Friedrich-4B

Correction: None of the trials listed by Morgan and Shacklady could be posted. A completely ridiculous claim; the actual statement was: Followed by: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2275726&postcount=353 I wonder if the build quality problems being experienced by MTT Regensburg had anything to do with using PoWs, forced foreign labour and slave (concentration camp) workers?

There's also BS534 which reached 407 mph at 22,000 ft http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bs543.html not forgetting that Kurfurst chose to use a Mk VIII test, but excluded MA648 (411 mph), supposedly because of the injection pump which, according to the report increased the full throttle height and the top speed slightly, but nothing much else: the same report shows that JL165's performance was well below the average of four Spitfires with Merlin 66s that were tested (388 mph vs 411, 407 and 404 mph) http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ma648.html JL.165 was manufactured at Castle Bromwich as a Spitfire V (Merlin 45) and delivered on March 27, 1943. It was subsequently converted to a LFIX (Merlin 66) at Rolls Royce, Hucknall; it definitely wasn't a "serial production" L.F Mk IX. It was built at about the time there were some build quality issues being noted; here is the relevant post: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2270426&postcount=339 The report on JL165 also noted the following: the R-R report on JL165 (pdf file attached) notes that In fact the F.S full throttle heights were 13,800 ft and 14,400 ft vs a normal full throttle height of about 19-21,000 ft http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165.html Yes, the tests were very enlightening, unfortunately because there were some fundamental mistakes being made, as noted on the first page of the report: Things got better, because the top speed was reached above the full throttle limits, creating some confusion over the results: "Checks on another Spitfire will be made when available." Nor was the equipment used to conduct the test specified, except that the climb tests used a stopwatch and the altimeter... So, the RAAF tests can be considered very reliable :smilewink: and indicative of the performance to be expected by an L.F Mk IX with normal wingtips and weighing some 200+ lbs less than a Mk VIII ;) Test conditions unknown; it is also known that the Russians often underestimated the performance of foreign aircraft. Well, that's Kurfurst's opinion; no doubt the ED team will have better info available to them. It should be noted that the RAF recognised that the Mk IX was nearing obsolescence as a pure fighter over Europe, which is why it became a low-level tactical fighter-bomber - most test reports after the preliminary speed/climb reports with testbeds concerned the Spitfire L.F IX's handling with various bombloads etc: from Morgan & Shacklady:

Specific page numbers and or references, please. As already mentioned, a large number of the pages of the document are unreadable so clearer scans would be good. Those who were actually in the USAAF have a different opinion. Not that many people at my local airfield could explain how the USAAF operated 70 odd years ago. No problem. As this is OT of this thread, so it would be far better to open a new thread to deal with this.

YES YES...the stencil points the to the required instructions and Technical Orders covered under the Special Projects designation. OR the mechanic had to follow instructions issued by a Modification Center......there were several centers in the United States and one in England IIRC. Additionally there were scores of engineers stationed at the centers, manufacturers, and operational units. [NB: This answer since modified by Crumpp]:The Special Project number is specific to the Special Project the aircraft is modified under. In other words, 100/150 grade corresponds to the Special project denoting modifications to use that fuel. You cannot understand the technical development of these aircraft without having a grasp of the maintenance and modification procedures. Unfortunately, none of the answers explain the meaning and purpose of those Spec.Proj stencils, which were, as already pointed out by Milo, the codes showing where aircraft were to be delivered by Air Transport Command- nothing more; they had absolutely nothing to do with the modification state of the airframe or engine: http://forum.armyairforces.com/Project-numbers-m236146.aspx http://forum.armyairforces.com/AAF-Special-projects-Numbers-AAF-Spec-Proj-No-P51D-Mustang-m219532.aspx Also, much of the attached pdf file on "The Modification of USAAF Aircraft" is unreadable.

So, to clarify; Any aircraft with "AAF. Spec.Proj.No.xxxx" on the technical data stencil was part of a special project being run by the USAAF? Any aircraft coded with a Spec.Proj stencil needed special treatment from the ground crew? In addition, the aircraft in question had to go through a modification centre before it was declared a Spec.Proj? Were Spec.Proj numbers specific to that aircraft, or to a series of aircraft? Is there any documentation to show that Crumpp's claims about the meaning of Spec.Proj is correct?

So what were the special servicing instructions for this 462nd FS, 506th FG Mustang, based on Iwo Jima and the Mediterranean based 31st FG, 15th AF P-51D marked "Special Project"? (NB: also included is a 4th FS, 3rd Commando Group Mustang - to see the Special Projects Number, which was partially obliterated, the image has to go to full size.)

Just for interest; identifying the MK 108's shells:

According to the Pilot's Instructions AN-01-60JE-1:

All the testing with early Mk IXs with the Merlin 66 showed an average top speed of about 404 mph; considering that the build quality improved and features such as the rounded, faired mirror and gun bay doors with the single "slim" blisters were introduced, there's no reason to believe that the performance figures magically slipped below par. Oh yes, there is an RAAF performance report on a Spitfire L.F Mk VIII with the Merlin 66, but it goes on to state that the top speed was reached above critical full throttle height and that the figures were lower than those achieved in British tests; because of these inconsistencies, checks on another Spitfire VIII would be carried out "when available". I take it from this that Kurfurst is privy to documentation and/or secondary source material that shows that none of the "plans and attempts" were realised, and that the build quality and so-called "aerodynamic quality" problems were not remedied?

