Thread: Spitfire celebrates 75th anniversary

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

Originally Posted by 85 county

.......



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