Pinnacle of Piston fighter: Last US piston fighters vs Spiteful Mk XVI?

Which is the better piston fighter if they both gone to production?

  • XP-72

    Votes: 5 31.3%

  • Spiteful F.16

    Votes: 11 68.8%
  • Total voters
    16
Ronny said:
Do we have any information about spiteful time to altitude ?
All I could see about spiteful is climb rate at 2000ft

Spiteful: 4890 ft/min (24.8 m/s) at 2000 ft. No additional information

XP-72 with twin props: 5250 ft/min (26.67 m/s) at sea level, take 3.8 min to climb to 20,000 ft

P-51H: 5120 ft/min (26 m/s) at sea level, take 4.58 min to climb to 20,000 ft

XP-51G: take 3.58 min to climb to 20,000 ft

F4U-5: 4840 ft/min (24.58 m/s) at sea level, take 4.7 min to climb to 20,000 ft
Click to expand...
Spiteful XIV 4m54s to 20000ft
 
Ronny said:
Thank you but where did you got that number from? I can't find Spiteful climb rate anywhere
Click to expand...
Took it down so long ago I thought it might be from a book. Just searched those most likely, but didn't find anything, so sorry idk. Can only assure that I'm not making it up. Inital climb for the F.15: 24,1m/s btw, again ? source; never thought anybody would ask or that I would have any answer on the subject.
 
Kugelblitz said:
Took it down so long ago I thought it might be from a book. Just searched those most likely, but didn't find anything, so sorry idk. Can only assure that I'm not making it up. Inital climb for the F.15: 24,1m/s btw, again ? source; never thought anybody would ask or that I would have any answer on the subject.
Click to expand...
Thank you alot anyway
 
The Spiteful never entered service. The few that actually flew were used for testing and evaluation. Apparently with different engines and propellers. I'm not so sure firm numbers for a production or "in-service" Spiteful really exist. There are speed and climb rate numbers for particular aircraft but I didn't spot any time to 20,000 feet figures in the Morgan and Shacklady book.
 
perttime said:
The Spiteful never entered service. The few that actually flew were used for testing and evaluation.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that if the War had lasted another six months the Spiteful would've entered production.
 
The XP-47J was handed over to AAF and arrived at Wright Field, Ohio on 9 December 1944. During flight tests, the AAF was unable to get maximum power from the R-2800 engine. The AAF recorded a speed of only[!] 484 mph (779 km/h) at 25,350 feet (7,727 m) and with the engine producing 2,770 hp (2,066 kW). Near the end of flight testing, the exhaust manifold system had a serious failure while the aircraft was at 36,000 ft (10,943 m). The cause of the failure was the increase in pressure and temperature from the CH-5 turbosupercharger acting upon the unstrengthened exhaust system.

Old Machines press

Most likely the exhaust system was leaking when the AAF "only" got 484 mph. As good as it was the J model was only a test bed and not meant for production, although the higher output engine was later used for the P-47M and P-47N.







Like Quote Reply

Report
 
What modifications would it take to make a Fw 190/Ta 152 competitive to the Spiteful Mk. XVI's performance?
 
spicmart said:
What modifications would it take to make a Fw 190/Ta 152 competitive to the Spiteful Mk. XVI's performance?
Click to expand...
Having a good engine with a 2-stage supercharger.
In reality, if too late, something like the Jumo 213E or F, or the DB 603L or LA. Even the BMW 801 with the 2-stage S/C would've been a huge upgrade, and indeed would've made the 190/152 a good match to the Mk.XIV.
 
I don't think you've mixed up Spitfire Mk. XIV and Spiteful Mk. XVI. I meant the latter.

I'm not sure if a Jumo 313E/F would be enough. More an EB.
A 213J-engined 190/152 would probably outperform the Spiteful.
Is a laminar wing profile mandatory for such edge-of-age designs to achieve max performance?
I'm asking because I prefer "classic" wing profiles aesthetically (I know that sounds very weird from an engineering pov...;)).
 
Last edited:
spicmart said:
I don't think you've mixed up Spitfire Mk. XIV and Spiteful Mk. XVI. I meant the latter.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've mixed them up :)

spicmart said:
I'm not sure if a Jumo 313E/F would be enough. More an EB.
A 213J-engined 190/152 would probably outperform the Spiteful.
Click to expand...

Fill up the tanks with the high-octane fuel and there is a level playing field, Griffon 100 series vs. the 2-stage 213?

spicmart said:
Is a laminar wing profile mandatory for such edge-of age designs to achieve max performance?
I'm asking because I prefer "classic" wing profiles aesthetically (I know that sounds very weird from an engineering pov...;)).
Click to expand...
Sometimes, brute force can help, without the need to go with laminar flow wings.
I think that this is such a case.
 
tomo pauk said:
Yeah, I've mixed them up :)



Fill up the tanks with the high-octane fuel and there is a level playing field, Griffon 100 series vs. the 2-stage 213?


Sometimes, brute force can help, without the need to go with laminar flow wings.
I think that this is such a case.
Click to expand...
Which Griffon variant could have reached the heights of a Jumo 213J, with everything else being equal..
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom