Spitfire celebrates 75th anniversary

[juddy]

Check out this amazing formation, and just listen to the sound of those Merlin Engines, such a haunting sound of WW2

YouTube - 16 Spitfires Flying Together. Duxford Battle Of Britain Airshow.


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2011/03/1152.jpg

[Grover-98]

They sure do sound mint in person!... certainly sound better then my electric RC Spitfire! :D

[Bearman]

You're rightg, nothing comes close to the sound of a V12 Merlin!

[Landy110]

So right, I just got off posting in the "top 10 low pass" thread about how jets are just fast and noisey. I put a few links to vids like this one there. I have never seen this one before though so thanks, it is brilliant.

I have had the knee trembling pleasure of seeing and more importantly hearing a P51 and a Spitfire at full noise on low passes at different airshows and there is absolutely nothing like it.

Steve

[Bearman]

How about the Vought Corsair F4U. The most powerful piston engined fighter ever built. Famous as per "Pappy" Boyingtons black sheep squadron. Anyone got a recording of one?

[rick130]

How about the Vought Corsair F4U. The most powerful piston engined fighter ever built. Famous as per "Pappy" Boyingtons black sheep squadron. Anyone got a recording of one?

I think the Hawker Sea Fury was the fastest in level flight though ;)

[Bearman]

I think the Hawker Sea Fury was the fastest in level flight though ;)

Another impressive aircraft, but I think the Corsair may not have been the fastest but had the most powerful (4500HP on final development) twin radial engine ever fitted to a WW2 fighter. They were a carrier aircraft with inverted gull wing and very heavy. Have you heard of the "black sheep" squadron?. Worth a look. Apparently they were the misfits (black sheep) from all the squadrons who wouldn't accept orders etc. and they were banished to the VMF214 squadron in the Pacific theatre. An interesting read. History has it that they destroyed an amazing number of Jap aircraft.

[101RRS]

The Sea Fury was the most powerful single engine propeller aircraft - its most powerful version was rated up to 4000hp

[Bearman]

The Sea Fury was the most powerful single engine propeller aircraft - its most powerful version was rated up to 4000hp

You're right Gary, somehow I was of the impression that the Corsair got up to 4500hp on final development but I just had a look on the internet and 2450hp was the figure.

[juddy]

Yes the Sea Fury was a very fast airplane, and a fine looking one too, last Prop driven fighter to serve with the RAF, i believe the RAAF also used them....

[Landy110]

How about the Vought Corsair F4U. The most powerful piston engined fighter ever built. Famous as per "Pappy" Boyingtons black sheep squadron. Anyone got a recording of one?

your wish is my command
YouTube - F4U Corsair "Whistling Death" Flight Demonstration !

[Landy110]

And the Sea Fury, I have seen one of these in flight at an airshow at Naromine I think. It looked so impressive in flight and when it landed and taxied down to the main terminal it's nose sat well above the cesnas and tiger moths. So powerful just to look at but the sound, did I mention that I love the round sound. It is written that "If aero engines where meant to be any configuration other than round, Pratt & Whitney would have made them that way". Having said that, thank god and the poms for the Merlin.
YouTube - Hawker Seafury AWESOME SOUND !

[JDNSW]

And the Sea Fury, I have seen one of these in flight at an airshow at Naromine I think. It looked so impressive in flight and when it landed and taxied down to the main terminal it's nose sat well above the cesnas and tiger moths. So powerful just to look at but the sound, did I mention that I love the round sound. It is written that "If aero engines where meant to be any configuration other than round, Pratt & Whitney would have made them that way". Having said that, thank god and the poms for the Merlin.


The Sea Fury of course, does not have a Pratt & Whitney engine! Its engine was a Bristol Centaurus, a sleeve valve engine representing in some eyes the peak of aeroplane piston engine development.

