Author Topic: Spitfire 14 is porked  (Read 4176 times)

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
Spitfire 14 is porked
« Reply #75 on: December 20, 2003, 09:21:51 AM »
Quote
To justfy its perk price and perk tag while still offering survivability the Spitfire Mk XIV should have been modeled with 150 octane fuel. At that point it would have had the speed to escape (390mph on the deck) the gang bang its perk tag brings on it.


I completely agree with you Karnak, but this should go for the Ta152 and the F4u4 aswell although the F4u4 is the one of the three with highest survivabilty thanks to it fast deck speed which is about the same of the LA7.
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Spitfire 14 is porked
« Reply #76 on: December 20, 2003, 11:44:17 AM »
Quote
Does FS and MS stand for Full stage supercharger and medium stage supercharger?

Full speed and medium speed, I think.

Certainly on the Merlin, both stages run all the time, but there are two different speeds. It's the speeds that change, not the stages. I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure it would be the same for the Griffon.

Quote
Karnak, maybe you can help, which spit 14 do we have? F or Fr or non of those two?


AH has the F XIV. The FR stands for fighter-recconisance, and had a camera mounted in the rear fuselage (in addition to the guns).

The Griffon 65 was limited to 18 lbs boost on 100/130 fuel (100 octane), and at  least 21 lbs on 100/150. Neil Sterling has posted documents from mid summer 44 (iirc) that say the Griffon 65 is limited to 21lbs boost because of main bearing problems, but will be capable of 25 lbs later on.

I have seen one pilot's account saying they were anxiously awaiting their Fr XIVs because it's engine allowed higher boost than the F XIV, but I suspect that's just because they were newer machines, and probably incorporated modifications. (Can't remember the source now, so I can't check the details)

At the same boost levels, the Fr XIV should have a slightly worse climb than the F XIV, due to the extra weight.

The Griffon 65 gained about 200 hp going from 18 lbs boost to 21 lbs, and gained about 500 hp going from 18lbs to 25 lbs. The AH Spit XIV has 18 lbs.

Quote
The "E" had clipped wings, right?


Wing tips are independent of wing type. You could have C or E wings on the XIV, and either normal or clipped wings (never seen a XIV with extended tips, but I should think they were possible as well). Wether the Es were all made with clipped wings or not I don't know, but wingtips could be changed easily in the field, so there was probably a combination of types in service.

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Spitfire 14 is porked
« Reply #77 on: December 20, 2003, 11:53:32 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
None the less, sitting on the runway to 20K it is still almost a minute too slow, and slower than the G-2 (which may however be the case, would love to have recorded figures for the G-2)


In the test flights conducted by Finnish Air Force G-2 climbed from approx. climb speed at sea level to 6000m in 5min 5s.
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
Spitfire 14 is porked
« Reply #78 on: December 20, 2003, 12:01:44 PM »
Thanks Nashwan :)

I fail to see a problem with our spit 14 as it's modelled with 100 octance fuel. Only thing would be too good climb rate bellow 8k or so.
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Spitfire 14 is porked
« Reply #79 on: December 20, 2003, 01:39:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Wilbus
Karnak, maybe you can help, which spit 14 do we have? F or Fr or non of those two? The "E" had clipped wings, right?

We have a Spitfire F.Mk XIV.

It has the option for the .303s and it lacks the fuel tank behind the pilot.

The fuel tank is the most significant as it it reduces both range and weight.  Reduced weight of course should also mean a bit higher performance.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline niklas

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Spitfire 14 is porked
« Reply #80 on: December 20, 2003, 03:19:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nashwan
The production aircraft reached 9,000ft in 1 min 56.5 secs. 9k to 14k should take 1 min 13.2 secs, 14k to 20k should take 1 min 37.6 secs.

That's 4 mins 47 seconds to 20k.

The prototype reached 20,000ft in 5.1 mins, which either means 5 mins 6 secs, or 5 mins 10 secs. Either way, it takes longer to get to 20,000ft than the production machine.

