why spit14 is perked and not 16

[SgtPappy]

Originally posted by Ball
always found that strange in AH.  from the flight test reports i have read, apparently the turning radius was identical for the 14 to the 9.

Okay, time to resurrect another near-dead thread. I noticed this too, Ball. Evidently, from the tests I've read in my books like 'Late Marque Spitfire Aces 1942 - 45' by Alfred Price, this is said when compared to the Mk. IX:

'Turning Circle - The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Mk.XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starboard. The warning of the approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Mk. XIV.' (Price 88). Such ability to keep the turning circle comes from the huge amount of extra power from the Griffon engine which changes the power to weight load (power load) of the a/c.

According to other tests and other sims, the clipped wing of the Mk.XVI (16) widened turn radius by a small amount, so if anything, the Mk. XIV should turn tighter. The Mk. VIII as well, should turn just like the IX and XIV.

Well, thats my whine for the day.

Happy Holidays everyone!

[WMLute]

Fight the 14/16 @ 25k and tell me which one is better.

[Warspawn]

How often do fights happen up there?


Seriously, for 99% of the fights that occur in the arenas, the Spit XVI just outclasses the XIV in one-on-one fights.  Its E retention is insane, the roll rate is blazingly fast and the options it puts into the hands of its weilder make it one of the deadliest planes in the set.

I'd love for some of our vets to fly it exclusively one tour just to show its dominance and see how high we can get the k/d ratio.  May have to buy much cheese to go with what would surely be comming over 200, though!

[SgtPappy]

I totally agree that it's a mad dogfighter -  however, the odd thing is (and many people have already complained, like Saxman and Krusty) that the E-retention is just way too good for the Mk.XVI. That thing is just way too overmodeled. It outurns the Mk.IX which makes no sense at all whatsoever since they are nearly identical in airframe. The only REAL difference is that the Mk.XVI has a Packard-built merlin 66 (266). In the game, it has got clipped wings and a larger rudder - the latter which gives worse turning than the IX which, according to tests at spitfireperformance.com, turn the same as the Mk.XIV.

Sure, the LF engine gives a boost in climb, but E-retention is NOT supposed to be that great. I've also heard, however, that some LF Mk.IX engines had a +25 lb. boost feature that helped it turn tighter due to the better power loading. If that's the case in the Mk.XVI, I'd like to know for sure, but in combination with the clip-tip, the 16 shouldnt be that tight turning. W/out clipped wings, it probably would.

Still, the only reason I don't fly it is b/c it's overmodeled in terms of E-retention.

[Squire]

The turn radius are compared at sea level, where the clipped wing does little to effect its turn rate. At alt, I have no idea, never seen a test done at higher alts.

For all the stuff about it being identical to the IX, well, if that was the case, it would be called a IX. The XVI is the same as an LF IX (which we dont have in the game), not an F IX (which is what we have in the game).

In any case, when you hit WEP it boosts at +18 lbs not +15 lbs, so they arent the same, obviously. The XVI (and VIII) produces more hp, and consequently, have a higher powerloading than the IX does. Same reason a heavier F4U-4 turns with an F4U-1D, despite being similar.

"but E-retention is NOT supposed to be that great"

...and you have some data, of course. Ch200 manual? more like.

And the WEP time for a XVI and a XIV are exactly the same as all the other Spits, 5 minutes. Takes more damage? I have my doubts, maybe a small bit, but I have a hard time beleiving its measurable by a player.

As for perking of the XIV, well, its a light perk, only 15 pts, so I dont think its a big deal .

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by Squire
The turn radius are compared at sea level, where the clipped wing does little to effect its turn rate. At alt, I have no idea, never seen a test done at higher alts.

For all the stuff about it being identical to the IX, well, if that was the case, it would be called a IX. The XVI is the same as an LF IX (which we dont have in the game), not an F IX (which is what we have in the game).

In any case, when you hit WEP it boosts at +18 lbs not +15 lbs, so they arent the same, obviously. The XVI (and VIII) produces more hp, and consequently, have a higher powerloading than the IX does. Same reason a heavier F4U-4 turns with an F4U-1D, despite being similar.

"but E-retention is NOT supposed to be that great"

...and you have some data, of course. Ch200 manual? more like.

And the WEP time for a XVI and a XIV are exactly the same as all the other Spits, 5 minutes. Takes more damage? I have my doubts, maybe a small bit, but I have a hard time beleiving its measurable by a player.

As for perking of the XIV, well, its a light perk, only 15 pts, so I dont think its a big deal .

If you check the full throttle height for the XVI, you'll find it is a Merlin 66 not 266.
In effect we HAVE an LF IXe. but not a XVI.

[Kweassa]

I'm still confused.



1. The Spit14 is a fighter produced in large quantities and served regular squadron strengths, active since 1944 to the end of war, and saw many sorties as a mainstay RAF fighter succeeding the Spit9.

2. The Spit14 performance is comparable to the various majority of late war fighters such as the La-7, Bf109K-4, Fw190D-9, P-51D, and etc etc.. with small bits of pros and cons revolving around each comparison.

