Seafire Vs SpitV (2011)

[Noir]

I see in the official stats that a Seafire is almost identical to the current SpitV...did they change it as well when the SpitV got changed to an earlier version?

[Krusty]

No. As far as I remember only the spit5 got the uber-boost, then was returned to normal.

When you look at the AH charts both of these planes share the EXACT power curve.

This is wrong. This is an AH "cheat" if you will... The Seafire is heavier, and as such turns worse than the Spit5. But because it's heavier it would have slower climb rate, all other things being equal. The weight would also cause a dropoff in climb at higher alts, rather than just an offset in climb. The performance at alt may (or may not) suffer because of the higher weight as well.

You see the same faulty FM on the Fw190F8. It is identical to the A8's power curves and climb rates, but this would not be so.

I think HTC didn't have the real charts or info but wanted to include these planes. I think that at the time they went off info they had and said "it's close enough, let's use the charts for that plane"

And that's how we get identical power curves for radically different airframes.

I do hold out some hope that they will revisit such things in the future and make real flight models for them. It's just not right that they have significant weight increases yet retain identical climb and speed charts. IMO it means something's a little off on those flight models. Who knows what other parts of the FM are unbalanced because of that?

[Noir]

well my concern is that I thought the seafire was based on the MkVc (quasi spit9), while our spitV is a Vb

[Krusty]

I always thought it was modeled after a SpitVc ?


EDIT: Quick search on google:

"The Supermarine Seafire Mk.IIc was the first version of the aircraft to be built from new as a naval fighter, and was developed alongside the Mk.Ib.

Work on the prototype Mk.IIc began in 1941 when a Spitfire Vc (AD371) was converted by Supermarine. This aircraft was delivered to RAE Farnborough on 25 February 1942, and then went onto HMS Illustrious for deck trails. These demonstrated that the fuselage needed to be strengthened for naval use. The increase in weight this caused meant that the Mk.IIc could only carry two of the four 20mm cannon possible on the 'c' wing.

Supermarine
Seafire IIc In March 1942 an order for 213 Mk IIs was placed with Cunliffe-Owen, and for 202 with Supermarine. The first Supermarine aircraft made its maiden flight on 28 May 1942, the first Cunliffe-Owen aircraft only in December 1942."

That's before the spit9, last I recall.

I think what you are thinking about is that people WANT the Seafire that was based off the spit9, rather than we HAVE it. Maybe?

[Noir]

ok the AH spit5 got the same boost than the seafire. I was thinking that when our spit5 got "nerfed", the seafire kept the old boost setting, thus being more powerfull than the current spitV. I was wrong.

[Guppy35]

There was no Seafire based on the Spit IX.  All the Seafires were single stage Merlin or Griffons until the very last Seafire 46 and 47 which were two stage Griffons but those were well postwar.

The IIc is based on the Spitfire Vc  The Seafire III is as well but has refinements like a 4 blade prop, updated tropical filter, multiple exhaust stacks etc so it looks similar to the IX, but it's still a single stage Merlin so it isn't the same length as an IX but is that of the Vc

Seafires were never really meant to operate at the altitudes that a two stage Merlin would have made a difference.

[Noir]

I never said there was any spit9 seafire, I just pointed that the old spit5 had pretty similar performance with than the spit9.

[Guppy35]

I never said there was any spit9 seafire, I just pointed that the old spit5 had pretty similar performance with than the spit9.

At certain altitudes the Spit LFV would have similar performance to the Spit IX.  It was at higher alts that the two stage supercharger made a big difference.

The reference to the Spit IX was in reply to Krusty saying folks want the Seafire based on the Spit IX

[BnZs]

Isn't climb rate, speed, etc, calculated using some sort of sim aerodymics based on weight, lift and drag of the airfoil, drag of the fuselage and etc, vs. the power produced by the given powerplant at a given altitude with its historical propellar type, instead of just being read off a set of data points?

What I'm saying is, I always assumed for most part AH just models the physical traits of the plane and then calculates how they will fly in simulated air, and that the climb/speed charts mostly being close to real life is a result of the physics calculating side of the sim being Just That Darn Good...

No. As far as I remember only the spit5 got the uber-boost, then was returned to normal.

When you look at the AH charts both of these planes share the EXACT power curve.

This is wrong. This is an AH "cheat" if you will... The Seafire is heavier, and as such turns worse than the Spit5. But because it's heavier it would have slower climb rate, all other things being equal. The weight would also cause a dropoff in climb at higher alts, rather than just an offset in climb. The performance at alt may (or may not) suffer because of the higher weight as well.

You see the same faulty FM on the Fw190F8. It is identical to the A8's power curves and climb rates, but this would not be so.

I think HTC didn't have the real charts or info but wanted to include these planes. I think that at the time they went off info they had and said "it's close enough, let's use the charts for that plane"

And that's how we get identical power curves for radically different airframes.

I do hold out some hope that they will revisit such things in the future and make real flight models for them. It's just not right that they have significant weight increases yet retain identical climb and speed charts. IMO it means something's a little off on those flight models. Who knows what other parts of the FM are unbalanced because of that?

