Spitfire PR XIX at 51,000 ft?

[Nick Sumner]

Does anyone have, or can they point me to, information on the claimed flight of a Spitfire PRXIX from Kai Tak by a Flight Lieutentant Powles in February 1952 where is is alleged to have reached over 51,000 feet?

Is the claim credible?

[Lightning]

Hi Nick,

I remember reading many years ago that a Spitfire had shot down a German high-altitude recon plane at 50,000 feet during the war. That was the only time that I ever read anything about such an incident. Had it actually taken place, I believe that it would have been noteworthy enough to have been made public. If wartime secrecy was an issue, that certainly would have been lifted by now.

It seems incredible to me that either a Spitfire or any German plane could have reached that height. Pressurization for the crews would have been absolutely neccessary, and were there any superchargers that were up to the task at that time? I certainly am not in a position to categorically state that this did not happen, but I find it very hard to believe.

As to the 1952 incident you describe, I have never heard of it. If it did take place, that Spitfire would probably have been very specially prepared for the attempt. It certainly was not a WWII-vintage Spit, and a lot can be developed in seven years.

Regards,
Lightning

[Red Admiral]

"Flt. Lt. Ed Powles led a two-plane detachment from 81 (PR) Squadron, based in Hong Kong in the early 1950’s. His exploits included some early cold-war aerial reconnaissance, as well as taking some of the first meteorological measurements at altitude in that region of the world. And then there was the time he took his PR XIX up to 51,000 ft. Noting a problem with the cabin pressurization, he put the nose down- and darn near went supersonic during the ensuing plunge back toward the sea. He later calculated that he got up to at least .96 Mach before regaining use of his flight controls in the denser lower air (having encountered locked controls due to compressibility near Mach 1), and leveled out approximately 1,500 ft above the sea. To top it off, Mr. Powles is over 6 feet tall and barely fit into the Spitfire with the seat fully lowered."

[Kutscha]

Believe it Lightning.

The one that I know of was out of Egypt. The Spit V had its armament remove except for 2 mgs (said to be .5") and went after the PR/recon Ju-86s. The 86s flights stopped.

Another was Spit IXs which had their mgs, armour and some other equipement removed and fitted with a light weight wooden prop and were based at Northolt. On Sept 12, a Ju-86 was intercepted, damaged but not shot down at 44,000ft over the UK. Ju-86 flights stopped. Pilots were medically selected and trianed for the high altitude flights.

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi Nick,

I remember reading many years ago that a Spitfire had shot down a German high-altitude recon plane at 50,000 feet during the war. That was the only time that I ever read anything about such an incident. Had it actually taken place, I believe that it would have been noteworthy enough to have been made public. If wartime secrecy was an issue, that certainly would have been lifted by now.

It seems incredible to me that either a Spitfire or any German plane could have reached that height. Pressurization for the crews would have been absolutely neccessary, and were there any superchargers that were up to the task at that time? I certainly am not in a position to categorically state that this did not happen, but I find it very hard to believe.

As to the 1952 incident you describe, I have never heard of it. If it did take place, that Spitfire would probably have been very specially prepared for the attempt. It certainly was not a WWII-vintage Spit, and a lot can be developed in seven years.

Regards,
Lightning





Hi Nick, Lightning,

I know of a case when the crew deceided to see how high they could get and the Mosquitoe reached 50,000ft+ returning from Germany 1944/45, I will ask when next time I phone.

Was there versions with pressure cabins with the Spitfire and Mosquito? Was there not a special Pressure cabin Lightnig?

