Recurring Theme in WW2 Aviation
- Thread starter Robert Porter
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hardly a surprise it was what it was designed to do, lets move on to the "Me262 was great in most respects just lacking in top speed".
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Robert Porter said: ↑
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."
To quote Tomo earlier My point - let's take a look at facts, not fiction, even the documentaries need to be taken with grain of salt.
When looking at publications like American Warplanes of WWII Pedia Press edited by Col John D Current pay attention to the red flags and always cross reference to other publications which are known to be accurate.
Col Current compares the performance on the P-36 with that of the P-40 which came out roughly 30 months later - a very long time at the speed that aircraft design was moving in the late 30's = big red flag because not comparing like with like for the period
As you and others have noted Current claims the R-1830 was not supercharged but a quick cross reference to a reliable source like Janes All the World Aircraft 1936 or any of the hundreds of publications on Pratt engines the shows all R-1830's were supercharged.
Even less reliable sources like Wiki refer to the R-1830 as
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."
To quote Tomo earlier My point - let's take a look at facts, not fiction, even the documentaries need to be taken with grain of salt.
When looking at publications like American Warplanes of WWII Pedia Press edited by Col John D Current pay attention to the red flags and always cross reference to other publications which are known to be accurate.
Col Current compares the performance on the P-36 with that of the P-40 which came out roughly 30 months later - a very long time at the speed that aircraft design was moving in the late 30's = big red flag because not comparing like with like for the period
As you and others have noted Current claims the R-1830 was not supercharged but a quick cross reference to a reliable source like Janes All the World Aircraft 1936 or any of the hundreds of publications on Pratt engines the shows all R-1830's were supercharged.
Even less reliable sources like Wiki refer to the R-1830 as
- Type: Fourteen-cylinder two-row supercharged air-cooled radial engine
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
To second Tomo, ALL large aircraft engines (over 500hp) used superchargers except for a few specific examples of elderly engines that dated from before 1930 or so. The R-1340 radial used in the T-6 trainer was supercharged. using 3.3lb of boost at take-off for example.
As was the P & W R-985 wasp Junior and even some of the 7 cylinder Wright R-760 Cyclones.
This site has an amazing amount of information on engines. Reference
with charts for all piston engines used by the US Army/Air force up to 1949 or so. ALL P & W engines, ALL Wright engines and even most Packard engines.
Climb is relative. What was good in 1936 wasn't so good in 1942 let alone 1945. And while the prop is part of the powerplant it supplied by a different company than the engine and is often supplied by the government as a separate piece of equipment to the airframe maker as was the engine. Rolls and Bristol were under no illusions as to the lack of suitability of fixed pitch props on 800hp and up engines which is why they banded together to form the Rotol propeller company, getting the Air Ministry to buy the variable pitch/constant speed props was the hard part.
For the Spitfire (and Hurricane) please note the improved performance with essentially an unchanged engine by using different propellers despite gaining hundreds of pounds of weight. Also please note that the 2 pitch prop, while helpful was much like trying to use 1st and 5/6th gear in a manual transmission. Fine Pitch was used for take-off and once a bit of altitude was gained and airspeed reached about 140mph in a Spitfire the prop was changed to course pitch and there it stayed pretty much until the plane landed.
The fixed pitch prop aircraft had to restrict the throttle opening (RPM) on the engine at low speed (take-off and climb) to keep from over speeding the course pitch prop and essentially thrashing the air to no purpose. This really limited the power that could be used, a bit like trying to drive on snow or ice, doesn't matter how much power the engine has, you can only get the tires to transmit a limited amount before they spin.
As was the P & W R-985 wasp Junior and even some of the 7 cylinder Wright R-760 Cyclones.
This site has an amazing amount of information on engines. Reference
with charts for all piston engines used by the US Army/Air force up to 1949 or so. ALL P & W engines, ALL Wright engines and even most Packard engines.
