Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: artik on June 18, 2004, 11:10:10 PM
-
What is the difference?
-
Merlin 61 in the Spitfire F.Mk IX we have vs Merlin 66 in the Spitfire LF.MK IX.
The Spitfire LF.Mk IX would be faster at low altitude (336mph at S.L. vs. 321mph at S.L.), climb better (~4,500fpm), have a lower critical altitude and, if the wings were clipped as they are likely to be should it be added, rolls much faster while giving up some turn performance.
BTW, there is no generic "Spitfire Mk IX", there is the Spitfire F.Mk IX powered by a Merlin 61 or Merlin 63, Spitfire LF.Mk IX powered by a Merlin 66 and the Spitfire HF.Mk IX powered by a Merlin 70.
-
IF the wings are clipped won't it give up some climb performance too.
Crumpp
-
The Spit LFIX was the favorite of the RAF pilots as it had it's best performance in the same alt range as the 190s. It was the one they felt most confident in going up against the LW.
And as the ground attack, low alt war intensified it was the one that ended up with clipped wings, and bomb racks to let it be used in that role.
The LFXVI was essentially the LFIX with the American built Packard Merlin 266
And the LFVIII was also engined with the Merlin 66.
These were the best of the Merlin Spits.
Dan/Slack
-
I request that both Spit9s should be in exsistence. We don't have to give up on any of them.
I'm a LW enthusiast, but it doesn't mean I'm unfair! :) We have 3 different Gustav models alone, from the early G to the last G(except the most important '44 Gustav, the G-14.. which I'm dying to see in AH). There's no reason why AH Spit9 should be solely limited to the earliest possible Spit9 with a Merlin61 and hybrid armament.
Bring on the Spit9 with Merlin 63 or Merlin66(or even both!!)
Since the problem of ridiculous hitting ranges have been more or less solved with the new gunnery, I've been seeing a lot less Spitfires as a whole in AH2. No doubt that in AH1 the Spits were just doing too good, better than it should be(due to hitting ranges). But now, when that issue is solved, it reverts back to the old problem where the only MA-competitive Spitfire RAF fans can really get their hands on is now a 60 point perked Spit14. I don't mean to say the dedicated Spit pilots of AH1 are now suddenly incompetent or something, I'm just pointing out that as a whole the Spit9 is now a bit more thoroughly outclassed by the 1944~45 monster planes(as they should be).
So, I'd love to see a more competitive Makr9 - like I said, us LW fans have two A model 190s, and three 109 Gustavs. All along the war the RAF have fought these planes and existed side-by-side in the arms race to produce better and powerful planes.
If the different Spitfires are all too simular to be modelled(which I don't think is a problem, since the G-2 and the G-6 are very simular in general performance also, with only a notch of maneuvering/armament differences).. then bring different versions ie) HF and LF to the Spit9 mix.
Like..
1) Change our "hybrid" '42 Spit9 to the actual one - much more limited ordnance and only with the C-wing, 4x 30cals and 2x Hispanos.
2) Gives us a second Spit9, a LF engine, in the standards of late '43~ early '44, bubble topped, wings clipped, with an E-wing with 2x 50cals and 2x Hispanos.
That would give us a generic, standard '42 early Spit9, and a '43~'44 Spit9 with enough different characterisitcs to see it as a new sub-variant in the family... bubble topped, better low-alt performance, little suffering high-alt performance.. and clipped wings with better roll.
...
ps) Guppy, how much difference in turning ability would there be, with a clipped wing Spit? Would the reduction in wing area do anything to its maneuverability? Maybe a difference like as in a A6M2 Zero and a A6M5?
-
I hardly ever fly the Spit9 but I agree that the LF.IX was a very widely and important variant that should be included in the game. Since HTC have mentioned that they may do variants of existing aircraft this surely be in the list of new additions!
-
Kweassa,
The bubble canopy Spits didn't show up until 1945. I don't think it would be good to have our 1944 Spit as a perk plane and a rare 1945 plane as the end of the line Spit, still leaving the Merlin 61 Spit IX to carry on through 1943, 44 and into 45 on it's own.
What I would like to see would be a Spitfire LF.Mk VIII. It is close enough in performance to the LF.Mk IX to sub for it and it would give a true Pacific Theater Spitfire. It would also bring a unique mark number rather than HTC suddenly adding a F in front of our current Mk IX and another Mk IX showing up in the list with an LF in its name.
-
What I would like to see would be a Spitfire LF.Mk VIII. It is close enough in performance to the LF.Mk IX to sub for it and it would give a true Pacific Theater Spitfire. It would also bring a unique mark number rather than HTC suddenly adding a F in front of our current Mk IX and another Mk IX showing up in the list with an LF in its name.
Ahhh...! I get what you mean now. It'd be indeed a good choice then.
ps) but I still think the '42 Spit9 should be removed of 50 cals and hybrid ordnance.
-
the spit9 was, and still is the best 1vrs1 plane in AH
-
Kweassa that seem fair enough. The '42 spit would be a spit F mk. IXc with the 4 .303's. The '43/44 spit could be either a Spit LF IXe with the .50cals or a mk. VIII (tropical camo does look nice) :)
It would be nice to see a late '44 spit IX with 150 octane fuel (Tho perked in MA obviously).
While still on topic about spits- i would love to see a spit mk. XII, unfortunately not many were produced.
-
Here (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html) are the official reports on performance of the various Spit IXs. Here (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9v109g.html) are charts showing the difference in performance. The short answer to the question "What is the difference?" is the engine.
-
Originally posted by Flyboy
the spit9 was, and still is the best 1vrs1 plane in AH
I'd agree that the Spit 9 is probably the best "dueling" plane out of any in the planeset.
However, that means jack **** in the MA. I can count on one hand the number of one-vs-one fights I've had in the past month. And have several fingers left over.
Although the Spit 9 is a superb fighter, it isn't exactly competitive by MA standards. The only time that a spit pilot is going to get a kill is if A. An la-7 or P-51 or some other "fast" plane runs down a loner and the spit pilot happens to beat out the other 15 guys trying to kill the singleton, or B. if someone in a less manueverable plane decides to fight the spit's way.
Compare the La-7. The La-7 is fast enough to run down every plane in the set, and then it turns well enough to out-turn what it out-runs. You have to drop about 50-60 mph in "deck" speed to find another plane that turns as well as the La-7. So the La-7 runs people down, then depending on whether the pilot is a ***** or not, kills them or pins them for the horde.
The P-51 has the same ability, as do the 109-G10 and 190-D9.
The Spit 9 is so slow that even third and fourth tier planes like the 190-A5 and -A8 can just leave if they don't want to fight.
Both RAF fans that play this game could use a more representative model of an unperked Spitfire. If the Spit 14 is going to stay perked, then I think a Spit 9 LF would be a good compromise.
-
Interesting,
The charts the RAF used for their test are using Military power for the FW-190A3 or FW-190A5 for level speed and not the rated boost settings.
Of course the RAF test concentrates on the performance vs 109G. Anyway the RLM charts for the 190A5 hold it at 655kph to 670kph (406 to 416 mph) at 19,685 feet at 2700U/min on 1.42ata C3 boost. The chart speed is adjusted for air density(temp).
The Spitfire with +25lbs of boost is listed as having a max level speed of 389mph at 13,800 feet.
I think the RAF had valid reasons for not recommending it's Merlin powered Spit IX pilots "mix it up" with FW-190A's. That recommendation was reserved for the the Gryphon powered spits which did dominate the 190A.
Just a quick gander at the charts it seems to me that the RAF original test with Faber's 190A3 didn't change much with the addition of +25 lbs boost and 1.42/2700 clearence for the 801D-2.
Seems the overall effect was to steepin the Spits climb rate increasing it's climbing superiority but the 190 widenend it's level speed range and accelleration gap. The performances are pretty close though with the spit gaining slightly more in the climb department than the 190 does in level speed.
You can check it out at:
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.html
There should be a graph for the 190A3 coming up soon on that site so will be able to get a comparision on the 1.42ata settings. I sent it off to Mandoble. Pyro is going to be redoing the 190 flight model. I for one would appreciate the unbiased opinion of some knowledgeable spitfire folks. Facts are the 190A vs Spit IX should be one of the more even matches in the game with the outcome decided by pilot skill.
