Had a telescoped spar been used before?

To AE. You may be right on that one. Of course with the US makers using the Douglas-style wing structure rather than a single spar, they didn't need anything like it. Still, you must admit that it would have been more impressive with an adjustable pitch prop and metal control surfaces.

To MF. Wouldn't mind at all. Spent a very nice week in OZ many years ago on R&R from SE Asia. Not much chance in the near future, but will keep it in mind.

I've just finished reading the 2 Alec Harvey-Bailey Merlin Books (published by the Rolls Royce Heritage Trust),"The Merlin in Perspective" and "The Merlin 100 Series". Terrific books, by one of the people intimately involved in the Merlin through the war years, with detailed diagrams. Great stuff on how they overcome various problems and how they continually developed the power of the engine. Well worth getting (and pretty cheap as well) for anyone interested in Merlins. Rough Overall Summary --------------------- Nicely kills some myths that have grown up, such as RR/Packard reliability. Overall (there may have been batches of either that had problems) there was no difference in reliability between them. Power was the same (for the same settings, such as supercharger gear ratios). Another myth: Rolls Royce looked at fuel injection (of which they had considerable experience) but deliberately chose the carburettor (which fed into the supercharger inlet) because of the better charge cooling (worth 25C reduction in charge temperatures) giving more power. On advice from the RAF negative G performance had not been forseen as an issue. The negative G issue was quickly fixed (6 planes on trial at the end of the BOB), 1st by Tilly Shillings restrictor, quickly retrofitted to all Merlins), which reduced the problem to only contineous negative G, second by the SU anti G carb modification (created by Shilling's team). All subsequent SU or Bendix carbs used in Spits were negative (and zero) G complient. When RR moved to fuel injection (for the 100 series Merlin) it was a single point, injecting directly into the supercharge inlet, for the same charge cooling reasons. As well as more power, lowered charge cooling helped fuel economy, by avoiding having to inject a richer mixture to cool the cylinders. So it was a concious engineering solution to get more power out of a smaller engine. This paid off, in the BOB the Me 109 with the DB601 engine had almost identical performance to the larger and heavier Spit with a smaller engine. Note also that 100 octane fuel had no effect on high level performance (due to supercharger boost dropping off), where most of the BOB fighting happened. Like the later 150 octane it helped low/medium level sped and climb performance. The 100 Series -------------- The final 100 series were amazing engines, with improved strength and reliability (for example, end-end oil feed), the ability to take higher boosts, fuel injection (into the supercharger inlet for better charge cooling than direct cylinder injection) and an improved supercharger design over the 60 series. The final version of the 100 series, RM 17SM, was type tested (i.e. cleared for flight and available for manufacture) at 2,340hp. It was also tested at 36lbs boost and 2,620hp! Note also that the V-1650-9 was the Packard version of the 100 series and had the same power for the same configuration (supercharger gear ratios, with/without water injection, etc), which depended on the requirements by the plane manufacturers. The DH Hornet,used the low altitude versions (RM 14SM), the P-51H used the high altitude version (RM 16SM). Note that there was also a version (V-1650-9A) for the P-51D, though both the -9s were manufactured from April to Sept 1945, I dont know how many were actually used. now has tests for the P-51H and a P-51B with a 100 series (RM 14SM) engine, allowing for the difference in altitude types, the performance of both were remarkably similar.

So the failure to provide a negative-g capable engine was the RAFs fault, not RRs. Okay. Still meant that German fighters could easily disengage by diving away, which was not a myth at all. In fact they continued to do it successfully for years afterwards due to the Spitfire's comparatively poor diving acceleration. The USAAF Thunderbolt pilots got a lot of kills because the Germans were so habituated to escaping by diving out after nearly four years of using the tactic fighting the RAF, that they couldn't break the habit. If the point of not using fuel injection was to improve fuel economy, how did that compare to the '109. I haven't been able to find fuel capacity for a '109E for comparison to the early Spits, but the German's used fuel injection and had only slightly less range. Unless they carried considerably more fuel, it doesn't sound like the difference meant much in the real world.

