Any rumours of a Griffon?

[Holtzauge]

And look sexy while it is doing it.

 

Oh yes! That thing just reeks power and I just love the 5-bladed prop. When I was studying at the RIT we had a sectioned Griffon in one of the halls where you could see sectioned pistons, intercoolers etc. that was just mouth watering. Unfortunately they moved it but AFAIK if found a new home at the "Flygvapenmuseum" in Linköping. Well worth the visit.......

[Panthera]

But didn't the late MkXIV have geared tabs on the ailerons? IIRC then the Brits developed this very clever arrangement with a torsion bar coupling to the tab so at low q you basically moved the aileron directly but as q built up the higher aileron hinge moment meant the torsion bar twisted and stated to move the geared tab basically cutting of the control forces on a manageable level even at high q.

 

 

 

Wasn't the Mk.21 the one with a new wing + aileron type? 

 

And the Me262? Well it could always run away when faced with a MkXIV I suppose......I mean what else could it do?

 

Yeah, just like the F4U's & F6F's in the pacific he he

 

PS: I did get the sarcasm, don't worry :D

Edited February 11, 2018 by Panthera

[Holtzauge]

Wasn't the Mk.21 the one with a new wing + aileron type?

 

OK, I just remembered that I saw it for a late Spit and it may well be so that it was for the Mk21 not the MkXIV in which case yes, as long as the Dora kept the speed up it could probably stay out of trouble by utilizing it's roll superiority and extending. Only compared to earlier times, there is no chance of extending and then utilizing a climb rate advantage to regain a superior position again.......

[Panthera]

An awesome painting for you guys btw:

[Holtzauge]

Two of the most beautiful late war pistons in the same frame. Nice!

[Panthera]

OK, I just remembered that I saw it for a late Spit and it may well be so that it was for the Mk21 not the MkXIV in which case yes, as long as the Dora kept the speed up it could probably stay out of trouble by utilizing it's roll superiority and extending. Only compared to earlier times, there is no chance of extending and then utilizing a climb rate advantage to regain a superior position again.......

 

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I'd prefer to be in the Mk.XIV though myself as ultimately it possesses the most strengths.

 

Another major reason I want to see the Mk.XIV ingame is that, beside from being an utterly sexy aircraft, it's basically the only Allied aircraft I can see partly make up for the Germans having the Me262. Sort of like an Allied wunderwaffe :D

 

Btw, does anyone know how many of the bubble top Spitfire XIV's with the full wing as seen on the painting above were employed during WW2?

Edited February 11, 2018 by Panthera

[ZachariasX]

Tempests certainly did do ground attack against targets of opportunity, as this is better than flying back to base without expending your cannon ammo because, as usual, there is no GAF air opposition.  No different from any other fighter type roaming around Germany in the last months of the war.   I thought they occasionally used bombs too, but maybe not. The Typhoon and the Spit Mk IX and XVI (which is a Mk IX with a Packard Merlin engine) were the designated ground attack elements in 2nd TAF and would have been generally bomb armed.

 

Thanks for link - some nice pics.

 

They did more than just take out targets of opportunity. They had the specific task of disrupting transportation behind the front. That‘s locomotives and anything with wheels primarily. Hence four 20 mm guns with plenty ammo were more than adequate for the job, as they usually could only make one pass at such targets. Trains were issued Flak cars (front and rear often), also motorized columns had often such protection.

 

The standard procedure was: Entering patrol area at low level (1000 to 2000 m altitude) and high cruise speed (about 600 km/h) and look out for smoke columns that were a good sign for locomotives. If the smoke was straight up, they assumed being detected and Flak gunners ready, finger on the trigger. In that case, they would generally abort attack. If the locomotive was moving, the best strategy was to attack at low level in pairs from the locomotives 4 or 8 o‘clock position. The one plane located on the side of the locomotive would take that one, the other for the aft cars. This way, they didn‘t risk the leader getting stuck by ricochets of the second plane. The rest of the flight would attack in pairs as well.

