Spit 14 turning circle

[Bronk]

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

Just to add a point the MK IX is the high alt version.

[Urchin]

But why does the Spit 8 seem to have flaps that are so much more effective than the other Spits?

EDIT:  

Just noticed that I made a really dumb mistake.  The Spit 8 has a turning circle of 632 / 433 , giving it a 46% decrease in turning circle size with flaps out.  

The Spit 9 is 568 / 448 , nearly identical to the Spit 16 at 567 / 450.  

I'm going to go ahead and change the rest of my posts around to fix it.

[RTHolmes]

Originally posted by Urchin
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)

i thought they were:
  I - A wing
  V, VIII, IX - B wing
  XIV, XVI - C wing

[Urchin]

AFAIK the wings were all identical in regards to size and shape.  The difference was the armament that could be mounted in them.

If I am wrong on that then maybe that explains the differences.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by RTHolmes
i thought they were:
  I - A wing
  V, VIII, IX - B wing
  XIV, XVI - C wing

I - A wing
V - B wing
VIII, IX - C wing
XIV, XVI - E wing

And that refers to guns only.  Hardpoints and ailerons are separate.

VIII, IX and XIV have the same hard points.  XVI has additional points.

IX and XVI have full length ailerons.  VIII and XIV have reduced length ailerons.

[RTHolmes]

doh I meant:

I - A wing
V, VIII, IX - B wing
XIV, XVI - E  wing

... so if we got the C-wing on the VIII and IX where is the 4xHizooka option?

[Karnak]

B wing was exclusively on the Mk V.  It had the Hispanos Mk Is with 60 rounds per gun.

We don't have the four Hispanos because it was never used on the Mk IX and only two Mk VIIIs that I know of.

[SgtPappy]

All wings are near identical in wing area... about 242 sq. ft.
The C-wing was mounted on the IX's and VIII's in our game and they have those little cannon blanks just outboard of their 20 mm.

The B-wing is only on Spitfire V's in the game and that wing is a little lighter as it's got less reinforcement. The Vc's in WWII were fun because they did carry 4x20 mm before, but usually only from carrier-to-Malta runs. They had no ammo in those ops.

I imagined the e-wing to be heavier than the c-wing but I guess the removal of 2x0.303" guns made the XVI lighter.

Also, Guppy states some good figures. You can see that the weight differences between the Mk.IX and Mk.VIII Spitfire are different than what we have in the game.

According to the performance page , the Spitfire VIII fully loaded weight (100% fuel, ammo) is 7,800 lbs. Not much different from the one in the game. The spitfire IX is 7445 lbs. Knowing it has 85 Imp Gallons of fuel, we can multiply that by 7.2 lbs/IG and find the weight of the fuel. The 20 mm ammo is 150 lbs/240 rounds and the 303 ammo is 93 lbs/1400 rounds. Do the calculations and youve got a heavier IX than the one in game... some 120 lbs heavier in all configurations. Thus, the Mk.VIII is not supposed to have that much of a weight disadvantage vs. the IX. Drain the extra fuel the VIII has and bingo, you've got almost the same plane but the VIII being superior overall.

Urchin's also got a good question, let's pay attention to him. I also noticed that the VIII sometimes seems to turn better with its flaps down but both the Mk.VIII and IX had exactly the same wing except for the VIII's 8.5" clipped ailerons, which didn't affect the flap length at all.

[Guppy35]

Remember the Spit I had fabric ailerons too so it didn't roll as well.  When they switched to metal it was a fairly dramatic improvement.

[Urchin]

I'm not sure if I'm worth listening to, but thanks .

I actually still have questions that I'm waiting for some aero guys to chime in on.  I pinged a couple guys at work about it, one said that it could be a lot more complex then I'm making it, but the other one did agree that it seemed a little odd how well the Spit 8's flaps work compared to the others.  

Anyway, this started off being about the Spit 14, and my first question is still why does it take such a hit in turn performance relative to the other Spits (8/9/16 in particular)?  

