Spitfire + Sabre: any facts/opinons?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Why was it SUPER impressive?

Lets take an engine and fit it with a hydraulic "clutch/torque converter" and another identical engine and supercharger with a two speed box. Lets say we set up the Hydraulic unit to give a max gear ratio of 10.39 to 1 and a minimum gear ratio and maximum slip of 7 to 1, and yes there was a minimum speed ratio. Then we set ou the mechanical drive set up with a set of 10.39 to 1 gears and another set of 7 to one gears. Now with Engine "A" (hydraulic clutch) at minimum slip (98-100%) it has a full throttle height of 5,000 meters. Engine "B" with it's two speed box in high gear will also have a full throttle height of 5,000 meters. Both supercharger impellers are turning the same speed. At sea level both engines will give the same power, or nearly so. Both engines will require their throttles to be partially closed to prevent over boost. As both engines climb to say 1800 meters the throttles can be opened (automatically in both cases by a barometric capsule) until they are fully opened and again both engines are making the same power or nearly so. Both superchargers are taking just under 1/2 the power to drive them than will be needed at 5000 meters. Engine "A" may deleiver a fraction less power to the prop because of the power lost in the Hydraulic clutch at maximum slip. As both engines climb higher engine "B"s power falls of in a straight line. It's impeller is turning at a fixed speed which is no longer fast enough to keep up with the thinning air. Engine"A" on the other hand is having it's barometric capsule (second one) adjust the hydraulic clutch to less and less slip and so speeding up the impeller to keep the boost constant or nearly so. At some point, lets call it 3500meters, Engine "B" shifts supercharger gears to high ratio. It's throttle is part closed to prevent over boosting because it's impeller is now turning maximum revolutions. The loss in efficiency in the supercharger is balanced by the loss of power if the engine had continued to use low gear in the the thinning air. This is the low point seen on the power graph of two speed engines between the two peaks. This is also the point of PEAK advantage of the hydraulic clutch. It's supercharger is turning at an almost optimum speed instead of being at the point of worst compromise in the two speed system. However as the two engines continue to climb engine "B" gains power as it's throttle is opened more and more until, at 5,000 meters both engines have fully opened throttles and are making the same power. As the engines climb above this point they both loose power at the same rate because the supercharger is already maxed out and cannot supply any more air.

That is the advantage of the hydraulic clutch as a supercharger drive, it eliminates the big dip in the power curve or turns it into a curve instead of a "V". It's onther advantage is that the pilot does not have to manually shift or select "hi' or 'Low" supercharger while in combat.
It does nothing for take-off or sea level power and does nothing for power above the rated altitude of an engine and it does not change the rated altitude from what the engine would have with a fixed gear ratio that was the same.
 
I understand how a mechanical supercharger works. That said, I agree 100% in davebender comment. As far as "super" impressive technology for the 1940's well a difference of opinion I guess, save for the fact of the forced air induction delivery system. The skidoo example I used for a slipping clutch is to show that its really nothing of concern.
 
Since just about every aircraft engine of 500hp or more (and quite a few below) used a "forced air induction delivery system" in WW II, I am still not getting why this is "Super" impressive?

There are reasons why the single stage German engines could almost match the British/american two stage engines at times during WW II, it is just that the hydraulic drive wasn't one of them.
 
The German technology employed with the use of a bariometric controller the wet clutch. Which, IMO is a superior.
 
trying to stick Napier Sabre into a Supermarine Spitfire wasn't going to happen. The Sabre being about 400-500lbs heavier than a 2 stage Griffon without the bigger prop and radiators/oil coolers. That, the 1/3 more width and no two stage supercharger should pretty much kill any interest in the idea.
 
None of which has the slightest bearing on trying to fit a Napier Sabre into a Supermarine Spitfire.
yup. its sure dosn't. thanks for pointing that out and my appologies for offending the great and powerful spitfire :D
 
Last edited:
None of which has the slightest bearing on trying to fit a Napier Sabre into a Supermarine Spitfire.

Thanks, Edgar :)
Perhaps you have a nice table, or chart re. Sabre's performance vs. altitude, to share with us?

trying to stick Napier Sabre into a Supermarine Spitfire wasn't going to happen. The Sabre being about 400-500lbs heavier than a 2 stage Griffon without the bigger prop and radiators/oil coolers.

I do see issues about sticking an even heavier engine into Spit's airframe, but I can't see why the prop oil system should differ from 2-stage Griffon? Plus, we should save some weight drag because of lack of intercooler (feel free to correct me on this issue).

That, the 1/3 more width and no two stage supercharger should pretty much kill any interest in the idea.

While Sabre was a 'fat' engine, it's still thinner than radials people were re-engining their fighters, so I see no issue here (perhaps even a benefit - a larger hull fuel tank behind a larger engine?).
Re. two- vs. single-stage chargers: if a single-stage s.charged engine enables a better power-to-weight ratio, why would anyone rate a two-stage engine as a better one?
 
better power to weight ratio where?

for takeoff?
for 10,000ft
for 25,000ft?

