Pyro, HiTech, could we have the Spit IX modeled as a single varient?

[Karnak]

Egads.  I posted this thread almost two years ago.

I would still like to see a consistant Spit IX, but I am doubtful that the LF.IX is the way to go.  The F.IX already gets more kills than anything else (Tour 41 stats thanks to Mini D), so the LF.IX very well might be overkill.

I also agree with Batz about the geed for an MW50 equipped Bf109G-6, or simply a Bf109G-14. An Fw190A-2 would also be a good addition.

I disagree that we need all the models he listed just as I disagree that we need similar lists of Spitfires.

[ramzey]

Originally posted by Batz
lol I wasnt whining I was agreeing with you
 

i know, but just cant resist:D

[Batz]

disagree that we need all the models he listed just as I disagree that we need similar lists of Spitfires.

Well forgive me, I may be a bit biased .......

[GScholz]

Originally posted by ramzey
now without reason opinion "spit outperform 109" was given

I don't know exactly what you meant by this statement, but I can tell you that no Spit ever outperformed it’s contemporary 109, except in turning. The 109’s were always faster and had markedly better climb rates.

Edit: For instance the 109F4 and the Spitfire V are contemporaries. The 109F4 is vastly superior to the Spit V. The 109G2 is the contemporary of an early Spit IX, and again the 109 is the superior plane. If a late model Spit IX is modelled we’d need a 109G5 with MW50 boost, or a later version G6 to compensate for the historical difference, albeit the Spit LF.IX was slightly superior to the G6 (G6 being more of a bomber interceptor with heavier weapons and armor). Having historically contemporary models is very important for historical events.

[Karnak]

Gscholz,

Umm, you will find that the Spitfire from the Mk IX on was decidedly superior to its Bf109 contemporaries if you do any sort of balanced review.  For example your comparison of the Spitfire LF.Mk IX with a MW50 equipped Bf109 is simply wrong.  The Spitfire LF.Mk IX is a full contemporary of the Bf109G-6 without MW50.  The LF.Mk IX entered service in March, 1943.  I have yet to find any information on a MW50 equipped Bf109 in service in 1943.  The Spitfire Mk XIV is the contemporary of the MW50 equipped Bf109s.

You also completely ignore the fact that the Spitfire was much lighter on the controls at speed, even the ailerons and that the Spitfire's cockpit allowed 60lbs of force to be applied to the stick whereas the Bf109's cockpit only allowed 40lbs due to the cramped conditions.

From the introduction of the Mk IX on it was the Fw190 that was the main Spitfire killer, going two to one against the Spitfire in WWII.

[GScholz]

Karnak, I don’t want to knock the Spit, I’m kinda a closet Spit lover myself.

The G6, as I amended in my edit, was outperformed slightly by the LF.IX (about 7mph in speed, however the G6 was slightly superior between 16k and 20k). The 109G series actually started production in 1942, and the G5 had MW50 boost and was a more pure fighter than the G6 and didn’t have the G6’s fanzy armament options and heavy armor. However in 1943 Germany needed bomber interceptors so the G6 was produced in far greater numbers than the G5. Not many spits over Germany remember.

The Spit XIV is a 1944 model that match up to the G10 pretty well, not that they saw much combat with each other in WWII, the Spit XIV did however shoot down a lot of doodlebugs. Only 957 Spit XIV were made.

One on one any Spit is a deadly opponent, however in multi plane fights acceleration, climb rate and top speed are the important factors. All our historical setups in AH show this. In the 1942 N. Africa TOD the 109F4 were like Tempests compared to the slower Spit V’s, and when a squad of Spit V’s can do nothing but turn to avoid attacks the squad of 109F4’s will dictate the fight.

I primarily fly the 109F4 in the MA, and I have no problem fighting Spit IX’s with it. The 109F4 isn’t more manoeuvrable, it isn’t much faster (10mph or so at low alts, superiority goes to the Spit at high alts), however the 109F4 out climbs the Spit IX, and that’s the killer in an E fight.

I would prolly fly the 109G2 if not for the Finnish markings that make it so easily identified. The 109G2 is almost as powerful as the G10 in pure horsepower climbing (again lacking the heavy armaments and armour of a bomber interceptor). And in a co-alt E fight climbing power is the killer. However if the Spit (any Spit) has alt on me I’m having a bad day (no wonder the 109 pilots always climbed to their service ceiling before engaging )

I’ll give you this Karnak, the Spit IX is what I consider one of the most dangerous opponents in the MA in the hands of a good pilot. Not because it has superior performance, but because it hides energy so well, and it has those hizookas. Make one miscalculation and the Spit gets an opportunity to kill you.

