Thunderbolts and Mustangs versus the Jagdwaffe (split topic)

[Nash]

In May 1943 (long before Packard-powered Spitfire XVIs were in service), RAF Fighter Command informed the USAAF that on average the Allison engine lasted about three times longer than Merlins in-between bearing failures.

Do you have a source for this?

AIR 2/7498 - 95A (British archives reference) has correspondence from Air Marshall Tedder, commander RAF forces in the Middle East, asking for more P-40Fs (Packard Merlin engined) rather than P-40Ks (Allison engined), both because of the better performance of the Merlin engined variant, and because they suffered less bearing failures than the Allison engined aircraft.

The records also show lower serviceability rates for the Allison engined P-40 variants in North Africa than for the Hurricanes serving there.

I would like to see what happens to a Spitfire in a speed of Mach .91, or Mach .89, or whatever it was.

Ask and you shall receive:


(If the image contravenes any rules, eg size etc, or if images aren't allowed, please tell me so I can remove it)

The image is part of a preliminary report on the dive tests (they were still using a Mustang I as well at that point), Martindale's accident came later.

That story has been rubbished by British aerospace engineers. They said that long before it reached that speed, the Spitfire would have broken up, much like those from the list I posted earlier.

Have they? I've never seen that claimed, could you please provide a source?

I do know that later on the RAE (who carried out these tests) wrote to Supermarine saying that the Spitfire was the most suitable aircraft for the tests because it could sustain higher mach speeds than either the P-51 or P-47.

My research indicates the exact opposite.

I just surveyed 162 Spitfires for engine failures and only nine were Spitfire Mk XVI.

Spitfire XVIs served in fairly small numbers, becoming involved very late in the war.

The information I have seen is that the RAF had to abandon the use of 100/150 fuel, which allowed 25 lbs boost in Merlins, in their Spit XVIs because it was causing problems with the Packard engines.

And it is not clear if any of these Mk XVIs had the original Merlin 266 installed. Possibly all nine of them had Rolls-Royce replacement engines when they were lost.

Possibly the other 162 Spitfires had replacement Packard engines when they were lost?

The truth is, the types weren't usually mixed and matched, because different spares and tools were required, which would make servicing a nightmare.

There's a good reason why they gave a different model number to the Spitfire XVI (which was a Spitfire IX, but with the Packard built engine). It wouldn't make much sense to create a new model, then go and mix the engines up afterwards.

In May 1943 (long before Packard-powered Spitfire XVIs were in service), RAF Fighter Command informed the USAAF that on average the Allison engine lasted about three times longer than Merlins in-between bearing failures.

Source please. As I said, it's contradicted by what I've seen.