Should the Spitfire Mk.XIV be clipped?

[Krusty]

It spun the other way, though... Would probably spin out as badly as a Spit14 at 32k?

[Rob52240]

Lets have both and perk the bubble a little more.  Or a lot more.

[Noir]

They are both 12 cylinder engines.  The Merlin is a 27 liter engine and the Griffon was, if I recall correctly, a 36 liter engine.

damn I was persuaded that the griffon was 14 cylinders for like 10 years 

[MachFly]

double post

[MachFly]

It spun the other way, though... Would probably spin out as badly as a Spit14 at 32k?

I think the 12's spit characteristics might be worse than 14's. 14 has a larger tail that helps with spin recovery, 12 still has the standard tail from the Merlin variants.
However I don't think there is anything wrong with the 14's spin characteristics. Yeah it spins a bit easier than most other aircraft but it was not designed for low speed operations and if done properly that extra torque can be used to your advantage.

[Krusty]

Pilot notes say it flew like any other spit in terms of performance [ed: not counting speed power, naturally] and handling. Our 14 is a bit of an anomaly in that it is totally non-spit-like.

[SgtPappy]

They are both 12 cylinder engines.  The Merlin is a 27 liter engine and the Griffon was, if I recall correctly, a 36 liter engine.

Essentially. Merlin's are 27.5 liter and Griffons are 37.5 liter... imagine what the guys on Top Gear would say.

Also, Krusty, similar reports state that the IX turns like the V and that the V turns like the I. So put two and two together and you can conclude that the IX turns like the I!

Their comparisons are not incorrect, they are simply more of a 'touch feel' thing than hard data. Though Griffon birds are rough, their pure flat turning capabilities are more similar to IX's (according what the RAF felt) than that of the Fw 190.

EDIT: here's an image of what I'm talking about. It's been posted before, and I believe the 109 was tested with wing guns.

[Krusty]

That image is not a valid comparison to any type of plane. It's childish in scale and nature. I hate when folks post it as an actual turn radius measurement.

I've never heard the claim repeated that the V turns like an I, and an IX like a V, but I HAVE heard repeatedly that the XIV turned as tightly as the spit9 or 5 (I can't recall which at the moment without looking it up)

[MachFly]

Pilot notes say it flew like any other spit in terms of performance [ed: not counting speed power, naturally] and handling. Our 14 is a bit of an anomaly in that it is totally non-spit-like.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "non-spit-like". 14 is significantly heavier than the Merlin variants yet it has the same wing. This means that it has a higher wing loading than the Merlin variants means it would not turn as well.
The 14 in AH does not turn as well as other spits but I do believe that handling characteristics are "spit-like".

[MachFly]

Essentially. Merlin's are 27.5 liter and Griffons are 37.5 liter... imagine what the guys on Top Gear would say.

Also, Krusty, similar reports state that the IX turns like the V and that the V turns like the I. So put two and two together and you can conclude that the IX turns like the I!

Their comparisons are not incorrect, they are simply more of a 'touch feel' thing than hard data. Though Griffon birds are rough, their pure flat turning capabilities are more similar to IX's (according what the RAF felt) than that of the Fw 190.

EDIT: here's an image of what I'm talking about. It's been posted before, and I believe the 109 was tested with wing guns.
(Image removed from quote.)

That image is inaccurate. Your turning circle would depend on speed and pressure so it varies for each aircraft. Also each aircraft had it's specific performance envelope where it performs the best, this image does not say what speed these turn radios' are for. See at 500mph a Meteor will turn tighter then a Spit9, yet at 200mph a Spit9 will turn tighter then a Meteor. 

[Babalonian]

Ive noticed that although the XIV prototypes and production/converted Mk.XIIIs had standard wing tips, most of the pics I can find of high-back XIVs in service show clipped wings.

given the improvement in capability the XVI's clipped wing gives compared to the (very similar) unclipped VIII, clipping the XIV might finally make it perk-worthy.

anyone have more evidence either way?


(Image removed from quote.)

I don't think the one that's modeled in-game is a high-back, but the currently modeled fuselage would greatly effect my decision.

[SgtPappy]

I kinda just pointed out that it was not an exact measurement... I stated that it was the "touch feel" sort of thing that the evaluating pilots had of the aircraft at the time.

[Guppy35]

Why? Fly the Spit16, and it outperforms the XII.

The thing is, the XII, outside of those who absolutely love the detailed history of the plane, isn't useful. Nor is it better than anything we already have in-game.

What makes it interesting is that it was around in early 1942. At THAT TIME it was very fast. Much like the Mossie was fast against early 1943 models but in the MAs it's pretty much an easy target, you'd get the same issues here.

To quote an article on the XII that lists speeds:
"The resulting aircraft was very fast at low levels, reaching a speed of 372 mph at 5,700 feet and 397 mph at 18,000 ft. It was faster than the Mk IX up to about 20,000 feet, but above that height it was slower."

Well, let's look at our Spit9 and clipped wing Spit16:

(Image removed from quote.)

So, our Spit16 is as fast at 5000ft, even faster at 20,000ft, and stays fast up to almost 25k.

I know, I know... The die hard fans want it, and I can't blame them 1 iota. However, if you wanted to you could just fly a Spit16 and pretend, and get comparable results.

Krusty, we just flew a scenario where I used Spit Vs instead of XIIs for 91 squadron as they had Vs before XIIs.  Historically it should have been XIIs.  Can you imagine the Luftwhines if I'd subbed a Spitfire XVI for the XII?  There would have been a riot of complaints about it being unfair!  I went with a 41 Spitfire Vb instead of a 45 Spitfire XVI. 

And no, using the 16 wouldn't be the same

That being said, and being a Spit XII history nut since 1980 far longer then anyone here or the game has existed, I would dearly love one.  I've also said since the beginning that despite that love for the XII, there are other birds that need to be added in game.

But do remember next time you go on wanting the right 190 version, what you just said about just imagining an XII with a XVI

[Krusty]

Oh, I pretend I have "version X" plenty when I'm flying certain planes....

It gets pretty bad sometimes. I should seek help 

I caught myself pretending I had a me410 while flying a 110G a few times. Even worse, I pretended I was in a G.55 when dogfighting in a C.205.

Just for the record, I wasn't trying to be a total downer on the XII. From a planeset scenario it's not needed. From a special events scenario it had limited use and limited utilization. I still get that folks want it, just like I want a few models that aren't all that vital. Folks can dream, eh?

Yes, I can imagine the whines if the spit16 was used in the example you give Guppy, but I think part of that is because of how HTC chose to model the spitfires in this game. If any plane in the game now holds the UFO title, it would be the spitfire16 nowadays. The Las lost the title when they were remodeled, as did the n1k2. They both got a bit of a nerf in handling. That pretty much leaves the spitty! Focus all attention on it, players of the MA! (so the MA MOTD should read, methinks).

Although, whines or not it (the spit16) probably would still be way better than the spit5. Hell even the spit9 would be better (unless this was a while back and we're talking the up-boosted spit5 with 240 20mm rds -- then I could see why that was the choice).

[Karnak]

No, it was the recent scenario pitting the 1943 RAF vs the Luftwaffe, so the 1941 Spitfire Mk Vb Guppy is referring to is the current one.

Also, drop the Spit hate or actually post supporting data for your whines.  Every bit of data I have seen says the Spitfires are, if anything, undermodeled due to their excessive fragility.  Wing flex isn't modeled in this game, but if it ever is the Spits should have an annoying amount of wing flex making shooting in high G situations very much less accurate.