The secret decoder ring reveals its secrets.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The secret decoder ring reveals its secrets.Hi
The Harleyford book, 'Spitfire - The Story of a Famous Fighter', despite being rather 'old' now does have some things of interest, including a list of Spitfire/Seafire 'variants':
View attachment 664536
View attachment 664538
View attachment 664539
View attachment 664540
View attachment 664542
View attachment 664543
The book 'Spitfire, The History' has much more detail and drawings on many of these variants. The SAM Publications Modellers Datafiles No. 3 'The Supermarine Spitfire Part 1: Merlin Powered' and No. 5 'Part 2: Griffon-Powered' also have many of the 'official' drawings in that helps to illustrate the variations and improvements, including added fuel tanks and drag improvements.
Mike
Being 60 years old it is hardly surprising that there are errors in that list. For example, there were at least 11 high backed FR.XIV and not all flew with clipped wings.Hi
The Harleyford book, 'Spitfire - The Story of a Famous Fighter', despite being rather 'old' now does have some things of interest, including a list of Spitfire/Seafire 'variants':
View attachment 664536
View attachment 664538
View attachment 664539
View attachment 664540
View attachment 664542
View attachment 664543
The book 'Spitfire, The History' has much more detail and drawings on many of these variants. The SAM Publications Modellers Datafiles No. 3 'The Supermarine Spitfire Part 1: Merlin Powered' and No. 5 'Part 2: Griffon-Powered' also have many of the 'official' drawings in that helps to illustrate the variations and improvements, including added fuel tanks and drag improvements.
Mike
No.So you'd cube root, then multiply by (1/(1-(M^2))? Or do you convert the airspeed to mach then do that?
What tactics were adopted? I assume hit & run because of the Spitfire's speed advantages (particularly in dives).
How do you apply the correction factor then? I know this might sound stupid, but I'm seriously interested in better calculating the performance figures of WWII aircraft.
Yeah, the P-40 could pick-up speed decently in dives, retained aileron control more effectively at high-speed, and might have been stressed for higher airspeedsYes, the 49th FG in Dawin, operating under very similar, arguably even worse conditions than the Spitfire unit, and with less capable fighters (P-40Es) successfully adopted hit and run tactics using flights of four aircraft at a time, which kept the Japanese CAP busy and minimized losses as they would use an escape maneuver and dive away once they became engaged. They did pretty well with this.
I'm surprised it took as long for them to conclude this. Part of it probably had to do with the commanding officers (they dictate ultimately what can/cannot be done), since that seems like a form/function matter. The spitfire can dive very fast compared to the A6M.Anyway from my understanding, Spitfires used similar tactics later in the war (i.e. hit and run)
Let me take a stab at it. You will first need the following (let's use the Spitfire Mk V vs. Mk IX example):How do you apply the correction factor then? I know this might sound stupid, but I'm seriously interested in better calculating the performance figures of WWII aircraft
No, I get that. I was talking about the correction factor needed to correct for mach number.Let me take a stab at it. You will first need the following (let's use the Spitfire Mk V vs. Mk IX example):
1) hp to develop 380 mph
2) new horsepower (speed unknown)
3) Cube root formula: 3√
1) First take cube root of each horsepower:
3√1470=11.37
3√1720=11.98
2) Divide greater number by smaller number to get speed increase quotient:
11.98/11.37= 1.0537
3) Multiply original speed by the above figure to get new speed:
380 mph × 1.0537= 400.406 mph
So with an increase of 250 horsepower speed will likely increase from 380 mph to roughly 400 mph if other factors stayed the same such as altitude, drag, propeller type, ect.
the result is the same but the logic wantLet me take a stab at it. You will first need the following (let's use the Spitfire Mk V vs. Mk IX example):
1) hp to develop 380 mph
2) new horsepower (speed unknown)
3) Cube root formula: 3√
1) First take cube root of each horsepower:
3√1470=11.37
3√1720=11.98
2) Divide greater number by smaller number to get speed increase quotient:
11.98/11.37= 1.0537
3) Multiply original speed by the above figure to get new speed:
380 mph × 1.0537= 400.406 mph
So with an increase of 250 horsepower speed will likely increase from 380 mph to roughly 400 mph if other factors stayed the same such as altitude, drag, propeller type, ect.
Thanks Vincenzo one less math step is always a good thing!the result is the same but the logic want
1) divide 1720/1470=1.17..
2) cube root of 1.17=1.05..
3) same as above
Somewhere on the internet . . . there is a very good write-up on the Mosquito using +25 lb boost operationally. IIRC it was mainly used in the anti-V1 (ie 'diver') and cross channel intruder roles. Unfortunately I do not remember where it is.
