SPITFIRE MK I PERFORMANCE TESTING

Aeroplane and Armament Establishment
Martlesham Heath

12 July 1939

Spitfire K.9793
Merlin II
Short Performance with 2 pitch metal airscrew

Height
ft.
T.A.S.
m.p.h.
Time
From
Start
Min.
Rate
of
Climb
Ft./Min.
2,000.1.291625
5,000.3.01845
9,700.5.42175
10,000.5.52150
15,000.8.11725
16,500358.58.91600
18,0003659.91475
18,600367..
20,00036611.41305
23,000.14.01055
26,000.17.2800
28,000.20.0630
30,000.23.8470
Service ceiling (Estimated) = 34,400 ft.

.......Flying weight on trials = 5935 lb.


Aeroplane and Armament Establishment
Martlesham Heath

20 July 1939

Spitfire L.1007
Merlin III
Handling and performance trials with two 20 m.m. cannon fitted

.......The aeroplane is fitted with a 2-pitch 3-blade metal airscrew and it was desired to compare the handling and the performance of the aeroplane with that of Spitfire K-9793, fitted with Browning guns and 2-pitch metal airscrew.

Height
ft.
T.A.S.
m.p.h.
Time
From
Start
Min.
Rate
of
Climb
Ft./Min.
2,000.1.01970
5,000.2.52040
10,000.4.92170
13,0003396.41920
15,0003487.51750
16,500354.58.41620
18,000360.59.31490
18,600364..
20,000362.510.71320
23,00035913.21070
26,00035416.4820
Service ceiling = 34,500 ft.

.......Flying weight on trials = 5925 lb.


Aeroplane and Armament Establishment
Boscombe Down

19 March 1940

Spitfire N.3171
Merlin III
Rotol Constant Speed Airscrew
Comparitive Performance Trials

            In accordance with Air Ministry letter, reference B.9242/39/A.D./R.D.L. dated 4th November 1939, performance trials have been carried out to compare this aeroplane with the standard Spitfire I fitted with a 2-pitch airscrew.

Height
ft.
T.A.S.
m.p.h.
Time
From
Start
Min.
Rate
of
Climb
Ft./Min.
2,000 .72,820
5,000 1.82,850
10,0003203.52,895
11,000 3.92,905
15,0003395.42,430
18,900354  
20,0003537.71,840
25,00034511.01,250
30,00031916.4660
Service ceiling = 34,700 ft.

For more of this report click HERE

           N.3171 weighed in at 6,050 lbs. The 73 lb. pilot's armour found on more mature Spitfire Is was lacking. The aircraft was slightly down on power effecting top speed by about 2 mph. The engine limitations for the tests were:- Level Speeds - All-Out 5 minutes limit - 6.25 lbs./sq.inch, 3000 RPM; Climb - 6.25 lbs./sq.in. 2600 RPM Climbing 1/2 hour limit. Ironically, the day after this report was issued AP1590B/J.2-W was released, increasing the engine limitations to +12 lbs./sq.in, 3000 RPM. This allowed for an increase in speed below 10,000 feet of 28/34 mph.


Aeroplane and Armament Establishment
Boscombe Down

30 July 1940

Comparison of Performance of Rotol and DH Airscrews on Spitfire

.......Both the aircraft are similar externally and are fitted with bullet proof windscreen and armour plating over the tank, etc.

.......Aircraft R6774 is fitted with DH airscrew and N3171 with Rotol airscrew.

.......It will be noted that these aircraft are about 12 miles an hour down in speed against the previously tested K9793, but the relative comparison remains. This loss in speed is accounted for, by 6 miles an hour for the bullet proof windscreen and 6 miles an hour due to loss in engine power.

.......Level Speed miles per hour.

AeroplaneAltitude Feet

.1400016000Max. speed2000022000
R6774342349355 @ 17,800'350341
N3171336343354 @ 18,900'354352


            The above tests were all carried out using 87 octane fuel with boost limited to +6.25 lbs./sq.in. Climb figures were achieved using the 2600 rpm 1/2 hour climb limit. By the Battle of Britain all operational squadrons had changed over to 100 octane fuel and the engine limits on the Spitfires had been increased to +12 lbs./sq.in. 3,000 rpm with 1/2 hour climb limit increased to 2850 - 3000 rpm.


