Author Topic: I remember some old posts discussing the AH's Spitfire IX as a Spitfire F.IX (Read 2603 times)

Angus · « **Reply #60 on:** January 14, 2005, 08:35:14 AM »

Well, regardless of that link Wotan, it is an established fact that the Thames on it's low flow in the autumn of 1940 (extremely hot and dry autumn) could not provide enough water for the firepumps. They pumped it down to the mud.
Actually, without any pumping, the Thames can run dry.

But how typical to haggle about it.

Anyway, just finished my code programming.
Now I can enter any alt bands and speed bands and get the results broken down in 100 feet units, be it climb rate (I will however need fpm data there, yet) or speed.

So, with that, I can satisfy the excel formula, and finally compare anything with anything and graph it up.
Will look a tad funny though, for I will have to use all measure points provided, for say 3-5 different aircraft, plus some between (calculated), so it will be quite a bit of work.
I will start with a comparison between JL165 and some other Spitties in the same era.
Results will be mailed, and then later on posted on the link.
I will put it in the Spitfire/109 thread, and some maybe as well here, - i.e. of respect with the thread, the performance differences in the Mk VII-IX.

Best regards.

Angus

Kev367th · « **Reply #61 on:** January 14, 2005, 08:39:38 AM »

Found a few intersting quotes.

Johannes Steinhoff, Sicily, Commander JG 77 (July 1943):
The Malta Spitfires are back again... They're fitted with a high altitude supercharger and at anything over twenty-five thousand feet they just play cat and mouse with us.

Alan Deere, Biggin Hill, Wing Commander Flying (March 1943):
The Biggin Hill squadrons were using the Spitfire IXBs (Merlin 66), a mark of Spitfire markedly superior in performance to the FW 190 below 27,000 ft. Unlike the Spitfire IXA, with which all other Spitfire IX wings in the Group were equipped, the IXB's supercharger came in at a lower altitude and the aircraft attained its best performance at 21,000 ft, or at roughly the same altitude as the FW 190. At this height it was approximately 30 mph faster, was better in the climb and vastly more manoeuvrable. As an all-around fighter the Spitfire IXB was supreme, and undoubtedly the best mark of Spitfire produced, despite later and more powerful versions.

How ironic we get a very good MkV and probably about the worst MkIX produced.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #62 on:** January 14, 2005, 08:43:24 AM »

Angus, just some more of the sour grapes from the Lufluvers.

They also forget that it was at low tide.

Angus · « **Reply #63 on:** January 14, 2005, 08:54:26 AM »

Ah, Wotan provided an excellent lead.
Thames on low tide, - in recent years.
The dry autumn of 1996......
Lowest month total averages ca 13 million m3
That makes a humble 300 m3 per minute.
I'd need some.......whooping.........4 6........ of my personl pump's to balance that.
Not very much, is it?

Well, it's just a fishpond

Guppy35 · « **Reply #64 on:** January 14, 2005, 02:54:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kurfürst
I am not taking any Dan, just noted that him, even smaller than you, barely fits into that cocpit - that`s plain obvious to see - and probably have to shave his head and only then he would have an inch between his head and the canopy`s plexiglass. Good to hear though people actually CAN fit inside. I guess that makes it possible to even fly it from the inside, eh?

Just to put this to rest. Have you ever been in a Spit cockpit or a 109 cockpit for that matter Izzy?

Common practice in the Spit was to raise the seat to it's fullest height for take off as the view over the engine was so poor. They did take off and land with the canopy open and the side door slightly open to stop the canopy from slamming forward in case of an accident.

Images showing Christopher Doll, another Spit driver I got to know while chasing Spit XII info. He was 6'2". Apparently the seat must be lowered in the photo of him in his 131 Squadron Spitfire V as he would be looking under the gunsight if he was looking forward.

The other image is Chris Doll with his best friend in the RAF, Ray Harries. They were known as "The long and the short of it" Both the tall and the short guy became aces flying Spits and served together both in 131 squadron where they were both flight commanders and later in 91 squadron on Spit XIIs where Doll was a flight commander and Harries the Squadron CO and later Wing commander at Tangmere when they had XIIs.

