fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Getting burnt from the backside up or the head down. Its not going to be a good day either way.
Spitfire Mk.XIV vs P-51D Mustang
- Thread starter Soren
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
That is one of your better understatements...I would be VERY interested in which fighter was easier to bale out of should the worse happen.
Cheers
John
GregP
Major
My guess is the Bachem Natter since the entire front fuselage simply fell away and parachuted to the ground. Unfortunately, it didn't seem to work all that well for the few pilots that tried it ... I believe they all died despite the "easy" bail out. So, perhaps a bit of work to get out wasn't all that bad in the long run ...
I have always been interested in the the construction of both these planes. Its always amazed me how great a climber the Packard Merlin Spitfire 16 was
campared to the Heavier Packard Merlin P51D Mustang.
Anyway this information about NAA designer Edgar Schmued discusssion on the P51H development shares some light on this subject
British fighters were lighter than U.S. fighters. Schmued ask for detailed weight statements from Supermarine on the Spitfire. Schmued wanted to know why the Spitfires were so much lighter than the P-51. Supermairne did not have such data on the Spitfire, so they started weighing all the parts they could get a hold of and made a report for Schmued. The Brittish had design standards that were not at strict in some areas of design as the U.S. Landing gear, angle of attack and side engine design loads were higher in the U.S.
When Schmued returned, they began a new design of the P-51 Mustang that used Brittish design loads. They shaved weight on any part that could yield. They were able to reduce the empty weight of the P-51 by 600 pounds. This would translate into more performance.
The P-51 Mustang Variants: P-51H -MustangsMustangs
Balljoint
Senior Airman
The built like a Buick nature of the P-51 probably helped with hard points and perhaps some marginal ability to absorb punishment. But similar hits would have largely similar results on both planes. Reasonable criteria for objective data would be difficult. Even the tough nuts like the P-47 and B-17 had many, many losses for each plane that limped home with grievous damage.
However, if they are properly separated from the cockpit and well protected they are less likely to cause serious injury to the pilot. I have seen a photo of a 2 TAF Typhoon which had been hit by flak in the port, leading edge wing tank while flying at low altitude: the tank burnt out completely, but the pilot, AFAIK wasn't touched.
Are there any reports of P-51 pilots being burned by the wing fuel tanks?
Fortunately for the pilots and aircrew, after the initial series of Merlin I - III, which used 100% Glycol, Rolls-Royce developed the Merlin to use a 70-30% water-Glycol mix.
And Mod 247 of 6/6/40,in time for the BoB,was to armour the glycol tank. It was a problem that the RAF/Air Ministry were aware of.
Cheers
Steve
The Spitfire didn't get the Martin Baker hood jetisson gear until November 1940 so during the BoB I reckon a Bf 109 pilot,whose jetisson system lost everything except the windscreen,had a better chance.
To abandon an early Spitfire involved wresting the hood open.
Cheers
Steve
It was never tried for real. It was the rear fuselage and rocket motor which parachuted down for re-use. The cockpit fell to earth and the pilot abandoned that.
Great in theory
Hans Zubert tested the system from a towed Natter. It wasn't a perfect system. Zubert remembers having problems seperating the cockpit from the fuselage,losing important altitude. To abandon the cockpit he had to release the windscreen which also became jammed. He finally released the windscreen and abandoned the aircraft in the nick of time. He reckoned another two or three seconds and he would not have made it.
That's Zubert,bottom left.
Lothar Sieber was the only person to attempt a powered launch in the Natter and he was killed in the attempt. He made no effort to save himself and the official report concluded that
"Since the hood and attached head cushion fell off,the pilot struck his head against the back wall at high acceleration and probably became unconscious,so that he lost control over the missile temporarily.It is even possible that the pilot broke his neck at that moment since his head was thrown back with such violence and since he slipped partly out of the missile,as far as the safety belt would allow".
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
How easy was it to use the crowbar clipped to the pilot's door? I cannot remember seeing any mention of a pilot using the thing.
Me neither. I suspect that like the door itself and the kick out panel on the Hurricane it was intended to help the pilot get out after a crash landing,possibly ending up inverted.
Later versions also had problems. Crosley ("They Gave Me A Seafire") makes the point that the positive weight and spring system fitted to the controls of his Seafire III made bailing out from the recommended inverted flight impossible,any attempt would be fatal. The positive weight acted in the reverse sense when flying the aircraft inverted with negative g.
