Spit 14 turning circle

[Urchin]

I was playing around with the "Fighter comparison" website earlier, and I plugged in the Spit 14 vs the Spit 9.  Now, I have flown the Spit 14 a fair amount, and I actually like the plane, but it doesn't turn anywhere near as well as a Spit 9 does (in my subjective opinion).  

In real life, according to a test report I've seen linked several times here, the Spit 14s turning circle was reported to be "identical" to the Spit 9s.  This is in spite of the fact that it was 1,000 lbs heavier.  I guess the extra horsepower made up for the weight, in the test.  

The website (Fighter Comparison page ) agrees with my subjective assessment.  The smallest turning circle with flaps down is 509 feet for the Spit 14, and 433 feet for the Spit 9.  With flaps UP, the circles are nearly identical, with the Spit 14 having an edge that may or may not really be there (I'd say that difference is probably well within the margin of error for the data collection).  

I don't understand why the turning circles are identical with flaps up (which matches the test report), but drastically different (15%) with flaps down.  The wing and flap design didn't change between versions.

A different way to look at it is to compare turning circle size with flaps up to that with flaps down.  

The Spit 5 is 503 / 386 (~23% smaller).
The Spit 9 is 632 / 433 (~32% smaller).
The Spit 16 is 567 / 450 (~21% smaller).
The Spit 14 is 629 / 509 (~19% smaller).

Do the flaps on the Spit 9 just work exceptionally well?

[BaldEagl]

It looks to me like, with the exception of the Spit V, as the HP goes up the flaps up/flaps down differential goes down which would make sense given the same wing/flap configuration (except on the XVI), meaning more power to overcome the flaps.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Urchin
I was playing around with the "Fighter comparison" website earlier, and I plugged in the Spit 14 vs the Spit 9.  Now, I have flown the Spit 14 a fair amount, and I actually like the plane, but it doesn't turn anywhere near as well as a Spit 9 does (in my subjective opinion).  

In real life, according to a test report I've seen linked several times here, the Spit 14s turning circle was reported to be "identical" to the Spit 9s.  This is in spite of the fact that it was 1,000 lbs heavier.  I guess the extra horsepower made up for the weight, in the test.  

The website (Fighter Comparison page ) agrees with my subjective assessment.  The smallest turning circle with flaps down is 509 feet for the Spit 14, and 433 feet for the Spit 9.  With flaps UP, the circles are nearly identical, with the Spit 14 having an edge that may or may not really be there (I'd say that difference is probably well within the margin of error for the data collection).  

I don't understand why the turning circles are identical with flaps up (which matches the test report), but drastically different (15%) with flaps down.  The wing and flap design didn't change between versions.

A different way to look at it is to compare turning circle size with flaps up to that with flaps down.  

The Spit 5 is 503 / 386 (~23% smaller).
The Spit 9 is 632 / 433 (~32% smaller).
The Spit 16 is 567 / 450 (~21% smaller).
The Spit 14 is 629 / 509 (~19% smaller).

Do the flaps on the Spit 9 just work exceptionally well?

You are talking about a big weight difference between the 9 and 14.  More internal fuel as well.

The 14 was a different beast.  Spit V should out turn the IX for the same reason.

[Urchin]

I'll preface this by saying I don't know much about aerodynamics.  And my Spitfire book is at my parents house, so I can't look up the horsepower numbers for all the types.  

Looking at these numbers though, I am very puzzled.  

All the Spitfires we have in the game share the same wing (except the Spit I, but I don't think the shape of the wing changed between the 8 gun wing and the cannon wing).  So the weight and the horsepower change, but the wing / flap stays the same.  

Type / Weight / HP / turning circle no flaps / flaps  ( % change)

Spit I - 5844 lbs.  1030 hp.  471' / 371'

Spit 5 - 6785 lbs.  1440 hp.  503' / 386'  (~6% / ~4%)

Spit 8 - 7875 lbs.  (??? hp).  632' / 433' (from Spit 5, same for the rest)

Spit 9 - 7400 lbs.  (??? hp).  568' / 448' (~13% / ~16%)

Spit 14 - 8500 lbs.  (2050 hp).  629' / 509'

Spit 16 - 8500 lbs.  (??? hp).  567' / 450'

So the Spit 5 is 900 lbs heavier than the Spit 1 (~16%) and shows roughly a 6% / 4% increase in turning circle.

