why spit14 is perked and not 16

[Ball]

Originally posted by 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!

SmashR was gay though and quit the game to go marry his long term partner in San Fran.

[REP0MAN]

I thought SmashR married hubs?
 
and didn't they have a bunch of 'squeakers' a few months ago?

[hubsonfire]

I rejected a few rather indecent proposals, and in a hissy, he started spreading baseless rumors. The squeakers aren't mine, they're stang's.

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by 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

From various discussions including one with Pyro -

The 'e' wing was strengthened and had an improved main spar. Overall it contributed to wings improved rigidity compared to the earlier wings.
Very little is actually known about Spit 'e' wings compared to the rest of the aircraft.
E.g. Sometime before D-Day a field kit was issued to allow 'c' wings to fit 50cals, essentially becoming an 'c' wing but with 'e' wing armament.
This of course wouldn't have had the improved main spar I assume.

Looking at pics of 'e' wings I think there are at least 3 variations -
1) Ones with the field mod kit.
2) Ones fully converted to 'e' wings.
3) Ones built as 'e' wings.

I think #3 is distinguishable by it's lack of .303 panels, whereas #1 and #2 still have them.

All conjecture, but as i said very little known about them.

This of course doesn't explain the XIV which had the same wing .

Spit XIV's FM has been suspect for a while, not just turning but in climb also, maybe it's all related.

[BaldEagl]

Spit 14 has more HP than a Spit 16.  Thats why the 16 seems more manouverable.  14 vs 16 is like taking a 16 against a 5.  16 will win in a sustained turn fight unless the 14 uses his HP to gain vertical advantage.

Can't remember who it was and I wish I had filmed it but I was in a 16 one night against a 5.  I couldn't seem to get a shot on him as he always had the turn advantage when I got close but everytime he got close I went vertical and gained enough extension to keep just out of his reach.  We did this over and over for probably 10 minutes, neither of us gaining until I finally got frustrated and gave up too much E.  Then he turned inside and got a  lead shot on me.

It was a classic case of HP vs Turn in otherwise matched planes.  Same difference with the 14 and 16.

14 is also better at alt because of the HP.  I'm guessing the only reason it's perked is bacause it's the uber-Spit.

[BaldEagl]

BTW, the Spit 8 and 16 are virtually the same plane.  The only difference being the .50 cals arent available on the 8 (.303's only).  In every performance catagory they are nearly identical.

The 9 has better turning ability than either the 8 or the 16 but only slightly so and I've beaten plenty of 9's with a 16 in a turn fight.

The Seafire and Spit 5 are also virtually identical but the added weight of the increased ammo load in the Seafire gives the 5 a slight turn advantage.

I think the TA152 was unperked because it's slow low.  Over 25 K it's fast and lethal.  A NIK can outrun it on the deck starting co-e, I think because of those glider wings (which also help it handle at alt).  Overall the FW190A8 is more lethal and the D9 is faster  The TA152 really fills a nitch between these 2 in most MA situations.

[Widewing]

Ok guys, let's review the primary differences between the various Spitfires as to why there are differences in turn radius. Let's do a simply exercise that will demonstrate why the Spit14 cannot turn with the Spit9 and why any real world document that says it can is suspect.

All of the Spitfires (except the Spit16) have the same wing area. Thus, with only minor differences being possible, we can assume that all of them have the same coefficient of lift. At least they are close enough for this exercise.

I don't have the coefficient of lift for the Spitfires handy, but we can can plug in virtually any number into the equation as long as it is used for all versions with the same wing. I can take an educated guess though...  I'm going to use 2.60 for this. The Spit16 presents the only variation due to its clipped wingtips. So, I will adjust the lift coefficient for the Spit16 down to 2.50 to account for the small loss of efficiency.

Now, to generate the equation, we need to know the wing loading for each version of the Spitfire. This is generated by dividing the aircraft weight by the wing area. Wing area is 242 square feet, except for the Spit16 which is quoted in print as being 228 square feet.

So, now we need the weight of each aircraft. Let's use the weights defined by HTC, except for their numbers for the Spit16, which appears to be a typo.

SpitI: 5,844 lb
SpitV: 6,785 lb
Seafire: 7,640 lb
Spit8: 7,875 lb
Spit9: 7,400 lb
Spit14: 8,500 lb
Spit16: 7,500 lb (HTC's weight of 8,500 is suspect as it is a basically a Mk.IX airframe)

Let's calculate wing loading in lb per square foot.

