Was the corsair as good a fighter as the spitfire or the FW?

[davparlr]

Some data I've assembled. F4U data is as good as I can get. The sources I have tend to diverge!

I broke the time period down into three segments based on significant F4U upgrades. Note, data is base on normalized fuel loads between the F4U and FW-190A-4/5. Data shows SL speed (mph)/SL climb(ft/min)/Max speed(mph)/speed 25k (mph)/climb 25k (ft/sec). I put in 25k data as this is B-17 penetration altitude, something the AAF was interested in.

Dec 42 (F4U-1) deployed

F4U-1 350 3250 417at23k 410 1600
Fw-190A-4 355 3600 410at21k 406 1600
Spitfire IX 329 3740 413at24k 408 1800

Nov 43 (F4U-1A(water) deployed

F4U-1A(W) 365 3350 422at 20k 420 1750
Fw-190A-5 355 3300 408at21k 400 1400
Spitfire XIV (?) 360 5000 447at26k 446 3000

Apr 45 (F4U-4 deployed)

F4U-4 375 4150 446at26k 440 2800
Fw-190D-9 385 4430 431at16k 418 2165
Spitfire XIV 389 5000 447at26k 446 3100


Trying to compare aircraft over time is difficult. This is some snapshots of performance with a lot of guesswork including boost levels. This is probably a rough order of magnitude estimate and does not include other important parameters such as turn rate, roll rate and dive speed.

Just looking at the parameters listed, it appears to me that, when the F4U-1 was deployed, the three aircraft was, for all practical purposes, equal in performance. The Spitfire was rather slow at SL.

When the water injected F4U-1A appeared, it had a noticeable advantage over the Fw-190A-5 and Spitfire Mk IX. The powerful Mark XIV was appearing but I am not sure how successful it was in integrating into the RAF.

Very late in the war when the F4U-4 appeared, it was slightly inferior to the Fw-190D-9 at lower altitudes but had a significant advantage at higher altitudes. The overall edge would have to go to the Spitfire XIV due to its equivalent speed and noticeably better climb at all altitudes.

 

[davparlr]

Sorry but I think you hope too much for Spitfire. It was very good aircraft, but in my opinion airframe was somewhat obsolate by World War II. It represents peak technological advancement of 1935, but progress was fast, and Spitfire never developed to new results, only like garage tuning. No real modernisation program.

To me this comment borders on the arcane. The Spitfire performed quite ably in every stage of the war and was also capable of being upgraded with weapons, wings, and engines to maintain it effectiveness. Just comparing the performance of the Mark XIV to the vaunted Fw-190D-9, posted above, demonstrates how the Spitfire could compete with one of the best, and much later, Luftwaffe aircraft of the war. To say the Spitfire was obsolete at the beginning of the war is like saying the F4 was obsolete at the beginning of the Vietnam War.

 

[Shortround6]

Some data I've assembled. F4U data is as good as I can get. The sources I have tend to diverge!

Just looking at the parameters listed, it appears to me that, when the F4U-1 was deployed, the three aircraft was, for all practical purposes, equal in performance. The Spitfire was rather slow at SL.

When the water injected F4U-1A appeared, it had a noticeable advantage over the Fw-190A-5 and Spitfire Mk IX. The powerful Mark XIV was appearing but I am not sure how successful it was in integrating into the RAF.

Very late in the war when the F4U-4 appeared, it was slightly inferior to the Fw-190D-9 at lower altitudes but had a significant advantage at higher altitudes. The overall edge would have to go to the Spitfire XIV due to its equivalent speed and noticeably better climb at all altitudes.

I think that is a pretty good summing up the situation.

 

[davparlr]

I think that is a pretty good summing up the situation.

Thanks. By the way, to be able to fly nose-to-nose with some of the best fighters of WW2, and be carrier qualified, is an amazing accomplishment, in my opinion. Kudos to the Vought company for building an outstanding aircraft.

 

[renrich]

Don't forget that the Corsair had a significant advantage in range over the other two either on internal fuel or with belly tanks. A Corsair with two belly tanks could have as much as a 550 mile combat radius.

 

[davparlr]

YES! Certainly. I should have pointed this out. The F4U-1 had over 200 gallons more internal fuel capacity than the Fw-190, probably more compared to the Spitfire. Later versions had less but still had about 100 gallons more internal fuel capacity. Lots of flexibility here. Another Kudos.

