Neither Whirly nor Fw 187 don't impress with wing thinnes (talk 17% at root for the Wirly, the 187 is in the ballpark), nor there is some groundbreaking wing profile used on either. Wing thickness and profile used get increasingly important as the desired speed is increased.
The incomplete guide lists the Whirly at 23015, and, of course, doesn't list the FW-187 at all. The Whirly is a little short on chord at the root, and would benefit from more wing area.
We really aren't that far off the FW-187 top speed estimate, with my previous guesstimate of 390 but not more.
Would anyone like to take a stab at the real top speed of a Spit Mk. III, in battle trim? In this case, 400 seems extravagant, based on Spit V numbers.
Slower than the MK 3 Spitfire
Spit V have had several disadvantages vs. the Mk.III - external BP glass (cost 4 mph), rear view mirror (3.5 to 6.75, defending on the type), snow/ice guard (7.5 to 8.5 mph), fixed taiwheel + no wheel well cover (??? mph), armament (6.75 to 10 mph just for two cannons). Imperfections in fit & finish were found to cost up to 12 mph. Cost in mph per RAE Technical note No. 1273 (Flight), can be found on the 'net, aplly for 360 mph 'base' speed. People at RAE tweaked the Mk.V (ser. no. EN.946) to attain 388 mph, mostly via deleting the ice guard and installing a better exhaust, along with better fit of the skinning and other externals.
All in all - the run-on-the-mill Spit V will be easily 25 mph slower than the unarmed Spit III, or around 15 mph that armed Spit III. So IMO we'd see a 390 mph for a Spit III in battle trim.
The FW187, He100, He280 were all great missed opportunities for the Luftwaffe, the 187 being the most useful of the three.
It would butterfly the ME210/ME410 debacle, and the Hs129 as well.
Again, your facts aren't my facts. The two cannon cost 3 mph, on the Mk.I as tested, the BP windscreen cost 6, etc. Why would a battle trimmed Spit fly without a mirror? The Spit IX flew with fixed tailwheel, the "planned" Mk. VIII was retractable. I prefer retractable, but that doesn't mean that a Spit III will be produced as ideal, such as better finished, in wartime.
The document I was quoting the figures can be downloaded from here.
An interesting thing about the facts game is that WWII Fighter Performance lists various A&AEE reports and in one, it states that 2 cannons cost 3 mph, and in another, a cannon Spitfire gained 3 mph on another non-cannon Spit of the same type.
An interesting thing about the facts game is that WWII Fighter Performance lists various A&AEE reports and in one, it states that 2 cannons cost 3 mph, and in another, a cannon Spitfire gained 3 mph on another non-cannon Spit of the same type.
As you once noted we seem to have different eyes, can you detail the significant differences compared to the historical Bf109?View attachment 349155
Another blended aircraft, with notable improvements just not combined at the right time, perhaps even better with Wiking's armament improvements.
I see inward folding main gear, a different radiator installation, a revised canopy, and larger tail surfaces with a likewise larger rudder. There may be other differences that are more subtle or hard to see in profile.As you once noted we seem to have different eyes, can you detail the significant differences compared to the historical Bf109?
As you once noted we seem to have different eyes, can you detail the significant differences compared to the historical Bf109?
I see inward folding main gear, a different radiator installation, a revised canopy, and larger tail surfaces with a likewise larger rudder. There may be other differences that are more subtle or hard to see in profile.