Aircraft intro dates........

[HoHun]

Hi everyone,

here's a link to a comparison of the Spitfire XIV to the Spitfire IX:
 http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14pt.html

Conclusions:

- "The turning circles of both aircraft are identical."

- "Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Mk IX."

However, with 8400 lbs take-off weight the Mk XIV was 1000 lbs heavier than a Mk IX, so I think neither sustained turning circle nor instantaneous turning circle can't have matched that of the Mk IX. British WW2 reports generally failed to distinguish between turning circle and turn rate, and I guess the observation really was that the Spitfire Mk XIV's turn rate was equal to that of the Mk IX (thanks to its better power loading).

In any case, judging from real-world figures, the Spitfire XIV is still slower than the Fw 190D-9 below 20000 ft, and slower than the Me 109K-4 below 25000 ft. The balance should be about the same as that of earlier Spitfire variants against earlier Focke-Wulf and Messerschmitt variants.

The impact the Spitfire XIV might have on the Aces High arena can be estimated from the impact it had on the WB.de 2.01 arena: Hardly any. Surprising? At the first glance, yes! However, I'm convinced the reason is that dedicated Spitfire pilots don't choose their aircraft for performance. They choose it for manoeuvrability alone - and so the vast majority of all Spitfires were Mk IXs, no matter whether the Mk XIV was currently available in the RPS or not.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[J_A_B]

As I recall there were also a considerable number of complaints that the WB's Spit 14 was neutered for gameplay purposes.

J_A_B

[HoHun]

Hi Jab,

>As I recall there were also a considerable number of complaints that the WB's Spit 14 was neutered for gameplay purposes.

I think the complaints indicate the same overestimation of the Spitfire XIV as the fear it would dominate the arena if left unperked :-)

From test flights of the WB 2.01 Spitfire XIV, I'd say that at low level - where on WB.de all of the fighting took place, and where Spitfires are commonly found - it reached just the speeds and climb rates quoted in the Boscombe Down report.

It didn't turn as well as the Spitfire IX, but considering it was 1000 lbs heavier with the same wing, I think that's exactly what one should expect. (The notorious weight increase from the Me 109F-4 to the Me 109G-6 is less than 1000 lbs, for comparison :-)

That said, the Spitfire XIV is an excellent aircraft, and one that I personally think is much more potent than the Spitfire IX.

It's just that most Spitfire pilots fly the Spitfire IX for its specific strengths, which they don't recognize in the Spitfire XIV.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[SageFIN]

I too believe that the WB's Spit XIV had something done to it. My personal feeling is that it was closer to the 109K4 in terms of overall maneuverability than the Spit IX.

[Karnak]

Kweassa,

Those were just crude gestimations as far as turn rat went.  Other than the turn rate and firepower estimates all of that was based on solid numbers.

The Spit XIV will need to be a perk plane, its performance is that good in the MA context.  Somebody said that pilots prefeered the MkIX.  That is not entirely true.  The general consensus of pilots is that the MkIX was much nicer to fly, but that the MkXIV was a much better warplane.

The empty weight of a Spitfire F.MkIX is 5,800lbs.
The take off weight of a Spitfire F.MkIX is 7,295lbs.
The max overload weight of a Spitfire F.MkIX is 9,500lbs.

The empty weight of a Sptfire F.MkXIV is 6,576lbs.
The take off weight of a Spitfire F.MkXIV is 8,475lbs.
The max overload weight of a Spitfire F.MkXIV is 10,280lbs.

[HoHun]

Hi Sagefin,

>My personal feeling is that it was closer to the 109K4 in terms of overall maneuverability than the Spit IX.

The Spitfire XIV combined a 14% weight increase with an approximate 24% power increase over the Mk IX (depending on the subversion).

The Me 109K-4 combined a 15% weight increase with a 33% (or better) power increase over the Me 109F-4.

