Spitfire Mk. LF. IX vs Spitfire Mk IX

[Nashwan]

No, I'm refering to the A3. All A3s were derated in service, to 1.32 (or 1.35) ata start and emergency, 1.2something climb and combat. I think early A4s were also derated, later ones certainly weren't.

[Guppy35]

Since this was originally a question about the FIX vs the LFIX, I think what it comes down to in terms of AH is what Spit fits best for the game.

And since this is a land grab, ground attack sort of game, the LFIX is the best bet, with clipped wings.

In the old Airwarrior days, the fight used to be for having the alt advantage and you'd find the fights at 25-30K

I've never seen it in AH with any consistancy as most of the fights seem to be 15K to the deck.

In essence the airwar being fought in AH is the post D-Day battle for the continent, or the one that was being fought over the Eastern Front.

There's very little long range strategic bombing with high alt escorts.  It's hit the forward airfields and knock out the other guys tanks and ground vehicles with the potential for air combat as you head for your ground target.

In that respect a FIX makes little sense as it doesn't fit for the game.  The LFIXe or LFXVIe of 44-45 were the birds that did that job with the wing and centerline hardpoints for bombs and the potential to carry rockets.

And it has sounded like at times Pyro wants to do an LFIX so here's hoping

Dan/Slack

[GODO]

Originally posted by Nashwan
What makes you think otherwise?

Everything. It was a test-bed plane, not a production plane. It would be good to see these numbers for a common SpitVc with Merlin 45 in real combat conditions. The test perdiod for 16lb Merlin 45 extended to September 1942, we can assume that SpitVc combat units didnt start to use 16lb boost until end of 42 or early 43.

By summer 42, 190A4 was alreadly in production lines and 190A5 was also starting. A 16lb boost SpitVc would rarely find a 1.35ata 190A3.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by GODO
Everything. It was a test-bed plane, not a production plane. It would be good to see these numbers for a common SpitVc with Merlin 45 in real combat conditions. The test perdiod for 16lb Merlin 45 extended to September 1942, we can assume that SpitVc combat units didnt start to use 16lb boost until end of 42 or early 43.

By summer 42, 190A4 was alreadly in production lines and 190A5 was also starting. A 16lb boost SpitVc would rarely find a 1.35ata 190A3.

I think you point to one of the potential flaws in the great numbers, reports, testing game that goes on here so often.

You'd like to see the numbers for a common Spit Vc in real combat conditions.

OK are we talking the Squadron CO's plane or the one they gave the brand new Pilot Officer?  How many hours on the engine?  Was it polished and waxed as some pilots did or is the paint work battered and beaten.  Did the pilot on his own initiative change the triple exhausts to multiple ejector exhausts as that gave more speed?  Some pilots did this too.  Did they remove any of the MGs?  How about the armor plate?

The RAF checked this out too and they increased the speed of a standard Vb from 357 to 385mph.

There are certainly numerous examples of pilots doing this to their aircraft on their own initiative to try and get an edge.

So how do you decide which numbers to use?

Dan/Slack

[GODO]

Originally posted by Guppy35
So how do you decide which numbers to use?

Whatever but the numbers of prototypes.

[Karnak]

Oh look, MANDOBLE's ugly hatred of anything "Spitfire" rears it's head again and completely derails a thread.

I am so shocked.



Is it possible, pray tell, to have a thread about an RAF fighter that does not become an ego contest between RAF and Luftwaffe fans about who's pet fighter is better?

[Urchin]

I think the Luftwaffe fans would be deluded if they thought the 109 or 190 was better than a contemporary Spitfire.  Hell, our Spit IX is the least suitable Spit IX possible for our MA, and it is still damn near a perfect airplane.

[Flyboy]

Originally posted by Urchin
I think the Luftwaffe fans would be deluded if they thought the 109 or 190 was better than a contemporary Spitfire.  Hell, our Spit IX is the least suitable Spit IX possible for our MA, and it is still damn near a perfect airplane.

spot on.
if i am flying a spit9 the only thing i fear is a higher spit9.

i had plenty of times when i was engaged by a horde of planes (10-15 or more) which i had got out with about 7 kills.
the spit might be "slow" but its a premier Efighter- only plane that might take him is a masterly flown 109g10.
when i fight a horde the first thing i do is establish a E advantage. and then i am pretty much untouchable.

