Using air racers, especially the 1946-47 ones, as a benchmark doesn't actually tell us much. Many of the racers just used what they could buy cheap as surplus and sometimes it what they had flown in the war. They familiar with it. It took a few years to sort out what was competitive and what was not, and the hobby guys without much money tended to get left behind. Spitfires were more than a little hard to come by in US scrap and surplus sales. You could spend more shipping a surplus Spitfire from England than it cost to by an entire US fighter (with fuel still in the tanks) so yes, foreign aircraft were scarce.
By 1948 it took deep pockets and or sponsorship to get to the front of the pack although a few hobby flyers still showed up.
The Airacobra was as close to factory racer as you could get. Prep work was done in a Bell hanger by Bell employees in their off duty time with consulting done by Bell engineers. It may not have been paid for by Bell but no other race team in 1946-47 had that level of technical expertise.
Hello Shortround6,
Yes, I agree. Comparing racing configurations is a bit of a stretch, but in later years it does illustrate a bit of the limitations of the airframes.
As I see it, a NACA 2200 series airfoil does have some nice handling characteristics, but isn't really optimal for high speed, and speed was the only point I was trying to make that seems to have gotten a really good argument going.
The racing Cobras were an interesting story but one has to also remember the outcome despite the technical expertise and resources available to the team:
These folks were improvising just like everyone else. Their engines and propellers were surplus King Cobra units. Jack Woolams, the primary pilot, died from an apparent structural failure when testing Cobra 1. This conclusion is supported by the additional bracing added to Cobra 2 piloted by Tex Johnston who was the eventual winner of the race that year.
Quite a few of those racing planes ended up as smoking holes in the ground.
The Problem with using the later racers as indicators of actual WW II performance is that many of the later ones were extensively modified. In fact even some of the last of the early racers were a far cry form stock condition.
despite this a Spitfire Mk XIV, stock except for gun and armor removal, finished 3rd in the 1949 Tinnerman Trophy race behind a F2G-1 Corsair and a P-51K
I had forgotten about that appearance of the Spitfire. If you look at the speeds achieved, they are somewhat indicative of the point I was trying to make though:
F2G: 386 MPH
P-51: 379 MPH
Spitfire: 359 MPH
As you had commented on, modification are much more extensive today than in the past with much larger budgets.
We see Griffon powered Mustangs such as Red Baron (RIP) and R-3350 powered Bearcats and Corsairs. We see Hawker Sea Furies.
What we don't see is Spitfires, Hellcats, P-40s, P-38s, Thunderbolts and other airframes that may have made for great fighters but have limitations for absolute speed. While one can argue that Spitfires are a bit hard to find, if they really had a potential advantage, someone would most likely have found a rebuildable one to use as a racer. Just look at the Super Corsair (RIP) to see where it started from.
The point as before is that for the same amount of engine power, a Spitfire is only about average for speed. I figure from a speed standpoint, it has about the same potential as a P-40.
- Ivan.