3. The Spit16 does everything better than the Spit14 at typical MA alts. Both are essentially '44 Spitfires.


 So someone please tell me why the Spit14 is perked. I still don't get it.

 It's the only plane that fills none of the currently known criteria for perking planes, and yet still remains perked for no obvious reason except that it's name is 'Spit'.


 I mean, we got the super late-war fighter Ta152H-1 unperked, right? It's rare, but it's performance sucks in conventional alt ranges when compared to the Fw190D-9... and the D-9 was free. So they finally got the Ta152H-1 unperked.

 How's the Ta152H-1/Fw190D-9 relationship any different from the Spit14/Spit16 relationship?


 
 The UTSTAFF movement goes on!

[Widewing]

Originally posted by SgtPappy
I totally agree that it's a mad dogfighter -  however, the odd thing is (and many people have already complained, like Saxman and Krusty) that the E-retention is just way too good for the Mk.XVI. That thing is just way too overmodeled. It outurns the Mk.IX which makes no sense at all whatsoever since they are nearly identical in airframe. The only REAL difference is that the Mk.XVI has a Packard-built merlin 66 (266). In the game, it has got clipped wings and a larger rudder - the latter which gives worse turning than the IX which, according to tests at spitfireperformance.com, turn the same as the Mk.XIV.

Sure, the LF engine gives a boost in climb, but E-retention is NOT supposed to be that great. I've also heard, however, that some LF Mk.IX engines had a +25 lb. boost feature that helped it turn tighter due to the better power loading. If that's the case in the Mk.XVI, I'd like to know for sure, but in combination with the clip-tip, the 16 shouldnt be that tight turning. W/out clipped wings, it probably would.

Still, the only reason I don't fly it is b/c it's overmodeled in terms of E-retention.

It's not over-modeled for E retention. That is a perception resulting from its excellent acceleration.

There are several ways to measure for E retention. You can pull off power and measure time required to bleed off speed (Spitfires do horrible in that test). You can dive to a speed in WEP and time how long it takes to bleed off speed at full power (be careful to set minimum speed at least 10 mph above max sustained at that particular altitude). Finally, you can measure E loss in a max power level turn at corner speed.

This last test is the most relevant to air combat. I have tested most of the plane set under these circumstances. I climb to 5k, level off and accelerate to 300 mph. I then dive to 1,000 feet in WEP and wait for the speed to bleed down to 400 mph. Then, I make a 180 degree turn at near black out (very close to corner speed). I record air speed at the 180 degree mark.

So, let's look at the Spitfire Mk.XVI and see how it does. After 180 degrees, it is doing 332 mph, having bled off 68 mph in the turn. Now, I'll compare it to several other fighters. Understand that mass and max thrust are factors in E retention, as well as induced drag.

Spit16: 332 mph
190A-5: 331 mph
109G-6: 326 mph
F6F-5: 329 mph
La-7: 336 mph
P-47D-40: 318 mph
P-38L: 342 mph
F4U-1A: 334 mph
F4U-4: 346 mph
P-51D: 352 mph

Thus, we see that the Spitfire beats the 190A-5, F6F-5 and 109G-6 by a small amount. The Jug brings up the rear, 8 mph slower than the 109G-6. Out in front of the Spit16 is the F4U-1A and La-7 with a 2 and 4 mph edge, respectively. Then it is a 6 mph jump to the P-38L, followed by the powerful F4U-4 which is 4 mph faster than the Lightning. The fastest of the lot, by 6 mph over the F4U-4, is the P-51D (very low induced drag).

I repeated these tests several times and took the average to arrive at the posted speeds.

Because the Spitfire 16 is relatively light and is not an especially clean airframe (compared to the P-51), its E retention is only average. However, once unloaded, it accelerates very quickly. On the other hand, the P-51 retains E like crazy in a turn, but offers much slower acceleration when unloaded. The performance of the P-38L will not surprise our dedicated P-38 drivers. They know that the Lightning holds E very well when turning. Our La-7 is 1,200 lb lighter than the Spitfire, but has tremendous power for its size. So, it does better than the Spitfire, but has no advantage in acceleration at low speeds. Meaning that it cannot readily escape the Spit16. Once again, we see why the F4U-4 is such a terrific fighter. By pure thrust alone, it retains 12 mph more than the F4U-1A.

It is important to recognize what E retention really is and what factors control it. testing shows that the Spit16 is not over-modeled for E-retention, not at all. One could argue that the La-7 is, however. It does not have a high-activity propeller, but one that looks to be designed for high-speed. Be that as it may, the La-7 is not exceptional in E retention either.

My regards,

Widewing

[Platano]

WiDeWing pwns

[SgtPappy]

lawl zomfeg! he powned teh noobs!

Good job, WW, you've won once again. Now for idiots like myself, what do you mean by 'unloaded'?

I've looked up some info on the Spixteen's turning as well. The fact that it is slightly faster than the Merlin 63 Spitfire IX in both level speed, climb rate and acceleration proves that it is using the Merlin 266 modified to give +25 lb. boost. In the IL-2 simulations, this gave the LF Mk.IX a tighter turning circle, most likely due to the increase in power accompanied by the same amount of weight as the regular Merlin 66. Turns out that this Spixteen is supposed to turn just slightly tighter than the IX.

