Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Guppy35 on March 18, 2004, 01:56:49 AM
-
SO there I am going flat out on the deck in the AH Spit FIX chasing an LA7 thats near one of our bases. And this guy is walking away from me, going roughly 40-50mph faster then the Spit.
This isn't making lots of sense to me as he didn't dive in. We'd been dancing a bit with no one getting the edge and when he rolled out, he just took off.
So I dig out the Spit books and what I see is the FIX is that much slower on the deck then an LA7, but an LFIX isn't since the engine is optimized for lower alts.
I kind of like the Spit for defending a base. It is a short range interceptor after all, but because it's the less produced FIX, it sure gets short changed when it comes to running down the LA7s, 51s etc that come diving down and tearing across the airfields so often.
SO how bout that Spit LFIX or LFXVI? Clipped wings would be nice too :)
Yeah I know, it's been asked a million times and the LW guys would be upset :)
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1078773966.jpg)
-
Spitfire F.Mk IX: 321mph on the deck
Spitfire LF.Mk IX: 336mph on the deck
La-7: 380mph on the deck
The only Spitfire that will give an La-7 a run for it is a Mk XIV on 150 octane at +25lbs boost.
-
A spit XII would be useful though. But the one i would love to see is a spitfire LF IX with clipped wings....:)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Spitfire F.Mk IX: 321mph on the deck
Spitfire LF.Mk IX: 336mph on the deck
La-7: 380mph on the deck
The only Spitfire that will give an La-7 a run for it is a Mk XIV on 150 octane at +25lbs boost.
Hmmm, I looked again at what I read. 150 octane fuel and +25 boost, used in the summer of 44 chasing V-1s.
Spit LFIX with a Merlin 66 360mph. about 30 mph faster then a similar LFIX with 100 octane and +18 boost.
Oh well, wishful thinking I guess :)
And as a longtime Spitfire XII fanatic I'd love one in AH but I think that would be far down the list compared to other aircraft. A clipped LFIX is probably a more reasonable wish.
Dan/Slack
-
Guppy35,
Come on man, be serious. The perked Spitfire Mk XIV is limited to +18lbs boost. You have got to know that any prospective Spitfire LF.Mk IX or XVI will also be limited to +18lbs boost.
-
How much better was the La9 over the La7? I've heard that the La9 is superior to the Sea Fury, Bearcat, so would that mean that the La7 was superior to the Tempest, Spit 14? Makes you think for a few minutes!
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Guppy35,
Come on man, be serious. The perked Spitfire Mk XIV is limited to +18lbs boost. You have got to know that any prospective Spitfire LF.Mk IX or XVI will also be limited to +18lbs boost.
Sorry for not being more clear. What I was saying was that I missed the part with the +25 Boost, 150 octane when I saw the LFIX number the first time.
I don't expect, and wouldn't ask for that. I'd still like an clipped wing LF IX or LF XVI though. I just really like that version as it's about as close to an XII as I'm going to get in AH :)
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Replicant
How much better was the La9 over the La7? I've heard that the La9 is superior to the Sea Fury, Bearcat, so would that mean that the La7 was superior to the Tempest, Spit 14? Makes you think for a few minutes!
Yeah .... them sneaky Russian bastidges got good at making fast prop planes alla sudden. We want all our LL stuff back now! ;)
-
Guppy35, you are aware that Spit IXs were operational with +25 boost in early May 44, before the diver business, right? Also, bear in mind these Spits were on to other tasks after mid August, when the V1's stopped coming over in any appreciable numbers.
-
mw,
That is true, but I doubt that +25lbs boost will be modeled on anything in AH.
Guppy35,
What I'd like to see is a Spitfire Mk VIII powered by a Merlin 66. That would give a Pacific Spitfire, longer range and a lower mark number that might keep some people grabbing the Mk IX.
IX is a bigger number than VIII after all, and bigger means later, and later means better.
