Thanks man, I'll look into that. Shirer is a very thorough author; his account of the Third Reich is still the benchmark.
P40 Vs all other fighters in Europe
- Thread starter denny
- Start date
Thanks man, I'll look into that. Shirer is a very thorough author; his account of the Third Reich is still the benchmark.
Okaaaaay, but some did have cannon, just like some Spitfires had two-position props and some didn't... So my point still applies.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
His history of France in that book, ranging from the Dreyfus Affair to the 1940 collapse, is just as detailed.
He doesn't touch on their wonky battleships of ugly airplanes, though.
I'd really like to read a history of these things. They are slightly fascinating, mind you, I'm fascinated by this, so that explains my intrigue...
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
I just want to know who designed this:
... thinking it was a good idea. It looks like a hotel having 'roid rage.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Looks like a self propelled prison island.
Little Greta Thunberg would have a literal cow if she saw that...
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
That was wonderfully awful.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
Who doesn't love a good pun? C'mon.
Those are reall cool! I really like that "Tumblehome" look of 19th Century French battleships. It reminds me of this for some reason...
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
Great for floating stably, until you're punctured. Then your list goes to Hell and gone.
Pretty much. The Bouvet was sunk by a mine during the Dardanelles and the Henri IV was shelled attacking Turkish forts. Odd stern on that one...
French battleship Bouvet - Wikipedia
French battleship Henri IV - Wikipedia
Jeffery Quill stated after flying an Emil that RAF pilots gave it too much respect, it couldn't turn anywhere near as tight as a Spit or Hurri and the controls started locking up above 350mph and at 400 the ailerons were unmovable.
Pretty much. In later versions this was the case too. Those slats were effective in delaying the stall but they did nothing for the type's manoeuvrability. The Bf 109 was superior in the vertical plane to the British fighters.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
I could be wrong but think the early 109 props were fully variable but not constant speed?
The required the pilot to keep twitching the switch to adjust the prop to suit the speed range the plane was operating at?
Or rather the pilot would have to keep the engine speed and the prop aligned with what he was trying to do.
Trying it again
If the Pilot was climbing (low speed but high power) the pilot would have to throttle the engine up but put the prop into fine pitch or close to it (coarser than take off).
If cruising the pilot had to throttle back but manually adjust the prop pitch to suit the throttle and desired speed.
If at full speed you had max throttle and max pitch.
But if you were a turn as the airplane lost speed the pilot would have to reduce the prop pitch with one hand while controlling the plane with the other hand while leaving the throttle alone (?).
CS prop took care of that for the pilot. Somewhat.
Like in the turn the constant speed governor would automatically to reduce the pitch of the propeller to keep the prop pitch at a good match to aircraft speed as the engine was making full power.
This is something often ignored with the 2 speed prop.
In order to get "best" performance the airplane with a two speed (basically one speed/fixed pitch after take-off)
the pilot had to reduce the engine throttle to keep from over speeding the prop. The prop is not operating at anywhere near a good angle if the airspeed in not near full speed and unless the engine is throttle reduced and the engine rpm reduced. Trying to fly a tight turn with the engine running around 20-30% below max power is obviously going to affect the planes turning ability.
It had cannon and was quick, with a good rate of climb. If you are diving at 400MPH you are leaving the bomber formation that you were sent to attack?
Yes, that's why I said fully variable (as opposed to two-position) and not CS. De Havilland fitted the first CS prop to a Spitfire in mid 1939.
I know you like to make a big deal out of the Brits fitting big hunks of wood to their fighters in the late 30s, and for good reason - it's inexplicable, really, considering that the Blenheim, Battle, Defiant, Whitley, Wellington, Sunderland, Hampden all had VP props before the Spitfire and Hurricane, but the Brits had them, they just didn't fit them to the aircraft that probably needed them as much...
I do know how props work. I used to work in a prop overhauling shop and marvelled at the simplicity of the Hydromatic props. Overhauled a couple off a DC-3, and hacked a set of HS blades for an Allison going into a Yak-3 from blades that had come from a Privateer. I've still got the tips I cut down on my shelf.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 914
- Feb 16, 2013
Spitfires with wooden fixed pitch props were a little faster than the constant speed equipped units. The benefits of the conversion of course enormously outweigh the slight reduction in top speed.
Not to mention more efficient acceleration, better fuel consumption, better power usage across the range of the flight regime, the advantages certainly outweighed maximum speed. Nonetheless, it was recognised before the war that VP props were more efficient on the fighters, but production and supply was not what it would eventually become. The British industry was working at peacetime levels when the First Spitfires and Hurricanes entered service.