[Nick Sumner]

quote:Originally posted by Red Admiral

"Flt. Lt. Ed Powles led a two-plane detachment from 81 (PR) Squadron, based in Hong Kong in the early 1950’s. His exploits included some early cold-war aerial reconnaissance, as well as taking some of the first meteorological measurements at altitude in that region of the world. And then there was the time he took his PR XIX up to 51,000 ft. Noting a problem with the cabin pressurization, he put the nose down- and darn near went supersonic during the ensuing plunge back toward the sea. He later calculated that he got up to at least .96 Mach before regaining use of his flight controls in the denser lower air (having encountered locked controls due to compressibility near Mach 1), and leveled out approximately 1,500 ft above the sea. To top it off, Mr. Powles is over 6 feet tall and barely fit into the Spitfire with the seat fully lowered."


May I ask where this quote is from?

[ChrisMcD]

As I remember the Spit IX that intercepted the Ju86 over England nearly got it, but one of it's cannons jammed and the unbalanced recoil sent it into a spin while the Ju86 hightailed it home.

When they checked the Ju86 a cannon shell had gone through one of the main spars!

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Groggy

Was there versions with pressure cabins with the Spitfire and Mosquito? Was there not a special Pressure cabin Lightnig?


Therecertainly were.

The Mk XVI Mosquitos had cabin pressurisation. The Mk IXs had the equipment but were not set up for pressurisation.

The experimental version of the Mosquito, the XV, was designed to take down high altitude recon planes. It had extended ing tips and could reach 45,000ft.

[Red Admiral]

http://www.kitparade.com/features00/spitfireprxixlk_1.htm

That quote is from here, a modelling page with references at the bottom. The most poignant reference is the interview with Mr. Powles himself.

[pmjwright]

HI all. Like Lightning, I'd never heard of this story either. Having a story like this coming out so recently makes me suspicious. Anyway, a quick google search found--guess what, this is a popular topic on many many forums right now!!

Nick, I see you've asked this question at a couple other forums, so you've seen the comments. For the benefit of others, this website:
http://p076.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliticsandcurrentaffairs68862frm9.showMes sage?topicID=2709.topic mentions Volume 5 of Wings of Fame as the original source of the Powles story and provides some more info.

As the PR XIX had a normal service ceiling of 42600 ft, I think it could be just possible to reach 51000 ft in controlled flight under absolutely ideal circumstances (btw, Lightning, according to one post on the above forum, it was an unmodified PR XIX).

I just don't buy that diving speed!

Mach .96 is well above the "official" maximum reached by the Spitfire XI tested by RAE in 1944--just over 0.9 according to Jeffrey Quill's biography. That a/c lost its airscrew and iirc suffered structural damage, and the pilot suffered a back injury in the forced landing. The chances of Powles' Spit achieving .96 while keeping all its pieces sounds remarkable/impossible to me!!

[pmjwright]

Hi Groggy. I believe the Mosquito PR.32 also had pressure cabin. As for Spitfires, F Mks. VI and VII were pressurized as were PR Mks. X, XI and XIX.

[Lightning]

Hi pmjwright,

Quoting you:
quote:...(btw, Lightning, according to one post on the above forum, it was an unmodified PR XIX).
That was what I meant when I wrote, "...a lot can be developed in seven years." If this incident did occur (and I still feel that it is a very big "if"), it certainly was not in an unmodified wartime version of the Spitfire--whatever the Mark. The seven-year interval between 1945 and 1952 (Nick originally said 1952) would have led to later versions and improvements in performance of any WWII plane type that was continually in use over that time period unless there was no need for increased performance (e.g. the TB-25).
quote:I just don't buy that diving speed!
I totally agree.

Many stories of fantastic performances of WWII aircraft came out of the war (and later). I have mentioned on several occasions the claims of P-38s diving at 780 mph and P-47s reaching 840 mph in a dive. In most cases these tales were due to misinterpretations of flight instruments, incorrect calculations of the effects of atmospheric conditions, or over-active immaginations. Misinformation for the purposes of propaganda also led to some of these stories.