I was 100% correct [/B]


Well, you´re right at the first look the production aircraft would climb faster to 20k ( i misunderstood you, sorry) , but i wouldn´t call it considerable better. Furthermore i get 4.86min to 20k (4min 52sec) and i already said that the 4550ft/min is rather optimistic. Atmosphereic pressure drops quicker at low altitudes, so 4300f-4400ft/min would be more realitic in 1st gear than 4550.

My calculations say the AH spitfire, according to the charts, will need only 4.55min or roughly 4min 30sec. to 20k

niklas

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
Spitfire 14 is porked
« Reply #81 on: December 20, 2003, 03:40:45 PM »
The second production run that was done during the summer when the factory tools were slightly larger and more maleable gave a critical differential of .00127983492 in the size of the rivets used to secure the dynamic gimbling to the camphorgesic widget thereby causing a loss of .0020457834 negative psi to the airflow coefficient.

But you're completely ignoring the fact that during that run they procured rivets that were made of type 97 aluminum to offset the differential thereby actually increasing the reduction of the critical negative psi which made the plane climb faster and mo better than you seem to think it don't.

No, it shows right here in this here chart that the flabbergastrum tendency of the hemophicoptic latitudinal plate overlaps the gradient lasitometer reading by over .003979539 thereby backing up my claim and disproving yours!

On the contrary. The chart, when compared to THIS chart (from an even more reliable source than yours, might I add) shows that the bernealian factor was left out and didn't figure in the klappimatic effect.

Offline Pooh21

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3145
Spitfire 14 is porked
« Reply #82 on: December 20, 2003, 04:34:23 PM »
Oh yeah Arlo my planes better then yours . Because, yo mommas a poopyhead too.
Bis endlich der Fiend am Boden liegt.
Bis Bishland bis Bishland bis Bishland wird besiegt!

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
Spitfire 14 is porked
« Reply #83 on: December 20, 2003, 06:38:15 PM »
Quote
The fuel tank is the most significant as it it reduces both range and weight. Reduced weight of course should also mean a bit higher performance.


For good and for bad than, shorter range but a bit better performance. Acording to what I posted before our XIV looks to be climbing about 500 feet/min too fast at the deck, do you have any charts Karnak? I can't find any.
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Spitfire 14 is porked
« Reply #84 on: December 20, 2003, 11:31:04 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Wilbus
For good and for bad than, shorter range but a bit better performance. Acording to what I posted before our XIV looks to be climbing about 500 feet/min too fast at the deck, do you have any charts Karnak? I can't find any.

Not that I can think of off hand.

I was surprised by the initial climbrate of HTC's model of the Spitfire XIV as well.  I was expecting the 4,580ft/min figure.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20388
Spitfire 14 is porked
« Reply #85 on: December 21, 2003, 12:32:10 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nashwan
[B.
Wing tips are independent of wing type. You could have C or E wings on the XIV, and either normal or clipped wings (never seen a XIV with extended tips, but I should think they were possible as well). Wether the Es were all made with clipped wings or not I don't know, but wingtips could be changed easily in the field, so there was probably a combination of types in service. [/B]


Most of the XIVs that flew in Europe had full span wings.  Lots of photos of E Wing Spit XIVs on the continent with full span wings until the end of the war.  XIVs in the Pac also had full span wings. I think the clipped XIVs were more of a postwar deal.

I have a photo in my collection of Ginger Lacy's 17 Squadron Spit XIV postwar with clipped wings while stationed in Japan.  When he was flying it before the end of the war it had full span wings.

Certainly it was something that could be done as needed and you'd find both clipped and full span winged Spits in the same squadrons.

The clipped Wing Spits were mainly the Vbs early on to increase the roll rate and when they were optimized for low alt work and then the 2TAF IXs and XVIs as they were doing the ground support work.

Dan/Slack
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
Re
« Reply #86 on: December 21, 2003, 06:12:14 AM »
Originally posted by Nashwan
Well, the colling report shows that a 25 lbs boost climb could be maintained for 5 minutes without the coolant passing it's maximum temperature, when the rad flaps were shut, so for a considerable portion, at least, of a climb the rad flaps would be shut.