John

[85 county]

Personally a Centaurus always sounds better than a Pratt & Whitney

there was an Iranian one in auckland for a few years

[101RRS]

It is written that "If aero engines where meant to be any configuration other than round, Pratt & Whitney would have made them that way".

But the British Bristol Centaurus was bigger and better. If the Sea Fury had been an enemy fighter it probably would have been a match for the P51 Mustang (the early versions of which were British designed and built).

Garry

[Bearman]

But the British Bristol Centaurus was bigger and better. If the Sea Fury had been an enemy fighter it probably would have been a match for the P51 Mustang (the early versions of which were British designed and built).

Garry

The earlier versions of ther Mustang were fitted with an American Allison engine and were a disappointment, it was only when fitted with the Merlin that the Mustang was any good.

[85 county]

But the British Bristol Centaurus was bigger and better. If the Sea Fury had been an enemy fighter it probably would have been a match for the P51 Mustang (the early versions of which were British designed and built).

Garry

well in concept, shoving a bomber motor into a fighter = FW190 which was a match for a P51 c and early P51d until they got the shark fin, then they had the edge. The XP51 was designed by a couple of German jews who were in Brittan and were given British citizenship then shipped to the US after the US army preordered all p40 production.
The fitting of the Merlin to the XP51 was done by a couple of Kiwis in Egypt. they had some Merlin parts but no Alison parts. Which then scared the pants off there pilots.
the XP51 was ( i think) 20 miles an hour faster than the p40 this was not due to there laminar flow wings but to the internal radiators and NAs???? Air intake. The only advantage a P51 had over a spit, was fuel capacity, speed in a dive and wing thickness ( well it was designed as a ground attack, not a dog fight)

The British Bristol Centaurus, is was and always will be a dog. The advantage of a sleeve valve motor was better air flow. This was good up until sodium filled valves became available, which allowed overlap in valve timing and (eventually multiple valves) which increased the performance of valve motors past that of the sleeve valve motor. Ease of manufacturing wasn’t in the sleeve valves favor either. The real disadvantage was cooling, having a sleeve and a liner meant that there was so much metal between the hot stuff and the cold stuff. Distortions of the sleeve and excessive wear of the sleeve both lent to in-flight failures with disastrous effect for such a heavy air craft with a high over the fence speed.
Its use was a political one, since all the other manufactures had been post war supported with other projects or products. Bristol had to be given some thing.

Besides all that, they are the absolute top of piston powered fighters. And to me the best sounding aircraft ever. uumm that would make a Bristol freighter twice as good ????

[85 county]

The earlier versions of ther Mustang were fitted with an American Allison engine and were a disappointment, it was only when fitted with the Merlin that the Mustang was any good.

Correct, the XP 51 was fitted with an Allison. but since they were purchased and designed for the desert, as a replacement/ supplementing the p40. The British air ministry was over joyed with its extra speed. hidden radiators and the ability of the laminar flow wing to not fail under heavy buffeting ( IE bending when pulling out of a dive at low altitude)

For Europe the only offering the yanks had was the P47, so the poms brought them for Europe and Asia at a latter date

[Bearman]

Correct, the XP 51 was fitted with an Allison. but since they were purchased and designed for the desert, as a replacement/ supplementing the p40. The British air ministry was over joyed with its extra speed. hidden radiators and the ability of the laminar flow wing to not fail under heavy buffeting ( IE bending when pulling out of a dive at low altitude)

For Europe the only offering the yanks had was the P47, so the poms brought them for Europe and Asia at a latter date

My old Dad was in the RAAF during WW2 and he reckoned the best Yank aircraft was the Lightning. Apparently it was the only one that could catch and blow the Zeke in level flight.

[85 county]

My old Dad was in the RAAF during WW2 and he reckoned the best Yank aircraft was the Lightning. Apparently it was the only one that could catch and blow the Zeke in level flight.

to most ww2 service men any Japanese fighter was a zeke and any bomber was a betty.
But at the time of the first lightning’s arriving at cactus, yes, the p40s an aircobras couldn’t catch a zero. not that they were slow just its hard to overhaul another aircraft that’s 60 miles away when your speed advantage is only 10 miles an hour better ( 5 hours) and that’s on a good day.

