RAF Fighters & Ranges

[KJ_Lesnick]

Being pedantic, it's a 'Mk V' and a 'Mk IXC'. They didn't start using Arabic numbers until the Mk 21, and they didn't use the 'F' prefix during the WWII years.

Okay...

[wuzak]

wuzak

IIRC the highest speed the Spitfire was dived to M0.91 It was a PRXIX, which went into the dive after it staled at an indicated 50,000ft (actual ws over 51,000ft).

I didn't know that, though that is quite remarkable as it might be faster than the Me-262 could dive!  I do remember reading something which indicated a Spitfire F.8 (not sure if it had a raised leading edge or not) being rated for 0.85 mach maximum safe dive, and they did 0.895 or something whether that damaged the plane or not I don't know.

Reading the article again (in The Spitfire Story, Alfred Price) the estimated dive speed was ~690mph/M0.94 @ 15,000ft.

I'm sure if he had the choice the pilot wouldn't do it deliberately. Basically at that altitude the maximum speed was the same as the stall speed, so he basically fell out of the sky.

The pilot was doing a meterological and had instruments aboard to measure temperatures and pressaures at different heights in 5,000ft increments. It is from this a that his speed and machnumber were derived.

His altitude was 50,000ft indicated/51,550ft true. He noted the speed was 108kt (275mph true).

The cockpit pressurisation warning light came on.He pushed over to quickly reduce his altitde, but he ended up in a vertical dive.

The RAE had conducted high mach number tests during the war. Squadron Leader Martindale conducted the tests in a PR.XI reaching 606mph (mach 0.891) in a 45° dive. In similar tests he had the supercharger explode and the famous one where the reduction gear broke and the prop parted company. Martindale glided the aircraft to a safe landing.

But the high speed wing referred to is not ultimated mach limit - it is a lower drag profile allowing increased level speed and improved fuel consumption.

Did not know that...

The goal being high speed in normal (ie level) flight.

From Alfred Price The Spitfire Story the aircraft in question was a IXC. It was fitted with a 43 gallon rear fuselage tank, 16 1/2 gallons in flexible fuel tanks in the leading edge and 2 x 62 gallon drop tanks under the wings. This gave a total of 285 gallons of fuel.

How many gallons did the Spitfire F.5 and normal F.9C carry?

Mk V and Mk IX capacity was 85 UKG.

A PR XI had an internal capacity of 217 UKG which could, like the V and IX, be added to with 30, 45 or 90UKG tanks.

The PR XI range was 2,310 miles with a 170UKG ferry tank.

The PR X had an internal capacity of 228UKG.

[wuzak]

How many gallons did the Spitfire F.5 and normal F.9C carry?

Being pedantic, it's a 'Mk V' and a 'Mk IXC'. They didn't start using Arabic numbers until the Mk 21, and they didn't use the 'F' prefix during the WWII years.

I thought they started when the IX got the Merlin 66 (LF.IX) and Merlin 70 (HF.IX). The ones fitted with the Merlin 61/63 were retroactively named F.IX.

Then came the FRs.

[tahsin]

Glimpsing through the thread I think it was in an Air Enthuasist where they discussed the RAF work to extend the Spitfire's range. And they tried a version that matched the P-51, possibly the ones that flew to Iceland as noted in previous pages, but the cruise speed was much lower.

[KJ_Lesnick]

wuzak

Reading the article again (in The Spitfire Story, Alfred Price) the estimated dive speed was ~690mph/M0.94 @ 15,000ft.

Was this version equipped with the revised leading-edge?

I'm sure if he had the choice the pilot wouldn't do it deliberately.

Probably not!

The pilot was doing a meterological and had instruments aboard to measure temperatures and pressaures at different heights in 5,000ft increments. It is from this a that his speed and machnumber were derived.

His altitude was 50,000ft indicated/51,550ft true. He noted the speed was 108kt (275mph true).

The cockpit pressurisation warning light came on.He pushed over to quickly reduce his altitde, but he ended up in a vertical dive.

So he over-controlled it in the push-over or he stalled as he attempted the push-over?

The RAE had conducted high mach number tests during the war. Squadron Leader Martindale conducted the tests in a PR.XI reaching 606mph (mach 0.891) in a 45° dive.

Sorry, I thought it was 0.895 -- still that's smoking fast in those days.

The goal being high speed in normal (ie level) flight.

Did it have a higher maximum-mach number as a side-effect?

[wuzak]

wuzak

Reading the article again (in The Spitfire Story, Alfred Price) the estimated dive speed was ~690mph/M0.94 @ 15,000ft.

Was this version equipped with the revised leading-edge?

No. It was a production PR.XIX.

The pilot was doing a meterological and had instruments aboard to measure temperatures and pressaures at different heights in 5,000ft increments. It is from this a that his speed and machnumber were derived.

His altitude was 50,000ft indicated/51,550ft true. He noted the speed was 108kt (275mph true).

The cockpit pressurisation warning light came on.He pushed over to quickly reduce his altitde, but he ended up in a vertical dive.

So he over-controlled it in the push-over or he stalled as he attempted the push-over?

Possibly. But at that altitude he was flat out staying above the stall, so it wouldn't have been too difficult to do.

