Author Topic: Spitfire Mk. LF. IX vs Spitfire Mk IX (Read 3365 times)

gripen · « **Reply #75 on:** June 21, 2004, 06:43:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
BF 109H?
What is that for a plane?

It's the high altitude variant of the Bf 109 with extended wing. See here.

gripen

Crumpp · « **Reply #76 on:** June 21, 2004, 07:03:29 PM »

Nashwan,

That's is ONE of the charts we are using.

I know Faber landed in Pembrey. It's kind of like my Family is Scottish. We don't say we are English. We are Scottish. Facts are though we were conquered by the English and are part of England. Nobody points to the map of Europe and says. "Hey, Look it's Wales" nor do they say "It's the United Kingdom!" People point as say, "It's England! Yeah Wales is a part of England just like Scotland is a part of it too."

So I apologize If I stepped on your sense of national pride. It was not my intention.

Kweassa,

I think the roll rate might be a tad slow. Unfortunately there is not much good data on the roll rate of planes out there. I've read something like in the references I have on the 190. I'll try and dig it up. It certainly does not seem to "flick" like the RAF pilots describe it.

For sure the 190 seems to "pause" after a hard roll and resist's changing direction. This really cuts down on the advantage the roll rate is suposed to give the 190 in manuverability.

Crumpp

-MZ- · « **Reply #77 on:** June 21, 2004, 07:23:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Guppy35
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 AW, you could evade a rope or high 6 attack by getting your nose pointed up against the attacker. This tended to keep the fights higher.

Wilbus · « **Reply #78 on:** June 21, 2004, 07:25:43 PM »

Quote

Just did a very quick test, our 190A8 full of fuel and with 4 guns is doing 3500 fpm at sea level, real one with same configuration 3740 fpm. Why do you thing it will be worse than actual one??

This was posted by Pyro:

Quote

But if I'm going to take the RLM data as the basis of the model, then I'm going to work with all of the RLM data and not just a single data point. Much of the RLM data, particularly in climbing, is inferior to the current AH model.

No more explonations needed to that I hope...

Wilbus · « **Reply #79 on:** June 21, 2004, 07:27:07 PM »

Quote

Levi in his Spit V can do that while being drunk with both eyes shut.

No he can't

-MZ- · « **Reply #80 on:** June 21, 2004, 07:27:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp

Obviously he never flew in AH.

Have you ever flown in an AH event matching Spit Vs against 190A5s?

thrila · « **Reply #81 on:** June 21, 2004, 07:35:18 PM »

I have mz.....and the spit V's got spanked.

Wil has a point. You can't expect pyro to pick the highest performance for speed from one source, then use the best climb from another source. When in different areas of performance the sources were quite different.

More spits to AHII1:)

Crumpp · « **Reply #82 on:** June 21, 2004, 08:03:35 PM »

No I am sure he is going to go off the RLM data since in the USAAF data is developing 1.35 ata instead of 1.32 ata.

Wilbus, I don't think Pyro is going to pork the 190. Relax bro, The sky is not falling Chicken Little.

He is not talking about just fixing the climb speed and rate. Pyro is talking about completely redoing the 190 FM.

If AH is a sim then in order to "simulate" WWII Air to Air combat they will have to be able to reproduce the Historical fights in the style in which they occurred.

That means no matter what the "numbers" are it is really all relative in the artificial "Skies" of AH.

Crumpp

GODO · « **Reply #83 on:** June 21, 2004, 08:11:08 PM »

Wilbus, 3740 fpm is from original Focke-Wulf charts.
Crumpp, you have mail

Urchin · « **Reply #84 on:** June 21, 2004, 08:20:52 PM »

The Spit V gets dominated by the 190a5 because the 190 has a large speed advantage at typical MA alts. This translates into a much higher zoom and then energy conserving bore n zoom.

Angus · « **Reply #85 on:** June 21, 2004, 08:32:03 PM »

Í bet that cruising speeds also had something to say, since WW2 aircraft would not cruise at those top speeds we have.
Anyway, I feel pretty sure that the 190 cruised rather fast.

Wilbus · « **Reply #86 on:** June 22, 2004, 02:24:43 AM »

I am not worried Pyro will "pork" the 190, I hope, and think, he will modell the way he finds best using the charts he finds best.

I have read every post in the other thread, I know he is talking about totally remodelling the 190 Crumpp, no need to explain that, what I am saying is that it won't be "all good" as some people may think. Pyro clearly states that if he will be using RLM charts, the climb he finds there is clearly inferior to the current AH 190.

Mandoble, I believe you, BUT if you read what Pyro wrote, if he will modell after the RLM charts (or atleast the ones he's got, I don't know......) the climb rate of the 190 will be less then it is now, that means less then the 3500 we have now and less then the 3740 you have in your charts.

Squire · « **Reply #87 on:** June 22, 2004, 02:59:50 AM »

Very few L.F. IXs had clipped wings.

Have a look at all the photos you can find of Merlin 66 L.F. IX Spitfires (C or E wing) from 43-45 you will find few if any with "clipped" wings. They were a small #, and not the standard type in service. Truth be told I cant find a single pic of one, or any mention of a squadron using a clipped wing type.

The L.F. stood for its engine not its wings.

The more numerous "clipped" wing Spit was the L.F.V. (a 1943 version with a more powerful engine for low level performance).

The RAF/RCAF was perfectly content with the L.F. IX with its standard wings. If there was some drastic need to clip them to fight 190s I doubt that would have been the case.

You will find more examples of the Packard Merlin L.F. XVI Spitfire with a clipped wing, and some with a bubble canopy, but those are not Mk IXs. The main reason they went with a clipped wing in that version is because by late 44-45 they were mainly deployed in the fighter-bomber role. It had zip to do with Fw190s.

Some folks see a pic of a Spit XVI and they mistakenly i.d. it as a Spit IX with a clipped wing (they are very similar). I think this is the main cause for the "clipped wing IX" subject that keeps cropping up. I bet any pic you find of a "Spit IX" looking Spit with a clipped wing...dollars to dhonuts its a Packard Merlin Spit XVI.

Crumpp · « **Reply #88 on:** June 22, 2004, 07:25:36 AM »

The 190A8's most economical cruise speed was around 355 mph at 21,000 feet using 1.20ata with 2300U/min.

Crumpp

MiloMorai · « **Reply #89 on:** June 22, 2004, 07:56:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
The 190A8's most economical cruise speed was around 355 mph at 21,000 feet using 1.20ata with 2300U/min.

Crumpp

Tthe 801 sucked 360kg/hr at 1.20ata/2300rpm while at 22,967ft it was 325kg/hr.

Reducing to 1.05ata/2000rpm gave 215kg/hr and 195kg/hr, much more economical. The speed/range of 317mph/612mi and 308mph/644mi compared to the that at 1.20ata/2300rpm of 357mph/431mi and 360mph/481mi. for the 16,405ft and 22,967ft altitudes.

Definately not the most economical cruise speed.

see range/endurance calculation doc dated 23.12.43