Spit IIa is now so much more inferior to the 109

[Crumpp]

date of publishing? NM, I found it July 1940.

Those notes look fishy.....my copy of the July 1940 notes clearly states 30 Minutes for climb rating at +9lbs @ 2850 rpm.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Those notes look fishy.....my copy of the July 1940 notes clearly states 30 Minutes for climb rating at +9lbs @ 2850 rpm.

Pilot's Notes General 2nd Edition from 1943 states that the time limit for climb rating was increased from 30 minutes to 1 hour.

[Crumpp]

from 1943

Makes more sense now. July 1940 did not make any sense at all.

[Crumpp]

Most civil operating handbooks will denote a normal climb speed which is also known as Cruise Climb speed.

Very few list a cruise climb speed. Once again, it is something that changes with atmospheric conditions and the weight of the aircraft is a huge factor. That is what you are doing, climbing the plane at the optium speed as it sheds the weight of consumed fuel.

Cruise climb is calculated as it varies with conditions and is of most practical value in a turbine engine. There are two approaches. Optimum Climb speed produces the best overall fuel economy. It seeks to balance the most altitude over time using the least amount of fuel with the most distance covered over the ground. Best Economy Climb speed is the second method and it factors operating cost, maintenance, and crew cost. Neither one is applicable to a WWII piston engine fighter.

Piston engines the main benefit is engine cooling, visibility and comfort.

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Cruise climb is calculated as it varies with conditions and is of most practical value in a turbine engine. There are two approaches. Optimum Climb speed produces the best overall fuel economy. It seeks to balance the most altitude over time using the least amount of fuel with the most distance covered over the ground.

The distance covered over the ground is utterly irrelevant, the RAF used a spiral climb at the start of the BoB, it may have been a bad choice, but it proves that they weren't in the least concerned with the distance over the ground, since in a spiral climb that is effectively zero.

[Crumpp]

The distance covered over the ground is utterly irrelevant, the RAF used a spiral climb at the start of the BoB, it may have been a bad choice, but it proves that they weren't in the least concerned with the distance over the ground, since in a spiral climb that is effectively zero.

Completely irrelevant to the fact you don't cruise around at climb ratings. Even during a "cruise climb" your engine is set to a maximum continuous or below.

Generally max climing settings could be used for level flight much more safetly beacuse there is better airflow by radiators which casue better cooling engine condition then in steady climb at the same engine settings. So if engine have 1/2 hour limit for max climbing settings it could be used even more safetly for level flight. The one thing which is imprortant here is just fuel usage. Just all.

Right but completely irrelevant to the fact you don't cruise around at climb ratings. Better cooling or not, level or climb, it is an over boost condition on the engine and increased chance of failure.

[Crumpp]

Glider,

I think you asked about the Bf-109 Load factor limits. I am not sure of the specifics but I do know the engineering safety margin were higher in German aircraft. Take away being the airframes are not rated on the same scale.

[Kwiatek]

Generally max climing settings could be used for level flight much more safetly beacuse there is better airflow by radiators which casue better cooling engine condition then in steady climb at the same engine settings. So if engine have 1/2 hour limit for max climbing settings it could be used even more safetly for level flight. The one thing which is imprortant here is just fuel usage. Just all.