[JV69_BADA]

that's something for the V12's jokeys, the BMW801 was cleared for 2minutes of inverted flight :twisted:

Will see what i do have on the M61 and if got something , then Waggel will get a PM

[I/JG27_Waggel]

Little Off topic

.... Also was there an 4 cannon version of the MK IX ?

I hate that we only got 1 4x20mm spit

I like to make historical correct planes. There was no early Spit IX with 4 cannons. Even if there was one single Spit IX with four cannnons you will not like to fly her. The 4c flew like an old bag. Fighter pilots did not like her because she had 0!!! agilitiy. This plane only as usefull to intercept bombers. In a dogfight this plane simply was outclassed.

[Kristorf]

Also was there an 4 cannon version of the MK IX ?

I hate that we only got 1 4x20mm spit

There was a four cannon MkVIII and, I think, a six cannon (prototype) MkXII, neither popular with pilots due to recoil and ill ballance

[Davew]

There were versions of both the VIII and IX that carried the 4 cannon armament, though they were relatively rare.

As for the M61/63, I have various performance figures for the Spit, would assume its the Merlin 63, but they're not actually specified, and still can't find those books with the graphs.

Nevermind though, will keep looking, they have to be around somewhere.

[I/JG27_Waggel]

Thanks a lot Davew :!:

[JV69_BADA]

What is the meaning of "BF274" and "BS428". Is this somethig like a production number?

Forget those 2 test, fully wrong: not represantative of any serial plane:

BS274 IX 3247 R-R M61 FF 12-8-42 R-RH Cv IX M61 incorrectly painted 'BF274' Canadian Pacific retained until scrap. Off CRD contract not to be included in count AAEE 13-8-42 climb and level speed perf and positional error. 6-10-42 range det with 170gal overload tank. Guns removed for cool trials fuel cooler in port wing root 13-10-42 fuel cons trials Boulton Paul 31-10-42 CRD Staverton 11-1-43 AST 18-1-44 major repair mods at Flight Refuelling for fighter towing trials 7-44 58OTU 16-5-45 sold Vickers 11-1-47 Cv Type 509 two-seat trainer RNethAF as H-98 22-3-48

BS428 IX 3298 EA M61 FF 26-8-42 402S 26-8-42 RAE 11-42 neg G trials AAEE 14-1-43 level speed perf with and without 500lb bomb on mod carrier 19-1-43 brief hand trials with 250lb and 500lb bomb comparison trials and range det ice guard and guns removed fuel cool install in wing root. New carrier of RAF design and manufacture install 15-2-43 416S 23-3-43 AST 31-3-43 mods 421S 20-5-43 CAC ops 24-6-43 ros 405ARF 14-9-43 611S 15-10-44 sold scrap H.Bath 24-11-49

i checked what i got and not really much, the best acceptable data is from the spit9 manual, not from WW2spitfireperformance.comstuff, those 2 planes having too much modifications done to be considered as "standard" .

[I/JG27_Waggel]

Thanks a lot JV69_BADA. Very intresting. hock:
I never thaught, that it will be so hard to find any good performance data regarding to the merlin 61

[Redcanuck]

What is the meaning of "BF274" and "BS428". Is this somethig like a production number?

Forget those 2 test, fully wrong: not represantative of any serial plane:

BS274 IX 3247 R-R M61 FF 12-8-42 R-RH Cv IX M61 incorrectly painted 'BF274' Canadian Pacific retained until scrap. Off CRD contract not to be included in count AAEE 13-8-42 climb and level speed perf and positional error. 6-10-42 range det with 170gal overload tank. Guns removed for cool trials fuel cooler in port wing root 13-10-42 fuel cons trials Boulton Paul 31-10-42 CRD Staverton 11-1-43 AST 18-1-44 major repair mods at Flight Refuelling for fighter towing trials 7-44 58OTU 16-5-45 sold Vickers 11-1-47 Cv Type 509 two-seat trainer RNethAF as H-98 22-3-48

BS428 IX 3298 EA M61 FF 26-8-42 402S 26-8-42 RAE 11-42 neg G trials AAEE 14-1-43 level speed perf with and without 500lb bomb on mod carrier 19-1-43 brief hand trials with 250lb and 500lb bomb comparison trials and range det ice guard and guns removed fuel cool install in wing root. New carrier of RAF design and manufacture install 15-2-43 416S 23-3-43 AST 31-3-43 mods 421S 20-5-43 CAC ops 24-6-43 ros 405ARF 14-9-43 611S 15-10-44 sold scrap H.Bath 24-11-49

i checked what i got and not really much, the best acceptable data is from the spit9 manual, not from WW2spitfireperformance.comstuff, those 2 planes having too much modifications done to be considered as "standard" .