 

[wuzak]

Some data I've assembled. F4U data is as good as I can get. The sources I have tend to diverge!

I broke the time period down into three segments based on significant F4U upgrades. Note, data is base on normalized fuel loads between the F4U and FW-190A-4/5. Data shows SL speed (mph)/SL climb(ft/min)/Max speed(mph)/speed 25k (mph)/climb 25k (ft/sec). I put in 25k data as this is B-17 penetration altitude, something the AAF was interested in.

Dec 42 (F4U-1) deployed

F4U-1 350 3250 417at23k 410 1600
Fw-190A-4 355 3600 410at21k 406 1600
Spitfire IX 329 3740 413at24k 408 1800

Nov 43 (F4U-1A(water) deployed

F4U-1A(W) 365 3350 422at 20k 420 1750
Fw-190A-5 355 3300 408at21k 400 1400
Spitfire XIV (?) 360 5000 447at26k 446 3000

Apr 45 (F4U-4 deployed)

F4U-4 375 4150 446at26k 440 2800
Fw-190D-9 385 4430 431at16k 418 2165
Spitfire XIV 389 5000 447at26k 446 3100


Trying to compare aircraft over time is difficult. This is some snapshots of performance with a lot of guesswork including boost levels. This is probably a rough order of magnitude estimate and does not include other important parameters such as turn rate, roll rate and dive speed.

Just looking at the parameters listed, it appears to me that, when the F4U-1 was deployed, the three aircraft was, for all practical purposes, equal in performance. The Spitfire was rather slow at SL.

When the water injected F4U-1A appeared, it had a noticeable advantage over the Fw-190A-5 and Spitfire Mk IX. The powerful Mark XIV was appearing but I am not sure how successful it was in integrating into the RAF.

Very late in the war when the F4U-4 appeared, it was slightly inferior to the Fw-190D-9 at lower altitudes but had a significant advantage at higher altitudes. The overall edge would have to go to the Spitfire XIV due to its equivalent speed and noticeably better climb at all altitudes.

Just one question - was the IX a IX (M61), LF IX (M66) or HF IX (M70)? If it was an HF IX that would probably explain the slow sea level speed.

Regarding the (?) on the XIV I presume you were asking if that used water injection/ADI. If that was the case then the answer is no.

 

[wuzak]

good point.
My statement was in reference to the Spit XIV and contemporary P-47D, probably closer to M, in service.
If the Spit need dive to hold the same speed, it is still less than ideal.
The Spit can slow down to climb, but then hey, you'd be letting them get away...
Lets look at output to define "putter out".
again the engine manual or power chart would say. Its a bit more abstract than a 3 minute google search.
You might notice my google searches are more thorough.
Its probably my band width, though I'm only a 50 ft sea level. I'm sure if our heights were the same you might return better searches.

The Spitfire XIV was in service a year before the M/N. The D a year earlier.

From Joe Baugher's site:

One Pratt and Whitney R-2800-59 Double Wasp eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial, war emergency power of 2535 hp. Maximum speed was 429 mph at 30,000 feet, 406 mph at 20,000 feet, 375 mph at 10,000 feet, 350 mph at sea level. Initial climb rate was 2780 feet per minute. Climb rate at 30,000 feet was 1575 feet per minute. Service ceiling was 40,000 feet, and range was 950 miles at 10,000 feet. Range with maximum external fuel was 1800 miles at 10,000 feet at 195 mph. Weights were 10,700 pounds empty, 14,600 pounds normal loaded, and 17,500 pounds maximum. Dimensions were wingspan 40 feet 9 3/8 inches, length 36 feet 1 3/4 inches, height 14 feet 7 inches, and wing area 300 square feet.

A Spitfire XIV was 8mph slower at 39,000ft (SR's numbers) than the P-47D at its best altitude.

For the N:

Performance of the P-47N-5-RE included a maximum speed of 397 mph at 10,000 feet, 448 mph at at 25,000 feet, and 460 mph at 30,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2770 feet per minute at 5000 feet and 2550 feet per minute at 20,000 feet. Range (clean) was 800 miles at 10,000 feet. Armanent included six or eight 0.50-inch machine guns with 500 rpg and two 1000-lb or three 500-lb bombs or ten 5-inch rockets. Weights were 11,000 pounds empty, 16,300 pounds normal loaded, and 20,700 pounds maximum. Dimension were wingspan 42 feet 7 inches, length 36 feet 4 inches, height 14 feet 7 inches, and wing area 322 square feet.

