PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire burn rate



BaldieJr
02-16-2007, 11:58 AM
I feel that the rate of burn for spitfires should be higher than that of a 109 but my coworkers think that German planes were the faster burners.

Does anyone have proofs?

BaldieJr
02-16-2007, 11:58 AM
I feel that the rate of burn for spitfires should be higher than that of a 109 but my coworkers think that German planes were the faster burners.

Does anyone have proofs?

faustnik
02-16-2007, 12:01 PM
Spitfires have more surface area, so will take longer to burn than 109s...DUH... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

ploughman
02-16-2007, 12:03 PM
Cows and aviation don't mix. Gin and tonic does though, not sure what proof it is, depends on the ice I guess. Hope that helps.

MEGILE
02-16-2007, 12:06 PM
no... yes.

Maybe

IIJG69_Kartofe
02-16-2007, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
no... yes.

Maybe </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally disagree with you!

Got track?

BaldieJr
02-16-2007, 12:18 PM
I'll agree that early german models used oil-based paints and could go up quickly, but as the allies took a larger bite out of axis oil holdings the germans were forced to resort to inert paints that would barely burn.

In the end it was the British who had the superior flamage due to oil based paints.

faustnik
02-16-2007, 12:19 PM
Oh, I forgot that Spitfires were made of wood, and it wasn't Delta wood. They would burn faster.

Xiolablu3
02-16-2007, 12:29 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Where did you hear about Spitfire made from a wood?


I hear they were thinking of making some balsa super lightweight 'defy gravity' slats for the Spitfire, but the design was just far too poor and draggy already, so they threw them in the bin.

TheBandit_76
02-16-2007, 01:04 PM
By the end of the war the british were putting far more dope into their airplanes than all other nations combined.

Angland, FTW.

fighter_966
02-16-2007, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
By the end of the war the british were putting far more dope into their airplanes than all other nations combined.

Angland, FTW. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
DOPE? you mean that pilots were flying "high" ??That gives whole new meaning to phrase that even child can learn to fly Spitfire...So the Original phrase goes: every dope can learn to fly Spitfire

AVGWarhawk
02-16-2007, 01:18 PM
Do we need to factor in altitude of said fire igniting? Weather conditions? Available fire apparatus?

R988z
02-16-2007, 02:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
By the end of the war the british were putting far more dope into their airplanes than all other nations combined.

Angland, FTW. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
DOPE? you mean that pilots were flying "high" ??That gives whole new meaning to phrase that even child can learn to fly Spitfire...So the Original phrase goes: every dope can learn to fly Spitfire </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfire is a dope ride, be sure.

stanford-ukded
02-16-2007, 02:24 PM
FTW!

Klemm.co
02-16-2007, 06:02 PM
WTF!

WTE_Ibis
02-16-2007, 06:20 PM
Not likely.
Why would they put dopes in their Spitfires?

.

horseback
02-16-2007, 11:04 PM
Well, if we address the issue logically (heresy here, I know), we have to look at three things: locations of the respective fuel tanks, how they are protected, and most likely means of attack.

Spitfires had their main fuel tank mounted just in front of the cockpit (not a popular choice with the pilots, who realized that what with airstream and whatnot, setting the thing afire would be very unpleasant for whoever was in the cockpit). Fortunately, there was armor plate in front of it, and some provision for self-sealing (my references don't mention what they were). They were protected from the direct rear by the pilot's seat armor.

The Messerschmitt had it's fuel tank literally behind and underneath the pilot's seat. The exploded drawings I have do not show any armor plating behind or below it, although the rear fuselage is crammed with radio gear, oxygen tanks and structural members which would serve to deflect and slow down at least LMG rounds. Again, the references don't specify the type(s) or its efficacy, but the tanks were self sealing.

Since the majority of kills were gained from behind in the classic ambush bounce, once the Allies moved to heavier armament than the 8 x.303, the advantage might seem to go to the 109 burning more often, but there's also the issue of the British having access to higher octanes, which are more volatile.

I posted an account by Reade Tilly a while back about a squadron of Spit Vbs caught low, slow, and out of ammo by a couple of experten over the Western Desert in 109Fs or early Gs. It described a sergeant pilot's aircraft developing a fuel leak, trailing a plume of vapor for a few seconds until it inevitably exploded. The implication was that once the leak started, everyone, including the victim, knew what was coming next.

My guess is that both aircraft burned quite nicely at low alts, although octane favored the Spit and location would favor the 109.

cheers

horseback

Pollack2006
02-16-2007, 11:43 PM
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Got%20Energy.jpg

MEGILE
02-17-2007, 05:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pollack2006:
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Got%20Energy.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This chart is in blue, as opposed the commonly accepted red.

Therefore I deam it irrelevant.

JG14_Josf
02-17-2007, 06:17 AM
Once upon a time (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/484109953/p/14) the "Energy Bleed"Ł topic didn't require ridicule, rather, ridicule was an elective.

In the śold' tread linked there once was a poster named śchochocho' and apparently his kind no longer exists on this forum.

It was nice while it lasted.

stansdds
02-17-2007, 06:17 AM
A chart has been posted, end of discussion, there is no arguing with a chart. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

BrewsterPilot
02-17-2007, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pollack2006:
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Got%20Energy.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This chart is in blue, as opposed the commonly accepted red.

Therefore I deam it irrelevant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pink good for you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

http://brewsterpilot.googlepages.com/GotEnergy.jpg

bazzaah2
02-17-2007, 09:15 AM
plus ca change....