Which Spit IX?

[funked]

Juzz are you sure?  The tests I have seen on the AH shows it performs a lot like an HF.

[juzz]

Look at Nashwan's numbers above, from the Spitfire Performance Testing page.

Eg:
Aces High Mk IX time to 18k: 4'58".
A&AEE HF.Mk IX time to 18k: 4'15".

 

Hehe, and if AH Spitfire IX WAS really a 1944 IX, it would climb to 20k in four and a half minutes!

PS: I found a book with the same Spitfire Mk V data from that page in it, and a few important things aren't mentioned.

1. The X4922 vs N3053 test was carried out with both planes fitted with a 10ft 6in Rotol 4-bladed prop, instead of the normal Hamilton 3-bladed type.

2. At the bottom of the page there is a Spitfire Mk V vs Me 109 chart. From the info in the book, I believe the Spitfire was actually fitted with a DB605 engine, and as mentioned carried no armament; which would add about 600lbs to its weight.

In fact, the A&AEE data I read in this book throws some doubt onto the modelling of the AH Spitfire Mk V as well.  

[leonid]

 

( if you could clarify that for WB we well it would be cool )
There were 3 very different types of Spit IX produced: F, HF, LF. 3 different engines - and very different when it coms to speed and climbrates.

Please clarify which one is modeled in AH ?
( and in WB ?  )

Thank you.


------------------
 (Image removed from quote.)

Bartlomiej Rajewski
S/L fd-ski Sq. 303 (Polish) "Kosciuszko" RAF www.raf303.org  

 

The AH Spit is a F.IX with a Merlin 61.
Don't ask me questions about other games.


------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

"The side with the fanciest uniforms loses."

------------------
leonid, Komandir
5 GIAP VVS RKKA

"Our cause is just.  The enemy will be crushed.  Victory will be ours."

[Baddawg]

What were the fuel and ammo loadouts on the planes, on both the historical  and  AH version?
Is fuel consumption  equal to its real life counterpart?

 

[Citabria]

its 3 times greater for all planes I believe

[Nashwan]

I carried out my tests with full fuel and ammo, and I think the A&AEE did as well. As I said, the fuel modifier means the AH spit was a lot lighter towards the end of the test than it's real life counterpart would have been. That means the AH Spit is even futher off being a 44 version than it first appears.

[juzz]

I don't think there is a fuel modifier in offline mode.

[wells]

Juzz,

What book did you find?    

It's my belief that the only difference between MkV and MkIX is the supercharger and that the Merlin 45 put out the same if not more power at sea level than a Merlin 61 (depending on fuel grade).  With the plane being much lighter, the MkV would outclimb the MkIX below 10k.  I hope you are implying that the MkV is underperforming in AH!    

[This message has been edited by wells (edited 05-04-2000).]

[juzz]

I seriously doubt the Merlin 45 has even the same output as the Merlin 61 at any altitude. I'll try to find out more details.

Use this link for data on Spitfire marques I,II,V,VIII,IX and XIV data.

All IMO:

The AH Spitfire Mk V performs like an early Mk Vb, the ones that were converted from a Mk I or Mk II.

BUT; the ammo load of 120rpg for the cannon certainly makes it a Vc, a later model which weighed more and had slightly more drag on the airframe. Accordingly, performance should suffer somewhat.

The book: SPITFIRE The History
Authors: Eric B. Morgan and Edward Shacklady.
ISBN 0 946219 10 9

This book has lists of every single Spitfire serial number for every marque, perfomance tables from the A&AEE, details of weapons, performance and handling trials, pages of official engineering sketches from Supermarine, etc.

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 05-04-2000).]

[wells]

Both Merlin 45 and 61 had same displacement and same compression ratio.  Merlin 45 was some 200 lbs lighter (supercharger components?).  According to the  manuals, both engines were limited to +16 lbs boost, implying same fuel grade (100).  Reduction gearing was different (0.42 for 61 compared to 0.477 for 45).  That makes sense given the 4-bladed prop.  Takeoff power is listed as the following (+12 lbs boost)

45- 1185 @ 3000 rpm
61- 1290 @ 3000 rpm

Hmm,  although the single speed blower on the  MKV shouldn't draw as much power, perhaps the reduction gearing cancels that and then some??  Just thinking out loud...

In any case, the MkV has the better power loading, no?  (under 10-15k only)  

[juzz]

Remember the Merlin 61 is intercooled.

It certainly seems the Mk V has better powerloading. But how much of a difference does the four-blade prop make to performance?