Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
My point - let's take a look at facts, not fiction, even the documentaries need to be taken with grain of salt.
I'm not quite in agreement. The airframe structure, while considering thrust and lateral inertia of the engine in a lateral G load condition (Brits ignored, we tended to use 1 1/2G), only sized the mount scheme. The dominant design loads were for max Angle of Attack loads (dive pullout, max instantaneous Turn rate). That is the reason why eventually other structure (like longerons/bulkhead/spar) in the empennage was beefed up when major increases in torque were introduced with engine/prop system upgrades.And virtually all of those same fighters also first flew with an engine developing less HP than the airframe was intended for. In most cases the engine was as much under development as the airframe.
Quite true when viewed from a structural strength perspective only. But these aircraft were designed to PERFORM, and their designers had to make all of their design choices based on an assumed available thrust, usually for a more advanced version engine than existed at time of design or even first prototype flight. Engines were pushing the technology envelope and frequently didn't meet performance targets by promised date. So the prototype got to fly with a less powerful version. Production aircraft usually got something like the originally intended engine.I'm not quite in agreement. The airframe structure, while considering thrust and lateral inertia of the engine in a lateral G load condition (Brits ignored, we tended to use 1 1/2G), only sized the mount scheme. The dominant design loads were for max Angle of Attack loads (dive pullout, max instantaneous Turn rate). That is the reason why eventually other structure (like longerons/bulkhead/spar) in the empennage was beefed up when major increases in torque were introduced with engine/prop system upgrades.
As for the Spitfire it initially suffered from a poor climb rate. From Mk1 to Mk2 A 3 bladed prop was added as well as the engine being upgraded from a Merlin Mark II to III which was shortly again replaced with a Mark XII engine. Both engine replacements and the initial change from wood 2 bladed to metal 3 bladed propellor increased climb performance significantly. And these changes had been anticipated by its primary designer Mitchell who died of cancer in 1937. Yet the Mark 1 was delivered with neither change.
As I say an recurring theme...
As for the Spitfire it initially suffered from a poor climb rate. From Mk1 to Mk2 A 3 bladed prop was added as well as the engine being upgraded from a Merlin Mark II to III which was shortly again replaced with a Mark XII engine. Both engine replacements and the initial change from wood 2 bladed to metal 3 bladed propellor increased climb performance significantly. And these changes had been anticipated by its primary designer Mitchell who died of cancer in 1937. Yet the Mark 1 was delivered with neither change.
As I say an recurring theme...
I don't see it as blaming the companies, at least not all of them. I guess the point I was trying to make, and I believe is true to this day, is that typically speaking military equipment is always horrible when it comes to version 1. Often needlessly. Having served myself I can attest to time after time upon receiving new equipment we encountered difficulties that rendered it either useless or far less useful than intended. I cannot think of a single instance where this was necessary or could not have been avoided by simple reality checks of the requirements vs delivered specs. As far as blame, there was plenty of that to go around I am sure. It was unpatriotic to discuss war profiteering during and after the war but in the decades that followed it became readily apparent most manufacturers dined at that trough to some degree or another.
Quite true when viewed from a structural strength perspective only. But these aircraft were designed to PERFORM, and their designers had to make all of their design choices based on an assumed available thrust, usually for a more advanced version engine than existed at time of design or even first prototype flight. Engines were pushing the technology envelope and frequently didn't meet performance targets by promised date. So the prototype got to fly with a less powerful version. Production aircraft usually got something like the originally intended engine.
The poor rate of climb I mentioned was in the official reports when the Mk I and II were being tested. I do not recall the actual rate of climb reported but it was much less than both desired and what contemporary german fighters were capable of, and it resulted in design changes and an engine and propellor change to compensate. Like I said not my observation this was right from the RAF.How did the spitfire ever suffer from a poor rate of climb? You can always improve rate of climb but it was never poor, it only had one contemporary that was possibly better as far as I know. Importantly the one that was better was its main adversary, improvements to the spit in terms of power output and propeller design closed the gap and possibly gave it an advantage in some conditions. Then everyone was pretty happy with the Spit until the Fw190 appeared. It is all purely relative to the opposition, all sides had to run flat out to maximise performance simply because they didnt know what the opposition would come up with. I am sure P51 pilots thought their planes were the dogs balls until they saw a Me262 introducing a new level in speed.