As the report notes, the fall in top speed... To claim that this document somehow proves that early production Spitfires had poor build quality is drawing a very long, inaccurate bow, particularly when the report - that Kurfurst has had for a long time - lists the items of added equipment, and the speed penalty they imposed; eg; external bulletproof windscreen = -7.75 mph, unfaired rear view mirror = - 6.75 mph etc. One other item of speed loss not mentioned by the report were IFF Mk I aerial wires which ran from the tips of the tailplane to the fuselage - these cost another 2 mph. At the same time, the addition of CS propellers meant that the takeoff and landing distances decreased, while the climb speed and service ceiling increased markedly. As Alfred Price pointed out, the later production Spitfire I was more fit for purpose than early production examples, in spite of the fall in top speed. The report makes it clear that this did not apply to all Mk Vs, noting that early production Mk Vs were faster than later Mk Is. It then goes on to note that added extra equipment and a "large fall" in build quality during production of the Mk V led to a loss of at least 15.5 mph. Once again, as already noted, concurrent with the release of this RAE report, steps were already being taken to reverse the poor build quality on the factory floor, and to ensure better maintenance in the field. By contrast, during late 1944 and 1945 the build quality of late 109Gs and the 109K-4's deteriorated badly, and there was no time or opportunity for remedial action.

Attached is the full RAE report on the finish and equipment of the Spitfire VC and IX. Coinciding with the RAE report, steps were already being taken to improve the finish of Spitfires on the production line; it was also agreed that improved servicing standards on squadrons would be promulgated: eg: It should also be noted that the top speeds quoted in the RAE report were measured on Spitfire VC conversions, or very early production Spitfire IXs which had several drag producing features not found on most production L.F Mk IXs; eg: the rectangular, unfaired rear-view mirror, which shaved 3.25 mph off the top speed, and the 20mm gun bay doors with the large blister to allow for the installation of two Hispanos in each wing = - 1.5 mph. Nor did they have the flush ejector chutes = - 1.25 mph. The rest of the L.F Mk IXs tested by Rolls-Royce, Supermarine or other RAF testing stations were either converted from Mk VCs, or were very early production IXs with a Merlin 66.

Mod XXX: Horses and ploughs (would make a great obstruction during an emergency landing): A crane Bundles of wheat Stacks of jerrycans: Dust Santa (an oldy, but still good): And Santa's helper:

A NACA report on the P-47D-30 should be of interest: (NB: The full title is FLIGHT MEASUREMENTS OF FLYING QUALITIES OF A P-47D-30 AIRPLANE (AAF NO 43-3441) TO DETERMINE LONGITUDINAL STABILITY AND CONTROL AND STALLING CHARACTERISTICS.)

The S.U injection pump is an aside, otherwise MA648 was representative of mid-late production Spitfire L.F. Mk IXs. The "new" type of air intake was the lengthened carburettor intake duct incorporating a Vokes Aero-Vee filter; this was standardised on the Mk VIII in mid-1943 and the Mk IX a few months later.

Definitely a guess; the Merlin 66 still produced over 1,000hp at 30,000 feet. :huh: Pilum specified the P-47D-10 and the Spitfire L.F. Mk. IX, so that's quite clear. Crumpp specified the P-47D-22, using 56" Hg, but failed to mention that this block number was the first to be equipped with the bigger diameter, paddle-bladed propeller, so there would have been variations - albeit small - in turning capabilities. The main variations for the Spitfire L.F Mk IX were normal or clipped wings, or C or E armament. Just for interest the attached file is from the P-47D Pilot's Training Manual:

Just got a copy of Spitfire Aces of Northwest Europe 1944-45; this provides a good, albeit condensed, account of Spitfire 2TAF and ADGB ops. It also provides some good colour profiles and photos.

:huh: This has nothing to do with the thread, which is discussing the Battle of the Crimea and the maps being used by DCS. Something like this?

Nice truism :smilewink: ;however, whether any of the pilots were exceptional or not isn't really an issue (albeit three P-40s were subsequently shot down by Marseille and Hothum.) The point of the extract is to respond to comments about the P-40's handling qualities; it's also an example of a fighter that hung off its propeller and successfully shot up an opponent, something Caldwell did after pulling his Kittyhawk up from a short dive.

In one famous encounter, on 21 february 1942, Australian ace Sqn. Ldr. Clive Caldwell, flying a Kittyhawk of 112 Sqn, shot down the 109F of Leutnant Hans-Arnold Stahlschmidt of I./JG 27, while in a vertical climb and hanging off the propeller: Stahlschmidt crashed in no-man's land and was picked up by a German patrol: Homuth and Marseille retaliated by shooting down 3 Kittyhawks from Caldwell's formation.

These are from the 109 K Handbuch, November 1944 Teil 4 showing how the control linkages were set:

1st t1f0u9 - Fw 190A 2nd Копия x 4.rar - Gotta be an Allison V-1710 P-40 (or Yak 3) 3rd JsF1a45e - Griffon Spitfire XIX or XIV

Then there were the M2 & M3 halftracks. Anything from .50 cal up could knock those out.

Apart from the D on the engine block, the oil filler was higher up on the forward cowling for D powered 109s (Mermet 109 G/K engines and fittings): [/url] According to the Flugzeug Profile 44 on the 109G/K, the Rüstsatz designation for the K-4 was K-4/R4, although other sources state it was still /R6;

In his JG 26 War Diaries, Donald Caldwell wrote that in October 1944, III./JG 26 were using K-4s equipped with gun-pods. Apparently the pilots didn't like them, because they made the K-4s unwieldy at height. I'll dig out the extract.

The Mustang's using 67" Hg, the K-4 1.8 ata plus MW50.