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.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The MkIII's design was in response to what was learned during the BoB, the MkVIII and MkXIV were based off the MkIII fuselage, the big advantage the FW 190 had over the MkV's was it's rate of roll and outright speed, the MkIII's streamlined curves and clipped wings addressed that.
Except that the Spitfire III flew months before the Battle of Britain.
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.
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.
British stick the Merlin 60 in the old MK III airframe
Was the MK IX more of a "we can't wait for the MK VIII, do something NOW"
The conversion of the Mk III to the Merlin 61 engine started in early 1941, with its first flight in September 1941.
I meant the old MK III airframe that held a Merlin XX.New air frame you mean, the MkV was the old one that became the MkIX.
I have no idea where I found this item. I do not even recall downloading it and found it by accident today while looking for something else. In case y'all have not seen it, here it is. Some of the results of this fly-off competition are quite predictable but others are not. I wonder how a P-40F would have fared.
View attachment 588144
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.I have no idea where I found this item. I do not even recall downloading it and found it by accident today while looking for something else. In case y'all have not seen it, here it is. Some of the results of this fly-off competition are quite predictable but others are not. I wonder how a P-40F would have fared.
View attachment 588144
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 !!!!The P-40 had one of the best roll rates for an American fighter. It didn't turn as well as the P-36 with the radial engine, but it also wasn't a slouch. Being built to a different standard, it was heavier and didn't climb as well as a Spitfire, but this is the first time I have seen a claim that it was as good in a dogfight at 16,000 feet and below.
This goes a long way toward explaining why P-40s in North Africa did well against Bf 109Es. They were fighting much lower than they were in the ETO. I already knew they were fighting lower, but did not suspect they were as good as a Spitfire V at those altitudes. I also am not taking that at face value, but it DOES elevate the P-40 a bit in perceived capabilities.
PERHAPS YOU SHOULD JUST POST IT NOW!!I have the Spitfire Vs. "Mk 2 Zero" report and perhaps I should post it in a separate dedicated thread.
PERHAPS YOU SHOULD JUST POST IT NOW!!
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 !!!!
Or perhaps maybe the P-40 airframe had reached the end of its useful development potential?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 !!!
Or perhaps maybe the P-40 airframe had reached the end of its useful development potential?