Thread: Plane Ratings
View Single Post
  #10  
Old 09-07-2009, 03:26 PM
David603 David603 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: 6'clock high
Posts: 713
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mondo View Post
Almost all the Spits were actually quite slow (at all heights as well) compared with what they fought and quite poor accelerators. The P51D and the 190's have much better acceleration and top speed at all heights.
Not true. Take a typical late model merlin Spitfire such as the MkVIII or MkIX and you will find it is roughly as fast as a Fw190A5 at all altitudes, though around 25-30mph slower than a P51D at any altitude. However acceleration is better than either fighter, considerably so in the case of the P51D, and a VIII or IX will outclimb a P51D by more than 1000ft per min starting at sea level, and can maintain this kind of advantage up to around 20,000ft, where the climb rates start to become more even and the Spitfire only has a 500ft per min advantage. The Spit can outclimb a Fw190A5 by about 500ft per min at sea level and once over 20,000ft the gap just gets bigger. Compared to a Fw190D9 the Spit will have a similar climb rate and acceleration advantage as over the Fw190A5 but without the D9 falling away so much in climb rate above 20,000ft, and the D9 will be around 30mph faster low down, this advantage dropping to around 15mph at 20,000ft.
Quote:
You'd probably be also shocked that the main ground attack aircraft used by the RAF in 1944/45 was the Spitfire IX.
This was not because the Spitfire was considered a poor fighter at this point but because the Spitfire lacked the range to be a long range escort, an given its good performance low down and availability in numbers this was the obvious choice for the ground attack/low level intruder role.
Reply With Quote