Author Topic: Beta 13 is out  (Read 3297 times)

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20386
Beta 13 is out
« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2004, 12:40:02 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Pyro
I think you read your source wrong.  There is no such thing as a b wing with c armament.  You can have a c wing with b armament but not the reverse.  It's why the C wing is known as the universal wing.

As to the ammo capacity, the 60 round capacity was a result of the drum magazine used on early planes.  That installation was never considered satisfactory in a wing mounting as the gun had to be mounted on its side and was prone to malfunction.  This was alleviated by the development of the Belt Feed Mechanism Mark I by Molins for use with the Hispano Mk II.  By mid 1941, all new installations used the new belt feed and existing installations were refitted with the new belt feed.  So you would not see a 60 round capacity in a VC at all and you would only see it in a Vb early in its service life.

The roll rate shouldn't have changed.  Sounds like a possible bug.


I was referring to the external look of the AH Spit V which looks like a Spit Vb, yet it carries the ammo load of the C wing.  The Spit that you've used for the skin is also a Vb.

There would never have been a C wing with B armament as the B wing was specifically that.  It would be a C wing with a 20mm cannon and 2 303 MGs but it would not be referred to as B armament.

And as you say, the B wing had the drum magazines with only 60 rounds, and AH kite has double that.  At least to look accurate it should have a C Wing with the extra cannon bay and plug and use the serial of a Spit Vc :)

And a Vb could not have been fitted with C armament.  As the wings were replaceable, it's possible that a C wing may have been fitted to a Spit Vb, but then it would have been re-designated a Vc.  The layout of the internal wing structure was completely different from the B wing to the C wing, so the belt fed cannon's would not work in the B wing internals.

And for your Spit trivia of the day, only the Spitfire V with the Universal wing was refered to as the Vc.  The Spit XII, IX, XIV, VIII etc with Universal wings, were not given the C designation as they were never going to use the A or B wing.  Only with the intro of the E wing later did they add the E to Spit LFIXE, as an example.

Dan/Slack
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20386
Beta 13 is out
« Reply #16 on: February 13, 2004, 12:46:05 AM »
Assuming you gents are aware of it, but the Spit XIV should roll better the opposite of the V and IX as the Griffon engine turned the prop in the opposite direction.

There are lots of stories of unsuspecting Merlin Spit pilots hopping in a Griffon Spit for the first time and rolling in the same rudder trim for the Merlin and getting in all kinds of trouble taking off for the first time with the torque of the Griffon pulling them the other direction.

The torque was so strong in the XII, that one of the things they did was increase the pressure in the oleo strut on the side it pulled to to keep the wing up a bit better.

Lots of near misses on hangers and sideways take offs with those Griffon birds flown by the unsuspecting :)

Dan/Slack
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
Beta 13 is out
« Reply #17 on: February 13, 2004, 05:44:10 AM »
The Wurger still owns them all.
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline Pyro

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4020
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
Beta 13 is out
« Reply #18 on: February 13, 2004, 12:11:28 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Guppy35
And as you say, the B wing had the drum magazines with only 60 rounds, and AH kite has double that.  At least to look accurate it should have a C Wing with the extra cannon bay and plug and use the serial of a Spit Vc :)

And a Vb could not have been fitted with C armament.  As the wings were replaceable, it's possible that a C wing may have been fitted to a Spit Vb, but then it would have been re-designated a Vc.  The layout of the internal wing structure was completely different from the B wing to the C wing, so the belt fed cannon's would not work in the B wing internals.



Well I'm not going to argue about semantics.  Your initial post simply stated it was wrong because of the ammo load and I've stated otherwise.  I said the early B wings used the drum until they were refitted when the Chatellerault feed mechanism became available.  

You're saying that they couldn't mount a feed tray in B wing?  Why not?  What is your source for this?  On page 156 of Morgan and Shacklady's Spitfire book, they have a scan of a technical drawing of the Vb wing with the belt fed cannon installation.  What's the problem with that installation?

In reality, it was mounting the drum in the wing that was the pain.  The belt feed was much more space efficient.  The belt feed was the desired installation from early on with 9 different firms undertaking a design of one in 1938, none of which succeeded.  In 1940, they caught a break when the French came up with a working design and the British got the plans just before the fall of France.  

The only installation problem with the belt feed mechanism was that the feed was operated by recoil and any flexibility in the mount could cause insufficient force to operate the unit.  This required armorers to have to adjust the recoil unit on each gun to insure smooth operation.