SpitI: 24.15
SpitV: 28.04
Seafire: 31.57
Spit8: 32.54
Spit9: 30.58
Spit14: 35.12
Spit16: 32.89

Now, we'll calculate something called the turn index. This is done when we simply divide the different wing loadings by the coefficient of lift. That will give you a ballpark idea in terms of proportion.

So, for the SpitI, we divide 24.15 by 2.60 to get an index of 9.29. For the Spit16 I will use 2.50.

SpitI: 9.29
SpitV: 10.78
Seafire: 12.14
Spit8: 12.51
Spit9: 11.76
Spit14: 13.51
Spit16: 13.16

Let's set the SpitI as the baseline and generate a percentage of difference and re-order the aircraft in order of turning ability. Thus the SpitI becomes 100%.

SpitI: 100%
SpitV: 116%
Spit9: 127%
Seafire: 131%
Spit8: 137%
Spit16: 142%
Spit14: 145%

Now, let's look at in-game test data for minimum turn radius for each type, listed in order of smallest to largest.

SpitI
SpitV
Spit9
Seafire
Spit8
Spit16
Spit14

Note that the calculated turn index corresponds to actual in-game test data, at least in terms of relative turning performance.

Naturally, fuel and ammo loads will determine actual weights. Thus, a low fuel Spit8 may actually turn a smaller circle than a fully fueled and armed Spit9.

When discussing the performance of the various airplanes, it helps a great deal to understand all of the factors that determine maximum performance. Without this understanding, you can find yourself wandering down a dead-end trail.

My regards,

Widewing

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by Ball
SmashR was gay though and quit the game to go marry his long term partner in San Fran.

I heard about your heartbreaking part with SmashR, Ball, but coming on the boards and spilling his private life is not going to ease your pain!:aok

[Krusty]

Widewing, aren't you ignoring raw horsepower with that setup? Given a little extra weight that says the Spit14 should turn worse. However it also has WAY more power to "haul around" the turn more, meaning it can sustain a greater AoA? I seem to recall Hitech saying something about this long ago.

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by REP0MAN
I thought SmashR married hubs?
 
and didn't they have a bunch of 'squeakers' a few months ago?

I just got off the phone with SmashR and he said that after his breakup with Ball he considered hubs but doesnt like drunkards!  Plus he said hubs was mean!  hee hee:D

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by hubsonfire
I rejected a few rather indecent proposals, and in a hissy, he started spreading baseless rumors. The squeakers aren't mine, they're stang's.

They can't be Stangs because SmashR told me Stang had taken care of that "mistake"!

[BaldEagl]

Originally posted by Krusty
Widewing, aren't you ignoring raw horsepower with that setup? Given a little extra weight that says the Spit14 should turn worse. However it also has WAY more power to "haul around" the turn more, meaning it can sustain a greater AoA? I seem to recall Hitech saying something about this long ago.

Krusty, you are correct.  I was just compiling histrical performance data on Spits when, unfortunately after 2 hours of work my laptop froze and I lost most of it.  I do remember though that the Spit 14 top speed was 445 mph vs. 408 for the Spit 9.  

This also doesn't take into account the carborated engine on the Spit 1 which will shut off in negative G loading due to fuel starvation, the single-stage, single-speed supercharger in the Spit 5 vs. the dual-stage, dual speed superchargers in the 8 and 9 and other factors.

Also, many of the Spit models shared airframes but not in chronological order.  For instance the 5 and 9 shared the same airframe while the 8, 14 and 16 shared an airframe.  That's because Spits were not introduced in chronological order by number.

The Spit 9 was a stop-gap measure awaiting production of the Spit 8.  The 9 ended up having such success that by the time the 8 came out of production it was used in limited numbers primarily in the mediterrainian.

Interestingly the Spit 16 used a Merlin 266 which was a low altitude version of the Merlin 66 and, because of that, all Spit 16s used clipped wings to improve roll-rates in dog-fights even though both clipped and extended wings had been used on Spits beginning with the Spit 5.  

The Spit 14  by contrast used the impressive 2050 HP Griffin 65 which, by the way, rotated in the opposite direction of the Merlins.

HP ranged from 953 in the Spit 1 to 2050 in the Spit 14.  That's a big range.

If I can bring myself to do it I'll try re-compiling that data and post it.