Common sense has to be applied when something seems to violate common sense. Not all such fantastic stories are false, but the vast majority of them are.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

Quoting you:
quote:
The one that I know of was out of Egypt. The Spit V had its armament remove except for 2 mgs (said to be .5") and went after the PR/recon Ju-86s. The 86s flights stopped.
At what altitude? Did that Spitfire V have pressurization, or was the pilot wearing a pressure suit?
quote:Another was Spit IXs which had their mgs, armour and some other equipement removed and fitted with a light weight wooden prop and were based at Northolt. On Sept 12, a Ju-86 was intercepted, damaged but not shot down at 44,000ft over the UK. Ju-86 flights stopped. Pilots were medically selected and trianed for the high altitude flights.
Same questions. Also, 44'000 feet is a far cry from 50,000 feet (Not to mention 51,000 feet).

Regards,
Lightning

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi Kutscha,

Quoting you:
quote:
The one that I know of was out of Egypt. The Spit V had its armament remove except for 2 mgs (said to be .5") and went after the PR/recon Ju-86s. The 86s flights stopped.
At what altitude? Did that Spitfire V have pressurization, or was the pilot wearing a pressure suit?
quote:Another was Spit IXs which had their mgs, armour and some other equipement removed and fitted with a light weight wooden prop and were based at Northolt. On Sept 12, a Ju-86 was intercepted, damaged but not shot down at 44,000ft over the UK. Ju-86 flights stopped. Pilots were medically selected and trianed for the high altitude flights.
Same questions. Also, 44'000 feet is a far cry from 50,000 feet (Not to mention 51,000 feet).

Regards,
Lightning

Hmmm, things are different in the tropics. Locally cumulus can go to around 40 000ft, makes for neat lightning storms, and it is awesome flying at over 35 000ft and seeing the clouds towering above you. Suspect 7 years of development, Mk XIX, tropical site, and a good day might easily make up that height.
Remember British designers have often liked height ... the Mosquito PR32 cruised at 42 000ft in 1944, later the Vulcan had a service ceiling of 65 000 ft and at the end of their days EE/BAC Lightnings were shown to fly at over 80 000 ft and were diving (i.e. controlled) on U2s in NATO exercises.

[Kutscha]

Sorry Lightning, was only giving examples of of some high altitude interceptions.

The PR XIX had a pressurized cockpit.

As for the Spit V, afaicr nothing special was done.

Of interest might be the max altitude achieved by the TA152H flown by Ofw Friedrich Schnier. This was recorded on a barograph at 44,785ft. Four attempts were made at high altitude flight. Some problems occured > fuel pump would not supply enough pressure above 9000m and the 3rd speed would not engage. On the record flight, the cockpit pressrization leaked.

[Lightning]

Hi curmudgeon,

Quoting you:
quote:Hmmm, things are different in the tropics. Locally cumulus can go to around 40 000ft, makes for neat lightning storms, and it is awesome flying at over 35 000ft and seeing the clouds towering above you. Suspect 7 years of development, Mk XIX, tropical site, and a good day might easily make up that height.

Most weather conditions (precipitation, clouds, icing, lightning, etc.) normally occur below 20,000 feet. They rarely occur at, or above, 30,000 feet. You are correct in stating that cumulus clouds (actually cumulonimbus or "thunderheads") sometimes tower to 40,000 feet, but that doesn't happen often. On very rare occassions, they can acually reach 50,000 feet. At any rate, no pilot knowingly flies into a thundercloud, so that Spitfire couldn't have used the very-violent updrafts of such a cloud to gain altitude.

Also, when it comes to weather conditions at significantly above 20,000 feet, there is not that much variance between those over tropical regions and those over northern climes. Temperature and humidity remain much more constant region-to-region than they do close to the surface.

At lower altitudes, aircraft performance is actually degraded in the tropics when compared to that in colder regions. Hot, humid air is much less dense than cold, dry air. This results in much higher "density altitudes." An aiplane at sea level on a jungle airfield in July would "feel" as if it were at several thousand feet in a standard atmosphere. On the other hand, that same airplane at several thousand feet over an airfield in Minnesota in January would "feel" like it was at sea level. For this reason, I don't think a tropical location would help the Spitfire in its initial climb to any great altitude.

