from some LW-basher, and it is wide from the mark.
My primary object of reading about ww2 Aviation is LW
Fw 190 possessed THE fighter airframe of ww2 (for land-based fighters), and was seldom equaled, let alone surpassed by another piston-engined airframes.
It was constructed vey strong, actually TOO strong. It was heavy. It was good for ground attacking, but all this weight was bad for the Air superiority role. It s not luck that the best Air superiority fighters of the was were NOT famous for their toughness(Spitfire,P51,KI84,La7
Neither RAF, nor USAF, nor VVS were of opinion that Fw 190 was a dog above 6500 m, at least not prior mid 1943.
Why would you give the DB 605D for the G.55, and not to the Fw 190??
Because i insist DB605 is not enough for the FW190. Even the FW190A4, a light vertion, had a normal take off weight of almost 4000kgr. Even if we accept 250kgr less weight for an vertion with the DB605 its still 3750 normal take off weight.And still with a wing of just 18,5m2
The engine of late 1944 (DB 605D) is not available in late 1943 (Jumo 213A, DB 603A); that LW failed to have Fw 190C/D in winter of 1943/44 is the fault of the RLM/LW themselves, not the incapability of Jumo or Fw. The G.56 was stated as 685 km/h fast, BTW.
I agree that the a FW190C based on the v13 prototype would be formidable fighter and the missing ling in the evolution of the jagdwaffe. But i suspect that the g56 would be even better
Again - we're worried about high wing loading? Stick the DB 605A/AS/D on the Fw 190.
As for the fuel - there is enough of space between the wing spars of the Fw 190, the late Doras were to have 4 fuel tanks installed there as Rustsatze.
There was space, but was necessary to modify the structure and the skin of the wing to make them available for the late Dora s and the Ta s.
Plus, the drop tank facility - we have it on the Fw 190 (up to 3 tanks), the G.55 will need a modification in order to have them.
As far as i know the G55 had the ability to cary 2 external fuel tanks under the wings
...........
However...in comparison to the Italians...it was providing 400mph in 1940 while the Veltro was providing 400mph in 1944.
................
...............
I'm not sure that Italian Series 5 fighters were used any of the advanced wing profiles - the profiles used were pretty much the same as what was used on the MC.200, Re.2000 or G.50.
Which, as per Erwin Hood, was used to suppliment the surface cooling. If you just look at the size of it you can tell that it is much too small to cool the DB engine by itself. It was also intended to be retracted when in suitably fast flight.
If there was no surface cooling, where was the radiator?
Good post. Just a nitpick - the Me 309 was barely bigger than the Bf 109, at least when we compare wing areas.
The retractable radiator was underneath the cockpit.
Not for the D-1 version. The entire surface cooling system was abandoned and the retractable radiator was enlarged.
.MC 205 Veltro first flight was April 19th 1942, and entered operative service in February 1943.
There was no problem attaching auxiliary tanks under the belly of the G 55....
The G55 of the photom is not a standart G55. Was modified to Carry a torpedo. The standart g55s, as far as i know, could not Carry a belly tank because the location of the radiator
The prototype of MC 200, as all the early monoplanes as the G50, had some problem of stability, so the the wing profiles were changed and wash out added. While the MC 200 wing was mantained both in MC202 and 205, both G55 and Re 2005 had different profiles than their predecessors.
Yes it was present in the so called D-1 series.
This is one of many things Erwin Hood states in his book on the He-100. As his book is quite well researched, and the definitive source on the He-100 as it stands, I'll take his word and sources over the many works that simply repeat what other books have written.
You have two cooling systems. The water and or glycol system and the oil system. We can argue back and forth on the retractable radiator being a stand alone or a supplement depending on whose source you have the most faith in but the oil system remained a surface cooled system with alcohol as the working fluid.
There may be armour behind the pilot. Any bullet proof glass in front?
You also have large flat fuel tanks in the wing.
At the time the He 100s were built the 109s were not being fitted with the armor, bullet proof glass and self sealing tanks they would have later in the BoB. It is hard to believe the HE 100s were fitted all three in 1939 when the 109s going into combat in Poland didn't have all three.There may be, but in any case, it's hard to see the LW accepting any that don't.