 

In the beginning, they would use flights of 8 aircraft, usually two flights at the time and planned to operate close enough to each other to be of assistance. That increased to flights of 16 aircraft when the Tempests had theis asses handed to them by the Germans in an unlucky mission that made Fairbanks spend the rest of the war enjoying German hospitality, much rather than continuing investing a wingman in a next personal score.

 

Encounters with the Germans did happen usually when they crossed path of a German squadron commuting in circus manner between airfields. So you had 8 Tempests vs a whole wing of Germans. Needless to say, cards were played once the other 8 Tempests could arrive on scene.

 

What also was frequent, is that they received message about German aircraft shooting allied motorized convoys. Then they would proceed there to be of assistance. What you had then were fights in usually miserable weather between treetops and very low clouds, as the Germans would not dare venturing to make a lot if noise in broad daylight with only a handfull aircraft by that time. But that miserable winter helped them.

 

The Germans used also small flights for armed recce. Dortemann (flying one of his Doras), possibly the leading Tempest killer (shot maybe 7 or 8, so much for their rarity), would occasionally do such flights. In one case he came across Clostermanns flight of 4 Tempests. Before anyone noticing, he shot down two and in the following confusion the third of the flight before he escaped. He claimed two Tempests once he was back at his base. He didn‘t realize he actually killed the pilot in the third Tempest.

[Talisman]

Maybe we could get 150 octane fuel for the Spit as a mod? With +25 boost it would have almost the same speed at low altitude than a +18 boost Mk XIV.

 

 

5 minutes +25 lbs boost max speed, before BoX developers engine modelling artificial 'timer' mechanism damages the engine.

 

If they keep this artificial 'timer' automatic engine damage as a thing for BoBP, then I hope the developers get the Spitfire IX pilot notes limit of 1 hour @ 2850 rpm and +12 lbs boost correct (i.e. not 30 minutes).

 

I say this because with the Spitfire V, they have only given 30 minutes, instead of the RAF pilot notes stated 1 hour, at the equivalent setting of 2850 rpm and +9 lbs boost.

 

The issue I would like to highlight here, is that most people seem to miss the fact that Pilot Notes General (PNG) are supposed to be read as a 'companion' to individual Pilot Notes (PN).  This is important because PNG give us a clear definition of what the limits in the individual PN mean.   Therefore, it is worth noting at the top of page 26 of PNG, that the engine limit figures provided in the PN are defined as a general guide only and that in combat and emergency other considerations may justify the pilot in disregarding these restrictions.

This is for British aircraft and engines, so is not historically relative evidence for other aircraft types, although the USA did manufacture and use some British engines.

 

Please see below for a link to AP 2095 Pilots Notes General (2nd ed 1943). 

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/ap2095-pilots-notes-general.26671/

 

There will be significantly more British aircraft and engines in BoBP.  So, if the developers continue to treat PN limits as strict hard and fast limits and continue to set artificial timers for engine damage that take no account of the definition and meaning of the limits in the wider context, we will need to fly more aircraft with a stop watch, or keep techno chat on the screen all the time to tell us us how to fly. 

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[Royal_Flight]

Wasn't the Mk.21 the one with a new wing + aileron type?

 

Yeah, the mk 21 and the Seafire mk 45 which it was based on had a new wing design, which lost the elliptical shape. The new Seafire wing was non-folding as well, and by this point they all had two 20mm Hispanos in each wing and bubble canopies too.

 

The Seafire mk 47, the last one to see combat, had folding wings again, and a taller fin plus contra-rotating propellor mounted in a longer nose with a chin air-intake, and by this point looked like an absolute monster and nothing like the elegant racing streamlined Spitfire mk I.

Still very cool looking though, but in a different way.

 

Edited February 11, 2018 by Royal_Flight

[NZTyphoon]

 

 

 

Btw, does anyone know how many of the bubble top Spitfire XIV's with the full wing as seen on the painting above were employed during WW2?

Not many, because 2 TAF combat tactics meant that most combat took place at low-medium altitudes. A photo of EB-V NH745 does show that it had the standard wingtips, albeit, not forgetting that converting to clipped wings was relatively easy.

They did more than just take out targets of opportunity. They had the specific task of disrupting transportation behind the front. That‘s locomotives and anything with wheels primarily. Hence four 20 mm guns with plenty ammo were more than adequate for the job, as they usually could only make one pass at such targets. Trains were issued Flak cars (front and rear often), also motorized columns had often such protection.

 

The standard procedure was: Entering patrol area at low level (1000 to 2000 m altitude) and high cruise speed (about 600 km/h) and look out for smoke columns that were a good sign for locomotives. If the smoke was straight up, they assumed being detected and Flak gunners ready, finger on the trigger. In that case, they would generally abort attack. If the locomotive was moving, the best strategy was to attack at low level in pairs from the locomotives 4 or 8 o‘clock position. The one plane located on the side of the locomotive would take that one, the other for the aft cars. This way, they didn‘t risk the leader getting stuck by ricochets of the second plane. The rest of the flight would attack in pairs as well.

 

In the beginning, they would use flights of 8 aircraft, usually two flights at the time and planned to operate close enough to each other to be of assistance. That increased to flights of 16 aircraft when the Tempests had theis asses handed to them by the Germans in an unlucky mission that made Fairbanks spend the rest of the war enjoying German hospitality, much rather than continuing investing a wingman in a next personal score.

 

Encounters with the Germans did happen usually when they crossed path of a German squadron commuting in circus manner between airfields. So you had 8 Tempests vs a whole wing of Germans. Needless to say, cards were played once the other 8 Tempests could arrive on scene.

 

What also was frequent, is that they received message about German aircraft shooting allied motorized convoys. Then they would proceed there to be of assistance. What you had then were fights in usually miserable weather between treetops and very low clouds, as the Germans would not dare venturing to make a lot if noise in broad daylight with only a handfull aircraft by that time. But that miserable winter helped them.

 

 

Coincidentally, see also my post here

Edited February 12, 2018 by NZTyphoon

[Panthera]

Not many, because 2 TAF combat tactics meant that most combat took place at low-medium altitudes. A photo of EB-V NH745 does show that it had the standard wingtips, albeit, not forgetting that converting to clipped wings was relatively easy.

Spitfire XIVE 41.jpg

 

So there's no number available? I guess most of the full wing XIV's were razorbacks then.

 

Thanks for the pic btw  (ps: is that a belly tank I'm spotting?)

Edited February 12, 2018 by Panthera

[unreasonable]

So there's no number available? I guess most of the full wing XIV's were razorbacks then.

 

Thanks for the pic btw  (ps: is that a belly tank I'm spotting?)

 

The picture is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_(Griffon-powered_variants)at least it is in there, I do not know if NZTyphoon got it from there.  Yes, it is a slipper tank between the radiators.

 

Lots of interesting info about Griffon Spitfires here, even if it does not exactly answer your numbers question.

[Panthera]

The picture is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_(Griffon-powered_variants)at least it is in there, I do not know if NZTyphoon got it from there.  Yes, it is a slipper tank between the radiators.

 

Lots of interesting info about Griffon Spitfires here, even if it does not exactly answer your numbers question.

 

Were the slipper tanks jettisnable?

[unreasonable]

Were the slipper tanks jettisnable?

 

Yes, according to this article. https://www.aerosociety.com/news/escort-spitfire-a-missed-opportunity-for-longer-reach/

 

Google search really works - sometimes.

[Panthera]

I see, I guess it came about as there was to little room for a conventional tear drop tank.