Critical altitude of the turbocharger was 32,500ft. What was the service ceiling?

The M was slightly faster than the M, but was only made in a handful of numbers and didn't make it into service before the end of the European war.
Wonder how fast that went at 39,000ft

 

[davparlr]

Just one question - was the IX a IX (M61), LF IX (M66) or HF IX (M70)? If it was an HF IX that would probably explain the slow sea level speed.

I have limited resources on the Spitfire and I don't know much about it. This seems to be the Merlin 70 values, but I do not think the Merlin 61 was much better. Later versions using the Merlin 66 don't seem to be particularly fast at SL. One test indicated 340 mph at SL using 18 lbs of boost. If you have better performance figures for Dec. 42 to Nov. 43. let me know. I really do not have a good source for RAF aircraft performance.

Regarding the (?) on the XIV I presume you were asking if that used water injection/ADI. If that was the case then the answer is no.

Actually the (?) was due to my uncertainty of whether the XIV was actively deployed by the RAF at this time.

 

[post76]

The Spitfire XIV was in service a year before the M/N. The D a year earlier.

From Joe Baugher's site:
A Spitfire XIV was 8mph slower at 39,000ft (SR's numbers) than the P-47D at its best altitude.

keyword there is "contemporary" which would indicate aircraft used in service the same time.
I've seen tests for the SpitXIV in 1944, but when it saw service is another question.
The P-47D in '44 was considerably faster than the P-47B figures you posted.
It varies from source to source.
I still haven't found anything that shows the SpitXIV reached 421 at 39k ft.
There is a MkVIII prototype test with those numbers.
Other SpitXIV tests reveal it reached closer to 400mph at that height.
The P-47D-30 made 420mph at 40kft.
All that info is on the Mike Williams website, including the other SpitXIV tests.

The M was slightly faster than the N, but was only made in a handful of numbers and didn't make it into service before the end of the European war.
Wonder how fast that went at 39,000ft

They made 300 Ms, and retrofitted D's with the 57C engine.
The M prototype reached 488mph and other test figures show closer to 480 with ballasts.

To digress a bit, the SpitXIV would retain air superiority performance at lower altitudes.
I don't think there was any other plane that would come close to its performance other than a Lavochkin-7.
The Fw190A-8 or 9 might also give it a hard time.
The only American fighter that came comparatively close at those altitudes would be the F4U-4.

 

[davparlr]

I still haven't found anything that shows the SpitXIV reached 421 at 39k ft.
There is a MkVIII prototype test with those numbers.
Other SpitXIV tests reveal it reached closer to 400mph at that height.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14speedchart.jpg
This shows about 415 mph. This is similar to the prototype, which are reasonable numbers. All the others appear to be low altitude.

 

[Tante Ju]

I guess it depends on how much we can bend or twist them before it is a "lie".

Both planes suffer degraded performance. Which is the basic argument or at least mine. The Differences in climb and ceiling make it hard for a unit with mixed aircraft to maintain combat formations. I have told that that there was little difference between a 3 cannon 109 and a 1 cannon 109 and while there is little speed difference the ceiling penalty is somewhat greater. While the speed penalty is just 1.5-2.3% the ceiling difference is 5%, What is the climb penalty and more importantly what is the climb penalty at the higher altitudes?

Service ceiling is usually 100ft/min or 0.5m/s. It is not uncommon for the differences between individual aircraft to mean that they cannot fly in formation with each other at this height so some air forces us an "operational" ceiling at which the planes have to do a nominal (average) 500ft/min climb or 2.5m/s. This should mean that a small group of planes can at least stay in formation. To actually engage in combat and have some hope of staying at the altitude (or near it) that one started at (excluding attacks that just dive through the enemy formation) some air forces had a definition of a "combat ceiling" which was 1000ft/min or 5m/s.
While losing 1.5-2.0 a second off the peak climb rate may not sound like much, loosing 1-1.5m/s in climb can affect the altitude the plane can fight at by hundreds of meters.

Gravity is not biased. Both planes suffer. I just get tired of hearing that 3 cannon 109s had negligible performance penalty.

I do not say performance did not suffer. Suffer was not significant though. You claim perofrmance loss was worse on 109, but data shows you are wrong.
And this makes your whole thesis go bad, since you wanted to proof your idea - big wing of spitfire meant it had less performance penelty when weight was added. It is simply not true.

