High Speed Spitfire Handling

[Vermillion]

Has anyone else noticed the relatively mild high speed handling characteristics of the Spitfire in AH at High Speeds?

I didn't notice myself until I started doing my P-51 testing and found that none of the "classic" P-51 high speed evasion manuevers were not working very well.

So I flew the Spit for a while and I seemed to notice it from that perspective then.

It was my impression (I need to do some more digging for historical info and data) that the Spitfire had poor to very poor high speed handling characteristics.

Sure in AH, the Spitfire controls get a little stiff but they are nothing like the problems you can get into with the 109 when you hit 400 IAS.

On Saturday, I got bounced by a Spitfire with about a 5k alt advantage, while I was just finishing off his Bishcuit buddy  . So with plenty of alt under me (or so I thought)I rolled into the vertical and accelerated up to just over 400IAS (Spit was doing at least that much, maybe more since he seemed to be gaining on me). Then I rolled 90 degree's, pulled 3 g's for a few seconds, rolled 90 more and pulled for a few more seconds. The Spit stayed with me the entire time. So I then figured I would just level out and outrun the sucker. I evened out my dive and nailed the g meter to zero. By this time, we were pretty low, a thousand feet at most. And the Spitfire was still gaining on me and had began to pepper me at long range with MG fire. So we're on the deck at 425 IAS, I figure that my only hope would be to try to reverse on him in a high speed turn,using the Pony's superior high speed turnrate and combat flaps. Tried it, didn't work. By about this time I figured I was dead. Speed was way down, about 175 IAS, Spit was at 200 yards or less, and still tight on my tail. Fortunately for me the Cavalry arrived and finished him off, and I limped on home with my tail singed  .  Oh.... did I forget to say it was HiTech in the Spitfire? Great Fight HT.    

Admittedly this fight was against a superior pilot, but I was quite suprised that the Spitfire could perform in this manner. And this is just one occaison of several that were very similar.

So am I losing my mind or is the Spitfire just a little too mild at very high speeds? Wait... don't answer the part about losing my mind, your probably right. Just answer the part about the Spitfire  

------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,

[-ik-]

better hold your tongue there vermillion, what you're insinuating just ain't pc  

[Vermillion]

Yeah I better watch it  

Fd-Ski and the rest of the RAF squads, may try to "rub me out" with their enforcer's named Fd-Guido and Fd-Luigi  

Never ever slander the sacred Spitfire <G>

------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,

[aircat]

you never mention which way you rolled either time... thats a big factor.

[Sorrow[S=A]]

Ok while we are on the topic of spits, one other thing that BUGS THE CRAP OUT OF ME.
(Caps on purpose)
The spit had a very singular classic design flaw that appeared in all models and was responsible for a certain range of manuevers it could just _never_ do. It could _not_ take excessive negative G without stalling the engine. I believe it had something to with the style of Carb on the merlins.
 It is this that is responsible for those beautiful classic inverted dives they are always shown doing. Putting your nose down in a spit was suicide, you would stall your motor within seconds. So instead you rolled on your back and kept positive G on the plane to prevent stalling.
 Plus the classic escape of the German planes was to immediatly go nose down and drop fast then after the spit had inverted and dived to catch, pull up sharply and break while he tries to roll out and climb after you.

This is all well and good (read: probably boring old news for those as experienced as the readers here) but something that is not modelled in the game. I have read many books on spits and their pilots, while grey-out and black out are common, nobody ever complained of Red out. Therefore I estimate the +g needed some where in the 8-10 range to stall the motor. Just around the onset of red-out symptoms. Can this vital part of the Spitfire be modelled? ie: the plane stalling at high positive G? AFAIK it was one of the biggest performance factors in the spit, I hope it makes an appearence here as well.

[Swoosh]

I am admittedly no learned historian, but wasn't that negative G sputter corrected in later variants of the spit?  Realistically, you would think that after the RAF realized what a lemon they were flying it would be fixed ASAP.  

[chisel]

Float type carburetors were only used on the early merlins (Spit 1). They switched to pressure carbs later, not sure which mark they switched with.

[juzz]

I got the impression that even the later marks had negative-G engine problems, just not as bad as the early marks.

[funked]

Chisel:  The carb change was not uniformly applied.  Some Spit V and Spit IX had it, some didn't.  I was reading the report of the RAE fly-off between the Spit IX and the Fw 190A-3 and the mentioned that the Spit really needed to have one of those carbs installed because the A-3 kept bunting away from it.  

[Sorrow[S=A]]

My point is that this was part of the spitfire funked. Yes, by a certain point they were recieving pressure carbs from Packard (all Mustangs had them) but once again, due to wartime shortages a fair number had ones that would stall under negative G.
 As a result every (I mean EVERY) spitfire pilot ever trained was taught to never use negative G manuevers. Even once they were finally able to handle Neg. G it was more of a safety net than anything, no pilot in his sane mind would put the plane into them. It would go against every principle he was trained with. The only advantage the Pressurized ones had was that if the plane DID do a neg. G manuever the plane would not stall as quickly.
 If I am not too entirely wrong the problem with neg G stalling was never "solved", it was inherent in the basic use of Carb systems. Short of designing a Fuel injected machine I can't see it being avoided. A pressurized carb obviously reduced the danger, probably increased the amount of -g before stall. But basically through training and inherent nature of the equipment, the Spitfire just should not ever be doing nose down high negative G dives. I just cannot fathom that being in the sim?

[aircat]

 they model the planes (atleast as far as I know) in 100% condition... or else later we will see like the P51 (a-b-c versions) having problems with kinked ammo which will randomly jam a gun (doesnt even need to be substained bursts). some IJN fighter had random engine lose. but for game play they let them be figured at optimum quality when first hitting runway. the early spits and A6M fighters will have the carb problems Im sure. but with the later spits "fixed" prolly wont see them changed.

[Vermillion]

Aircat, on the issue of which direction I rolled.

I can see this being a big issue (engine torque) at low speeds, or if the plane I was fighting had an engine that rotated in the opposite direction (ala the Griffon Spitfires).

But the Pony and the Spit had the same engine in them, so neither should have an atypical advantage in either direction (due to this issue). And speeds were quite high, so that engine torque should play little effect in this case.

However to answer your question, in the vertical rolls, I rolled right both times (90 degree's), and in the low altitude horizontal turns I turned left.

------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,

[aircat]

actualy the spits used Merlins and the P51D used the Pratts... the brits that used the earlier P51s (a-b-c) changed the engines from alisons to merlins as a refit. US wised up saw there was hope for the P51 after all and placed a larger engine into the D and K series. SuperMarine for the most part stuck to the Merlin engines throughout.

but if you have a high speed bogie on your 6 (especialy spit) roll and bank LEFT... the natural torque/trim on a spit for cruise and climb is to balance right wing down, so when they gain speed this force is increased and when a spit gets to fast it tries to roll right. you banked into it natural cornering side. the 109 tends to do the same. the other do as well but not to the same degree.. so you can use this to your advantige.

[funked]

Vermillion - By all accounts the Spitfire (all Marks) had poor roll performance at high speeds.  Apparently the wing had a problem with torsional stiffness, so that deflecting the aileron caused the wing to twist and counteract the aileron's rolling moment.  As far as I know, the elevator performance was OK, definitely better than the Me 109.

Sorrow - You obviously know more than I about the Spitfire carbs.  

Aircat - Sorrow's point is that the Spit IX still had limitations for neg-g operation even with the special carb. in place.

[juzz]

 

actualy the spits used Merlins and the P51D used the Pratts...

You mean the Spitfire's used the RR Merlin and the P51D used the Packard, a copy of the RR Merlin.
 

the brits that used the earlier P51s (a-b-c) changed the engines from alisons to merlins as a refit.

Both the British and Americans modified Allison engined P51A's with various RR Merlin engines, finally resulting in the production of the P51B/C with the Packard-built RR Merlin copies.
 

US wised up saw there was hope for the P51 after all and placed a larger engine into the D and K series.

The P51D/K's had the exact same Packard engine as the P51B/C's.
 

SuperMarine for the most part stuck to the Merlin engines throughout.

Although, the Spitfire MkIX, fitted with a Packard built Merlin 266 engine was called the MkXVI.

 

but if you have a high speed bogie on your 6 (especialy spit) roll and bank LEFT... the natural torque/trim on a spit for cruise and climb is to balance right wing down, so when they gain speed this force is increased and when a spit gets to fast it tries to roll right.

Is this a real life occurrance with the Spitfire, or just an AH-specific anomoly? I suspect the latter case.