"...in a real life situation they would have throttled back to reduce airspeed,so making it easier to fall out without risk of blowing back into the tail in the propeller slipstream.At this low speed and with the engine failed and windmilling,the nose trimmer was nowhere near powerful enough to hold the aircraft in level,inverted flight. Directly the pilot had pulled back or jetissoned the hood,trimmed fully forward,inverted the aircraft and then released his harness,he could no longer reach the stick. Whereupon,the aircraft nosed down in the second half of a loop,with the pilot half in and half out of the cockpit,and held there by g and increasing wind pressure until he crashed."
Crosley attributes the deaths of several of his comrades to this phenomena.
Bailing out of any aircraft is not usually as simple as it seems.
Cheers
Steve
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
GregP
Major
Nice post Steve. Yeah, the Natter killed no Allied pilots and 100% of the pilots who attempted a launch from the bround. Not exactly a sparking record, is it? We have a 100% full scale wood replica at the Planes of Fame, painted accurately ... none of the real ones were available at the time so we made one. We also have a 100% full scale wood replica of the Heinkel He 100D.
The Deutsches Museum in Munich has a replica that is made from original parts. None of the parts are from the same example however, and they also reproduced other parts in order to complete it.
There is also an incomplete original one at the Sinsheim Museum in Germany. It is basically just the fuselage though.
In my opinion a waste of resources.
There is also an incomplete original one at the Sinsheim Museum in Germany. It is basically just the fuselage though.
In my opinion a waste of resources.
GregP
Major
It just doesn't look like you could maneuver in it very well, even under power. The wings scream of inertia coupling and the sighting mechanism is the crudest thing imaginable mounted on a most advanced airframe. I really wonder what they were thinking with unguided weapons being ired from a 500+ mph interceptor tahth flew in straight lines.
Seems doomed to failure even as a last-ditch effort ... and it was almost that. At least the Japanese suicide rocket had enough wing area to be able to be flown ...
Maybe they should have tried an air drop from some safe altitude ... maybe not.
Seems doomed to failure even as a last-ditch effort ... and it was almost that. At least the Japanese suicide rocket had enough wing area to be able to be flown ...
Maybe they should have tried an air drop from some safe altitude ... maybe not.
vinnye
Senior Airman
How would the later Spitfires have rated for bailing out/ Some of the later Mk xiv's had the Malcolm hood fitted - which I presume would have been easier to release?
In my opinion the Spitfire XIV was a better fighter for interception and air supremacy, but the Mustang was THE long range fighter escort par excellence! Two different and outstanding warbirds in their own right and their own fields.
In my opinion the Spitfire XIV was a better fighter for interception and air supremacy, but the Mustang was THE long range fighter escort par excellence! Two different and outstanding warbirds in their own right and their own fields.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Didnt most Spitfires apart from some later marks with the bubble canopy have the Malcom hood.
vinnye
Senior Airman
I have seen some photos of Mk XIV Spitfires with the cut down rear fuselage and Malcolm hood and some with the bubble canopy and the normal raised rear section.
When you add in the different variations of wing types and armament variations and engine changes it can be quite confusing just looking at a Mk number alone!
When you add in the different variations of wing types and armament variations and engine changes it can be quite confusing just looking at a Mk number alone!
GregP
Major
All the canopies on Spitfires were easy to Jettison. Release it and air pressure takes it away if you are airborne and not stalled.
Then all you have to do is not hit anything when you jump. To me, that means jumping from the right side since the airflow from the prop is moving in a downward spiral on the right side and in an upward spiral on the left side. That is for a Merlin and would reverse for a Griffon.
The 109 is a horse of a different color. The canopy might or might not jettison easily, and I'd roll it over and jump up and to the left to clear the horizontal above the tail rather than risk hitting the strut sticking down from the bottom. I'd change that if the strut was gone.
Then all you have to do is not hit anything when you jump. To me, that means jumping from the right side since the airflow from the prop is moving in a downward spiral on the right side and in an upward spiral on the left side. That is for a Merlin and would reverse for a Griffon.
The 109 is a horse of a different color. The canopy might or might not jettison easily, and I'd roll it over and jump up and to the left to clear the horizontal above the tail rather than risk hitting the strut sticking down from the bottom. I'd change that if the strut was gone.