I do agree with you as to the potential development of altitude capability that seven years could make possible. That having been said, I consulted numerous references, and they give service ceilings for the Mk XIX Spitfire of from 42,000 feet to 44,500 feet. Only one book quoted a higher ceiling. It stated that a Mk XIX had reached 49,000 feet during "post war exercises."

When, during the course of researching a subject, I find only one or two sources that mention something that would normally be of real significance--like a Spitfire (or any other WWII airplane)--reaching over 50,000 feet, I tend to be very skeptical, as I am in the case of our present dicussion.

Regards,
Lightning

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi curmudgeon,

Quoting you:
quote:Hmmm, things are different in the tropics. Locally cumulus can go to around 40 000ft, makes for neat lightning storms, and it is awesome flying at over 35 000ft and seeing the clouds towering above you. Suspect 7 years of development, Mk XIX, tropical site, and a good day might easily make up that height.

... discussion of air conditions ...

Most weather conditions (precipitation, clouds, icing, lightning, etc.) normally occur below 20,000 feet. They rarely occur at, or above, 30,000 feet. You are correct in stating that cumulus clouds (actually cumulonimbus or "thunderheads") sometimes tower to 40,000 feet, but that doesn't happen often. On very rare occassions, they can acually reach 50,000 feet. At any rate, no pilot knowingly flies into a thundercloud, so that Spitfire couldn't have used the very-violent updrafts of such a cloud to gain altitude.
...



For this reason, I don't think a tropical location would help the Spitfire in its initial climb to any great altitude.

I do agree with you as to the potential development of altitude capability that seven years could make possible. That having been said, I consulted numerous references, and they give service ceilings for the Mk XIX Spitfire of from 42,000 feet to 44,500 feet. Only one book quoted a higher ceiling. It stated that a Mk XIX had reached 49,000 feet during "post war exercises."

Actually cumulonimbus clouds can get to 70 000 ft! But that is equatorwards of here. Locally 40 000 ft is not at all rare. Just before the wet season we can do 50 000 ft (which is the norm over New Guinea). And yes, I expect a Spitfire's wings would have fallen off in even a mild tropical thunderstorm.

The thing is the atmosphere 'bulges' for the same rotational reasons the Earth is an oblate spheroid and this is most apparent in the tropics. While temperature effects and often moist air make for lower air densities at ground level in the tropics, above around 20 000 ft as you say temperatures stabilise, moisture drops so I would anticipate if you want to go high in a prop plane you should head for the equator.
It is an old trick to look for a time and place most suited to the task when attempting to produce an 'extreme' ... it is cheating as you are looking for an environment that lets you stretch one reported outcome while remaining within the envelope of the test object.
The Brits went to Libya to set world airspeed records in their last subsonic planes ... They used the catabatic flow cold, dry night air off the sahara to raise Mach 1 and flew effectively at sea level ... More recently (in 1975) the F15 set time to height records using a tweaked machine on a very cold day.

quote:
When, during the course of researching a subject, I find only one or two sources that mention something that would normally be of real significance--like a Spitfire (or any other WWII airplane)--reaching over 50,000 feet, I tend to be very skeptical, as I am in the case of our present dicussion.

Regards,
Lightning

You, skeptical? You just want to keep us honest ...

[Kutscha]

Lightning is from Missouri, the show me state.

[stevew]

In the British periodical "Aeroplane" circa 1941 or 1942, there is
a complete description of the interception by a modified (lightened)
Spitfire of a Ju-86 at an altitude of approximately 51,000 feet above
the Eastern Medditereaen. According to the article, everything not
necessary was stripped from the aircraft. The pilot was amazed to
be able to observe the entire length of the Med and stated that the
aircraft was extremely sensitive about the roll axis and that he
could initiate a roll by leaning to one side of the cockpit. Look
the article up and enjoy some fascinating reading. By the way, does
anyone have good photographes of the German helicopter, the Flettner
Fl-282 which reveal the rudder hinge area by any chance?