To summarize:

109E4 vs. Spit I. 109 is superior (historically, dunno about AH though. I know there are issues with the roll rates of these two planes in AH).
109F4 vs. Spit V. 109 is superior.
109G2 vs. Spit IX. 109 is superior.
109G5 vs. Spit LF.IX. 109 is superior (I think).
109G6 vs. Spit LF.IX. Spit is superior.
109G10 vs. Spit XIV. I would say parity judged from the late war special events setups.

[frank3]

conclusion is: we have to many spits, dont whine about getting better/more...

now jug  we need more of them in different paint schemes

[funkedup]

We have three

THREE!!!!

P-47D sub variants.

And we can't get the most common Spit IX variant?????????????????????

[F4UDOA]

I have much of the data from the Spit data test site (one of the best on the web).

What would be the prefferred Spit IX varient of most AHer's?

HF, LF clipped wing? Maybe someone could post the data for one of these varients so we can see the performance differance.

Frankly I would like to see a better version of the Seafire myself but that is a subject for another thread.

[ramzey]

this one?
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html

but im allways look for new data:)

[Nashwan]

109E4 vs. Spit I. 109 is superior (historically, dunno about AH though.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. All the performance figures you see for the Spit I were done at 6.5lbs boost. By the BoB, the Spit I was authorised to use 12lbs boost.

109G5 vs. Spit LF.IX. 109 is superior

I'd be very suprised if it was.  Climb rate for the Spit LF IX was a max of  4700ft/min.

However, whilst the Luftwaffe used MW50 to allow higher boost pressures and performance, the RAF used 100/150 octane fuel.

On 100/150 fuel, the Spit LF IX gained up to 900 ft/min more climb, and around 30 mph top speed at low level. That gives the Spit LF IX in excess of 5,500 ft/min climb rate at low altitude, and around 360 mph at sea level.

I don't think MW50 was actually used on the G5, although I may be wrong.

109G10 vs. Spit XIV. I would say parity judged from the late war special events setups.

The AH G10 seems to be modelled like a K$ with C3 fuel and MW50. That's about the best configuration for the 109.

The AH Spit is modelled with 100 octane fuel, 18lbs boost. Spit XIVs also used 100/150 octane fuel, and 21 or 25 lbs boost, for a gain of around 200 - 500 hp.

In the real world, the 109G10/K4 were usually flown with B4 fuel and MW50, which gave around 200hp less than the performance figures AH models require. Because of the fuel shortage in Germany, the 190A units recieved the available C3, which they required, and the 109 units used B4, which they could get by on.

[Furball]

Spitfire IA K.9791 with Rotol constant speed propeller
Me 109E-3 Werk-Nr 1304

Comparitive trials between the Me 109E-3 and "Rotol" Spitfire IA

1. The trial commenced with the two aircraft taking off together, with the Spitfire slightly behind and using +6 1/4 lb boost and 3,000 rpm.

2. When fully airborne, the pilot of the Spitfire reduced his revolutions to 2,650 rpm and was then able to overtake and outclimb the Me 109. At 4,000 ft, the Spitfire pilot was 1,000 feet above the Me 109, from which position he was able to get on its tail, and remain there within effective range despite all efforts of the pilot of the Me 109 to shake him off.

3. The Spitfire then allowed the Me 109 to get on to his tail and attempted to shake him off this he found quite easy owing to the superior manoeuvrability of his aircraft, particularly in the looping plane and at low speeds between 100 and 140 mph. By executing a steep turn just above stalling speed, he ultimately got back into a position on the tail of the Me 109.

4. Another effective form of evasion with the Spitfire was found to be a steep, climbing spiral at 120 mph, using +6 1/4 boost and 2,650 rpm; in this manoeuvre, the Spitfire gained rapidly on the ME 109, eventually allowing the pilot to execute a half roll, on to the tail of his opponent.

5. Comparitive speed trials were then carried out, and the Spitfire proved to be considerably the faster of the two, both in acceleration and straight and level flight, without having to make use of the emergency +12 boost. During diving trials, the Spitfire pilot found that, by engageing fully coarse pitch and using -2lbs boost, his aircraft was superior to the Me 109.

[frank3]

Originally posted by funkedup
We have three

THREE!!!!

P-47D sub variants.

And we can't get the most common Spit IX variant?????????????????????

Just give that spit an other paint job, it'll fly fine I guarantee you  

[MiloMorai]

Nashwan , your performance numbers seem a bit overly optimistic.

This link is for a F MkIX

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bf274.html

[funkedup]

I think Nashwan was talking about the LF running 150 grade fuel which was pretty commonly available in the last year of the war, probably more common than things like MW 50 or GM1.  Nothing optimistic about his figures.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/adgbs29867g.gif
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/adgbs29867g.gif