[Guppy35]

Spit 16 and 9 had the same basic airframe.  Have to understand that they are identical.  The naming convention came from the engine put in it.  If it was an American built Packard Merlin 266 it was a Spit 16.  If it was a Rolls Royce built Merlin 66 it was a Spit IX.  Both of these engines were rated for low to medium alt work.  Same beast, different manufacturer.

They had IXs and XVIs come off the lines at the same time that way.

No way to really differentiate between a 1944-45 Spitfire LFIXe and LFXVIe outside of serial number.

Spit VIII had the strengthened airframe that was used on the Spitfire XIV.  Also the high alt Spit VII.

My favorite, the Spit XII had 50 of the 100 built done on the Spitfire Vc fuselage and 50 done on the Spitfire VIII fuselage.  Only way to tell the difference beyond serial number was the retractable tail wheel on the MB serialed XIIs, although that won't even always work as MB974 has a fixed tail wheel.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by BaldEagl


Also, many of the Spit models shared airframes but not in chronological order.  For instance the 5 and 9 shared the same airframe while the 8, 14 and 16 shared an airframe.  That's because Spits were not introduced in chronological order by number.

The Spit 9 was a stop-gap measure awaiting production of the Spit 8.  The 9 ended up having such success that by the time the 8 came out of production it was used in limited numbers primarily in the mediterrainian.

Interestingly the Spit 16 used a Merlin 266 which was a low altitude version of the Merlin 66 and, because of that, all Spit 16s used clipped wings to improve roll-rates in dog-fights even though both clipped and extended wings had been used on Spits beginning with the Spit 5.  

A Spitfire Mk.XVI is basically a late-model Spitfire Mk.IX fitted with the Packard built engine. It DOES NOT share the same airframe with the Mk.VIII and Mk.XIV. Don't let the late-war pointed vertical stabilizer fool you. Also, most, but not all Mk.XVIs had clipped wings. While the Mk.XIV was initially based upon the Mk.VIII, it evolved into a markedly different airframe due to the extended nose and required broad chord vertical stabilizer.

As to Krusty's question; for the calculation, all aircraft are considered to have sufficient power to maintain the turn without having to nose down to maintain airspeed. I real life, none of the WWII fighters had enough thrust to maintain minimum turn radius for very long without giving up altitude to maintain speed.

My regards,

Widewing

[SgtPappy]

Great calcs, Widewing. However (lol here it comes), I'd like to point out that, in WWII, the Spitfire LF Mk.IX had a +25 boost feature (not all, but some). This allowed it to turn tighter according to some sims. Also, both the Spixteen and the Spit 8 have Merlin 66 engines (well 266, but theyre the same pretty much). How does the Spix outclimb and outrun the Spit8? Yes it's lighter, but it has less wing to help is up like that. It shouldnt do it that well.

Would the horsepower of the Spitfire XIV allow it to turn tighter in real life than planes with the slightly lighter wing loadings but a worse power loading?


Okay, with regards to Spitfire airframe confusion.

the first frame was Supermarine Type 300 (became the Mk.I).

It shared frames with these airframes entering service: II (type 329), Mk.V (type 349)

The V then went on to share frames with the Mk. VI (type 350; high alt interceptor with a bolted-down cockpit for pressurization) and the Mk.IX (Type 361)

The Mk. VII (type 351) was a new, rare production variant in use after the Mk.IX of 1942. The VII shared frames with the VIII (type 359).

Recon versions like the Mk.X (type 362; was from a IX airframe) and the XI (type 365) - which entered service before the X - was converted from a VII airframe.

The XII (type 366) was from V and VIII airframes, and this is noticable as some pics of the XII have tailwheels while others dont.

The XVI (also type 361) too, came from a IX frame. It was the same type as it was IDENTICAL, save the American-built Rolls-Royce Merlin 66, called the 266. Pilots didnt like the 266 as it broke down more often than the regular 66.

The Mk.XIV (type 379) came from an VIII frame.

The PR Mk.XIX (type 389) came from a XIV frame.



Btw... I met a very cocky pilot earlier today who said, 'Wow Papps - anyone can fly a Spit...'

I'd like to point out that against good pilots who know everything about their own planes, the Spitfire actually has less options available to it than other planes due to a lack of combat flaps, and the fact that its airframe isnt the most aerodynamic out there. It cant take that much damage and it will stall one wing on a hard break turn. Theres more too.

It may be a rookie plane but for those who make the most from the fewer options they have in their Spits show what a figther pilot really is.