Even the lightning’s with a 60mile an hour advantage would still need a hour to catch up. as soon as you hit the guns you lose about 40 miles an hour in air speed. any way the zero could just turn out of the way.
The real advantage with the lighting was when they followed the flying tiger’s tactics. fly CAP. Stay on station until the japs came in underneath. Then dive, shoot, maintain airspeed and clime. don’t dog fight a zero, only a corsair could do that. so the advantage of the lighting was it endurance and height. its ability to fly high for long periods of time waiting for the japs.

The practice at catus in the early days was to stack aircraft in the anticipation of the japs coming over. P39 then p40s and on top the lightning’s.

Neither the p40 or 39 had a hope in hell against a zero in this situation but then there job was to go for the bombers and the lightning’s to come down after the fighters.
RNZAF had p40s very early on at piva 1 as well as SBDs losers were high. 25 squadron SBDs losed 8 out of 18 crews I cant remember the P40 numbers. There was a bit of controversy when the lightings first arrived. As the green pilots ( AS they all were at that time) because the didn’t want to come down to the fight.

There is a story of some Kiwis (construction) who were on cactus from day one ( and had formed part of the line, and held it when the dogfaces dropped the ball and the marines had to disembark again) entering the lighting pilots mess and shooting the place up. This was a small gang of a bit more than a doz kiwis who run a saw mill off a jap tank in there own camp up the hill or the back of cactus. These guys were left to there own devices in the early days and survived on what they could liberate from the yanks, there nick names were the thieving “Keye whys” Nimitz even mentions them in his book as the single motivating factor for the lighting pilots.
Another story was one of these kiwis purchased a new air cobra from a yank for a bottle of whisky. He then had to steel the whisky from another yank but from the same tent. Purchase completed the Allison was striped out, disassembled and shipped back to NZ in crates marked Parson.
This motor ended up in a racing boat on a lake just out of nelson NZ. To much power it pulled the transom out so it was cut down to a V6. He died in about 2002 I think. The last sbd crew member is alive in Auckland and only stopped flying about 5 years ago.

[Bearman]

Back in the 70's I knew an atc bloke out at Mt.Isa who was rebuilding a genuine aircobra under his highset house. He and a few other blokes retrieved 3 complete aircobras from Cape York. They ran out of fuel enroute from Cairns to Iron Range during the war (bad weather at Iron Range) and were put down in open clearings. All suffered wheel damage due to ant hills in the long grass but were otherwise intact. All of them were new aircraft on delivery to NG. The one I saw had 18hrs on the hourmeter. I was amazed to see the Allison engine was made of stainless. No wonder they were sluggish. I was told the reason was when they were in production nobody knew whether they would be sent to Russia or the Pacific so make it in stainless and it doesn't matter. Apparently they were called "the widowmaker". Had a massive driveshaft that went between the pilots legs up to the prop gearbox.

[JDNSW]

........

The British Bristol Centaurus, is was and always will be a dog. The advantage of a sleeve valve motor was better air flow. This was good up until sodium filled valves became available, which allowed overlap in valve timing and (eventually multiple valves) which increased the performance of valve motors past that of the sleeve valve motor. Ease of manufacturing wasn’t in the sleeve valves favor either. The real disadvantage was cooling, having a sleeve and a liner meant that there was so much metal between the hot stuff and the cold stuff. Distortions of the sleeve and excessive wear of the sleeve both lent to in-flight failures with disastrous effect for such a heavy air craft with a high over the fence speed.
Its use was a political one, since all the other manufactures had been post war supported with other projects or products. Bristol had to be given some thing.