The Spit 9 is roughly 600 lbs heavier than the Spit 5 (~9%), and shows roughly a  13% / 16% increase in turning circle.

The Spit 8 is 1100 lbs heavier than the Spit 5 (~16%), and shows roughly a 25% / 12% increase in turning circle.

The Spit 14 is roughly 1700 lbs heavier than the Spit 5 (25%), and shows roughly a 25% / 31% increase in turning circle.

The Spit 16 is also roughly 1700 lbs heavier than the Spit 5 (25%), and shows roughly a 13% / 16% increase in turning circle.





So there are a couple questions I have.  The Spit 14 actually has more wing area than the Spit 16.  I don't know what kind of horsepower difference there is between the 14 and the 16, but the Spit 14 takes a turning hit twice as bad as the Spit 16.  

Another thing I noticed is that the difference in circle size is fairly consistent across the family, except for the Spit 9.  

Using (Tf - Tnf) / Tf , where Tf is flaps out, and Tnf is flaps up.

Spit 1 - 27%
Spit 5 - 30%
Spit 9 - 46%
Spit 8 - 27%
Spit 14 - 24%
Spit 16 - 26%

I don't remember there being a massive difference in horsepower between the Spit 14, Spit 8, and Spit 16.  But the Spit 8 and Spit 16 have comparable turn performance to the Spit 9 (the Spit 16 has nearly identical performance in spite of losing 2 feet off each wing and gaining a half ton of weight), and the Spit 14 isn't even close.  If someone could explain to me why it is like this, I'd appreciate it, more for my own personal edification than anything.

[Karnak]

The Spit XVI weight listed is wrong.  I know it is what is listed on the AH site, but the Mk XVI's weight should be very close to the Mk IX's weight.

[Bronk]

Just tossing this out there.
Possibly the MK IX is the best balance of wt/hp/wing area, for the spit fire airframe. That's why it gains the most.

More of a question than a statement btw.

[Karnak]

Spit VIII is the best balance I think, and many RL Spit pilots agreed.  For example, Supermarine's chief test pilot, Jeffrey Quill, thought the VIII was the best of the Spits.

[Stoney74]

My question would be why there seems to be no turn penalty for the Spit 16's clipped wings.  Seems like they would create more induced drag, higher wing loading while boosting the roll rate.

Maybe the higher amount of torque on the 14 may make it tougher to control in a sustained turn when compared to the Spit 9.  Perhaps that contributed to the difference?

14 had a longer fuselage and a bigger vertical stabilizer too right?

[Karnak]

Nose is longer and vertical stabilizer is bigger.  Fuselage is a bit stronger, but the same length.

The clipped wings should have an effect on the XVI.  Everything I've read says it was a noticable reduction in turning capability.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Karnak
Nose is longer and vertical stabilizer is bigger.  Fuselage is a bit stronger, but the same length.

The clipped wings should have an effect on the XVI.  Everything I've read says it was a noticable reduction in turning capability.

Depends on the alt.  There wasn't much difference at the lower alts that AH is flown at.  Take an 8 vs a 16 and get in a turn fight.  The 8 will win it 9 out of 10 times.  The extra wing will make the difference.  Before some of the great Spit sticks start howling, I'm talking about pilots of equal skill.

Folks seem to forget the XVI is nothing more then an LFIX with the American Merlin 266 instead of the Rolls Merlin 66.  Same bird otherwise.

They also forget that the XIV was a beast and not a turn fighter like the others.  They seriously considered giving it another name as it really wasn't a Spitfire in many ways.  It was much more of a B n Z bird then it was a turn fighter.

I still remember having a guy in a 14 bounce me in a 5.  I'm sure he thought 14 is bigger then 5 so I should be able to clobber this guy.  But instead of using the power and the climb, he thought he could out turn the 5.  It was no contest as he didn't use the  best atributes of the XIV.  

A guy in a 14 using it's strengths can control a fight vs a 9 as he's got the wheels to come and go as he pleases, unless he decides to turn fight.  Once it gets slow the IX should eat him up.

[SgtPappy]

The max horsepower for the Spit8 (Merlin 66) /9 (Merlin 61) /16 (merlin 266) respectively are 1720 hp /1565 hp / 1710 hp.

