It's official...

[thrila]

The speed increase was at low alt.

[Crumpp]

The speed increase was at low alt.

I really don't think it was a big increase looking at the numbers.  However I am ordering the following reports as I am curious to see.

DSIR 23/12562
DSIR 23/12925
DSIR 23/13075
AVIA 6/10192
AVIA 18/682
AVIA 18/1302


All the best,

Crumpp

[Guppy35]

OK I know I'm dumb as a fencepost when it comes to these discussions, but having just taken the time to re-read it, what are we arguing about?

What is it that the Spit XVI is doing that it shouldn't?  Best I can figure is that some are arguing that it's 7 mph too fast at sea level and it rolls too fast?  Is that it?

Are we saying we need to perk it because too many people fly it?

Or is this a round about way of complaining that the LW birds are undermodeled and can't compete?

Seems to me it's a lot of the latter disguised in "its not fair that the Spit works!"

So would it make more sense to put together a detailed thread on what's wrong with the 190 without it becoming a whine fest

A detailed thread on what's wrong with the 109?

etc etc?

I'm going to say it again in regards to the Spitfire XVI in the MA in AH which is what we're talking about.

Yes, lots of folks fly it.  It may or may not have replaced the LA7 as the dweeb ride of choice.  Personally I hope it has replaced the LA7.

As I've said a couple times already in this thread.  THe advantage of the Spit XVI being the dweeb ride is that guys are staying in and fighting in it.  They can't just HO and run away in it like they can in an LA7.  They are dogfighting in it.  Sure lots of them are dying.  As mentioned earlier, if I can be 20-2 vs 16s in the 38G and Spit IX, as sucky as I am as a pilot, it does speak to those even suckier then I am staying in to fight.  They weren't doing that in LA7s

THAT IS WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO!  They might just learn something about ACM and not just HO and run.

So now some folks want it perked to throw the newbs all back into LA7s?  Heck no!

Quit complaining about the XVI, focus on presenting the underlying concerns about the LW birds in a non whining fashion, and get into the arena and shoot down the XVI pilots so they learn something.

[Nashwan]

Does the Bf-109 outturn the Spitfire Mk XVI in AH? It should as the RAE determined that the 109 was greatly superior.

All the best,

Crumpp

Crumpp, what's the source for that claim? You mentioned earlier that that result was obtained with 600 lbs of armament removed from the Spit, and that seems an extraordinary result, as with armament removed a clipped wing Spit is going to have a much lower wing loading than a normally loaded normal wing Spit.

I'd really like to see what made the RAE conclude this.

Roll rates seem to vary rather wildly in the Spitfire due to flow seperation at the aileron surface. So I imagine when you had one which was not experiencing such difficulties, there was not much of a difference as the report concludes. That is essentially all clipping the wings did was remove or reduce the amount of flow seperation at the tips.

The logical conclusion from this is that the clipped wing Spitfire roll rate is correct, but the normal wing roll rate is for a bad example, and should be much better on average, closer to the clipped wing results.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Guppy35
OK I know I'm dumb as a fencepost when it comes to these discussions, but having just taken the time to re-read it, what are we arguing about?

Somehow any thread where the word "Spitfire" is claimed, seem to turn long Spit vs LW planes discussion and discussions about possible modeling errors. It has been that way for years but AFAIK nothing has really changed except Spit VIII and XVI are now out and LW side got G-14 and renamed K-4 (G-10). Apparently people claiming modeling errors can't offer convincing evidence for HTC.

gripen

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by Guppy35
OK I know I'm dumb as a fencepost when it comes to these discussions, but having just taken the time to re-read it, what are we arguing about?

What is it that the Spit XVI is doing that it shouldn't?  Best I can figure is that some are arguing that it's 7 mph too fast at sea level and it rolls too fast?  Is that it?

Are we saying we need to perk it because too many people fly it?

Or is this a round about way of complaining that the LW birds are undermodeled and can't compete?

...

There's nothing wrong per se with the Spit16. The RAF planeset needed a non-perked late-war Spit.