So no, we do not need another "batter" spit9
hell now that we have a boosted spit5 i predict it will be a monster aswell.

and lastly dont think i hate spits or anything, i love those beuties- i just think about the game play and how it will look if do get a UNperked uberspit.

[GScholz]

OMG here we go again.

[Nashwan]

Everything. It was a test-bed plane, not a production plane.

It certainly was a production plane. The Spit V had been in production for well over a year by the time of these tests, which involved modifications to the allowable boost. That hardly qualifies as a prototype.

The test perdiod for 16lb Merlin 45 extended to September 1942, we can assume that SpitVc combat units didnt start to use 16lb boost until end of 42 or early 43.

I'm not sure what modifications were required to go from 12 lbs to 16lbs, but they would be relatively minor. Guppy probably knows the details, but afaik it didn't require much more than a modification to the boost control, if that. In other words, not something it would take a long time to get into service.

The test report on Faber's aircraft notes that the Spitfire V "has since been cleared for 16lbs boost" and the report is dated August 42, iirc, so I'd expect 16 lbs to be in widespread use by September 42.

By summer 42, 190A4 was alreadly in production lines and 190A5 was also starting. A 16lb boost SpitVc would rarely find a 1.35ata 190A3.

From what I can make out, the relative limitations were:

1941 Spitfire 9 lbs 2850 rpm normal rating, 9lbs 3000 rpm WEP
190 1.2something ata 2450 rpm normal rating, 1.35 (or 1,32) 2450 rpm WEP

late 41/Early 42
Spitfire 9lbs 2850 rpm normal rating, 12 lbs 3000rpm WEP
190 1.2something 2450rpm normal rating, 1.35 (or 1,32) 2450 rpm WEP

summer 1942
Spitfire 9lbs 2850 rpm normal rating, 16 lbs 3000 rpm WEP
190 1.35 (or 1.32) 2450 rpm normal rating, 1.42 ata 2700 rpm WEP

Comparing those, the Spit normal rating of 9 lbs 2850 rpm never changed, and should give a climb rate of around 3200 ft/min

The 190 started with a normal rating of 1.2x 2450 rpm normal rating. I don't know the climb performance with this.

In the summer of 1942 the 190 got it's full 1.35 ata 2450 rpm normal rating, which gave a climb rate according to Crumpp of 3250 ft/min

At that point, in the summer of 42, the 190 had the same climb rate at normal rating as the Spit V. Before that point, the Spit climbed better at normal rating.

Under WEP, in 1941 the Spit at 3000rpm 9lbs boost would be almost the same as the 190 at 1.35 ata 2450 rpm.

In late 41 or early 42 the Spit V boost increased to 12 lbs at WEP, which would give a clear climb advantage to the 190 that was still restricted to 1.35 ata.

In the summer of 42, the Spit V went up to 16 lbs boost, the 190 to 1.42 ata. That put the Spit up to around 4,000ft/min, nobody has yet come up with a figure for the 190 at this rating, but afaik it's quite a bit lower than 4000ft/min.

All this is just from memory of course, and I stand to be corrected, but one of the German aircraft experts like HoHun or Butch could probably tell you more.

Oh look, MANDOBLE's ugly hatred of anything "Spitfire" rears it's head again and completely derails a thread.

Is Godo Mandoble?

[GODO]

Nashwan, I doubt any full loaded 190A reached more than 3800 fpm in a substained climb on WEP at sea level. But to catch a climbing bandit, you need to match its climbing rate and also its speed.

As pointed in other thread by F4UDOA, optimum climbing speed for 190A5/U4 was found around 185 mph, probably the same for A3. A SpitV doing 4000 fpm at 170 mph simply wont catch a 3800 fpm 190A at 185 mph.

We should aslo consider the usage of WEP while climbing, 3 mins limit for SpitV can be reduced to 2 or 1 minute in a slow substain climb. This would affect with less degree to a 10 mins WEP 190.

While it is a pleasure to discuss about early 190s vs early spits, sadly Karnak thinks it is a barbaric hijack of this "only-Spit" related thread, so, I'm out.

And yes, its me.

[Urchin]

Originally posted by GODO
Nashwan, I doubt any full loaded 190A reached more than 3800 fpm in a substained climb on WEP at sea level. But to catch a climbing bandit, you need to match its climbing rate and also its speed.

