Jump to content

Friedrich-4B

Members
  • Posts

    709
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Friedrich-4B

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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:
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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)
  7. Eee ooohhh arrr! Great work. The colours look fantastic and should lend themselves to other desert or Italian based Spitfires.
  8. :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:
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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:
  13. 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)
  14. 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.
  15. That page looks to be from a set of Spitfire II training notes, dated June/July 1940 which do indeed mention a 10 G limit. However, as noted in a page posted by Hiromachi, in 1940 wings that had already been damaged didn't fail until 12.3 and 13 G respectively (800 mph @ 6,200 lbs) so the jury's still out on a 10 G limit In addition, the Pilot's Notes General note that the limitations noted often had a safety factor of 2; thus 10G in a set of pilot's training notes could well mean 20 G - see Introductory para (ii) ... continuing with section 2 Limiting Speeds (i) Diving Nobody has yet posted any reliable figures on the Spitfire L.F. Mk IX's limitations, apart from some speculative comment about the limits being no higher than earlier Spitfire marks. But, as it is, I have no doubts that Yo-Yo has more information about the IX's G limits than all of the rest of us combined.
  16. No problem - I was agreeing with you, but also disagreeing with an earlier claim that had been posted, to the effect that the structure failed at around 10 G because of the elevators alone: there is nothing in any Spitfire manual that "explicitly" says that. :smilewink:
  17. Nor are there any Spitfire "manuals" that specify 10 G as the structural limit. Without any such evidence, it's just pure speculation that Spitfires invariably broke up at around 10 G because of the elevators alone. Here are details of the IX's wing construction from Spitfire Mk IX & XVI Engineered: The usual average WW 2 pilot could blackout between 4 to 6.5 g, depending on the pilot and the cockpit environment: unconsciousness could occur without warning during high speed pullouts etc of 3 to 10 g.
  18. Glad to be of help; I struck the same problem during one of the few flights I've been able to make (with Christmas and holidays and trekking around, visiting relies etc) and figured it had to be vapour-lock. It shows how well ED's developers have replicated the Spitfire. And, yes the boost pump and vapour-lock would be worth a mention in the flight manual and QS guide: that should stop the air in computer rooms turning blue and vapourizing. :smilewink:
  19. A bit of background to this: many early Spitfire F. Mk IXs with Merlin 61s were fitted with an automatic tank pressurizing valve, plus a fuel cooler fitted in the port wing root. From the Spitfire IX (Merlin 61) Pilot's Notes, August 1942: Paragraph 6: With the Merlin 66 and its Stromberg Injector carburettor, the fuel pressure was increased from c. 8-10 lbs/sq. in. to 14-16 lbs/sq. in. plus the fuel system was modified on all but the earliest L.F. Mk. IXs* to include the booster pump in the lower fuel tank. *This means those L.F Mk IXs that were built by Supermarine from February 1943, in the EN529-EN637 range http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p036.html range. The mass production of L.F Mk. IXs started at Castle Bromwich in July 1943, in the MH3xx range http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p063.html - in the interim, priority had been given to building the L.F. Mk. VIII w/Merlin66.
  20. The fuel tanks were pressurized to prevent vapour lock: as blue_six discovered, entering a climb with tank pressurization off led to his fuel boiling and developing vapour lock, which doesn't necessarily register as low fuel pressure. From FAA Regulations: Chapter 14: Aircraft Fuel System: Once blue_six pressurized the fuel tank, the fuel began to settle down, but the condensing fuel had more than likely left water in the system, that began to form ice crystals at high altitude. Result = low fuel pressure and an embarrassing silence... In other words, keep your fuel tanks pressurized, and the fuel booster pump installed in the fuel tank is also there for a good reason. :smilewink:
  21. There seems to be some confusion here, probably because the language in the 1946 IX/XI/XVI Pilot's Notes is confusing: I would suggest ignoring those notes Put simply:If the cut off control is opened(ie: pushed forward) before the engine fires, all you're doing is flooding the engine! These pages are from the Spitfire VII/VIII PN's, dated December 1943: these state quite clearly that the idle cut out control is opened (pushed forward) after the engine fires, and certainly not before priming the engine! Here are the pages from the Merlin 60-85 series Maintenance manual, January/July 1944: idle cut-off control open (pushed forward) after the engine has started. There's nothing complicated or buggy about ED's starting sequence.
  22. A very useful article on EN398 can be found on here, The Spitfire Site. Note that one reader has commented on the Maple Leaf insignia: According to Canadian researchers from an outfit called Aviaeology, it would seem that Canada supplied maple leaf decals to its overseas RCAF units, which would surely have included Johnson's Canadian squadrons. All of the decals were red maple leafs, not green, so I would argue that EN398's maple leaf was red. Below are some of the "1st generation" (14 & 14a) and "2nd generation" (15 to 15d) maple leaf insignia styles used by RCAF aircraft (NB:from one of Aviaeology's decal sheets AOD48005 Canadians in Fighter Command #1: RCAF Mosquitoes, featuring Mosquitoes of 418 Sqn.) A close look at the photo in Basco1's post shows that Johnson's maple leaf was similar in style to 14 or 14a. (There also seems to be some wear/light exhaust staining.) Also note that EN398, being a very early Mk IX, retained the teardrop shaped upper ID light behind the aerial mast.
  23. A history of EN398, courtesy of Alfred Price The Spitfire Story (2010, revised edition)
  24. Sorry, but taking the anti-glare panel on a modern USN jet and extrapolating that to incorporate all WW 2 aircraft, such as the Spitfire, is completely wrong. British paint specifications of WW2 called for smooth, non-reflective paint on all surfaces; there was never a separate anti-glare panel along the top of the nose, except on those Spitfires that were either stripped to bare metal, or repainted in a high-speed silver. Below is a 1940 vintage document, detailing the change from pre-war matt paints to wartime 'S' (smooth) type that were manufactured using more finely ground pigments. This beautifully restored Spitfire IX has been completed in the correct colours with the correct, satin sheen, typical of a factory fresh or well maintained Spitfire. (For skin makers, note the shape of the exhaust stains along the cowling and forward fuselage) While flying at certain angles, the camera picks up some glare from the nose, but it is not affecting the pilot because he is looking along the upper cowling at a very shallow angle; he's far more likely to be blinded by glare from the wings, because the light is bouncing off at a greater angle. As it is, we know that ED's ground crews work hard to keep their aircraft in tip-top shape, so us pilots can do our best to wreck the engines, get shot to pieces or do crazy things while taking off or landing. :music_whistling:
×
×
  • Create New...