Author Topic: Pyro, HiTech, could we have the Spit IX modeled as a single varient? (Read 1127 times)

GScholz · « **Reply #60 on:** July 06, 2003, 02:30:38 AM »

I see you find the need to behave in a demeaning manner.

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
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.

I don’t know if we got a Spitfire F.Mk IX in AH, but our Spit IX is inferior to our 109F4. Let’s just say I trust HTC’s research a little more than yours, a Spit enthusiast.

As you can see the 109F4 holds a significant speed advantage up to 22k, above 22k the Spit is faster.

As you can see the 109F4 holds a slight advantage in climb at low alts, parity at 8k, the Spit is slightly better at 10k to 14k, above 14k the Spit’s climbrate drops sharply and the 109 gains the advantage again. The Spit again reaches parity at 20k and is superior above 22k.

Not bad for a 1941 model 109 now is it?

If you compare the charts for the 109G2, which was the early Spit IX’s contemporary, you will find that the 109G2 is clearly superior in every respect except turnrate and top speed above 25k.

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
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 Spit suffers from not having useful flaps in a slow turnfight. Although I never stallfight a Spit in the 109F4 unless I’m in deep doodoo, I have outturned Spit IX’s on several occasions. At higher speeds the 109F4 can turn with the Spit IX and retain energy better. The 109F4 is at least equal in turning with the Spit IX, if not superior.

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
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?

Again I refer to AH’s charts:

As you can see the 109G10 is only somewhat faster up to 12k where the Spit XIV’s speed suddenly drop off and the 109G10 gains a significant speed advantage. The Spit XIV doesn’t regain parity until 25k, between 25k and 27k the Spit XIV is faster, but above 27k the Spit XIV again loose the advantage to the 109G10 as the Spit’s speed drops off sharply and its WEP is ineffective.

As you can see the Spit XIV holds a significant climb advantage up till 10k where it drops sharply and the 109G10 achieves parity. Between 10k and 23k the 109G10 hold the advantage (about 1000 ft/min at 15k), at 23k the Spit XIV achieves parity briefly as its climbrate drops off shaply and the 109G10 gains a slight advantage.

I claim this to be parity given the better turnrate of the Spit XIV. Given the Spit XIV’s phenomenal climbrate at low alts combined with its very good turnrate it is no wonder why it is perked in the MA. The 109G10 however, like the P47 was a medium to high alt fighter and its phenomenal performance is less useful in the MA. In 1944 though the fight was not on the deck.

So tell me Mr. Karnak, what have you been smoking? … If it makes the Spit look that good to you I must try some!

_________________

Urchin · « **Reply #61 on:** July 06, 2003, 02:51:05 AM »

GS... I can tell you right now the 109F4 isn't even close to the Spit IX in turning radius or rate. The 109E4 comes fairly close, but it is hampered by everything else.

As far as speed and climb performance go, the 109F4 is faster than the Spit IX by about 10 mph at 0 feet. By 5k, the 2 are equal, and they stay equal until 15k, at which point the 109F enjoys a brief resurgence, topping out at about a 15 mph difference at ~18k. Above 22k the Spit IX is faster, with the margin increasing with altitude.

Climb performance- The 109F enjoys a 250 feet per minute advantage up to ~10k, being approximately equal from 10k to ~17k, and then being less than the Spit IX.

In all other performance areas, the Spit IX is clearly superior.

GScholz · « **Reply #62 on:** July 06, 2003, 03:02:39 AM »

Thank you Urchin for confirming that this statement …

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
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.

… is wrong.

As for the turnrate/radius issue I can only speak from my own experiences, but one thing is certain … I would never want to face you in a Spit IX … ever!

Edit: the 109E4 outturns even the Spit V.

_________________

Nashwan · « **Reply #63 on:** July 06, 2003, 06:40:00 AM »

Quote

I don’t know if we got a Spitfire F.Mk IX in AH, but our Spit IX is inferior to our 109F4.

The very first Spit F IX model was designed as a high altitude fighter. That's what we have in AH.

The F4 has a critical altitude of just under 20,000ft. The early Spit F IX 27,400 ft

Quote

If you compare the charts for the 109G2, which was the early Spit IX’s contemporary, you will find that the 109G2 is clearly superior in every respect except turnrate and top speed above 25k.

The Spit F IX had a climb rate advantage over the G2 at medium alt and above, and rough speed parity at lower alts. Above 20,000ft it is faster, better climbing, and of course retains it's turn advantages.

The problem is AH models the 109G2 at 1.42ata, when for most of it's life it was restricted to 1.3ata (see Neil Sterling's post earlier)

If you compare the Spit F IX to the 109G2 in the Finnish tests, at 1.3ata, the Spit is clearly superior.

