Let's face it, the Spitfire Mk.Vb will probably not be amazing.

[Crump]

Drag, or reduction of it, comes way after the power(thrust)-to-weight ratio when it is about the rate of climb.

 

Hey man,

 

That is a very confusing statement I am sure you did not mean it.

 

Drag is the counter to thrust.  So when you change the drag....you change the thrust to weight ratio.

 

Now power and thrust are related but not the same. 

 

We find that Vx (best angle of climb) occurs at maximum excess thrust and Vy (best rate of climb) occurs at maximum excess power.

[tomo-pauk]

The initial statement was:

 

 

 

Reduced drag also allowed the Spitfire Vb to climb at almost 4800' per minute at sea level with engine output comparable with that of the G2.

 

We know that increased thrust, due to increase of power via increased boost of +16 psi, enabled the Spitfire V to attain the mentioned high RoC*. And that is for the Spitfire mark that was plagued with sloppy finish, inneficient exhaust and intake 'parts' of the engine (float carb, kidney exhaust, ice/stone guard), badly faired/unfaired rearwiev mirror etc. The increase of power between early Spitfire marks was like 50% in 3-4 years (1938/39 to 1942), while they gained drag in the meantime, not reducing it.

 

*looks like max rate of climb, and that is with Merlin 50M engine (with cropped S/C, ie. intended for low level combat) was only 4270 fpm; the max RoC with standard engine and +16 psi was 3710 fpm

[Dave]

 

 

Easy with the language. Drag, or reduction of it, comes way after the power(thrust)-to-weight ratio when it is about the rate of climb.

No language here. Just facts.

 

P = V/W(T - D)

 

where:

 

P = excess power

V = velocity

W = weight

T = thrust

D = drag

 

Climb performance (rate of climb) is proportional to excess power and any reduction in drag will have a linear effect on climb performance. 

[Dave]

We know that increased thrust, due to increase of power via increased boost of +16 psi, enabled the Spitfire V to attain the mentioned high RoC*. And that is for the Spitfire mark that was plagued with sloppy finish, inneficient exhaust and intake 'parts' of the engine (float carb, kidney exhaust, ice/stone guard), badly faired/unfaired rearwiev mirror etc. The increase of power between early Spitfire marks was like 50% in 3-4 years (1938/39 to 1942), while they gained drag in the meantime, not reducing it.

 

Actually that climb was with 18PSI of boost. "Sloppy", "inefficient" and "badly" are all vague "feelings" words. The Spitfire Vb that was the test aircraft for the stated climb performance used the Merlin 50 with smaller diameter supercharger from the 45M, This engine featured the Bendix-Stromberg negative-G carburettor. The engineering report claimed of the engine:

 

 

 

The only difference between a Merlin 45 and 50 is the fitting of a "negative g" carburettor and a fuel de-aerator on the latter engine, and these are unlikely to have a marked effect on performance. Comparison is therefore made with the results obtained on a Spitfire V with a Merlin 45 engine fitted. Such a comparison, however, is complicated by the variations of performance which have been obtained on the type. Tests at combat rating with the Merlin 45 engine fitted were made on Spitfire VC A.A.878 at a weight of 6,695 lb. Allowing for this difference in weight, the maximum rate of climb is higher on W.3228 by about 700 ft/min. at heights below 3,800 ft. but above 8,000 ft a lower rate of climb is obtained. In level flight W.3228 is faster by 9 mph. TAS. at heights below 5,900 ft., but above 8,000 ft. A.A.878 is faster, the difference of speed being 25 mph. at 13,000 ft., the full throttle height on the Merlin 45 at combat rating.

 

Getting more specific about the Vb over Kuban - it used the Merlin 46. Stated numbers for the 46 are 1,415 hp (1,055 kW) at 3,000 rpm, +16 psi (110 kPa) boost, 14,000 ft (4,267 m). Combat rated power is therefore about 100hp less than the 45 to which the 50 above was compared. But that power is at ~800m higher altitude of ~4300m (in temperate climes).