What's "wrong" is that it does so many things well compared to other planes that do too few things well (the LW birds, mainly). Consider that a month ago there were still threads to perk the La-7. Well, the Spit16 beats the La-7 in visibility, turn, range, and guns ... climb rate too, I think. Why fly anything else?

There needs to be balanced choices. Perking the Spit16 would force people to use other planes - they'd switch back to the La7 - and we'd be back to that old argument. So I don't see the current perk system as the answer.

I think two things are needed. One is to get the LW planes where they should be ... especially before ToD. The other is I think there needs to be special perk/ENY/whatever handling for the "franchise" planes: P51D, La7, Spit16, 190D9. Something that would only affect players who abuse the planes (i.e. lose 80% oif the planes they take off in). If they insist on flying one-way missions all night, eventually it'll either cost 'em perks to do so in the franchise planes, or they'll switch to another ride (La5, Spit8, etc.).

[Grits]

Originally posted by Guppy35
Are we saying we need to perk it because too many people fly it?

HT has said that overuse is the reason for perks, not plane performance in and of itself. I am not anti-Spit nor anti-LW, I like them all. I merely pointed out that with the far greater roll rate of the XVI, while not losing any of the performance of other Spits, that its overuse would eventually earn it a light perk. I am not advocating for that perk, just saying that I think it may be only a matter of when, not if it happens.

[Crumpp]

Crumpp, what's the source for that claim?

The trials of W3248.  I have ordered the report and will post them when it comes in.  The line actually says the Bf-109G's performance is "greatly superior" to the clipped wing spitfire.

We will see when the reports arrive.  I also ordered the production trials for several Spitfire variants and will share those complete reports as well.

Guppy, this is not a LW vs Spitfire thread.  Not interested in hyping my favourite aircraft or handicapping the opposition.  Interested in the truth.

This is a thread about the modeling of the Spitfire Mk XVI and the effect of clipping the wings, nothing more.  Now as the majority of my experience is in researching the FW-190 series, I draw experience from that.

I personally think that some exceptional performance has been made available for easy access.  This exceptional data has taken on the perception of the average performance for the type in the case of some of the Spitfires.  

To illustrate that point I posted some very good FW-190 data that even uncorrected challenges the fastest 1943 Spitfire.  That was not done though to start a comparison thread between the FW-190 and Spitfire.  It was done to prove that data can easily be manipulated or misinterpreted as is the case for the FW-190A8 performance AH has based their model on.

For either aircraft there is no conspiracy theory or attempts at dishonesty.  To me that is a laughable suggestion.  It is unintentional based on a lack of knowledge or data.  Lets get that knowledge and work together to learn about our favourite subject, WWII planes.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

One is to get the LW planes where they should be ... especially before ToD.

I think your correct but I also think that should be the subject of another thread.  Unfortunately it is difficult to have a discussion on this subject in these forums due to the "luftwhining" and calls of "conspiracy theory".

HT has said that overuse is the reason for perks, not plane performance in and of itself.

I think correctly modeling the design strengths and weakness of the aircraft would prevent it from being perked at all.  It would still leave the Spitfire Mk XVI the formibable opponent that it was for the Spitfire fans while dampening the mass appeal some.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Karnak]

As I understand it the Spit VIII should both out climb and out turn the Spit XVI, and be faster at higher altitudes.  The Spit XVI should roll faster than the Spit VIII across the board and be a bit faster than the Spit VIII down low, as it now is.  It may be a bit too much faster down low though.  Yes, it loses the drag from the outer part of the wings, but it adds racks under the wings that dirty it up compared to the Spit VIII.

Currently the only thing that the Spit VIII seems to do is out turn the Spit XVI, and some people debate even that.  I don't think slightly more fuel is going to alter the performance that much, particularly when on 25% fuel where it is only 7 gallons, or so, more.

The Spit VIII's roll rate is also suspect in being low.  The Spit XVI's roll rate is probably directly taken from the NACA chart which includes a clipped Spit in the graph.

The comments about the Spit's mirrors are silly.  They aren't there for modern, technical reasons.  The game is Generous with the rapidity that we can look around.  The are trying to model representative performance levels for these aircraft.  Following that, it is absolutely clear to me that the drag of the mirrors should be included in the model even though the mirrors themselves are absent.