Climb is relative. What was good in 1936 wasn't so good in 1942 let alone 1945. And while the prop is part of the powerplant it supplied by a different company than the engine and is often supplied by the government as a separate piece of equipment to the airframe maker as was the engine. Rolls and Bristol were under no illusions as to the lack of suitability of fixed pitch props on 800hp and up engines which is why they banded together to form the Rotol propeller company, getting the Air Ministry to buy the variable pitch/constant speed props was the hard part.
For the Spitfire (and Hurricane) please note the improved performance with essentially an unchanged engine by using different propellers despite gaining hundreds of pounds of weight. Also please note that the 2 pitch prop, while helpful was much like trying to use 1st and 5/6th gear in a manual transmission. Fine Pitch was used for take-off and once a bit of altitude was gained and airspeed reached about 140mph in a Spitfire the prop was changed to course pitch and there it stayed pretty much until the plane landed.
The fixed pitch prop aircraft had to restrict the throttle opening (RPM) on the engine at low speed (take-off and climb) to keep from over speeding the course pitch prop and essentially thrashing the air to no purpose. This really limited the power that could be used, a bit like trying to drive on snow or ice, doesn't matter how much power the engine has, you can only get the tires to transmit a limited amount before they spin.
drgondog
Major
Robert - every fighter pilot testing a new fighter (except perhaps the A6M) complained about climb rate. Every instance can be traced back to an engine that didn't develop the necessary 'Excess Power' desired to improve. That stated there is also no clarification statement that the 'climb rate would be great if it climbed _____ feet per minute'
Ditto for complaints regarding lack of turbosupercharger when discussing higher altitude performance for supercharged single stage, single speed or two stage/single speed engines that peaked at 12-15K. The answer from the engineering team is 'so, where can we put it? You want me to design a new airframe to insert one?"
The basic problem is this: It took 6 years to develop and debug an engine in the 1930s and 40s.
An Air-frame could be gotten into production in just over half the time.
I doesn't matter whether you look at Germany, Britain or the USA it took 6 years. It even took 6 years for the Jumo 004 jet engine.
There were just so many problems to make an engine reliable and to get to power.
The other problem was that as time went on there was a kind of specification creep where more equipment was added. Typical of this would be heavier guns, more armour, bullet proof glass, bigger radios, rescue equipment.
I suspect the Mosquito was one of the few aircraft that avoided spefication drift (basically because preceding attempts had been a disaster for this reason)
A lot of engines with a bad reputation, such as the Napier Sabre seem to have been quite good when they got too 5-6 years.
The Mosquito was a bit of a freak its basic design of a fast two seater light bomber turned out to have uses that just couldn't have been foreseen in 1936 like night figher and long range recon, these things happen in wars, the aeroplane was seen as a toy of little use at the outbreak of WW1.
The Sabre shows what can be done when things have to be done, it was made to work through massive injection of resources and huge manpower in airfield maintainance. Hind sight says the Griffon was the better option but that would be laughed at in 1940. Despite all the money and effort put into engine design the Merlin was still being put into new aircraft designs post war (Hornet and York)
Last edited:
michaelmaltby
Colonel
".... and Twin Mustang"
Allisons not Merlins, IIRC
Allisons not Merlins, IIRC
Oops edited
Shortround6
Major General
Candair Northstar
Glider
Captain
Its worth remembering that during the Battle of Britain the Japanese ( hardly friends of the UK ) considered the Spitfire to be the ideal interceptor due to its climb, speed and firepower.
- Thread starter
- #74
Robert Porter
Senior Master Sergeant
Go here: Top Ten Fighters at the outbreak of World War II and scroll down to the entry on the Spitfire and you will see what I mean.
Another great link same site is: Dismantling the Spitfire myth The Spitfire was a terrible gun platform because it was so twitchy and pilots that flew both it and the Hawker Hurricane much preferred the latter. Indeed the Hurricane had more kills.
The Hurricane was cheaper and quicker to build at a rate of about 2.5 Hurricanes to one Spitfire.
Later versions of the Spitfire cleared all of its initial teething problems but my whole point was it suffered from them in the first place, especially considering the fact that it had been in development pre-war.
wuzak
Captain
What's the point of being a better gun platform if you can't get into position to use your guns because of lack of performance?
