The Spitfire was designed for load factors of 2*5 up for most Merlin variants and 2*6 for most Griffon variants. This means a design load factor of 10g or 12g respectively, which had to be possible in both positive and negative direction. The typical US fighter, such as the P-47, F4U or P-51 where designed to 8g, with a 1.5 safety factor. This means a load factor of 12g, which had to be possible in positive direction, and half of which had to be possible in negative direction. A few fighters, like the F6F, were designed to 9g. The German fighter aircraft were in a 12g similar ballpark. There's very little to chose in terms of permissible load factors between the premier fighters of these nations.
USA produces a Mosquito-like bomber: pros and cons
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
The Spiteful, particularly the ones fitted with the CR Props are my favorite Spit variant! The single largest factor is the new trapezoidal wing which doubled the rate of roll and finally made the Spit competitive in that arena. It also made the Spit much faster. The CR Props also make the plane very much more pointable and add speed.
Specifications (Spiteful XIV)[edit]
Orthographic projection of the Spiteful. The Spiteful possesses the elliptical horizontal stabiliser of the Spitfire, but lacks the elliptical wing.
Data from Supermarine Aircraft since 1914 [6]
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 32 ft 11 in (10.03 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft 0 in (10.67 m)
Height: 13 ft 5 in (4.09 m)
Wing area: 210 ft² (19.5 m²)
Empty weight: 7,350 lb (3,331 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 9,950 lb (4,523 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Rolls-Royce Griffon 69 V-12 engine, 2,375 hp (1,772 kW)
Performance
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)
Armament
Guns: 4 × 20 mm (.79 in) Hispano Mk V cannons
Rockets: 8-12 × 3inch "60 lb" rocket projectiles
Bombs: 2 × 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs
I do not own it because I've never heard of it before. I did not buy it tonight because of the price. I'll look around for a month or two to try to find a bargain. Then buy it.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Problem with the XB-42, was that it was too late in the war to be of much use.
The examples I posted could have been in the skies over Europe at a critical point in the war, especially the Curtiss XA-14, which was under development in the mid30's.
So, since you don't have the book and have not read it, how can you use it as a reference?
wuzak
Captain
I would jsut like to point out that the Spitfire XIV's RoC was shown at +18psi boost (Griffons were cleared for +25psi near the end of teh war, when the P-51H was appearing), whereas the P-51H's RoC was at light weight and +30psi boost.
OldSkeptic
Senior Airman
- 509
- May 17, 2010
Not quite. The 51H had an interesting development history. Descended from the lightweight Mustang prototypes, which were very, very fast.
But the 51H was only a bit lighter than the 51D. The main reason for its development was the deterioration of the Mustangs G limit over time.
The Mustang was in the 12G ultimate G limit for the 51A, but as each iteration came out, plus fuel loads (like the rear tank) went up, the G limit dropped more and more.
A 51D with no external tanks was down to 9.5G
A fully fueled 51D was down to about a 7.5G limit.
Note these are ultimate, failure 'rip your wings off or break your fuselage' G limits.
The 51H had a 11G limit at 9.600 pounds weight. Plus the wings were thinner and its mach limit was better.
Bit less draggy with a Merlin 100 series engine, so a bit faster and climbed better. Better CoG so it handled far better with a full rear tank and it was more stable. Better to land and overall easier to fly.
So the 51H was not really one of the lightweights, rather a further evolution of the design, though some of the lessons learned were incorporated.
Added: Note that the Spit, right through all its iterations maintained a very high G limit, in the 12-13G range. Eric Brown, after the war doing doing the weather recon stuff, deliberately chose Spits because of their great strength. It was, from a G limit point of view, a heck of a tough plane.
The paper on (forgot the link I'll post it later) of a study form putting G meters on samples of various Allied planes, the Spits consistently recorded the highest G levels, the a P-61A actually recorded the highest single reading, though as stated non of the 51Bs or Ds could get close to that.
Plus the Mustang did have a bit of a tailplane weakness, which became an issue with the 51B/Cs, fixed to a certain extent with the later added strakes.
Last edited:
OldSkeptic
Senior Airman
- 509
- May 17, 2010
The -3 and -7 had different supercharger gear ratios. the -3 was the same as a Merlin 63 or 70, ie high altitude gearing. The -7 was the same as the Merlin 66, the mid altitude version as used in the Spit the LF IX and LF VIII.
Thus the 51D was a bit slower than the 51 B/C at max speed optimum altitude, but it was faster in that critical 15,000-25,000ft fighting altitude.
Not sure what you mean by this or where you got the information that the Mosquito was somehow unsuccessful without the cover of strategic bombers. As a light bomber the Mosquito made many daylight operations into the heart of occupied Europe Germany, including making a famous pinpoint precision attack on a radio station in Berlin - all without the support of strategic bombers - or fighter escort, come to that. The Mosquito's contribution in support of strategic bombers was incalculable.
I guess you don't know that the Germans put a great deal of effort into developing specially lightened versions of the He 219 and Bf 109 specifically to catch Mosquitos, plus put a great deal of effort into converting two seat Me 262s in nightfighters, all in an often unsuccessful attempt to catch Mosquitos. Did you know that Goering and others in the Nazi hierarchy were driven to despair by the Mosquito's exploits? Wikipedia has got the information, albeit condensed.
