Some of you have claimed that the Spitfire MkIX is overmodeled. How so?

[Karnak]

Originally posted by garrido:
but their FM must be reviewed, accelerates too much, it does not lose E hardly, and the little that loses recovers it immediately, is effective to any height and its Stall, unlike other airplanes, is always the same one is to the height, not if this is asi really.

Originally posted by niklas:
i think the spit turns imo too good.
It had a very good low speed handling, and coud fly with a half wing stalled straight on- but it reached the stall very early. The wings were very thin.

This is my only complain about the spit

Can either of you, or anybody else for that matter, provide evidence of this?

When you make these kinds of claims it is good to back them up with some data.

[Buzzbait]

S! Karnak

Ah come on Karnak...

You and I know this is just a troll so you can lay out the evidence that the Spit IX isn`t overmodelled...  IT`S UNDERMODELLED!

[Karnak]

Buzzbait,

Actually, I don't think that it is really undermodeld for a Merlin 61 Spitfire MkIX.  It hits the numbers about as well as any aircraft in AH does.

It shouldn't have certain loadout options, but other than that I think it is a pretty good Spitfire F.MkIX model.

I am trying to head off the coming attacks on the Spitfire once the N1K2-J has got its revised FM.  I saw those two comments and thought "Oh boy, here are the first gusts of the storm to come."

I just want everybody's cards all out on the table face up.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]

[SOB]

Karnak, you silly bastard!  You expect facts and reason to stem the tide???  Any ride that is better suited for TnB than BnZ is up for wild speculation and prime to be offered up to the mob to be burned at the stake!  


SOB

[Vermillion]

Karnak, I haven't looked at it in a long while. And this is all from memory, so dont' hold me too it and flame me,  But....

It use to be too fast at altitude, and its critical altitude was too high, for the LF model that Pyro said it was suppose to be.

Speed (at alt) and critical altitudes were actually closer (but not up too) to the specs of the HF, while the climb rates were definitely LF.

Oh and the roll rate is too high, especially at medium to high speeds (big historical Spit weakness).

There were plenty of threads about it, back in the days of yore  

[funkedup]

Pyro said it's an F Mk. IX.

Roll rate is probably too high for really high speeds.  The Spit IX could safely dive to really high speeds (over 475 mph IAS), but many pilots have said it had really poor aileron control once you got near 400 mph IAS, due to high lateral stick forces.  In AH it's not great at these speeds but it's not poor either.

The boost gauge reads too high.  But climb rate is right on for the earliest Spit IX, the F with Merlin 61.  Speed used to be too high (Or did the ASI just read too high, never was clear on that?) but recent test flights are showing it right on the historical numbers.  MW of the 4th Fighter Group has the official test reports if anybody needs proof.  It's got nothing like the climb performance of an LF or HF.  I can only hope.  

And of course, it has an incorrect drop tank and the .50 cal gun loadout shouldn't be allowed.

There are frequent complaints about "E-retention".  Wells took a good look at this, and based on the design of the wing and other parameters of the aircraft, it performs as it should in that respect.

That leaves only the Hispano-whine, enough hot air to fly a balloon to Mars.  

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[Zigrat]

funkedup summed it nicely

another problem is that in aces high all planes have same warning of approaching stall

i think i read that the spitfire's stall did not announce itself strongly until it occured because of the lift distribution

i wouldnt say it is porked much more than many other planes are slightly porked tho

[Kweassa]

Yeah, who'd ever accuse the Spit9 of being over-modelled, for god's sake??  

 ..

 Fix on the load-out options, fix on the roll rate and that's good enough. I mean, it's not like the Spit can do a 180 turn and follow up a zooming LA-7..(like one particular 'weird' plane fromt time to time might   <- half hearted joke here)

[niklas]

Iīm referring to a NACA report of a SpitVA (flying characteristics, stall characteristics). Though it uses a wing with 8*.303, the basic wing design didnīt change very much afaik(dimension, airfoil, ....) from SpitV to SpitIX. They all had the NACA 2213 / NACA 2209.4 airfoil combination with a relativly low thickness in the wingroots (12% ??) compared to other fighters of that time (15-16%).

from the reports:

"The Spitfrie airplane had the unusual quality that allowed it to be flown in a partly stalled condition in accelerated flight without becoming laterally unstable"

"The excellent stall warining possessed by the Spitfire was obtained at the expense of a high maximum lift coefficient. The maximum lift coefficient in accelerated flight was 1.21, while the average lift coefficient throughout a stalled turn was usually about 1.10"

"The maximum lift coefficient reached in turns from level flight with flaps up was 1.22. The airplane could be flown beyond the stall at even lower lift coefficients. This value of maximum lift coefficient is closer to that reached from stalls in straight flight with power off than the value reached with power on becuase the slipstream effects in high speed turns are relatively small. The low value of the maximum lift coefficient offsets, to some extent, the benefit gained by the Spitfire from its low wing loading in making turns of small radius. ... . The stalling characteristics of the Spitfire are therefore its redeeming feature. It would be desirable, however, to obtain these characteristics without sacrificing a high value of the maximum lift coefficient"

next week maybe as a PDF

niklas

[butch2k]

If you want some numbers check this page : http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html

[funkedup]

Niklas, cool stuff.    

 

"The Spitfire airplane had the unusual quality that allowed it to be flown in a partly stalled condition in accelerated flight without becoming laterally unstable"

Sounds like Easymode.    

A while ago I did a bunch of Spit CL calculations using 1-g and 3-g stall speeds from different sources.  It's in a spreadsheet which I will post on the web.
The stall speeds in the Pilot's Notes suggest CL near 1.6.  But there is some variation between the various marques and that doesn't account for airspeed indicator error, which we know was significant on some Spitfires.

[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[Zigrat]

it can be confusing too funked if they used planform area or wing area minus the area from the wing enclosed in the fuselage...

for a spitfire with its wing area only considered its around 1.6, but if you consider the enclosed area it may well be lower around 1.2


when we see wing areas quoted on the internet or in books are they citing just wing area or wing planform area?

[rogwar]

LOL!!!

I remember reading reports 6 months ago where people were complaining about the Spit being undermodeled :0

[gripen]

Generally I tend to wonder why people here use lift coefficient values for turning performance comparisons because the CLmax for given g load varies a lot between planes.

IMHO the only relevant way to compare turning performance is the three dimensional flight envelope (speed, g load and height).

gripen