[Kutscha]

Page 155 of Morgan and Shacklady 'Spitfire The History' gives some details of the modifications carried out on Spitfire Vcs for high altitude interceptions.

[Lightning]

Hi stevew,

Quoting you:
quote:In the British periodical "Aeroplane" circa 1941 or 1942, there is a complete description of the interception by a modified (lightened) Spitfire of a Ju-86 at an altitude of approximately 51,000 feet above the Eastern Medditereaen.
I've done some searching on the Internet concerning this incident and was able to find several references to it. It happened over Egypt in August 1942, and, as you stated, was accomplished by a specially modified Spitfire (Mk VC). Most of the accounts, however, give the altitude at around 12,800 meters, or about 42,250 feet. The lowest altitude was given as "over 40,000 feet."

Only one account mentions that two subsequent interceptions were made at 45,000 feet and 50,000 feet, but no details were provided. These two interceptions were mentioned on several other sites, but no altitudes were given.

I then went on to research the altitude capabilities of the Ju 86P. None of the sites that I consulted gave a service ceiling of more than 42,250 feet. Several of them stated as low as 39,000 feet (although this sounds rather low for this airplane). There was mention of a later version--the Ju 86R--that had a design altitude of 52,000 feet, but this plane never got beyond the prototype stage and almost certainly never actually reached that altitude.

With all this in mind, the thing that makes me skeptical about the 50,000'-to-51,000' interception altitude is this:

If the Spitfire VC could reach 50,000 feet (51,000 feet???), and only then after being specially prepared, it probably would not have been able to do so unless all conditions were favorable to such a feat--certainly not as a matter of routine. If the Ju 86P's service ceiling was on the order of 43,000 feet, a climb to 50,000 feet would be a very rare event. (Service ceiling is defined as that altitude at which rate-of-climb has decreased to 100 fpm--and it drops off very rapidly after that altitude is reached.) What are the chances of these two relatively rare events occurring at the same time over the same location? Impossible? Cerainly not. Improbable? certainly.

The following possibilities exist:

(1)The event, as described by several sources, occurred at an altitude significantly lower than 50,000 feet.

(2)It was the product of exaggeration by well-meaning, but over-enthusiastic, participants e.g. a pilot flushed with success. (After all, who else was in a position to accurately record the altitude at which the enemy plane was shot down?)

(3)The British made such a claim in order to make the Germans think twice before sending over additional high-altitude flights--in which case it worked.

(4)The Spitfire actually did shoot down the Ju 86P at 50,000 feet, in which case I stand corrected.

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

quote:certainly not as a matter of routine
No one is saying it was routine.

Service ceiling is not the absolute ceiling of an a/c.

[Lightning]

Hi curmudgeon,

Quoting you:
quote:The thing is the atmosphere 'bulges' for the same rotational reasons the Earth is an oblate spheroid and this is most apparent in the tropics. While temperature effects and often moist air make for lower air densities at ground level in the tropics, above around 20 000 ft as you say temperatures stabilise, moisture drops so I would anticipate if you want to go high in a prop plane you should head for the equator.
The "bulging" that you describe results in several differences between the atmosphere over the Equator as opposed to that over the poles.

For one thing, the pressure levels are more compressed (i.e. closer together) over the poles. If a pilot sets his altimeter to a given setting and leaves it there, as he flies into an area where the pressure levels are compressing while maintaining his indicated altitude, he will actually be descending i.e. he will be riding the pressure level to a lower absolute altitude.

The temperature lapse rates are not the same over the Equator and over the poles. The temperature-decrease per 1000 feet is greater over the Equator than over the poles. This results in the temperature over the poles "catching up" with that over the Equator until, at high altitude, temperature is pretty much the same over both locations.

