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

[funkedup]

Originally posted by straffo
Just for Funked french version of this :

"C'est vouloir le beurre ,l'argent du beurre et la crémiére."

aussi la vache

[Batz]

it wasnt the spitfire that gave the emils the most trouble in BoB. Even though the Hurricane was a worse "performing" plane it still proved its value.

Has the lw went with the he100 over the 109 things might have been different. Either way the lw was operating over enemy territory against a determined defense.

Look at Dieppi where the rolls were reversed the lw (jg2 and 26) gave back far more then they took.

Simply deciding that XX plane is better and XXX sucks based on a glance without seeing the overall picture is misleading. The brewster is enough to show this.

You also need to consider the mission, tactics and strategy. ZLw pilots in BoB referrred to themselves as "chained dogs".

[straffo]

Originally posted by funkedup
aussi la vache

J'irais pas jusque là

[Squire]

Its no secret that the 109E had a better climb rate than the Spitfire I over certain alts. Its also common knowledge that the Spitfire could out turn a 109E, and that a 109E could do a neg-g dive to try and escape if the pilot had the proper position. As for speed, they were very close at most alts. Both ac could give the other real problems depending on who the pilot was.

As for tests on the 109 vs the Spit,  there were many, some with 109E-3s, some with 109E-4s, some vs Spitfire Is (with different fuels), some vs Spitfire IIs. Some were RAF tests, some were LW. There is a lot of it that contradicts. The reports were written for combat pilots and were generalisations in a lot of cases.

As for the LW fighting between 10-15k, there is no evidence that shows Spitfires had any trouble whatsoever fighting 109s at that alt? They flew at 10-15k because thats the alt their bombers needed for accurate drops in 1940, not because the Spitfire was at some big disadvantage.

In large air battles, performance edges tended to not count as much, as it was the unwary that were hit, wether in a 109 or a Spitfire. In the end, it was the pilot not the plane, that determined success in most cases.

[ramzey]

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit1.html

[GScholz]

Squire, you're missing my point. If comparing two aircraft that are fairly close in performance I’d rather fly the one with the better climbrate than the one with the better turnrate. Today I switched back to the 109G10 (usually fly the 109F4) seeing how many Jugs and Ponys are flying these days. I got killed 3 times today and got 11 kills. Approx. 50% of those kills were fighters, but all my deaths were to bombers (those blasted B26’s). If you fly a 109G10 right, you’re almost untouchable.

Pilot skill and numerical superiority will of course be a greater factor when performance is this close.


_________________

[Urchin]

Just to chime in here.. I think it is a shame that the British planeset doesn't have a good late-war unperked Spitfire.  I don't know how the Spitfire 8 stacked up against the Spit 14, but I'd like to see one of those or a Spit 9 LF, just because the LF were the most common varients by far of the Spit 9, and they were good planes.

[Squire]

I agree, I would prefer climberate as well.

Ughh, new squad there Gscholz? l like the crest.

[ramzey]

spit mkVIII its about 5-10% slower then spitXIV
but much better  or same climb

MkVIII is a monster:)

[Guppy]

Originally posted by Urchin
I don't know how the Spitfire 8 stacked up against the Spit 14, but I'd like to see one of those or a Spit 9 LF, just because the LF were the most common varients by far of the Spit 9, and they were good planes.

The AFDU conducted a tactical trial between a Spitfire VIII and an early prototype Spitfire XIV (converted from Spitfire VIII) in 1943:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14afdu.html

Summary:

"Of the two aircraft the Spitfire VIII is preferable at all heights up to about 25,000 feet except for its turning capabilites. It is much lighter on the elevators and easier for the average pilot to fly. Its performance and fuel consumption are better. The Spitfire XIV is superior above 25,000 and with its better turning characteristics it is more than a match for the Spitfire VIII. The difficulties of trimming will probably be reduced as pilots gain familiarity."

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Squire
Ughh, new squad there Gscholz? l like the crest.

Yup. Just started a week ago with two of my friends. The 331 Sq. flew Spits for the RAF back in WWII, now they fly F-16's from the RNoAF airbase here in my hometown.

Not trading my 109 for a Spit though.

_________________

[GScholz]

Guppy, I found this part very interesting. Not quite like the poor 190 in AH is it?

Dive
40. After the initial part of the dive, during which the FW 190 gains slightly, the Mk XIV has a slight advantage.

Turning Circle
41. Spitfire XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190, though in the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so quite pronounced.

Rate of Roll
42. The FW 190 is very much better.