Why ignore the totality of the Mosquito's contribution to the war? With your definition of what constituted a great aircraft (it can carry out tactical missions close to the FEBA) few aircraft were great.
Last edited:
OldSkeptic
Senior Airman
- 509
- May 17, 2010
Don't forget the Light Night Striking Force, which was doing fairly large scale bombing of Berlin in mid to late 44 and 45. Carrying 4,000lb 'cookies' ... which a B-17 couldn't carry. Even Lancasters were only carrying 6,000-8,000lbs on those long range missions.
In the winter months they often did 2 trips a night. The Mossies would go out, bomb, return. Change crews, refuel and reload and go a 2nd time. There and back in 3-4 hours. With incredibly low loss ratios.
Or in other words a Mossie could drop the same amount of explosives on Berlin as a Lancaster could, albeit taking 2 missions to do it. But far cheaper to build and maintain, plus only 2 crew.
Even Galland, in his book, said they couldn't do anything about them (day or night) until they got the 262s.
In the winter months they often did 2 trips a night. The Mossies would go out, bomb, return. Change crews, refuel and reload and go a 2nd time. There and back in 3-4 hours. With incredibly low loss ratios.
Or in other words a Mossie could drop the same amount of explosives on Berlin as a Lancaster could, albeit taking 2 missions to do it. But far cheaper to build and maintain, plus only 2 crew.
Even Galland, in his book, said they couldn't do anything about them (day or night) until they got the 262s.
Generally speaking that's right, but there were several B and C submodels (B15, C5, C10?) using the -7 engine. Those were about 5 mph faster than a D at all altitudes.
OldSkeptic
Senior Airman
- 509
- May 17, 2010
True, the D was a little bit more draggy than the B/C, but it was overall a better warplane.
Though people always forget the drop tank/bomb holders. Which were fixed on the Mustangs. With them you lost at least 10 mph (in all models). So even though the clean Mustang speed was in the 440+ range with, the common, holders in place you were in the 420-430 class.
Hence, going back to the great book, the Banff strike wing, even when they got Mustang escorts (IIIs mostly though some later IVs = 51Bs and Ds) they had hard fights against 109Gs and 109As, let alone the later, but very few in that theatre, 190Ds.
Hence also those claims about Luftwaffe Experten's claims about out running Mustangs. If you had an old and well used Mustang, not far from a major service and you were up against a late model brand new 109G or K, there wouldn't be much difference at all.
People always forget the influence of age. The planes in those days aged real fast. Your (say) 400mph plane after a few months of work quickly became a 390mph plane, then a 380 plane, then a ...
Though people always forget the drop tank/bomb holders. Which were fixed on the Mustangs. With them you lost at least 10 mph (in all models). So even though the clean Mustang speed was in the 440+ range with, the common, holders in place you were in the 420-430 class.
Hence, going back to the great book, the Banff strike wing, even when they got Mustang escorts (IIIs mostly though some later IVs = 51Bs and Ds) they had hard fights against 109Gs and 109As, let alone the later, but very few in that theatre, 190Ds.
Hence also those claims about Luftwaffe Experten's claims about out running Mustangs. If you had an old and well used Mustang, not far from a major service and you were up against a late model brand new 109G or K, there wouldn't be much difference at all.
People always forget the influence of age. The planes in those days aged real fast. Your (say) 400mph plane after a few months of work quickly became a 390mph plane, then a 380 plane, then a ...
Shortround6
Major General
There may be a bit of drag problem with the Curtiss machine, they did build 13 A-18s which were pretty close. Trouble is that move the machine from the 254mph area at 850 hp to 370mph you need to move to 2600hp engines if I have done the math right.
It is a good looking plane but internet sources are confusing as to actual performance. Some claim the bomb load was carried in the wing (20 x 30lb bombs).
What's your source, I'm not necessarily doubt your claim because it was only in Autumn 1943 when Spitfires got upper hand against Jagdwaffe, even in Summer 43 Jagdwaffe seems to have had a slight edge against Spits.
Looks pretty much like Ki-46 Dinah
Only above 350mph IAS with 50lb stick force if we believe NACA, that vs clipped wing Spit, against normal wing Spit above 260mph IAS.
Juha
You call that your proof? Wow!
You ever heard of target rich environment?
Where is your proof, the Spits structure could not take anymore damage? The Engine? Come on now! You are so simplistic, it is cute.
What you just described above does not prove anything, except that you do not know a thing. Sorry if this hurts your feelings, but the posts you have made here today and throughout your time on the forum, show your lack of knowledge, as well as your lack of desire to learn, research. You also are very limited in your scope of understanding things, that or you choose not to understand.
It has become clear you think you are some worldly scholar, but in fact are an amateur who does not grasp...
Aircraft Powerplant systems
Aircraft Performance
Aircraft Structures
WW2 History
I would recommend you broaden your horizon and stop using Wiki so much. The fact that you put so much weight into it, and not other sources is an amateur mistake. Try reading all these books that you keep saying over and over that you have never heard of, or that they are too expensive. You might actually learn a thing or two. I doubt it though, as I think you are incapable.
Now I will move along, and quit wasting my time before I start doing things I tell other members to stop doing. Besides I am going off to fly for a few hours. Much better use of my time than this conversation.
- Status
