Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Robert you are seriously starting to push my buttons. Your first post said you read a lot and then "I like to think designers are competent people but what was wrong with these idiots all through the war and constantly delivering underpowered aircraft?"Yes and I am ONLY saying that until the fixed pitch wooden prop was replaced in later variants it sucked at climbing like any aircraft would with that propellor. Nothing more. Which is expected with that prop. For goodness sake I am not an idiot and not arguing against later performance or even comparative performance other than against itself.
Unless you strapped rockets and or a jet engine on it, the plane with a fixed pitch wooden propellor did not climb well at all, nor did any other so equipped aircraft.
I believe I left an impression I did not mean too. This all started as a result of reading re-reading, 3 books in my collection all of which made mention of the fact the in the 30's most of the material and equipment being produced for the military of the US, and the UK lagged in quality and performance from the original specs mentioned in the RFP's.
I was not, and am not, deriding manufactures or casting aspersions on the industry as a whole. It was just a fact mentioned to varying degrees by each author more as an aside. It struck a nerve with me and in the moment I made a comment. Which obviously stuck several nerves. It was not my intention.
In 1940 (generally) the 109 had an advantage over the Hurricane but on par with the Spitfire, apart from armament (RAF pilots would have loved cannon) the opposing pilots would normally have liked to change planes The Spits climb and turn performance is better for escort fighters while the 109s speed and dive performance is better for an interceptor.Even with the two bladed fixed pitch wooden prop the Spitfire I is the best performing fighter in the world at the time of its introduction in 1938. Hurricane is probably number 2. I don't think that the Jumo powered Bf-109 could compete with either. just compare it to what other nations were operating at the time; P-35, P-36, F3F, MS.406, Fiat G.50, I-16, Ki-27 and A5M.
And also small matters like doubling of machine guns from 4 to 8 were introduced along with pilot armour bullet proof windshields self sealing tanks, ariels lights sensors alarms and other "stuff" As previously posted the MK II was slower than the early MKis but a much better fighting machine.In many cases the performance asked for in the initial invitations to bid was simply unobtainable at the time.
Could not agree more. Most initial deliveries of a weapons platform suffer from some form of poor performance in respect to their initial specs. F-35 is a prime example, I am pretty sure catching fire while landing was not a desired performance spec.In many cases the performance asked for in the initial invitations to bid was simply unobtainable at the time. Manufacturers came as close as they could and some shaded their design more to one requirement or another (top speed vs stall speed for example) . In some cases they were given a free hand in engine selection and in others they were told (or it was strongly suggested) to use a particular engine. Please look at the proceeding aircraft to see the jumps in performance sometimes being requested.
The jump from the B-18 bomber to the B-26 called for about 40% more top speed and carrying almost 20% more bomb-load 74% further. The Cube law says that to get a B-18 up to 300mph you needed 2330 hp per engine at 10,000ft instead of the 850hp that engines it had. Something had to give, top speed or bomb-load or range.
Please remember that much of the research equipment we take for granted now didn't exist. There was only ONE Wind tunnel in the US that would fit a full sized fighter fighter plane and it's wind speed was well short of 300mph.
British had NO full sized wind tunnel which lead to all the absurd (with hindsight) predictions of 370mph Beaufighters and 460mph Typhoons.
I would note that most other nations built a few clangers also. Not just the US and England.
I am in total agreement, don't understand why being in agreement is pushing your buttons. I agree that each generation improved and their was a war on. Nothing I said would seem to contradict that. However in Eisenhowers own memoirs he lamented the quality and delivery performance of lots of weapons systems. He spoke of endemic supply chain issues that resulted, in his view, of unnecessary compromises. Now I don't pretend to have his insight into the economies in play then, nor would I attempt to argue either way without that knowledge. I made a statement in response to reading the same type of complaint from multiple sources and authors. I provided references where I could.Robert you are seriously starting to push my buttons. Your first post said you read a lot and then "I like to think designers are competent people but what was wrong with these idiots all through the war and constantly delivering underpowered aircraft?"
Your next post deflected the thread onto Spitfire climb performance. Your opinion on the Spitfire has changed during the course of this thread there is no "Spitfire Mk I performance or Mk II performance, there was a bloody war on. The Spitfire Mk I had a wooden fixed prop, a course fine prop and various CS props it used two different fuels and levels of boost while adding cannons armour and all sorts of other bits which add weight. My opinion is that in performance the advantages of a fixed prop against CS were marginal at 900 to 1000BHP but cleat at 1200BHP.
from wiki
In early 1940 Spitfire Is of 54 and 66 Squadrons were fitted with Rotol manufactured wide-bladed propellers of 10 ft 9 in (3.27 m) diameter, which were recognisable by a bigger, more rounded spinner: the decision was made that the new propeller would also be used exclusively by the Mk II. This engine/propeller combination increased top speed over the late Mk I by about 6-7 mph below 17,000 feet (5,200 m), and improved climb rate.[70] Due to all of the weight increases maximum speed performance was still lower than that of early Mk Is, but combat capability was far better.[33] The Mk II was produced in IIA eight-gun and IIB cannon armed versions. Deliveries were very rapid, and they quickly replaced all remaining Mk Is in service, which were then sent to Operational Training Units. The RAF had re-equipped with the new version by April 1941.[33] The Rotol propeller units were later supplemented by de Havilland constant-speed units similar to those fitted to Mk Is.