What I don't get are all the weights.

I've looked up many figures on Spitfire Performance but I couldn't successfully find the right numbers for the Spit XVI and the IX and VIII numbers whack.

After playing Aces High II for quite a while, I've felt that the Spitfire VIII (1943, Merlin 66, Griffon tail, b-type arm; c-type wing) is a much heavier plane than the Spitfire IX (1942, Merlin 61, Merlin tail, b-type arm; c-type wing), and that the Spitfire XVI (1944, Merlin 266, Griffon tail, e-type arm; clipped e-type wing) is too light. I know that the Spitfire VIII has hydraulic fluid for its retractable tailwheel, extra wing fuel tanks (don't know if they self-seal) and wing strengthening but when the IX and VIII are at tare weight, there's only a 182 lb. difference. Exactly how heavy is hydraulic fluid ?

The weights are displayed as such:
Spitfire VIII: full ammo/100% fuel (124 Imp Gal) - 7807 lbs.
full ammo/25% fuel (31 Imp Gal) - 7137 lbs.
light (no ammo/fuel/bombs) - 6679 lbs.

Spitfire IX: full ammo/100% fuel (85 Imp Gal) - 7303 lbs. - should be 7445 lbs.
full ammo/25% fuel (21.25 Imp Gal) - 6843 lbs. - should be 6986 lbs.
light - 6455 lbs. - should be 6590 lbs.

Spitfire XVI: full ammo/100% fuel (85 Imp Gal) - 7241 lbs.
full ammo/25% fuel (21.25 Imp Gal) - 6781 lbs.
light - 6329 lbs.

Are these figures close to accurate?

[Guppy35]

Spit IX and XVI weights would be the same as they are the same airframe.  All that's different is the engine in the Spit  IX is Rolls Royce Merlin 66.  XVI is Packard Merlin 266

Empty weight is 5610 lbs, normal weight is 7500 lbs.

Spitfire VIII normal weight was 7767 lbs.

Those are from Bruce Robertson's book on the Spitfire

Spitfire the History lists the VIII normal weight as 7807 lbs

Spit the hist lists the XVI normal weight as 7549  Spit IXe as 7500.

Again they're the same bird, just different engines.  Put a 266 in an IX and it effectively becomes an XVI.

So you've got the VIII a couple hundred pounds heavier then the IX or XVI.  Extra fuel tanks and retractable tail wheel adding to the weight I imagine.

[Karnak]

Dan's numbers are what I'd expect.  I can't see why the XVI would be lighter than the IX when it has two .50s replacing the four .303s as well as more hardpoints.  The wing tips don't weigh that much.

[Guppy35]

Thought these numbers were interesting from tonite of the AH 2 stage Merlin birds and the Griffon XIV vs each other.

Interesting to me that the Spit IX, with the higher alt Merlin 61 seems to be the bird that holds it's own with the others best.  Wonder if it's better sticks in the IX?

Guessing the XIV numbers more reflect guys trying to turn fight the lighter Spits then it it's actual performance being poor.

Spitfire Mk VIII has 368 Kills of Spitfire Mk IX
Spitfire Mk VIII has 44 Kills of Spitfire Mk XIV
Spitfire Mk VIII has 933 Kills of Spitfire Mk XVI

Spitfire Mk IX has 414 Kills of Spitfire Mk VIII
Spitfire Mk IX has 34 Kills of Spitfire Mk XIV
Spitfire Mk IX has 629 Kills of Spitfire Mk XVI

Spitfire Mk XIV has 26 Kills of Spitfire Mk IX
Spitfire Mk XIV has 35 Kills of Spitfire Mk VIII
Spitfire Mk XIV has 72 Kills of Spitfire Mk XVI

Spitfire Mk XVI has 1064 Kills of Spitfire Mk VIII
Spitfire Mk XVI has 664 Kills of Spitfire Mk IX
Spitfire Mk XVI has 75 Kills of Spitfire Mk XIV

[Urchin]

I'd argue thats the "LW factor"...  better pilots in the Spit 9.  

I know I've fought a Spit 16 in a Spit 9 where the guy didn't completely suck - and he could do everything I could do, plus zoom away from me in the vertical if he felt like he was losing position in a rolling scissors.