New Spits

[Kev367th]

This is NOT a Spit Vs 190/109 thread.

What it is is a place to post links, pics, performance charts etc for Pyro as the Spit remodell is now underway.
After speaking to him he said the Spit lineup IS changing he just doesn't know how yet.
So any information would probably be helpfull. (you can never have enuf).

Be nice if we had scans of docs for 100 and 150 grade fuel usage/production, that sort of stuff.
I am still trying to re-find my stuff on the 100 grade fuel use by Spits from May onwards in 1940. I know they were converted from March onwards and that a huge stockpile had been built up that was released to the squadrons in May.

I also seem to remember someone had docs on 150 grade production 1944 onwards.

So please lets keep the Spit/190/109 comparison etc to a different thread.

Thanks

[justin_g]

All required info is probably to be found here: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html

[Krusty]

I seriously DOUBT that the RAF had enough 100 octane to run all their spitfires at it before the BOB ever happened. 100 octane was not easy to produce. Hell the LW didn't even use it in 109s til the very end of the war. USAAF planes used it, but they were generally a late war bunch of planes.

I think you're really going to have to prove it was used.

[Kev367th]

They had already stockpiled huge amounts 100 grade fuel pre-war.
It was the fact it was only released to the sqaudrons in May that held back earlier usage. As I said Spits were converted from March onwards, the only time you 'MAY' have seen a Spit in wartime using 87 grade would have been the Battle of France.

http://www.mikekemble.com/ww2/spitfire.html
http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/engines.htm
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/FW/Bob/Best.htm
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/spit/spit1940.html

And from the official RAF site
http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/spit3.html  <---I guess the RAF is incorrect then?

I'll make you a deal Krusty - Post ONE link that states it WASN'T used and I'll concede despite having overwhelming evidence it was.

[Maverick]

I really think AH needs more Spitfires to choose from for players. There just aren't enough of them.

[Karnak]

Krusty,

Documentation has been presented regarding the 100 octane in 1940.  Look in the recent Spitfire threads, there is a scan of a document from March, 1940.

Maverick,

Troll elsewhere.

[Kev367th]

Yup Karnak -
The OFFICAIL RAF website mentions -
Dunkirk, The Battle of France.
Then goes on to mention the lessons learned and the change to 100 grade fuel.
THEN mentions the Battle of Britain.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/spit3.html

Anway the PURPOSE of the thread is to provide Pyro with as much info as we can get.
He is a bigboy and capable of deciding what can be relied on and what may be bogus/unreliable.
So can we please keep it that way and allow him to make the decisions rather than clutter things up with claims and counter claims.

So please guys lets make it easy for him to scan through, links, docs etc welcome.

Once again thankyou.

[Krusty]

Squire my posts are not "spam" and I'll thank you to remember that.

I know some things about aviation history. However I don't have the fortune of Bruce Wayne to buy a complete and concise library with every book ever written. Nor do I have the time to read every book ever written. The books I have read are scattered and random, and what I remember from them I cannot quote nor can I say "go to page xxx of book yyy and read lines zzz". THAT is why I say things like "I think" and "If I recall", because I don't have a source, but I have read something about it and my memory is usually very good for small details.


P.S. Looking at justin_g's link, it seems our 109E may be too manuverable, but that entire page seems to underestimate climb rates for every plane.

Kev: On the idea that they are changing the spit lineup, and would need such things, how about getting as much engine information (speed and rate of climb for each engine) as possible, so that if/when they choose something, they have that info already.

[Squire]

Yes lets keep this on topic and if you have something to add please give a source.

If you want a "why I hate Spitfires" thread you can go make your own and post to your hearts content.

[Kev367th]

Krusty - I'll make a deal, post ONE reference that categorically states it wasn't used in the BoB and I'll concede the point despite the overwhelming evidence that aircraft were converted post Battle of France and the stockpile released in May.

If I remember correctly you use the same argument for use of 150 grade 1944/5, without any concrete evidence of any kind.

[Pyro]

I think there's been a general consensus in the various threads about how to change the Spit lineup that I pretty much concur with.  

There has been some advocacy for a +25lb boost clipped wing Mk XVI.  I really don't see what hole that fills.  It would pretty much fall into the same category as the XIV.  I have no qualms with that plane, but I think going with a 2000+hp version of it would be a waste as it would end up perked and CM's wouldn't use it much either.

[Kev367th]

Pyro - the clipped wing XVI at 25 boost gives the Spit lineup a free Spit that can actually almost compare to the overall performance of a 190D9.
The D9 is still faster, rolls better.
So why would a Merlin equipped XVI be perked, sorry it doesn't make sense.
I mean you get a Spit with the merest hint of decent performance and it has to be perked?
The XVI gives a 'free' Spit from 1944 that was comaprable with the current range of 'free'  LW 1944 aircraft. Plus a clipped bubbletop would look real nice, and different.
 
Whole idea is to give a representative Spit lineup compared to the LW.

But thanks for your reply.

[Squire]

RESEARCH

re·search  (r-sūrch, rsūrch) KEY  

NOUN:

1. Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry. See Synonyms at inquiry.
2. Close, careful study.


...and BTW I make @ $30,000 US per year but I can afford a few books on the RAF, when Im not refinancing the Batmobile payments.

*************************************************

PYRO:

I agree, the +25 lb Spit LF IX doesn't fit as well as a "standard" LF IX or LF VIII since it is a "44-45" varient.

Some of it depends on what if any 109 varients you are thinking of adding, and where they fit in the timeline and performance.

[Angus]

AFAIK, the propeller variations in the BoB could be as crucial as the difference in fuel.
There's a catch though, for coarse 2-bladed props actually brought higher top speed than a CS 3-bladed one.
However, the CS brought a vast improvement in climb and acceleration.
I have somewhere a XLS sheet to calculate climb performance into Newtons.
So, Pyro, I can mail it to you at HTC if you like, - it has some data in it with various 87 oct Spits as well as a 109E.
Let me know on this thread or mail to info@gardsauki.is

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Pyro
I think there's been a general consensus in the various threads about how to change the Spit lineup that I pretty much concur with.  

There has been some advocacy for a +25lb boost clipped wing Mk XVI.  I really don't see what hole that fills.  It would pretty much fall into the same category as the XIV.  I have no qualms with that plane, but I think going with a 2000+hp version of it would be a waste as it would end up perked and CM's wouldn't use it much either.

That makes sense I guess, if the +25lbs XVI is too close to the XIV at +18lbs or +21lbs, whichever it ends up being.

I would still love to get the full span, Merlin 66 Mk VIIIc as well, but I can see the overlap with a clipped XVIe at +18lbs.

The fact that a cohesive lineup is being planned is great though.  It will put the "Done" stamp on the Spitfires.