Author Topic: Spitfire 14 is porked (Read 3925 times)

Guppy35 · « **Reply #15 on:** December 16, 2003, 04:06:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus

And for GSchlozie: A Spit 9 is about a Spit 9 as 109G is a 109G:D

Don't ya love it

Lets see regarding Spit IX variants:

LFIX with Merlin 66 engine
-C wing
-E wing
-Clipped wing
-normal span wing
-Small rudder
-Pointed larger rudder
-no trop filter
-trop filter

FIX Merlin 61, 63, 63A
-C wing
-E wing
-Clipped wing
-normal span wing
-Small rudder
-Pointed larger rudder
-no trop filter
-trop filter

HFIX Merlin 70
-C wing
-E wing
-extended wing
-normal span wing
-Small rudder
-Pointed larger rudder
-no trop filter
-trop filter

Just a few different kinds to choose from don't ya think?

Dan/Slack

Furball · « **Reply #16 on:** December 16, 2003, 04:18:32 PM »

ooo ooo pick my x-mas present.....

ill have a...

L.F. IX with Merlin 66 engine
with... universal wing with 4 hispano option (we SHOULD already have this on our IX/XIV)
Clipped ...
Pointed rudder ...
no tropical filter please!

Guppy35 · « **Reply #17 on:** December 16, 2003, 05:41:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Furball
ooo ooo pick my x-mas present.....

ill have a...

L.F. IX with Merlin 66 engine
with... universal wing with 4 hispano option (we SHOULD already have this on our IX/XIV)
Clipped ...
Pointed rudder ...
no tropical filter please!

They rarely used the 4 cannon armament. I've seen it on some ground attack Spit Vcs in Italy and on a RAAF Spit VIII

With the other stuff you want, the tropical filter would have been standard. Not the big Vokes filter of the V but the one that you can see on all the restored Spit IXs.

I'm with you though, Clipped wing LFIXe with broad chord rudder and Merlin 66. Better low alt performance, roll rate etc. We've got how many G model 109s? Seems like we could get an LFIXe too don't ya think?

Dan/Slack

Angus · « **Reply #18 on:** December 17, 2003, 10:33:33 AM »

Tested some climbers offline, just for fun....

Spit XIV, no wep, full load, with takeoff roll, 20K 6:46 Spit XIV, w. WEP, full load. with takeoff roll, 20K 5:50
in Real life this should be about 5 minutes, no WEP mentioned.
So the Spit XIV is definately porked. It actually gets outclimbed by the AH 109G2!
109G2 no WEP, full load,no gonds, with takeoff roll. 20K 6:34 109G2 w. WEP, full load,no gonds, with takeoff roll, 20K 5:48

Going to Spit I, AH SpitI climbs too well for the old wooden airscrew, but way too slow for the Rotol airscrew. And we are talking about the 87 oct fuel in that sense. Could it be that the AH SpitI is a two blade plane with 100 octs? Don't know really.
At least far from being the best Spit mounted in the BoB.
On the other side, the 109E4 seems about correct, - the test flight numbers match the 109E4 in AH running without WEP

Pooh21 · « **Reply #19 on:** December 17, 2003, 09:44:17 PM »

niklas · « **Reply #20 on:** December 18, 2003, 04:42:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nashwan
The chart Furball posted is for the prototype Spit XIV. It had a lower gearing for the first supercharger gear, thus a lower critical alt in low gear.

... and ~200 more power this way in first gear. The AH spit has the power of a ~2000hp Griffon in 1st gear, and holds it up to 9k...

Just to make it clear

niklas

Angus · « **Reply #21 on:** December 18, 2003, 06:00:56 AM »

Bahh.
Our AH Spit XIV is one minute (at least) slower that a production type Spitfire up to 20K. That is a fact!

Hap · « **Reply #22 on:** December 18, 2003, 08:17:01 AM »

just ran some climb comparisions off line . . . nothing new but here's the skinny on the spit14, g10, and la7. but first the spit 14. and yes, i have utterly too too much time on my hands:)

1) 0 alt, 100% fuel, 50 cals- timed from wheels ups with wep on until it burns out: 1 min = 3,500 ft. 10k: 2:31. & 20k 5:30.