 

I detect some 109 defensiveness. If this is the root of your hate for the Vb then you are mistaken concerning my intent. I'm not a Spitfire fanboi nor a 109 hater. The point of using that report is that it featured a Merlin with comparable output under the given test conditions to the DB601E in G2 trim. It was a point of comparison to highlight the effect of a low-drag airframe using almost apples-to-apples engine output - it wasn't a shot at the G2. 

Edited November 20, 2016 by Dave

[Dave]

 

 

*looks like max rate of climb, and that is with Merlin 50M engine (with cropped S/C, ie. intended for low level combat) was only 4270 fpm; the max RoC with standard engine and +16 psi was 3710 fpm

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/w3228.html

 

The 4270 on that transcription is a typo - the source document says 4720. Which is obvious when you read the 6000' rate of climb. 

[tomo-pauk]

Actually that climb was with 18PSI of boost. "Sloppy", "inefficient" and "badly" are all vague "feelings" words. The Spitfire Vb that was the test aircraft for the stated climb performance used the Merlin 50 with smaller diameter supercharger from the 45M, This engine featured the Bendix-Stromberg negative-G carburettor. The engineering report claimed of the engine:

 

 

"Sloppy" refers to the fact that is stated in "RAE Technical note No. 1273", where people at RAE listed that fit & finish was, for example, 'guilty' for 8.5 mph loss on the Spitfire V EN.946. The Note states that Spitfire V was worse in this regard than Spitfire I or IX.

"Inneficient and badly" were the 'triple exhausts with fish tails', changing them to individual exhausts gained 7.75 mph on the same Spitfire tested. Similar for the ice guards, necessitated by use of carburetor used. Cost - 8.5 mph. Switch to better carbs gained 10 mph on the Spitfire Vs, from mid-1943 on.

We also have the thing of the external bullet proof glass on the Spitfire II and V, cost being 3.75 mph vs. internal.  The Spitfire IX got all of these improvements, unfortunately Spit V just the carbs.

The EN.946 went to 388 mph after the treatment in the RAE, vs. 358 mph when deliveredat the facility.

 

 

 

Getting more specific about the Vb over Kuban - it used the Merlin 46. Stated numbers for the 46 are 1,415 hp (1,055 kW) at 3,000 rpm, +16 psi (110 kPa) boost, 14,000 ft (4,267 m). Combat rated power is therefore about 100hp less than the 45 to which the 50 above was compared. But that power is at ~800m higher altitude of ~4300m (in temperate climes).

 

I detect some 109 defensiveness. If this is the root of your hate for the Vb then you are mistaken concerning my intent. I'm not a Spitfire fanboi nor a 109 hater. The point of using that report is that it featured a Merlin with comparable output under the given test conditions to the DB601E in G2 trim. It was a point of comparison to highlight the effect of a low-drag airframe using almost apples-to-apples engine output - it wasn't a shot at the G2. 

 

I don't hate the Mk.V. It was a piston-engine powered aircraft, so I can't possibly hate it.

The Bf 109 defensiveness? Every aircraft is a compromise. The characteristics that made Bf 109 so well performing even when engine power was not greatest were the same characteristics that were biting back when greater firepower, range, more comfortable canopy etc. was required. It will (109F/G) do 390 mph on 1200 HP, but - you want to stick a pair of extra cannons? Okay, but they can't go inside the airframe. Bigger MGs? Gains bulges, looses speed. You want to increase fuel tankage by 50 or 80%? Can't be done without major redesign. Triple the external fuel tankage, or just double but with more guns? Good luck with that. Really big & powerful engine? Again, good luck (though, to be fair, we know that it started witha really small engine).

Both Fw 190 and Spitfire were better in this regard.

 

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/w3228.html

 

The 4270 on that transcription is a typo - the source document says 4720. Which is obvious when you read the 6000' rate of climb. 

 

Thank you.