I looked into the text of the tests for BS274 and BS428.
Both aside from the removal of the ice guards (and the bomb rack on BS428)looked to be standard MK IXs.
The testers seemed to be looking for performance data for combat operations.
I think these are probably useful results.

~S~ Redcanuck

[I/JG27_Waggel]

AaAaaargh

It is like Idiana Jones and the holy merlin 61. There where some flight tests made by the RAF with a captured 190 and a Spit IX. But the performace of the 190 egine was bad, it was a fighter bomber and I do not have the performaca data of that 190.

So they only say something about the differeces in high end speed. It whould be too inaccurately :roll:

[Redcanuck]

AaAaaargh

It is like Idiana Jones and the holy merlin 61. There where some flight tests made by the RAF with a captured 190 and a Spit IX. But the performace of the 190 egine was bad, it was a fighter bomber and I do not have the performaca data of that 190.

So they only say something about the differeces in high end speed. It whould be too inaccurately :roll:

:lol: Its not that bad honest :roll:

Maybe Davew will find those books

By the way how does the data you have so far stack up against your 190a3? Maybe that would be at least a rough guidline to see if we are getting accurate info.

~S~ Redcanuck.

[Davew]

:lol: Its not that bad honest :roll:

Maybe Davew will find those books

By the way how does the data you have so far stack up against your 190a3? Maybe that would be at least a rough guidline to see if we are getting accurate info.

~S~ Redcanuck.

Well, I've found a different book (Spitfire: A complete fighting history) It has the comparative trials against the Fw190 that Waggel was referring to. In the time frame that they talk about, there is only one Fw190 it could have been, the A3 of Leutnant Whatshisface that landed erroneously at Pembrey in Wales. (Can't find the reference with the pilots name) And it talks about the Merlin 61. But. Unfortunately the figures it quotes are identical to those quoted for the Merlin 63 Spits in other references. So it's difficult to determine exactly whats going on there....

Good book though, has shots of the rocket installations on the MkIX as well. Several different installations actually.

Also some interesting figures on petrol consumption figures at various boost and rev settings... and best handling of the engine. A number of shots of four cannon VIIIs as well. Even shots of the 'beer keg' armament!

Hard to read though, arranged in a funny order. Would recommend the book though.

Now, good news and bad news.
Good news, I have access to a scanner now, so let me know if you need shots or whatever, bad news is im going on holiday for a week so wont be around.

[GBrutus]

@DaveW,

I've got enough photos to work with at the moment. Enjoy your holiday mate.

[vanir]

AFAIK the B-wing mounted early Hispano cannon using a locally produced ammunition feed. It was found unreliable and a new feeder essentially copied from the original French was used and designated the C-wing. Basically same as B-wing but less frequent cannon jams.

I've always been confused about the Mark IX (Merlin 61 or 63) at any rate. Output ratings at typical combat altitudes (2-5km) aren't any different to the Mark V (Merlin 45). AFAIK the Merlin 61 was just a Merlin 45 with the two-stage unit fitted. I'd think this should improve high altitude performance, but performance without the recompression of intake (under say, 4km) should be roughly identical, particularly in the same, although slightly heavier and bulkier airframe.

The particular concern about the Fw-190A was low altitude performance, which was stated roughly 30mph over contemporary opposition at low altitudes (such as the Mark Vb). The Merlin 61 introduced vastly improved high altitude performance.

The new kid on the block at the time was the DB-605A with its 5.8km altitude rating (compared to circa 4km for the Merlin 45).

If the publications around weren't specifically stating otherwise, I mean if you just examined the facts and drew your own conclusions, it looks to me like the Merlin 60-series was rushed into service to combat the Me-109G H

[Redcanuck]

Hey GBrutus!

Hows the model doing? Any screenshots for us yet?

@vanir,

I believe from the books I read as a youth that the spitfires flown over to France would typically be flying at 12,000'+ (heavy on the plus) so mid to higher altitude performance was definitely desireable.

[GBrutus]

Hi Redcanuck,

Progress has been slow as my main hard drive went tits up so I'm using my old pc at the moment and running 3ds max on it is a no go. Hopefully my new drive should arrive in the next couple of days then I can get back to work.