Supermarine Spitfire (early Merlin-powered variants) - Wikipedia
Your link says the Spitfire MkXIV was good in climb
The Spit MK I could match its adversary at the time, the Spit MkV could until the Fw190 arrived then The RAF got the MkIX
It was a war, keenly fought with fine margins, your earlier link "debunking the "myth" of the Spitfire matters as much to me as saying Churchill was an alcoholic (Hitler was tea total so make your choice) or Kennedy was a womaniser (show me a man who wouldnt have an affair with Monroe).
Now a serious question, in 1940 the French who had a huge aviation industry put 75 Dewotine 520s in front line service in the Battle of France, the Dewotine was between the Spitfire and Hurricane in performance. Of all the other major world powers who had any aircraft AT ALL that could have assisted the UK in the Battle of Britain?
Now a final question, the spitfire entered service with a "Malcolm hood" type canopy which everyone agrees was a boon to the pilot, these were still being retro fitted to Mustangs in late 1943, how was that?
And I have never disputed that, not once. But I did say that its climb performance was poor compared to what was desired, maybe not clearly but that is and was my belief. And it is not untrue. Its climb performance increased rather dramatically once it was re-equipped with better propellors and engines.What you have been told, repeatedly, is that with the fixed pitch 2 blade wooden prop it climbed as well or better than most of its contemporaries.
And I have never disputed that, not once. But I did say that its climb performance was poor compared to what was desired, maybe not clearly but that is and was my belief.
I have no idea, the conversation discussed in the book said something to the effect that it was a disappointing climb rate initially. Remember, this is an observation I came to over reading dozens of books. Not someone specifically pointing at the Spitfire and saying it was a terrible plane.OK, what was the desired climb performance?
What did the Specification call for?
That is specification F10/35?
How many feet per minute was specified or how many minutes to a given altitude?
Exactly, I agree wholeheartedly. And the timeframe from conception to delivery has further compressed. But and this has been my point all along. We still get aircraft that underperform specs, kill pilots and crews AFTER the initial test phase. This very rarely happens in the commercial side. If the 777 had the same failure rate as the Osprey it would never have entered service.While the F-35 saga is depressing it also points out a major difference between then and now. The F-35 taking around 10 years from start of program (issuing requirement?) to first flight and another 9-10 years to go into service. "Progress" was much faster in the 1930s. Planes took about 3-4 years to go from requirement to squadron service and their successor was being speced about the time they first went onto squadron service. Aerodynamics, structures, materials were all changing very rapidly and sometimes new advances could only be incorporated into a new design and not just added to an existing one.
It took the US just 10 years to go from this.
to this.
Engine power went up 3.33 times
I have no idea, the conversation discussed in the book said something to the effect that it was a disappointing climb rate initially. Remember, this is an observation I came to over reading dozens of books. Not someone specifically pointing at the Spitfire and saying it was a terrible plane.
Again, recurring theme. Not an indictment of the Spitfire.
Thank you! Very concise! I believe from my Grandfathers journals that he spent time on loan to the RAF in part working with Merlin on Turbo/Super charger designs. I know he worked extensively with 2 different fighter groups in 1941 and 42, and in his opinion early Merlins were as he put it "shite" but he was a P&W guy so that may have been professional jealousy talking. He spoke extensively of the trade offs between low level climb to altitude (I have yet to see anywhere in his Journals what altitude he was speaking of), and performance and combat at altitude.A lot of crap has appeared in print and even more on the internet. A lot of this "misinformation" seems to come from some authors interpreting things without printing/posting the actual facts.
I would note that climb rates can be all over the place. One can pick and choose the climb rate even from the same aircraft to bias an argument considerably. Like climb rate at sea level or climb rate at 15,000ft? or climb rate at 25,000ft?
Instantaneous climb rate at low level or time to 20,000ft or higher?
British made their climb charts using their definition of max continuous power, or a 30 minute rating. Yes the fixed pitch prop/s really hurt the low altitude climb and forced the engine to be throttled back even more at low altitudes.
The US used Military power (basically Take-off limits) for the first 5 minutes and then dropped to the US definition of max continuous power which was different than the British. US max continuous was a one hour rating or sometimes the power level that was OK to use as long as the fuel lasted. It was higher than max cruise however and sucked fuel like crazy.
