Frank Halford would not agree, he'd raced a 4V Ricardo-Triumph at the IoM TT,Tommy Cookers wrote: ...the Sabres smaller bore and much shorter stroke would seem ideal for poppet valves (given the fuel quality revolution)
Sabre funding was maintained both to keep a sleeve-valve foot in the liquid-cooled door, and a reserve engine for the Vulture
the Sabre 7 would give 18.75 lb boost @ sea level, calculated from 17.25 lb @ 2250'J.A.W. wrote: .....both Wilkinson & Lumsden record the listed Sabre 7 take-off rating of 3,500hp @ +20lbs on ADI..
..........As for 'Pilots Notes', the Spit Mk 14 notes carry advisement re: take-off power settings/tyre stress..
..........4 X 20mm cannon fit .......( & 6 X 0.50" HMG's would be even heavier, & less effective).
That is an impressive list - but American 'planes only?J.A.W. wrote:Apologies T-T; try this link, & scroll down to the particular item.. http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/SAC.htm
Hey tikky-tok, you welcome..tok-tokkie wrote:That is an impressive list - but American 'planes only?J.A.W. wrote:Apologies T-T; try this link, & scroll down to the particular item.. http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/SAC.htm
SPITFIRE IX VERSUS FW 190A
The FW190 was compared with a fully operational Spitfire IX for speed and manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet [7620 metres].
At most heights the Spitfire IX is slightly superior in speed to the FW190 -
the approximate differences in speed are as follows:
At 2,000 ft [610 m] the FW 190 is 7-8 mph [11-13 km/hr] faster than the Spitfire
At 5,000 ft [1524 m] the FW 190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same
At 8,000 ft [2440 m] the Spitfire IX is 8 mph [13 km/hr] faster than the FW 190
At 15,000 ft [4573 m] the Spitfire IX is 5 mph [8 km/hr] faster than the FW 190
At 18,000 ft [5488 m] the FW 190 is 3 mph [5 km/hr] faster than the Spitfire IX
At 21,000 ft [6400 m] the FW 190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same
At 25,000 ft [7622 m] the Spitfire IX is 5-7 mph [8-11 km/hr] faster than the FW 190
Climb: During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 feet [7012 metres], with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire was slightly better.
Above 22,000 feet [6707 m] the climb of the FW 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing.
Dive: The FW 190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly during the initial stage. This superiority is not as marked as with the Spitfire VB.
Manoeuvrability: The FW 190 is more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire IX except in turning circles.
The superior rate of roll of the FW 190 enabled it to avoid the Spitfire IX by turning over into a diving turn in the opposite direction.
The Spitfire IX's worst heights for fighting the FW 190 were between 18,000 and 22,000 feet [5486-6707m] and also below 3,000 feet [914m].
The initial acceleration of the FW 190 is better than that of the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage.
The general impression of the pilots involved in the trials is that the Spitfire Mark IX compares well with the FW 190. Providing the Spitfire IX has the initiative, it undoubtedly stands a good chance of shooting down the FW 190.
Correct, it was the the same engine as in the tactical bomber Ju-88 (Jumo-213). Also, it ('D') was much longer than the original one and with a narrower nose, even with the circular radiator. It was shoe-horned into the FW cowl as the 190 struggled flying at B-17/24 & Lancashire altitude. Kurt Tank chose it as it was the nearest fit the the 190 cowl. Love the shape though, with a the narrower nose, it looked spectacular!J.A.W. wrote:"Last & Best" FW 190s had V12 engines rather than the BMW radial, & 'L & B' Spitfires ran the bigger Griffon V12 too.
Spitfire Mk IX was an 'interim' ( lash-up) answer to the original FW 190, being a Mk V with a hi-po Merlin shoehorned into it.
The intended Spitfire replacement, & answer to the Focke-Wulf 'scourge' was the Hawker Typhoon, rushed into service like the FW 190.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ ... Trials.pdf
This pre-mature entry into service caused needless losses, but both machines proved themselves, eventually.