Besides all that, they are the absolute top of piston powered fighters. And to me the best sounding aircraft ever. uumm that would make a Bristol freighter twice as good ????

The Bristol Centaurus was not a dog - it was very successful both as a military and civil engine. Its use was not political, except perhaps in the sense that it had to be used in Britain instead of US-built engines for currency exchange reasons. Compared to the comparable Pratt and Whitney or Wright radials, the Centaurus gave a smaller overall diameter (no rocker gear) and lower specific fuel consumption. Overhaul intervals were comparable as was reliability (If there had been problems in this regard, I think you would have seen the engines in the Bristol Freighters in Australian service in the sixties and seventies being replaced by P&W).

I think the early sleeve failures you are thinking of relate rather to the Napier Sabre sleeve valve engines, where the failures were eventually traced to incorrect field maintenance (of the gadget that set rpm and boost from a single power lever) allowing overboosting at low rpm. By the time the Centaurus came out, Bristol had been working on sleeve valve engines for nearly twenty years, and had had the very successful Perseus in production for ten. Most people who are not very familiar with sleeve valves are frightened of them simply because they are unfamiliar, but while as you point out there are heat dissipation problems with sleeve valves, these are nothing compared to the heat dissipation problems with poppet valves - these problems have largely been solved today, but read any of the early aviation accounts and you realise how hard this was. As an example, in the early flights to Australia, every overnight stop, someone spent the night doing a top overhaul on the engine(s), often barely mentioned, simply because it was assumed you had to do this. An advantage of sleeve valves rarely mentioned is that because the sleeve is moving, the piston never stops moving relative to it, unlike a poppet valve engine, where the piston stops moving relative to the cylinder twice every revolution, allowing static friction to take over, increasing wear and power loss.

The reason most piston airliners of the post-war period used American engines was that most airliners were American, partly as a result of the US/UK agreement in 1941 that the UK would concentrate on military aircraft development and buy US transport aircraft. Also, outside the USA, most new designs were looking at turboprops or jets (HS748, F27, Comet - even the flops such as the Brabazon and Saro Princess were designed for turboprops)

John

[85 county]

The Bristol Centaurus was not a dog - it was very successful both as a military and civil engine. Its use was not political, except perhaps in the sense that it had to be used in Britain instead of US-built engines for currency exchange reasons.

It was political, patriotic and just British, as you said



Compared to the comparable Pratt and Whitney or Wright radials, the Centaurus gave a smaller overall diameter (no rocker gear) and lower specific fuel consumption. Overhaul intervals were comparable as was reliability (If there had been problems in this regard, I think you would have seen the engines in the Bristol Freighters in Australian service in the sixties and seventies being replaced by P&W).

there is the swept volume debate, a bit like the 2 cycle vers the 4 cycle, this leaves the swept volume questionable, weight was another factor when compared to a American radial. There fuel consumption was due to there ability to run quite lean comparatively speaking.


I think the early sleeve failures you are thinking of relate rather to the Napier Sabre sleeve valve engines, where the failures were eventually traced to incorrect field maintenance (of the gadget that set rpm and boost from a single power lever) allowing overboosting at low rpm.

Quite correct. There was also the problems in making the chrome molly sleeves and getting them to stay round. they were actually manufactured not round when cold, this was for the Napier sabre. The Centaurs only gave similar problems when over heated a little.



By the time the Centaurus came out, Bristol had been working on sleeve valve engines for nearly twenty years, and had had the very successful Perseus in production for ten. Most people who are not very familiar with sleeve valves are frightened of them simply because they are unfamiliar, but while as you point out there are heat dissipation problems with sleeve valves, these are nothing compared to the heat dissipation problems with poppet valves - these problems have largely been solved today, but read any of the early aviation accounts and you realise how hard this was. As an example, in the early flights to Australia, every overnight stop, someone spent the night doing a top overhaul on the engine(s), often barely mentioned, simply because it was assumed you had to do this. An advantage of sleeve valves rarely mentioned is that because the sleeve is moving, the piston never stops moving relative to it, unlike a poppet valve engine, where the piston stops moving relative to the cylinder twice every revolution, allowing static friction to take over, increasing wear and power loss.