The question of armament and aircraft design is not so simple. You want to turn it to which was more effective which is another whole set of arguments. The Spitfire designers could no more pick and chose the types of guns to arm their fighter with than anybody else could. For most of the war it was .303 Brownings or Hispanos. One or the other, how many can you fit in. There was no lighter cannon to pick from.

I agree. If in Russia only Hispanos would be available, they would fit Hispanos in Yakovlevs and Lavochkins, and armament would be heavier. If in Germany only Hispanos would be available, they would fit Hispanos in Messerschmitts and Focke Wulfs, and armament would be heavier.

The Spitfire carried a greater weight of armament than the 109, that is a fact. as I just said, the effectiveness is another argument.

Yes, because the guns available for the Spitfire were heavier, it is only reason. Again, what was weight of armament Spitfire could carry? If you want to argue weight.. I do not believe gun weight is an issue for either 109 or Spitfire, but OK.

I can find datasheet showing maximum weight of armament for 109 being 823 lbs, plus 326 lbs of ammunition (and 200 lbs of armor).

Tell me, which Spitifire carried more than 1150 lbs of guns and ammunition?

As for the armament you give for the 3 cannon 109, can you give a source please. Most of mine say 150 rounds for the fuselage cannon (200 rounds for the F with the 15mm gun) and 120rpg for the under wing guns. what is 90 rounds between friends?

You are simply wrong, sorry. Please look up any German load sheet for 109F,G/K. All says this information. Ammunition for centerline 20mm gun was 200, ammunition for gondola guns were 145, each gun. Btw all of ammunition was carried in wing. If you want to prove it was not, go ahead, show loading sheet of Bf 109.. Spitfire carried less rounds in the wings probably because lay of guns was not so ideal for ammo boxes. Btw 20 mm version of MG 151 used exact same cartridge, just shorter, "necked" out so 20 mm round would fit.

Well, in 1941 I would choose the Spitfire. The 109 G doesn't show up until about a full year after the MK V.
I wonder what a four cannon Spitfire would have performed like with a 1942 engine?

In 1941 Spitfire, you will have 8 machineguns or two cannons with only 60 rounds each, because C wing was not produced yet. Look at British test. Early 1942 date. In 1942, standard Spitfire was VC. Standard 109 was F4 and G-2, very similiar performance because F4 engine was uprated at time to G2 engine rating.

Again, subject is which airframe is more adoptable, not which aircraft was "better" at given year. From this POV, Mark is meaningless. Mark V is good example because rating was very similiar to DB 601/605. Later Merlins in 1943/44 are better, but it shows my theory correct, Spitfire was kept effective and good fighting machine with heavier, more powerful engines, in airframe that was show its age not very effective anymore in using current technology.

If you use equal technology - same engine, same guns etc. - with different airframe, Spitfire will not make very good use of it and will have worst performance of all. It shows age of airframe, design concept of early 1930s actually, unchanged essential..

You doubt? Give 1200 hp Yak 3, very poor and obsolate Russian engine to Spitfire, and see what is happening.. plane will be like 60-90 km/h slower at all altitudes with this power than Yak 3.

Why not use all three cannon fighters for flexibility? Hurricane wasn't "bad" but the British knew it wasn't quite up to snuff against the 109. Using Hurricanes to fight 109s while Spitfires went for bombers would have given worse results.

Reason because Spitfire escorted Hurricanes was again practicality. Spitfire squadrons when "scrambled" climbed to alttiude faster, so they are in position to provide top cover.

Look again at the two Spitfire reports. While max ceilings were with in a few hundred feet of each other the operational and combat ceilings where much further apart. At 30,000ft the standard Spitfire could out climb the 4 cannon one by just over 19% instead of the 11% at lower altitudes. If the 3 cannon 109 showed a similar penalty at altitude it could explain a lot.

I think I showed you service ceiling data - 5 cannon 109 was worse somewhat, at 9000m it climbed 2 m/sec worse than 3 cannon one, but could still climb at 6 m/sec. Difference was similiar, actually little greater at low altitude.
This was still bester than any fighter tested by Soviet at time, including 2-cannon Spitfire VB (5,95m/sec, so about equal) and 4-cannon VC (4,97 m/sec) in British test.
Of course weight difference was greater, so this change figure somewhat if we add added weight of 109 was 20% greater than in case of Spitfire VB vs VC, and probably low wing load helped somewhat at big altitude, when plane flies like very slow at low altitude.

