New non-perk Spitfire possibilities.

[Nashwan]

 

I'll remember that next time one of you guys start to complain about the Chog  After all its just a 1943 fighter with a 1945 armament change, but that doesn't mean it isn't a 1943 fighter.

The US navy, amongst others, rated the Hispano at 3 times the effictiveness of the 0.5
Based on that assumption, the CHOG has twice the firepower of the D hog.
If you take 4 303s as equal to 1 0.5, the the E Spit has 15% more firepower than the B Spit.  Hardly the same thing.

[Karnak]

Vermillion,

Did you not notice this little bit:

"Flight performance, or massive firepower changes are what matter."

I think that covers the F4U-1C nicely.

I agree, fix the Spitfire F.MkIX.  Make it perform as close to specs as possible and remove the .50 gun option and the option for carrying rockets.

Then add a Spitfire LF.MkIXc with the option of 2 20mm cannon and 2 .50 machine guns or 2 20mm cannon and 4 .303 machine guns.

The Spitfire IX has jumped up in popularity recently because, I believe, EA killed AW, the AW Spitfire IX was king and many former AW subscribers have come to AH where they continued, not unnaturally, to fly the Spitfire IX.  As they become more familiar with AH many of them will probably migrate to aircraft such as the F4U-1C, N1K2, La7, Bf109G-10 and Fw190D-9.

------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

Bring the Spitfire F.MkXIVc to Aces High!!!

Sisu
-Karnak

[Karnak]

Vermillion,

For a label, try:

RAFanatics

It'll carry the same meaning and won't make us out to be a sub-set of the Luftwaffles like calling us "RAFwaffles" does.

------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

Bring the Spitfire F.MkXIVc to Aces High!!!

Sisu
-Karnak

[funked]

Negative Verm.  

The HF has far superior climb performance to the AH F.  Furthermore the AH F is consistent with flight data for the real thing (see BF274 report on link below).  

The AH F uses +18 boost for WEP while BF274 was tested at only +15.  If you fly the AH plane with +15 boost you actually find that it is underperforming in climb compared with the real thing.    

Read 'em and weep:  http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-19-2001).]

[funked]

Here's how the AH plane performs.  Military power = +15 boost.

     

     

Speed is OK but we should be seeing about 500 fpm more at all heights.

And this is just for an F.  For an LF or HF the peaks would be 700-800 fpm higher.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-19-2001).]

[funked]

 

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-19-2001).]

[Zigrat]

funkedup i just figured it out with math, and i got that a loaded spitfire F .IX should have a max climb rate of 3920 FPM at 161 MPH TAS at sea level. Definitely seems like the F.IX climbs a bit too slow.

From the data Ive seen tho the spitfire F.IX should get 326 MPH at sea level not 320 as yours shows, this looks like its incorrect..
(anyone test max sea level speed of spit 9 at sea level?) (with wep)


[This message has been edited by Zigrat (edited 04-19-2001).]

[Zigrat]

i also saw claims that the LF.IX could climbs at 4700 FPM. I find this highly unlikely given that my source says it only produced 1580 HP at sea level. For that kind of climb rate its efficiency would be very near 100%.

[funked]

Power figures are listed below.  4700 fpm from 1750 hp at 7485 lb is not out of line with other WW2 planes for which we have similar data.

Merlin 66:

Normal Power, 100/130 Grade Fuel
MS:  1410 hp @ 2850 rpm, +12 psi, 8500 ft
FS:  1310 hp @ 2850 rpm, +12 psi, 18000 ft

Combat Power, 100/130 Grade Fuel
MS:  1750 hp @ 3000 rpm, +18 psi, 5250 ft
FS:  1625 hp @ 3000 rpm, +18 psi, 12500 ft

Combat Power, 100/150 Grade Fuel
MS:  2000 hp @ 3000 rpm, +25 psi, 5250 ft
FS:  1860 hp @ 3000 rpm, +25 psi, 11000 ft

[funked]

Not sure what numbers you are talking about (320 vs 326).  The charts I posted are Pyro's, and reflect the in-game performance.

The other link I provided is MW's stuff which is from documents he got from the UK Public Records Office.  There is definitely some variation in those figures, which is normal for WW2 flight test data.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-19-2001).]

[Zigrat]

4400 is more in line

[Zigrat]

well if the spitfire F.ix makes only 220 with wep its cd,o is 2.14

but if you go by the LF.ix data its CD,0 is 2.04

im figuring they should have nearly identicle CD,O right?

[Zigrat]

ok funky what im saying is that the spitfire F.IX likely performs a bit too poorly as it currently is in aces high, but that the LF.IX would not perform quite as well as you claim  

the F. IX should make 326 MPH, the LF. IX should make 336 MPH (on the deck)

[funked]

Are you actually looking at the drag polar or just looking at the ratio of excess power to power available?  If you do the latter you get an efficiency of about 0.6 which is in the middle of the pack for the planes in AH.

[funked]

 

LF.IX would not perform quite as well as you claim

Well it did that performance in real life, so your calculations are not performing quite as well as you claim.    

I think what we are seeing is normal variation in flight test data.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-19-2001).]