Spit IIa is now so much more inferior to the 109

[ReconNZ]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Can you give us the relative energy states at the start of the fight?
What was your altitude? What was the 109's one?
The speed of both?

Hi Manu

Yeah the reason i raised the original post in the first place was because this 109 actually started just lower than me. i came onto him and we had an initial first pass, at which point he began to climb, he climbed away from me, then turned and engaged. After 2 or 3 repeats of this, he was much higher than me,.

Now I'm a pretty experienced spit pilot, i did my best to stay with him, but the 109 just climbs so much better than the spit - it's ridiculous.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by ReconNZ

Hi Manu

Yeah the reason i raised the original post in the first place was because this 109 actually started just lower than me. i came onto him and we had an initial first pass, at which point he began to climb, he climbed away from me, then turned and engaged. After 2 or 3 repeats of this, he was much higher than me,.

How much lower? But above all what's your speed? Was he faster than you?

I asking this since when I engage an enemy at my altitude I'll pass 30m under him (without pointing his plane so that I can avoid stupid headons) and my objective is to build the required speed for an Immelmann turn since usually I'm climbing at low speed.

In that way usually I almost keep all my energy while most of my enemies will make a 180° flat turn, bleeding most of their energy.

From there if I'm in the better climber I can climb away easily.

Do you remember his and your initial manouvres?

[Ernst]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Yea you start again with prototypes and folder data not for serial planes. Serial 109 E test proff different results - 467- 475 km/h at 1.3 Ata (990 PS). Nothing new to me and no sense to disccussion these again.

BTW

109 T-2 with Db601N in May 1941 reached at 1.35 Ata 2600 RPM - 1175 PS ( maximum emergency power) 490 km/h at the deck.

So i think for 109 E-3/4 at 1.4-1.45 Ata ( 1- minut emergency power) it is possible 490-500 km/h at the deck for a while ( less then 1 minut) nothing more.

For comparsion serial Spitfire MK1 at +12 lbs could do 505 km/h at the deck but for longer time ( 5- minutes).

Originally Posted by ReconNZ

Hi Manu

Yeah the reason i raised the original post in the first place was because this 109 actually started just lower than me. i came onto him and we had an initial first pass, at which point he began to climb, he climbed away from me, then turned and engaged. After 2 or 3 repeats of this, he was much higher than me,.

Now I'm a pretty experienced spit pilot, i did my best to stay with him, but the 109 just climbs so much better than the spit - it's ridiculous.

Being lower does not means it had less energy than you. And if it was coming from a dive and had much more speed than you. Energy = speed + altitude. I bet you just not avalied the energy states good enough. After 2 or 3 pass he was much higher because problaby he puts you in defensive obligating you to turn a lot when he preserves its energy using less AoA and coming inside your turn for a snap shot. Next time rec a track.

Problaby you were a victim of the famous rope a dope manouver. the good 109 pilots use it a lot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQWyrOSB6uw

[5./JG27.Farber]

SOURCE? Did you write it yourself or is it a book? By whom?

[IvanK]

"Should be possible to fly up to 30 minutes at + 9lbs and 2850 RPM. Actually it is not possible to fly even at +6 1/2 lbs at 2850 RPMs for 30 minutes."

Well sort of. 30 mins is a general limit. As to be able to actually do it is subject to Oil temp and Coolant limits staying within limits.

It seems the real issue in CLOD with the Merlins is keeping Oil temp below 95C. If you do this then generally there is not an issue. Go over 85C and the windscreen gets oily quickly.

The Source Document (AP 1565B) is RAF Pilots notes for the Spitfire II

[Crumpp]

LMAO, It is very realistic to use a climb rating for cruising.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

LMAO, It is very realistic to use a climb rating for cruising.

It is valid according to "AP 1732b Instructors' Handbook of Advanced FlyingTraining, 1st Edition" to use climb power for other "conditions of flight in which really high power is required".

[CWMV]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

It is valid according to "AP 1732b Instructors' Handbook of Advanced FlyingTraining, 1st Edition" to use climb power for other "conditions of flight in which really high power is required".

First thing that came to mind when I read the bold above:

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

It is valid according to "AP 1732b Instructors' Handbook of Advanced FlyingTraining, 1st Edition" to use climb power for other "conditions of flight in which really high power is required".

Not sure where the "cruise" reference came from but cruise, by definition, is the range of power settings that provide the best level flight fuel efficiency. That is what all pilots mean by cruise - fuel efficient flight.

Whilst you may be able to use climb power to sustain high speed level flight there is no way climb power is a "cruise" condition, that is just stupid. Its important to get definitions right or these threads devolve into pointless arguments about exactly what a term actually means.

Maybe you are permitted to use climb power for sustained high speed flight, but calling that "cruise" just confuses the issue.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

Cruise by definition is the range of power settings that provide the best level flight fuel efficiency. That is what all pilots mean by cruise - fuel efficient flight.

Whilst you may be able to use climb power to sustain high speed level flight there is no way climb power is a "cruise" condition, that is just stupid. Its important to get definitions right or these threads devolve into pointless arguments about exactly what a term actually means.

Maybe you are permitted to use climb power for sustained high speed flight, but calling that "cruise" just confuses the issue.

You are correct. I don't know why Crumpp came up with "climb rating for cruising" as no would call it "cruising" when you apply "climb rating". I only wanted to show that "climb rating" is not deemed to a flight conditions where rate of climb is > 0.

About "cruising" definition. In RAF terminology there are 2 "cruising" or "continuous" ratings. The higher one ("rich continuous") is the maximum power that can be obtained without time limit and if the engine runs at this setting it will have a reasonable life time of 100 hours. Everything setting above that shortens the engine life at a higher rate. Everything below that setting will lengthen the engine life.
The lower one ("weak continuous") is for the limit for the use of mixture control at "auto weak". This is a simplified guideline for best fuel efficiency, however there are many factors the influence best fuel efficiency. More details about how to obtain best fuel efficiency are typically given in the Pilot's Notes of each aircraft.