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

I don't hate the Mk.V. It was a piston-engine powered aircraft, so I can't possibly hate it. The Bf 109 defensiveness? Every aircraft is a compromise. The characteristics that made Bf 109 so well performing even when engine power was not greatest were the same characteristics that were biting back when greater firepower, range, more comfortable canopy etc. was required. It will (109F/G) do 390 mph on 1200 HP, but - you want to stick a pair of extra cannons? Okay, but they can't go inside the airframe. Bigger MGs? Gains bulges, looses speed. You want to increase fuel tankage by 50 or 80%? Can't be done without major redesign. Triple the external fuel tankage, or just double but with more guns? Good luck with that. Really big & powerful engine? Again, good luck (though, to be fair, we know that it started witha really small engine). Both Fw 190 and Spitfire were better in this regard.

 

Ok, calling BS. The different manners of declaring power Outputs between the Nations don't change the fact that P/W Ratio was pretty much the same and the DB Engines didn't suffer from any Carb Related Troubles with Cold Starts, Ice etc. The DB was a large Displacement, low Stress and very compact engine and lighter than the Merlin. It also ran waaay cooler (which is why the Hispano HA-1112 Buchon has that hideously large nose) requiring smaller Rads. The Merlin was detuned Race Engine and you can see that in the number of Radiators, Intercoolers etc.

The DB was a Torque Monster and the VDM Prop fit it perfectly. It was that combination of DB and VDM Prop that made the 109 Powerplant so effective.

If we only gave maximum Possible Power Outputs a 109F-4 would be at ca. 1400HP, but since the humble germans only gave 30 Min Power it only has 1200.

The Spitfires were always heavier than their 109 counterpart by about 200-300kg, so it needed every HP more it could get.

 

Need a pair of extra cannons, No Problem for Galland:

MG FF/M in 109F-2/F-6, the reason for the Pods is simple Modability, what makes an R-Satz and U-Satz.

 

 

 

Oh, and what is that? An internally fitted 30mm cannon? 3 of them without Gondolas? And that 115l MW50 behind the main Fuel Tank, well just in weight that would have been 150l more of fuel. The Mold for a larger tank exists, but it was never used, because there simply was no need.

The 109 could be internally upgraded quite a good deal and there was space to do it.

 

 

The K-6 Flew BTW.

 

It does look kind of Silly, but with the longer Tailwheel of later Models it would have been practical: (Take-Off run was still shorter than Normal Spitfire.)

Edited November 20, 2016 by CuteKitten94

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

It does look kind of Silly, but with the longer Tailwheel of later Models it would have been practical: (Take-Off run was still shorter than Normal Spitfire.)

The long tailweheel was only fitted to Jabo models to increase ground clearance for fitting a 500kg bomb (this kit was already availabel for F series models). It was jettisoned after takeoff and not intendet to be used for normal operation.

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

The long tailweheel was only fitted to Jabo models to increase ground clearance for fitting a 500kg bomb (this kit was already availabel for F series models). It was jettisoned after takeoff and not intendet to be used for normal operation.

Just showing the possibilites. The Longer Tailwheel of Later Models would have made that weird tailwheel unnecessary:

[Kurfurst]

There is no 'would'. Later variants with the long tailwheel like the 109K were cleared for 500 kg bombs.

 

It was physially possible even on earlier variants, thing is the ground clearance with the larger bombs was quite minimal and evidently was thus not sanctioned for service.

[tomo-pauk]

Ok, calling BS. The different manners of declaring power Outputs between the Nations don't change the fact that P/W Ratio was pretty much the same and the DB Engines didn't suffer from any Carb Related Troubles with Cold Starts, Ice etc. The DB was a large Displacement, low Stress and very compact engine and lighter than the Merlin. It also ran waaay cooler (which is why the Hispano HA-1112 Buchon has that hideously large nose) requiring smaller Rads. The Merlin was detuned Race Engine and you can see that in the number of Radiators, Intercoolers etc.

The DB was a Torque Monster and the VDM Prop fit it perfectly. It was that combination of DB and VDM Prop that made the 109 Powerplant so effective.

If we only gave maximum Possible Power Outputs a 109F-4 would be at ca. 1400HP, but since the humble germans only gave 30 Min Power it only has 1200.

The Spitfires were always heavier than their 109 counterpart by about 200-300kg, so it needed every HP more it could get.

 

Need a pair of extra cannons, No Problem for Galland:

MG FF/M in 109F-2/F-6, the reason for the Pods is simple Modability, what makes an R-Satz and U-Satz.