Aeroplane and Armament Establishment
Boscombe Down

10 June 1940

Messerschmidt 109 Fighter
Brief Handling Trials

Conclusions

.......In general flying qualities the aeroplane is inferior to both the Spitfire and the Hurricane at all speeds and in all conditions of flight. It is much inferior at speeds in excess of 250 m.p.h. and at 400 m.p.h. recovery from a dive is difficult because of the heaviness of the elevator. This heaviness of the elevator makes all manoeuvres in the looping plane above 250 m.p.h. difficult including steep climbing turns. No difference was experienced between climbing turns to the right and left. It does not possess the control which allows of good quality flying and this is particularly noticeable in acrobatics.


Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough
June 1940
Spitfire IA K.9791 with Rotol constant speed propeller
Me 109E-3 Werk-Nr 1304

Comparitive trials between the Me 109E-3 and "Rotol" Spitfire IA

1. The trial commenced with the two aircraft taking off together, with the Spitfire slightly behind and using +6 1/4 lb boost and 3,000 rpm.

2. When fully airborne, the pilot of the Spitfire reduced his revolutions to 2,650 rpm and was then able to overtake and outclimb the Me 109. At 4,000 ft, the Spitfire pilot was 1,000 feet above the Me 109, from which position he was able to get on its tail, and remain there within effective range despite all efforts of the pilot of the Me 109 to shake him off.

3. The Spitfire then allowed the Me 109 to get on to his tail and attempted to shake him off this he found quite easy owing to the superior manoeuvrability of his aircraft, particularly in the looping plane and at low speeds between 100 and 140 mph. By executing a steep turn just above stalling speed, he ultimately got back into a position on the tail of the Me 109.

4. Another effective form of evasion with the Spitfire was found to be a steep, climbing spiral at 120 mph, using +6 1/4 boost and 2,650 rpm; in this manoeuvre, the Spitfire gained rapidly on the ME 109, eventually allowing the pilot to execute a half roll, on to the tail of his opponent.

5. Comparitive speed trials were then carried out, and the Spitfire proved to be considerably the faster of the two, both in acceleration and straight and level flight, without having to make use of the emergency +12 boost. During diving trials, the Spitfire pilot found that, by engageing fully coarse pitch and using -2lbs boost, his aircraft was superior to the Me 109.


Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough
September 1940
Messerschmitt Me.109.
Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests

Conclusions

.......Take off is fairly straightforward. Landing is difficult until the pilot gets used to the aeroplane.

.......Longitudinally the aeroplane is too stable for a fighter. There is a large change in directional trim with speed. No rudder trimmer is fitted; lack of this is severely felt at high speeds, and limits a pilot's ability to turn left when diving.

.......Aileron snatching occurs as the slots open. All three controls are far too heavy at high speeds. Aerobatics are difficult.

.......The Me 109 is inferior as a fighter to the Hurricane or Spitfire. Its manoeuvrability at high speeds is seriously curtailed by the heaviness of the controls, while its high wing loading causes it to stall readily under high normal accelerations and results in a poor turning circle.

.......At 400 m.p.h a pilot, exerting all his strength, can only apply 1/5 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs. From the results Kb2 for the Me 109 ailerons were estimated to be -0.145.

.......The minimum radius of turn without height loss at 12,000 ft., full throttle, is calculated as 885 ft. on the Me 109 compared with 696 ft. on the Spitfire.

Spitfire and Me.109
Turns at minimum radius without height loss.
Both aeroplanes at full throttle at 12,000 ft.

SpitfireMe.109
Minimum radius of turn without loss of height......... ft.696885
Cooresponding time to turn through 360 deg......... sec.1925
Indicated airspeed Vi........ m.p.h.133129
A.S.I.R......... approx m.p.h.126118
"g"2.652.1
Angle of bank68 deg.62 deg.

Spitfire and Me 109. Diagrams of turning
ME 109 and Spitfire. Comparison of turning circles

Corresponding times to 45 deg. bank Me 109 and Spitfire.

[Main]  [Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E Performance Comparison]