wuzak
Captain
Except that the Spitfire III flew months before the Battle of Britain.
Some parts of the Mk III design never made it into production, including an improved radiator duct design.
Spitfire V Versus P-40E
- Thread starter MIflyer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Except that the Spitfire III flew months before the Battle of Britain.
Some parts of the Mk III design never made it into production, including an improved radiator duct design.
That's true, it first flew in March 1940 but the Air Ministry would not allow production of MkI-II's to stop to produce it, the plane instead became a development test bed, the prototype flew with both the two speed Merlin XX and the two stage Merlin 60.
wuzak
Captain
Actually, it lost out to the Mk V, which was the Mk II with the Merlin 45. The Mk V would not interrupt production, whereas adopting the Mk III would. Plus the Merlin XX was needed elsewhere.
Shortround6
Major General
The FW 190 doesn't show up in combat until Aug of 1941 according to some accounts, It takes several weeks for it to show that it is NOT a leftover Hawk 75 or other ex French radial engine fighter.
SO at what point did the British stick the Merlin 60 in the old MK III airframe and/or start work on the MK VII/VIII (engine mounts, new radiators and ducts/housings) four bladed prop, etc. that wound up being able to be fitted to the MK V airframe with little trouble?
Was the MK IX more of a "we can't wait for the MK VIII, do something NOW" or were both the MK VIII and MK IX replies to the Fw 190?
A lot easier to do a lash up like the MK IX if a lot of the bits and pieces are already in the works.
SO at what point did the British stick the Merlin 60 in the old MK III airframe and/or start work on the MK VII/VIII (engine mounts, new radiators and ducts/housings) four bladed prop, etc. that wound up being able to be fitted to the MK V airframe with little trouble?
Was the MK IX more of a "we can't wait for the MK VIII, do something NOW" or were both the MK VIII and MK IX replies to the Fw 190?
A lot easier to do a lash up like the MK IX if a lot of the bits and pieces are already in the works.
wuzak
Captain
The conversion of the Mk III to the Merlin 61 engine started in early 1941, with its first flight in September 1941.
The Mk IX was the interim design that was brought about, in part, by the Fw 190. The Mk VII and VIII were in development before the Fw 190 appeared.
New air frame you mean, the MkV was the old one that became the MkIX.
A more accurate description would be we have lots of MkII air frames so lets stick Merlin 45's in them and make them MkV's, then take all those MkV's air frames and stick the 60 series in them and make them MkIX's.
The was also a MkI air frame converted to MkIX spec first flown in Jan 1942
Shortround6
Major General
I meant the old MK III airframe that held a Merlin XX.
It shows the British were thinking of sticking the Merlin 60 (series) engine in the Spitfire airframe before they encountered the Fw 190 in combat.
so in Aug of 1941 they already had a pretty good idea of what was needed (new parts and the arrangement of parts). They did need to figure out any handling issues and any differences between the one-off MK III and whatever production version/s they wanted to build like the MK VII and VIII.
Yes it turned out they could stick the Merlin 61 into the old airframes with suitable modifications.
Yes the MK IX was in response to the FW 190 in order to get numbers up quickly.
But the two stage Merlin in a Spitfire airframe was not a response to the FW 190, it was going to happen anyway. Exact timing and numbers of each type produced may well have been different.
Wawny
Airman
Wawny
Airman
Flt Lt Wawn was my dad. He flew Spitfires in Britain 452 Sqn RAAF, and P40's at Milne Bay, PNG in 76 Sqn RAAF.
He also flew trials flying the Kittyhawk against a reassembled Hap/Zero at Eagle Farm 1943, (now Brisbane airport ).
During the Spitfire trial, he put a 15° bend in the tail during the manoeuvres. He didn't find that out until the 80's.
I have a copy of the original document.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Attachment sounds pretty accurate. Remember the Spitfire had that Volkes filter that was a performance drainer.
