PDA

View Full Version : Spit LF V question



dahdah
03-22-2004, 08:15 PM
Should not the LF V have a 50M(1943) or 55M(1944) Merlin?

I have looked and looked and can only find the LF with this motor.

The 45M, 50M and 55M were the low altitude rated engines that should in the LF a/c. The 50M and the 55M was used from 15-6-43. (Mod 1006, 1012)

Clipped wings were fitted from 17-11-42.(Modification 788)

Something screwy with the AEP designations.

Spitfire LF.Mk.Vb (Merlin 50) 1943
Spitfire LF.Mk.Vb (Merlin 50) 1944 clipped wings

dahdah
03-22-2004, 08:15 PM
Should not the LF V have a 50M(1943) or 55M(1944) Merlin?

I have looked and looked and can only find the LF with this motor.

The 45M, 50M and 55M were the low altitude rated engines that should in the LF a/c. The 50M and the 55M was used from 15-6-43. (Mod 1006, 1012)

Clipped wings were fitted from 17-11-42.(Modification 788)

Something screwy with the AEP designations.

Spitfire LF.Mk.Vb (Merlin 50) 1943
Spitfire LF.Mk.Vb (Merlin 50) 1944 clipped wings

dahdah
03-23-2004, 04:28 AM
I see that there has been lots of lookers but no one has any comment on the incorrect designation, and therefore the wrong performance, of the Spitfire LF V.

It should also be noted that no Vb's were built after Dec 1942, so the 1944 Spitfire, at least, should be a Vc. Most Vcs had 2 cannons removed.

Future-
03-23-2004, 04:32 AM
Well, I think the reason why noone replied yet is simply noone knows an answer to this.

I also don't have an exact clue, as I only know very little about the Spitfire.

Maybe Oleg gets to read this... or whoever created (modelled) the Spitfires for FB.

S!

- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg

Visit us at http://www.310thvfs.com , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

blabla0001
03-23-2004, 04:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dahdah:
Most Vcs had 2 cannons removed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

2 cannons removed?

It only had 2 cannons.

If your refering to the C wing design it either had 2x20mm cannon and 4x7.7mm MG's or 2x20mm cannon and 2x12.7mm MG's.

dahdah
03-23-2004, 05:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dahdah:
Most Vcs had 2 cannons removed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

2 cannons removed?

It only had 2 cannons.

If your refering to the C wing design it either had 2x20mm cannon and 4x7.7mm MG's or 2x20mm cannon and 2x12.7mm MG's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is what the 'c' designation was for, to say what wing was used, was it not?

Actually, it is .303" and .50". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BerkshireHunt
03-23-2004, 05:33 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dahdah:
Should not the LF V have a 50_M_(1943) or 55_M_(1944) Merlin?

I have looked and looked and can only find the LF with this motor.
---------------
I think you are referring to the AEP Read Me. Yes, it is wrong to omit the Ms in the engine designations for LF Spitfires but it doesn't automatically follow that Oleg has not used M engine performance figures for the LFs. I think he has because he referred to the low altitude performance of the LFs in earlier threads ("as fast as a Focke Wulf low down" - or words to that effect).

blabla0001
03-23-2004, 06:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dahdah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dahdah:
Most V_c_s had 2 cannons removed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

2 cannons removed?

It only had 2 cannons.

If your refering to the C wing design it either had 2x20mm cannon and 4x7.7mm MG's or 2x20mm cannon and 2x12.7mm MG's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is what the 'c' designation was for, to say what wing was used, was it not?

Actually, it is .303" and .50". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct about the B or C designation, but you said 2 cannons where removed but that is not the case since the 20mm are cannons and the 7.7mm and 12.7mm are machine guns.

Nothing was removed, there was an option to replace the 4x7.7mm with 2x12.7mm.

As for the .303 or .50 thing, it doesn't matter if I say .50 or 12.7mm.

One is in milimeters and the other in inches and since we don't use inches over here but milimeters I prefer milimeters.

dahdah
03-23-2004, 07:59 AM
Sorry Capp, for example, the 4 cannon VCs shipped to Malta had 2 of the cannons removed. Many of the VCs coming of the production line did not have 4 cannons, since 2 were not installed but were still C wings.

Metric/Imp - just having some fun.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


BerkshireHunt, quite possible. Is it possible that because of the lack of the M in the designation some of the Luft lovers are upset with the performance of the '43 and '44 Spitfires because they are using 50 specs?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

blabla0001
03-23-2004, 09:17 AM
I don't think you completely understand the concept dahdah.

It's not that the standard weapons on a C wing where 4x20mm.

The wing was designed to be able to carry either 2x20mm + 2x12.7mm or 2x20mm + 4x7.7mm.

They tested with the Hispano's and even tried a 6x20mm configuration on the Spitfire without succes.

The only succesful 4x20mm Spitfires where the late ones like the MK22.

dahdah
03-23-2004, 09:50 AM
Sorry Capp, the C wing could have 4 cannons or the other option being 2 cannon and 4 mg. The first produced VC was AA878 and had 4 cannons. Even EN767 in 1944 had 4 cannons.

The 6 cannon was only a mock-up.

Now tell me why 4 cannon armed VCs were set to Malta if there there was no such configuation.

blabla0001
03-23-2004, 09:56 AM
I didn't say there was no such configuration, I said that it was not a standard configuration.