[Krusty]

Isn't climb rate, speed, etc, calculated using some sort of sim aerodymics based on weight, lift and drag of the airfoil, drag of the fuselage and etc, vs. the power produced by the given powerplant at a given altitude with its historical propellar type, instead of just being read off a set of data points?

What I'm saying is, I always assumed for most part AH just models the physical traits of the plane and then calculates how they will fly in simulated air, and that the climb/speed charts mostly being close to real life is a result of the physics calculating side of the sim being Just That Darn Good...

I think that's true for the most part... but even being a force-based game you have examples of totally different planes with identical cookie-cutter power and climb charts. That to me indicates there are possible areas where they can fudge the results.

For example: Our 190a8 hits the specs for speed and climb yet is some 250-or-so pounds overweight. If you take that weight off and it meets historic weights, what happens to that climb rate? There's a balance but I think they can tweak all the different variables to hit the right numbers.  Another example: Our P-38G was under-weight by some 500lbs for a long time, but it hit all the right numbers. When the weight was added back it still hit all the right numbers, but the handling/feel was different. How would it keep hitting all the right numbers that way? Another example: 190F8 is the heaviest model of the 190 radial series by far, and yet still makes the same rate of climb as the 190a8, still hits all the exact speed points as the a8 does.

So while clearly they have a good flight model system, they still have a balance in play, and any number of variables that can be tweaked to change the end results.

[dtango]

What’s the difference between healthy skepticism vs. a conspiracy theory?  Answer: the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

What is the Dunning-Kruger Effect?   “It is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes.”

Krusty, I’m afraid your mental mythology of flight model injustices keeps you from seeing the flaw in your arguments.  In this specific case for AH climb rate charts (Spit5/Seafire or FW190A-8/F-8) you jump to the conclusion that the FM is wrong.  Instead you should first ask yourself “Why would the AH rate of climb charts be the same?”.

[Krusty]

Dtango, your mental mythology that the FM is flawless keeps you from seeing the flaws when they pop up.

See how that works?

I had considered that. Had you bothered to ask, I would have explained I had considered that many times over the years. In fact I considered it with both the 190F8 and the Seafire. However, there is a difference between "close but different" and "cookie cutter identical".

The 190F8 dry weight is 489 lbs more than the A8 dry weight. Even if you are considering a 4-gun loadout on the A8 and a 2-gun standard on the F8, the F8 still weighs 200lbs more than the A8 with full internal fuel.

There is no way these planes should be even close in rate of climb with the exact same identical air frame and engine but hundreds of pounds of extra weight.

This is self evident. The F8 flight model is a kluge, a jurry rig, an effort to give us an extra ride based on HTC available data at the time. It's proven useful in scenarios and FSOs and the like, but it's just not... quite... "right."



P.S. Your insults were not unnoticed, either.

[Soulyss]

For giggles and because I was curious I checked the weights listed on the E6B screen in the TA just now.  Loaded both the A8 and F8 with 25% fuel and made sure the fuel load was the same in each plane.

F8:                                 9089
A8 (4x20mm):                8922
A8 (2x20mm, 2x30mm): 9131
A8 (2x20mm):                8600

[dtango]

Krusty- I've given you a hint already.  Here's another one: exactly what weights are the AH ROC charts for the SpitV/Seafire and Fw190A-8/F-8 based on?

[dtango]

The crickets sure are loud here.  Never us mind however!  To prevent those puzzled by the ROC charts for the SpitV/Seafire (190A-8/F8) from pondering this "many times over the years" without reaching the right answer here's the explanation in 5 minutes.

Krusty's Argument for a Broken FM:
1)The same airplane with a different weight has a different climb rate.  
2)The SpitV /Seafire (190A-8/F-8) are the same airplanes but different weights.  
3)However the HTC climb rate charts are the same for the SpitV/Seafire (190A-8/F-8); therefore, the FM is wrong!

We have proven the FM is wrong!!  Let the FM pot-banging began!!  Bring out the torches!  Pitch forks for the angry mob!  Time to hold Dr. Hitechenstein accountable for his FM abomination!!!

Not so fast.  There’s a big assumption.  Let’s bring it to light.  Assumption: HTC used different weights to calculate the climb rate charts for the SpitV/Seafire (190A-8/F-8).  For Krusty’s argument to be correct this assumption must be true.  

Well, sadly for all the angry rioters this is false.  According to AH the climb rate charts for the SpitV/Seafire (190A-8/F-8) are calculated with the same weight (SpitV/Seafire @ 6622lbs, A-8/F-8 @ 9682 lbs).

Infact if they used the same weight then we would expect to find that the ROC would indeed be the same for these airplanes.  So unknowingly Krusty has actually found more proof of the correctness of the FM.  Nice work Krusty!  

Here’s the correct logic:
1)the same airplane with the same weight will have the same ROC
2)the SpitV/Seafire are essentially the same airplane
3)the HTC ROC chart for the SpitV/Seafire are calculated using the same weight
4)the ROC charts are the same for the SpitV/Seafire; therefore, hitech isn’t as dumb as some of you think he is  .

Cheers,