Quite correct but i get the feeling that you are spreading over time.
The sleeve valve had great advantages over poppet valves, as you stated, due to the reduced maintenance and its ability to flow cleaner air. then with the advent of sodium filled valves this advantage was eroded away since poppet valves now became more reliable and it allowed the introduction of valve overlap ( timing) which improved a poppet valve motors over all performance. The last stage was supercharging, this is where the sleeve valve became a disadvantage, the heat retention of the sleeve, distorting and tendency to fail would have been the nail in the coffin of the sleeve valve motor. but we will never relay know if a solution would have come because as you stated below the advent of the jet age.

The maintenance hours of the Centaurs was about twice that of the P&W powered Andersons. As a comparison.


The reason most piston airliners of the post-war period used American engines was that most airliners were American, partly as a result of the US/UK agreement in 1941 that the UK would concentrate on military aircraft development and buy US transport aircraft. Also, outside the USA, most new designs were looking at turboprops or jets (HS748, F27, Comet - even the flops such as the Brabazon and Saro Princess were designed for turboprops)

Good knowledge John.

I thought the Brabazon was built with 2 griffons driving a single prop shaft though a strange angled gearbox arrangement but with a view of replacing it with turbo props when and if ever available

[JDNSW]

I thought the Brabazon was built with 2 griffons driving a single prop shaft though a strange angled gearbox arrangement but with a view of replacing it with turbo props when and if ever available

The Brabazon, as with the Princess, was designed to use the Bristol Proteus turboprop, in this case in pairs driving four sets of contra-rotating props. In the one specimen that actually flew, the planned Proteus gas turbines were replaced by eight Centaurus engines, as the Proteus at this stage was having serious problems. The Proteus eventually was a reasonably satisfactory engine in the Britannia, but that was much later.

John

[Landy110]

Well that sparked an intersting conversation, I am not a fan of any radial engine in particular I was just relaying a quote I heard from an old bloke about 30 years ago. Re the "Pratt and Whitney would have made them that way"

[mudmouse]

The Corsair (F4U) was the first to crack 400mph in level flight and Goodyear produced them with the Wright Cyclone 4360 (cu) which had 28 cylinders - and if you are think of picking one up, that's 56 spark plugs at about $110 ea....

Anyway, if you're interested in the Goodyear FG-1, have a look / search for Race 57 - THAT is a beast.

Also platinumfighters.com for the Hawker Fury for sale....couple of Spitfires too and my favourite, the P-40!

Matt

[stallie]

YouTube - Spitfire buzz reporter

The old reporter getting buzzed by the Spitfire video. I'm sure many have seen it before, but it still brings a smile to my face when I see it. **LANGUAGE WARNING**

[Landy110]

MMMM they have a Spitfire 1A for a mere $4,900,000.00
I could sell the deefer then I would only need to find $4,890,000.00, what do you reckon :D

[Landy110]

Check out the Griffon in a Fairey Firefly, camera work is a bit ordinary but sound is good
YouTube - RNHF Fairey Firefly display

[Bigbjorn]

People tend to forget that it was the P38 Lockheed Lightning that destroyed the land based Japanese air force. It had superior range, ceiling, speed and stability, heavily armed. Once the USAAC realised they should not dog fight Zeros but instead use their speed and ceiling then the Japanese fighters were gone gooses. Lightnings had a ceiling 10,000 feet higher, could dive at 400+ mph into a Japanese formation with their 50 cals and 20 mm cannon then climb faster than any enemy aircraft and repeat the performance, and keep it up until the Japs had to run for home or run out of fuel.