As pointed in other thread by F4UDOA, optimum climbing speed for 190A5/U4 was found around 185 mph, probably the same for A3. A SpitV doing 4000 fpm at 170 mph simply wont catch a 3800 fpm 190A at 185 mph.

 

Anyone have the data on the best sustained climb speed for a Hispano 20mm shell?

[Crumpp]

Nashwan,

Your numbers are plain wrong on the 190.  The 190A1 had the exact same climb best rate as the 190A3.  16.5 Meters/sec. best climb.

Not only that you are looking at ONE set of numbers for ONE altitude that was the very best that plane accomplished.

Pyro has the graphs and will compare them.

Now like ANY airplane this changed with altitude.  So which Altitude are you taking the spit climb rate from, what altitude is the spits best climb and what altitude is the 190's best climb?  Plane performance is not just a simple ONE set of numbers.

AND

It's not that a Spit IX with a higher climb RATE cannot outclimb a 190 at lower climb RATE...of course it can.

BUT

Remember there is a difference between SPEED and RATE.

According to Aeronautical Engineers Generally speaking about Lower Winloading vs Higher Wingloading the following is true.  This does bear out in the 190 vs Spit IX fight according to the performance graphs and flight tests.

The spit will climb at a steeper angle and slower speed (170 mph) because of its lower wingloading and lower stall speed.  Which means more drag (more surface area) and slower forward speed (thrust is used to overcome drag) but at a steeper angle to achieve best climb rate.  Now thrust to weight can overcome this but the thrust to weight ratio on the Spit IX did not give it an accelleration advantage over the 190. Except for Altitudes that the Spit was faster, the 190 out accellerated it. So for a very narrow altitude band the spit would be able to climb at about the same speed as the 190.  If the spit driver climbs at his best climb speed/angle then he will end up ABOVE the 190.  However since the 190 holds the dive advantage both in sustained speed and initial dive accelleration then all the 190 driver has to do is dive when the spit driver dives on him.  If the fight ends up on the deck the 190 holds the level speed advantage anyway on the deck.  That's why spit drivers did not fight 190's in the verticle.

NOW remember the 190 climbs at a faster speed but a shallower angle.   It has a higher stall speed and higher wingloading which means less drag in the climb (less surface area)  AND it's thrust to weight ratio give it the accelleration advantage (also gave it the zoom climb advantage for the same reasons).   IF a spit driver attempts to follow the 190 directly he will soon find the 190 above him and holding the cards in the verticle fight.

This assumes a co-energy engagement.  

There are good reason's why the RAF did not recommend it's Merlin Powered Spitfire pilots to "mix it up" with any version of the 190A.  That is also the reason Spit drivers didn't fight 190's in the verticle but used their turn advantage.  

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

Nashwan,

BTW the Summer of '42 was called the Focke Wulf Summer by the RAF.  This is because the FW-190 had complete domination in performance over the Spit Vb.  The RAF was so desperate to get ahold of an FW-190 and try to find a counter for it they accually planned and where about to launch a SOE operation to steal an FW-190 from a Luftwaffe base in France.

When Faber, thru a mistake in navigation, accidently landed on an RAF base in England the British got their FW-190.  They promptly tested it in every way possible looking for weaknesses.  The only advantage the Spit V had was turning.  And as one Spitdriver put it...TURNING DOESN'T WIN AIRBATTLES.  

Obviously he never flew in AH.

The Spit IX went a long way to closing that performance gap.  It matched the 190 in most areas and still maintained it's sustained turning advantage.  Matching is not dominating nor is an advantage dominating either.  Both aircraft had thier advantages over the other.  The areas the 190 held advantages were key ones though;  Manuverability, accelleration, and dive speed/level speed.

Crumpp

[Karnak]

Crummp,

The Spitfire LF.Mk IX was a direct result of comparing the Fw190A and Spitfire F.Mk IX.  Chief among the findings was that the Spitfire F.Mk IX had too high a critical altitude and gave up too mauch performance at low altitude.  It did dominate the Fw190A up above 25,000ft, but in the kind of air battles being fought at that time over France and the low countries that wasn't the most usefull plance to be competitive.  The Spitfire LF.Mk IX lowered the critical altitude quite a lot and the SL speed of 336mph (later 350+ on 150 octane) was a lot closer to the Fw190A's performance down low.