1a) this time plane leveled on deck and began climb at end of runway instead of prior to tower when plane normally begings climbing, same loadout. 1 min = 5,100. 10k: 2:40. 15k: 3:21, & 20k 4:48.

1b) kept end of runway take off since the #'s were better especially climb after 1 min, and changed to 303's instead of 50 cals. 1 min = 5,150. 10k: 2:02. 15k: 3:18. 20k: 4:53.

so comparing best (303's taking off at end of runway) to worst (50 cals taking off when plane lifts) heres the #'s:

1 min = 5,150 ft vs 3,500 ft.
10k: 2:02 vs 2:31.
15k: 3:18 vs 3:49
20k: 4:53 vs 5:30.

here's the g10#'s taking off at end of runway with 20mm and no junk on her, 100% fuel.

1 min = 4,800 ft. 10k: 2:08. 15k: 3:21. 20k: 4:43.

now side by side spit w/303's being first both planes wepping from beginning and taking off at runway's end.

1 min 5,150 vs 4,800 ft
10k: 2:02 vs 2:08
15k: 3:18 vs 3:21
20k: 4:53 vs 4: 43

for another point of reference, here's the la7-w/20mm (just figure the 30mm's will be worse prob should of used that loadout but wanted to keep things as light as possible).

1 min 4,800 ft. 10k 2:30. 15k: 4:16. 20k: 6:14.

as to what to make of it all . . . some things i knew but couldn't verify. 1) autoclimbing out isn't as effective as going level then autoclimbing at end of runway (or when plane is at default climb speed i guess). 2) i didn't know the 1400 rds of 303 weighed less--or weighs less in aces high. 3) didn't know g10 would outclimb spit14 to 20k.

btw, fuel load does matter. ran the very first test with spit 14 climbing out immediately with 50% gas to 20k the 100% fuel took 5:30, 50% gas 5:05.

pity the 14 is so pricey. when i fly her i have fun but am thinking . . . paid too much for this and all its going to get me is chased all over the place.

Zanth · « **Reply #23 on:** December 18, 2003, 09:23:29 AM »

WOnder how the new and improved G10 and sp14 of AH2 stack up. They are made and ready to fly.

GScholz · « **Reply #24 on:** December 18, 2003, 09:37:33 AM »

Autoclimb is only good at low alts. As alt increases you need to lower climb speed (IAS). On autoclimb every single plane in AH climbs worse than really can if you know what climbspeed you need at spesific alts.

The climb table at fourthfightergroup states 5.1 minutes to 20k in a cleaned up and polished Spit14 with gunports and muzzles covered + streamlined blanks over the 20mm gun barrels.

Hap, to test climb you should take off and imediately engage autopilot-level wait until the speed reaches climbspeed (175mph) and then engage autoclimb and the timer.

Angus · « **Reply #25 on:** December 18, 2003, 10:55:15 AM »

Standard procedure was to tape gun ports for operational use.
Anyway, autoclimb or not, would a 109G2 outclimb a Spit XIV??
At least it does in AH.
Now the particular plane climbing in 5 minutes to 20 K had a trop filter and an enlarged radiator. 15 minutes would suffice to 40K!, and max speed was 447mph at 25600 feet.
A flying testbed, Spitfire mk VIIIG (very similar to the XIV), exceeded 5000 fpm climb at sealevel, and maxed out at 445 mph at 25000 feet.
Boost on both of those was a "humble" 18.
I'll try to dig out what the boost-monster spitties did though (25 boost), - but many old spit jocks say it was the very best one.
We'll never see that in AH though I guess....it's just too good!:D

Nashwan · « **Reply #26 on:** December 18, 2003, 11:02:34 AM »

Quote

The climb table at fourthfightergroup states 5.1 minutes

That's the prototype with lower critical alt in low gear. The production aircraft should be considerable better.

