|
Hello Six Nifty .50s
thanks for clarification. My impression has been that Spit XVIs were allocated to certain sqns because at least part of the engine tools were different for Packard Merlins from those for RR Merlins. If I'm right it would be illogical to supply RR Merlins to Mk XVI sqns if they were not changing RR Merlins to all of sqn's Spits. But I can be totally in error in this, I freely admit.
On the story on Packard machine-tool operators pouring their stale Coke to cutting-oil tanks. I checked that briefly, it is in one of Alec Hexshaw's articles in Aeroplane Monthly (Feb 1984 or 83, father's duties suddenly overrun aviation research this morning) on Merlin reliability problems, mostly on skew-gear failures but he also mentioned this. But it caused sometimes problems in connection rods, not in bearings and usually engine failed at the climb test at latest so it probably did not cause many engine failures in sqns.
On S/L Martindale's dive. You think that there was a calibration error in Mach meter, don't You? What You think was the real Mach number S/L Martindale reached in that dive or was generally possible to reach in late marque Spits? I asked this because I'm interested in the max diving speeds of the different WWII fighters. And I have bought the explanation that Spit could dive so fast because it had so thin wings.
|
15th February 2005, 08:42
Threaded Mode