I spannered both Merlins and Allisons. The Allison would always be a fitter's choice. It has about half the parts of a Merlin and is a bloody sight easier to work with. Both base engines were almost identical in design. V12, liquid cooled, single overhead camshafts, four valves per cylinder, bathtub combustion chambers, similar swept volume. The Merlin had very ordinary performance and relatively low ceiling until the Mark XX with twin stage superchargers. I think it was the Mark 61 that got the twin stage, two speed blowers and intercooling. Allisons, if they had the same blowers would have had similar performance. The Allison installion in the P38's had a centrifugal blower on the back end of the engine fed by a turbocharger and intercoolers in the boom. This could not be accomodated in a single engine aircraft, but this was what gave the Lightning its amazing performance.

Stanley Hooker, who designed the Merlin's blowers, wrote that a P51 Mustang was 25 mph faster than a Spitfire at 25,000 feet and used 290 less horsepower to do this.

[JDNSW]

As I mentioned above, the edge that Rolls Royce had was in supercharger design - plus the ability to keep modifying the engine to handle the extra power.

Interestingly, Herschel Smith's book states that the Allison was designed to be fitted with a turbocharger, as was fitted in the P-38 but no other installations, and that the only reason that this was not used in other aircraft was that there was a shortage of tungsten used in the turbine alloy material, so that turbochargers were restricted to the P-38, this being the aircraft specifically designed for high altitude work.

The P-38 can be considered as the US equivalent of the DH Mosquito, although less versatile - not sure which would have had the best performance, although it depends on which models you compare. The Americans put a lot of effort into trying to get some Mosquitoes in the latter part of the war, but limited production meant they got very few.

The P-51, thanks largely to its laminar flow wing, certainly was faster (and hence longer range) for the same power than the Spitfire. Although absolute speed is not the only or even the most important feature of combat aircraft, the P-51 has to be considered the best single engined fighter of the war, probably because it excelled in almost every feature. (In comparison, the Spitfire was more difficult to build and repair due to the elliptical wing plan, and the narrow track made ground handling difficult, for example, and these drawbacks outweighed the slightly better handling compared to the P-51)

Another interesting bit of history - in 1933 Rolls Royce bought a Heinkel 70 to install a Kestrel engine in - there was no British plane clean enough to properly test different radiator designs. This experience and demonstrations led both to the RAF's first call for a monoplane fighter that resulted in the production of both the Hurricane and Spitfire - and the Lufwaffe's call for a large liquid cooled cast block engines, resulting in the DB-600 series used in, for example, the Bf-109.

John

[85 county]

As I mentioned above, the edge that Rolls Royce had was in supercharger design - plus the ability to keep modifying the engine to handle the extra power.

Correct, one in the same


Interestingly, Herschel Smith's book states that the Allison was designed to be fitted with a turbocharger, as was fitted in the P-38 but no other installations, and that the only reason that this was not used in other aircraft was that there was a shortage of tungsten used in the turbine alloy material, so that turbochargers were restricted to the P-38, this being the aircraft specifically designed for high altitude work.

partially correct but the main reason was. Firstly it was not originally designed to take a supercharger or a turbo super charger, these were tacked on items latter. The P38 was however designed with the turbo supercharger in mind hence the twin boom design. The P40 was modified to fit the turbo supercharger but this necessitated moving the cockpit back to make room and the thinking of the day was that they would be better-off starting again. remember the p40 was now an old design it originally whent into service with a radial P36. a side note, when the yanks hit north Africa there were some dogfights between radial ( French) and Allison ( US ) p40s. The British also had some hence the differing designations, Kitty Hawke, war Hawke, cant remember the last one.
The French even had some, captured by the Nazis and then given to the finish. Wich brought then into conflict twice with British hurricanes based in Russia which were commanded by a Kiwi.


The P-38 can be considered as the US equivalent of the DH Mosquito, although less versatile - not sure which would have had the best performance, although it depends on which models you compare.

