Author Topic: Bf-109K vs Spitfire F. Mk XIV: lopsided match or equal? (Read 1919 times)

Noir · « **Reply #30 on:** October 05, 2005, 08:12:42 PM »

would just like to say something about the spit14 stability.

I looks like the spit14 got additional fuselage fuel, wich are going first when you are on autofuel. This fuel makes the spit14 unstable and sluggish (like the P51B internal fuel if I remember well). Once that fuel is burned you'll have flight characteristics close to the spit9 IMO.

then the G10 is done. The griffon engine (man am addicted) will do the rest, and like someone said, keep out of his nose, and keep it high.

Karnak · « **Reply #31 on:** October 05, 2005, 08:31:25 PM »

Noir,

The Spit XIV has the wing tanks and then then normal tanks in front of the cockpit. They are divided into two parts on the Mk XIV model in AH as they were on all Spits in reality. Most Spits in AH lack the divide though.

The Spit XIV does not have a rear fuselage fuel tank like the P-51 has. The tests on Spitfires with rear fuselage tanks found that it introduced exactly the same kind of instability as in the P-51D and fighting with it more than half full was extremely dangerous.

Spitfires with a rear fuselage tank never entered service as they were not needed thanks to the P-51's presence. Had the P-51 not have turned out to be such a great escord fighter, then it is likely Spits with rear fuselage tanks and larger drop tank capacity would have been pressed into service as long range escort fighters. Both the USAAF and RAF did independant tests of Spits with massively increased fuel capacity.

Noir · « **Reply #32 on:** October 05, 2005, 08:37:07 PM »

ok thank you for the precision, but how come the spit14 got more tanks in selector ? different tank sealing ?

edit : I tried offline and spit9's "remaining fuel" is 77, the spit14 is 133, both at 100%. Whatever is my fuel burn rate it shows more fuel in the 14 that the 9.....wrong reading ? Spit14 does fly WAY longer (almost 2X), with bigger engine afterall.

Krusty · « **Reply #33 on:** October 05, 2005, 08:45:19 PM »

Those are the wing tanks. If you burn off your wing tanks and leave only the fuselage tanks, you should have the same as the spit9.

Noir · « **Reply #34 on:** October 05, 2005, 08:47:26 PM »

reedit : am stupid and tired, going to bed lol

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #35 on:** October 05, 2005, 09:43:06 PM »

Kev, I was under the impression that the Spit 16 performed better than the Spit 9. At least that's what I understood from sifting through all those Spit posts.

Karnak · « **Reply #36 on:** October 05, 2005, 11:41:25 PM »

lasersailor,

The Spit XVI will perform better than our Merlin 61 powered Spit F.IX at low altitudes. The Spit XVI performs exactly the same as a Merlin 66 powered Spit LF.IX that we don't have. Saying "Spitfire Mk IX" is kind of like saying "Bf109G", it gives you the rough idea but not the specific performance.

Kev367th · « **Reply #37 on:** October 06, 2005, 12:02:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Kev, I was under the impression that the Spit 16 performed better than the Spit 9. At least that's what I understood from sifting through all those Spit posts.

Depends -
Better than our current F IX at low alts (Merlin 266/66) worse than our current F IX at high alts (20k+).
Difference between the high alt Merlin 61 fitted to the F IX and the low alt Merlin 266 fitted to the LF XVI.
Merlin 266 was just an American built Merlin 66, so it performs identically to an LF IX.

Contrary to a previous post even at 5 mins 25lbs boost it is still NOWHERE near the performance of an La7.
Mk XVI with 25lbs boost (we're only getting 18lbs) is still sub 400mph (just) at any alt straight and level.
In fact at about 10k the Seafire III we are getting (18lbs) will be a very close competitor for the XVI.