Who would get to 40,000 feet first?

[snowmobileman]

I took a quick look at Neil Stirling's site. The Spitfire Mk.14 time of 15 minutes was for the prototype; I couldn't find anything to 40K for the production Mk.14 (not sure if there would be a difference). The Mk.21 was 17.45 minutes to 40k, however, and was slightly slower to 20k than the Mk.14. Other lesser contenders were the P-51B's 18.6 minutes and the P-63C's 20 minutes. The Ki-84 was a fast climber, but its service ceiling was 38,800'.

 

[GregP]

The Ta 152H doesn't even get to 4,000 feet per minute at gross weight.

No way it will outclimb a Spitfire. Fast? ... Yes. A great climber? ... No. Pretty good, but nothing unusual about it's climbing ability.

The Grumman F7F Tigercat, although it just made WWII, didn't engage in combat but qualifies as a WWII aircfraft by virtue of service date. I'd nominate the Grumman F7F as the best climber to 40,000 feet. But I would not be surprised to find a Grumman Bearcat and Supermarine Spitfire right in the same neighborhood, along with a variant of the Bf 109.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Few airplanes beyond rockets could climb with a 109, specifically the late model G's with AS engines, or the K of course. Might run out of fuel before 40000' though...

 

[Shortround6]

It's that last 5,000ft or so that really separates the aircraft.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f7f/F7F-1_80262.pdf

The F7F-1 climbs very well at lower altitudes but it's engines loose a lot of power by around 16500ft. 2nd gear holds it for a while but then drops after about 24,000ft?
4500fpm climb at sea level drops to about 4000fpm at 7,000ft then drops to just under 3000fpm by 14,000ft. holds almost steady (down to 2750fpm?) at 21,000ft and then the decay really sets in. by 30,000ft climb is down to 1500fpm, by 35,000ft it about 750fpm and under 100fpm at 40,000ft.

35,000ft can be reached in about 15 minutes but the next 4,000ft take another 10 minutes and the time to altitude chart does't even go to 40,000ft.

Not really picking on the F7F-1, many other fighters are going to show a similar pattern. Very good down low, pretty good at middle altitudes, struggling at some point over 30,000ft. how well they get to 40,000ft depends on how far above 30,000ft they get before really struggling.

Please note that in at least one chart, even though a DH Hornet out climbs a MK XIV Spit by 700-800fpm at low level and by about 1000fpm between about 14-18,000ft the Spitfire eventually outclimbs the Hornet above 32,500ft? by 38,000fpm or so, the Spitfire is climbing about 40% faster (about 1000fpm compared to 700fpm ??)

F8F-1 is doing about 1300fpm climb at 30,000ft. down from 3000fpm at about 20,000ft.

 

[wuzak]

The Ta 152H doesn't even get to 4,000 feet per minute at gross weight.

No way it will outclimb a Spitfire. Fast? ... Yes. A great climber? ... No. Pretty good, but nothing unusual about it's climbing ability.

The Grumman F7F Tigercat, although it just made WWII, didn't engage in combat but qualifies as a WWII aircfraft by virtue of service date. I'd nominate the Grumman F7F as the best climber to 40,000 feet. But I would not be surprised to find a Grumman Bearcat and Supermarine Spitfire right in the same neighborhood, along with a variant of the Bf 109.

I think the F8F-1 would be running out of puff above 20,000ft, due to its single stage engine.

The de Havilland Hornet first flew in 1944 (though it did not see service in WW2) and was an excellent climber.

 

[GregP]

Love the Hornet, but didn't consider it a WWII ship.

You might be right about the Bearcat, Wuzak, but it DID have a ceiling over 40,000 feet.

I haven't looked at the charts and, if I did, a Spitfire variant might easily be there first.

My gut feel thinks the late-model Spitfire or Bf 109 would be hard to beat from grounf up to 40,000 feet. Not sure which would get there first ... and it isn;t something I have wondered about since it wasn't their function.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Few airplanes beyond rockets could climb with a 109, specifically the late model G's with AS engines, or the K of course. Might run out of fuel before 40000' though...

The small wings of the 109 gives it a bit of a RoC problem above 35,000 ft.

Looking at the 109K climb tests on Kurfurst's 109 website, the best time to 40,000 ft I can find is just over 20 minutes, and most charts seem to indicate that a little better than 22 minutes was about normal.

Best I can find is a 109G-14 with the DB 605ASM, which makes just under 40,000 feet in 19.9 minutes.

 

[Thorlifter]

Good answers guys and even got a nice chuckle from the smarty answers. I figured the Spitfire would get a probable nod.

 

[Koopernic]

To an extent I think the question is the wrong question from the practical point of view of an actual interception. The P-47 had a poor climb rate but compared to the competition it came alive from about 25,000ft. Likewise the Ta 152H.

The question 'what can get from 30,000ft to 40,000ft' the fastest might also provide some insights.

Imagine the target was a Ju 388L cruising at 42000ft.