The production aircraft reached 9,000ft in 1 min 56.5 secs. 9k to 14k should take 1 min 13.2 secs, 14k to 20k should take 1 min 37.6 secs.

That's 4 mins 47 seconds to 20k.

Quote

with gunports and muzzles covered

Gunports are covered by red fabric, cannon muzzles by a rubber sleve (condom in some cases). This is the normal condition for every Spitfire.

Quote

streamlined blanks over the 20mm gun barrels.

No, the streamlined blanks are fitted over the empty cannon stubs, not over the guns.

It was also fitted with a rear view mirror above the canopy, which we don't have in AH.

Quote

Autoclimb is only good at low alts. As alt increases you need to lower climb speed (IAS). On autoclimb every single plane in AH climbs worse than really can if you know what climbspeed you need at spesific alts.

For the Spit XIV tests, A&AEE used a climb speed of 175 mph indicated on the ASI. So the IAS should be arround 175 mph from sea level up to around 22,000ft.

Angus, there're figures for the Spit VIII on 25lbs boost at http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit8.html

Angus · « **Reply #27 on:** December 18, 2003, 11:59:48 AM »

Wow, 5500 feet climb from the deck, still doing above 5000 fpm at 11K!!! Looks like the ultimate Lala killer, hehehe.
Of course 400 mph plus in the close to 15K vicinity don't spoil it! And it's a good bit lighter than the Spit XIV!
Nice Nashwan,,,,NICE

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #28 on:** December 18, 2003, 01:20:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Wow, 5500 feet climb from the deck, still doing above 5000 fpm at 11K!!! Looks like the ultimate Lala killer, hehehe.
Of course 400 mph plus in the close to 15K vicinity don't spoil it! And it's a good bit lighter than the Spit XIV!
Nice Nashwan,,,,NICE

Expect that this "5500 feet climb rate" is a theoretical value, Angus. The dataset refers to a plane that had it`s radiators closed for the test. Nice trick Mike, not mentioning that, but anybody that reads the page for the JL 165`s trials at

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html

will find the reference to this "5500 fpm" Mk VIII test at +25 lbs boost by Vickers Armstrong, is doing 5580 fpm, but with radiator flaps closed.

Closing radiators was not possible on any serial Spits after the Mark V series : there was no provision to control the radiator flap position manually, they were automatic only (see any Mk IX, XIV etc. Flight Manual), banging out open very soon when running with so little airflow through them - as in a climb - for cooling. Result : decreasing the climb rate by apprx. 700 fpm at all altitudes (see JL165`s climb being 5740 with force-closed rads, and 5080 fpm with open ones). Now that`s one side of the coin - the other, the fact being that the Merlin 66`s supercharger was not designed to provide +25lbs boost on it`s own, and was unable to keep it up in MS gear for more than a mere 500ft up from SL... see boost tables again :
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165climb.gif

These Spit-myths are just so numerous

Nashwan · « **Reply #29 on:** December 18, 2003, 02:11:39 PM »

Quote

Closing radiators was not possible on any serial Spits after the Mark V series : there was no provision to control the radiator flap position manually, they were automatic only (see any Mk IX, XIV etc. Flight Manual), banging out open very soon when running with so little airflow through them - as in a climb - for cooling.

Well, the colling report shows that a 25 lbs boost climb could be maintained for 5 minutes without the coolant passing it's maximum temperature, when the rad flaps were shut, so for a considerable portion, at least, of a climb the rad flaps would be shut.

It should also be pointed out that the Spit VIII had a worse climb rate than the Spit IX (it was 370lbs heavier).

The report notes that climb rate is increased by the use of higher boost by approx 950 ft/min, and a normal Spit LF IX should have a climb rate of 4500 ft/min+ with 18lbs boost.

It should also be pointed out Rolls Royce got a figure of 5,740 ft/min with the same underperforming Spit IX the A&AEE used.

What condition was used for 109 climb tests? I believe you said shut, or partially shut, on Butch's board, didn't you?