Jump to content

NZTyphoon

Members
  • Content Count

    358
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

191 Excellent

About NZTyphoon

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    EnZed/Oz

Recent Profile Visitors

729 profile views
  1. NZTyphoon

    Spit XIV

    So much for my comment that Spitfire XIVs didn't carry bombs! Just rediscovered 402(Canadian) Sqn's ORB (Operational Record Book) for February 1945..see pages 5 & 7, starting on Feb 22 (also note close escort for medium bombers on Feb 28) 402 Sqn ORB Feb 45.pdf
  2. NZTyphoon

    Spit XIV

    Of course, it is well documented that the German fighter pilots were constantly sniggering at the thought of confronting old, very rare, over-hyped hotrods with a badly designed cockpit and stiffer, heavier fuselage: conversely, there are many, many combat reports showing that Spitfire XIV pilots were thoroughly demoralized, knowing that they would inevitably encounter hoards of rapacious 109K-4s using 1.98 ata, while also having to worry about all those mysterious, loose objects rattling around beneath their feet. The few Spitfire XIV pilots who survived the numerous 109K-4s, plus all the carelessly dropped spanners and other miscellaneous objects being flung around around their cockpits, were mostly gibbering wrecks after a few weeks of combat service.
  3. NZTyphoon

    Spit XIV

    This is a complete misunderstanding of the actual roles of the Tempest V and Spitfire XIV in 2 TAF service: neither aircraft were used - nor were they needed - in a so-called "tactical role" (ie; fighter-bomber) because that role was fulfilled by the Typhoon (arguably the "British Wurger" ) and Spitfire L.F Mk IX/XVIs respectively. Neither the Tempest or Spitfire XIV carried bombs or rockets (with the exception of a few Tempest sorties right at the end of the European war), because their primary role was to act as air-superiority fighters, with ground attack being secondary. (There were also Spitfire F.R Mk XIV equipped tactical reconnaissance squadrons; while their primary role was tac recon, they also engaged in air-air combat and should not be separated from the pure fighter squadrons.) As Thomas and Shores explained (see below), the Tempest and XIV's performance characteristics complemented each other, and both proved to be very useful and successful in 2 TAF service: that there were fewer and fewer encounters with Luftwaffe fighters, particularly after the debacle of Bodenplatte, had nothing to do with the merits of either the Tempest or Spitfire XIV. The simple fact is the Spitfire XIV was still a world-class piston engine fighter in 1945, badatflyski's reservations notwithstanding. BTW: The 3 pages posted are from Christopher Shores and Chris Thomas' 2nd Tactical Air Force Volume 2: Breakout to Bodenplatte: July 1944 to January 1945 hopefully, they provide a more balanced perspective than one or two comments posted in this thread.
  4. The full reference to the development of spring tabs can be found here: unfortunately, the section on beveled edge control surfaces is limited to page 66
  5. Here are three pages from Christopher Shores' and Chris Thomas' 2nd Tactical Air Force: Volume Four describing the Tempest's operations: note that the drop tanks were hardly ever dropped (2nd paragraph, page 2), which helped reduce turn-around times between sorties, and because they had "little effect on performance" when carried. Also note that the drop tank pylons were made out of clear perspex.
  6. Nobody, including me, is saying that the R-2800 "...should be able to pull insane stunts...". If you read my post properly I wrote "Just for interest" to indicate that I was not commenting on the game, but was citing a source confirming that the R-2800 was run at such extreme boost pressures and horsepower ratings.
  7. Just for interest, from page 218 of R-2800: Pratt & Whitney's Dependable masterpeice: On another note, it was possible to have "Turbo Collapse" or "Pulsation" through incorrect operation of the engine controls: ,
  8. Your source for the maximum number of " +/- 145 Spitfire XIVs" assigned to operational service is..? Spitfire XIV production RBxxx - RNxxx : RB140 - RB189 = 50 airframes = 47 operational on ADGB & 2 TAF squadrons http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p095.html RM615 - RM625 = 11 airframes = 11 operational ADGB/2TAF RM648 - RM887 = 239 airframes = 162 operational ADGB mostly 2 TAF http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p096.html thus, between RB140 & RM887 there were 220 Spitfire XIVs "assigned" to operational, frontline units of the ADGB & 2 TAF... I could continue counting, but can't be bothered, because your guesstimate of "assigned" Spitfire XIVs is already way too low: see also http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p097.html NH653 - NH720 series = http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p080.html Discounting the Es, and F.Rs plus the so-called "FRE" is dishonest, because the F.R variants in 2 TAF service engaged in air-air combat and scored several kills, while the F Mk XIVEs also saw combat in the time they were in operational service. The majority of F & F.R Mk XIVs lost on operations were due to causes other than fighter combat.
  9. I've often wondered why Lockheed didn't redesign the cockpit enclosure to incorporate a frameless, blown 'Malcolm' canopy, similar to that used by later F4U-1s or some P-51B/Cs and pre dash 25 P-47Ds: along with a new canopy, raising the seat a few inches would, at least, have helped alleviate bad visibilty.
  10. Regarding New Zealand squadrons in the RAF (ie: 485 through 490 Sqns): without going into a long explanation, these were technically RAF squadrons, formed in the UK under RAF administration and manned by New Zealanders. Thus, the title was (eg) 486(NZ) Squadron NOT 486 Squadron RNZAF: see Article XV Squadrons. The RNZAF squadrons were those that were formed in New Zealand and flew operationally in the Pacific
  11. Kurfurst is mistaken about Meimberg flying a 109K-4 on 26 December '44. According to Jochen Prien Jagdgeschwader 53: Volume 3: January 1944 - May 1945 quoting a then Fw Fritz Aldemann, who was a mechanic in charge of another pilot's aircraft: The casualty list at the end of the chapter shows the 109 flown by Meimberg was a G-14/AS 166 297 'Yellow 1' (page 1006). During the same encounter 5 other 109s of II./JG 53 were shot down by P-47s. As it is, the list of the 41 109s lost by JG 53 during Bodenplatte, as presented by Prien, shows 1 109K-4 (332 362 'Blue 8' of 8./JG 53) plus 25 G-14s and 14 G-14/AS (Page 1021).
  12. Typhoon possibly worst RAF fighter? There are far more balanced assessments available (eg: Chris Thomas' books) than that simplistic opinion peice.
  13. Just reading the Pilot's Notes, which state: Using all tanks means that the fuel was drawn evenly from the tanks, avoiding an asymmetric loading during take-off: the aim was to drain the wing tanks during operational flying, using the main tank as a reserve. Apart from creating an asymmetrical load during take-off, If one of the wing tanks was less than half full, the fuel in that tank could move away from the fuel line as the Tempest climbed and/or banked away from the airfield, thus creating an air lock in the fuel system, causing the engine to either falter or stop during take-off. (see the final Note, below). The main tank's fuel line was at the bottom of the tank, allowing the engine mounted fuel pump to draw from it without the likelyhood of air bubbles developing in the fuel lines. By contrast, the fuel lines from the wing tanks were on the sides of the tanks: this meant that an air lock/fuel starvation was far more likely, because the fuel moved away from the fuel lines as the Tempest banked during its landing approach, or came in at a steep approach. Hopefully, this all answers your question. 🤔
  14. The only confusion is that some people mistake a series of tests, undertaken specifically to find out if the cooling systems were up to allowing the +16 lbs boost setting, for the definitive operational settings. Clearly, the tests using AA878 showed that the cooling system was marginal for sustained, 3 minute use of +16 lbs, whereas, by April '43, another Spitfire Vb was tetsed and rated for +18 lbs boost for five minutes. To claim that Rolls-Royce and Supermarine hadn't modified the cooling system to cater for 5 minutes @ +16 lbs by 1943 is clutching at straws.
  15. This is, of course, based on a ridiculous assumption that no further development of the cooling system was undertaken after the first Spitfire Is were built in 1938: the fact is that the Spitfire's cooling system underwent constant testing and redesign as engine powers increased: note, also that the purpose of the tests undertaken on AA878 were... While Kurfurst is assuming that no improvements were made to the cooling system, that clearly isn't the case because, by April 1943, the Merlin 50 was cleared for +18lbs boost for 5 minutes when tested in an early VB airframe (W3322) in April 1943. The differences between the Merlin 45 series and Merlin 50? So, yes, sticking a 3 minute limitation on +16 lbs boost for the Merlin 45 is wrong.
×
×
  • Create New...