Since conditions at higher altitude tend to stabilize, it would be more advantageous, when trying to set an altitude record, to get a "head start" in the lower altitudes before reaching those heights where performance is pretty much the same from place-to-place. For this reason, cold, dry surface conditions, which enhance a plane's takeoff and climb performance, would be preferable to the warm, moist conditions at the surface in the tropics.
The faster you can get to 20,000 feet, the more time and fuel you have to go higher.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

Quoting you:
quote:Service ceiling is not the absolute ceiling of an a/c.

That's very true, but once you reach service ceiling (i.e. 100 fpm climb rate), can you imagine how long it would take to gain another 7000 feet? And remember, above that service ceiling, the climb rate does not remain at 100 fpm; it drops off rapidly until it reaches zero fpm which is absolute ceiling.

Regards,
Lightning

[Trexx]

What about a 'zoom' climb?

Can a high performance reciprocating motored airplane accomplish a zoom climb?

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi stevew,

Quoting you:
quote:In the British periodical "Aeroplane" circa 1941 or 1942, there is a complete description of the interception by a modified (lightened) Spitfire of a Ju-86 at an altitude of approximately 51,000 feet above the Eastern Medditereaen.
I've done some searching on the Internet concerning this incident and was able to find several references to it. It happened over Egypt in August 1942, and, as you stated, was accomplished by a specially modified Spitfire (Mk VC). Most of the accounts, however, give the altitude at around 12,800 meters, or about 42,250 feet. The lowest altitude was given as "over 40,000 feet."

Only one account mentions that two subsequent interceptions were made at 45,000 feet and 50,000 feet, but no details were provided. These two interceptions were mentioned on several other sites, but no altitudes were given.

I then went on to research the altitude capabilities of the Ju 86P. None of the sites that I consulted gave a service ceiling of more than 42,250 feet. Several of them stated as low as 39,000 feet (although this sounds rather low for this airplane). There was mention of a later version--the Ju 86R--that had a design altitude of 52,000 feet, but this plane never got beyond the prototype stage and almost certainly never actually reached that altitude.

With all this in mind, the thing that makes me skeptical about the 50,000'-to-51,000' interception altitude is this:

If the Spitfire VC could reach 50,000 feet (51,000 feet???), and only then after being specially prepared, it probably would not have been able to do so unless all conditions were favorable to such a feat--certainly not as a matter of routine. If the Ju 86P's service ceiling was on the order of 43,000 feet, a climb to 50,000 feet would be a very rare event. (Service ceiling is defined as that altitude at which rate-of-climb has decreased to 100 fpm--and it drops off very rapidly after that altitude is reached.) What are the chances of these two relatively rare events occurring at the same time over the same location? Impossible? Cerainly not. Improbable? certainly.

The following possibilities exist:

(1)The event, as described by several sources, occurred at an altitude significantly lower than 50,000 feet.

(2)It was the product of exaggeration by well-meaning, but over-enthusiastic, participants e.g. a pilot flushed with success. (After all, who else was in a position to accurately record the altitude at which the enemy plane was shot down?)

(3)The British made such a claim in order to make the Germans think twice before sending over additional high-altitude flights--in which case it worked.

(4)The Spitfire actually did shoot down the Ju 86P at 50,000 feet, in which case I stand corrected.

Regards,
Lightning


Good summary ... problem is the data is all dodgy.

More recently the published data on (say) the Avro Vulcan and the BAC Lightning quoted service ceilings around 60 000 ft. After the aircraft had long left service the original standard 'over the target' height of the Vulcan transpired to be 65 000 ft (I mentioned this much earlier on another thread wrt the undetected flights over the US of Vulcans returning from weapons tests at Woomera), and the Lightning had controlled level flight at around 85 000 ft.

Is the data from a test machine (and then early, pre-acceptance, or specially prepared matters) a typical service machine, or an especially well performing machine? Unfortunately for us record keeping was for practical purposes, and our interest was of no concern.