The goal being high speed in normal (ie level) flight.

Did it have a higher maximum-mach number as a side-effect?

I don't know.

[KJ_Lesnick]

No. It was a production PR.XIX.

Did it take any damage?

Possibly. But at that altitude he was flat out staying above the stall, so it wouldn't have been too difficult to do.

Understood

I don't know.

Understood

[chiglet]

Two  [VERY] good reads,are"Sigh for a Merlin" by Alex Henshaw {he lost a prop over Castle Bromwich, test flying Spits } and Flight of the Mew Gull.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Wuzak,

Just to clarify and break everything down how many tanks are in the fuselages of the

• Mk.1
  
• Mk.5 & 5b
  
• Mk.8 & 9C (Normal)
  
• Modified 9C
  

and how many gallons were fitted to them (US preferably)?

Furthermore: Which variants were configured to carry drop-tanks, ferry tanks (etc) and were they all carried under the wing, or some under the fuselage?

The only issue I see is getting the fuel from the outer wing tanks past the cannon bays.

That's a good question, I'm not sure if that solution had ever been worked out (ask PR19), I would guess you'd route the fuel lines from the outer tanks and around the backs of the guns


PR19_Kit

Being pedantic, it's a 'Mk V' and a 'Mk IXC'. They didn't start using Arabic numbers until the Mk 21, and they didn't use the 'F' prefix during the WWII years.

Sorry about that, I just find the arabic numbers easier to use  .  As for the F prefix, I just made a guess as there were some planes in the RAF inventory that used F as a designator (such as the Mosquito which came in B, F, PR, NF, FB variants)

[jcf]

Easy answer, buy Spitfire: The History by Morgan and Shacklady.
Yes, I own a copy; no, I won't trawl through it to answer your questions.

Why you ask? Simple you have never added anything to this site, to Secretprojetcs nor BTS, all
you do is ask, ask, ask, ask. In short Kendra/Robynn/whoever the frak you really are, you are a
leach. You ask, beg, plead for information (much of which is attainable through a simple web search,
or gasp, the purchase of related literature) yet you never contribute any.
So why don't you just frak off?

[KJ_Lesnick]

Easy answer, buy Spitfire: The History by Morgan and Shacklady.
Yes, I own a copy; no, I won't trawl through it to answer your questions.

The Shacklady book is around 150 dollars if bought USED.  That is very expensive.

Simple you have never added anything to this site, to Secretprojetcs nor BTS

1. Actually, I found a whole bunch of stuff in a patent search on Nathan C. Price (This might have been on SP), which was found to be very interesting; I did modify a line drawing trying to illustrate a point (which doesn't look bad if I do say so)

2. I honestly don't understand why people get so bent out of shape when I ask questions: Why is it such a sin to ask something?

all you do is ask, ask, ask, ask. In short Kendra/Robynn/whoever the frak you really are, you are a leach.

1. It is generally considered offensive to call somebody a parasite...
2. One learns through asking questions... and an aviation forum is a good spot to ask.

You ask, beg, plead for information (much of which is attainable through a simple web search, or gasp, the purchase of related literature) yet you never contribute any.

1. I have purchased a number of books based on recommendations on these sites, some however are expensive, and I have acquired many books over the Christmas vacation which cost on the order of several hundred dollars.

2. As for web-searches, I have done web-searches a times: In some cases I got nothing useful; in others, I latched onto something online, and was able to refine my knowledge via better results from here.

[pyro-manic]

2. I honestly don't understand why people get so bent out of shape when I ask questions: Why is it such a sin to ask something?

Because it's a constant (and I mean constant) stream of often bizarre questions, which can either be answered yourself with a bit of effort, or are so strange that they can't be meaningfully answered, or are trifling technicalities that cannot be answered by anyone short of a designer who's been dead for decades. You want to be spoon-fed information, and it's infuriating. Do your own research, read some books, stop trying to get everyone else to do it for you. You were banned from SecretProjects for a reason - this very reason. Everyone here has been extremely tolerant of your behaviour, but JCF is exactly right - you don't give anything back to the community, you don't contribute. This site is about building models. Why don't you try that?

As for books being expensive, I've said it many, many times: use a library. That's what they're for. 

[kitnut617]

2. I honestly don't understand why people get so bent out of shape when I ask questions: Why is it such a sin to ask something?

Because it's a constant (and I mean constant) stream of often bizarre questions, which can either be answered yourself with a bit of effort, or are so strange that they can't be meaningfully answered, or are trifling technicalities that cannot be answered by anyone short of a designer who's been dead for decades. You want to be spoon-fed information, and it's infuriating. Do your own research, read some books, stop trying to get everyone else to do it for you. You were banned from SecretProjects for a reason - this very reason. Everyone here has been extremely tolerant of your behaviour, but JCF is exactly right - you don't give anything back to the community, you don't contribute. This site is about building models. Why don't you try that?

As for books being expensive, I've said it many, many times: use a library. That's what they're for. 

Amen !!

[KJ_Lesnick]

pyro-manic

The local-library doesn't have that book...

[NARSES2]

In the UK we have the inter library loan service whereby you can ask your local library to borrow the book you want from another library.

Do you have a similar thing Stateside ?