Now, many would know that the IX predates the VIII, but it might spread the usage a bit.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
mw,
That is true, but I doubt that +25lbs boost will be modeled on anything in AH.
Guppy35,
What I'd like to see is a Spitfire Mk VIII powered by a Merlin 66. That would give a Pacific Spitfire, longer range and a lower mark number that might keep some people grabbing the Mk IX.
IX is a bigger number than VIII after all, and bigger means later, and later means better.
Now, many would know that the IX predates the VIII, but it might spread the usage a bit.
I can live with an LFVIII :)
Yeah I was aware of that mw, but I understand Karnak's point that something like that would not be modeled in AH, despite the fact that the AH Spit IX is the 1942 FIX that was not used as extensively as the LFIX which was the pilot's favorite.
As mentioned I'm a Spit XII fanatic going back long before computer flight sims. I'd love the 1943 Spit XII that could do 355mph at 2000 feet, 372 at 5700 and 397 at 18K without the +25 boost and 150 octane fuel. They were running down the low level 190s hitting the south coast of England in May-June of 43.
But I doubt it would ever happen
Dan/Slack
-
I want the La9 just for its guns. 4 x 23mm all in the nose!!!! These 23mm have the same power as the 23mm cannnon on our IL2...
La9 was all metal faster and aerodynamically refined in comparison to our La7 but had the same engine power IIRC.
But who cares. Think 4 x 23mm in the nose!!!
-
Just ask for a clipped wing LF Spit9 by 18+ boost for a gap filler between the '42 Spit9 and the '44 Spit14.
We already got three variants of the Bf109 Gustav, and me I'm personally wishing for a fourth, the G-14.
In that sense, there's no reason why Spit9s can't come in multiple variants - HF, LF, MF, clipped-wing, universal wing, etc etc..
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
These 23mm have the same power as the 23mm cannnon on our IL2...
No, not the same. Only same amount of HE, but muzzle velocity is much lower.
But who cares. Think 4 x 23mm in the nose!!!
Yep :).
-
La9 cannons...
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_44_1072555655.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The only Spitfire that will give an La-7 a run for it is a Mk XIV on 150 octane at +25lbs boost.
Don`t mix the Mk IX`s maximum boost with that of the MkXIV`s.
Only the Merlin 66s were cleared for +25 lbs boosts.
There`s absolutely no evidence the Mk XIV`s Griffon 65 to ever been cleared for more than +21 lbs during the war - even the summer 1945 tests of a Mk 21 with the same series Griffon engine state the present maximum boost at the time is +21 lbs. Which makes the case pretty clear.
See here also:
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/Griffon%20limits%20of%2021lbs.jpg)
The best figures for the Mk XIV at +18 lbs are 358mph at SL. 18lbs refers to 1840 BHP at SL under RAM.
The power output was 2040 BHP at +21lbs (rammed). The speeds by estimation and using the aerodynamics calculator would be 370-371 mph at +21lbs.
That`s still a quite slower than the La-7 (383mph). In any case, tangling those Lavochkins at low altitudes is silly.. you only need to get above 2000m, and their performance fells off rapidly, especially the climb. And 1-2000m can be climb in no time with a good climber.
-
Isegrim,
At +25lbs it did 390mph at sea level. The graph is out there somewhere.
-
An old P51 jock once told me that those boosted up Spittys were a tad faster at low alt than the P51C.
In doodle-bug chasing the P51C needed to have a little more alt, while the Spitty would actually be able to outrun the doodlebug.
Some pilots even tipped them over.
But that's just pilot accounts.....
-
Originally posted by Angus
An old P51 jock once told me that those boosted up Spittys were a tad faster at low alt than the P51C.
In doodle-bug chasing the P51C needed to have a little more alt, while the Spitty would actually be able to outrun the doodlebug.
Some pilots even tipped them over.
But that's just pilot accounts.....
