Friedrich-4B

Fortunately for the pilots, the D-30 series on were fitted with "Compressibility Recovery Brakes": if deployed properly, they assisted the pilot by reducing the dive speeds, thus reducing the likelihood that the pilot would lose control. The P-47D pilot's manual states that the main problem with the aircraft in a dive was the tendency for the nose to "dig in" ie; go nose down. The recommendation was to keep the aircraft trimmed for high-speed flight before entering the dive.

There were conflicting opinions and conflicting flight test results - mainly on Mk Vs - as to how effective the clipped wings were: in some cases, it was down to the personal preferences of the pilots. AFAIK, for 2 TAF Spitfires especially, the clipped wings helped relieve some of the bending stresses incurred on the outer wings during dive/glide bombing attacks. Most of the Mk XVIs had clipped wingtips, as did many XIVs; not sure of the ratio of L.F. Mk. IXs with clipped wings cf normal wings. Yep, those extended wingtips were hardly worthwhile, considering their disadvantages outweighed whatever small advantage they offered in climb rate at altitude and any possible increase in service ceiling.

Wonder if it would be possible for the Germans to shell some ALGs for a few weeks after D-Day, just to make life even more interesting..? :smilewink: :pilotfly:

The carburettor (Stromberg PD-18A-1 in Packard vs Stromberg 8D/44/1 in R-R) made no noticeable difference to the fuel consumption of the Spitfire XVI cf the IX. Obviously not, according to the fuel consumption figures noted in Pilot's Flight Manuals and Pilot's Notes, some of which have been shown in this thread, and in several other threads discussing the P-51D and Spitfire. Yo-Yo's comments on why this was seem to be the most logical explanation as to why the Mustang had a higher fuel consumption.

Spitfire L.F. Mk IX: maximum allowable coolant temp = 135° C. @ +18 lbs @ 3,000 rpm (Oil = 105° C.) P-51D: maximum allowable coolant temp = 121° C. @ 67" Hg @ 3,000 rpm (Oil = 105° C.) Presumably the addition of the 85 gal rear fuel tank in later P-51Ds also allowed more latitude for the increased fuel flow rates, compared with the D-5.

Another interesting detail is that the P-51D-5 Pilot's Notes, dated April 1944, shows a consumption rate of 194/187 U.S Gall p/h @ 67 Hg @ 3,000 rpm (162/156 Imp Gal p/h) Whereas the P-51D/K Training Manual, printed August 1945, shows the 211/215 U.S Gal p/h @ 67 Hg @ 3,000 rpm mentioned by Kurfurst (176/179 Imp Gal p/h)

Excellent! :thumbup::thumbup:

Eee ooohhh arrr! Great work. The colours look fantastic and should lend themselves to other desert or Italian based Spitfires.

:yes: Okay, you've got me there; one of my hobbies is model building, which means I can be a pain in the neck when discussing colour schemes and markings...old habits, etc etc :smilewink:

I have long been aware that Johnson used two or more IX's with his initials JE-J, and that MK392, in particular had several variations in its colour schemes and markings during it's lifetime. "Definitely" is the wrong word to use when there is still a great deal of contention among aviation historians and other enthusiasts as to the colour of the the maple leaf on EN398: What specific documentation(I'm not talking about art work), apart from Johnson's account in Wing Leader, supports the Green maple leaf? I'm not saying Johnson was wrong; all I'm saying is keep an open mind when it comes to the specifics of aircraft colour schemes, particularly the smaller, personal emblems. I wasn't questioning your references, I was pointing out that other researchers have a different POV and that I tend to agree. I have also pointed out that the red maple leaf was by far the most popular emblem used by Canadian units, and that the Canadian government issued specially made decals to RCAF squadrons. This, I would have thought, is useful information for those wanting to develop Canadian themed skins for the L.F Mk IX.

Production of the Supermarine built Spitfire L.F. Mk. IXs started in February-March 1943, beginning with EN529 - 583, after which production was concentrated on Mk VIIIs, including several hundred L.F. Mk. VIII w/Merlin 66, built in 1943. Castle Bromwich production of the L.F. Mk. IX started in August 1943, * beginning in the MH35xserial range: * then MH612 & on, alongside of Merlin 63 F. Mk. IXs: *MH813-MJ516 alongside of Merlin 63 F. Mk IXs (September - mainly October '43): *MJ16x - MJ428 serial range (October/November '43): * MJ441-MJ698 (November-December '43: * MJ712-MJ942 (mainly December 1943). All Merlin 66s were able to use +18 lbs boost right from the start. So, no, the so-called "LFIX Merlin 66 @ 18lbs boost" was not built only from 1944 on.

It can definitely be confirmed that the TR 1143 was the standard R/T fit for Spitfires, starting in 1942: the exceptions were Spitfires that were given to the USSR and some other countries.

Indeed, there some weird things being said in this thread, which is why, perhaps, you didn't get the joke about 20 G. :music_whistling: My main point was this:

That distortion only applied to the early windscreens fitted to Mk Is, IIs and VA/VBs: these had curved side panels and an external bullet-resistant windscreen: (Spitfire VB, Flt Lt Eric Lock, 611 Sqn, July 1941.) From the VC series on, the structure was composed of optically flat panels, including the internal bullet-resistant windscreen: (Spitfire L.F Mk. IX, Sqn Ldr John Plagis, 126 Sqn July 1944)

An article on the effects of G-forces on pilots, written in the September 1945 issue of Flying Magazine, can be found starting here (page 50) and continuing here, on page 92: the article, which continues to page 96, is well worth a read.