Small text of bottom - I do not see difference that would take my breath, especially as there is good deal of difference in conditions - Spitfire carry 20% lighter load increase, measurement error between planes etc.

OK, lets, Yak 3 goes 351mph. MK XII Spitfire goes 346mph. Yak has less drag but where is the 40kph? Yak is carrying less armament.

Soviet trial shows Spitfire IX could make 530 km/h with 1700 HP engine and Yak 3 567 km/h with 1240 HP engine.
Yak is carrying less armament? Since when 3 20mm cannons is "less" than two?

So what advantage did the big Spitfire wing offered over the tiny Yak 3 wing? I see none. Tell me. But I can see what advantage small and streamlined fighter has over Spitfire. THAT is very easy to see.

You just made it. DO you have any idea how successful these different designs were at getting the Meredith effect to work? I don't. I would guess that the P-51 was the most successful with the He 100 the least ( why retract the radiator in flight if it is giving thrust?). Without knowing what parts of the air frames and engine installations contributed what % to total drag it is a little hard to pick just one thing on an airplane and say "this was bad".

I do not understand then why you mention "Spitfire had meredith effect", like if it was special, and all others were bad. It sounded like that...

one set of figures for the Spitfire (at a very low speed) show that the wing was responsible for 20.3 pounds of profile drag out a total for the plane of of 60.2 pounds for all drag, not just profile. The tail wheel was worth 2 pounds. While making the wing smaller would have reduced the the profile drag even reducing 1/3 of 1/3 of total means that fitting a retracting tail wheel and smooth paint would have made half the difference of the smaller wing.

Interesting. So explain why is Spitfire much slower than anything else, if power is equal. It is much slower than Yak 3 on equal power. It is much slower than Bf 109F, G or K at equal power. It had progressive less range with any new Mark, while other fighters had better range. It is even slower than radial Fw 190A at equal power.
Tell me what is wrong then with Spitfire, if its not wing. Was surface so bad? Was fuselage so bad? Was it too many "bumps" on the airframe as it was "developed"? Because slower and less range is fact.

 

[Tante Ju]

Parasitic drag on the Spitfire was about the same as the 190, a lot less than something like the P-47.

This is both radial engined fighters.. say 190 was very good, low drag for a radial. It do not give very good diploma for Spitfire, which is column engine fighter.
In its own category, other column engine fighter, Spitfire is likely near end of list, if I look up engine power and airspeed..

All flight is about both. Of course, the tighter the turn the more important induced drag becomes.

Yes but as you say, 2-3g is best realistic figure for WW2 fighter for sustain turn. Induced drag has greater weight in the formula as you say (at least: low speed turn), but alone this say is meaningless because you have to look at all factors, which is why Yakovlev fighter outturn Spitfire, despite probably greater induced drag of Yakovlev design (high wing load).

But I'd question the Yak's superiority over the Spitfire at any altitude. Against a clipped wing IX at 18lbs boost, perhaps, but a full span IX at 25 lbs boost?

Then please look up figures.. but, I think you miss point. This is not really question of: was for example 1945 type Spitfire XIV best fighter or Yak 3, as usual. It is: which airframe is better, more easy to adopt, if all technical things are equal.

You are arguing for the "light" fighter. That argument was settled long ago in favour of the heavy fighter.

By who, you? But, again designer seem to disagree. Please tell F 16 pilots, which was design of light fighter, and perhaps most successfull all things considered.. and tell also Me 110 pilot the good knews, that arguement was settled in their favour.

Tragic part is, Spitfire is a "light" fighter that just got very heavy.. just heavy, not more capable, or like "heavy" fighters like P-47, Typhoon that were less manuverable, but could carry bigger bombs, further etc.

An aircraft has certain fixed weight items regardless of size: pilot, guns, ammunition, radio, iff, oxygen etc. The light fighter has to sacrifice somewhere, be it fuel, guns, radios etc.

Heavy fighter is also a sacrifice in performance, however. It is always compromise.

Fighters spent a lot of time cruising, very little time in combat. Fuel consumption in combat is very much a secondary consideration.

RR approach allowed for low fuel consumption on cruise, high power during combat. Increasing the supercharger power had very little effect on cruise fuel consumption. You can see that by comparing cruise consumption of the Spitfire I (Merlin III): Spitfire Mk I K.9787 Trials Report

and the Spitfire VIII (Merlin 66):

http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/3303/90bcropped.jpg

Sorry I remove picture, too big. But People can see. But your table does not show power developed, do you have perhaps table where power is shown, consumption is shown? It makes difficult comparison. I suppose Merlin 66 developed less (propeller) power at equal setting, since it has greater loss of power due to bigger supercharger, which engine drives constant.

