Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.Lets see the numbers shooter.
Where is your data on the Spiteful.
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.Since the book costs an minimum of $63, does that mean you don't have the book since it is so expensive?
Problem with the XB-42, was that it was too late in the war to be of much use.I still like the XB-42-2 for a two engine Schnell bomber.
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.
When the two planes are at the same weights and effective powers. Similar engines and take off weights. Look up the rate of climb on this chart; http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-altperf-91444.jpg ! I've never heard of any Spitfire with a RoC over 6,300 FPM? Even the Mk-XIV was 3,600-5,400 FPM depending on mission and sources quoted!
See Wiki;
Specifications (Spitfire Mk XIV)[edit]
A Spitfire XIVE RN119 of 402(RCAF) Squadron in March 1945.
General characteristics
Crew: one pilot
Length: 30 ft (9.14 m)
Wingspan: 36 ft 10 in (11.23 m)
Height: 10 ft (3.05 m)
Wing area: 242.1 ft2 (22.48 m2)
Airfoil: NACA 2209.4(tip)
Empty weight: 6,578 lb (2,984 kg)
Loaded weight: 7,923 lb (3,593 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 8,488 lb (3,850 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Rolls-Royce Griffon 65, supercharged V12 engine , 5-bladed Jablo-Rotol propeller, 2,050 hp (1,528 kW) at 8,000 ft (2,438 m)
Performance
Maximum speed: 448 mph, (391 kn, 717 km/h)
Combat radius: 400 nmi (459 mi, 740 km)
Ferry range: 950 nmi(1,090 mi, 1,815 km)
Service ceiling: 43,500 ft (13,258 m)
Rate of climb: 3,650 ft/min (18.5 m/s)
Wing loading: 32.72 lb/ft2 (159.8 kg/m2)
Power/mass: 0.24 hp/lb (0.42 kW/kg)
Armament
Guns: ** 2 × 20 mm (0.787-in) Hispano Mk II cannon, 120 rpg. 4 × 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns, 350 rpg. Replaced by 2 x .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns 250 rpg Mk XIVE.
Bombs: 2 × 250 lb (113 kg) bombs
The P-51H was designed to British stress standards (ie lower factor of safety) like the Spitfire. So, if the Spitfire was fragile NAA were'nt all that concerned.
Also, when did a P-51 with the same power outclimb a Spitfire?
As I said before, the 2 stage engines, (-3, -5, -7, -9) differed only in small details - such as the supercharger drive. USAAF bound Merlins got SAE spline prop shafts, British/Commonwealth bound Packard Merlins got the SBAC prop shaft.
I dispute that the Mosquito was a fantastic Aircraft, or that it made a mighty contribution. It was only successful because of the environment that they operated in. If it was restricted to solo type missions like low altitude, or day light bombing, with out the cover of the much more dangerous heavies that gave them cover, they would have been torn to bits.
As it was, the vast majority of all Mossy missions were simply ignored in favor of using their meager assets to intercept the much easier and very much more dangerous heavy bombers with their huge bomb loads.
I have not ignored any of those other Mossy mission types. Tactical air is that used to attack Tanks and other targets that can shoot back close to the FEBA.
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.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.
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.
German Gun Camera film, now on U-Tube. The fact that German -109s shot down more Spits than Spits shot down 109s over the entire course of the war, even when they had about half the fire power. ( One 20 and to MGs Vs two 20s and four MGs, give or take.) The RAF lost more Spits in making A2G attacks than we lost Mustangs, which flew many more strafing missions. Thus the 'stang is stronger than the Spit. There are many lines of argument along these lines.
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).
...It depends on how you rate agility! Any Mustang flown during the war will easily out roll any Spitfire flown during the war...
German Gun Camera film, now on U-Tube. The fact that German -109s shot down more Spits than Spits shot down 109s over the entire course of the war, even when they had about half the fire power. ( One 20 and to MGs Vs two 20s and four MGs, give or take.) The RAF lost more Spits in making A2G attacks than we lost Mustangs, which flew many more strafing missions. Thus the 'stang is stronger than the Spit. There are many lines of argument along these lines.