Crumpp
-
The Spit 9 is so slow that even third and fourth tier planes like the 190-A5 and -A8 can just leave if they don't want to fight.
190A5 and the A8 are the Spit 9's contemparary advesaries and not "third and fourth" tier planes. The 190A is "third and fourth" tier in only in AH.
Unfortunately, for the LW pilots in AH, the Gyphon powered spits represent quite a leap in performance and although the 190D9 is considered to be it's main rival, It has the short end of the performace stick in many areas. 1 vs 1 co-energy fight Spit IVX vs 190D9 I would put my money on the Spit with equal pilot skills. 1 vs 1 Spit IX vs any 190A with 1.42 ata boost and it should be a coin toss given equal pilot skill.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
ps) Guppy, how much difference in turning ability would there be, with a clipped wing Spit? Would the reduction in wing area do anything to its maneuverability? Maybe a difference like as in a A6M2 Zero and a A6M5?
The RAF tested the Spit V with both clipped and regular wings. They found no measurable difference in speed & climb until it got above 20K where the standard wing showed some improvement.
The clipped spit had a vastly improved rate of roll, and dive.
The turning circle was slightly increased for the clipped spit at 20k amounting to about 55 feet.
They noted no difference in the take off roll either when the two aircraft took off side by side and suggested that the strengthening of the wing by clipping it, would allow a higher maximum IAS.
So basically 20K and below you are better off with a clipped wing Spit, and since the war moved down to those levels and below in 43 on for the RAF fighters, it makes sense.
Certainly I've never heard a Spit XII driver complain about the clipped wing. They preferred it.
Dan/Slack
-
The clipped spit was not the answer to the 190A. Otherwise it too would have carried a recommendation to "mix it up".
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The clipped spit was not the answer to the 190A. Otherwise it too would have carried a recommendation to "mix it up".
Crumpp
The clipped Spit was definately a response to the 190 and it's roll rate however and one of the ways they tried to extend the service life of the Spit V with the clipped, cropped and clapped Spit.
As for mixing it up. Having gotten to know numerous Spit pilots over the years while researching the XII, and from everything I've read, the Spit drivers felt very confident mixing it up with the 190s once the Spit IX appeared and in particular with the IXB as they referred to it, which was in fact the LFIX.
It, at least in their eyes, leveled the playing field again so that they didn't feel like they were going into the fight in an inferior aircraft as they did when they fought the 190 in the Spit V.
The wing clipping of the Spit was all about roll rate. And that was a result of the 190's roll rate.
Dan/Slack
-
As for, at least in my eyes, the best Spit scenario in AH.
Spit I (Already here)
Spit V(already here. Not going to suggest clipped wings or different wing armament. Not worth it :)
Spit LFVIII-Normal span wings, Universal wing with the 4 303 and 2 20mm, broad chord rudder, and the single hardpoint for carrying a drop tank or bomb on the centerline. In terms of scenarios that covers the Pacific and CBI with the RAF and RAAF as well as the Med with the RAF and USAAF which operated the VIII, and it lets the VIII stand in for the LFIX in the 43-44 period
Spit LFIXE-Normal high back fuselage. Broad chord rudder. Clipped E Wing with 2 20mm and 2 .5MG as well as the wing hardpoints to go with the centerline hardpoint that allows for the 250 pound bombs under each wing or the rockets as well as the 500 pounder or drop tank on the centerline. This covers the 1944-45 period in terms of scenarios when the LFIXe was used much more as a ground attack aircraft and it could fill in for the LFXVIe that did the same or in a pinch for us Spit XII fanatics, fill in for the XII in the 43-44 time frame as the performance was similar.
Spit XIVe (already have)
You end up leaving out the II, VI, VII, XII and 21 which all saw combat to varying degrees during the war. But you give a wide enough variety to keep the Spit fanatics interested and the skin makers busy.
Dan/Slack
-
Your absolutely right on the 190A and the Spit IX being on par with one another. The clipped wing did help reduce the 190's advantages but at the expense of reducing the turn and climb. Everything is a tradeoff and while I don't have the data before me I would be very surprised if the clipped spit would actually have been superior. I think a pilot would have been better off a normal wing IX.