Here is a power chart for a Sabre IIa engine.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/sabrecurve.jpg

Note that the almost 2400 hp at 4000ft(?) decreases to 1600hp at just over 22,000ft. Also note that this is with 400mph of ram into the carburetor intake which means that power levels are going to be down several thousand feet for climb performance.

A Griffon 61-69 was rated at about 2000-2010hp at 6750-7000ft in low blower at 21lbs boost and 1810-1820hp at 21000ft in hi blower. At any altitude over about 1900ft it is making more power and it weighs about 83% of what the Sabre does. on a power to weight basis they are often within about 1% of each other until those altitudes are over 20,000ft. Then then the Griffon runs, not walks away, having a better power to weight ratio by 30% or more .

Props and radiators/oil coolers have to be sized for the best power condition (worst cooling load, the extra 350-400hp of the Sabre ?. High altitude cooling may be a problem for the Griffon?)
 
1/.Perhaps you have a nice table, or chart re. Sabre's performance vs. altitude, to share with us?

2/.I do see issues about sticking an even heavier engine into Spit's airframe, but I can't see why the prop oil system should differ from 2-stage Griffon? Plus, we should save some weight drag because of lack of intercooler (feel free to correct me on this issue).

3/.While Sabre was a 'fat' engine, it's still thinner than radials people were re-engining their fighters, so I see no issue here (perhaps even a benefit - a larger hull fuel tank behind a larger engine?).
4/.Re. two- vs. single-stage chargers: if a single-stage s.charged engine enables a better power-to-weight ratio, why would anyone rate a two-stage engine as a better one?
1/. No, I don't, but I have a comparison report, for a Tempest, against a Mustang III, Spitfire XIV, Fw190 with BMW801D, and Me109G (no idea of suffix, but probably an early one.) It's far too big to put it here.
Mustang - Tempest 15-20 mph faster up to 15,000', level up to 24,000', 30 mph slower up to 30,000'; Spitfire XIV - Tempest 20mph faster up to 10,000', level to 22,000', 30-40 mph slower up to 30,000' (Tempest's ceiling, but Spitfire capable of 40,000'.) ; Fw190 - Tempest nearly 50 mph faster at all heights, slower in climb at all heights above 5,000'; Me109G - Tempest 40-50 mph faster up to 20,000', but difference rapidly lessens above that height; almost identical in the climb to 5,000', but slower above that height.
2/. The intercooler is part of the Griffon engine; do you mean the intercooler radiator? It's a common mistake to think that the radiators create drag, but the designer was another genius; the radiators worked in the same way as that of the Mustang, and actually increased speed, not reduce it.
3/. If the Sabre was heavier than the Griffon, it's unlikely that extra fuel could have been carried in front of the CoG.
4/. The two-stage "blower" cuts in in stages, which enables the aircraft to increase speed at heights at which single-stage engines begin to lose "oomph." It was the second stage which made the Spitfire XIV so much faster than the Tempest above 22,000'.
Edgar
 
What about the DB 605 that the Germans put into that captured spitfire. I have the pic somewhere. Best engine version yet for the spit IMO :D
 
Dunno off hand, I have to find the relevant info.

DB 605A-1 engine (Wk-Nr 00701990).

dbspit.gif


The Rechlin test group reckoned that the new engine increased the performance of the Spitfire,most notably raising its ceiling to 41,600 feet.

The Royal Yugoslav Airforce (JKRV) flew a DB601A powered Hurricane in 1941 which displayed better take-off performance and climb rate than either the Merlin III powered Hurricane or the Bf 109 E-3 and was only slightly slower than the latter.

Steve
 
Last edited:
With a proper German paint job it looks a lot like the He-112.
is[1].jpg


They should have given this Spitfire to Galland as he was always making wise cracks about wanting to trade in his Me-109 for a Spitfire.
 
[
DB 605A-1 engine (Wk-Nr 00701990).

The Rechlin test group reckoned that the new engine increased the performance of the Spitfire,most notably raising its ceiling to 41,600 feet.

The Royal Yugoslav Airforce (JKRV) flew a DB601A powered Hurricane in 1941 which displayed better take-off performance and climb rate than either the Merlin III powered Hurricane or the Bf 109 E-3 and was only slightly slower than the latter.

Steve
Yah thats the one. I heard the same about the 40k-ft+ ceiling, but the pilot couldn't stay at that altitude for long. Thanks Steve for the information on her.

With a proper German paint job it looks a lot like the He-112.

They should have given this Spitfire to Galland as he was always making wise cracks about wanting to trade in his Me-109 for a Spitfire.
He did like the spitfire.. thats for sure.
 
I think if Supermarine were to do a fighter around the Sabre it would have been a new airframe.

It may have looked something like the Supermarine Type 391 proposal for the RR Eagle 22

http://gallery.kitmaker.net/data/18138/15SM391_.jpg
http://gallery.kitmaker.net/data/18138/16SM391_.jpg

That is an awesome looking beast. I spoke to a chap at the RNAS Yeovilton Fleet Air Arm Museum who had worked on the Westland Wyvern with the RR Eagle engine and he said it was a smooth powerful engine that sounded superb. The Eagle never had the bugs worked out because gas turbines had stolen its reason for existence but he reckoned with some RR magic it would have been the new Merlin fitted in virtually everything that flew.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back