On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:22:29 +0200, Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 13:56:17 +0100, >Rick Ansell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Mk I max TAS at 20,000 ft (where it was fastest): c. 350 mph > >..with the wood prop??? The website I found didn't specify and the value is approximate, taken off a graph on the Spitfire Societies site. http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/whatmark.htm The Mk V is shown as being not that much faster so I assume the metal prop was used. The prototype did 348 mph on 990 HP (AUW 5359 lbs) with the wooden prop in early development flying. The Mk V illustrates an extreme case of the Mod state issue. There were three wings, A,B and C, mainly affecting the weight due to the armament fits. The C wing could have three different fits (and therefore weights). Extended and clipped wingtips were available for aircraft expected to operate at high and low altitude respectively, these could be changed in the field. Two different engines were fitted, again optimised for different heights. On top of this the supercharger settings on any given engine were altered according to expected operational altitude. And finally there were several variations on a desert filter fit that reduced performance by differing amounts. The Spitfire Society site compares the Mk 24 to the Mk I, it was: One-third faster in level flight. Able to climb 80% faster. Cleared to a maximum all-up weight over 6790 lb heavier (yes, that's over _double_). Fitted with 5 times the firepower. So when someone says 'The Spitfire could/couldn't/was/wasn't/had/lacked', say 'which Mark'! Rick -- David Farrent and Dougie O'Hara on the Cold War role of the ROC: 'What a world of sorrow is hidden in those few words - "[Post attack] crew changes would have been based on crew availability."' _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