Not even in the same camp. One designed as a fast unarmed bomber the other as a high altitude fighter, the only common roles would have been PR.


The Americans put a lot of effort into trying to get some Mosquitoes in the latter part of the war, but limited production meant they got very few.

6 squadrons they got, no effort required. NB the Mosquito was originally designed for the griffon


The P-51, thanks largely to its laminar flow wing, certainly was faster (and hence longer range) for the same power than the Spitfire.

As a fighter the laminar flow wing was a disadvantage. it was thicker and produced more drag than the spitfires wing while producing less BITE, thus the P51 wasn’t able to turn well or even as good as a ME109 for that matter. The spitfires wing, was thin with quite a large area giving it more BITE in addition the spitfires wing had an unfixed angle of attack. This caused the inside or root of the wing to stall before the tip. In practice this meant that a high speed turn could be completed on the buffer ( aircraft shaking) yet the pilot could still maintain control and not do a "floppy wobbler" high speed stall.

The P51s speed or lack of drag came from a shape that was naturally closer to the square area rule (although the square area rule was unknown at that time) internal radiators with a scoop that had a bleeding edge and not just a duct poked into the slipstream. But the most interesting advantage was that cold air going in to cool the radiators, expanded and then exited to the rear producing some added thrust.


Although absolute speed is not the only or even the most important feature of combat aircraft, the P-51 has to be considered the best single engined fighter of the war

Far from it! although it was great in number and had range and speed ( but not range and speed at the same time, tanks had to be dropped first. hence the Luftwaffe’s tactic to intercept p51s as early as possible to get them to drop tanks and thus leave the bombers alone a couple of hours latter) it was never a great fighter. Like already posted ( P38). altitude and speed ( p51 speed in a dive was wonderful) dive shoot clime. Dive again shoot then clime again. This was the tactic first employed by the soviets in there I series against the Nazis in Spain.

As for the greatest fighter, in ability diversity of tasking. From fighter to light bomber, ground attack. Interdiction. serviceability. ability to take punishment. Easy to fly with no vices, agility etc. my money goes on the hurricane and or its sibling the tempest ( apart from the tail thing)


, probably because it excelled in almost every feature. (In comparison, the Spitfire was more difficult to build and repair due to the elliptical wing plan, and the narrow track made ground handling difficult, for example, and these drawbacks outweighed the slightly better handling compared to the P-51)

The spitfire was no worse nor better than the P51 to service. the serviceability rates of the P51 were actually lower than the spitfire. This was more due to the poor standards of the US army servicing than the actual aircraft itself. In areas of swapping out motors the spitfire was quicker.
You make a good point about undercarriage, this became very problematic when the spits came to Australia and India. in short they were useless.


Another interesting bit of history - in 1933 Rolls Royce bought a Heinkel 70 to install a Kestrel engine in - there was no British plane clean enough to properly test different radiator designs. This experience and demonstrations led both to the RAF's first call for a monoplane fighter that resulted in the production of both the Hurricane and Spitfire - and the Lufwaffe's call for a large liquid cooled cast block engines, resulting in the DB-600 series used in, for example, the Bf-109.

I have seen some thing similar to this in print. In short it was a load of bollox.
Anyone who has seen any movie with a flying Henkel in it made after 1950 would be looking at a Spanish air force Henkel. The Spanish squadron of Henkel’s was only decommissioned in 1998 ( i think)
These Henkel’s were Merlin powered. This was done because Germany would not supply Franco with parts basically because he would not join WW2 on the side of the fascists. This predates the actual start of the war. Britain fearful of Spain’s possible involvement was more than obliging to assist and win favor with Franco.
besides the Kestrels development and life was all but over before the Henkel came to and descent production.


John

[JDNSW]

.......



Not even in the same camp. One designed as a fast unarmed bomber the other as a high altitude fighter, the only common roles would have been PR.