 

The DB engines were getting higher compression and their weight grew as war progressed. High compression = high stress = higher weight needed; reliability still suffered. With that said, the DB engines were a good fit for the Bf 109 indeed. Germans being humble or not, the DB 601E was doing ~1440 PS at 2.1 km from Dec 1941 on, and 1280 on 30 min rating. The DB 601E went to 710 kg (includes fuel pump for example, but not the electric starter), heavier than Merlin 45 and about the same as Merlin 20 series.

Merlin was not a de-tuned racing engine, the number of coolers was just two for single stage supercharged models. Vs. three for Bf 109. Buchon was with big 'beard' due to Merlin installed was with up-draft carb, necessitating the undernose tunnel.

 

The reason for pods was that MG 151 nor MK 108 could not fit in the wings of the standard Bf 109, unlike the smaller MG FF(M).

 

 

Oh, and what is that? An internally fitted 30mm cannon? 3 of them without Gondolas? And that 115l MW50 behind the main Fuel Tank, well just in weight that would have been 150l more of fuel. The Mold for a larger tank exists, but it was never used, because there simply was no need.

The 109 could be internally upgraded quite a good deal and there was space to do it.

 

The K-6 Flew BTW.

It does look kind of Silly, but with the longer Tailwheel of later Models it would have been practical: (Take-Off run was still shorter than Normal Spitfire.)

 

That K-6 flew - the jury is still out? Internal wing cannon of 30 mm necessitated redesign of the wing.

The stuff you've listed are either-or: it is either MW 50 tank or fuel tank, not both. Wan't to fight in 1945 with K-4 that has no MW 50? Wing drop tanks = wing cannons need to go. As for 'simply was no need' - indeed, the bombers will escort themselves towards Soviet factories, and Ju 52s will escort themselves to North Africa.

[Crump]

 

 

High compression = high stress = higher weight needed;

 

Ahh...high compression and lower manifold pressure does not necessarily equate to higher stress.

[Kurfurst]

I am not sure what is the point of having a somewhat lighter engine block Tomo, if it can only deliver 0 horsepower without its carburator and without its supercharger.

 

Any ideas, perhaps?

 

Also, if the MG 151/Mk108 could not fit inside the 109 wings, then why they DID..?

Edited November 20, 2016 by VO101Kurfurst

[tomo-pauk]

Ahh...high compression and lower manifold pressure does not necessarily equate to higher stress.

 

No problems with that.

It is the " The DB was ... low Stress ... engine" statement that is not true for all DB-601/605 engines, bar early ones.

 

I am not sure what is the point of having a somewhat lighter engine block Tomo, if it can only deliver 0 horsepower without its carburator and without its supercharger.

 

Any ideas, perhaps?

 

Also, if the MG 151/Mk108 could not fit inside the 109 wings, then why they DID..?

 

Nobody was suggesting a zero HP engine. DB engines, as other engines of the day, gained weight as their capability grew.

They actually did not install the MG 151 nor MK 108 in wings of the Bf 109 before 1945, and it required redesign of wing structure to do so from 1945 on.

Edited November 20, 2016 by tomo-pauk

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

To get the same power out of a 27 and a 35 litre engine, the 27 litre engine needs more Boost, more Compression, more Octane and more RPM. The Merlin achieved it's maximum Power at 3000RPM and approaching double the Boost Pressure of the DB series delivering it's power at 2400-2800RPM and moderate Boost.

This means the DB Series could run at more readily available, low quality fuels and still deliver good power.

 

The Spitfire Mk.IX required two MASSIVE Water Radiators (seriously, you could get your head stuck in there), a couple of times the size of the 109s cooling surface + Massive Oil Coolers + Intercooler.

The DB simply was the cooler running engine and it was physically smaller and Wet it was a good deal lighter than the Merlin.