Second question has changed a bit.  How can the Spit 16 have a turning circle the same as the Spit 9 when it weighs the same, has roughly the same horsepower, but has less wing area?  Wouldn't that make its wingloading higher, and adversely affect turning performance?  

Third question is about the Spit 8's flaps.  Why are the flaps on that bird so much better than the flaps on all the other Spits?  As far as I know, the wing and flap design didn't change from the Spit 5 all the way up through every model we have in the game.  I understand that the gun and hardpoint options may have changed a bit, but the wing as an airfoil didn't (I don't think).

[Karnak]

Airfoil and flaps remained constant so far as I know.

I have also never read so much as a hint of a Spit ever using flaps in combat.

I sure don't use them in AH when flying the Spit.

[SgtPappy]

The Spitfire XIV gained literally, a ton of weight over the 9/8/16. It weighed a whopping 8488 lbs. with full ammo, fuel (112 Imperial Gallons), oil and hydraulic fluid. It has wing tanks like the VIII, but a larger tail fin, wing strengthening, the mighty Griffon 65, a 5 blade prop, larger radiators etc.

It has a lot of thrust, yes, but not enough to counter its vastly increased wingloading.

The Mk.XVI has lost some 11 sq. ft. in wing area but its extra thrust over our IX and lightness over the IX makes it seem as if it turns tighter. I may have to say that the turning performance listed on Gonzo's page is incorrect for the IX.

But let's take a looksee at the XVI.
231 sq. ft., 6781 lbs (25% fuel, full ammo)  = wingload of 29.35 lbs/sq.ft

the Mk.IX is 242 sq.ft., 6843 lbs (same config as XVI) = wingload of 28.28 lbs/sq.ft.

Clearly the Mk.IX has a small advantage due to a lower wing loading but the XVI accelerates better. In reality, you may have just been experiencing a XVI that's turning faster rather than tighter. Ever try fighting an Me163 in a Tempest? Temp turns much tighter, but the 163's X-treme speed gives it a faster turn rate. The XVI isn't quite that fast compared to the IX, but you get the idea. Additionally the XVI has better E-retention. Fighting in the vertical only helps it kill the IX.

Karnak's got a good point. Those flaps cause way too much drag in a horizontal turn fight. The only time I use them is when I need to flip over at the top of a loop. In the XIV, I don't even use them unless I'm landing.

[Guppy35]

Never met a real Spit driver who used flaps in combat and I've talked to many over the years.

Flaps remained the same from the Spit I through the 19.

Get in a sustained slow turning fight with a 16 in a IX or a VIII and eventually the wing area will make a difference.  There was not much difference in turning circle at medium and low alts.  It was much more noticable at higher alts.

[Karnak]

XIV gained about half a ton, ~1,000lbs.

Also, don't think about thrust too much in WWII fighters.  The F4F-3 has about 1,100lbs of thrust.  The overengined Mk XIV has about 1,800lbs of thrust.  That is what I remember Widewing saying.  As a comparison, the F-15 has 75,000+lbs of thrust.  No WWII fighter's thrust is going to make all that much difference in pulling a significantly tigher circle through sheer power.

[BaldEagl]

Originally posted by Urchin
Anyway, this started off being about the Spit 14, and my first question is still why does it take such a hit in turn performance relative to the other Spits (8/9/16 in particular)?  

Could it be that during the tests that produced these stats the pilot turned all of the Spit models in the same direction, but the counter-rotating engine/prop in the XIV actually hurt it's performance?  If so, and the turns were reversed in another test we may find the XIV out-turning the rest.  

Another factor may be that the higher torque engine in the XIV would add an increased gyroscopic effect that would work to keep the nose pointed in it's current direction.  Number and pitch of prop blades may also cause a similar effect.

Anyway, there are a lot of complex factors at work in individual aircraft performance beyond HP, weight and wing-loading.  My question is, is the performance of the models in AHII representative of the actual performance of these models in real life?  If so, I'm good