Offline Citabria

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5149
Beta 13 is out
« Reply #19 on: February 13, 2004, 12:26:55 PM »
could you rename the spitvb a spitVc? spitVc's were used in the pacifc quite a bit :P
Fester was my in game name until September 2013

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20386
Beta 13 is out
« Reply #20 on: February 13, 2004, 02:00:24 PM »
Pyro,

The image in Spit the Hist, is incorrectly identified.  What it shows is the wing set up for some of the early Spit IXs that lacked the second cannon plug.  That is a Universal Wing diagram.

We had this debate on the Flypast Forums a while  back when I was trying to determine what wing the restored Spit MH434 had since it did not have the second cannon plug.  

http://forum.airforces.info/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20000

You'll see the diagrams I posted from the Spit V maint manual as well as those posted by a guy going by Mark12 who is Peter Arnold, a friend and fairly well known Spit expert.  A few others jump in who are involved in restoring Spits.  

The image in Spit the Hist is from the IX manual btw.  The Spit V never had that wing set up and it was not a B wing as there was no designation for the Universal wing on the Spit IX.  It gets confused sometimes as the Spitfire LFIX was called the Spit IXB  by service pilots, but was not an official designation and had nothing to do with armament.

There are a number of glaring caption errors in Spit the History btw.  While it's a great source, whoever did the photos and captions messed up in a number of places.

Decided to add the images of the Spit Vb wing and Spit Vc wing from the Spit V manual.  Note the internal structure is the same as the image in Spit the Hist except for the second cannon aperture.  This is the internal structure of the Universal Wing.  The B wing did not have the same internal structure.

Dan/Slack

« Last Edit: February 13, 2004, 02:14:56 PM by Guppy35 »
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Pyro

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4020
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
Beta 13 is out
« Reply #21 on: February 13, 2004, 04:13:33 PM »
Thanks for the link, that's interesting about the IX.  I do see what you're talking about with picture being mislabeled.  

I didn't quite follow what you were saying at first.  I read it as you thought the ammo load was wrong.  I now see what you mean in that I changed the model but the 3d shape remained a B.  

But what I still don't follow is why you say the belt feed could not be accomodated on the Vb.  I look at the two drawings and I can't make that conclusion.  Is there something I'm missing?

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20386
Beta 13 is out
« Reply #22 on: February 13, 2004, 05:05:20 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Pyro
Thanks for the link, that's interesting about the IX.  I do see what you're talking about with picture being mislabeled.  

I didn't quite follow what you were saying at first.  I read it as you thought the ammo load was wrong.  I now see what you mean in that I changed the model but the 3d shape remained a B.  

But what I still don't follow is why you say the belt feed could not be accomodated on the Vb.  I look at the two drawings and I can't make that conclusion.  Is there something I'm missing?


It would not have worked due to the placement of the cannon.  The placement is further back in a Vb with the Ammo drum being the reason for the specifically shaped bulge in the wing, also further back then on the Vc.  On the Universal wing, the bulge over the cannon covers the smaller cannon feed unit.

I marked the ammo bay on the Vb wrong too, as it is behind the area I marked in red

I suppose they could have done a makeshift job, but as the Universal wing was the way to go for the future, it left the option to re-wing Spit Vs as needed when they came in for overhaul, although as an example, AB910, the Battle of Britain Flight Spit Vb was flying Ops on D-Day in that configuration

Two more images from the Spit V manual showing the different wings with the cannon installation.

Dan/Slack

Spit Vb cannon installation:


Spit Vc cannon installation:
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Pyro

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4020
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
Beta 13 is out
« Reply #23 on: February 13, 2004, 07:15:53 PM »
G.F. Wallace was put in charge of Hispano development in 1941 among other armament projects.  He wrote a book you may have on the history of RAF armament during WWII.  It’s an interesting book to read because it covers both the technical and historical perspective and gives a lot of insight into why things happened the way they did.  There’s even a chapter devoted to the development of the belt feed for the Hispano.

He talks about the development of the drum magazine by Austin Motor Company which was a real fiasco.  They couldn’t mass produce the original magazine and had to design a new one.  They ended up with a design that the Gun Section wanted to reject but had to accept because of time constraints and then never could get the bugs worked out of it.  That was part of the reason for the awful early trials in the Spitfire.  The future of the Hispano didn’t look so good until they got the belt feed design from the French.  