 

Also: That's definetly a Cooler down there:

 

 

The DB605 just is a more compact engine:

 

Edited November 20, 2016 by CuteKitten94

[tomo-pauk]

To get the same power out of a 27 and a 35 litre engine, the 27 litre engine needs more Boost, more Compression, more Octane and more RPM. The Merlin achieved it's maximum Power at 3000RPM and approaching double the Boost Pressure of the DB series delivering it's power at 2400-2800RPM and moderate Boost.

This means the DB Series could run at more readily available, low quality fuels and still deliver good power.

 

The Spitfire Mk.IX required two MASSIVE Water Radiators (seriously, you could get your head stuck in there), a couple of times the size of the 109s cooling surface + Massive Oil Coolers + Intercooler.

The DB simply was the cooler running engine and it was physically smaller and Wet it was a good deal lighter than the Merlin.

 

Also: That's definetly a Cooler down there:

 

Good catch re. cooler; the Buchon then needed two intakes under the nose - one for oil cooler, another for carb. Sometimes two were used for carb alone.

Merlin was with low compression ratio, not with high. Low comprsssion + high octane fuel enables more boost, thus giving more power. Think we can agree that DB engines that run at 2800 rpm on 1.42-2 ata, with compression ratio increased by 20% during 5 years will be more stressed than those running at 2400 rpm, on 1.30 ata and low-is CR.

The Merlin in 1940 was making good power on 87 oct fuel, no worse than DB 601A actually. The B4 was not low quality.

 

Coolers of different role, size and shape were not installed for the 2-stage Merlin for nothing, but as part of the system that was making, for example, 1340 HP at 23500 ft on the Merlin 61 in late 1942, vs. ~1100 HP on the DB 605A a full year later.

 

The cooling requirement for the DB601/605 engines also grew with new engine in service, so did the respective coolers

 

The DB605 just is a more compact engine:

 

If there is a difference, it is too small to matter.

Edited November 20, 2016 by tomo-pauk

[MiloMorai]

To get the same power out of a 27 and a 35 litre engine, the 27 litre engine needs more Boost, more Compression

 

 

DB601 had a 6.9:1 CR and got higher in the DB605 engines (8.5:1). Merlins never went over 6:1.

 

Have you actually measured the radiator area of the two a/c CK?

 

coolant radiators from a G

[Crump]

No problems with that.

It is the " The DB was ... low Stress ... engine" statement that is not true for all DB-601/605 engines, bar early ones.

No it is not true at all. There are two different topics here. The relative stress and the specific stress.

 

The relative stress is a function of the narrow safety margins required for flight and there is little to choose between the engines. It is a silly argument to get into and meaningless in practical terms. This is the stress that gets "fans" tied in a knot thinking one engine is "stronger" than the other.

 

The specific stress drives design trade offs and can interesting and informative.

 

Specific stress is normally expressed as a function of the ratio of maximum power out rating divided by the power at maximum continuous rating as a percentage power.

 

That can give some insight for example as to how heavy our case and engine components must be etc, etc.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Crump

[Lusekofte]

 

 

Same could be said about the Lagg3,

 

 

Ha ha , the advantage YAK 1 b had after the YAK 3 came was the instant new respect. Many German pilots said in interviews that 1944 was the year they never knew what they where up against, being surprised a lot of the time. 

There are many that believe Russians got the best performance fighter by the end of the war

[Dave]

And as usual a topic discussing something other than 109s gets turned first into a "109 dumps on everything else" carnival and then degenerates into a 109 trivia pissing contest.

Yay for public fora.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

And as usual a topic discussing something other than 109s gets turned first into a "109 dumps on everything else" carnival and then degenerates into a 109 trivia pissing contest. Yay for public fora.

The MkV will probably disappoint in this sim considering its was getting pretty obsolete by the time of Kuban.

 

The Spit is an iconic and beautiful aircraft and the merlin was a fantastic power plant, saying that though so was the 109 and the DB.   

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

To be fair it's really hard to talk about one without the other. Compare and contrast. The Spit and 109 are rightly married in history and for all time.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

The MkV will probably disappoint in this sim considering its was getting pretty obsolete by the time of Kuban.