Oh Larry sounds like you're arguing for the sake of arguing. In 35-39 no-one had any idea (apart from the Luftwaffe and that was from hard experience) what combat what going to be like with these new high performance planes. Speed, climb and guns were deemed to be the highest priority over anything else for the RAF (dogfighting with other fighters was thought inconceivable). RR reponsponded to the requirements by producing an engine with the highest levels of power possible. Note that the 109 had a 33ltr engine. When combat showed a weakness they fixed it as fast as possible (as they did throughout the war). Not bad vs the 33/36/42/56ltr engines used by everyone else. The Luftwaffe's ability to dive away in the early years 41-43 (after anti-G carbs) was as much a facet of the tactical situation. The RAF were intruding, the Luftwaffe picking and choosing its time to attack and then retreating to safe, out of range bases. As stated (and I think proven) if you're at 20,000 feet and then dived away and a Spit stayed with you you are gone. Its higher mach limit meant that it well get you, you either pull out earlier and it is still building speed or you go into the ground. Another example of the short sightedness of not creating longer range Spits earlier, that would have really given the 'boys from Abbeville' some trouble. Yep your right about the P-47 .. initially. They caught a lot of Luftwaffe pilots by surprise that way in the beginning, but as always combat is a hard teacher and they adapted. Note that the diving acceleration difference closed, basically as the Spit got heavier and the power to weight ratio increased. By the Spit XIV, it could accelerate pretty much as fast as anything the Germans had. For some range comparisons look at the Spit/Mustang fuel consumption figures in Spitfireperformance. A clean Spit/Mustang could get close to 8 miles per gallon on most economical cruise (note the Mustang had a higher cruising speed for the same consumption, so its range was further on the same fuel load). The Merlin would always have better fuel economy, it was a lot smaller than any other combat engine for one thing (=less fuel per power stroke). At most economical cruise similar sized engines (well engineered of course) will give similar fuel economy. But the Merlin, by having better charge cooling, meant that the fuel air mixture didn't have to be to richened so much at combat powers to keep the combustion chamber cooled (as for example the FW-190 and P-47), this meant that combat power would consume less fuel. Another contribution to the Mustang's range, very low fuel use at cruise, less fuel used in combat. Me109 comparisons are difficult, because they varied so much between versions. The 109F was probably the cleanest, the G the worst. The best 109 was a very clean aircraft, it also used a version (as did the Spit) of Meridith Effect radiators (none as good as the Mustang or the Mosquito though). Really good little plane and with a good pilot a leathal weapon, as I think I said before its biggest weakness was the inabiliy to carry larger weaponry without disturbing is aerodynamics adversely. The Spit, and if it had been needed the Mustang, could (and did) carry much heavier guns without adversely effecting their performance. As an exercise look up the Spit Mk IV prototype (not the Photo-recon, the original), Griffon engined, 6 x 20mm cannon! The 109 was incapable of that, requiring external bathtubs. Lucky for us. The Mustang created an insurmountable problem for the Luftwaffe, fast dive acceleration, fast dive (probably the 2nd or 3rd best mach limit) and its range meant it could (and they did, often) chase the Luftwaffe right back to their bases.

Actually, a number of people besides the Germans had a pretty good idea of what air combat with 300 mph, metal a/c with multiple guns was like. Not all the flyers in Spain were German or Italian. And then there was China. The trouble was that the RAF wasn't interested in listening to them. It like the theory that 'modern' a/c were too fast for dogfighting and air combat would be a matter of parade-ground maneuvers and massed attacks. They just weren't interested in hearing anything to the contrary. The pilots of the early Thunderbolt were quite surprised that the Germans continued to try and dive away from them even after months of contact. The habit had just become engrained, and a lot of pilots couldn't break it. Pilots from Europe sent to figth the Japanese after '41 had the same problem. It was easy to tell them that a Spitfire couldn't match turns with a Zero or Oscar, but down in their bones they were convinced that a tight turn would get them out of trouble. That article I mentioned about Spitfires flying from Biggin Hill includes parts of an RAF report on comparative tests of a Spitfire VB and the first intact FW-190A captured. It certainly explains why they were willing to accept the downsides of clipping the wings in order to reduced the Spitfires deficiency in roll rate. Referring to dives it reads: "Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Fw-190 can leave the Spitfire (behind) with ease, particularly during the intitial stages." On maneuverability: "The maneuverability of the FW-190 is better than that of the Spitfire VB except in turning circles, when the Spitfire can quite easily out-turn it. The FW-190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be most useful during combat." On roll rate: "When the FW-190 was in a turn and was attacked by the Spitfire, the superior rate of roll enabled it to flick into a diving turn in the opposite direction. The pilot of the Spitfire experienced great difficulty following this maneuver, and even when prepared for it, was seldom able to allow the correct deflection (to get a shot). A dive from this maneuver enabled the FW-190 to draw away from the Spitfire, which was then forced to break off the attack." Not that last is exactly the same method Robert Johnson described using in his accounts of moch dogfights with MkV and MkIX Spitfires more than a year and a half later, and it still worked. He added a pull up into a zoom climb as soon as the Spitfire committed to the dive after him, allowing him to gain enough altitude advantage for a counter attack. Plain enough why the RAF was willing to accept a reduction in the Spit's advantage in horizontal turn, as well as increased stall speed and take off run to reduce the FWs advantage in roll rate.