[Lightning]

Hi curmudgeon,

Quoting you:
quote:... problem is the data is all dodgy.
I can't argue against that. It drives me crazy when I keep getting contradictory performance figures from source-to-source. (I tend to put more credence on figures that agree with my position on a given subject [}:)]).

quote:More recently the published data on (say) the Avro Vulcan and the BAC Lightning quoted service ceilings around 60 000 ft. After the aircraft had long left service the original standard 'over the target' height of the Vulcan transpired to be 65 000 ft (I mentioned this much earlier on another thread wrt the undetected flights over the US of Vulcans returning from weapons tests at Woomera...

I remember your posting. That Vulcan was such a great airplane. I believe that I mentioned seeing one do several fly-bys at an airshow in Frederick, Maryland back in the 70's. There was also a Spitfire at that show (I can't remember which Mark). Between them, they stole the show!

Regards,
Lightning

[Trexx]

I saw a Vulcan once. I was blessed with a flyover of my High School. Being an airplane head and picking up distant vibrations, prompted me to leave class, walk out onto the field and see the monster in all it's low altitude glory. The hair on my neck bristled!

McClelland Air Force Base was the coolest neighbor in the world. They serviced all branches of the United States military airplanes and at times, visitors such as the Royal Air Force.

[pmjwright]

Vulcan B.2s were annual guests at the Abbottsford Airshow (BC) when I was growing up. Always a crowd favourite on its flybys, and definitely my fave--what a gorgeous bird!!!!

[r16]

a few sentences on this subject ; just to do something ...

It appears on August 24,1942 a Ju-86P-2 was shot down at 42,000 ft in the Middle East . In the following days another was damaged at 45,000 and one was claimed at 50,000. These were locally modified Spitfires that proved much superior to specially designed Mk VIs. The factory aircraft "proved unable to fight at altitudes much above 35,000 ft (10 670 m) ,as was confirmed later in the year when six were shipped to Aboukir to supplement the special Mk VCs, the performance of which they could not match".

But the wikipedia article on Ju-388 says:

"Several reconnaissance missions were flown by operational Ju 388's, generally believed to be "L" models, in the final days of the war in Europe. Most were flights over England, and were similar to the reconnaissance missions being flown by the jet powered Ar 234 at the same time period, though at higher altitudes.
In early 1945 a Ju 388 was intercepted while flying at approximately 44,000 ft over the English Channel by a Supermarine Spitfire. The Spitfire, operating above its service ceiling, was not able to reach the altitude of the Ju 388 but was able to fire upon it from below and bring it down. It is believed that this was the highest altitude shoot down of WW."


"For operational missions the PR Mk XI would cruise at altitudes around 39,000 ft ( 11 887 m), ascending above that altitude only if enemy fighters attempted to intercept it...."

The cruise speed would be 378 mph (608 km/h) at 38,000 ft (11 590 m), climbing to 41,500 ft (12 660 m) and keeping there for 4 minutes to avoid enemy interceptors , descend to 38,000 to take photographs for 25 minutes, no doubt due to stability issues at higher altitudes ; as that Spit' pilot found out that he could roll his plane by leaning to a side.

"Fitted with the Merlin 63 engine, a PR Mk XI in operational trim could reach altitudes above 42,000 ft (12 810 m ) - nearly 10,000 ft ( 3 050 m) more than previous PR versions of the Spitfire. For some 18 months after it entered service, the MK XI would be almost immune to fighter interception unless it was caught by surprise or had been forced to descend to a lower altitude by cloud to get its photographs."

And when the Me-262s came around ; Sqn Ldr Alfred Ball :

" I encountered Me 262s on a couple of occasions.Unless your eyes were shut when they jumped you , you could usually get away from them.They had a long climb to reach us , and they could not stay with us for very long...Provided you handled your aircraft properly , it was very difficult for them to shoot you down."

"The Mk XIX established a clear superiority over the Mk XI , being able to cruise at 370 mph (595km/h) at 40 000 ft (12200 m) during operational missions."