 

Even though it won't be as good for Kuban i'm almost sure it will find it's place in "western set up" servers with Bf-109 E7, F2 (with the 20mm canon mod it's essentially a 1941 de-rated F4), P-40, P-39 (close enough to D variant) and the Spit mk V. I wonder if it's possible for the mission designers to lock up available skins so that allied planes can only use USAAF/RAF skins for incresed immersion.

[novicebutdeadly]

That the Spitfire and 109 are always in the same conversation can be seen in the fact that they were still going at it in Israel in 1948....


That the "Mule" managed to shoot down at least one Spitfire shows that the most dangerous aircraft is that one that is behind you and able to shoot.....




 

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

The Problem is that they are so different and yet so similar.

Effective Firepower is the same, one having more guns, the other being more accurate

The Performance and Manouverability advantages are often too close to call, with both having certain advantages and disadvantages.

And everything else is a question of personal preferences.

I personally like the 109 over the Spitfire since it just had all the tricks, Slats, Automatic everything, Light Metal Prop, the coolest Radiator Design of all WWII fighters, looks like a Hot Rod and sounds like one.

Also, it's the Aircraft with the most unfounded Myths flouting about around it.

[novicebutdeadly]

The Problem is that they are so different and yet so similar.

Effective Firepower is the same, one having more guns, the other being more accurate

The Performance and Manouverability advantages are often too close to call, with both having certain advantages and disadvantages.

And everything else is a question of personal preferences.

I personally like the 109 over the Spitfire since it just had all the tricks, Slats, Automatic everything, Light Metal Prop, the coolest Radiator Design of all WWII fighters, looks like a Hot Rod and sounds like one.

Also, it's the Aircraft with the most unfounded Myths flouting about around it.

Whats funny is that when I was growing up watching the movie The Battle of Britain I loved the Spitfire and my brother loved the Hurricane,

 

Now I love the 109 and he loves the 190.

 

 

For me there is just something so menacing in it's appearance, I remember reading in a magazine a few years back, when a pilot (must of been the 80's or 90's) took a 109 up even though the war had been over for a long time, simply flying the 109 he felt like a hunter, and started looking for targets to BNZ.

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

I personally find the Hurricane, at least in 1940, to still be the better General War-Plane. I would actually love to have it over the Spitfire. In BoM, BoS or wherever.

It's a better Bush-Craft with Short Tale-Off and Landing, low Landing speed and heavy Ordonance. I would absolutely Love it.

[NZTyphoon]

I personally find the Hurricane, at least in 1940, to still be the better General War-Plane. I would actually love to have it over the Spitfire. In BoM, BoS or wherever.

It's a better Bush-Craft with Short Tale-Off and Landing, low Landing speed and heavy Ordonance. I would absolutely Love it.

In many respects the Hurricane was better suited to the Eastern front than the Spitfire; the wide undercarriage, rugged, easy to repair construction and the heavier armament of the IIC and the Soviet adapted IIAs and Bs gave it an edge. The Hurricane V with a low altitude rated, 1,645 hp @ 2,500 ft Merlin (32) and four-bladed prop would have been interesting.

 

http://sovietwarplanes.com/board/index.php?topic=877.0

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

it does almost look modern from this Perspective.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Don't forget the Hurricanes with ShVAKs and ShKAS   

 

 

And the special "convertible" variant

 

 

 

If I'm correct the high firepower ones were used in Sturmovik role.

Edited November 21, 2016 by SuperEtendard

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

How many convertibles were actually built? It does say a "Batch" were converted, how many would that be, enough to make it a valid option should we ever get a Hurricane?

[Lusekofte]

I thought those converted ones was mainly used for artillery spotting

[NZTyphoon]

How many convertibles were actually built? It does say a "Batch" were converted, how many would that be, enough to make it a valid option should we ever get a Hurricane?

There were 10 two-seat cabriolets, according to this:

 

 

Ten Hurricane Mk.IIs were selected for conversion which involved removing the armour behind the original pilot seat and effectively fitting a duplicate cockpit complete with second windscreen. The extra weight of the second cockpit necessitated the removal of eight of the Mk.II’s twelve Browning .303 machine guns

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

How disappointing that it was only A trainer. I guess it would have been useless as an operational Two-Seater anyways probably.