The Spitfire VIII is at 20,000 ft rather than 15,000, which helps account for the better consumption, but even so it's clear that improvements to the Merlin didn't come at a cost of greater fuel consumption outside combat.

That is interesting, because Spitfire range was less less and less with later Types. Spitfire I range was 595 miles. Spitfire VA range was 500 miles, VB range 480 miles, IXF 430 miles, XII only 329 miles... you seem to say engine was same, but airframe detoriated very quickly in drag during development, if I understand you. Because something was reason so that range was going down, my friend.

Not all 20mm guns are equal. The Russian gun fired a 95 g shell at 790 m/s, the Hispano a 130 g shell at 860 m/s. Tony Williams ranks the power of the Hispano, round for round, at nearly twice that of the Russian 20mm.

Yes but Tony Williams only takes into account kinetik energie. KE is less significant part compared to explosive power when talking of cannons. Hispano had good ballistic, but was only avarage in destuction power. It shell were not very good and it fired slow. Soviet gun was much superior, since it fired 1/3 more shells at 1/2 the weight. I believe shell design also better on Soviet gun, but need to look up.

 

[Tante Ju]

Better than the RR supercharger perhaps but don't tell me it is free.

You know engine very well, thanks for explanation, very useful. Also thank you for accepting my point. You know see why DB engine fuel effiency improved. So you also see why 109 range improved, with no need for heavier load of fuel.

Sounds like smoke an mirrors to me. British used after cooler to cool intake charge. 1.8 AtA is just under 12lb of boost. I am not understanding the last part. the MW/50 carried away the extra 325hp worth of heat out the exhaust?

Yes, British used aftercooler device, but tell me, from where and what does after cooler cools, and how efficiently, compared to water that evaporate inside engine where heat is generated? Aftercooler cools charge in supercharger, not walls of engine.. anyway DB sheet says this data.

Possibly but what about the engines not using MW/50? like using the engine with C3 fuel and no MW/50.

I do not know answer to that, but I suppose it would generate a lot more heat than without MW? OTOH such was only used on 605DC engine (G-10, K-4, these probably less in problem, because their high altitude engine already called for bigger radiator size), and 801 engine.

Using what for speeds? I am having trouble relating power levels to actual speeds. I will give it another try though, Using British figures from Black 6 on Kurfurst's web site. 5 min emergency power, 20 minutes combat power, 20 minute reserve at 2100rpm/1.0 ATA (probably too high) leaves how far can you go at 1065hp for 29 minutes? This assuming you dropped the external tank upon going into emergency power and used no internal fuel on take-off or transferred fuel.

Why are you returning again and again after shown data? Real data for range is at Micheal Rautsch page for F4. http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=22

410 km/h at 130 liter/h. Complete tankage 400 liter, 1260 km is possible, but of course its lot less with climbing etc. In cruise, 8.9 mpg is possible.

But please show me how its poor compared to other. Remember you set following criteria for range:

spend 5 minutes at 685 km/h (emergency power performance of G-2, but this was banned early)
spend 20 minutes at 660 km/h
spend another 20 minutes at ca. 550-600 km/h

Say the standard you set to assess the 109 range is impossible to even achieve by 99% of WW2 fighters..

I may repeat some things but getting bogus facts does not help the argument.

Yes, but I believe, after so long repeat, you should put something factual on the table (call it bogus facts) not just argue argue argue.. anyone can argue, in fact most people on internet just argue. But I learn from those who also put fact on table, like I did when you posted about engines now.

 

[Glider]

I have to admit that my head is starting to spin.

Going back to basics.

Weight. I promise that any designer in any country who saved 100ib in weight would be doing cartwheels and buying all the drinks that night. The rule of thumb that I was taught was that if you add a pound in dead weight you would have to add ten to keep the same performance. Bit of strength added here, more power to keep the climb the same, more fuel for the bigger engine. In Short WEIGHT MATTERS.