Dan/Slack

Angus · « **Reply #65 on:** January 14, 2005, 05:34:37 PM »

Any idea how tall Neville Duke was?
Must have been, for he would not fit the 109 cockpit

glenmorangie · « **Reply #66 on:** January 15, 2005, 09:02:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Any idea how tall Neville Duke was?
Must have been, for he would not fit the 109 cockpit

Ooh, time for personal experience...

I've sat in a Yak-9, a P-51( D and C ) and a Buchon (HA-1112/Bf 109G-2). I've looked in a Spit, although it was the two-seat version made by the Irish post-war.

I'm just about 6', I'm somewhat heaver than a WWII guy at about 210lbs ( my dad went into the Marines in WWII at 6'10" and 145 ). Oh, yeah, I do have a Pilot's License, mostly flying Cherokees. The Warrior is comfortable, the 172 is comfortable, the 150 is too small for me, for reference. Flyable, but uncomfortable.

Verdicts: P-51, roomy and comfortable. The seat adjusts vertically and the rudder pedals adjust. Definitely flyable for me ( hah! ignore the 150 hours of taildragger time and the addtional 250 hours of T-6 time recommended by our P-51s pilot, which I don't have! ).

Spit: Looks flyable, but would be tight. I can't remember if the pdeals adjust, but the seat does. The pilot is about 3-4 in shorter than me and he said it is tight because the addition of the aft cockpit shortened it down. How a guy 6'6" would fit in this thing is a mystery. I did not actually sit in the airplane.

Yak-9: Barely flyable. Shoulders against the cockpit sides at the canopy. Seat adjustable, rudder pedals not adjustable. Knees uncomfortably high. My friend who flys it is about 3 in shorter than me, but just as stocky. Canopy clearance would be tight, but OK with the seat lower.

109: Impossble. Seat adjustable on the ground ( 2 or 3 positions available, I think the mechanic said ), rudder pedals not adjustable. Distance from seat-back to pedals, maybe 24". Possible to close the canopy, but the top of my head brushed it. Shoulders totally hunched forward to fit in ( might be helped if the seat were lowered ). Would be very uncomfortable, and nearly impossible to get enough leverage to work the rudders. My knees were literally in my chin. The Germans had guys over 6' flying these things and I've got no clue how they did it.

Angus · « **Reply #67 on:** January 15, 2005, 09:17:03 AM »

Nice. Thanks

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #68 on:** January 15, 2005, 04:37:57 PM »

Hmm, he definietely seems to fit in nicely. A good deal more convincing than Dan`s original picture. Btw, I think angie wetted his pants about that picture some time ago. I faintly remember it was about nose-over view, something along the lines what dan said.

Now as for the seat, if Tobak could fit in with his 190cm+, I guess anybody would. The seat was adjustable, I am not sure about the pedals, but Tobak also gave a story about a 109 pilot who jumped into another (taller) guy`s plane, but he could not reach the pedals OK - were not adjusted for him, too far away - and groundlooped. Took away half of a barrack in the process, with some german guy in it who`s shaving.

Wotan · « **Reply #69 on:** January 15, 2005, 05:41:13 PM »

Even Reinhard Heydrich was able to fit into and fly a 109. He was over 6 foot... There were many LW pilots over 6 foot. Some try tp portray the 109 as if only elves could fly it...

Angus keep dreaming about your garden hose draining the Thames...

MiloMorai · « **Reply #70 on:** January 15, 2005, 08:36:06 PM »

How most of the Messycrap 109s ended their lives.

Not much headroom in these a/c.

Crumpp · « **Reply #71 on:** January 15, 2005, 08:57:38 PM »

Quote

The Biggin Hill squadrons were using the Spitfire IXBs (Merlin 66), a mark of Spitfire markedly superior in performance to the FW 190 below 27,000 ft. Unlike the Spitfire IXA, with which all other Spitfire IX wings in the Group were equipped, the IXB's supercharger came in at a lower altitude and the aircraft attained its best performance at 21,000 ft, or at roughly the same altitude as the FW 190. At this height it was approximately 30 mph faster, was better in the climb and vastly more manoeuvrable. As an all-around fighter the Spitfire IXB was supreme, and undoubtedly the best mark of Spitfire produced, despite later and more powerful versions.

Absolutely true for RAE FW-190's they were testing!

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html

However it does not hold true for the FW-190's maintained by the Luftwaffe.

