After the correction of the Emil i had a look at the charts, and iīm wondering myself a bit now.
First what i know about the Spit1a:
The Merlin III engine (it is a Merlin III isnīt it?) had basically the same performance like a Merlin II, but a Rotol or De Havilland variable pitch airscrew could be mounted. Btw, Is it true that the Merlin III did not have a pressurized water cooling system -introduced with Merlin IV- and still used Aethylenglycol? If so, than i understand now why the 109 was considered better especially in high altitudes.
Anyway, the performance of the Merlin II/III:
Maximum Takeoff 3000rpm, 6 1/4lb, 0ft: 880hp
Maximum Rated altitude 3000rpm, 6 1/4lb, 16k: 1030hp
with 2850RPM, 6 1/4lb, 15k: 1025hp
In AH 6 1/4lb is normal power, and you can boost the engine to 71/2, almost 8. Isnīt this too much power then?
On the other hand, even with normal power, the spit canīt reach the 16k critical altitude. Performance begins to drop at 10k. There seems to be also a bug with the boost indicator of the Spit I: At 10k it begins to drop, but at ~14k it begins to raise again to the maximum, like a 2nd stage (Though performance doesnīt raise).
Now the Emil had the DB601A. Instead "more boost", it looks like we donīt have the takeoff boost at all(1,4 ata, 2400rpm). Instead it looks like we have the 5min rating (1,3ata, 2400rpm) for emergency power.
Ok, takeoff power was only allowed in very low altitudes, but a little more performance for short sprints or climbs in low dogfights is very helpful.
Next little problem: The critical altitude seems to be only 4km, but this was the old charger of the 601A0 or B0 series. The A1 and B1 mass production engines had the 4,5km charger.
Now my real question: how does it come that Spit1 can climb with Emil? The SpitI was 400lb heavier, and has near ground 100hp less power, even without the takeoff power of the Emil. I canīt see any reason why the spit should climb as well as a Emil (I donīt consider 50ft/min a difference).
niklas