Comparing a three gunned 1945 almost missed the war fighter against a 1942 fighter be it a 109F/G2 or Spitfire IX is hardly a fair comparison. If you want to get equal compare against a Spit XX or a 109K4

Saying that speed of one aircraft against another is the be all and end all doesn't even come close. If plane A was as fast or faster than plane B on a lower powered engine then something had to give. In the case of all the russian fighters that I am aware of it was range/payload/altitude = flexibility. Show me a photo of a Russian air to air fighter carrying 1,500/2,000 pd of bombs in combat and I will conceed.

Trusting Russian charts on aircraft like the SPit XIV must be treated with caution, after all how many did they have, did they have the right fuel, the spares to keep a one off engine in tip top condition? I would trust a British or US chart on say a Yak 9 with similar caution.

The changing range of a fighter as it developed shows the balance well. The drop in range of the Spitfire (and other types) as the varients passed is well known. But it is equally well known that they started carrying drop tanks which got bigger until the still air range of the Mk IX varied from 434 miles with the original single tank, to 1,420 miles with the bigger main tank, rear tank and 90 gallons externally. Assuming sufficient power, size gives you flexibility

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Tante Ju, your reliance on Russian figures is doing you no favours.
On the Mk.IX, the Soviet figure of 530km/hr is equal to a fraction over 331 mph; the IX's top speed was rated as 408mph (652 km/hr.)
Your climb rates, for the Mark Vs, are just as wildly inaccurate, since a climb of 5,95 m/sec is equivalent to about 1178 ft/min; the initial climb rate of the V was 4,740 ft/min, 3240 @ 5,000', 3,250' @ 15,000' 1750' @ 39,000', which makes your figures look rather like Russian propaganda.
Get some true, believable figures, and we can look again at the Spitfire, for which you seem to have such contempt.
Edgar

 

[post76]

The Russian figures might differ for a couple reasons.

One, they tested aircraft with guns installed.
Seeing as most Spitfires, particularly later models became available to them post war, and with a certain amount of mileage.

British figures often tested factory fresh aircraft where armament may not have been factored in, (or was it?)

Its also been demonstrated that Spitfires in the field with a certain amount of upkeep and maintenance still performed 10-20kph less than
what factory testing showed.

Differences in aircraft speeds of two separate models built in different countries could also be a matter of differences in instrumentation.
When the 109 tested against the French D520, the 109 instrumentation showed a 20kph advantage despite both aircraft doing the same speed.

Obviously this is where the literature is as important as the numbers posted from particular articles or tests.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

I'm afraid that is totally wrong; ALL of Russia's Spitfires were delivered during the war, starting in 1943, and the vast majority were brand new, having been delivered straight from a Maintenance Unit, so they had no previous "mileage." If you wish, I can give you the names of the ships, and their arrival dates in Russia. The last lot were taken on charge in June 1945 (when Russia decided to get involved in the Pacific.)
ALL flight testing, in the U.K., was undertaken with guns installed, and full fuel and ammunition load. Guns were installed by the factory, otherwise the compressed-air firing system would have leaked, causing all sorts of problems for the pilots.
Edgar

 

[Shortround6]

The Russian figures might differ for a couple reasons.

One, they tested aircraft with guns installed.
Seeing as most Spitfires, particularly later models became available to them post war, and with a certain amount of mileage.

British figures often tested factory fresh aircraft where armament may not have been factored in, (or was it?)

The British Goverment tests say in the notes if the test aircraft was armed or not, if not armed which was rare, they carried ballast weight to simulate armament. It was noted wither or not gun muzzles were taped, what kind of rear view mirror was used and other details that would affect performance. Testing specially prepared 'light' aircraft rather defeats the purpose of the test. They weren't trying to make their aircraft 'look good', they were trying to find out the actual performance so as to either develop new models or develop tactics for existing models.

 

[Hop]

This is both radial engined fighters.. say 190 was very good, low drag for a radial. It do not give very good diploma for Spitfire, which is column engine fighter.
In its own category, other column engine fighter, Spitfire is likely near end of list, if I look up engine power and airspeed..

Certainly a larger aircraft tends to have more drag. The answer isn't simply to built the smallest aircraft possible. That requires too many compromises in other areas.

But I'd question the Yak's superiority over the Spitfire at any altitude. Against a clipped wing IX at 18lbs boost, perhaps, but a full span IX at 25 lbs boost?
Then please look up figures.

I have. I can see a slight superiority at low altitude for a Yak 3 against a clipped wing Spitfire LF IX E running at 18 lbs. 25 lbs boost added 300 hp with no extra weight. Full span winged aircraft turned a bit better. The advantage shifted to the Spitfire as altitude increased.

