MAUS (marsupials against uber spits)

[CombatWombat]

Does anyone know what particular model/engine combination HTC is trying to model in our current spit?  I know the spit had tons of different engines in it, but which is in AH?  

We were given the A8 and G10 because they were amoung the most numerous of the Fw/109's despite them being average performers compared to other models available at the time.  It feels like we are given the best possible engine for the spit however!  Why give us the average aircraft for fockwulfs, then give us the best spit Britian had to offer?  

Well what's the problem with our current spit?  Speed, and too much of it.  The plane has both huge sustained turn rate and a top speed barely slower than an FW/51.  If you can have speed AND turn rate, why fly a dedicated B&Z plane?  In theory it isnt even possible to have both, unless u have alot more horsepower than the competition, right?

Sustained turn rate is somewhat based on wingloading, correct?  Wingloading comes from wingarea, and wing cord.  The more wingarea, the more induced drag, bigger wing cord, more drag as well.  The spit must have LOTS of this in order to get that nice sustained turn, yet it can still pull itself through all the drag and be nearly as fast as Fw's/51's.  

I dunno, maybe Spits WERE that fast in real life, after all, they did have UFO power.  But perhaps it's not a matter of realism but more of playbalancing?  The current aircraft and all too similar in speed, while turn rate differs ALOT, making T&B reign suprmeme.   IT just seems that if other aircraft that fit inbetween the speed envelope we currently have, like the F4U, P47, etc, will be useful, is if the T&nberners are slowed down a bit, or the fast guys go faster.

Heres some stuff i dug up for the heck of it...

SPIT IX:
empty wieght: 7300lbs
wing area:  242 sq ft
wing loading:  30.2 lb/sq ft.
Horse power: 1,650hp Rolls Royce Merlin 70 Inline

Fw190 A8
empty wieght: 7600lbs
wing area:  197 sq ft
wingloading:  38.8 lb/sq ft
Horse power: 1,700hp BMW 801 D Radial

My ideas are confirmed by the data I found.  Not all data will be the same, but weather the spit is 7300, or 7301 pounds doesnt matter  = )

[-kier-]

Not to dispute any of your figures (I'm not), is your argument that the Spit is too good? It is indeed good, but I have to say I feel the plane set is very balanced as it is. I only have 13 kills this tour, but the bulk of them are in the 190 against the Spit. I have yet to be officially "killed". I have outrun Spits, out rolled them, out gunned them... and I fly Spits too, and find the German birds very hard to kill. AAMOF, about the only planes that seem relatively easy to kill in a Spit are the Nikki and La5. IMHO of course!

Then again (and not saying you don't) I start all my flights with a long climb to at least 20K...    When the odds turn against me, I split. I'm flying to live!

[CombatWombat]

>>I start all my flights with a long climb >>to at least 20K...

Me too, but then I just get jumped by 25k spits....  Nomatter how high I climb it always seems theres someone higher, figures.

[gatt]

Our Spit should be something between a merlin 61 and a Merlin 66 LF model. In other words a monster.

Time to 20,000ft of the 1944 Merlin 66 Spitfire (with 150 octane fuel) was 4'30". Can you imagine it?

I hate the Spitfire IX. I never fly it. But if you fly it like an energy fighter, it is simply the best. Take a 109 pilot, give him a Spit IX and you'll have the most lethal combo you have ever seen ...  

Greets,
Gatt

[jmccaul]

First the 109g10 and FW190 a8 were choosen because of the time they came into service around '44 not the models with the best performance. Remember the spit 14 was available in the first half '44 so there would be an argument for that instead of a a 9. The 9 made an appearence in '42 but had different engines and mods so '44 spit should be superior to a '42 spit and also fits in with the time frame for this game.I believe the spit had Merlin 61,63,66,70 or 266 engines. The spit fits in well with this plane set and was not choosen because it was the best spit 9 but because it was the right time period.

P.S. IN BnZ  speed and HIGH SPEED HANDLING are important in the both respects 190/51 are superior      

On the other hand mabye your right and the brits made better planes than you americans.

[-kier-]

Except Wombat is arguing we have the best Spit IX vs. the mediocre 109/190, unless I'm reading wrong.  

[jmccaul]

-kier-

Read my post what i said was the 1944 spit 9 should be modelled because we are doing a 1944 planes set and the 109/190 modelled are also from 1944.

Besides there is no best spit 9 there were two main basic set-ups for the spit high altitude and low altitude (i think the low alt plane had clipped wings)

  Although i am sure they improved on the 1942 models in some ways the performance difference between the same variant in 1942 and 1944 would be minmal at best. If you model the low alt spit it would be quicker but climb slower than a high alt one, which is best is very subjective.    

P.S. what is the spit 9 and the 190/109 you would suggest explaining why you have choosen them

[CombatWombat]

-kier- was reading right, let me try to rephrase.

The 109G10 and 190A8 were mediocre versions of the me109 and 190A series.  Both the Franze, and FW-A4 were better dogfighters than the planes we recieved in most respects, yet we got the G/A8 since they were the most abundant at the time.(thats what I was told)

Meanwhile, our Spit IX, seems to have the best engine available in 44.  It seems we have an "Elite" spit, rather than the average run-of-the-mill RAF fighter.  I'm sure some Spits WERE this good, but not all, and definitely not most.  

