#21
|
|||
|
|||
just did another test with the mkIIa and they show (compared against the tests from SpitfirePerformace) that the mkIIa seems to be pretty much spot on for climb rate and top speed. (this plane really is fun to fly)
its the mkI thats off for some reason. the other thing i noticed is that u cant fly the mkII in anything other than the black and white undersides... which is pretty ironic as is was the EARLIER mkIs that flew in that paint scheme...completely minor issue i know LUTHIER lets get this mkI issue sorted please! |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
yep, the day/night scheme was changed between end of Dunkirk and beginning of the BoB, sometime in early June.
for the record The Spitfire Story, by Alfred Price lists the diff between 87 octane fuel and 100 as "giving no improvement at or above 16,500 foot full throttle height of the merlin II and III engines fitted to the spitfires, below that altitude the maximum boost pressure could be raised from 6 1/4 pounds to 12 pounds without causing detonation in the cylinders; the resultant extra power increased the maximum speed by a useful 25mph at sea level and 34mph at 10,000 feet" and being supplied to frontline squadrons from spring 1940. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
ABSOLUTE BONKERS!!!!!
the mkI is BETTER than the mkIa.... i did this twice cause i didnt believe it the first time... at 18k WEP boost (4lb) coarse pitch.... i can hit ~260 IAS thats what...340TAS? at the SAME at SAME boost and pitch... i can only hit 220 ISA in the mkIa 260IAS is still 20mph too slow but its a whopping 40 faster than the 'a' version (which should be the SAME as the mkI in terms of top speed) Edit: i even think the climb rate is better for the mkI vs mkIa but im not sure Last edited by Biggs; 03-30-2011 at 07:49 PM. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
bump... Has anyone else tried this yet? I want to make sure its not just me and my bad flying skills.
|
#25
|
||||
|
||||
trying it now
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Salute
Both the Spitfire I and Hurricane I were cleared to use +12 boost with 100 octane fuel on March 20th 1940. By that point, 100 octane fuel was in supply. There are numerous log entries from RAF Squadrons listing the dates the Squadrons converted as well as many histories mention this and there are many photos of aircraft with the '100' markings, for only 100 octane fuel. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no611-100oct.jpg http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no74-100oct.jpg http://www.spitfireperformance.com/6...-100octane.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rb-16feb40.jpg http://www.spitfireperformance.com/603-ross-pg125.jpg http://www.spitfireperformance.com/r...yce-100oct.jpg http://www.spitfireperformance.com/price-pg74.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o.../1940-0897.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...er_Station.pdf http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...banks-fuel.pdf http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-42363-319.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...cants-pg12.jpg http://www.spitfireperformance.com/6...ining-film.pdf http://www.spitfireperformance.com/6...-100octane.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...nstry-pg87.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...stry-pg191.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...r-spitfire.pdf There were no shortages of 100 octane fuel: Wood and Dempster wrote in their book "The Narrow Margin": Quote:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html Most of the benefit of 100 octane fuel in the Hurri I and Spit I was at lower altitudes, there was no gain above the rated alt of these planes. Only when the Spit II appeared with a higher boost supercharger at high alt, was there any gain up high. Last edited by *Buzzsaw*; 03-30-2011 at 10:17 PM. |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks for all the info Buzzsaw
|
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Spitfire: The History
According to RAE trials 12lbs boost would reduce engine life to 10 hours at 3000rpm ground level. Following trials of 95 and 100 fuel, the decision to supply 100 Octane fuel was made on 16 March 1939. 16 fighter and 2 bomber squadrons were supplied by September 1939 Merlin II produced 1030hp @ 16250ft (42.6" MP) and 1160hp @9000ft (54.3" MP) Trying to find some performance figures from the Supermarine trials. |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
OK, Handling trials held for gun configuration, Martlesham Heath 20th July 1939
K9787 (8 brownings) Merlin II, 2 blade wood fixed: time to 20kft = 9.4min Speed@18.5kft = 363 mph CEILING = 31,900 K9783 (8 brownings) Merlin II, 3 blade DH 2 pitch (5/20 bracket): time to 20kft = 11.4min Speed@18.5kft = 367 mph CEILING = 34,400 L1007 (2 hispano, no brownings at all) Merlin III, 3 blade DH type 5/21 bracket (that is not a CPS unit, it's a later 2 speed bracket for the Merlin III): time to 20kft = 10.7min Speed@18.5kft = 364 mph CEILING = 34,500 So, there's not a massive difference between the types. The difference is in take off distance, acceleration and pilot workload. All spitfires were converted to the 5/29 and 5/30 brackets for CPS during June and July 1940 Last edited by Osprey; 03-30-2011 at 11:02 PM. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
def needs MOAR BOOST!!!! |
|
|