Is Spitfire Mk V still the dominat spit mark in mid war?

[thrila]

I think it needs to be put in context why squadrons had certain spits at certain times, some of kurfurt's info is wrong too. To illustrate here is the first line Spit V squadrons that were listed.

64 squadron:  Had spitfire IXs July '42 until september '43 when they transferred back to spit Vs.  This one stuck out a bit as 64 squadron as the first squadron to recieve spit IXs.  From march-august '43 the squadron was based on scotland.  No idea why the squadron was transferred to spit LF V's when they were sent backdown south though.

66:  Didn't get their spit IX's til nov '43.  They did however swap their Spit Vs for Spit VIs in may of that year so they definately did not have spit V's.

118:  In sept '43 they had spitfire V's but were based in scotland.  In jan '44 the squadron recieved spitfire IX's when joining the second TAF but transferred back to spitfire Vs in march when the squadron moved to the orkneys.

130:  this squadron is a bit complicated as it was disbanded and reformed during the war with 186 being renamed 130.  The squad formed in june '41 and spent all of it's time in Scotland, northern ireland and the north of england seeing little action until it was disbanded in feb '44.  When reformed in April the squadron spent sometime over northern france in Spit Vs before switching to spit XIVs in Aug '44

131:  Recieved spit IXs sept '43.  Recieved spit VIIs in March '44 for bomber escort duties.

132:  Recieved Spit IXs sept '43.  The squadron flew fighter sweeps from sept '42 to Jan '44.   Recieved Spit VIIIs in Jan '45 when the squadron was sent to Ceylon.

165:  Reformed April '42 performing fighter sweeps until march '43 when the squadron moved to scotland.  165 recieved Spit IXs sept '43.   In August 165 squadron joined the Kenley wing as bomber escorts

288:  This is a bit interesting because it was formed in Nov '41 by anti-aircraft command.  It provided practice for anti-aircraft units in the north of england for the rest of the war.  Not quite sure why it was included though.

[Crumpp]

Well, I don't see a 109F-2 or a Fw190A-1 in AH2 either.

If Aces High was anything close to reality, the Me-110 would have replaced all the single engine fighter types in Luftwaffe service instead of being removed from dayfighter duties.

All the best,

Crumpp

[thrila]

I also forgot to mention that 897 is a FAA squadron as were all the 800 series.

[Angus]

I agree with you Crumpp that the 110 is not quite well modelled.
However, I think the Spitfires we have, are pretty close.
And we're not yet up to the ultimate Merlin ones.

BTW, did the Mk XIV performance change? It was an underdog before.

[Crumpp]

However, I think the Spitfires we have, are pretty close.

I am sure everyone who plays the game, flying Spitfires and benefiting from their rather generous modeling would agree.

I don't think either an Engineer or Historian would however.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

Nice bait for a flame. Please explain in which way they are overmodelled.

Speed? Well documented.
Climb? Well documented, and it seems to me they are rather under the line.
Turn? Quite well backed up I'd say.
Availability? Ask Izzy, but I'd take Guppy/Milo's survey more seriously.

Oh,,,ROLLRATE, must be, right? Well, only one rolls well, the Mk XVI.
I belive that is rather well documented also.....

[Crumpp]

Not a flame bait, Angus nor do I care to enter a comparision thread.  While the Spitfire was good fighter, it was hardly the "superperformer" it is made out to be in these games.

Just like the Me-110 is nowhere near the competative aircraft it is in AH in the real world.

Aces High is a game.  The Spitfires are an easy, popular, and familiar aircraft to have new players learn the ropes.  People get hooked and move on to other shapes.

A good design analysis from an Engineers point of view is "WWII Fighter Aerodynamics".

Email me and I will send you a copy.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

Done!
BTW, even from the same production, hardly 2 spits were even the same. This was more marked in the early ones though. (Mk I to V).
But what do their pilots say?

"AWESOME" !!!


But for the engineer, - not so.

[ghi]

See Rule #5, #2

[Crumpp]

LOL,

The Spitfire pilots have exactly the same feelings about their aircraft that the Focke Wulf pilots had!

The Luftwaffe pilots always debate among themselves which German fighter was better, the Bf-109 or the FW-190.

If a plane is competative, and a pilot can fight / survive in it, then he gains affection for the design.  Competative means in a classic dogfight.

If it is not a competative design and he feels helpless against enemy aircraft, then it is not remembered with affection.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

See Rule #4

[Angus]

Kuffie, I have learned to take your long numerical posts as something to look at from a distance.
If Spit V is a dominant Spitfire late war, you are basically suggesting that their loss rate is not so much. Or are the IX's post war?
There are others that know these numbers vastly better than both you and me, and I have no doubts that your post will be dealt with properly.
This Mk V theory of yours actually has been tortured into other numbers than you started with, - but this is history, not a god-damned haggling contest. So bite the bullet, - there were more of the IX series produced than the V, and their loss rates, I belive, and therefor operational life, came out better, as they should have.

BTW, many RAF squadrons already had a batch of IX's within them with the bulk being V's, - replacements were not always complete. I think some "swap" dates refer to the date when the squadron was fully equipped with IX's. I feel sure that Guppy or Milo know this, and stay in your boots please, for when Guppy gets annoyed, it means you are pissing against the wind.

[Angus]

Oh, ghi, when you hear about Spits, remember this guy, who was dubbed a Spitfire Killer, but smacked into one and fell.....

[Angus]

And since we are at it....the top LW ace of the BoB.

[1K3]

See Rule #2