Yeah. Would ever listen to an actual pilot when you could find a graph somewhere? :)
Including a drawing from 41 Squadron Spit XII pilot, Terry Spencer's logbook. Done by Tom Slack, it commemorates Terry's tipping of a V1 with his clipped wing Spit XII, summer 44.
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1080061957_spencerlogbook.jpg)
-
whats the performence difference between the 109g10 and g14?
-
Originally posted by Flyboy
whats the performence difference between the 109g10 and g14?
G-10 by default built with large supercharger and a high altitude engine. The G-14 had two versions, the G-14 with low/medium altitude DB 605AM, and the G-14/ASM or G-14/ASC which featured a very similiar high altitude engine as the G-10, and was practically identical to it in performance.
Basically the common G-14 has somewhat better performance than the G-10 at low altitude up to around 4-5000m, above that the G-10 is MUCH superior.
Specs:
G-10 :
562 km/h at SL, 690km/h at 7500m, 662 km/h at 10 000m.. (early engine type, low boost)
~580 km/h at SL, ~700km/h at 6000m, 690km/h at 7500m, 662 km/h at 10 000m.. (late engine type, high boost)
G-14 (DB 605AM) :
568 km/h at SL, 665 km/h at 5000m, 600 km/h at 10 000m.
G-14/ASM (DB 605ASM):
560 km/h at SL, 680 km/h at 7500m, ~650-660 km/h at 10 000m.
The speed difference in low levels despite the similiar low altitude powers in mainly due to the broad blade propellor developed for high altitude on the G-10 and G-14/ASM.
-
so, why did the g14 exist? i mean the g10 seems to be much batter :confused:
-
Flyboy, you have to understand that the G-14 came before the G-10. It's sort of like the Spit9 and the Spit8,
-
Originally posted by Flyboy
so, why did the g14 exist? i mean the g10 seems to be much batter :confused:
To standardize production. The G-14 was basically a G-6 with, just with all the niceties that were added with time to the G-6s (MW50, Erla hood etc.) were standardized and installed in the factory. G-6s were continued to be produced parellel to them, in fact, there was little if any difference between a late production G-6 and G-14. G-14=up to date G-6 with the latest gimnicks.
The G-10 was also basically a G-6 airframe, just with a better engine, that appeared after the G-14 was being produced. The K series were to replace them all ASAP with a single airframe, single or two types of engine (DB 605 D and 605 L).
The G-14 appeared in somewhere Spring 1944, athe G-10 only in October (in fact, the G-10 appeared AFTER the 109 K-4...). G-8 appeared also earlier. :)
So the "correct" order is G-12(trainer), G-8(recce G-6), G-14, K-4, G-10 IIRC . :D
-
Oh no! the thread is being hijacked by luftweenies! Quick! get the naked Carmen Electra poster so we can scare them off!!
-
Naked Carmen Electra !!
Where???!!!! :eek:
-
UH?! Where Furby?!
-
Why wouldn't HTC later on give us a boosted up Spitty?
Uh, the only explanation I can think off is that it's too good, and will therefor upset game balance....
-
Probarly because another spit would just be yet another target for our beloved Butcher Bird. :D
-
thnks guys :)
i was thinking about that possibility but i thought the germans were more organized then that :o
-
sorry for bringing this topic back up but..
whats the difference between the G10 and the K4?
both in performence and in size and shape
-
Originally posted by Replicant
How much better was the La9 over the La7? I've heard that the La9 is superior to the Sea Fury, Bearcat, so would that mean that the La7 was superior to the Tempest, Spit 14? Makes you think for a few minutes!
Sources I've looked at say that the La-9 and La-11 were about as fast as the Bearcat or Sea Fury.
Heres a nice pic of the La-11. looks like a Russian Tempest:
(http://www.aviapress.com/engl/int/int017.jpg)
-
So, the Russkies had the most-uber-ultimate Piston engined fighters of WW2?
