Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Wash your mouth out with soapHis name wouldn't be Gaston by any chance?
Wing loading is important at any altitude. At altitude, power output is important.Spitfires were about the best for high altitude flying. Low wing loading becomes progressively more important as altitude increases.
By using maths and extensive research on google (3 minutes almost) I have proved once and for all that the Earth is flat, NASA never landed on the moon and that a Spitfire would outurned by Dumbo below 15,000 feet.
AND that the Supermarine Spitfire is so legendary that it is now perfect.
Good point, and perhaps being prepared is what the manual for an aircraft is all about.It should also be noted that the P47N manual states that before going into a dive you should trim the flaps, close the cowl flaps, decrease the manifold pressure, do not retard the throttle quickly, just the sort of action you would do in a combat situation when there is plenty of time.
Sure, there are a list of limitations for every aircraft.Should you get into compressability then the nose gets heavy, controls tighten up, sounds a bit like the Spit doesn't it. Then there is the blunt statement, intentional spinnng is forbidden. Also the types of aerobatics are limmited and the ominous phrase 'All other manoeuvers are prohibited. They teach you nothing and are extreamly dangerous'. It also makes a specfic point of emphasising that snap rolls can damage the structure.
In the Spitfire spinning is only banned when carrying external stores or fuel in the rear tank which is fair enough. Also the emphasise you put on the Spit getting tail heavy in a dive is misleading, you omitted to mention that the counteraction was to use the trim tab. Which is far less complicated than the list of does and don'ts associated with putting the P47 into any dive.
Lots of facts and figures but, our wonderful Spitfire outlived them all.
Cheers
John
Is that why they renamed it the Spiteful?
'cause they spitefully collected hanger dust, beautiful and fast though they were.
Wing loading is important at any altitude.
It speaks of stability in a dive, and mentions the increased tail heaviness (nose up) encountered in the dive until compressibility is
reached then that changes to a nose down effect. That's got to be a bit difficult to manage at high speed, no?
It also forbids flying above 15,000ft under certain conditions, though the use of the rear fuselage tank has always been a limiting
factor of the Spit, older or later.
Dive limits in MPH are posted with altitude and they aren't noticeably greater than dive limits under the P-47D manual. In fact the limits are higher in the P-47 by as much as 30mph depending on the altitude.
Now that could be for instrumentation reasons, right?
I don't think its a question of whether the P-47 was the better diver, it was.
I simply said that both the P-51 and -47 held a higher sustained turn.
Actually the chart plotted G-load and speed at 22,000ft.
And now that i've had more time to think on it, it was a 4 G sustained turn.
Actually the chart plotted G-load and speed at 22,000ft.
It actually forbids the use of the trim in the event of compressibility and requires the pilot to use the control column alone.
How does that make the later Spitfire less than ideal for high altitude flying?
Well, buy comparison if it needs to dive to hold a higher sustained turn than either P-47 or P-51, then its already losing altitude over those two birds.
If high speed dives are too dangerous to manage with trim in a Spit XIV, then it requires the pilot to manage all the force of the control column through
the dive which might also keep the pilot from diving as aggressively, perhaps at a shallower angle.
Fuel...The manual says 15,000ft with rear tank filled.
Is that why they renamed it the Spiteful?
'cause they spitefully collected hanger dust, beautiful and fast though they were.
From the the P-47 B, C, D and G manual Skycat posted http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/p-47-thunderbolt-manuals-5081-2.html
And for the Spitfire XIV:
That's a huge advantage for the Spitfire at high altitude.
Seen it, both test reveal similar figures for both planes.Not at high altitude. 'The P-47 test vs Spit test'.
No WW2 fighter could sustain 4 G at 20,000 ft. In fact 4G would be beyond them at sea level.
From memory, 3.5 G was about the limit, quite a bit lower for heavier/less powerful fighters. (Note I'm not including rocket powered aircraft, I haven't a clue about their turn performance)
Can we see this chart?
As others have said, it wasn't from Gaston was it? Gaston has a unique take on aircraft performance.
That's standard practice. The P-47 manual explains why:
drag and power profile, particularly at altitude, if we're still talking about sustained turns.So the Spitfire has both a wing and power loading advantage. How is the Mustang supposed to turn better, exactly?
Though you can probably take one sentence from every section of a handful of manuals and find common points, I wouldn't make the short cut in logic to say they are nearly the same in dive, either.No, the prohibition on trim during compressibility was pretty much universal.
Interesting that they needed to fix the Spitfire wing by replacing it with something that looks more like a Mustang wing.
I think the Spit actually cleared 0.95 in one test (677mph)....1948, diving all the way to deck from above 40,000ft.
Going higher would lower load limits for both aircraft, but at what height does the Spit putter out at?
P-47 late is good for max power to 35,000ft on some profiles.
The spit turning tighter would be no question, sustaining the turn with out also loosing altitude is another.
A MK XIV in one test is shown climbing at 1800ft/min at 34,000ft. which is several hundred ft/min better than P-47M.
The Spitfire, with it's lower induced drag, could hold higher sustained G than any comparable fighter.