Well , I consider the Air International as trustworthy as anything , but there has to something amiss here.Is 2,000 feet higher but 8 miles slower a clear superiority?But then the interceptor should also climb that extra 2,000, which may not be the easiest of things. My much __________ ( fill in the blank according to what you think ) piece on the the "failure" of the P-38 , has used the December 1990 issue of AI as a primary inspiration source.

And believe me I would be much happier to read that site mentioned in tread no:1489.Does anyone have it translated ? And just for the record , the founder of the Sony Corporation mentioned in his memoirs that he was in a team that researched IR guided missiles in 1945.As for the kitchen fires , it has been claimed it was the SAS in Falklands that knocked out a field kitchen with a Stinger while engaging a Pucara .Also, while it is true ( I say so ) that DIVAD or Sergeant York blew up a latrine thinking it was a Su-25, the system was not cancelled because of this.

Alfred Ball again :

"... the pressurised cabin was obviously necessary for the fast climbing jet aircraft. But we preferred the unpressurised Mk XI to the Mk X.The Mk XI took 30 to 40 minutes to get to height and I never had any trouble in an unpressurised aircraft."

But the technology doesn't stand still.

"The fitting of the pressure cabin to the PR Mk XIX enabled its pilots to fully exploit to the full this version's superb high altitude performance.The service ceiling was officially quoted as 42,600 ft (12 895 m) but the RAF definition "service ceiling" was that altitude at which the aircraft's rate of climb falls below 100 ft/min (0.5 m/sec).Comfortably ensconced in their pressurized cabins , pilots were able to make long cruise-climbs that took the Mk XIX as high as 49,000 ft (14 945 m ), far above its "service ceiling".

"The reconnaisance Spitfires were a remarkable breed , but the PR Mk 19 was the most remarkable of them all.Not until 1949 and the introduction into service of the first swept-wing jets, the North American F-86 Sabre and the MiG-15 ,were there fighters with the performance to stand a good chance of making successful interceptions against PR Mk 19s flying at their maximum altitude." By the way, THK lost 2 Spitfires over Bulgaria in 1954.

"Exercise Dagger , held in September 1948, was Fighter Command's first major air defence exercise after the war.As part of it eight PR Mk 19s were sent singly at altitudes beteen 30,000 and 49,000 ft (9 150 and 14 945 m ) to photograph assigned targets.The efficiency of Britain's radar network had deteriorated since the end of the war , and the exercise demonstrated that it could no longer cope with small high-flying targets like these Spitfires. Four of the PR MK19s reached the coast of England without even being detected by early warning radar, three more were too high for continuous radar tracking and no interceptions were attempted. the remaining aircraft was tracked on radar at 37,000 ft (11 285 m) as it headed north over the English Channel to photograph Southampton; two Meteor 4s were scrambled to intercept it, but neither made visual contact."

The 49,000 ft ceiling appears to be a "normal" , not some special event that called for unique preparations or seven years of post-war development.Spitfire pilots would be tasked to get there.

So , a Spitfire might have climbed up to 51,000 ft and might have done a very high speed descent. At least he hasn't claimed breaking the sound barrier.

[Lightning]

Hi r16,

Quoting you:
quote:Also, while it is true ( I say so ) that DIVAD or Sergeant York blew up a latrine thinking it was a Su-25, the system was not cancelled because of this.

As a reliability engineer for Westinghouse, I worked on the RADAR for the DIVAD (Division Air Defense) system. It was a self-propelled (track), RADAR-controlled 40 mm gun system.

Because of its guns' short range and the speed of its intended targets, it was just not up to the task. Some tests were successful, but most were not. In the age of ground-air missiles, the DIVAD was something of an anachronism and therefore doomed to failure.

I think I heard that story about the latrine "shoot-down," but I can't say whether it is true or not. I wouldn't be surprised if it were.

The DIVAD program was eventually cancelled.

Regards,
Lightning