However, I'm still lost as to why the VIII and the XIV turn so terribly in comparison. Yes, they are not supposed to turn as tight, yet, according to tests, the differences in their turning circles was not supposed to be so pronounced.

I haven't seen very many good Spitfire pilots but those that are good are damn scary! I've only seen RCAF1 ever outturn a Spit5 w/ his Spixteen. He's a great Spit 16 pilot who I know flies it like it should be flown - with energy - yet my buddy hates RCAF since he flies uber high lol. At any rate, I may stick to the Spitfire as it was my first favorite plane and I've come to believe that the Hog may be slightly porked in the turning circle w/ its 'Wonder flaps'. That, and the Ki-84 just mauls my fave A-hog almost all the time, while the 4-Hog just doesn't have the climb.

While I'm on the subject, I'd like to point out that the IL-2 version of the Ki-84 doesn't break apart at +450 mph... everyone there pretty much laughed at those who said otherwise. Is the Ki-84 undermodeled? Then again, the IL-2 version IS based on a bareskin Frank using US grade fuel that the US captured during operation Paperclip.

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by SgtPappy
lawl zomfeg! he powned teh noobs!

Good job, WW, you've won once again. Now for idiots like myself, what do you mean by 'unloaded'?

I've looked up some info on the Spixteen's turning as well. The fact that it is slightly faster than the Merlin 63 Spitfire IX in both level speed, climb rate and acceleration proves that it is using the Merlin 266 modified to give +25 lb. boost. In the IL-2 simulations, this gave the LF Mk.IX a tighter turning circle, most likely due to the increase in power accompanied by the same amount of weight as the regular Merlin 66. Turns out that this Spixteen is supposed to turn just slightly tighter than the IX.

However, I'm still lost as to why the VIII and the XIV turn so terribly in comparison. Yes, they are not supposed to turn as tight, yet, according to tests, the differences in their turning circles was not supposed to be so pronounced.

I haven't seen very many good Spitfire pilots but those that are good are damn scary! I've only seen RCAF1 ever outturn a Spit5 w/ his Spixteen. He's a great Spit 16 pilot who I know flies it like it should be flown - with energy - yet my buddy hates RCAF since he flies uber high lol. At any rate, I may stick to the Spitfire as it was my first favorite plane and I've come to believe that the Hog may be slightly porked in the turning circle w/ its 'Wonder flaps'. That, and the Ki-84 just mauls my fave A-hog almost all the time, while the 4-Hog just doesn't have the climb.

While I'm on the subject, I'd like to point out that the IL-2 version of the Ki-84 doesn't break apart at +450 mph... everyone there pretty much laughed at those who said otherwise. Is the Ki-84 undermodeled? Then again, the IL-2 version IS based on a bareskin Frank using US grade fuel that the US captured during operation Paperclip.

1) F IX commonly used the Merlin 61 not the 63.
2) The XVI is not using 25lbs boost, it was requested when the Spits were remodelled, but not implemented.
Good check - at sea level at 25lbs boost Merlin 66 Spit will climb at over 5700fpm. Ours doesn't.
The 5700fpm was one of the main reasons given for NOT using 25lbs boost in our XVI.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Widewing
Then, I make a 180 degree turn at near black out (very close to corner speed). I record air speed at the 180 degree mark.
 

This is a mis-statement on my part. Corner speed is in the range of 230 to 270 mph depending upon the aircraft. The turn I used was at max  sustainable G loading (for the pilot), which is well above corner speed, but will generate the greatest induced drag.

Sorry for any confusion.

My regards,

Widewing

[SkyRock]

I liked it when the spit14 was unperked, but that guy SmashR was killing everyone so much in it, HT perked it!  THat dweeb ruined it for all of us!

[bozon]

Originally posted by SgtPappy
While I'm on the subject, I'd like to point out that the IL-2 version of the Ki-84 doesn't break apart at +450 mph... everyone there pretty much laughed at those who said otherwise.

So it is wrong because IL2's modeling is different ?

[SgtPappy]

Lol no, Bozon. I'm just pointing out that the games have different opinions - one may be correct or neither may be correct. The thing is, it DOES raise a few questions in your mind  concerning the Ki-84, doesn't it?

It's hard to fly the F4U's just because of those damned Franks! I've only ever had trouble in my Hog when encountering a good Frank pilot or a good Spit16/14 pilot, but theyre seemingly impossible to come by.

Kev, thanks for the correction. Now that I know this, how is it that the Spixteen is turning tighter than the Spit8's 9's and 14's? With those clipped wings and a regular Merlin 266, it should be finishing a full turn circle at least 1.5 seconds behind the Spit 8,9,14.

Yes Skyrock, the XIV is great, but the whiner in me says it turns too smelly Please, someone, if you have evidence against or supporting the tests concluding that the Spit 8,9, and 14 all turned so similarly, the difference was practically unnoticable, please show it