And the Hurricane had more kills because the had more in the BoB and were sent overseas before the Spitfire.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
When someone uses a joke website as the gospel truth
- Thread starter
- #77
Robert Porter
Senior Master Sergeant
I do not think it is a joke website, but again, I have heard the issue of climb rate in many books and other sites. That one just bubbled to the top.
When someone uses a joke website as the gospel truth
But I am perfectly willing to say I think we have all agreed to disagree on this topic. Let me conclude by saying my Maternal Grandfather was in Europe as an aircraft engineer during the entire war. Unlike most of us, he was there, he spoke to and worked with pilots of many of the types available. He retired here from Kaman Aircraft and Pratt & Whitney and had always remarked that the Spitfire was overrated and actually a rather poor platform in his own considered opinion. And he holds numerous patents related to aircraft design. His name was Einar Westdal if you want to look at the patent database for him.
Shortround6
Major General
Helps if we deal with facts. Which those articles seem to be a bit lacking in.
As in, sure the Spitfire was short ranged but the so were 2 of the 3 main French fighters and 3rd only achieved long range by filling tanks in the outer wing leading edge which played havoc with the handling. Range difference from the 109 wasn't great, 2 out of 3 Italian fighter monoplanes didn't have much range either. Throw in the terrific range of the Russian I-16 (sarcasm) and criticising the Spitfire for poor range seems to be more unwarranted slur than fact.
Bringing in the HE 100 is a real indication of desperation. A plane without self-sealing fuel tanks, and sever limits to installing them and with only TWO rifle caliber machine guns for armament ( anybody got any proof the engine mounted gun ever worked?) is not a viable alternative.
As in, sure the Spitfire was short ranged but the so were 2 of the 3 main French fighters and 3rd only achieved long range by filling tanks in the outer wing leading edge which played havoc with the handling. Range difference from the 109 wasn't great, 2 out of 3 Italian fighter monoplanes didn't have much range either. Throw in the terrific range of the Russian I-16 (sarcasm) and criticising the Spitfire for poor range seems to be more unwarranted slur than fact.
Bringing in the HE 100 is a real indication of desperation. A plane without self-sealing fuel tanks, and sever limits to installing them and with only TWO rifle caliber machine guns for armament ( anybody got any proof the engine mounted gun ever worked?) is not a viable alternative.
This is simply not true. Though many pilots did praise the stability of the Hurricane as a gun platform, and the more concentrated arrangement of the guns in the wings, the actual statistics for the Battle of Britain period, after which the Hurricane started to disappear from front line service, tell a different story.
655 victories were credited to 30 Hurricane squadrons, at 22.5 per Squadron. 530 were credited to 19 Spitfire Squadrons, at 28 per Squadron. For a poor gun platform the Spitfire was a slightly better killer of Luftwaffe aircraft than the allegedly superior Hurricane. The Hurricane did have more kills, but there were a lot more of them involved in the battle. Selective quoting of statistics is a favourite of such authors, hoping to impress those who are ignorant of the context of the figures given.
There is otherwise a lot of nonsense in the article linked to. For example, the prototype MB.3 first flew on 3rd August 1942, just a bit late for the BoB, it crashed on its tenth flight and never reached the A&AEE, so we have no independent assessment of its performance.
There is a lot more rubbish in the article, some of it is hardly new either, but I can't be arsed to address all of it here.
There is a myth built around the Spitfire, but underneath lies one of the great aircraft of WW2. You can't demolish a myth with half truths and outright lies.
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
I think we need a Soren button !
So the Spitfire, couldnt climb, was twitchy and unstable, good job it could turn well !
Oh wait we already had it proved to us that any 109 could out turn any spitfire at any speed or altitude.
Jeez what were we thinking building any Spitfires at all ?
So the Spitfire, couldnt climb, was twitchy and unstable, good job it could turn well !
Oh wait we already had it proved to us that any 109 could out turn any spitfire at any speed or altitude.
Jeez what were we thinking building any Spitfires at all ?