In AH, at least, the high speed performance of the La and the Yak is frigging unbelivable. But how authentic is it? I've seen so many numberes that are misleading (regarding speed), so if there are some test reports around they would be nice to see.
Also, I've often heard that those planes had structural problems. Would be nice to know more about that.
-
So, the Russkies had the most-uber-ultimate Piston engined fighters of WW2?
La-9, 11 werent WWII fighters.
so if there are some test reports around they would be nice to see.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=107516&highlight=La7
Also, I've often heard that those planes had structural problems. Would be nice to know more about that.
Weak wing cover. Prone to reap off at high speed.
-
Originally posted by Angus
So, the Russkies had the most-uber-ultimate Piston engined fighters of WW2?
Not Necessarily, but under 10k they'll give you a run for your money. Keep in mind that while other planes were optimized to fight the hi-alt bomber war over Germany, the Soviet planes were optimized to fight the Low-alt Tank War over Eastern Europe.
AH has a lot of low alt combat, which is where the Soviet fighters Excelled. Take them out of their element, and they become decidedly average.
-Sik
-
I always thought that the low alt optimization was simply because their engineering was not so advanced in the turbine department.
-
Originally posted by Angus
I always thought that the low alt optimization was simply because their engineering was not so advanced in the turbine department.
Jolly good, since we agree. Their s/c technology sucked big time, to put it bluntly. Their engines could not keep power to altitude..
What they DID optmize to compensate for this handicap with were very, very clean, dragracer airframes. Take Yak 3 for example. Laughable 1250 or so HP, poor avgas, and it equals the Spit IXLF on 150 grade fuel, and 1900+ HP!
That Yakovlev guy knew something for sure. :)
-
Interesting, I had always believed that needs dictated design in this case. Happy coincidence for the Russians I guess (and anyone who likes flying Soviet A/C in AH too! lol).
-Sik
-
Hehe, finally agree with Isengrim
The Mig was supposed to be a high altitude fighter, I wonder how it worked at high alt. The basic story is that it sucked, but maybe it never had the opportunity to "shine" in its correct role.
Anyway, from reading pilot autobiographies, one gets the impression that the russians were quite lagging behind in aircraft design, with some exceptions though.
(Il-2 = strong, La-5+=fast).
Flying their rides in AH however is incredible. The La is really fast, and the YAK is really incredible. Both planes accelerate incredibly well, dive well, don't compress, and hold their maneuverability at eccessive speeds. They are reasonably rugged as well (apart from the Yak's radiator, but Pyro sais it's a bug).
A P51 with a Yak on its tail is as good as dead, and fighting the La-5 in say, a 109G6, is a nightmare.
Was it really so?
The Russians got spanked badly by the LW and the Fins, and as an example, the LW lost 4 times as many aircraft on the western front as on the eastern front in 1944, while the war on the eastern front was a larger war.
All makes you wonder really. Were the Russian tactics so bad, or was their plane quality also lagging behind?
I do realise that the we don't have some of the most common Russian planes yet in AH (Rata, LaGG, Yak-1), but still, come on......
-
Angus,
The Russian pilots had practically no training. If they survived long enough to learn they did fine, but they rarely survived long enough to get that "on the job" training. The Luftwaffe and Finnish Airforce both had superbly trained pilots. That is one of the biggest places that online sims fall down, they don't produce historical results because the training/skill levels are much more even. IL-2 is particularly bad on this point as the Russian AI is the same as the German or Finnish AI. Thus you find the Germans and Finns having a nearly impossibel task at times, especialy when coupled with the over generous modeling of Russian aircraft.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Angus,
The Russian pilots had practically no training.
Karnak, that could be quite right for 1941, but for 1943-44 the level of the average soviet pilot was much higher. A lot of german pilots talk about it in their memories, in interviews, etc... In fact they admit that the red banner fighter squadrons had some of the best world fighter pilots flying for them, and that the average soviet fighter pilot was now much, much better and capable.
