spitfire mk xiv (14)

[RTHolmes]

yup, they ballasted the tail (~150lb) to keep the CoG in the same place, as well as enlarging the fin and rudder.

I'm dubious that the real thing was as bouncy as ours is compared to the VIII though. testers reported that the elevators were much heavier, but just as effective giving it superior "maneuverability in turns" to the VIII at all alts.

[Chalenge]

Hmmm.... Griffon 65 81"   Merlin 61 88"
Griffon is heavier though. The camshaft and magneto drives were placed into the propeller reduction gears reducing the overall length of the engine. The frontal area is larger but not the length.

[MachFly]

Not just the engine alone, correct?

Not just the engine, but in relation to the engine everything else is insignificant.

[Butcher]

I always have a joy when flying around in a spit14, above 20k it dominates the skies - under its simply a faster spit that can't turn as well.

The acceleration however is unmatched, and climb rate, however nothing beats a good sound pack and hearing that engine fire up to life.

[Lusche]

The acceleration however is unmatched, and climb rate

Take both a 109K and a Spit 14 with 100% fuel and no DT and measure the time to climb from takeoff to 30k for both of them... 

[RTHolmes]

interestingly the CofG is a fair bit further forward than the VIII too, even with the tail ballasted.

[Chalenge]

I always have a joy when flying around in a spit14, above 20k it dominates the skies - under its simply a faster spit that can't turn as well.

The acceleration however is unmatched, and climb rate, however nothing beats a good sound pack and hearing that engine fire up to life.

Somehow I think you are forgetting the Jugs (M and N) and the 152. Even in capable hands the Spit 14 is toast above 34k. Above 40k the 152 rules supreme to all except only the 163.

[Guppy35]

Somehow I think you are forgetting the Jugs (M and N) and the 152. Even in capable hands the Spit 14 is toast above 34k. Above 40k the 152 rules supreme to all except only the 163.

Not much fighting going on above 40K of course.

[nrshida]

Am I being obtuse or wouldn't the centre of gravity have to be in approximately the same position as any other Spitfire, i.e. pretty well cock on the lift centre of the wings?

I thought the Mark XIV was based on the fuselage of the Mark VIII which was already structurally superior to the earlier Marks? I know that old Willy was quite clever with the design of the Bf109, specifically with the machined bulkheads which carried the stresses of the engine, wings and landing gear, but clearly Joseph Smith was similarly competent so I think it's a safe assumption that the Mark XIV could handle the structural loads associated with the additional power and weight.

What interests and has always confused me was the stability issue, especially using the Bf109 as a comparison:

I thought a larger polar moment of inertia translates to greater inertial stability, not less. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the minutiae of aircraft design to foresee a fundamental difference, but in other vehicles a larger, or in this case a longer, distribution of the mass about its centre of gravity tends to make a vehicle more docile and less inclined to change its direction quickly. Thus I would have assumed the the Mark XIV would bounce around less not more. Must be missing a vital piece of understanding  

How can essentially the same change: i.e. adding a heavier and more powerful engine to an airframe designed for a lighter less powerful one, in the case of the Bf109 make its handling more docile, more controllable in a vertical stall and a more docile gun platform do the inverse in the Spitfire equivalent?

[Charge]

Remember that the tail area of Spits where enlarged all the time. The last models had a huge tail compared to Mk1. The introduction of bubble cockpit made the directional stability even worse and the rudder was further enlarged.

Maybe the huge wing section forward of control surfaces causes more imbalance than in other planes?

What about the tail? Griffon rotates in other direction than Merlins, was there a built in compensation in rudder assembly for Merlins which was the wrong way for Griffons?

-C+

[Hap]

Was it really as bad as it was in this game?  Yes its fast, and rightly so; but bloody hell what an animal it is.

What you guys think

Right plane for the right job: above 23K (whenever the boost goes crazy -- 23 to 28K or there about.  I've forgetting the exact band, but it's very easy to see and feel.). 

As I recollect, the 14 was a buzz-bomb chaser.  No?

Wrong plane for wrong job: turn fighting planes that want you close to their vest and/or can get a notch at 400 give or take a bit.

[dirtdart]

I am not sure about the rudder on the Spit, most of my stuff is on Axis stuff.  On a later 109s, the rudder was airfoiled to give neutral trim at a certain speed.  I have frankly never seen a US or Brit fighter with an airfoiled stab like that. 

[bozon]

The Griffon spits were different animals than the Merlins. They are the same as much as the Tempest is the same as the Typhoon. In some other conditions, they would have gotten a new name, like the Tempest did.

As such, if one tries to fly them like a Merlin spit, he is doomed to a failure. They are pure energy fighters with all that entails and in particular, the sacrifice of maneuverability for speed and climb. The latter two are really demanding and every small improvement requires even more sacrifice of other qualities. In late WWII, speed and visibility were kings. The lowering of the fuselage to improve rear visibility cost in stability. Installing beastly engines into small frames ruined the fine balancing of the original designs, but the general agreement was that the gain was well worth the sacrifice - i.e., speed demons that handle like a unicycle and are very dangerous to fly. There simply was no time to design a new plane from scratch.

In AH, conditions are very different and so the preferences are different. When fighting on the ground, turning increases in importance, since dive is eliminated. Top speed is less important as the absolute difference in tops speeds is smaller down low and top speed is difficult to maintain without ability to dive and with the constant need for turning. This is why planes like N1K and spit16 and even the older turny burny planes are so successful in the arena. Send then to a scenario where engagements start at 30k and icons are short range and see what happens. The Merlin spits suffer greatly in large 15+k furballs vs. late LW rides. The Spit 14 more than closes the gap. At the time, it was considered a supreme fighter, even though pilots said the 9s and 5s were SO much nicer to fly.

[FLS]

Am I being obtuse or wouldn't the centre of gravity have to be in approximately the same position as any other Spitfire, i.e. pretty well cock on the lift centre of the wings?

Aircraft are more stable with the CG ahead of the CL.

[nrshida]

Aircraft are more stable with the CG ahead of the CL.

In the case of the Mark XIV how much farther forward? Also if they fitted a counterbalance surely they could put the GofG accurately where they wanted it?