Quote

As you can see the 109G10 is only somewhat faster up to 12k where the Spit XIV’s speed suddenly drop off and the 109G10 gains a significant speed advantage. The Spit XIV doesn’t regain parity until 25k, between 25k and 27k the Spit XIV is faster, but above 27k the Spit XIV again loose the advantage to the 109G10 as the Spit’s speed drops off sharply and its WEP is ineffective.

AH models the G10 with C3 fuel and MW50. In real life, the G10 usually flew with B4 fuel and MW50, with a power output of 1800ps instead of the 2000ps those figures refer to.

AH models the Spitfire XIV running on 100 octane fuel, at 18lbs boost, with arouind 2000hp. In real life, by late 44/early 45 they were running on 150 octane fuel, either 21 or 25 lbs boost, with a maximum power of between 2300 and 2500hp.

Quote

I claim this to be parity given the better turnrate of the Spit XIV.

In real life, you could safely knock off around 200ft/min from those G10 figures at low altitude, and even more at altitude.

The 109K4 climb chart that Pyro posted here a year or so ago shows very different figures, especially at altitude.

For example, at 30,000ft the 109K4 climbed at around 1900 ft/min, way below the Spitfire with 2350 ft/min.

At 25,000ft Pyro's chart puts the K4 on 2,660 ft/min. The Spitfire test reports put the Spitfire at 3,150.

At 20,000ft the K4 did 3385 ft/min, the Spit XIV 3650 ft/min.

AH seems to have given the Spit XIV too high a rate of climb at low altitude, and too low at high altitude.

However, on 150 octane fuel, the AH figures are probably too low for low alt, and still too low for high alt.

Karnak · « **Reply #64 on:** July 06, 2003, 03:48:21 PM »

GScholz,

You have only indicated that which I already stated.

The Spit IX is faster than the 109F-4, for example.

According to AH the climb rates are more parable than I recalled though.

There is still the issue of cockpit visibility, which favors the Spit, and high speed controlability, which vastly, vastly favors all Spitfires with metal control surfaces.

The Bf109K-4 has less controlability at high speed than does the beknighted Spitfire Mk Vb, let alone the Spitfire Mk XIV or XVIII.

You focus too much on specific portions of the overall performance package where the 109 equals or surpasses the Spitfire, then you ignore those performance areas where the Spitfire is superior and declare the Bf109 better. Nobody that I am aware of who flew these late war versions ever felt the 109 was the better of the two. The aircraft I see listed as the best fighter by people who flew them are the Fw190D-9, Spitfire Mk XIV and F4U-4.

The Spitfire beats the Bf109 because of its overall performance, even though the Bf109 is technically better in some ways and genuinely better in others.

Do you think the AH Spit XIV is superior to the AH Bf109G-10 or vice a versa?

Urchin · « **Reply #65 on:** July 06, 2003, 04:19:06 PM »

I actually like the G-10 better for the MA. Its faster, it can climb better for longer. The Spitfire XIV doesn't really turn all that well, and it is fairly slow. The climb on WEP is good, but WEP only lasts 5 minutes. The guns are far superior, of course.

thrila · « **Reply #66 on:** July 06, 2003, 05:50:35 PM »

oooo....i would love to have a spit LF mk.XVI or VIII with clipped wings. A seafire L mk.III wouldn't be such a bad thing either (seeing as it was the most common Seafire in ww2).

I want a 43/44 spitfire damit!:D

Urchin don't forget that the spit14 also has that horrbile "i'm a perk plane ignore everyone else in an attempt to kill me" neon sign too, it really doesn't help matters.

I was doing really well in the spit14 this tour (i was 59/2 before yesterday) but i died a whole bunch of times yesterday costing me a fortune. Sorry to get side tracked but the spit14 does cost an awful lot for more or less being an equal to the g10.

GScholz · « **Reply #67 on:** July 06, 2003, 06:35:43 PM »

Karnak, as I see it the most important factors of aerial combat is climb and speed … in that order. All other factors are secondary. As long as the plane can turn better than a bomber maneuverability is a non issue, that at best can aid you in a bad situation.

Why do you think that maneuverability progressively got worse in the newer Spitfires? Why do you think that all the late war monsters are B&Z style fighters? Why do you think that the FW was so successful against the Spitfire (as you your self stated).

Here’s the answer: In a one-on-one turnrate/circle is an advantage, many-on-many turnrate/circle means squat. The FW and the 109’s could attack the Spitfire two-on-one in multi-plane fights because their superior E characteristics allowed them to do so almost with impunity. This was also done in the Pacific where the US planes were superior E fighters than their Japanese better turning counterparts. E fighting allows for better teamwork, turnfighting does not.

You say I don’t credit the Spit for it’s superiority in other areas … you’re wrong. The Spit was superior in other areas than climb and speed, but those areas are rendered secondary to climb and speed.