As to the Bf109s and Fw190s, I agree that there are very suspect handling qualities and though I am not a big Luftwaffe fan I do hope that something can be done to address this issues.  Some of the Bf109 and Fw190 performance claims strike me as excessive, but others do not.

In addition to that there is the docile nature of some of the USAAF and USN fighters that do not seem to match the recorded behaviors.

[Guppy35]

If from the beginning, Pyro had called the Spit LFXVIe, a Spitfire LFIXe would we be having the same discussion?

Some folks(not you Crumpp) seem to believe because 16 comes after 14 it must be a more uber bird.  It's still nothing more then a Spitfire LFIXe with clipped wings and the American made Packard Merlin 266 in place of the Rolls Royce Merlin 66.  In essence it's as Kev has said many times a late 43-44 design.

And refresh my memory on this.  What's the problem with the roll rate?  Is the 16 too fast, or is the problem that the 190 roll rate is too slow in AH?

That's why I asked if this was really about undermodelled LW birds vs overmodelled Spit 16s.

And I think folks keep forgetting that the 16 in AH is being used in its element, down low where the clipped wings would have minimal impact on turn radius while improving the roll rate.

I suppose in terms of the 190, you'd almost have to look to modelling the low alt, de rated engined version that were the reason for the XII and rushing the Tiffie into service.  

That or we need to have an arena that starts with a minimum alt of 20K and works up with nothing going below it so some of the birds we have that were built for that realm can really show their stuff.

[Nashwan]

The trials of W3248. I have ordered the report and will post them when it comes in. The line actually says the Bf-109G's performance is "greatly superior" to the clipped wing spitfire.

Do you have part of the report, or are you quoting from a book? And do you mean overall performance is greatly superior, or roll performance? Can you at least give us the paragraph that says this, rather than just part of sentence? (sorry to hassle, but it's the sort of thing I really like to know )

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Nashwan
Do you have part of the report, or are you quoting from a book? And do you mean overall performance is greatly superior, or roll performance? Can you at least give us the paragraph that says this, rather than just part of sentence? (sorry to hassle, but it's the sort of thing I really like to know )

W3248 was a very early production Spitfire FVb.  It was the first Spitfire V to have clipped wings.  

The 109G's performance was better then the Spit Vb clipped or otherwise.  Where does it stand against the LFIX etc?  That would be the better comparison.  

Spit I-II - 109E
Spit Vb - 109F
Spit VIII,IX, XVI-109G, 190A
Spit XIV-190D9, 109K
 
etc etc

[Crumpp]

What's the problem with the roll rate?

The FW-190 is too slow in AH.  Looking at the problems with seperation at the ailerons the Spitfire experienced, I would say HTC has a wide path to model "realistic" rolling performance for the type.  An argument could be made that normal wing spits do not roll well enough.  

Man if I were them, I would keep a spread sheet and use this kind of stuff to balance the game.  Spitfires are not doing as well as they should against the 109's...bump that roll rate up some. 190's are doing too well, give them the Rho 7 thermostats!



One of those reports is on the roll ability of the clipped wing Spitfire.

If it calculated vs measured then the statement of "not much of an improvement" over a normal wing with good ailerons will make even more sense.   If the curve matches the NACA report/RAE 1231 for the clipped wing we will also know the origins.

All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

Originally posted by Guppy35
It's still nothing more then a Spitfire LFIXe with clipped wings and the American made Packard Merlin 266 in place of the Rolls Royce Merlin 66.

There is some differences between the RR Merlin 66 and Packard Merlin 266, shortly:

Reduction gear:
66 0,477
266 0,479

1st SC gear:
66 5,79
266 5,80

2nd SC gear:
66 7,06
266 7,35

1st FTH rating +18lbs:
66 1705hp 5750ft
266 1710hp 6400ft

2nd FTH rating +18lbs:
66 1580hp 16000ft
266 1490hp 19400ft

Generally the 266 is very similar with the V-1650-7.

gripen