Guest Mike Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 The Spitfire Performance Website has recently updated to include lots of data on P38's, P47's, and P51's. Great reading - moreso if you're into lots of technical info like climb rates, power at altitude, etc. The pick of the crop is, IMO, a report on Mustang I & II operations in 1943 - particularly "Rhubarb" ops, with heaps and heaps of info on how they were performed, comparisons between the Mustang and Me-109 & Fw-190, training, etc - it's a real gold mine! Also a good summary of service and characteristics of the Spitfire XII has been recently added - initially a Spit V with a Griffon III engine added and optimised for low-medium level ops, later production used a Spit VIII airframe instead. Only 100 of this type were built, from October 1942 to August 1943. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Of interest is also a report on flight tests of a Fw-190D-9 - the conclusion being that the increased performance of the a/c agaisnt the radial engined 190's was probably more than offset by its poor handling qualities! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanadu Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Pilots of the Spitfire XII were not happy with its ground handling qualities. It was an excellent low level fighter once in the air, but getting there was a problem. The Spitfire, like most high performance single engine prop a/c have a 'bend' in the airframe, so the the engine thrust line is actually about 1 to 1 and a half degrees off the a/c center line. This is to help compensate for the torque effect on take off. The Griffin rotates the opposite way from the Merlin for some reason, and had much more torque, but due to the hurry to get the XII in business, nobody appearantly thought to change the 'bend'. Result was that the throttle had to be opened VERY slowly and carefully on take off. The slightest carelessness and the a/c would either charge off in an unplanned direction, or ground loop viciously. At best, the a/c needed a much longer take off run than the Merlin models. Efforts were made in the MkXIV, to deal with the problem but it was never totally cured. The Griffin Spitfires were all really over engined for the airframe, and the handling characteristics suffered. Ginger Lacy was nearly killed converting to the MkXIV because he misjudged the difference in alititude loss is common maneuvers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 A pilot in New Zealand was almost killed in a Spit XIV not so long ago - he owned 2 - the other being a merlin engined spitfire XVI & got the torque wrong with the Griffon engined XIV As it was: As it currently is: I can't find a photo of it actually crashed, but the left wing was torn off and the fuselage "extensively" damaged - I remember seeing photos of it at the time and it was resting with its right wing pointing directly up into the air!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Spitfire suxzors, long live the Ki.84!!!!!!!!!! (see Stalin, I can comment on aeroplanes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Absolutely - and I never said you should make sense when you did either so that's good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 If you dont understand suxzors and you have to have your kids make google searches, and you continue to be the only one posting in your own thread, I can understand why you dont understand and that you think its good that you dont understand me. -Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 I understand suxzors - it's just nonsense as description of a Spitfire as compared to any Japanese aircraft......or in any other evaluation of a Spitfirre come to think of it It should refer to the Jap carp/rice burner in the comparison And if you think I'm the only one posting here then you REALLY need to get that cold fixed up!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanadu Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 To Stalin: Yup, sounds just like a ground loop. A lot of engine torque + narrow undercarrige + pilot with wrong foot down = prang job!! Hope the pilot didn't get too badly banged on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Not quite a ground loop - it swung during hte take off and hit a boundary fence before it was corrected - the pilot was pretty badly smashed up & can't fly anymore - you can look up some info on it all - the a/c was ZK-XIV, ser NH799 and the pilot Sir Tim Wallis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanadu Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Sorry to hear he got hurt. Hitting solid stuff is bad!!! Quote from RAF Flt. Lt. Don Healy, No. 17 Sq. '45: "The Mk XIV was a hairy beast to fly, and took some getting used to. ... We were told to open the throttle very slowly at the start of our take-off,with full opposite rudder applied ... Even with full aileron, elevator and rudder, this brute ... still took off slightly sideways. "(The XIV) was 2000 lbs heavier than the Mk VIII, there for ... it tended to 'wash out' when being flown (in loops and rolls) this way. 'Ginger' Lacey graphically demonstrated how serious a problem this was when he attempted to do a loop from what he thought was an adequate starting height ... At the bottom of the loop he cleared the ground by barely four feet, and upon recovering back at the field, looked ten years older ..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts