Why No Spitfires In Air Racing?
Tim Pearson
I have some questions that came to mind after attending
the Reno Air Races this fall.
Why is it that the P-51 is so common in air racing, but
not the Spitfire or Seafire? Or the Tempest or Typhoon,
for that matter. The Spitfire has the same engine as the
Mustang and would therefore be able to draw on the same
expertise and sources of spare parts as the American
fighter.
The Sea Fury seems to have edged out the Bearcat as the
second-most-common aircraft in Unlimited Class racing,
and it's an approximate contemporary of the three British
fighters mentioned previously, so it seems that there was
no government policy prohibiting the civilian ownership of
surplus piston-engined fighters from that era. Are they
simply not competitive?
Regarding the Sea Fury, all but one of them that I saw at
Reno had four-bladed propellers and American engines, I
believe R-3350s. Why aren't the original British engine
(Bristol Centaurus?) and the stock five-bladed propeller
used more commonly in racing?
-Tim
--
"Every man should own a Browning. The details that follow that
First Commandment are a matter for doctrinal squabbling and
potential schism." -- Dave Garrett
Vic Flintham
<tpea...@procrustes.com> writes
>
>
>I have some questions that came to mind after attending
>the Reno Air Races this fall.
>
>Why is it that the P-51 is so common in air racing, but
>not the Spitfire or Seafire? Or the Tempest or Typhoon,
>for that matter. The Spitfire has the same engine as the
>Mustang and would therefore be able to draw on the same
>expertise and sources of spare parts as the American
>fighter.
>
>The Sea Fury seems to have edged out the Bearcat as the
>second-most-common aircraft in Unlimited Class racing,
>and it's an approximate contemporary of the three British
>fighters mentioned previously, so it seems that there was
>no government policy prohibiting the civilian ownership of
>surplus piston-engined fighters from that era. Are they
>simply not competitive?
>
>Regarding the Sea Fury, all but one of them that I saw at
>Reno had four-bladed propellers and American engines, I
>believe R-3350s. Why aren't the original British engine
>(Bristol Centaurus?) and the stock five-bladed propeller
>used more commonly in racing?
>
>
>
>-Tim
>
>
as common as Mustangs and may not be robust enough these days to race,
although late marks were raced in the UK after the war. The Spitfire
(1938), Tempest (1944) and Typhoon (1941) were not contemporaries of the
Sea Fury (1947), which was intended as a scaled down, lightweight
Tempest, entering service after the War (dates in brackets are service
entry). While there are several Tempests and perhaps a Typhoon in
museums, as far as I know there are none flying although I believe that
a Tempest is being rebuilt to flying status somewhere in the UK.
On Sea Fury engines my guess would be that the Centaurus is getting hard
on spares, but only a guess.
--
Vic Flintham
The reliable cold-war military aviation site
http://www.vflintham.demon.co.uk
DAHenriques
Tim Pearson <tpea...@procrustes.com> wrote in message
news:81ugh5$d...@limerock.racer.net...
Back in "the good ole' days", those of us who owned warbirds actually had
some real sources to obtain parts and equipment for our airplanes. Mustangs
like the one I owned were always the most plentiful. You could get parts if
you had the money and knew the right places to go. [I remember developing a
taste for Guy Lombardo's music real fast] The F8F was a real treat, and
private owners like the Fornof's , Lyle Shelton, and Darryl Greenameyer
caused others to purchase them and restore them to flying condition. For a
long time, this was unlimited air racing. You had a few pilots out there
racing individual airplanes like Lefty Gardner's P38, and there was an F4U
or two thrown into the mix. Then there were guys like Ormond Hayden Bailee
from the UK. Bailee flew a gorgeous Sea Fury right out of the box.
The Spits were and are so rare that for the most part they have not seen
much in the air racing arena. I remember Bill Ross had the most beautifully
restored Spit I have ever seen. He was very fussy about the bird. I can't
ever remember him abusing it in any way whatever. In fact, we used to kid
Bill about possibly sleeping in the cockpit. Other Spit owners like
Robertson and Smith also shy away from actually racing their airplanes. I
could be mistaken, but I don't believe either planes have ever been raced.
Today, you have the modifiers, who can practically build a new prototype on
an existing frame. Lyle Shelton and Darryl set the pace for all that
followed, regardless of aircraft type.
Airplanes like the Tempest and Typhoon are so rare, I doubt you will ever
see one in unlimited competition at Reno or anywhere else.
I predict that in the near future, as the existing supply of WW2 fighters
gets smaller and smaller, you will see an influx of hybrid prototypes
introduced into the world of unlimited air racing. These aircraft will
eclipse all existing records. It is well known that the rewards of racing
fall far short of the expense involved. The cost is astronomical! One is
hard pressed to believe that considering these facts, there are pilots out
there willing to commit to the cost involved in putting one of these hybrids
over the scatter pylon at Reno.
The plans are already in the works.............
DH
--
Dudley A. Henriques
Past President 1971-1985
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Frank May
least once.I remember a pic of a 5 blade equipped Spit.Regarding the Sea
Fury engines,whether the swap was to '3350s or '4360s,I think the main
reason was to get away from the sleeve valve Centauruses.I've read the
sleeve valves were quite troublesome,especially in a racing environment
& Centaureses just couldn't be tweaked to get excessive HP.Sad,'cause to
me,one of the points of beauty on the Sea Fury was that massive 5 blade
prop!
DAHenriques
Vic Flintham <vfli...@VFLINTHAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:LpcymbAq...@vflintham.demon.co.uk...
Vic's summation is pretty much how it is. Of all the prop fighters out
there, the 51 is by far the most plentiful, and parts can still be obtained
through various sources.[ I remember learning to like Guy Lombardo's music
in one hell of a hurry]
Most of the Spit private owners restore to original specs and fly the
aircraft very carefully. My friend Bill Ross owned one of the most
beautifully restored Spits I have ever seen. Bill was very fussy about how
the airplane was used. I don't ever remember him abusing it in any way.
There were a few Sea Furies out there being raced. Ormond Hayden Bailee
raced his originally equipped Sea Fury until 1971 as far as I can remember.
Now the new bunch of modifieds have appeared.
Aside from the modifiers like Lyle Shelton, Daryl Greenameyer, and the
new breed of high performance Mustang owners, most of the guys will appear
at the races just to have the airplane seen, fill the field, and have some
fun. The cost of being competitive is astronomical compared to any actual
gains in air racing.
C.C. Jordan
May I toss out somewhat different theory?
Aside from the general lack of airframes, I believe that the Spitfire simply
lacked the aerodynamic refinement to compete successfully. Stop for a
moment and consider this: It took a 2,050 hp Griffon 65 engine to push
the Spitfire Mk.XIV up to the same speed as a 1,520 hp Packard powered
P-51B. Yet, they weighed in with 100 lbs of each other, empty.
The P-51H could manage 487 mph on 2,218 hp. The Spitfire Mk.XVIII
was fully 40 mph slower on 2,340 hp. How much horsepower would be
needed to match the P-51H? 3,000? More?
The Spitfire had entirely too much drag to be successful in racing. The Mustang,
on the other hand, had a far lower drag coefficient than the Spitfire at:
.0176 vs .0239
Add to this that the P-51 wa able to extract a remarkable amount of thrust
from its "Meredith Effect" radiator ducting, and one can begin to understand
why the P-51 was a far better choice for racing.
So what is the "Meredith Effect"?
From Lee Atwood's (of North American Aviation) bio:
"Both the British and German engineers at the time thought
you could test a scale model in a wind tunnel. But the wind tunnel
models didn't generate the engine-heat factor, which we successfully
controlled within the air scoop to create positive thrust. They were all
looking at the Mustang's laminar flow wing, which was noted for reducing
air friction over the surface of aircraft wings."
Pointing to several mathematical equations, Atwood continued, "The laminar flow
wing is great for jet airplanes or in a high-speed dive but had little effect on
the P-51's overall performance envelope. You have to attribute the speed
increase to the radiator energy recovery (positive thrust), not the
characteristic of the wing itself. The wing did help in a dive -- not in level
flight. I never mentioned this to anyone during the war."
Atwood credited F.W. Meredith of the RAE Farnborough, U.K., whose August 1935
report known as the "Meredith Effect" greatly influenced his work on the P-51
cooling system. I guess that Reginald Mitchell at Supermarine didn't read
Meredith's report.
My regards,
C.C. Jordan
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com - The Planes and Pilots of WWII Internet Magazine
http://www.cradleofaviation.org - Cradle of Aviation Museum
Doug Hunter
couple in Museums. Spitfires are comparatively rare Vs most WW2US types. The
Sea Fury is a later development of the Tempest (which actually had a
Centaurus-engined version) and is actually a post war type, Korea , etc.,
which may explain a few of them still being around. The Original Centaurus
was one of the most powerful piston engines ever developed, but perhaps
parts availability is an issue today, or maybe its sleeve valve design
doesn't lead well to additional tuning?
No doubt a post war Griffon-engined Spitfire would be a threat but it seems
that even this engine strangely hasn't been embraced by the Mustang
operators in difference to the earlier Merlin. I always thought the
DeHavilland Hornet (485 mph post war Mosquito derivative) would have been
awesome here, but no doubt, equally rare.
Doug Hunter
Tim Pearson wrote in message <81ugh5$d...@limerock.racer.net>...
>
>Why is it that the P-51 is so common in air racing, but
>not the Spitfire or Seafire? Or the Tempest or Typhoon,
>for that matter. The Spitfire has the same engine as the
>Mustang and would therefore be able to draw on the same
>expertise and sources of spare parts as the American
>fighter.
>
>>-Tim
DAHenriques
Frank May <famv...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:9065-384...@storefull-136.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Frank,
...on those P&W's, I seem to recall a lot of 3350's being used. The guys got
them from the old Connie's I believe. The 4360 was another story. I know one
of these was bedded in an F4U that saw a bit of racing back in the sixties.
The airplane was a mess to handle and I think they retired the operation.
The engine is sitting on a stand at the Colorado branch of the Chino Museum.
DAHenriques
C.C. Jordan <Jor...@worldwar2aviation.com> wrote in message
news:3843543f...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
I don't know CC. I tend to place less emphisis on the 51's rad design as a
prime factor in this case. The radiator design in the Mustang was brilliant
to say the least. Placing the oil radiator in line with the engine and
aftercooler rads was a smart idea. Then coupling all this with a low drag
duct and an automatic rear door to control the temps was a great design.
I think you have to consider that in the Mustang, the design factors in the
radiator duct were not so much concerned with reduction of air velocity to
obtain high static pressure as is the case with jet engine single ducting,
but rather to control the coolant and oil temps with a minimum drag index.
This was accomplished very well. Aerodynamically, any thrust increase due to
energy recovery in the duct would already be reflected in the TOTAL lower
drag coefficient as it compared with the Spit. For this reason, I would
consider the drag index delta as paramount in the total comparison between
these two aircraft.
Dudley
Raymond Chuang
> not the Spitfire or Seafire? Or the Tempest or Typhoon,
> for that matter. The Spitfire has the same engine as the
> Mustang and would therefore be able to draw on the same
> fighter.
Well, to sum up all the other comments it comes down to this:
1. The Spitfire sported a lower top speed than the P-51, F8F, or Sea Fury.
2. It wasn't until the five-bladed Spiteful that Supermarine had a plane
capable of faster than 470 mph.
3. Spares for P-51's, F8F's and Sea Fury's were far more plentiful than
Spitfires for racing airplanes.
I think what's interesting is that someone wasn't able to recover a
Fock-Wulf Ta 152C-1 and "hop up" the Jumo 213 engine on that plane. The Ta
152C-1 had a top speed of 467 mph and giving the engine more boost could
have sent that plane nearly 500 mph.
--
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
Geoff Miller
"DAHenriques" <DAHen...@email.msn.com> writes:
> ...on those P&W's, I seem to recall a lot of 3350's being used.
> The guys got them from the old Connie's I believe.
Was the Turbo Compound version of the R-3350 from the Super Connie
and DC-7 ever used in racing? Retrofitted to a single-seat aircraft,
I mean; I know about Clay Lacy's DC-7B "Super Snoopy" and the L-1049
that somebody else tried to race the following season.
Geoff
--
"It takes a special kind of retard to be offended so easily."
-- Adam Thrasher
Frank May
Snoopy"DC-7.I remember seeing it on TV now,a show called
"Thrillseekers",I think.There was a Corsair with a '4360 back in the
early '80s,sponsored by Budweiser & flown by Steve Hinton I think.And
lastly,I always wondered how one of the Spanish Ha1112s(Merlin powered
Me109) would have managed around the pylons,especially with a hopped up
Griffon & c/r prop.It's not like they were REAL scarce (not as scarce as
airworthy Spits,I'll bet!) & I'd think it wouldn't be all that hard to
swap from the Merlin to the Griffon.I don't think the Ha1112s or even
the Czech S199s(Jumo powered 109s) in stock form were slouches.
Frank May
with the Skyraider prop.
wal...@oneimage.com
>>Vic Flintham <vfli...@VFLINTHAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:LpcymbAq...@vflintham.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <81ugh5$d...@limerock.racer.net>, Tim Pearson
>> <tpea...@procrustes.com> writes
BTW what does a gallon of 130-145 AVgas cost now?
Walt BJ ftr plt ret
Frank May
$1.80-$2.80.Just depends on where you get it.
DAHenriques
Geoff Miller <geo...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:821ekh$hcv$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
I can't really tell you about the 3350's. Most of my time was spent rousting
up Merlin parts. I do remember Clay's airliner stunt. He actually had a guy
ride on top of the fuselage for a photo op. He was quite a showman.
Everywhere he went in the Omni 51, he took a huge stuffed Snoopy Dog in the
back behind the seat. It was quite a sight.
The last time I saw Clay, he drove my wife and I over to the Thunderbird Inn
in Cape May for the awards banquet after the air races in 1971. I remember
the day exactly. It was June 6th. The day before, we had lost 5 pilots in
one T6 race in two separate mid airs. Two of them were close friends. For
me, that night was the worst I have ever had in aviation. While having
dinner with one of the surviving T6 pilots, I was notified that Bill Fornof
had been killed doing an air show at Quonset Point with Corky in the
Bearcats.
Lacy Aviation is still active. I believe they are still at Van Nuys doing
movies and charter.
DH
------------------------
DAHenriques
<wal...@oneimage.com> wrote in message news:3844a...@206.168.123.253...
> "DAHenriques" <DAHen...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >>Vic Flintham <vfli...@VFLINTHAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:LpcymbAq...@vflintham.demon.co.uk...
> >> In article <81ugh5$d...@limerock.racer.net>, Tim Pearson
> >> <tpea...@procrustes.com> writes
Even back then it was damn expensive. If you figure my airplane full, you
were talking 92.7 in the left main and 92.1 in the right. Usable was 90 in
the right and 90.4 in the left. That's 180.4 gals. of 130-145. That doesn't
even take in the cost of oil, hydraulic fluid, and coolant.
Interesting.....today, most of the guys have to use the downgraded crap that
they pass off as high octane av fuel. I know some fifty one drivers who
restrict manifold pressure on takeoff to around 53" instead of the normal
61".
DH
ANDREW BREEN
Vic Flintham <vfli...@vflintham.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <81ugh5$d...@limerock.racer.net>, Tim Pearson
><tpea...@procrustes.com> writes
>>
>>
>>the Reno Air Races this fall.
>>
>>not the Spitfire or Seafire? Or the Tempest or Typhoon,
>>for that matter. The Spitfire has the same engine as the
>>Mustang and would therefore be able to draw on the same
>>expertise and sources of spare parts as the American
>>fighter.
The Mustang is cleaner aerodynamically than the Spit, so
it'll have the edge particularly at low level - which is
what you want for racing. The last Griffon-engined Spits
with the contra-props might be competitive, but their
handling had apparently suffered with the bigger engine
- they're rare, anyway.
Typhoons are like hen's teeth - I think there's one (perhaps
two) survivors. Aerodynamically they're not so good - they're
an older design than the Mustang, after all - and the Sabre
engine would be a _brute_ to maintain. The Tempest would
be a better bet, particularly the Centaurus-engined Tempest
II - Centaurus is a complex engine, but it was always a
lot more reliable than the Sabre. But Temests are very
rare too.
>>
>>The Sea Fury seems to have edged out the Bearcat as the
>>second-most-common aircraft in Unlimited Class racing,
>>and it's an approximate contemporary of the three British
>>fighters mentioned previously
The Fury was developed as a smaller, lighter and more
agile successor to the Tempest II (think of Bearcat to
the Tempest's Hellcat) - never went into RAF service
because the jets had arrived, but the RN took it on
just after then end of the war. Faster and more agile
than the Tempest, and many more survivors (a lot of
other countries than the UK got Sea Furies).
>>Regarding the Sea Fury, all but one of them that I saw at
>>Reno had four-bladed propellers and American engines, I
>>believe R-3350s. Why aren't the original British engine
>>(Bristol Centaurus?) and the stock five-bladed propeller
>>used more commonly in racing?
Essentially, the Centaurus, being a sleeve-valve engine, needs
specialist care. There aren't many Centaurus/Hercules specialists
in the US, but there is a large body of experiance with R-3350s
and R-4350s - given that, it's easy to slot in the American engine
which is about the same diameter as the Bristol unit - it'll be
a lot cheaper to maintain (given more people will know how to
fettle it), and parts will be cheaper.
The Centaurus could be developed to give very high power reliably
- IIRC the SM-22 version was rated at 3500 hp immediately after
the end of the war - and it was a very robust motor indeed. But
complex, and never developed quite as far as the American engines
were, because Bristol (quite rightly) saw gas turbines as the way
to go.
>On Sea Fury engines my guess would be that the Centaurus is getting hard
>on spares, but only a guess.
I suspect the Centaurus vanished from airline service much earlier than
the P&W or Wright engines - not for any failing of the engine, but
because the RR Dart turboprop (and the Bristol Niade as so on) came
to dominate the market so quickly. British civil aviation moved much
faster and more completely to gas turbines in the 1950s than the US
did, I think.
Personally, I've always wondered how a Westland Wyvern with the RR-Eagle
H-24 would have done as a racer - big, but fast..
--
Andy Breen ~ PPARC Advanced Research Fellow, Interplanetary Scintillation
Solar Physics Group, UW Aberystwyth
"When I was young I used to scintillate
now I only sin 'til ten past three" (Ogden Nash)
Buck Wyndham
<<There was a Corsair with a '4360 back in the early '80s,sponsored by
Budweiser & flown by Steve Hinton I think.>>
There was indeed, but no more. The Super Corsair (FG-2 N31518) was lost on 19
March 1994 during the Phoenix 500 air race, due to an inflight fire. The pilot,
Kevin Eldridge, successfully bailed out.
Sorry to interupt the Spitfire discussion... :-)
Cheers,
Buck Wyndham
MLenoch
At Reno this year, it was sold for about $5.00 / gal.
MLenoch
>movies and charter.
He participated in a photo shoot this past July at Fort Wayne IN. He flew in
with his photo Lear 25. He could just ramble on with all sorts of
stories.....amazing catalog of adventure!
V. Lenoch
MLenoch
>they pass off as high octane av fuel. I know some fifty one drivers who
>restrict manifold pressure on takeoff to around 53" instead of the normal
>61".
That is the state of affairs these days. It would be nice to hit 61" more
regularly if better fuel was readily available.
V. Lenoch
Martin Keenan
>Even back then it was damn expensive. If you figure my airplane full, you
>were talking 92.7 in the left main and 92.1 in the right. Usable was 90 in
>the right and 90.4 in the left. That's 180.4 gals. of 130-145. That doesn't
>even take in the cost of oil, hydraulic fluid, and coolant.
>
>Interesting.....today, most of the guys have to use the downgraded crap that
>they pass off as high octane av fuel. I know some fifty one drivers who
>restrict manifold pressure on takeoff to around 53" instead of the normal
>61".
Get used to it, or be prepared to pony up for custom blended fuels.
100LLmay be next on the list for elimination.
The trend under discussion in the petroleum industry is that aircraft
should be fed an entirely unleaded 93 octane octane avgas -- much easier to
produce than 100LL (actually similar to premium unleaded car fuel), and
which allows the refineries to get rid of tetra-ethyl-lead completely.
This stuff will be okay for small horizontally opposed and in-line
engines, which may just have to be de-rated a bit. It may not be so easy for
the owners of classic aircraft -- which the industry appears to consider too
small a market to bother with.
Just an advanced warning. Classic owners may need to band together
when/if this starts to happen to protect their fuel source.
Regards, Martin Keenan
Reverse letters in "MOC" to reply
_______
|
|
/O\
-------<((o))>-------
O O
CF-101 Voodoo 1961 - 87
There is no sweeter (or louder!!) sound...
A J Price
design, which gave it a "Ram Jet effect" (called the Merideth affect)
With this advantage there would be little use in racing Spitfires, as they
would nver stand a chance
Tony
C.C. Jordan
wrote:
>I was notified that Bill Fornof
>had been killed doing an air show at Quonset Point with Corky in the
>Bearcats.
>
Dudley, I missed a portion of this conversation, so bear with me.
Who is Corky? Would this be Corky Meyer, formerly of Grumman
and a founder of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots?
Corky Meyer is expected to do some technical editing on Warren
Bodie's latest book. I can't say publically what the topic is, but it
will be rather unique.
In related news: If you or anyone on the newsgroup have read
Francis (Diz) Dean's "Joint Fighter Conference, Naval Air Station
Patuxent River", Corky Meyer was one of Grumman's representatives
at the conference. Anyone interested should get the December
Flight Journal magazine special issue on WWII fighters. Corky wrote
a truly revealing article about his view of the conference. Also in the
regular issue of Flight Journal is a very good article on the Bf 109
written by the late Mark Hannah and Capt. Eric Brown. Both issues
are a must for warbird enthusiasts and aviation historians. Certainly,
Flight Journal has to be the best aviation history magazine currently
in print here in the States. IMHO, that is.
Lawrence Nyveen
famv...@webtv.net (Frank May) wrote:
> I don't think ...
> the Czech S199s (Jumo powered 109s) in stock form were slouches.
Oh yes they were. With the torque and narrow landing gear, they were
impossible to land in any kind of crosswind.
I've spoken to several of the guys who flew the S-199 for Israel in 1948.
All of them hated it. One, Red Finkel, even told me he did on roll in a
199 and refused to ever do one again.
Of course, the planes also tended to shoot their own props off....
For more 199 info, check out my Web site at http://101.warbirds.org/
Laurie Nyveen nyv...@videotron.canada
a.k.a. Webs, member of the WarBirds training staff
_____________________________________________________________________
Editor, Netsurfer Digest - http://www.netsurf.com/nsd/index.html
101 Sqn opus-in-progress - http://101.warbirds.org/
DNRC Minister of Adding "ue" to Words That End in "log"
"All we are, basically, are monkeys with car keys."
- Grandma Woody (Northern Exposure)
Please shorten canada to ca to e-mail me. Sorry.
DAHenriques
MLenoch <mle...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991201010544...@ng-fn1.aol.com..
.Clay was a great guy when I knew him, and one hell of a pilot. I can't
think of anything he hasn't flown.
And what a gutsy guy too......
It took real nerve to taxi that purple fifty one right up to a whole bunch
of beautiful young ladies and let them hug and kiss that big snoopy dog in
the back..................or was that just being smart????? = )
Dudley
C.C. Jordan
wrote:
>In related news: If you or anyone on the newsgroup have read
>Francis (Diz) Dean's "Joint Fighter Conference, Naval Air Station
>Patuxent River", Corky Meyer was one of Grumman's representatives
>at the conference. Anyone interested should get the December
>Flight Journal magazine special issue on WWII fighters. Corky wrote
>a truly revealing article about his view of the conference. Also in the
>regular issue of Flight Journal is a very good article on the Bf 109
>written by the late Mark Hannah and Capt. Eric Brown. Both issues
>are a must for warbird enthusiasts and aviation historians. Certainly,
>Flight Journal has to be the best aviation history magazine currently
>in print here in the States. IMHO, that is.
>
A quick follow-up:
If anyone wishes to see some terrific photos of Vlado's gorgeous
P-51, "Moombeam McSwine", check out the December issue
of Flight Journal magazine.
The original "moonbeam McSwine" was a P-51D-10-NA flown by
Capt. Bill Whisner of the 487th Fighter Squadron of the 352nd
Fighter Group. Mr. Lenoch's paint job is absolutely perfect.
Mary Shafer
> Lacy Aviation is still active. I believe they are still at Van Nuys
> doing movies and charter.
As you say, Lacy has two branches, one a charter operation and the
other aerial photography. The photography uses a modified Lear (there
may be more than one--I'm not sure) and the charter aircraft are the
usual bizjets.
They're at Van Nuys and managed to get a mention in the L A Times
article a couple of weeks ago about breaking the voluntary curfew,
although they didn't break it nearly as often as a number of other
operations did.
--
Mary Shafer http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
sha...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
Lead Handling Qualities Engineer, SR-71/LASRE
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
For non-aerospace mail, use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com please
DAHenriques
CC,
The day Bill was killed, he was flying a dual show routine at Quonset Point
with his son Corky flying the other Bear. Bill's F8F[N7700C] lost a wing
during a vertical recovery. Corky said that one moment he was there, the
next he was gone.
