Spitfire XIV stability questions

[Chalenge]

I was able to make multiple passes at 34,000 feet in a yak.

The Yak 9U is only 20mph faster than the B-29 at that altitude. On the other hand the Spit XIV is 50mph faster. At 20mph advantage once you make one pass it is going to take four sectors to get out in front again.

Just saying.

[icepac]

If you think that b29 interception is simply getting to co-altitude and chasing, you are mistaken.

Ask Triton1 about the Yak9 that intercepted him multiple times on the same 36,000 foot bomb run.

Sure he shot me down both times but I made many passes landing a ton of hits even with a "not so good" lead up to the interceptions.

Had I survived the two sorties I used to go after Triton1, I'm sure waiting a few minutes would have garnered a few more kills because of the damage inflicted.

I understand what is required to make these interceptions and maybe that is why I have 5 times as many b29 kills as you do.......while only concentrating on b29s for one afternoon.

[Chalenge]

If you mean you have more than I do for August?... not doing that this month. 

If you mean since the B29 came out? Think again.

[morfiend]

Karnak do you know why these type of reports tend to be over discredited here ?

  hlbly,I wouldnt say they are discredited but they must be qualified. The spit IX in question had which engine? Was it an LFIX an FIX or a HFIX all of which had different motors and different FTH's.

  I suspect the IX in question was more like our XVI than our IX but without the paticulars I'm only guessing.

  As for our spit XIV,well if it was modeled with 150 fuel I think it would be more representative of what the RL XIV was like. One thing I read in that report that struck me as strange was the bit about turning left better,now I might have misread that,I often do dislexia is a wonderful gift,but other than that it seems to be pretty close.



  YMMV.

   

[hlbly]

That report seems to be of a very general type explaining basically what the pilot ought to expect without giving exact numbers.  Geeks like exact numbers.  Exact numbers allow for easy calculations.  "Turns better than a Tempest" doesn't allow for much as it doesn't really tell us how much better, just that it is better.

Okay i see your point . If how ever lets say for arguments sake the tempest turned better at every possible altitude and configuration . Would it still be dismissed ? Just trying to learn here .

[surfinn]

I kinda agree with Icepac... If you manage to slow down the handling of the Ta-152 is horrible at 40k (flew up there in FSO) Keeping it above 300 you are fine....compared to 30k in a Yak where I danced all over a flight of 190s in FSO... they were stalling out and I was just zipping around like nothing.

Wonders how you did that since most FSOs have a ALT cap?

[Karnak]

Okay i see your point . If how ever lets say for arguments sake the tempest turned better at every possible altitude and configuration . Would it still be dismissed ? Just trying to learn here .

Dismissed isn't really the right word.  The data is looked at and used as a general reference, but it cannot be used to get exact predictions.  No: The Spitfire Mk XIV has a 650 meter turn radius and the Tempest Mk V has a 704 meter turn radius at 5,000ft.

[hlbly]

Dismissed isn't really the right word.  The data is looked at and used as a general reference, but it cannot be used to get exact predictions.  No: The Spitfire Mk XIV has a 650 meter turn radius and the Tempest Mk V has a 704 meter turn radius at 5,000ft.

Thnx Karnak . BTW what is your in game name ?

[Karnak]

Thnx Karnak . BTW what is your in game name ?

Karnak.

I hardly play nowadays though.

[Wmaker]

There are three planes that I suspect on having too high propeller masses; Ta152, I-16 and Spitfire Mk.XIV. It is very hard for me to explicitly prove it but based on the handling characteristics (excessive gyroscopic yaw) of these planes and the contrast compared to the rest of the planeset, that's the conclusion I've arrived to.

If that indeed is the case, reduction of the prop masses would improve the handling chracteristics of these planes quite significantly. It wouldn't cure the rather marginal directional stability of a Ta152 itself for example but it would make it much less of a nuisance.

[Babalonian]

There are three planes that I suspect on having too high propeller masses; Ta152, I-16 and Spitfire Mk.XIV. It is very hard for me to explicitly prove it but based on the handling characteristics (excessive gyroscopic yaw) of these planes and the contrast compared to the rest of the planeset, that's the conclusion I've arrived to.

If that indeed is the case, reduction of the prop masses would improve the handling chracteristics of these planes quite significantly. It wouldn't cure the rather marginal directional stability of a Ta152 itself for example but it would make it much less of a nuisance.

Your theory could explain why those particular torque monsters have a signifigantly more tempermental yaw instability/characteristic in AH than most any of the other plane you compare them to...  and also I agree with you, it shouldn't "cure" their inherant directional instabilities, but perhaps make them a load less agressive/tempermental/indusive.

Interesting thread.