I have read that as well, but I always thought it was limited to 1000 pounds total and could only carry a 250 pound bomb on the wings? I also read that it was not a good ground attack platform for the same reason, and that the empty shell casings from the 20's would hit the bombs so deflectors had to be made to keep from potentially blowing it up.An article I read a few years back said the Spit IX, used a fighter bomber after the Normandy invasion, with two 500 lb bombs, had a combat radius of 90 miles.
I also read that they would land behind the intended target, so often the would have to bomb from behind, which placed them in AAA flying over and then back.The biggest problem dive bombing with the Spit was speed, during training they practiced with smoke bombs but when they started operations over Normandy with real 500 pounders they found they would hit 400+ mph within seconds giving the pilots very little time to adjust, also the bombs fuses wouldn't work effectively, they were designed to arm after being dropped horizontally from a bomber not vertically in a dive.
Didn't the British do that 1000 plane raid to show Hitler that the RAF was not down to almost zero planes? It also was made up of prettyI don't disagree, if you take all the possible internal fuel and put it in a Mk VIII then you have maybe 140-150 gallons. The Merlin uses about 150 G/hr at maximum and 50 G/hr on cruise. So you have 20 minutes on combat power and enough for 2 hrs cruise home, but the Spitfire doesn't cruise as far as a Mustang on the same settings so they are 60 miles shorter than a Mustang with the same internal fuel. Then there are the other issues, the British made Mk VII and VIII and sent them to Malta and the far east. What aircraft would they escort? Neither the British nor the USA had suitable bombers for daylight raids until 1943. To have an escort force on a long range mission you need at least three waves, very quickly you need 1000 planes and pilots to mount the campaign. The British had invested massively in night bombing and bombed Cologne with 1000 bombers in May 1942, how do you make a case for more investment in day bombers and fighters to do the same job?
Three thousand buildings destroyed and 9,000 damaged with 2,500 fires started of which 1,700 were classed as large. Most planes were Wellingtons but Lancasters Halifaxes Whitleys and Manchesters, many were from training units but they were all flying bombers. The number involved was certainly propaganda, and letting Adolf know he had just got himself involved in a war on many fronts, the LW had never been capable of such a raid.Didn't the British do that 1000 plane raid to show Hitler that the RAF was not down to almost zero planes? It also was made up of pretty
Much anything that would fly that far and overall it was a nuisance bombing and moral builder not unlike Doolittle's raid on Tokyo.
Didn't the British do that 1000 plane raid to show Hitler that the RAF was not down to almost zero planes? It also was made up of pretty
Much anything that would fly that far and overall it was a nuisance bombing and moral builder not unlike Doolittle's raid on Tokyo.
Sir Arthur Harris was determined to capitalize on the undoubted success against Lubeck and Rostock. He knew the future of Bomber Command was still in doubt and he approached both Winston Churchill and Sir Charles Portal with the bold idea of assembling a force of 1,000 bombers and sending them out in one massive raid on a German city. Churchill and Portal were both impressed and they agreed. Although Harris had only a little over 400 aircraft with trained crews which were regularly used for front-line operational work, he did have a considerable number of further aircraft in the various 'conversion units' attached to groups with four-engined aircraft and in Bomber Command's own operational training units 91 and 92 Groups. This secondary Bomber Command strength could be crewed by a combination of instructors, many of them ex-operational, and by men in the later stages of their training. To complete the 1,000 aircraft required, Harris asked for the help of of his fellow commanders-in-chief in Coastal Command and Flying Training Command. Both officers were willing to help. Sir Philip Joubert of Coastal Command immediately offered to provide 250 bombers, many of them being from squadrons which had once served in Bomber Command. Flying Training Command offered fifty aircraft but many of these were later found to be insufficiently equipped for night bombing and only for Wellingtons were eventually provided from this source.
It was also the first use of the "bomber stream" tactic, if you are going to start using such a tactic, it makes sense to use the biggest number possible and scale back, though I have never read that as a reason, more an opportunity taken.The reasons, according to the following excerpt from The Bomber Command War Diaries by Martin Middlebrook and Chris Everett (p.269):
Bomber Command did three 1,000 bomber raids in 1942. Apart from the reasons already mentioned the raids were proof of concept, whether that many aircraft could attack a single target in the one raid in a short space of time with acceptable risks of collisions and friendly fire. Cologne, the first 1,000 bomber raid by Charles Messenger is a 64 page book on the first raid.Didn't the British do that 1000 plane raid to show Hitler that the RAF was not down to almost zero planes? It also was made up of pretty
Much anything that would fly that far and overall it was a nuisance bombing and moral builder not unlike Doolittle's raid on Tokyo.