Bill had a wonderful family. They hailed from Houma La. There is a daughter
Sissy, who was engaged to Skip Umstead, another personal friend killed in
air show work. Skip was a leader of the Blue Angels during the F4 years. He
was killed in a mid air at Lakehurst NAS during an arrival show. Another
son Terry, is in F15's in the AF. Corky flew the BD5 for awhile on the
circuit. You might remember the James Bond film where the BD5 flies through
the hangar? Well, that was Cork. Sissy told me that when Corky went to see
the movie, they had to pry him loose from the chair. He wanted to see his
name roll in the credits at the end once again..= )
I loved air show work or I never would have done it. I think the rest of us
both here and gone would say the same. No matter how you cut it, you seldom
get a second chance with a mixture of high performance airplanes and low
altitude akro. Bill always had a great sense of humor about it. On the left
front side of the cowl on his Bearcat he had hand painted this quote,
"Baby, if you love me, don't ever leave me".
He would scrunch out a big cigar, pat the cowl and go fly.
The air show people were some of the finest I have ever known . A smart
fellow said once that a friend is never really gone as long as the memories
remain.
We think about guys like Bill and Skip a lot around our house.
Dudley
jtarver
Mary Shafer <sha...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:u0hfi2b...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov...
> "DAHenriques" <DAHen...@email.msn.com> writes:
>
> > Lacy Aviation is still active. I believe they are still at Van Nuys
> > doing movies and charter.
>
> As you say, Lacy has two branches, one a charter operation and the
> other aerial photography. The photography uses a modified Lear (there
> may be more than one--I'm not sure) and the charter aircraft are the
> usual bizjets.
>
> They're at Van Nuys and managed to get a mention in the L A Times
> article a couple of weeks ago about breaking the voluntary curfew,
> although they didn't break it nearly as often as a number of other
> operations did.
Van Nuys is where the GII was originally completed and it remains the
capital for the type.
John
Mike Kopack
very nicest Mustangs that I've seen!
Mike
Don Dingwall
Mark 9's topped out at about 410 in level flight, and Mk. 14's had a top
speed
of around 445mph.
Sure the laminar flow wing and rad scoop position were superior and greatly
reduced drag.
Besides, there are fewer Spits to air race. Lots of Mustangs.
I do however think a Spit such as a standard Mk. 12 would give a standard
Mustang a run for its money anyday at the lower levels that air races take
place. In fact I'd be surprised if the Stang won.
Keep in mind top speeds are usually related as "XXX MPH @ 20000 feet" or
something along those lines. Not necessarily on the deck like at Reno.
Cheers
Don
Allan
A few comments on the Centaurus engine.
The engine was designed in the mid 30's and first run in mid 38. The type
test was in 39 at 2,000 HP. This engine standard powered the prototype
hawker Tornado in late 41. A 2 stage supercharger was fitted in 42 and the
engine was type tested at 2,375 HP going into production at that time. The
later MK (5) and (11) were rated at 2,520 HP. The last version of this
engine rated at 3,220 HP was the MK 373 using direct fuel injection into
the
cylinders. It was supposed to be succeeded by the Orion starting at 4,000
HP, but that's another story.
Rgds
AMD
Geoff Miller
Speaking of Spitfires, which marks had the clipped
wingtips, and why?
David Lednicer
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics"
Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: da...@amiwest.com
2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090
Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299
P. Wezeman
>
>
> Speaking of Spitfires, which marks had the clipped
> wingtips, and why?
For use at lower altitudes against FW-190's the clipped wings
had reduced drag and increased roll rate; the Spitfire was one of the
best fighters at high altitude and had more wing area than it really
needed lower down. I believe they also modified the superchargers
to optimize them for the lower altitude.
Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist
"Carpe Cyprinidae"
Paul J. Adam
<geo...@netcom.com> writes
>Speaking of Spitfires, which marks had the clipped
>wingtips, and why?
LF Mk V, LF Mk IX, LF Mk XII and LF Mk XIV are the ones I recall.
The reason for clipping the wing was to improve roll rate, at the
price of some high-altitude performance.
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Geoff Miller
"Paul J. Adam" <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> writes:
[Spitfire marks with clipped wings]
> LF Mk V, LF Mk IX, LF Mk XII and LF Mk XIV are the ones I recall.
Thanks. Next question: What does the "LF" stand for? I've never
seen that before.
Thanks,
Stephen Harding
>
> "Paul J. Adam" <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> [Spitfire marks with clipped wings]
>
> > LF Mk V, LF Mk IX, LF Mk XII and LF Mk XIV are the ones I recall.
I think there were some special high altitude Mk VIIIs (pressurized
cockpits) that "became" clipped wing.
The pilots *hated* this version of Spit, and ended up removing all the
pressure seals inside the cockpit, and removing the special high altitude
wing extensions (making a *very* pointy-winged Spitfire). The result was
basically a clip wing Mk V Spit.