Molins undertook production of that and according to Wallace, first deliveries were made in early 41, substantial quantities were entering service in the spring of 41, and by mid 41 the belt feed had proven itself greatly superior to the Austin magazine in every way and all new installations used the belt feed and existing installations were modified to take the belt feed.  He repeats this elsewhere in the book saying that in 1941 all magazines were replaced by belt feed mechanisms, and this greatly improved the overall reliability of the gun installation particularly the wing installation.  

This has always made sense to me if you look at the armament of different aircraft and when they came out.  When talking about modifying existing installations for the belt feed, at that time you’re primarily looking at the Vb.  But if Wallace was wrong and the Vb could not be modified to take the belt feed, then that’s kind of strange too.  Given all the trouble they had with the drum magazine, especially in the Spitfire, and with belt feed production underway at the beginning of 41, it would seem odd that the first Spitfires to use the belt feed would not be seen until the end of the year.  You’d think there would be a higher priority to use the new installation.  Now that I don’t have anything definitive, I’ll have to do some reading up on it sometime.  Let me know if you find out anything more.

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20386
Beta 13 is out
« Reply #24 on: February 13, 2004, 07:38:02 PM »
There's no question that the Spit Vb was still using the drum magazines.  I'll scan a photo that shows a frontline Spit Vb being serviced and you can see the mechanic holding the drum magazine.  Based on the camo scheme it is definately post August 15, 1941.  

I remember Pierre Closterman in his book the Big Show, complaining about the switch back to the Spit Vb when he joined 602 Squadron, after flying Spit IXs with 341 Squadron.  The comment was very specific to the ammo load of only 60 rounds, less then half of what the IX held, and this was in 1943 when he joined 602.

The Spit Vc entered service in October 41, so I suppose the Vb's already in service just soldiered on.  I know that the jamming problems of the Ib and IIb were cured by the time of the Vb but I thought that was in the adjusting of the mounting of the cannons.

It occurs to me that it's possible the first of the belt fed cannons went to the Hurri IIc.  It has the smaller wing bulges that would cover the feed unit and the larger wing that allowed for the twin cannon installation, may have been easier to modify quicker for the belt fed set up.  The Typhoon clearly had that set up too, although that was later.  

The C wing of the Spit was a major internal redesign and may have taken that much longer to get into production to allow for the  belt fed.  Nothing anywhere shows me a Vb with anything but a drum fed cannon.  And the Spit V manual makes no mention of belt fed with the Vb and it's the last updated version that includes the Seafire variants of the Spit V.

Added the image of the Spit Vb with the ground crewman holding the drum mag.  As the Spit Vb has the yellow leading edge, it dates the photo post August 15, 1941 and because it still has the early war fuselage roundel, pre May 15, 1942.

Dan/Slack

« Last Edit: February 13, 2004, 09:05:37 PM by Guppy35 »
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline qts

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 782
      • None yet
Beta 13 is out
« Reply #25 on: February 15, 2004, 01:32:42 PM »
Just as an aside, it's this sort of thread that gives me confidence in AH1 and AH2.

Offline Flyboy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
Beta 13 is out
« Reply #26 on: February 15, 2004, 01:46:47 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by qts
Just as an aside, it's this sort of thread that gives me confidence in AH1 and AH2.


i want to second that!

when i see ppl from HTC respond to player threads like this one well. i know AH is in good hands :)

Offline Morpheus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10226
Beta 13 is out
« Reply #27 on: February 16, 2004, 11:12:37 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Flyboy
i want to second that!

when i see ppl from HTC respond to player threads like this one well. i know AH is in good hands :)


Amen... Interesting thread.. Glad I read it:)
If you don't receive Jesus Christ, you don't receive the gift of righteousness.

Be A WARRIOR NOT A WORRIER!

Offline save

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2873
Beta 13 is out
« Reply #28 on: February 17, 2004, 04:02:00 AM »
Then you SHOULD read this about spit1 vs 109e BOB for Warbirds


2 threads about same thing

It is the most compressive investigation Ive  read for making a good sim as accurate as possible.

http://agw.warbirdsiii.com/bbs/showthread.php?threadid=29313
http://agw.warbirdsiii.com/bbs/showthread.php?threadid=30210
My ammo last for 6 Lancasters, or one Yak3.
"And the Yak 3 ,aka the "flying Yamato"..."
-Caldera

Offline mars01

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4148
Beta 13 is out
« Reply #29 on: February 17, 2004, 12:05:37 PM »
Nice Kweassa,

Great support of your findings, thank you.  I guess I stand corrected:D

Sorry to mis quote you pyro.

Great info from the rest of you.

Whith all this attention to detail I guess it means the HOG should be modeled more accurately in AHII as well:D