I'm trying to find the Pilot Protection Attribbutes of the Mk.II we would have in Il-2. I guess since it appears to have been used in a Sturmovik Role there would have been some serious Protection Upgrades.

I can find everything except that.

Edited November 22, 2016 by CuteKitten94

[HBPencil]

"Sloppy" refers to the fact that is stated in "RAE Technical note No. 1273", where people at RAE listed that fit & finish was, for example, 'guilty' for 8.5 mph loss on the Spitfire V EN.946. The Note states that Spitfire V was worse in this regard than Spitfire I or IX.

"Inneficient and badly" were the 'triple exhausts with fish tails', changing them to individual exhausts gained 7.75 mph on the same Spitfire tested. Similar for the ice guards, necessitated by use of carburetor used. Cost - 8.5 mph. Switch to better carbs gained 10 mph on the Spitfire Vs, from mid-1943 on.

We also have the thing of the external bullet proof glass on the Spitfire II and V, cost being 3.75 mph vs. internal.  The Spitfire IX got all of these improvements, unfortunately Spit V just the carbs.

 

Hi tomo, with what you've posted in this thread and in others I have a few questions if I may. These are legit questions by the way, not an attempt to flame in a passive aggressive manner

I'm curious to know if you have (or have seen) documentation that supports your assertion that the V series was plagued with "sloppy" fit and finish (i.e. the majority of Mk V produced had this problem)? Granted, EN946 was delivered to the RAE in near new condition which certainly suggests that examples built at Castle Bromwich at that time were of that production quality but then again it was a comment made about one specific aircraft.

I'm curious as to where you got the term "kidney exhaust"? I understand the metaphorical reference to their shape when viewed from above but I just haven't heard of the term until now except in reference to the 'kidney dish' wheel well bulges on the upper surfaces of the type a and b wings.

 

Something I would clarify is that although the improvements you mentioned were indeed standard on the Mk IX they were introduced on the Mk V series. The Vb did get the faired mirror and internal bullet proof windscreen although needless to say they weren't universal and were often retrofitted at MUs. For example:

 

 

The same goes for the Vc with the addition of individual exhaust ejectors, narrow cannon blisters and enlarged elevator horns and the fact that some of these were also on the Vc production line:

 

Regards,

 

HB

 

Edited November 22, 2016 by HBPencil

[tomo-pauk]

Thank you for the friendly approach.

 

The 'kidney' exhausts were the ones like you have on the 1st pic, a term used in the RAE doc was 'tripple ejectors with fishtails'. Obvoiusly - two cylinders were using at the end just one exhaust, unlike the 'multi ejectors', where each cylinder was using one exhaust.

BTW - the Spitfire on the second pic has only 2 cannons, so it should be the Mk.Vb (provided it is not actually the Mk.IX, I can't really see from this angle)?

The small blisters were also mentioned in the doc, stated as being more stramlined than big ones; no surprise here.

 

The RAE doc was provided quite some time ago by Kurfurst on another forum. I'll post a link from the independent host, if Kurfurst has problems with that I'll remove it.

link

Edited November 23, 2016 by tomo-pauk

[novicebutdeadly]

How to improve a Spitire...




Stick a DB605 in it, now that is sexy!!!


https://defenceoftherealm.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/the-franken-spitfire/

Edited November 23, 2016 by novicebutdeadly

[NZTyphoon]

Thank you for the friendly approach.

 

The 'kidney' exhausts were the ones like you have on the 1st pic, a term used in the RAE doc was 'tripple ejectors with fishtails'. Obvoiusly - two cylinders were using at the end just one exhaust, unlike the 'multi ejectors', where each cylinder was using one exhaust.

BTW - the Spitfire on the second pic has only 2 cannons, so it should be the Mk.Vb (provided it is not actually the Mk.IX, I can't really see from this angle)?

The small blisters were also mentioned in the doc, stated as being more stramlined than big ones; no surprise here.