The turn radius was dominating in the Spit IX. If a 190 turned with a spit he died. Consequently Spit IX drivers did not fight in the verticle with 190's. The 190 zoom climb, accelleration, dive, speed advantage and roll rate (manuverability) gave them the advantage in the close in verticle "knife" fight.
Crumpp
-
Have you ever read the book "Fighter Combat" by Robert Shaw?
It is a good read, it might dispell some of the illusions you have about a "knife fight" between a 190 and a Spitfire IX being any kind of close affair.
One thing you have to keep in mind is that in the real WW2, pilots were even more timid than people are in here. There was a good reason for this- when they screwed up, they actually did die.
So what a Spitfire pilot might describe as a 190 aggressively boring in, I would probably describe as "The 190 came in with a 5,000 foot altitude advantage, made some bore n zoom passes (being careful to roll out and "extend" in the opposite direction of the Spitfires break turn), and then left when he started to lose his energy advantage.
A 190a5 or 190a8 does not have a significant advantage in the vertical if both planes (the Spit IX and the 190), are going close to the same speed. A 190 going 400mph will outzoom a Spitfire going 300 mph, and if a real-life pilot was smart enough to keep his energy up, he could probably make 4 or 5 "Boom and Zoom" passes before he had to split.
Another thing you must keep in mind is that a WW2 "furball" on the Western Front commonly consisted of perhaps a squadron on either side constantly seeking a height advantage to bore n zoom from. Sure, the two sides were in sight of each other, and if they were of a mind they could have engaged, but as a general rule even the most aggressive pilots would not engage unless they had altitude, numbers, or preferably both. A group of 190s could undoubtedly engage a group of Spitfires and emerge the victor, even if a handful of 190 pilots got a little too agressive and engaged without having a clear energy advantage- because those 190s had other 190s to bail them out of trouble. Unlike in Aces High, living was the highest priority for the vast majority of pilots, not just "getting a kill". After all, there is no reupping in real life.
In real life, as in Aces High, top speed is a very important attribute. A plane with a higher top speed can typically cruise faster than a plane with a lower top speed, thus picking and choosing their fights. In Aces High, unlike in real life, the MOST important attributes a plane can have are (in order, in my opinion) a small turning radius, a fast turn rate, and good acceleration. The Spit IX has all three. The 190A has 1 of the three.
I have no doubt that the Spitfire and 190 are modelled correctly vis a vis each other in Aces High. Yes, the 190a5 may be lacking 5 mph of top speed on the deck. It honestly doesn't matter. As it is modelled, a 190a5 (or a8) holds the advantage over a Spit 9 as long as the 190 pilot is exceedingly cautious, good at maintaining an energy advantage over a lower and slower opponent, and knows when to run.
I think you just have an unrealistic portrait of what a "fight" was like on the Western Front during WW2.
-
Really Urchin?
Well I have the RAF, Luftwaffe, and USAAF test's which anyone can examine. Frankly you need to examine the data. The actual performance charts bear out the story.
A different story emerges than the one you are telling. One that backs the RAF assessment conducted by them during WWII when they were trying to figure out the best way to beat the Luftwaffe.
Glad you mentioned Shaw's book because that is what got me to thinking and examining the data on the FW-190.
History didn't occur that way in fact to quote Cpt Brown:
==============================================
"A somewhat odd form of Dogfighting developed with the FW-190 pilots endevoured to keep in the verticle plane by using zooms and dives while their spit mounted antagonist tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover his speed lost in steep turn he would find ANOTHER spitfire turning inside him. On the other hand, the German pilot who continued to zoom up and down was usually the recipiant of difficult deflection shots of more than 30 degrees. The FW-190 had tremendous initial accelleration in a dive but was extremely vunerable during a pullout. recovery, having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking".
==============================================
Crumpp
-
If you do have that book, I'd like to recommend you read the sections about flat scissors, rolling scissors, and the section on combat between dissimilar planes (High T/W vs low wingloading). I'd be happy to continue the conversation about tactics used by the 190s/Spitfires against eachother.
In fact, you can tell me why I am wrong based on the factory data while I tell you that you are wrong based on Shaw's book and my own personal experience (granted, its only in AH).