Indeed, try the same tests at 10,000 and 20,000 ft and the Spitfire would have a huge advantage over the Yak.

It is: which airframe is better, more easy to adopt, if all technical things are equal.

And I'd say the Spitfire airframe is clearly superior. It's an older design than the Yak, yet still allows for greater performance and better load carrying. Compared to the Yak 3 the Spitfire IX had a higher ceiling, better range, tighter turn, carried more armament and had similar speed.

Of course a lot of that is down to the more powerful engine. But then if you have a more powerful engine, why not design your aircraft accordingly?

The Spitfire was designed from the start for a 1000 hp engine. The 109 was designed for 650 hp, hence the smaller size (and less flexibility)

By who, you? But, again designer seem to disagree. Please tell F 16 pilots, which was design of light fighter, and perhaps most successfull all things considered.

Tell the F15 pilots. The USAAF and most other forces decided on the heavier fighter a long time ago. Light fighters still have a place because they are cheaper, but top of the range fighters are heavy.

Heavy fighter is also a sacrifice in performance, however. It is always compromise.

A heavy fighter has to sacrifice less because the essential equipment makes up a smaller proportion of its total weight.

But your table does not show power developed, do you have perhaps table where power is shown, consumption is shown?

No.

I suppose Merlin 66 developed less (propeller) power at equal setting, since it has greater loss of power due to bigger supercharger, which engine drives constant.

I wouldn't have thought so. Remember, the Merlin 66 has a two speed supercharger. At cruise it operates at the lower speed. Because it's behind the throttle, it's operating at lower air pressure.

That is interesting, because Spitfire range was less less and less with later Types. Spitfire I range was 595 miles. Spitfire VA range was 500 miles, VB range 480 miles, IXF 430 miles, XII only 329 miles

And yet look at the consumption of the Spitfire I and VIII.

What is "range"? Does it include allowances? How are those allowances calculated and did they change?

Lets look at the 2 consumption tests. For the Spitfire I you say range was 595 miles from 85 gallons.

The best consumption figure quoted for the Spitfire I on test was 8.26 mpg, so you'd need 72 gallons to travel 595 miles. That leaves 13 gallons for starting, takeoff, climb and reserves.

The best figure for the Spitfire VIII was 10 mpg. For a Spitfire IX with 85 gallons, that means you'd need 43 gallons to travel 430 miles. That leaves 42 gallons for starting, takeoff, climb and reserves.

Clearly the same standards aren't being applied.

Because something was reason so that range was going down, my friend.

Yes. The Spitfire I clearly can't make 595 miles and have reserves. 595 miles includes takeoff, climb and cruise at most economical speed.

The Spitfire IX, on the other hand, has about 30 gallons left after covering 430 miles at the same profile as the Spitfire I. I suspect the difference is accounted for by higher cruise speeds, reserves, not taking account of range covered during the climb, etc.

The consumption of the aircraft in flight is clearly similar.

Yes but Tony Williams only takes into account kinetik energie

No. From his own description:

In other words, an HE/I shell of a given weight that contains 10% chemicals will generate twice the destructiveness of a plain steel shot of the same weight and velocity. If the shell is a high-capacity one with 20% chemical content, it will be three times as destructive. If it only has 5% content, the sum will be 150%, so it will be 50% more destructive, and so on.

The Russian 20mm HE shell had only 6 grammes of explosive content, compared to the Hispano's 10.4. So the Hispano fired a heavier shell, with more explosive content, at a higher velocity.

KE is less significant part compared to explosive power when talking of cannons.

Agreed. See the much greater HE content for the Hispano, though.

Hispano had good ballistic, but was only avarage in destuction power. It shell were not very good and it fired slow. Soviet gun was much superior, since it fired 1/3 more shells at 1/2 the weight. I believe shell design also better on Soviet gun, but need to look up.

Let's compare the firepower of the Yak 3 and Spitfire IX from the Tsagi test.

Spitfire IX - 2 20mm, 2 12.7mm
On Tony Williams scale, the ammunition had a total "power" of 7,200, the guns fired with a total of 510 per second.

Yak 3 - 1 20mm, 2 12.7mm

The guns fired 290 per second, total ammunition "power" 4,170.

So the same duration of fire from the Spitfire was 76% more powerful, the total ammunition carried by the Spitfire was 73% more powerful.

I'm still failing to see the superiority of the Yak 3.