Basic effect however is that the US planes would show a higher rate of climb for the 1st 5 minutes and then a slightly lower rate of climb after that than using British "rules". Please note however that the American climb rates, at least at altitudes that could be reached in 5 minutes are very close to the combat rate of climb ( at least for early war airplanes, ie before WER ratings) while the British climb rates are NEVER the climb rate that would be used in combat (fixed pitch props excepted?). US climb rates at higher altitudes (over 5 minutes to altitude) are also under stated in regards to combat.
British climb rate when given as time to altitude is useful for figuring the time it would take for an operational plane or small group to reach a certain intercept altitude. The US time to altitude is a bit less accurate. I could be wrong, it might have been standard procedure to use max power on many climbs for first 5 minutes but I tend to doubt it.
Other nations had similar rules for figuring climb which makes it hard to figure. What was the climb rate of a Bf 109 when fitted with the clockwork mechanism that limited max power to one minute? Or are the times to altitude done at the 30 minute rating?
Planes with single speed superchargers had to pick their performance altitude or area. Even with a constant speed prop the Spitfire I when limited to 6lb boost was trading low altitude climb for high altitude climb. even going to a "combat" setting of 3000rpm and 6 1/4lbs boost at low altitude the plane was limited to 880hp at sea level. This was a result of the supercharge being set to give max power at 16,250ft without ram, which was the highest full throttle height (or critical altitude) of ANY mass produced engine in 1939 or early 1940. RR could have used different supercharger gear and gotten 1000hp for take-off and 1085hp at 9750ft using 6lb boost and 87 octane fuel but it would have cost them around 120-130hp at 16,250ft. With the constant speed prop it would have given them better climb at low levels (under 10-12,000ft) but really cost them climb rate at higher levels (over 15,000ft) and cost service ceiling.
Now in 1938-39 P&W was working on a two stage supercharger, two planes in the US 1939 fighter trials had it, but it took until early 1941 to really get it sorted out and into production, The two speed R-1820 used in the Martlet I & IV had a FTH (full throttle height) of 13500ft, in high gear, low gear was used to get more power for take-off. The two speed R-1830 use in the F4F-3A and the Martlet II & III had a FTH of 14500ft in high gear.
Maybe the Spitfire I (even with constant speed prop) didn't have the low altitude climb "desired" but since the specification didn't say with numbers what that was it is certainly subject to interpretation. But without going to a 2 speed engine (no two stage Merlins existed at the time) performance at low altitude had to be sacrificed. The adoption of 100 octane fuel solved the problem at least for combat.
Around 300hp more was available from sea level to just under 10,000ft and from there to 16,250ft the power fell to the same as teh 87 octane fuel ratings. At 13,000ft an extra 150hp or so was available. While not normally used for climbing to combat height the extra power would have a rather startling effect on climb even if no tests are available showing the difference.
I believe some of the flak you are taking comes from trying to use the website you listed as a source. There is just so much wrong with it I don't know where to begin and don't have the time at present.
Thank you! Very concise! I believe from my Grandfathers journals that he spent time on loan to the RAF in part working with Merlin on Turbo/Super charger designs. I know he worked extensively with 2 different fighter groups in 1941 and 42, and in his opinion early Merlins were as he put it "shite" but he was a P&W guy so that may have been professional jealousy talking. He spoke extensively of the trade offs between low level climb to altitude (I have yet to see anywhere in his Journals what altitude he was speaking of), and performance and combat at altitude.
However in his exact words "Until they changed the Spit to a variable pitch propellor it could not get out of its own way."
The website I used was only one of many, which on the points I was making agreed. I have no specific knowledge of the author. However my Grandfather is a first person source, he was there, and he did not like the early Spitfires and he and others fought a loosing battle to have production resources switched to planes like the Hurricane which had much longer legs than the Spit, was cheaper and quicker to build, and had similar performance characteristics to the early Spits. It was outclassed in a few areas but in the end its track record is on par at least during the Battle of Britain.
Now what exactly he meant by that I don't know. He spoke of a similar issue with I think it was the original props on the Mosquito? 2 engine all wood bomber if I recall?
You say you are in complete agreement but other posts say that you aren't. I think the mistake you are making is reading that a fixed prop was replaced by a variable pitch and then by a constant speed prop means that the Spitfires performance was poor, it wasnt. There is no maximum to desired climb performance everyone would love to get to 30,000ft in 10 seconds but that isnt physically possible. The desired rate of climb is always the best you can do and in WW2 "can we have that yesterday please".I really think you and others are reading more into what I said than is there. It was an observation coupled with a question. Sources state A, which lead me to question B. Sorry if somehow that pushes your buttons. Was not my intention at all. But somehow I seem to have caused a lot of emotional response when I did not intend to.
I have no idea, the conversation discussed in the book said something to the effect that it was a disappointing climb rate initially.
OK, what was the desired climb performance?
What did the Specification call for?
That is specification F10/35?
How many feet per minute was specified or how many minutes to a given altitude?