Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,573
- Dec 6, 2006
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Actually it was a much improved supercharger. As i posted previously:The 61 series Merlins were not much different from the 66 series except for the supercharger gearing, it was found the FW190's best performance was right around the low/high gear change so it was changed for the definitive LF version of the MkIX. The carburetor issue was addressed with the Merlin 45 but solved with the pressure carb in 1943.
The 61 series Merlins were not much different from the 66 series except for the supercharger gearing, it was found the FW190's best performance was right around the low/high gear change so it was changed for the definitive LF version of the MkIX. The carburetor issue was addressed with the Merlin 45 but solved with the pressure carb in 1943.
Your arguing about nothing, the FW190 problem was addressed with the MkIX, it wasn't perfect but it gave RAF pilots confidence in dealing with it as well making 190 pilots warry because it is very difficult to tell the difference between the MkV and MkIX from a distance. The Merlin evolved at a fantastic pace during the war, so fast the 61 series was outdated almost as soon as it was put into service.You are ignoring the timelines and defaulting to later performance. The reality is that there is a lot of development difference between a Merlin 61 and a Merlin 66. Also, until 1944 there was only performance rated on 100/130 fuel which limited the Boost pressure. Apart from this, the Merlin 66 introduced the double 5.5 inch throttles Bendix carb, the previous 60 series versions were limited by the old RR/SU AVT 40 with only double 5.0 inch throttles, some with the RAE restrictor and later with the RAE anti-G modifications.
The limitations to boost on the 100/130 fuel were; M61 15lb, M63 63A 66 18lb. With 100/150 fuel as cleared 1944; M61 M63 M63A 21lb, M66 25lb.
The float carburettor negative G cutting-out was not simply "addressed with the Merlin 45" but was a long and complicated problem. RAE restrictor modification began in early 1941 on all Merlins from the Mk III in service. Modified RAE Anti G carbs were introduced in 1942, and that continued on many Merlin types until after the War. The RR/Bendix pressure carb introduced on the Merlin 66 did not need Anti G modifications.
Eng
It's easy, the MkIX is IV marks better than the MkV.I can't tell the difference between the MkV and a MkIX from a distance of some eighty years.
It's easy, the MkIX is IV marks better than the MkV.
Just be glad it was Roman and not ancient Greek.Those goddamned Romans and their letters. They should be beaten VI ways to Sunday. And if the jailers don't know what VI is, just let 'em go until we're happy. Goddamned Romans.
I suppose his replica also uses the rather poor quality fabric that the originals used?His Fokker Dr.I is basically to the last nut and bolt an exact copy, and it's powered by an original 110 hp Le Rhone so it's as close as it gets.
It was the glue bonds on the wooden wings that Fokker had problems with, especially with the Dr.I.Fokker's fabric was not poor quality and was the same on the DR.I as it was on the D.VII, which was one of the best fighters of WWI.
No argument, you are comparing Spitfire Mk IX with Merlin 66 25lb boost 1944 performance against the 1941 Fw 190. Further to that, the July 1942 AFDU trial against the captured Fw 190 showed that the 1941 Fw 190 had the edge over the new Spit Mk IX, below 20,000 feet, which was also badly placed with the float carb weaknesses.Your arguing about nothing, the FW190 problem was addressed with the MkIX, it wasn't perfect but it gave RAF pilots confidence in dealing with it as well making 190 pilots warry because it is very difficult to tell the difference between the MkV and MkIX from a distance. The Merlin evolved at a fantastic pace during the war, so fast the 61 series was outdated almost as soon as it was put into service.
I suppose his replica also uses the rather poor quality fabric that the originals used?
Fokker's fabric was not poor quality and was the same on the DR.I as it was on the D.VII, which was one of the best fighters of WWI.
It was the glue bonds on the wooden wings that Fokker had problems with, especially with the Dr.I.
The two issues that plagued the DR.I (aside from the engine), was quality control which led to wing failure as well as the upper wing having a higher lift ratio to the lower wings, which in turn amplied the first problem.
The British thought it was quite poor in quality when they examined a captured Eindecker and stated so in their evaluation.Fokker's fabric was not poor quality and was the same on the DR.I as it was on the D.VII, which was one of the best fighters of WWI.
Three or four quotes out of more than 50,000 combat reports and you come to a conclusion that Spitfire wasn't a good dogfighter? One can find very many more that say the exact opposite,
and the Spitfire is renowned as an EXCELLENT dogfighter the world over. If you allowed your airspeed to get down to 200 mph unintentionally, you weren't going to last long in combat, no matter which side you were on. The Bf 109 was excellent below 200 mph and the stall speed was quite low. But, that wasn't the speed you were supposed to use for air combat.
If you were down low at 200 mph, the gunners on the ground had an easy target. If you were in combat against airplanes, then everyone, even bombers, could disengage and avoid contact with you.
Again, the term "circle fight isn't used. The term is dogfighting. Everyone in here knows what you mean, but "circle fighting" tags you as likely a rookie in talking about air combat. Just FYI and no more mention of it.
Don't get me wrong. The Fw 190 was a very good airplane with excellent roll authority. It wasn't going to out-turn a Spitfire if both pilots understood they were in a fight. If they were ambushed, like a large percent of aerial victories in the war were, then comparative performance wasn't an issue.
Cheers.
Depends on what year of VW Bug/Beetle - the early Bugs had a swing-axle rear end with a beam front end and would roll quite easy, the later Beetle (Super Beetle) had a decent suspension, though nothing quite like a BMW 320i did.People just don't realize how good Volkswagens are at cornering. Never found a single instance of a F1 Ferrari overtaking a Beetle during multiple laps on an F1 circuit. And I have been looking for 30 years, so I can't wait for the one counter-example...