A lot of aircraft without high altitude Superchargers, Turbo-superchargers or GM-1 look like they have competitive service ceilings with ones that do (being maybe 2000ft less) but they seem to have quite a slow speed when they get there and couldn't catch anything.

 

[fastmongrel]

What about the Westland Welkin I dont think it had a stellar initial climb rate but it could probably sustain a good rate above 35,000ft where a lot of others started to really struggle.

 

[davparlr]

A lightened P-47N might be a contender. Charts show that its incredible engine produces 1600 hp at 42000 ft, NORMAL pwr! Max power (dry) at 40k ft is 1840 hp and max power wet at 36.5k ft is 2610 hp. In comparison, the Ta-152H is producing only about 1140 PS with GM1 (1124hp)at 12,2km (40k ft). Charts also show that the P-47N has climb rate of about 3-400 ft/min at 40k, 3000 ftt/min at SL, at a gross weight of 17,228 lbs. However, leaned down with only 200 gal of fuel (the P-47N carries 556 gals of fuel internally), the gross fighter weight of the P-47N should be about 13,700 lbs, or 3500 lbs below tested weight. This would significantly improve climb performance. The P-47N has a 5% larger wing than the P-47M.

http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-47N_Thunderbolt_SAC_-_17_May_1950.pdf

 

[tomo pauk]

Maybe go with the P-47M? Though I guess that Griffon Spitfires would've been 1st pick here.

 

[drgondog]

I haven't found the production P-51H Ceiling Tests but the XP-51G made 20,000 feet in 3.2 minutes, and 30,000 feet under nine minutes. The sustained climb rate of 2160 fpm available at 30K, and attained a ceiling of 46,000 feet - limited by lack of cabin pressure.

I suspect the Mark XIV will get there faster than a P-51H

 

[grampi]

I would think the P-51H would be a contender in this race along with late model Spits...I'm kind of puzzled by all of the P-47 mentions as none of it's variants were known to be good climbers...the F7F and F8F were excellent climbers up to a point (which would be far below 40,000 ft), but since this race is to 40K, I'd have to say the Spit and P-51H would be better...

 

[GrauGeist]

In one report I read, the KI-84 tested showed that it was capable of climbing to 30,000 feet in 10 minutes, clean and a little over 12 1/2 minutes to 30,000 feet, overload.

I didn't see any comparison against clean, normal power and WEP. It seems that several tests comparing speed at altitude, range at speed etc. were done in various configurations (clean, overload, cruise, WEP) but only clean and overload conditions were used to the time to altitude test.

The "clean" configuration was the 7,940 lb. airframe with 1,110 lbs. of fuel, "overload" 9,194 lb. airframe with 2088 lbs. of fuel...no tests were done with a bombload weight evaluation.

 

[rinkol]

davparlr

The P47N/M certainly have the benefit of an engine having impressive altitude performance. On the other hand, the low aspect ratio wing would be a disadvantage at extreme altitudes.

 

[wuzak]

I haven't found the production P-51H Ceiling Tests but the XP-51G made 20,000 feet in 3.2 minutes, and 30,000 feet under nine minutes. The sustained climb rate of 2160 fpm available at 30K, and attained a ceiling of 46,000 feet - limited by lack of cabin pressure.

I suspect the Mark XIV will get there faster than a P-51H

Spitfire XIV gets to 30,000ft in around 8.35 minutes. 40,000ft in 15.05 minutes. Climb rate at 40,000ft is 810ft/min.

Spitfire Mk XIV Performance

The Spitfire HF.IX would get to 30,000ft in 7.8 minutes, 40,000ft in 15.3 minutes where its RoC was 400ft/min.

Spitfire LF HF Mk IX Test

 

[parsifal]

Id love to know how the CAC CA15 compares to these figures. Powered by a griffon, max ceiling 39000'. initial climb about 5200fpm. max level speed of 447 mph, though one source claims that for a speed trial it once hit 502 mph in level flight (if that was true, its easily the fastest piston engine aircraft that I know of). but I don't have time to heights

 

[wuzak]

Maybe go with the P-47M? Though I guess that Griffon Spitfires would've been 1st pick here.

Good call.

P-47 Performance Tests

Towards the bottom there is a comparison between the P-47D, M and N.

At 13,262lb the P-47 has a rate of climb of (Spitfire XIV):
SL 3960 (5110 @ 1700ft)
10,000ft 3740 (3600)
20,000ft 3300 (3600)
32,000ft* 2180 (2100)

*critical altitude for 2800hp.

The Spit XIV definitely holds the advantage at low levels.

 

[wuzak]

Id love to know how the CAC CA15 compares to these figures. Powered by a griffon, max ceiling 39000'. initial climb about 5200fpm. max level speed of 447 mph, though one source claims that for a speed trial it once hit 502 mph in level flight (if that was true, its easily the fastest piston engine aircraft that I know of). but I don't have time to heights

500mph was achieved after levelling out from a dive.