While designed as a high speed bomber the Mosquito was also fitted for the fighter role from the outset, with structural provision for cannon under the cockpit, and was used extensively as a night fighter.


6 squadrons they got, no effort required. NB the Mosquito was originally designed for the griffon

The Griffon did not exist (it was in prototype and was not considered in 1940) when the Mosquito was designed, and it was certainly designed for the Merlin, although since the Griffon was designed to fit in the same space the question is probably unanswerable - I suspect you may be confusing it with the later Hornet single seat fighter.

......... But the most interesting advantage was that cold air going in to cool the radiators, expanded and then exited to the rear producing some added thrust.

Yes, similar advantages were produced with other later radiator designs, including the annular radiator fitted to some FW-190


Far from it! although it was great in number and had range and speed ( but not range and speed at the same time, tanks had to be dropped first. hence the Luftwaffe’s tactic to intercept p51s as early as possible to get them to drop tanks and thus leave the bombers alone a couple of hours latter) it was never a great fighter. Like already posted ( P38). altitude and speed ( p51 speed in a dive was wonderful) dive shoot clime. Dive again shoot then clime again. This was the tactic first employed by the soviets in there I series against the Nazis in Spain.

As for the greatest fighter, in ability diversity of tasking. From fighter to light bomber, ground attack. Interdiction. serviceability. ability to take punishment. Easy to fly with no vices, agility etc. my money goes on the hurricane and or its sibling the tempest ( apart from the tail thing)

I agree the Hurricane (Battle of Britain was more Hurricane than Spitfire - there were a lot more of them) is underrated, but by the end of the war was rather dated. The Tempest was very late into service, but some consider it to be the fastest single engine prop fighter.

The spitfire was no worse nor better than the P51 to service. the serviceability rates of the P51 were actually lower than the spitfire. This was more due to the poor standards of the US army servicing than the actual aircraft itself. In areas of swapping out motors the spitfire was quicker.

By serviceability I meant that, for example, the continuous three dimensional curves on the wings meant battle damage was harder to repair.

You make a good point about undercarriage, this became very problematic when the spits came to Australia and India. in short they were useless.

Bigger problem in those areas of operation was range. Undercarriage track meant you needed expert pilots, nothing to do with the area as such.


I have seen some thing similar to this in print. In short it was a load of bollox.

It is repeated in all the accounts of engine development from both sides of the Atlantic, for example, by both Setright and Smith. Certainly Rolls Royce bought a He-70 for radiator design for the Kestrel in 1933 - the effects of their experience on German design may be more open to question.

Anyone who has seen any movie with a flying Henkel in it made after 1950 would be looking at a Spanish air force Henkel. The Spanish squadron of Henkel’s was only decommissioned in 1998 ( i think)
These Henkel’s were Merlin powered. This was done because Germany would not supply Franco with parts basically because he would not join WW2 on the side of the fascists. This predates the actual start of the war. Britain fearful of Spain’s possible involvement was more than obliging to assist and win favor with Franco.
besides the Kestrels development and life was all but over before the Henkel came to and descent production.



The Heinkel -70 has nothing to do with either the Spanish civil war or any movie that I am aware of, and certainly there were none flying by the end of the war. Built as a counter to the Lockheed Orion, it was, like the Orion, one of the first airline aircraft with retractable undercarriage, going into Lufthansa service in 1934, after a first flight in 1932. It was withdrawn from service in 1938, as Lufthansa went to multiple engines.

I was not aware of Spanish Heinkels being operational that late, although I was aware of Merlin engined Spanish Bf 109s that late - these were, I suspect, either French or Czeck manufacture post war when DB engines were unobtainable, or earlier ones re-engined post war because DB parts were unobtainable. Germany provided Franco with aircraft prewar, but would have been reluctant to supply parts during the war, not because of his refusal to join in, but simply because Spain, being neutral, was way down the list of priorities for supplies. For the same reason, Spain would have had problems getting Merlins during the war.

John