From http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html "F/Lt. Irving "Hap" Kennedy did a stint with No. 185 flying Spitfire IXs from Malta in June 1943 and wrote: The real compensation was that I was strapped into a brand new Spitfre IX. The Malta squadrons were being re-equipped with "Nines" after a couple of years, including the blitz year of 1942, during which the Spit V was the defense of the Island. Recently the Luftwaffe had moved their latest Messerschmitt Me 109G into Sicily along with some Focke-Wulf 190 squadrons. These latter were superb aircraft and the old Spit V just couldn't keep up to them. The Spit IX, a heavier brute in the engine but the same airframe with the lovely loose ailerons, an additional 250 h.p., a four-bladed prop, and a supercharger that came in with a tremendous kick at 21,000 feet, once more gave us the advantage of a superior performance. We were full of enthusiasm. ... At 1440 Hours, a red flare went up from the dispersal hut, arching over the strip, and my mechanic jumped to his battery. I pulled on my helmet, fastened the oxygen mask, put on my gloves, turned the oxygen valve on, and primed twice. The engine broke into a roar. The mechanic pulled out the battery cable and gave me a "thumbs up" and I was tearing down the strip with full throttle and 3000 R.P.M. Airbourne, gear up, throttle back a little to let the lads catch up, at 4500 f.p.m. climb. ... I had the throttle open and I rolled over and headed on a course to cut the angle toward the 109s, which had separated a little. I wound on nose-heavy trim so essential to keep the aircraft in a high-speed dive. The Spit responded eagerly as I dove more steeply than the 109s, with Red Two and Three no doubt following, although I could not see them. The controls got very heavy as the airspeed needle moved far right at 480 mph. (Corrected for altitude, true airspeed approached 600 mph.) I could see that I was gaining on the nearest Me 109. That was something new. We were already half-way to Sicily; that was no problem. We knew from years of experience, dating back to the boys who had been in the Battle of Britain, that the 109 with its slim thirty-two foot wing was initially faster in a dive than we were. But we accepted that compromise happily in exchange for our broad superior-lift wing with its better climb and turn. One couldn't have it both ways. In any case, I was closing on this Me 109, which I recognised as a G. Perhaps he wasn't using full throttle. We were down to 5,000 feet and our dive had become quite shallow. I could see the Sicilian coast a few miles ahead. Now I was within range at 300 yards, and I let him have a good squirt. The first strikes were on the port radiator from which white smoke poured, indicating a glycol coolant leak. I knew I had him before the engine broke out in heavy black smoke. (Bf 109 G-4 "Black 14" of 2(H)/14, flown by Leutnant Friedrich Zander, shot down 10 June 1943) " Squadron Leader I.F. Kennedy DFC & Bar, Black Crosses of my Wingtip, (General Store Publishing House, Ontario, 1995), pp.58-61. Also Johannes Steinhoff, Sicily, Commander JG 77 (July 1943): "The Malta Spitfires are back again... They're fitted with a high altitude supercharger and at anything over twenty-five thousand feet they just play cat and mouse with us. At 28,000 feet the Spitfire could turn in an astonishingly narrow radius. We on the other hand, in the thin air of those altitudes had to carry out every maneuver with caution and at full power so as not to lose control. " Johannes Steinhoff, Messerschmitts Over Sicily, (Stackpole Books, 2004), pp. 97-98, 111. Also Alan Deere, Biggin Hill, Wing Commander Flying (March 1943): The Biggin Hill squadrons were using the Spitfire IXBs (Merlin 66), a mark of Spitfire markedly superior in performance to the FW 190 below 27,000 ft. Unlike the Spitfire IXA, with which all other Spitfire IX wings in the Group were equipped, the IXB's supercharger came in at a lower altitude and the aircraft attained its best performance at 21,000 ft, or at roughly the same altitude as the FW 190. At this height it was approximately 30 mph faster, was better in the climb and vastly more manoeuvrable. As an all-around fighter the Spitfire IXB was supreme, and undoubtedly the best mark of Spitfire produced, despite later and more powerful versions. Alan Deere, Nine Lives, (Crecy Publishing, Manchester, 1999), p. 258. Also P/O J. Stewart (Rhodesian) of 64 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 30 July 1942: I was flying as Blue 3 and during the engagement I saw 4 F.W. 190's flying below me in the opposite direction and attacking four of my squadron. I shouted a warning and stall-turned to port to attack the rear two F.W. 190's. They broke and turned with me but I could easily out-turn them and I got several bursts at the rear one. The leading one then broke off and the rear one started to dive towards France, taking slight evasive