You have to figure a little, that in wartime, where a good portion of Britian was destroyed a few years earlier, they could not afford to upgrade ALL spits with the newest greatest equipment.  Just look at the USAF.  Not all of our F-16's are block 50/52.  Or our F15E's.  Not all have the newest best engine availible to them, the 229.

PS:  a spit can make 20k in 4:30!?  Is that the turbine powered varient?!  Or perhaps JADO assist?

[jmccaul]

In 1942 the spit 9 would not have reached many opertional units. In 1944, the time AH has choosen to use, the spit 9 would have been the most common spit as it was the most produced variant.

 I believe the only advantage the Franze has over the G-10 is it is a better turner and it still won't out turn a spit 9, the G-10 will eat the franze for breakfast in terms of speed,climb, acceleration etc. Against the spit 9 i don't think the franze has a single significant advantage (am i wrong?)

 The 190 A4 on the other hand is again more manouverable than the A8.It is  still not a patch on the spit (or most other planes)in terms of turning circles but the A8 is a evolution on the A4 and therefore should be considered better. This though is much more debatable.

P.S. Franze entered service 1941 and A4 entered in 1942 (a few months before the spit.      

[This message has been edited by jmccaul (edited 11-13-1999).]

[This message has been edited by jmccaul (edited 11-13-1999).]

[Minotaur]

Hose me if I am wrong.

Was the Spit, and for that matter the 109, such enduring air frames because they were  superior at any one thing?

Could they pretty well compete at the big three, E fighting, BnZ and TnB?  Or is that just a sim idea that I have?

Both Spit and 109 climb and accelerate well, big three plus one.

Mino

[Vermillion]

While I am a general "anti-Spit" person myself, I'm not exactly sure which German aircraft are a superior alternative.

In the 190 Series, I would probably have to agreed with you, and would go with the Fw190D-9. It would have been more competitive, and fit in better with the planeset.

However I don't know of a better performing Me-109 Model.  The 109G10 is actually the same basic plane as the 109K4. Yes the G series came before the K series, but the G10 was a standardization of the refits of older G airframes to meet the newer K4 series performance specifications. There should be a minimal performance difference.

And when it comes to Spitfires, my tag line says it all.

Real Men fly Radials... Only Nancy Boys fly Spitfires  




------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires "

[fats]

If WB's modeling can be used as any kind of indicative evidence, I say Bf 109F-4 can very well dogfight with Spitfire IX.

Flat turns Spitfire IX probably wins, but general dogfight it is quite fun match up. To me the G-10 ( or WB's K-4 ) are too heavy. If I want to BnZ I'll grab a Fw 190 then. When I fly Bf 109 I would rather have G-2 or G-6 in against Spitfire IX and other '44 planes.

All, G-2, G-6 and G-10, climb better than most of their opposition. G-10 going a bit faster I would think. G-2/6's better turning ability makes it IMO a better plane.

Same deal with Fw 190, against planes of '44 I would much rather have Fw 190A-4 than A-8 or D-9. A-4 and A-8 both have about the same ammount of 'running' ability but the first one turns bit better as to not make it such a target for P-51 which the first two can't out run in the long run.

As for uber Spitfire. IMO it's the best plane in the game right now, but dunno if it's wrongly modeled. As long as it, and its opposition, are correctly modeled I have no issues with it. Guess that wasn't the original point of the thread though.


//fats

[Brick]

 

Real Men fly Radials... Only Nancy Boys fly Spitfires

Hahahahahaha.  Right on, Verm.    I mean, the Spit is one helluva plane, but EVERYBODY flies it.  In "Brand W", I would often take up a clearly inferior ride just to see how I could manage myself up there.  I'm often prone to dive right in, guns blazing... but sometimes it's best to sit back and pick your fights.  

[chisel]

"However I don't know of a better performing Me-109 Model. The 109G10 is actually the same basic plane as the 109K4. Yes the G series came before the K series, but the G10 was a standardization of the refits of older G airframes to meet the newer K4 series performance specifications. There should be a minimal performance difference."

--12mph (TAS) difference at 24k 'ish ft according to Janes


--Vermillion where did you get that? And yes Ive seen it posted before, but I have read that the opposite way. K series based on G-10 with slightly improved aerodynamics and engine.

--------------------------------------.


From: Messerschmitt Bf109

Robert Grisnell

"The Bf109k was the product of a standardization policy instituted by the RLM to reduce the number of variants and sub-types in the various basic airframes in use by the Luftwaffe. The plan was to select a basic varient,incorporating all the improvements that had evolved through the earlier sub-types,and establish a standard aircraft which would be manufactured by each of the aircraft plants involved in that paticular design."

" The 109k was such an aircraft, and was based on the Bf109G-10 variant,incorporating a number of Umruest-Bausatz as well as several minor aerodynamic external features to improve streamlining"

---------------
The G-10 was in use in April 44 the K series in Oct 44. How could the G-10 be based on the K when it came out first?

Jagr/Kats?

------------------
Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick! Everybody knows a burrow owl... lives... in a hole... in the ground!

[This message has been edited by chisel (edited 11-14-1999).]

[Vermillion]

Chisel, I am definitely not a 109 expert, so take what I say on that subject with a grain of salt.

I had thought that what I had posted was what I had read at some point, but admittedly, I may have been parroting back something I had read over in AGW.

But regardless, I think the point that the K4 and the G10 are very similar in performance is still valid.

------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires "