Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑
Sat Aug 06, 2022 12:54 pm
J.A.W. wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:30 am
1 ... PRU-type Spitfire pilots who survived a dive well beyond 'placard' limits (in out of control dives) ...
they were lucky to survive the aero-elastic overstrain, as a consequence (S/Ldr Martindale was 'gonged' with a DFC?).
2 .. Tempest 'Pilots Notes' showed ASI/height 'limitations' well in excess of the Spitfire ...
3 ... Merlin Spitfires could not .. keep up with a Mustang in Vmax/Vne at any altitude ....
4 .... which fighter was the most potent A2A machine.
each of the above-quoted points is incorrect
there were no actual ASI/height limitations other than the speed the aircraft could actually reach
the 'placard' limits eg 1942 etc Spitfire IX Pilots Notes were 0.85 Mach 450 mph indicated (ie 615 mph true) at 20000'
these limits are common to IX XI and XVI (PRs had blunter noses and bigger wing tanks - so weren't easier)
Martindale had huge g as prop etc broke off due to rpm fault - but never any aeroelastic misbehaviour
158 pages show a dived Spit (it had less drag over 0.67 M) was therefore faster than a dived (PR or fighter) Mustang
all such flights eg the American's own flights of course were also 'over the placard limits'
Mustang Vne is 0.77 Mach and 505 ias at 9000' (c.420 ias at 20000' - that is just under 600 tas)
yes the 1944 RAF PNs simply give 505 ias regardless
so yes in some situations Mustangs went faster than any Merlin-engined Spitfires could have done ....
but also vice-versa in some other situations of course
any plane at speed can be over-stressed by pilot action
Mustangs & the Spitfires with rear tanks were prone to reduced stick force with 'g' eg in zoom climbs (surprised ?)
yes I say the Mustang was (like the Tempest) 'half a fighter plane'
neither is fast enough to justify eg its poor turning over the wide speed range
due to the so-called LF wing - which gives less lift and except at the higher speeds gives increased drag
I'd suggest a closer look at A. Martindale's test Spit, post flight. It is bent out of shape, inc' wings.
IIRC, the Mk XI (PR) Spitfire utilized avoidance/evasion 'combat' tactics of attempted intercepts at
high altitudes by means of high-speed shallow dives, & thus, as such was used in high-Mach
research accordingly - esp' since its wing was reinforced - in an early version of 'wet-wing' tankage
for long-range, & lacked the fighter fitments inc' flat-panel windscreen, & cannon-caused - large
external 'lumps & bumps' - all of which tended to increase drag.
(PR Mosquitos were AFAIR, about the only Merlin-powered WWII aircraft to keep up with Merlin-Mustang
speed/power-settings when fitted with engines of equivalent altitude performance, fighter Mk Spitfires could not)
For low-level PR, the Allison-powered Mustang was preferred, & when these were no longer available,
Merlin-Spitfires were not used to replace them, Griffon-engine Mk XIVs were, but proved less satisfactory.
As for being "half a fighter plane", the RAF took all the Mustangs it could get, & (as with its Tempests),
kept them in hand to fight the toughest Nazi opposition (they sent Merlin-Spits to Stalin, & their P-47s
to India/Burma) so you might well need to re-think that erroneous idea, on the evidence base...
Do a comparison of the two NZ fighter squadrons based in Blighty for service with the RAF, 485 & 486;
485 flew Spitfires from Mk V through to Mk XVI, while 486 flew Hawker Hurricane/Typhoon/Tempest.
486 obtained much better A2A results (plus hundreds of V1 missiles), & 485 was subsequently slated
to convert to Tempests too (like 80 Squadron & others), but there were too few Tempests built...
Certainly, at the lower-level 10,000ft & below, both Tempest V(@ 540mph) & Mustang III (@ 505mph),
handily exceed the contemporary Spitfire (@ 470mph) 'limitations' for Vne, per the 'Pilots Notes',
& both accelerated much better in the dive than the Spitfire too, (as did the 109/190 opposition).
As for turning, at high speed the Tempest could readily out-roll the Spitfire,& the Mustang, while it
tended to 'porpoise' at Vne, it would not do a 'Mach-tuck' ever-steepening dive, so unlike P-38/P-47,
did not require the palliative of 'speed-flaps'
Here's a couple of quotes (from memoir written by pilots who'd made 'ace' status) on Spitfires:
From P. Clostermann, re: Sept' 1944, when ADGB (Fighter Command) relinquished Tempests to 2nd TAF:
"The Spitfires were powerless. There was only one Wing of 3 Spitfire XIV squadrons & the rest were
equipped with Spitfire IX's... operated most of the time as fighter-bombers... and the poor Spits had
neither the speed nor the range necessary to force the new German fighters to fight."
From R. Spurdle, C.O. of 80 Sqd on transition from Spitfire IX to Tempest ( & views of the Mustang):
"Our Tempests arrived! Brand new; shining in the sun! They seemed huge after our dainty Spitfires.
But could they go! We found they cruised at almost 100mph faster than the Spits, climbed like rockets,
& dived at incredible speeds... We were delighted... It was a fantastic thrill to have my own squadron
- to lead this bunch of fine pilots flying the best fighter in the Allies' stable...
On sortie No 551 some USAAF Mustangs jumped us. Enraged, I turned on my particular tormentor &
scared him fartless by firing bursts first on one side & then on the other while he twisted & turned
helpless against the far superior Tempest. Formating alongside I shook my fist at the stupid jerk, then
zoomed away. We should've hacked a few down to teach them aircraft recognition. We were sick of
their trigger-happy stupidities."
A. Reed & R. Beamont in ' Typhoon and Tempest at War' commented:
"The Tempest had also proved itself in a series of mock battles carried out over the south of England
in the summer of 1944 against American fighters flown by skilled USAAF pilots. The verdict was that,
flown skilfully, it could see off the excellent P-51D Mustang, while it completely overshadowed the P-47."