> Thanks. Next question: What does the "LF" stand for? I've never
> seen that before.
There were low (LF) and high (HF) altitude versions of the aircraft.
SMH
Paul J. Adam
<geo...@netcom.com> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> writes:
>[Spitfire marks with clipped wings]
>> LF Mk V, LF Mk IX, LF Mk XII and LF Mk XIV are the ones I recall.
>
>seen that before.
Low-altitude Fighter, basically. LFs got the clipped wings, MFs were
the standard version, and there were a few HFs with extended
wingtips and pressurised cockpits used to chase German high-altitude
raiders (Ju.86 if memory serves).
Graham SALT
Geoff Miller wrote in message <82gssp$jct$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
>
>"Paul J. Adam" <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>[Spitfire marks with clipped wings]
>
>> LF Mk V, LF Mk IX, LF Mk XII and LF Mk XIV are the ones I recall.
>
>
>Thanks. Next question: What does the "LF" stand for? I've never
>seen that before.
>
LF and HF indicated the engine type installed in Spitfires, whether
optimised for low altitude (LF), or high altitude (HF). As an example, the
Spitfire IX was originally fitted with the Merlin 61, but later was also
equipped with the Merlin 66 as the LF.IX and Merlin 70 as the HF.IX. As far
as I know, the LF and HF prefixes never gave any indication of airframe
variation, thus, for example, LF.IX's could be seen with or without
wingtips. There were LF prefixes for the Mks VA, VB, VC, VIII, IX, and XVI,
and HF prefixes for the VII, VIII, and IX.
Spitfires were built with clipped wings as low altitude fighters, the
removal of the wingtips increasing the role rate, and reducing drag, without
incurring any significant penalties at low level. Acceleration and low
altitude speed was improved. Roll rate was of course significant in that the
Spitfire was inferior to its main protagonist in ETO, the Fw190.
Graham Salt
Stephen Harding
>
> Geoff Miller wrote:
> >
> > "Paul J. Adam" <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > [Spitfire marks with clipped wings]
> >
> > > LF Mk V, LF Mk IX, LF Mk XII and LF Mk XIV are the ones I recall.
>
> cockpits) that "became" clipped wing.
Ooops! Make that a Mk VI that was "de-modified" back to a V, via
602 Squadron in the fall of '42.
SMH
DAHenriques
Graham SALT <fw...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:82il06$9d9$1...@lure.pipex.net...
Douglas Bader used to call them "clipped, cropped, and clapped".
DH
--
Dudley A. Henriques
Past President 1971-1985
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Graham SALT
DAHenriques wrote in message ...
>
>Douglas Bader used to call them "clipped, cropped, and clapped".
>
>DH
>
>--
>Dudley A. Henriques
>Past President 1971-1985
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>
>
Couldn't argue with that. Clipped wings, cropped supercharger impeller and
clapped out airframe. Perfect description of the Mk.V with Merlin 50M
engine. Incidently, Bader flew a Mk.VA with 0.303 machine gun armament only,
allegedly because he preferred the close-in combat demanded by machine guns
rather than cannon. I can't really think that someone with Bader's
motivation, determination and skill as a great fighter leader would have
ever said that!
Graham Salt
KDBANGLIA
said "it went off down the runway like an old lorry!"
I could believe his and others ascerbic comments!
Richard.
DAHenriques
Douglas was, until his death some years ago, a close personal friend. We
spoke often of the different aircraft he flew, and his time in prison. I
can tell you we had some wonderful late night conversations on the phone
from his home at Petersham Mews concerning "big wing tactics", Park,
Dowding, and Leigh- Mallory.
Douglas liked close bore sighting, and had a lot to say about the Dowding
spread.
DH
Charles K. Scott
"DAHenriques" <dahen...@email.msn.com> writes:
> Douglas liked close bore sighting, and had a lot to say about the Dowding
> spread.
>
> DH
>
> Dudley A. Henriques
> Past President 1971-1985
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Bader wasn't the only pilot who disliked the fact that setting up their
aircraft's weapons was dictated from above. I can't think of a single
effective pilot who agreed with the "spread" set up. Those pilots who
were aggressive hunters realised right away that getting in close was
the most effective way to assure hits. Most other countries allowed
their pilots to set the guns as they saw fit. I gather that some
squadrons bore sighted their weapons as they wished, ignoring the rule.
Corky Scott