When the Spitfire was first tested it was actually slower than the Hurricane, it turned out that the propeller was wasting power. Later the twin blade props were replaced with 3 blade variable pitch and eventually constant speed propellers with 3,4 and 5 blades. When the MkII was introduced its improved performance was noted by the LW in combat making it a more dangerous adversary.The poor rate of climb I mentioned was in the official reports when the Mk I and II were being tested. I do not recall the actual rate of climb reported but it was much less than both desired and what contemporary german fighters were capable of, and it resulted in design changes and an engine and propeller change to compensate. Like I said not my observation this was right from the RAF.
The poor rate of climb I mentioned was in the official reports when the Mk I and II were being tested. I do not recall the actual rate of climb reported but it was much less than both desired and what contemporary german fighters were capable of, and it resulted in design changes and an engine and propellor change to compensate. Like I said not my observation this was right from the RAF.
Well it is certainly possible, let me find the source documents and go from there.I'm afraid that you'd need to be more specific on the Spit I and II flight tests. Like the date, condition and exact condition of the tested aircraft. And then compare with what contemporary (1936-1940) German fighters were doing.
I'd also like to see what were the 'design changes' in the early Spitfires, apart from prop and protection.
BTW - Robert, please don't take this personally, but since you've mistaken a big time about superchargers of ww2 aircraft, I believe you've mis-remembered other stuff.
Per the poor rate of climb is best illustrated with this quote.
"The Spitfire was conceived about the time that the importance of speed and climb rate was being discovered. Subsequently, the early Spitfires were rather slow with poor climb rates, but (being very light weight) possessed excellent turn performance."
This is pretty well illustrated if you read the following RAF Reports. Spitfire Mk I K-5054 Handling Trials
The reports go model by model and compare all manner of handling characteristics and describe the exact equipment being tested.
I honestly do not believe I misremembered much but am still open to the possibilities.
Finally there is a great PDF Comparing the P-46, Spitfire and two german fighters and featuring prominently in the Spit coverage was its relative poor climb rate this document is available right here in these forums at: P-47 vs Fw-190,Spitfire,P-38,P-51
Hope this helps clarify where my opinion was developed.
I do not know what to say, the phrase "poor climb rate" appears twice in conjunction with the Spitfire just in that one link but I am happy to find and share others. This issue was largely addressed by the Mark III and subsequent models but reappeared in the very last model built of which only 100 were made. However its climb rate at altitudes above 16,000 feet was poor throughout all models. Remember this is poor in comparison not saying it was overall.Looked through the links and cant find anything saying the spitfire was poor in climb, only one link says the Spitfire could out turn the P47, turn performance is normally an indicator of climb performance. Climb performance had been sen as important as soon as planes were used in combat, the increasing speed of bombers made it more important
part of the report linked says this
Comparitive trials between the Me.109 and "Rotol" Spitfire.
1. The trial commenced with the two aircraft taking off together, with the Spitfire slightly behind and using +6 1/4 lb boost and 3,000 rpm.
2. When fully airborne, the pilot of the Spitfire reduced his revolutions to 2,650 rpm and was then able to overtake and outclimb the Me 109. At 4,000 ft, the Spitfire pilot was 1,000 feet above the Me 109, from which position he was able to get on its tail, and remain there within effective range despite all efforts of the pilot of the Me 109 to shake him off.
I do not know what to say, the phrase "poor climb rate" appears twice in conjunction with the Spitfire just in that one link but I am happy to find and share others. This issue was largely addressed by the Mark III and subsequent models but reappeared in the very last model built of which only 100 were made. However its climb rate at altitudes above 16,000 feet was poor throughout all models. Remember this is poor in comparison not saying it was overall.
Okay as to my supposed mistake about aircraft being delivered without Super chargers here is just one reference of such. From the book "American Warplanes of WWII Pedia Press edited by Col John D Current.
Follow this link for an excerpt about the P-36 American Warplanes of WWII
I quote here: "It's lack of an engine Supercharger handicapped it at high altitudes as well."
Per the poor rate of climb is best illustrated with this quote.
"The Spitfire was conceived about the time that the importance of speed and climb rate was being discovered. Subsequently, the early Spitfires were rather slow with poor climb rates, but (being very light weight) possessed excellent turn performance."
This is pretty well illustrated if you read the following RAF Reports. Spitfire Mk I K-5054 Handling Trials
The reports go model by model and compare all manner of handling characteristics and describe the exact equipment being tested.
I honestly do not believe I misremembered much but am still open to the possibilities.
Finally there is a great PDF Comparing the P-46, Spitfire and two german fighters and featuring prominently in the Spit coverage was its relative poor climb rate this document is available right here in these forums at: P-47 vs Fw-190,Spitfire,P-38,P-51
Hope this helps clarify where my opinion was developed.