- Thread starter
- #352
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
I have the Spitfire Vs. "Mk 2 Zero" report and perhaps I should post it in a separate dedicated thread.
soaringtractor
Banned
- 33
- May 8, 2014
One has to remember here that the shitfire Mk V was also a single stage supercharged engine, although it did have a second speed to turn the blower a little faster at altitude. Why it was not surprising the Packard V1650-1 when installed in the 1311 P40F & L's did not improve the performance of the P40 !!! People seem to "forget" that only about 25% of the merlins produced were the later slobbered and drooled over 60 series HIGH ALTITUDE versions used in the Mk IX MK VII & VIII's.......only 5656 of those made out of the 20,000 shitfires made !!! The majority of WW II Merlins were the 20 to 50 series SINGLE stage supercharger, most having the second speed. ie ALL Mk BI and BIII lancaster, ALL hurrycanes, most Mosquitos and shitfires used this early version of the merlin !!! The Lancaster and Hurrycane NEVER received the LATER 60 series High altitude merlins !!! Them ol facts of history raising their ugly head....AGAIN !!!!
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
PERHAPS YOU SHOULD JUST POST IT NOW!!
PERHAPS YOU SHOULD JUST POST IT NOW!!
A lot of discussion on that subject / test here: Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 903
- Feb 16, 2013
Please show us on the doll where the bad Merlin engine touched you...
Seriously, what is your problem?
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 903
- Feb 16, 2013
Or perhaps maybe the P-40 airframe had reached the end of its useful development potential?
I think he was introduced to the movie, "Das Boot"...
Shortround6
Major General
Perhaps he was repeating the often told myth that the P-40F was slower than a P-40E???
It rather depended on altitude which the myth tellers leave out. The P-40E was faster (by 5-15mph ) at altitudes below 15,000ft. However the F was 30mph or more faster at 20,000ft and at higher altitudes the difference just grew greater.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40_Tactical_Planning_Characteristics.jpg
Basically the P-40F traded a bit of speed (without over boosting either engine) under 15,000ft for around 5,000ft of operational ceiling.
The anti Merlin crowd likes to seize on the difference in speed and ignore the difference in altitude capability.
It rather depended on altitude which the myth tellers leave out. The P-40E was faster (by 5-15mph ) at altitudes below 15,000ft. However the F was 30mph or more faster at 20,000ft and at higher altitudes the difference just grew greater.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40_Tactical_Planning_Characteristics.jpg
Basically the P-40F traded a bit of speed (without over boosting either engine) under 15,000ft for around 5,000ft of operational ceiling.
The anti Merlin crowd likes to seize on the difference in speed and ignore the difference in altitude capability.
GregP
Major
Is there an "anti-Merlin crowd?" I definitely see an anti-Allison crowd, but the Merlin was and IS a great engine, and it's pretty hard to dispute that with facts. If there IS an anti-Merlin crowd, I'm not in it.
I still wonder why nobody made an adapter and put the Merlin 2-stage supercharger section onto and Allison power section, if only to see how it would perform. If it did well, and it should have ... that alone might have fueled the development funds for a home-grown integral Allison 2-stage instead of the Auxiliary stage unit that was eventually developed.
The P-40F'L was a bit better a bit higher up than the Allison P-40, but it wasn't enough better to close the performance gap between the P-40F/L and a Bf 109 / Fw 190 and make the P-40F/L a player up there, unless I'm missing something. The P-40F/L certainly LOOKED better without the carb scoop on top of the cowling, and were worthy P-40 variants. If I am not mistaken, the demand for Merlins made parts for the Merlins in the P-40F/L units hard to come by for the P-40F/L units, and at least 70 P-40Fs were converted to P-40R-1s using Allison V-1710-81s of 1,360 hp. It wasn't because the Allisons were better or worse, but because they were available and sustainable.
I still wonder why nobody made an adapter and put the Merlin 2-stage supercharger section onto and Allison power section, if only to see how it would perform. If it did well, and it should have ... that alone might have fueled the development funds for a home-grown integral Allison 2-stage instead of the Auxiliary stage unit that was eventually developed.
The P-40F'L was a bit better a bit higher up than the Allison P-40, but it wasn't enough better to close the performance gap between the P-40F/L and a Bf 109 / Fw 190 and make the P-40F/L a player up there, unless I'm missing something. The P-40F/L certainly LOOKED better without the carb scoop on top of the cowling, and were worthy P-40 variants. If I am not mistaken, the demand for Merlins made parts for the Merlins in the P-40F/L units hard to come by for the P-40F/L units, and at least 70 P-40Fs were converted to P-40R-1s using Allison V-1710-81s of 1,360 hp. It wasn't because the Allisons were better or worse, but because they were available and sustainable.