 

The RAE doc was provided quite some time ago by Kurfurst on another forum. I'll post a link from the independent host, if Kurfurst has problems with that I'll remove it.

link

Unfortunately, the RAE report is often used to assert that the Spitfire's fit and finish never improved: however, even before the RAE reported on the bad surface finish of Spitfires, Supermarine and the RAF were already taking steps to remedy the problems

 

Spitfire Airframe Maintenance.pdf

 

Surface_finish_spitfire.pdf

[unreasonable]

 

The same goes for the Vc with the addition of individual exhaust ejectors, narrow cannon blisters and enlarged elevator horns and the fact that some of these were also on the Vc production line:

 

Regards,

 

HB

 

 

 

BTW - the Spitfire on the second pic has only 2 cannons, so it should be the Mk.Vb (provided it is not actually the Mk.IX, I can't really see from this angle)?

 

 

A mysterious picture!  Plenty of Mk.Vcs fitted with only 2 cannons, but usually you can see the stub covered by a cap. Plus there is no visible ID light cover behind the antenna.

 

So it looks a bit like like an early Mk.IX - but in that case the roundels are odd, since they are the early pattern that was phased out in July 1942! (But see edit below).

 

Not managed to ID the photograph either: the V is probably aircraft rather than squadron, (squadron ID usually being in front of the roundel) but if it is squadron it is 126 Squadron that had Spitfires and operated out of Malta, Sicily and Italy, but then most pictures I have seen from this theatre have the large dust filters fitted.  The paint job looks like a messy overpaint - very rare to see British plane with roundel on only one wing.

 

No national markings on the tail is typical of FAA aircraft. Perhaps this is a Seafire?

 

Fascinating picture, anyone know where it came from?

 

Edit - on reflection it is even possible that these are the post war markings with a 1/2/3 ratio - measure the width and see - and there is no yellow, just the area where the overpaint has not been applied. The pre-July 42 markings had a red spot equal in width to the white and blue bands, so a 1/3/5/6or 7 ratio.  So I think this could be a post war photograph, but still have no idea of what!

Edited November 23, 2016 by unreasonable

[HBPencil]

An interesting aircraft indeed, it's French ex USAAF: http://spitfiresite.com/2009/02/with-the-mediterranean-allied-coastal-air-force.html

Thank you for the friendly approach.

 

The 'kidney' exhausts were the ones like you have on the 1st pic, a term used in the RAE doc was 'tripple ejectors with fishtails'. Obvoiusly - two cylinders were using at the end just one exhaust, unlike the 'multi ejectors', where each cylinder was using one exhaust.

BTW - the Spitfire on the second pic has only 2 cannons, so it should be the Mk.Vb (provided it is not actually the Mk.IX, I can't really see from this angle)?

The small blisters were also mentioned in the doc, stated as being more stramlined than big ones; no surprise here.

 

The RAE doc was provided quite some time ago by Kurfurst on another forum. I'll post a link from the independent host, if Kurfurst has problems with that I'll remove it.

link

Thanks for the link tomo, I'll read it when I get home this evening.
I probably didn't express myself well but I was wondering if the term "kidney exhaust" was one you got from a period document or if it's one you created in order to describe the shape of the exhausts? If it's the latter it's a nice metaphor
It is a Vc in the second pic, as per the link above. The cannon blister is definitely of the later C wing type as is the cannon barrel fairing, and the nose is too short for a IX... and anyway the IX only had C and E wings*. I probably should have used a better example of a late Vc example
A few Vc and IXc aircraft had the outer cannon stubs removed although I'm not sure if they produced that way or were modified or both... the late Edgar Brooks had some interesting posts about it but it wasn't conclusive. Personally I suspect they might have been mods as, so far at least, the pics I've seen have only been of USAAF examples.

*Forestalling anyone mentioning the IXA and IXB, I would just like to point out that the Spitfire naming system we use today was introduced in October '43, long after the IX had entered service. Prior to that there was a need to differentiate between the Merlin 61/63 powered aircraft and those with the Merlin 66 (there was no official designation differences) so the unofficial but widespread method of calling the Merlin 61/63 aircraft as IXA and Merlin 66 as IXB was taken up. After October '43 the practice continued in pilot and unit reports and of course in pilot memoirs.

Edited November 23, 2016 by HBPencil