They also say that the tactics were poor for the most part, and that they had little initiative on their own, which explains why in 1943 the soviets were still losing planes at such an amazing rate against the still expert jagdwaffe.
In 1944 the things changed quite a bit, however. The germans were losing a lot of experte pilots in the west (the most of them) and in the east (not so many). They had to be replaced by "green" pilots just out from the flight combat school.
But given that in 1944 the average german newbie was next to hopeless because the little training he received, and given the fact that up to the very last day of the war the german fighters kept a victory/loss rate of quite over 1, even with the hopeless numerical disadvantage they had, I tend to think that the soviet fighter performances were grossly overstated by the Soviet media and propaganda.
In short...an air force having such "superb" (on the paper) fighters and a much better pilot base, and yet standing such heavy losses against a largely overnumbered enemy with so many green pilots and "inferior" (again, on the paper) aircraft has simply no explanation at all...
Other than that the soviet fighters weren't that "superb" and the german fighters weren't all that "inferior".
It's about the only thing that makes sense. Because for 1944-45 the pilot skill variable favored for the most part the soviet side, not the german one ,and that would be the only reason why the soviets kept getting so many losses until the end. But if the average pilot quality was better in the soviet side than in the german one (and it was, the german experten were very few at that stage of teh war),and all the other variables favor the soviet side, this makes no sense.
-
Grislawski also states that "the battlefield of 1943, was nothing like which was before a few years ago." From this point on he dedicated his whole flying to carefully planned ruse of survivial.
I remember the account where one of his friends came to his flying group, and Grislawski was seriously worried that he'd not make it for the next two weeks. He was so worried that he suggested to transfer him to his schwarm, so he could always look over him and said, "I will guarantee that you'll survive for the next 50 missions".
His friend was already an ace with 7 kills in 25 missions, and he refused Grislawski's offer. 5 months later his friend was killed in battle, shot down by Bazim Fadeyev, a Soviet ace of the 16GvIAP.
In 1943 the JG52 had to face the 16GvIAP and the 45IAP. Almost all of the Soviet aces were gathered in those two groups. The Glinka brothers in the 45IAP, and Pokryshkin, Rechkalov, and Fadeyev in the 16th GvIAP.
The 16GvIAP shot down 57 German fighters in 12 days between April 9th and 20th of 1943.
-
PRAM. Kweassa,
I didn't say that Russian pilot quality didn't improve. I also didn't say that there weren't any great Russian pilots.
The base training of Russian pilots, throughout the war, was heavily sub-standard by the reconing of any of the other major combatants. Germany and Japan suffered a lack of pilot training as they were pressed, but both started out with very rigorous standards, in Japan's case much too rigorous.
As more and more Russian pilots survived to become veterans they were able to pass on the lessons they'd learned to the new pilots coming in and make the on the job training survival rate much higher.
That is how I understand it.
-
In short...an air force having such "superb" (on the paper) fighters and a much better pilot base, and yet standing such heavy losses against a largely overnumbered enemy with so many green pilots and "inferior" (again, on the paper) aircraft has simply no explanation at all...
VVS recieved only 769 La-7 till November 44. And around 1000 Yak-3. There were some troubles with new planes. Even some groundings. All that history with weak wing cover... And, on the other hand, there were thousands of good but old Yak-9. I hope that nobody will claim that all those VVS loses were La-7 and Yak-3 ? It were mostly Yak-9s and IL-2s...
-
As more and more Russian pilots survived to become veterans they were able to pass on the lessons they'd learned to the new pilots coming in and make the on the job training survival rate much higher.
One more thing. VVS concetrated its best pilots equiped with best planes, fuel, weapon available in the Guard Regiments. Call it Aces Regiments. They spearheaded all attacks and gave pilots of all other VVS units more chanses to survive and became battle hardened.