AH Spitfire Mk V vs AH 190 A5 Tests

[funkedup]

The thread was about duplicating the AFDU tests in AH.  I had studied this very subject way back when Spades originally posted the AFDU documents, and remembered the discrepancy in the power settings, as pointed out by Nashwan.  

I only posted here to make sure everybody was aware of the difference in ratings between the early Spits flown by the AFDU and the ones in AH.  I just wanted to make sure that the tests were done as realistically as possible, so that the findings would be useful to the community.  I saw something that probably invalidated the tests, so I pointed it out.

I really don't care what the results are, if the 190 is overmodeled or the Spits are overmodeled.  We have plenty of quantitative performance data for these aircraft, and the AH planes match the data quite well.  There might be some small errors in performance, but nothing major.  In any case I can't play AH due to the "UDP Lost" porkage caused by one of the recent patches.  I was just trying to help a fellow flight test nerd to make his measurements as realistic as possible.  That's all I have to say on the subject.

[Wilbus]

Funked, so we agree on the Spitfire 9 running WEP at 15 or possibly 16 boost. The A3 outaccelerated this spit, specially in zoom climbs.

The Spit 9 in AH has the gauge showing 18 lbs BUT the performance of teh Spit matches that of the actual Spit 9 which proves that the boost gauge in AH is showing wrong. I is actually running at 16 but showing 18.

The Spitfire Mk 5, which was later improved to the version we have, was still quite inferior to the worst of the Spitfire 9's, (the one we have) as also indicated and modelled in AH. And that Spit 9 was outaccelerated by the 190 A3.

Which means. The Spitfire 9 we have was outaccelerated by the A3. The A5 had a slightly lenghtened fuselage, weight difference was minimal. The engine was improved. Speed was improved somewhat aswell. As the Spitfire 9 we have was outaccelerated by the A3, meaning that even the improved spitfire 5 was also outaccelerated by it. The Improved Spitfire Mk 5 is the same we have in AH, it is inferior to our 16 lbs Spit 9, thus it should be inferior to the 190 A5.

The A5 had the fuselage lenghtened by 15,5 cm (about 6 inches). Weight difference hardly noticable.

Spit 9 accelerates from 200-300mph in 37 seconds in AH (once again, performance matches the Merlin 61 spit 9). 190 A5 accelerates from 200-300mph in 52 seconds. Asume the extra weight would actually decrease the acceleration in a way that can even be measured, it was DEFINATLY not decreased with 15 seconds for 100mph.

Not sure how I can make this any clearer, the spit 9 used in the test had the same performance as the spit 9 in AH. Spit 5 in AH is better then the one in the tests but still inferior to the spit 9 thus inferior to the 190 aswell.

Never been any clearer for me that the 190 is modelled in a wrong way. The Spit 5 DID NOT outaccelerate the 190 A5 in level flight or anything else. The Merlin 61 spit 9 did NOT outaccelerate the 190 A5 (once again, performance of A3 and A5 is very little, if any, the A5 has better), specially not in zoom climbs.

Can't argue against this and these tests prove pretty much that the AH 190 is wrong.

[gripen]

Funkedup,
You can find additional data about AFDU tests from "The Captive Luftwaffe" by K. S. West, +9 lbs is claimed there (actually you can find same information from other books too). +12 lbs @ 2850 rpm is the 1 hour settiing claimed in manual and also in several other sources. Anyway, if we look climb rates and speeds in A&AEE  test, we can see that AFDU climb test used +12 lbs @ 2850rpm. The sources are contradictory in this case.

Wilbus,
We certainly know that at +18 lbs boost (Merlin 66 and other two stage Merlins) the Spitfire IX outclimbed the Fw 190 with large margin and therefore atleast initially outaccelerated too. The problem is that we don't really know what data HTC staff used. As said before, AH is a game.

gripen

[Karnak]

Wilbus,

No, the Spit IX in the tests was running at +12, well below its maximum.

Looking through my books I found a reference to a Merlin 61 being run at +25 boost and producing 2,100hp at 10,000ft.

Clearly this was never used in operational Spits.

Due to the screwy boost guage in the AH Spit IX it is impossible to run comparitive tests to the AFDU tests.  Pyro has stated outright that the Spitfire Mk IX in AH is a Merlin 61 powered Spitfire.  That would make it an early Spit IX, one of only about 300 built with the Merlin 61.

[Wilbus]

Karnak 12 lbs on no WEP yes. 15-16 lbs on WEP.

I ran no WEP on all my tests. As the performance the Spitfire 9 in AH, matches the performance (more or less) of the Spitfire with Merlin 61, the boost in Military will be the same as the boost they used in military. Meaning 12 lbs.

[Squire]

I hate to throw a wrench into the works here... but I actually believe the Spitfire IX we have in AH is a Spitfire H.F. IX with a Merlin 70.

Ya, ya "but Pyro said..." well, I have seen nothing where Pyro claims its a Merlin 61 ***with a 100 percent accurate model***, have you?

You guys are basing arguements on a LOT of assumptions.

Here are my own:

I have heard that the Spitfire IX in Warbirds was actually modelled after a HF IX, and I also think (this is also my conjecture) that Pyro got the SAME data , but plugged it into his new sim...Aces High. Proof? I have none, but the IX we have is closest to a Merlin 70, which did have a max boost of 18.