From: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html As I said the gap closed, by the time of the Mk XIV there was no real competition: Examples: P/O E. Pauwels of 350 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 25 April, 1945: On the 25th April I was Red 4 in a section of 4 A/C led by S/L Walmsley and engaged on an armed recce in the WISMAR - ROSTOCK area. At approximately 12.50 hrs. a gaggle of 20+ E/A was sighted some 15 miles west of MURITZ LAKE at 8,000 ft. We were flying at 7,000 ft at the time on a course of 140° (M); apart from the four rear ones flying as a four two abreast, remaining E/A did not seem to be flying any particular course nor in any sort of formation. I had jettisoned my auxiliary tank as soon as E/A were reported. I opened full throttle and followed Red Leader as he went in first to attack. I selected two E/A on the port side which I identified as FW 190's, flying in line astern and started chasing them as they dived down. I closed in very quickly behind them and fired one long burst 5 sec. at the rear one from dead astern within 250 - 200 yds. I observed strikes on pit and on wing roots and debris flew off E/A with black smoke pouring out. The E/A went on its side and pilot baled out - a fraction of a second aferwards E/A blew up in the air. I claim this FW 190 destroyed. I resumed the chase for the front E/A which was at the time some 400 - 500 yds in front of me. I closed in and when within a range of 300 - 250 yds I gave another long burst with cannon and .5 machine gune fire - 6 second -, and saw strikes on fuselge and mainplane. E/A flcked and spun in towards the ground where it blew up. I did not see the pilot bale out. I orbitted the spot where the E/A crashed to make doubly sure the E/A was destroyed. I claim this FW 190 also destroyed. Or F/Lt. Walmsley of 130 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 13 March, 1945: I was flying as Spinner Blue 1. We had passed South of Munster heading east at 11,000 feet when I saw 8 plus aircraft flying South at 2,500 feet. I called up and went down after them, intercepting over Hamm, and, finding that they were long nosed FW 190's, engaged the one on the extreme left. He broke down and proceeded due East at zero feet. After chasing him for 10 miles, firing occasional short bursts, I hit him around the pit with several cannon shells and quite a bit of debris came away. The range was 200-250 yards; angle off 5°. He pulled up steeply to port and the pilot baled out at 1,500 feet, the aircraft crashing close to where the pilot landed and lay on the ground without releasing his parachute. Both the e/a and I had long range tanks, neither of which were dropped, and at no time did I have to go "through the gate" in order to stay on his tail. Or F/L J. B. Lawrence of 402 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 6th October, 1944: We were scrambled after Huns coming in from Venlo - Wesel area. I was flying Red 1 and led the squadron south. On following the vectors from Kenway we came up underneath the Huns as they were approaching Nijmegen. We climbed under a loose gaggle of 15 plus 109's when I sighted one 109 alone crossing in front of me. I turned into line astern and closed quickly. I fired one very short burst and the 109 went into a diving turn to starboard. I turned inside him and at about 20° off 200 yds. range I fired another burst of about 2 secs. Strikes were observed on pit and engine. Pieces flew off, and white and black smoke poured out. The enemy a/c turned into a steep spiral to port. He dived into the ground two or three miles S. of Nijmegen. I saw no parachute. I claim one Me 109 destroyed. All observed by Red. 2. After this engagement, five of us reformed and headed S.E. climbing. Red 2 and myself observed a lone 109 flying east at about 18,000 ft. We headed towards him and he went into a dive which steepened to the vertical. When near ground level, he attempted to level off. On pulling out, his aircraft disintegrated and fell in just N.E. of Cleve. I claim this for the squadron. F/Lt C. J. Samouelle of 130 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 20 April, 1945: I was blue 3 and at 1930 hours we were at 5000 ft going North East near WITTSTOCK. I heard Red 3 (F/Lt Walmsley) report two aircraft at 12 o'clock. I saw these two aircraft at about 6000 ft going in the same direction as ourselves. They were ME 109's and they began to climb immediately. I opened up and gained height rapidly. I caught one of the e/a at 8000 ft and closed in and opened fire at 300 yds from astern and I saw strikes all round the pit and on the back of the e/a. There was a big red flash white smoke came out and I found myself flying through debris. I had to pull up sharply to avoid hitting the e/a. When I was able to look again the e/a was in a flat spin and at 4000 ft the pilot bailed out. I saw the aircraft go down and crash in a wood. I claim this e/a destroyed.

Note that in nearly all of your incidents involving MkIXs diving with FWs or '109s, the German seems to have taken damage before diving away. In the very first one you describe, the RAF pilot himself states that he assumes that the 'Gustov' wasn't diving at full throttle. And for each of these incidents, how many FWs successfully dived out and disengaged??. In the past, you've suggested that pilot accounts that don't agree with deliberate 'trials' of the a/c should be given less weight than the tests. Any skilled, well trained pilot is going to use his a/c's best qualities whenever he can. For the FW, roll and dive were what he had against a Spit IX. Against a MkV, he had everything except turning circle, and, as the trial report indicated, could disengage pretty much at will. To kill him, the Spit just about had to have surprise. As the IX could match or exceed his speed and climb under most conditions, he had a much rougher row to hoe. The '109 (which had a roll rate quite similar to the Spitfire) was a different matter than the FW.