« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Spit and 109 Update  (Read 4046 times)

Offline Kurfürst

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
      • http://www.kurfurst.org
Spit and 109 Update
« Reply #60 on: July 15, 2005, 04:48:14 PM »
So if I take you correctly, exceeding the time limit for oil and water temperatures with the Merlin would absolutely put the pilot to no danger, while doing the very same on the DBs would immidately kill everybody in a 10km radius? Of course. How biased you are.
Logged
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://www.kurfurst.org

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Spit and 109 Update
« Reply #61 on: July 15, 2005, 05:02:42 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kurfürst
So if I take you correctly, exceeding the time limit for oil and water temperatures with the Merlin would absolutely put the pilot to no danger, while doing the very same on the DBs would immidately kill everybody in a 10km radius? Of course. How biased you are.

The limit was for maintainance reasons, not overheating reasons.  Many, many documents verify this.

I've no idea what "bad" things he is claiming would happen to the DB though.
Logged
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Kurfürst

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
      • http://www.kurfurst.org
Spit and 109 Update
« Reply #62 on: July 15, 2005, 05:10:46 PM »
I wonder if the Merlin has similiar manuals like the DB has (not only the aircraft manuals). That would clear up the issue.
Logged
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://www.kurfurst.org

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Spit and 109 Update
« Reply #63 on: July 15, 2005, 05:14:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kurfürst
So if I take you correctly, exceeding the time limit for oil and water temperatures with the Merlin would absolutely put the pilot to no danger, while doing the very same on the DBs would immidately kill everybody in a 10km radius? Of course. How biased you are.


Again your reading comprehension is lacking, as well as your flair for the melodramatic.

So you can understand better. If the temp limits were not reached in 5 minutes then the engine could be run longer at WEP, that is until the temp limits were reached.

When are you going to sort out the G-10/K-4 conflict in you article?
Logged

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
Spit and 109 Update
« Reply #64 on: July 15, 2005, 06:01:33 PM »
Its silly to think that either a Merlin or a DB, or an Allison would "blow up" if they exceeded their "wep" limits.

For one thing in the middle of a dogfight, there is no real way to say "gee, has it been 5 min yet?" or "gee has it been 10 min yet?"

The limits are operational "approximations" of what they were asked to keep them to in order not to burn through too many engines in a given month. Im sure some pilots were "bad" at that.

In AH, too many players would abuse it, because there is no "real world" penalty for continually going over-limit, and so HTC decided with an "auto-shutoff" system for gameplay. It makes sense too.

After you land in AH we dont get an angry CO demanding to know why the mechanics have told him for the 3rd time that month that you have cooked out your fighters expensive powerplant.
Logged
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spit and 109 Update
« Reply #65 on: July 15, 2005, 06:31:25 PM »
I dug up something about a Merlin that was run on "panic boost" some 30 minutes past it's max time. The pilot had to make a run or something, and freaked out a bit.
The engine was dismantled and reassembled, because it was in completely good condition!
I did post this sometime, but don't see it at the moment. Think it was in the MTO.

Anyway, what 1K3 said:
"If HTC decides to add spit LF 8 and LF 16, there's no need to add spit LF 9"

True, - if it is a Mk VIII on +25, there is no need for a +25 Mk IX ;)
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline 1K3

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3449
Spit and 109 Update
« Reply #66 on: July 15, 2005, 06:48:29 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
True, - if it is a Mk VIII on +25, there is no need for a +25 Mk IX ;)


:confused:

I thought Mk. VIII would cover for '43 and Mk. XVI for '44...
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spit and 109 Update
« Reply #67 on: July 15, 2005, 07:46:23 PM »
A mk IX is not just a Mk IX.
The one we have is the first type, specialized rather for the really high-up jobs.
The later marks were tuned up in the boost business, and with some fiddling with the turbines, more power is available at low altitude.
The Mk IX LF on +25 with a Merlin 66 or 70 is about the ultimate Merlin engined Spitfire.
But the VIII had this too, along with a lot more internal fuel.
I am not so sure about the boost for the Mk VIII, but I feel that it was not too common with +25
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Spit and 109 Update
« Reply #68 on: July 15, 2005, 08:51:18 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by 1K3
:confused:

I thought Mk. VIII would cover for '43 and Mk. XVI for '44...

I was playing with boost clearances and mark numbers to keep the simple mark number identifications that HTC seems to prefer.

A Spitfire LF.Mk VIII cleared for +25lbs boost would not be suitable for 1943, so I suggest a Spitfire LF.Mk VIIIc only cleared for +18lbs boost.  The Mk XVI is the same as an LF.Mk IX, but powered by an American built Merlin 266 instead of a British built Merlin 66 and those are the same engine other than country of manufacture.  Once again, using the Mk XVI allows the simple mark number to be used without any letter modifiers so that you have the Mk IX at +15lbs boost with a Merlin 61 being labeled distinctly from a Mk XVI with a Merlin 266 at +25lbs boost instead of two Mk IXs, one with the Merlin 61 and one with the Merlin 66 at +25lbs boost.
Logged
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Kurfürst

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
      • http://www.kurfurst.org
Spit and 109 Update
« Reply #69 on: July 16, 2005, 12:51:46 PM »
I don`t get the quiblle over the MkIX and MkVIII. The latter has practically nothing to offer above the MkIX in performance, they are almost perfect matches mph to mph, fpm to fpm. If anything, the MkVIII is heavier, so I guess it was little less manouverable.

