Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
I always find these debates interesting, even if they are irrelevent...comparing two fighters with completely opposite design intentions is a moot point. Take away the Mustang's Laminar flow wing and give it a high lift wing like the Spit, take away it's armor to make it lighter, and do away with it's ability to carry all that fuel, and what do you have? You have a plane that performs like the Spit, but loses all the range the Mustang needed to do it's mission. There's no way in hell ANY Spit would've been able to fly for 6-8 hours, outfight the enemy, then fly another 6-8 hours escorting the bombers home. Were there better pure dogfighters than the Mustang? Of course there were, but there were no other planes that had the range AND the dogfighting abilities of the Mustang...a much better and relevent comparson for the Spit would be a Bearcat...a plane that was designed to do exactly the same thing as the Spit was designed for....I doubt the Spit would fair as well in this comparison...
Pointless comparing an aircraft that did not see combat in ww2 with one that was there from the start, it's a different generation!
I always find these debates interesting, even if they are irrelevent...comparing two fighters with completely opposite design intentions is a moot point. Take away the Mustang's Laminar flow wing and give it a high lift wing like the Spit, take away it's armor to make it lighter, and do away with it's ability to carry all that fuel, and what do you have? You have a plane that performs like the Spit, but loses all the range the Mustang needed to do it's mission. There's no way in hell ANY Spit would've been able to fly for 6-8 hours, outfight the enemy, then fly another 6-8 hours escorting the bombers home. Were there better pure dogfighters than the Mustang? Of course there were, but there were no other planes that had the range AND the dogfighting abilities of the Mustang...a much better and relevent comparson for the Spit would be a Bearcat...a plane that was designed to do exactly the same thing as the Spit was designed for....I doubt the Spit would fair as well in this comparison...
Grampi - The 51 was a marvelous airplane but when a 51 flew for 7+ hours (8 max unless with Ferry tanks) it was in actual escort mode maybe 1-2 hours max. The didn't R/V with bombers over the North Sea for Berlin or Stettin, they would fast cruise to Brunswick or the Rugen Islands, perform the escort and break escort on the way back long before reaching the Channel.
If your comparing a Bearcat and Spit, the Spit that should be put up against the Bearcat would be the Spitfire Mk 24 (or the carrier version Seafire Mk 47). I doubt the Bearcat would find either model of Spit easymeat. Probably end up as the pilot with the height and surprise would win.
Care to bring out some numbers to back up the claims?Further, just how much is a fair comparison between 1945 and 1948 fighters?
I dont think that climb rate is right even for an F8F-2 which came along in 1948 well after anyone else had stopped developing piston engine fighters. Wikipedia gives these figures for an F8F-2
Maximum speed: 455 mph (405 kn, 730 km/h)
Range: 1,105 mi (1,778 km)
Service ceiling: 40,800 ft (12,436 m)
Rate of climb: 4,465 ft/min (23.2 m/s)
I cant find any figures for a Mk24 but wikipedia gives these figures for a Spiteful which is similar to a Mk24 and the nearest in timescale to an F8F-2 show the Bearcat is not going to walk anything.
Maximum speed: 483 mph (420 knots, 778 km/h) at 21,000 ft (6,400 m)
Range: 564 mi (490 nmi, 908 km)
Service ceiling: 42,000 ft (12,800 m)
Rate of climb: 4,890 ft/min (24.8 m/s)
The Bearcat was a fantastic aircraft but it was no better or worse than an equivalent fighter. Quoting figures on this forum can be a dangerous sport as there are guys on here who have forgotten more about WWII aircraft than I will ever know and if you are going to quote something you really need to back it up with a reference. Random figures pulled from google mean nothing especially if you are comparing different nations figures, climbing figures particulary are measured in different ways by different air forces. One force might measure climb at a steady throttle slightly below maximum power another might measure it as say 5 mins at max then 75% throttle for the rest of the climb.
The book I have that lists the Bearcat's performance specs is called "Bearcat in Action" which was published by Squadron...it doesn't say how the climb rate was determined...it lists the identical climb rate of 6300 fpm for the F8F-1 as well. I would say this climb rate is closer to the Cat's actual climb performance as the Navy set some time to climb record back in the 40s (which is documented somewhere) with one climbing to 10000 ft from a dead stop in a little over 90 seconds....that's actually over 6600 fpm....I didn't believe it to be true, but it's hard to disregard the all of the official documentation of the event....
The record is true, and was officially recognised (it has since been beaten).
Initial climb rates aren't always the best gauge. And don't always correspond to good climb at altitude.
I believe the F8F-1 beats the Spitfire XIV to 10,000ft, but the XIV wins to 20,000ft and 30,000ft. That is with a maximum of +18psi boost, though running at +21psi or +25psi boost with the PN150 fuel would improve the Spitfire's low down climb. Not sure what the F8F-1 was running.
The Spitfire 21-24 were slightly faster than the XIV (454mph vs 448mph), had roughly the same climb performance (it was slightly heavier), had the same turn performance but much improved rate of roll. Spitfire 21s went into squadron service in early 1945, around the same time that the F8F-1 did.
The record is true, and was officially recognised (it has since been beaten).