Crumpp

Guppy35 · « **Reply #72 on:** January 15, 2005, 11:26:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Hmm, he definietely seems to fit in nicely. A good deal more convincing than Dan`s original picture. Btw, I think angie wetted his pants about that picture some time ago. I faintly remember it was about nose-over view, something along the lines what dan said.

The problem is, all I posted the photo of Terry Spencer for was to show that there were bubble canopy Spit XIVs flying before the war ended. Somehow it ends up being the catalyst for talking about Spits vs 109s again.

Who the heck cares? Clearly pilots fit in both of them as they made thousands of both types and used them successfully throughout the war.

All I've ever heard about the 109 is that the heavy braced canopy prior to the Galland Hood, made it feel a bit cramped.

Talking about the Spitfire doesn't automatically equate to criticism of the 109 or vice versa.

Dan/Slack

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #73 on:** January 16, 2005, 06:58:55 AM »

The problem is, all I posted the photo of Terry Spencer for was to show that there were bubble canopy Spit XIVs flying before the war ended. Somehow it ends up being the catalyst for talking about Spits vs 109s again.

Yep, it`s sad some (well, two..) people have only one possible reaction.

Who the heck cares? Clearly pilots fit in both of them as they made thousands of both types and used them successfully throughout the war.

100% agree. I just noted it looks a bit tight.

All I've ever heard about the 109 is that the heavy braced canopy prior to the Galland Hood, made it feel a bit cramped.

Well actually it isn`t so, a great many people liked the cocpit. The two type of canopies were btw exactly the same in size. It`s Erla Hood btw from one factory, the galland stuff is for the transparent head armor that appeared some time before the new canopy. Easy to mix up, I know.

This is for an early 109, well before the new hood:

...The longer one is at the flying business, the more firmly convinced he becomes that he knows very little about it. I must say, however, the Messerschmitt Me109 is the finest airplane I have ever flown. It was a very happy day for me thus to enjoy the opportunity of flying and studying one of Germany's first-line single-seater fighters. I was told, of course, that the performance of the Heinkel 112 was about the same as the Messerschmitt, and I have been assured on this point, repeatedly. As far as I know, I'm the only pilot outside the members of the air force who has ever flown a first-line Messerschmitt Me109.

Along with its delightful flight characteristics, the visibility in this Messerschmitt is all that a fighter pilot could reasonably ask. There are a great many single-seater fighters in the world that I have not flown, but I had formed my opinion of the flight characteristics of the Messerschmitt after studying it on the ground and before flying it. And those estimates were confirmed in flight. I had made my own estimates of the performance and maneuverability characteristics of a lot of other single-seater fighters, and I'd be willing to wager that none of them represent the general, all-around flight and fighting characteristics possessed by the Me109."....

-US Marine Corps Major Al Williams, Schneider Trophy competitor with his own Kirkham-Williams aircraft, Pulitzer winner from '23 and a head of the Gulf Oil Company's aviation department, had a chance to fly the latest aircraft in the German Luftwaffe's arsenal, Messerchmitt 109 D in summer 1938. Major Williams' view on the capability of the fighter gives an interesting view on the usual commentary about flying and the capabilities of the Bf 109 fighter.

Appearantly he also flew the Spit and Hurri, and I guess dozens of other fighters.

Talking about the Spitfire doesn't automatically equate to criticism of the 109 or vice versa.

Do you hear that MiloMoron and Angie?

MiloMorai · « **Reply #74 on:** January 16, 2005, 08:36:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kurfürst
The problem is, all I posted the photo of Terry Spencer for was to show that there were bubble canopy Spit XIVs flying before the war ended. Somehow it ends up being the catalyst for talking about Spits vs 109s again.

Yep, it`s sad some (well, two..) people have only one possible reaction.

For sure you, Barbi and Wotan did your usual Luftluver crud.

Who the heck cares? Clearly pilots fit in both of them as they made thousands of both types and used them successfully throughout the war.

100% agree. I just noted it looks a bit tight.

With your usual little barbs(ie. trolling) Barbi.

Talking about the Spitfire doesn't automatically equate to criticism of the 109 or vice versa.

Do you hear that MiloMoron and Angie?

Take your own advice Barbi. Kindly point out where I have been critical of the 109 unlike you who at every chance will put down the Spit.