It`s only plus would be the increased fuel capacity and range (to 120 gallons and 740 miles on internal vs. 85g/434miles of the mkIX), but I guess this means little to nothing in AH, unlike in real life...
Logged
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://www.kurfurst.org

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spit and 109 Update
« Reply #70 on: July 16, 2005, 03:47:49 PM »
The VIII has very much more fuel while offering the same speed and climb performance. It is a tad heavier.
There were some aerodynamic modifications that seperated it from the IX, as well as some fixes of other brands.
Overall, the VIII was considered (with the same wingspan) to be a better aircraft.
And as engines, you have Merlin 66 or 70, - the 70 giving a better altitude performance.
A good Mk VIII is simply the ultimate Merlin equipped Spitfire, while still a IX, clipped and cropped would be the ultimate geek fighter down lower in AH
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Spit and 109 Update
« Reply #71 on: July 16, 2005, 03:57:17 PM »
Kurfurst,

AH labels the Spitfires in simple mark numbers right now with no letter itentifiers like F, HF or LF.  I suggest the Mk VIII as the Merlin 66 at +18lbs boost so that can be kept without confusing people with the sudden change of seeing a Spitfire F.Mk IXc and a Spitfire LF.Mk IXc and a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe on the list.  Going with Spitfire Mk IX for the Merlin 61 Spit, Spitfire Mk VIII for the Merlin 66 at +18lbs Spit and  Spitfire Mk XVI for the Merlin 266 at +25lbs  Spit.

Either would work, but i was trying to accomodate the current Spitfire labeling.
Logged
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
Spit and 109 Update
« Reply #72 on: July 16, 2005, 04:19:54 PM »
Karnak, I think it's high time the labelling scheme should change.

 Since the Brits done so wacky method of labelling planes :D, with the possible introduction of new Spitfires, and possibly another MkIX (since we got no guarantees we'd receive a VIII or not..), the only way to get rid of confusion and purge the AH roster of historic inconsistencies, is to advocate a much more strict labelling scheme.
 
 A Bf109G-1, G-2, G-4, G-6, G-10, G-14 is still a "Gustav". There are multiple Gustavs in the AH roster and nobody ever confuses anything about it.

 However, if we get another Spit9, how is HTC gonna ever explain the difference betweem the new Spit9 and the old Spit9, without resorting to historically strict labelling schemes?

 ...

 Under that premise, as it is, I think there should be two SpitVs in the game. These should be labelled;

 Spitfire F.MK.Vb ('41)
 Spitfire F.MK.Vb ('42)
 

 The former would be the old AH1 SpitV at +12. The latter would be our AH2 SpitV at +16. There is no reason why there should not be two SpitVs IMO.

 Also, our Spit9 should be labelled;

 Spitfire F.MK.IXc ('42)

 .. and removed of the rockets, and 50cal option. Make it a real '42 Spit I say... and since they'll be redoing Spits, it's high time to ask for a '43 Spitfire to fill the gap. I mean, we got three 109 Gustavs... so no reason why there can't be a HF, LF, F, Spit9s/5s...

 Since the roster should be purged of hybrid inaccuracies, I also think that our current Bf109G-10 should be redone.

 Make it a real G-10, instead of the pseudo-G-10 with K-4 specs. Lower the top speed, and relabel it to a G-10 as it should be. And then, the K-4 should be a separate plane, with only MK108 as standard weapon, and this plane should be perked.
Logged

Offline Kurfürst

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
      • http://www.kurfurst.org
Spit and 109 Update
« Reply #73 on: July 16, 2005, 05:52:12 PM »
Why perk the K-4, unless it`s a full powered version?

a, It was around in large numbers, and pretty common model late in the war
b, Besides, why perk the K-4 and the G-10 not, which only differs from it being a bit slower?

What boost they have is another question...


Other : Karnak is making quite some sense with those Spitty variants...mk9/ merlin61/+15 for 1942, mk8/66/+18 for `43, mkxvie/66/+25 for 44/45...
« Last Edit: July 16, 2005, 05:55:33 PM by Kurfürst »
Logged
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://www.kurfurst.org

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
Spit and 109 Update
« Reply #74 on: July 16, 2005, 06:12:16 PM »
Quote
Spitfire F.MK.Vb ('41)
Spitfire F.MK.Vb ('42)


Actually it would be more practical to see:

Spitfire F.MK.Vb ('41) 12lbs
Spitfire F.MK.Vc ('42) 16lbs
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Up
« previous next »