The Spitfire did indeed take the same road to performance as the Messerschmitt :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Karnak,

>Somebody said that pilots prefeered the MkIX. That is not entirely true. The general consensus of pilots is that the MkIX was much nicer to fly, but that the MkXIV was a much better warplane.

Let me point out that I absolutely agree with you here.

I was talking about online pilots only: If you only have one life to lose, you tend to choose your favourite fighter after different criteria.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[mw]

Consider:

The Spit XIV had a lower stall speed than the Spit IX.

" In spite of heavier controls the Spitfire XIV is more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire VIII in turns at all heights."

"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 Spitfire VIII weighed 7,760 lb, the XIV 8,376 in the above trials.

Figure all up weights without drop tanks to be about 7,480 lb. for the Spit IX and 8,400 lbs. for the Spit XIV.

The historical record is quite clear on this subject.  The modern day theorizing as to why the historical record is flawed is less so.  Read the historical record or do some calculations and draw you own conclusions.

[HoHun]

Hi Mw,

>The historical record is quite clear on this subject. The modern day theorizing as to why the historical record is flawed is less so. Read the historical record or do some calculations and draw you own conclusions.

If you'd like to contradict my conclusions, you're invited to do so.

>"The Spitfire XIV is superior above 25,000 and with its better turning characteristics it is more than a match for the
Spitfire VIII."

You're quoting a comparison to the Spitfire XIV to the Spitfire VIII. The Spitfire VIII in question was 280 lbs heavier than the Spitfire IX quoted previously, and it had less power available since its engine was limited to +15 lbs boost, compared to the +18 lbs boost of the Spitfire IX.

Needless to say, both had a negative impact on the Mk VIII's turning capabilities.

>The Spit XIV had a lower stall speed than the Spit IX.

I'm not quite sure where to find that information in the record you quoted, but assuming you're talking about power-on 1-G stall speed, this would merely reflect that the Mk XIV benefits from the Griffon engine's slipstream more than the Mk VIII from the less powerful Merlin's.

Since propeller slipstream is of no benefit in accelerated (high-speed) stalls, the lighter Mk VIII will actually hold the advantage there.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Nashwan]

You're quoting a comparison to the Spitfire XIV to the Spitfire VIII. The Spitfire VIII in question was 280 lbs heavier than the Spitfire IX quoted previously, and it had less power available since its engine was limited to +15 lbs boost, compared to the +18 lbs boost of the Spitfire IX.

I'm pretty certain you've got that the wrong way round.
The Spit VIII had a Merlin 63, running 18lb boost, the Spit XIV was an early prototype running 15lb boost.

[HoHun]

Hi Nashwan,

>The Spit VIII had a Merlin 63, running 18lb boost, the Spit XIV was an early prototype running 15lb boost.

You seem to be right. The Spitfire VIII was indeed tested against a Griffon 61-engined Spitfire XIV running at +15 lbs boost, while no boost data is given for the Mk VIII so +18 lbs seems a reasonable assumption.

The quoted web site actually refers to four different Spitfire XIVs: JF317 (with a Griffon 61 engine), JF319 (a Mk VIII conversion), RB141 (found to be not representative for operational aircraft), and RB179 (Griffon 65, +18 lbs).

Of these Mk XIVs, only RB179 was accepted as representative for operational aircraft, and compared to the Spitfire IX with the results I quoted above.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Kweassa]

To sum it all up..

 How WILL the Spit14 perform then? Please forgive me, but since I am a layman in flight physics and dynamics, the numbers comparison sort of leaves me confused here  

 The WB2.1 Spit14 incident you guys mentioned interests me the most. We all know FM is different among all games, but generally, no matter how different it is, it basically tries to represent the same image. A Spit will turn good in all games, and a P-51 will be always fast. So.. in WB2.1, how did the Spit14 fare?