Data:

Spitfire IX Merlin 70

Rate of climb at Sea level  4390 ft/min.
Rate of climb @ 30,000 ft.  2600 ft/min.  
Time to 10,000 ft  2.25 mins.  
Time to 20,000 ft  4.85 mins.  
Time to 30,000 ft  8.05 mins.
Height at which rate of climb is 1000 ft/min. 38,000 ft.
Time to reach above height  (30k) 12.6 mins.
Service ceiling (100ft/min)  41,000 ft.  
Estimated absolute ceiling  41,300 ft.  


Rate of climb corrected to 18.0 lb/sq.in. boost

Level speeds

Maximum level speed at sea level  329 m.p.h.  
Maximum level speed at M.S. gear full throttle height 396 m.p.h.  at 15,900 ft.  
Maximum level speed at F.S. gear full throttle height  407 m.p.h. at 27,800 ft.
Level Speed at 30,000 f.t  413 m.p.h.  

The data does not match exactly but NO a/c in AH matches their RL #s perfect. You will find the AH Spitfire IX is as close to the above numbers as the "Merlin 61" #s are.

I beleive the boost guage is accurate, on a merlin 70, 18 pounds with full boost.

Fact of the matter is, when all is said and done, it does match a Merlin 61 model as well as it does a Merlin 70. Also, a HF IX has standard wing tips, armament, ect. (despite popular myth to the contrary). You cant tell it from a standard LF IX.

This "proves" nothing, no, but food for thought I think is all. Maybe the guage works just fine?

Regards.

[Wilbus]

Thanks Squire

Still doesn't explain why a Spit 5, which was reported, not only in tests but in combat, to be inferior to the 190. I mean inferior as in don't stand a single chance unless they surprised the 190. The Superiority of the 190 was so great over the Spit 5 that the small/medium attacks against france by blenheims + Spitfire and Hurricane escort were infact almost stopped completely.

Spitfire  5 pilots reported this aswell, Jonny Johnson (however it is spelled) came back from his first encounter with one astonished and amazed by the new plane, the answer by the air ministry to his question what it was kind of plane it was "we believe it is some old Curtis planes got prior to WW2", Jonny's answer to that was "well if they've got some old Curtis planes as good as that can we have some?". That alone clearly proves the superiorty which the 190 had in R/L, which it doesn't in any way have in AH.

[Montezuma]

Give it up luftwhiner.

[Squire]

Wilbus my friend, please, you are not telling me in a Snapshot or a TOD setup that a Spitfire V squad would not be completely dominated by a Fw190A-5 squad?

You are not serious. Look at the speed #s. They would slash and escape at will, with twice the firepower of a Spitfire V. I have fought 190s in the CT in SpitVs to know enough of what I speak.

They dominate the SpitV like the F4U dominates the A6M5 (only when flown properly...mind you).

Sea level: 340 to 305
5k:           370 to 325
10K:         365 to 345
20K:         405 to 375

Approximations, but I mean really. Unless the LW get into "MA style" TBing, they would kick a**.

And the 190 rolls on a whim as well as having 4 x 20mm cannon and a radial engine that cant be killed by a coolant hit.

Try escorting a flight of Bostons, with Spit Vs, and have an opposing squad attack with 190A5s. See how many Bostons make it back.

Regards.

[Staga]

Originally posted by Montezuma
Give it up luftwhiner.

Grow up kid, you're not in AW anymore.

[Dead Man Flying]

In any environment approaching "reality" in AH (i.e. scenarios, TODs, etc.), the 190A5 clearly dominates the Spit V.

Anyone arguing otherwise is deluding himself.  The A5 holds just about all the cards when it comes to survivability/escapability.  It can almost always dictate the terms of the fight unless found in an extremely disadvantageous position.

If I had my choice in a scenario, I'd choose the A5 over the Spit V in a heartbeat.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[gripen]

Squire,
Thanks, your explanation sounds pretty logical.

Wilbus,
AFAIK the AH Spitfire V uses +16 lbs rating.

gripen

[Montezuma]

Originally posted by Staga

Grow up kid, you're not in AW anymore.

Do you think if Dilbus keeps on whining and crying that HTC will change the A5?  

I don't.

[Squire]

By the way, an "operational" HF IX would have been slower, and not quite as fast in the climb, thats a given for AFDU tests I would think.

As well, remember the post Normandy 1944 SpitIXs (LF and HF) had the larger oil cooler under the nose (like we have in the AH version), and would have caused, lets say 5mph extra drag? take that into account and the #s are even closer what we have in the AH SpitIX.    

I will also say for all the talk of the "1942 Spit fighting 1944 LW" I really dont buy that either Spit fans.

The main LW fighter types in most of the 1944 JGs were the 109G-6 and the FW190A-8, and a Spitfire IX can fight either. 190D-9 and 109G-10s are mid-late 44+ to be fair, and yes, either of the latter will outclass it, as they did.  I would like to see a LF IX at some point, but they gave the XIV instead I guess .

[bigUC]

Originally posted by Squire
Wilbus my friend, please, you are not telling me in a Snapshot or a TOD setup that a Spitfire V squad would not be completely dominated by a Fw190A-5 squad?
 

I think you are missing the point here...

This is from the first post in the thread:

Level acceleration at 10,3k.
Time from 200mph to 300mph.

Spitfire Mk V: 46 seconds.

Fw 190 A5: 52 seconds.

Should this not be corrected if it's true?