Not quite, you are misqouting the report. The report deals with the same JL 165 MkIX, which had a additional device installed to keep the rad flaps in shut position. In the report they state the "suitability" of the radiator is just enough for "temperate" conditions, but unsatisfactory for "tropical" conditions. Given that most of the report is calculations based on some flight tests with pre-determined numbers for "satisfactory results", it`s hard to say how much really it means it won`t overheat. In any case, the radiator flaps would soon open just as the temperature passes the "normal" level (about 90 deg IIRC), decreasing climb rate as mentioned. And there`s no override to that.


It should also be pointed out that the Spit VIII had a worse climb rate than the Spit IX (it was 370lbs heavier).

Yep, it`s about 200 fpm worser than the Mk. IX, which cuts in very nicely with the decrease in climb rate with clipped models, suffering from the same wingload increase.

The report notes that climb rate is increased by the use of higher boost by approx 950 ft/min, and a normal Spit LF IX should have a climb rate of 4500 ft/min+ with 18lbs boost.

It should also be pointed out Rolls Royce got a figure of 5,740 ft/min with the same underperforming Spit IX the A&AEE used.


Uhm, if a "normal" Spit could do ~4500 fpm, and increasing the boost would raise that by about 950 fpm (4500+950= 5450 fpm), than how could RR`s Spit be "underperforming at 5740 fpm?

At Rollce-Royce`s test the "same underperforming Spit IX" was very close to it`s official specs at 399 mph max speed. With the same plane A&AEE mesured 389 mph as max speed, so clearly, for some reason, in the RR tests the plane was perfectly representative of an avarage spitfire.

What condition was used for 109 climb tests? I believe you said shut, or partially shut, on Butch's board, didn't you?

I said they were about halfways open up the the FTH, and from then onwards, about 1/4-1/3 open. This is to what most German tests refer to, ie.radiators being "Automatik". Of course since the 109 pilot could override automatic control of his radiators, he could shut them more, reducing drag and increasing his climb rate at the expense of overheating - but as we know, late 109s had double the WEP time than Spits.

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
Spitfire 14 is porked
« Reply #87 on: December 21, 2003, 06:26:57 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus


Don't know where to see that result, but a stopwatch brought me those results (error may be 3 secs or so, tops ):

Spit XIV, no wep, full load, with takeoff roll, 20K 6:46 Spit XIV, w. WEP, full load. with takeoff roll, 20K 5:50
in Real life this should be about 5 minutes, no WEP mentioned.
So the Spit XIV is definately porked. It actually gets outclimbed by the AH 109G2!

109G2 no WEP, full load,no gonds, with takeoff roll. 20K 6:34 109G2 w. WEP, full load,no gonds, with takeoff roll, 20K 5:48


Well if that`s the case, then both planes are porked. The XIV`s figures seem to be low, didn`t check it, but I checked the G-2s climb times.

ie. real-life figures :

Finnish tests:
109G2 no WEP, full load,no gonds,  20K = 5:03 min
German tests at rechlin
109G1 no WEP, full load,no gonds, with takeoff roll. 20K 5 : 14

vs. your 6 : 34 min.

These figures were done at 30-min rating at 1.3ata, the maximum WEP would be 1.42ata for about 10% more power at all altitudes, with an appx. same level increase in climb rate. Dunno how much would that be in climb time, guess somewhere between 4.5 and 5 mins to 20k.

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
Spitfire 14 is porked
« Reply #88 on: December 21, 2003, 06:37:06 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Wilbus


F Mk XIV, XIVE, FR Mk XIV, FR Mk XIVE.

Performance

Max Speed: 439 at 24,500ft (FS), 404 at 11,000 (MS), 274 at 30,000ft (FS), 220 at 35,000ft (FS). 357 at Sea Level (MS).
Normal Cruise 362 at 20,000.
Max dive 470.


Do I understanding it right and "Normal Cruise" refers to the highest obtaiable speed (362mph/583kph) that could be kept up w/o the engine overheating ? What engine setting ?

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
Spitfire 14 is porked
« Reply #89 on: December 21, 2003, 07:37:49 AM »
Yes, normal cruise would be the "cruising" speed of the plane, not flying on emergency power or military power.

However I believe it could cruise faster without the engine overheating. I can't find the engine settings for cruise.
Maybe Nashwan or Karnak know it?
« Last Edit: December 21, 2003, 07:45:17 AM by Wilbus »
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.