[NZTyphoon]

Here's some more info on that particular Spitfire XIV: from Shores & Thomas, 2nd Tactical Air Force, Volume 3

 

It looks like 41 Sqn, at least, kept the standard wingtips: from Andrew Thomas, Griffon Spitfire Aces

 

[NZTyphoon]

I see, I guess it came about as there was to little room for a conventional tear drop tank.

That wasn't really a problem, because the Spitfire did carry 500 lb bombs under the fuselage, plus a 250 lb bomb under each wing.

All that happened was that Supermarine developed the 'slipper' tank in 1940/41, because there were no drop tanks or drop tank pylons readily available. (NB Some Hawker Hurricane Is used 1 x 44 gallon fuel tanks under each wing to transit to Malta in 1940, but they were not drop tanks, as such. Similar tanks were later fitted to Typhoons)

The Brits never really standardized their drop tank designs in the same way the Americans or Germans did, thus the Spitfire, continued to use various sizes of slipper tanks right through the war. The main exception was the 45 gallon "torpedo" tank used on many 2 TAF Spitfires, eg: 485(NZ) Sqn. Spitfire L.F Mk. IX

 

[HBPencil]

So there's no number available? I guess most of the full wing XIV's were razorbacks then.

 

Thanks for the pic btw  (ps: is that a belly tank I'm spotting?)

I doubt there could ever be a solid figure available as the use of clipped wing tips was influenced by the aircraft's role rather than what other production features it featured... although if rear fuselage fuel tanks were fitted it was common (mandatory for the IX/XVI) to have clipped wing tips. As NZTyphoon pointed out changing the tips could be done at unit level.

 

That wasn't really a problem, because the Spitfire did carry 500 lb bombs under the fuselage, plus a 250 lb bomb under each wing.

All that happened was that Supermarine developed the 'slipper' tank in 1940/41, because there were no drop tanks or drop tank pylons readily available. (NB Some Hawker Hurricane Is used 1 x 44 gallon fuel tanks under each wing to transit to Malta in 1940, but they were not drop tanks, as such. Similar tanks were later fitted to Typhoons)

The Brits never really standardized their drop tank designs in the same way the Americans or Germans did, thus the Spitfire, continued to use various sizes of slipper tanks right through the war. The main exception was the 45 gallon "torpedo" tank used on many 2 TAF Spitfires, eg: 485(NZ) Sqn. Spitfire L.F Mk. IX

 

485 torpedo.jpg

Sorry, as I'll probably come across as pedantic, but that's a Hawker 44gal 'cigar' tank on Houlton's LF.IXe, the 'torpedo' tank was introduced post war like so:

In regards to the 'cigar' and 'torpedo' tank, check out posts #11, 16 and 20 of this thread: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/57262-help-please-spitfire-drop-tanks/

For what it's worth I've never seen a 'cigar' tank on the XIV. Just as a piece of trivia but I've seen a photo (can't remember where sorry) of a Maltese MkV carrying a pair of 'cigar' tanks strapped together using some sort of locally produced mounting.

[NZTyphoon]

 

Sorry, as I'll probably come across as pedantic, but that's a Hawker 44gal 'cigar' tank on Houlton's LF.IXe, the 'torpedo' tank was introduced post war...

 

Yep, quite right 'tis indeed the 'cigar' tank. Thanks for the link to Britmodeller. A photo of that Malta based Vc carrying twin tanks is in Christopher Shores' Malta: The Spitfire Year 1942 page 341: the caption reads Spitfire Vc fitted with a pair of locally modified Hurricane long range tanks, as used during sorties flown in support of the June convoy.

[Panthera]

Just found this picture lurking on my harddrive and couldn't resist posting it here:

[HBPencil]

Spitfire Vc fitted with a pair of locally modified Hurricane long range tanks, as used during sorties flown in support of the June convoy.

Ah yes, that's the one

 

Just found this picture lurking on my harddrive and couldn't resist posting it here:

A classic shot, that transparent streamlined plug for the .50cal fairing is a pretty cool detail as well as the rare set-up of having it in the outer bay rather than the inner.