 As I mentioned, in FA2, there were 3 Spitfires, Mk.IX, Mk.V and Mk.XIV. Of these three, of course, the Mk.V did turn the best, but everybody used just Spit14. It out turned every other sort of plane except 109F4, A6M2 Zero and I-16 Ishak. Fighting hoardes of superior turn craft that outran almost everything else was very annoying.

 ..

   

[ 12-23-2001: Message edited by: Kweassa ]

[Nashwan]

I'm not quite sure where to find that information in the record you quoted, but assuming you're talking about power-on 1-G stall speed, this would merely reflect that the Mk XIV benefits from the Griffon engine's slipstream more than the Mk VIII from the less powerful Merlin's.

The pilot's manuals for the Spit IX and XIV give the XIV slightly lower power-off stall speeds.
BTW, wasn't the Warbirds 2.xx Spit XIV widely acknowledged as the worst modelled plane in the game?

[HoHun]

Hi Nashwa,

>The pilot's manuals for the Spit IX and XIV give the XIV slightly lower power-off stall speeds.

Even with the engine idling, the remaining propwash might explain a certain difference.

In the Spitfire XIV pilot's notes, the speed is given as airspeed indicator reading - before any comparison, you'd have to apply a position error correction worth several mph. (Stall speed is unfortunately slightly off the scale in the correction table.) If the position error is different for the Spitfire IX, the same stall speed might result in a different airspeed indicator reading.

>BTW, wasn't the Warbirds 2.xx Spit XIV widely acknowledged as the worst modelled plane in the game?

All I can say is that speed and climb at low level of the Warbirds 2.01 Spitfire XIV matched the JF319 test results fairly well. That turn capability wasn't as good as that of the Spitfire IX was to be expected, so without in-depth testing, I'd say it probably was in the ball park.

If it was widely acknowledged as the worst modeled WB aircraft ever, I'd expect that someone should be able to point out exactly in which way it was modelled badly. That would certainly help to prevent the same mistake from happening in Aces High, too :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Kweassa,

>How WILL the Spit14 perform then? Please forgive me, but since I am a layman in flight physics and dynamics, the numbers comparison sort of leaves me confused here

Here are some basic estimates on the Spitfire XIV performance:

Power has increased but not drag, so it will go faster than the Mk IX.

Power has increased more than weight, so it will climb better than the Mk IX.

Weight has increased but not wing area, so it will not be able to turn as tightly as the Mk IX.

While weight has incrased, so has power, so in slow flat circle turns, the Spitfire XIV perhaps is about equal to the lighter, lower-powered Mk IX.

This last estimate is the only one that involves a certain element of uncertainty. How much more power is needed to overcome the extra weight? I'd guess the power increase might have been about right for the Mk XIV.

>As I mentioned, in FA2, there were 3 Spitfires, Mk.IX, Mk.V and Mk.XIV. Of these three, of course, the Mk.V did turn the best, but everybody used just Spit14. It out turned every other sort of plane except 109F4, A6M2 Zero and I-16 Ishak. Fighting hoardes of superior turn craft that outran almost everything else was very annoying.

As far as axis aircraft were concerned, the Me 109K-4 and the Fw 190D-9 were able to outrun the Spitfire XIV at low altitude, and the Ki-84 was better at around 10000 ft. The Me 109F-4 would outturn it, as would all the Zeros and the Oscar. (The Me 109G-6 and the Fw 190A-4 and A-8 had few options against the Spitfire XIV, but the same could be said in comparison to the P-51.)

So the only axis aircraft that had to worry about the Spitfire XIV were the Me 109G-6 (which was outclassed by the Spitfire IX, too) and the Fw 190A series fighters, which already had a definite Mustang problem. (The P-51 in 2.01 was vastly superior to the Fw 190A.)

Apparently, most Spitfire pilots thought the ability to catch the Focke-Wulfs wasn't attractive enough to sacrifice the better turning abilities of the Mk IX, and stayed with the Mk IX even after the Mk XIV came out in the RPS.

Accordingly, the hoardes were flying Spitfire IX at all times :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)