Conclusion
43. In defense, the Spitfire XIV should use its remarkable maximum climb and turning circle against any enemy aircraft. In the attack it can afford to "mix it" but should beware of the quick roll and dive. If this manoeuvre is used by the FW.190 and the Spitfire XIV follows, it will probably not be able to close the range until the FW.190 has pulled out of its dive.


_________________

[Nashwan]

"Of the two aircraft the Spitfire VIII is preferable at all heights up to about 25,000 feet except for its turning capabilites. It is much lighter on the elevators and easier for the average pilot to fly. Its performance and fuel consumption are better. The Spitfire XIV is superior above 25,000 and with its better turning characteristics it is more than a match for the Spitfire VIII. The difficulties of trimming will probably be reduced as pilots gain familiarity."

The Spit XIV in that test was an early prototype and limited to 15 lbs boost, instead of the 18lbs of the production model. That means it had around 300hp less than the production Spit XIV.

Turning Circle
41. Spitfire XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190, though in the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so quite pronounced.

Read the part futher down, tests of the Spit with a 90 gallon drop tank fitted:

55. The Spitfire XIV now has a definitely wider turning circle than before, but is still within those of the FW.190 (BMW.801D) and Me.109G.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Karnak
GScholz,

I am a Spit fan, but I agree with you that the Bf109E was in most ways superior to the Spitfire Mk I.

I think the gap closes when looking at the Spitfire Mk Vb and the Bf109F-4, with the Bf109F-4 being slightly better, and is then reversed with the introduction of the Spitfire Mk IX after which the Spitfire maintains overall superiority to one degree or another.

Sorry, missed this post.

I agree to some extent. The 109F4 is quite superior to the Spit V. The 109F4 and the Spit IX are very close in performance, but the 109F4 is slightly faster, climbs a little better, and can outturn the Spit IX at all speeds (using flaps at low speeds, like Hans-Joachim Marseille did in North Africa). In AH I’d take a 109F4 over a Spit IX any day.

Spit LF.IX was superior to the G6, but later in the war the 109G10 achieved parity with the Spit XIV, and the 109K4 during the last months of the war was slightly superior to the Spit XIV and Spit XVIII.

So in my view the 109 had the advantage early in the war, the Spit got the advantage in mid-late war (most important historical period), but in late war the 109 again held the advantage … albeit it could do nothing facing such numerical odds.


_________________

[Karnak]

Originally posted by GScholz
I agree to some extent. The 109F4 is quite superior to the Spit V. The 109F4 and the Spit IX are very close in performance, but the 109F4 is slightly faster, climbs a little better, and can outturn the Spit IX at all speeds (using flaps at low speeds, like Hans-Joachim Marseille did in North Africa). In AH I’d take a 109F4 over a Spit IX any day.

Spit LF.IX was superior to the G6, but later in the war the 109G10 achieved parity with the Spit XIV, and the 109K4 during the last months of the war was slightly superior to the Spit XIV and Spit XVIII.

So in my view the 109 had the advantage early in the war, the Spit got the advantage in mid-late war (most important historical period), but in late war the 109 again held the advantage … albeit it could do nothing facing such numerical odds.

You're smoking something.  Tell me you're smoking something.

The Bf109F-4 as fast as a Spitfire F.Mk IX?  Brahahahaha.

That's a joke, right?

The Bf109F-4 climbs better than a Spitfire F.Mk IX?

Please, you're killing me.

The Bf109F-4 out turns the Spitfire F.Mk IX?

I'm not sure of this one, but because Hans-Joachim Marseille did it doesn't mean it can.  What were the circumstances?  What was the skill level of the Spitfire pilot?  What were the relative energy states?

I've out turned Spitfire Mk IXs in AH in the Bf109G-2 and Mosquito.  I doubt that those aircraft can actually do so against a good pilot.

The Bf109G-10 doesn't even approach parity with a Spitfire Mk XIV limited to +18lbs boost, let alone one that can go to +25lbs boost.  The Spitfire is equal or superior in all categories save dive acceleration and flat out deck speed.

Climb rate:  Spitfire Mk XIV
Zoom Climb: Spitfire Mk XIV
Speed on deck:  Bf109G-10
Speed at altitude: Tied
Roll rate: Spitfire Mk XIV
Turn rate: Spitfire Mk XIV
Turn Radius: Spitfire Mk XIV
Acceleration:  Tied
Dive Acceleration:  Bf109G-10
Fuel Endurance: Spitfire Mk XIV
Durability: Tied
Firepower: Tied
Visibility from Cockpit: Spitfire Mk XIV

You're claiming that is parity?