Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Boak
The maximum speed at sea-level is linked to the maximum speed at full-throttle height, and has no connection to the inline/radial choice. For a first stab at understanding more, plot a graph of airspeed (x-axis) against altitude (y-axis). Many sources will quote speeds at different altitudes, usually sea level and at the full throttle height of each supercharger setting. You can draw a straight line linking the sea-level value and the first full-throttle height point. The slope of this line will be the same for all types of similar performance. (Not quite true, but good enough to make the point.) Thereafter, plotting any max. speed point will allow you to find an approximate sea level speed.
Beware aircraft with two-speed superchargers (eg Spitfire Mk.IX), use the point for the lower full throttle height not the absolute best.
The statement is clearly made by the survivors, as there certainly are Typhoon pilots who succeeded in catching and shooting down Fw 190 low-level raiders. Also the Spitfire Mk.XII, of course. In practice the types were so close that the difference between individual examples was more important: a "good" Fw would run away from a "poor" Typhoon, and vice versa. More generally, of course, successful pilots will always believe that their aircraft is better than the opposition, as long as the types are broadly similar. For them, it has been.
|
Excellent points.
Objectively, the P-51B-15 for example, had a 1650-7 engine with better low altitude capability than the -3 and was extremely fast on the deck.
Based on flight test data, and assuming both engines were operating correctly it is hard to expect a 190A7 for example, or even a D-9 to outrun this Mustang on the deck.. and the -15 was plentiful during the Normandy campaign
I forgot to mention one other fact about the 51 - namely the extremely low wetted drag of the airframe in comparison with the Spit and Fw 190A. The D-9 was closer to the 51.