The 109G10 has controllability issues at very high speeds, never the less the 109G10 has no problems pulling black-out turns at any speed except low. The 109K4 had aerodynamic improvements over the G10 that to a practical extent resolved these issues.

The Spit in AH is somewhat overmodeled when it comes to structural integrity however. The Spit was known to shed its wings at very high speeds, in AH you can dive any model Spit from 30k straight down with WEP and nothing breaks.

You say the Spit beats the 109 because of overall performance … I say the 109 beats the Spit in the early war, and is the Spit’s equal in late war because the 109 is better where it counts. Ultimately though tactical consideration will for most part be the deciding factors of a battle, and very few aerial battles were fought with both sides starting with equal advantage.

_________________

Furball · « **Reply #68 on:** July 06, 2003, 06:43:14 PM »

i thought spit got tested to one of the highest mach numbers for piston engined a/c? and also dont forget the AH spit IX is a strange, low performance cross breed of spit IX's as the title of the post says, so you saying the 109 F is superior is a bit of a joke.

Spit IX vs. 109G6

Quote

Speeds
When 25 lbs.boost is employed in the Spitfire it is about 25 m.p.h. faster at heights below 15,000 feet and 7 m.p.h. faster at heights in excess of 15,000 feet.

Climb
The climb of the Spitfire is superior to that of the Me.109 at all heights. It has a particularly marked advantage below 13,000 feet using 18 lbs.boost, and this is naturally more pronounced when using 25 lbs. boost. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the performance is almost identical, but when climbing speed is reached the Spitfire slowly pulls away.

Diving
Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty.

Turning circle
The manoeuvrability of the Spitfire IX in this respect is greatly superior to that of the Me.109 and it easily out-turns the Me.109 in either direction at all speeds.

Rate of Roll
Here again the Spitfire has a marked advantage at all speeds.

Conclusion
The Me.109G has an inferior performance to the Spitfire in all respects with the exception of acceleration in a dive and the slight advantage in speed which it possesses at heights between 16,000 and 20,000 feet.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html

GScholz · « **Reply #69 on:** July 06, 2003, 07:05:38 PM »

Furball, this is the second or third time that test has been posted in this thread. It has been very well made clear that the Spit LF.IX is superior to the 109G6.

The AH 109F4 has better performance than the AH Spit IX, albeit the advantage is only slight. I still think this is pretty good for a year old (at least) 109 compared to the Spit IX. The Spit V is thoroughly outperformed by the 109F4.

At this point I guess we just have to agree to disagree. We’ve all made our opinions clear.

_________________

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #70 on:** July 06, 2003, 09:06:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
The Spit in AH is somewhat overmodeled when it comes to structural integrity however. The Spit was known to shed its wings at very high speeds, in AH you can dive any model Spit from 30k straight down with WEP and nothing breaks.
[/IMG]

Yeah they need to fix that bigtime. I don't wanna hear ANY whining about the Spit not having this and that. Those damn things are diving with Thunderbolts, Corsairs, and P38's for Cripes sakes:mad:

Looking forward to AH2, and some appropriate engine management modeling, for that matter.

Karnak · « **Reply #71 on:** July 06, 2003, 09:40:10 PM »

GScholz,

Can you post some indications of Spits shedding wings?

The only Spits shedding wings stories I have ever found were when Spit IXs did hard pullups after dropping 500lb bombs, only the bombs didn't drop and some Far East Mk XIVs that were reassembled incorrectly.

Everything else I have ever read indicated that the Spit did not have a wing shedding problem.

GScholz · « **Reply #72 on:** July 06, 2003, 11:24:35 PM »

No Karnak I cannot, and you may very well be right.

Furball, you failed to mention that the 109G6 in that test had gunpods, no MW50 and limited to 1.3ata. How convenient for you.

_________________

funkedup · « **Reply #73 on:** July 07, 2003, 03:56:40 AM »

Gscholz: Regarding Spitfire wing failures, it was not a structural problem. Spits had no problem staying together in high speed dives - they dove to some of the highest recorded Mach numbers for a prop fighter.

The problem with Spitfire Mk. V wing failures is detailed in Chapter 21 of Jeffrey Quill's book "Spitfire: A Test Pilot's Story". The explanation in the book is a bit technical but the short story is that some airplanes were being loaded improperly in the field, causing an aft CG shift and longitudinal instability. The instability manifested itself by stick force reversal in hard maneuvers. Stick force reversal meant that as the pilot pulled harder and harder, suddenly the thing would go all the way back in his lap and stay there unless he pushed forward with all his might. When this happened in a high speed dive recovery, the airframe was subjected to loads way beyond design limits, sometimes resulting in wing spar failure and disintegration. The problem was resolved by modifications to the elevator and its control circuit.

GScholz · « **Reply #74 on:** July 07, 2003, 07:59:35 AM »

Thanks for the info Funkedup.