Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
For a carrier or landbased fighter in 1944 this isn't great, but still faster than the A6M5 then entering service. Wikipedia has this later Zero topping out at 351 mph.So maybe 358 mph at 17,000-18,000 ft?
Seafire III was no slouch, even though it was based on the "old" Spitfire Mk.V. Below about 15000Ft, it was probably the highest performing fighter available to ANY navy in 1944.For a carrier or landbased fighter in 1944 this isn't great, but still faster than the A6M5 then entering service. Wikipedia has this later Zero topping out at 351 mph.
Maybe it's supposed to be 3,600 meters (36,000 cm), so ~12,000 feet.I have informed the Wikiproject Air to take a look at the spec changes introduced in 6/2019. Might be just a typo and 3600 was meant instead of the illogical 36k
Merlin VIII | 1,080 hp (805 kW) at 3,000 rpm | 1,275 hp (951 kW) at 3,000 rpm, +9 psi (62 kPa) boost, sea level with 100 octane |
Very interesting, thanks for sharing. I see that the trials report indicated mph. Would that be knots or ground speed miles? Did WW2 aircraft have a ground speed indicator? Or do they just convert knots to ground miles?With Merlin 50, 321mph @ 4,000ft, 352mph @ 10,500ft, 328mph @ 24,000ft.
Excellent points. If only Fairey wasn't such an obstructionist, even though a pragmatic one.Now the first production Spitfire I didn't fly until 15 May 1938 with the first squadron receiving its aircraft in Aug. By the end of 1939 there were only about 13 Spitfire squadrons. So understandably the RAF doesn't want to give up any production.
So who else can build them? Well Fairey was the obvious choice, but firstly it was already committed to developing the Fulmar. At the end of 1938 the Admiralty tried to persuade Richard Fairey to build Spitfires for them. But he wasn't interested in building someone else's aircraft designs (still peacetime - more profit in building his own designs).
From what I've read Sydney Camm wasn't much better. .Very interesting, thanks for sharing. I see that the trials report indicated mph. Would that be knots or ground speed miles? Did WW2 aircraft have a ground speed indicator? Or do they just convert knots to ground miles?
Excellent points. If only Fairey wasn't such an obstructionist, even though a pragmatic one.
I imagine Lord Beaverbrook knocked some heads.From what I've read Sydney Camm wasn't much better. .
Very interesting, thanks for sharing. I see that the trials report indicated mph. Would that be knots or ground speed miles? Did WW2 aircraft have a ground speed indicator? Or do they just convert knots to ground miles?
The odd thing is that Beaverbrook gets credit for a lot of things but are they really deserved?I imagine Lord Beaverbrook knocked some heads.
Interesting. Fairey sounds like a British equal to Brewster. I wonder what the FAA thought of their USA-rejected F3F Corsairs.So there were a lot of questions being asked about Fairey as an organisation as a whole.