Should be fun, I'll try to keep it relatively cordial, although I can come off somwhat brusque on the Internet. It doesnt really allow for the humour in my sarcasm to come through.
In fact, we seem to interpret that qoute differently. I see that qoute as saying the 190s started with an energy advantage and maintained it by Boom n Zoom (or Bore n zoom as I call it), you seem to think it indicates the two would start co-E and the 190 could build an energy advantage over the Spit IX by diving and zooming.
-
That is correct, I am talking a co-energy merger. 190 vs Spit IX should be a very even fight IF both pilots do not give in to temptation and cater the others strengths. Many a Spit pilot in the skies over France met his doom attempting to follow directly a 190 in the verticle.
Read the 190A5 deck speed thread. It explains it. Seems the climb speed of the 190's is off.
Depending on the Altitude the fight occurred at the 190 could build an E advantage on the Spit IX. There are some altitude zones the Spit IX will be superior in even in the verticle, however it's advantage is slight as to be almost the same. Most importantly the 190 easily outdived the Spit especially in initial accelleration. Later spit models came close to matching the speed of the dive but not the accelleration. Diving away was always an option for the 190 driver. On the Deck the 190 held the cards in level speed/accelleration. The 190 was also rated as "more manuverable than the spitfire" by the RAF except in turning circle. Something you definately do not see in AH.
Try turning with a 190 and following him if he rolls out of the turn circle. A common 190 manuver was to flick out of the circle, enter a shallow dive and zoom climb above the spitdriver. Even the Gryphon powered spits had difficulty with a test pilot giving them radio warning in following a 190 in this manuver. It was impossible for the Merlin powered varients.
Cpt Eric Brown in an interview for "Flight Journal" Magazine relates a story about flying a MkIX spit varient in late 1943 over France. He ran into an FW-190 and fought him for 40 minutes to a standstill. The entire time the 190 driver kept doing the same manuver described above. Brown just extended his turns and slowly brought the fight out over the channel until both fighters broke it off.
This holds true throughout the life cycle of the 190A vs Merlin Powered Spit. If you study when the different A/C were cleared for various engine upgrades/settings you will see it. You will also see the overlaps in which for short periods of time One of the them is superior to the other. Usually it is the spitfire, the RLM was great about getting a model into service but just seemed to drag their feet in Engine upgrades.
I am very familiar with scissors. It's one of the manuvers in AH a 190 is good at. However that is not the most common manuver 190's employed in reality. I am also familiar with Energy Combat. Turning is for sissy's who can't think of anything better to do. :)
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I am very familiar with scissors. It's one of the manuvers in AH a 190 is good at. However that is not the most common manuver 190's employed in reality. I am also familiar with Energy Combat. Turning is for sissy's who can't think of anything better to do. :)
Crumpp
Actually the turning for Spit drivers was purely defensive. It was not seen as a way of gaining the advantage, it was what you did when had nothing better to do. You pulled the stick in tight and held the turn hoping to spit the other guy out the other side so you could disengage.
Needless to say they didn't want to dogfight anymore then any other fighter pilot. Sneak up on a guy and blast em was preferred, just like everyone else. Nothing sporting about it.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
That is correct, I am talking a co-energy merger. 190 vs Spit IX should be a very even fight IF both pilots do not give in to temptation and cater the others strengths. Many a Spit pilot in the skies over France met his doom attempting to follow directly a 190 in the verticle.
Read the 190A5 deck speed thread. It explains it. Seems the climb speed of the 190's is off.
I'll read the other thread, I read some of it but not all of it.
Depending on the Altitude the fight occurred at the 190 could build an E advantage on the Spit IX. There are some altitude zones the Spit IX will be superior in even in the verticle, however it's advantage is slight as to be almost the same. Most importantly the 190 easily outdived the Spit especially in initial accelleration. Later spit models came close to matching the speed of the dive but not the accelleration. Diving away was always an option for the 190 driver. On the Deck the 190 held the cards in level speed/accelleration. The 190 was also rated as "more manuverable than the spitfire" by the RAF except in turning circle. Something you definately do not see in AH.
Try turning with a 190 and following him if he rolls out of the turn circle. A common 190 manuver was to flick out of the circle, enter a shallow dive and zoom climb above the spitdriver. Even the Gryphon powered spits had difficulty with a test pilot giving them radio warning in following a 190 in this manuver. It was impossible for the Merlin powered varients.
And here again... how long is this shallow dive? How far back is the spit when the 190 zooms? Sure, if the 190 dives to the deck, runs for 25 miles and gets a 5 mile lead on the Spit, it will be able to then zoom and turn around with an energy advantage. If the 190 doesn't "extend" far enough away, the Spit will just "cut the corner" on the 190s zoom and blow him away. A bullet goes a hell of a lot faster than a plane does, and a plane doesn't need to be going very fast to shoot bullets.
Cpt Eric Brown in an interview for "Flight Journal" Magazine relates a story about flying a MkIX spit varient in late 1943 over France. He ran into an FW-190 and fought him for 40 minutes to a standstill. The entire time the 190 driver kept doing the same manuver described above. Brown just extended his turns and slowly brought the fight out over the channel until both fighters broke it off.
You ever been bore n zoomed by a particularly timid yet persistant fast plane? The kind that will hover above you, make a lazy, poorly executed pass, then zoooooom for the heavens again? The kind that will chase you when you try to just leave, and vulch you when you try to land (in fact... most of them will suicide onto the ack trying to vulch a landing plane, which puzzles me greatly)? They consider that a "fight".
This holds true throughout the life cycle of the 190A vs Merlin Powered Spit. If you study when the different A/C were cleared for various engine upgrades/settings you will see it. You will also see the overlaps in which for short periods of time One of the them is superior to the other. Usually it is the spitfire, the RLM was great about getting a model into service but just seemed to drag their feet in Engine upgrades.
Going by the criteria of the times, sure, they were equal (or close to it). The 190 was usually faster, and it could run away from the Spit any time it wanted to. A 190A can run away from any Spit we have in the game, that doesn't mean it is a better fighter, or even a good fighter. The 190 is an excellent plane for cherry-picking, for flying in a horde (you always have people to run to when the guy you are chasing decides to fight), and for Bore n Zooming if your opponents are low (as in below 10k low). It is not a good plane for fighting in. As I said before.. the deciding factors in a fight, be it energy or angles, are turning radius, turning rate (both important for angles fighting), and acceleration (which is important for both). Top speed is a factor in whether or not there IS a fight, but it is not important once the fight starts.
Aces High is a game where historical planes are used in a-historical ways. The Spitfire was not intended to be a mad whirling furballing machine. It was intended to destroy bombers and enemy fighters. The method of this destruction was not to be the turn-fight. WW2 pilots, as a general rule, did not turn-fight. WW2 pilots bounced planes that were not aware of their presence. That was the preferred method of destruction. Turning was a defensive manuever used to keep you alive until your friends could arrive.
I am very familiar with scissors. It's one of the manuvers in AH a 190 is good at. However that is not the most common manuver 190's employed in reality. I am also familiar with Energy Combat. Turning is for sissy's who can't think of anything better to do. :)
Crumpp
Actually, the 190 is *not* good at scissoring. It is fairly good for one or two "revolutions" of the scissors, where both planes are going fast, trying to slow down, and changing direction faster than the other guy can is useful. After the initial one or two "revolutions" (for lack of a better word), once both planes are going slow, guess which two traits become far more useful than a high roll rate? I bet you can guess... they are... (I'm not trying to keep you in suspence) turn rate, and turn radius. The Spitfire is a far better choice if you intend on fighting defensively (the scissors is a defensive move... not an offensive one).
As far as "energy combat", there are several methods. The first method is to eke out every last drop of alt you can out of any zoom, which leads to the d4.5K seperation between every pass. I refer to this as Bore N Zooming. It is a form of energy combat, for sissies who can't think of anything better to do. The 190's are relatively good choices for this kind of "combat", but the P-51 and Typhoon are more common choices.
The second is actual E-fighting, where you rely on your planes ability to climb and accelerate better than your opponents. Rarely will the two planes be seperated by more than 1,000 yards in this kind of fighting. Very few pilots actually do this kind of fighting, because if you screw up, you die. In AH, this is becoming almost a big a sin as screwing up and dying in real life.
The 190's suck at this form of E-fighting. The Spitfire IX (and N1K2) excel at it, as do the 109F-G6 (outclassed by the G10, La-7, and Spit 9/N1K2), the 109-G10 (virtually a tie with the Spit 9/N1K2 and La-7, but lacking in high speed handling (important on the initial merge, much less so later) and more importantly in firepower (the La-7 has ~3 times the firepower, N1K2 and Spit roughly 5-6 times the firepower). The 190 is a relatively heavy airplane, with very poor low speed handling. The "agressor" in a true E-fight will almost always be taking advantage of low-speed handling, because you need to get your opponent slower and lower than you, before translating your potential energy advantage into a lethal firing opportunity. The 190 lacks this handling, and it also lacks the acceleration it needs to stay above a slow opponent when it is slow.
-
Urchin, I consider the 109G-10 to be the supreme non-perked E-fighter in AH. Only the La-7 comes close and that's only at low alts. Turning radius means nothing to an E-fighter (as long as it is not dismal). Climb, acceleration and speed are the important factors. I fly the 109 heavy with 30mm and 20mm gun pods, it has a helluva snapshot, and the rudder authority is great. In the MA E-fighting in the 109 is like stealing candy from babies.
-
Urchin, I consider the 109G-10 to be the supreme non-perked E-fighter in AH. Only the La-7 comes close and that's only at low alts.
I agree. The notable rise of usage in Bf109G-10s and Fw190D-9s is probably the most interesting phenomenon in AH2 after the new gunnery and fuel consumption was surfaced. The La-7 was seriously hit by only 17 minutes of flight time on full throttle(despite able to push up to some 40 minutes by careful management..), and lost its place as the supreme CAP fighter solely due to the lack of range and flight time.
We'll have to see if its just placebo or for real, when the stats come out, though..
Turning radius means nothing to an E-fighter (as long as it is not dismal). Climb, acceleration and speed are the important factors.
I disagree.
I used to think so too, but when it comes to hands down real 1v1 duels, or in multiple engagement situations, I now think that maneuverability is still very important as ever. Ofcourse, speed is in the end, much more important, but maneuverability is not something to be laughed at.
In actual combat, be it the real one, or the furball fights AH offers, it is rare to get a chance where all of your team mates are always advantageous in E so he may fight E-wise.
In the end, somewhere in the battling skies there is always a situation where fighting is just more than BnZ or E-wise management, and sometimes you have to just plain blow all the E, and stick to turn fighting in whatever you are in, in order for everyone to survive as a whole.
One may always remain the sole survivor by flying the 'lonewolf', or if all of one's squaddies insist in always getting E advantage before engaging(implying, that they will retreat from battle and leave all other friendly fighters to their doom). However when the going gets tough and air battle gets chaotic, sometimes people have to forget all the speed, climb and etc etc, and start duking it out, helping others as much as they can, and trust that others will also sacrifice their E or alt advantage when your in trouble.
In the end, if a plane must choose one attribute it'd definately be speed. However, maneuverability is as important as all the others except speed, IMO.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
1 vs 1 Spit IX vs any 190A with 1.42 ata boost and it should be a coin toss given equal pilot skill.
Crumpp
what game have you been playing?
batter yet, what have toy been smoking?
:)
-
LOL
I think that's why Pyro is going to examine the Flight Model.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by artik
What is the difference?
climb rate
-
Kweassa,
I am interested in hearing your explaination why all the reports classify 190 as "more manuverable" than the spit. The Luftwaffe report classified it as more manuverable than the 109F4 and "able to reverse much quicker". Both the Spit and the 109 could outturn the 190 in level sustained turns.
In AH I wouldn't classify the 190 as manuverable. It's only mediocre in that department. That's why Energy fights are Bore N Snore with it.
Due to it's roll rate the real 190 could change direction extremely fast.
We do not get this advantage in AH. It seems to me the 190 rolls fast but once the roll is completed the AH 190 sort of "mushes" through the directional change. It is sluggish instead of nimble for a second after the roll.
The 190 could use it's inititial dive accelleration and zoom climb to gain an E advantage over other fighters.
It's initial dive accelleration is not fast enough. According to RAF and the USAAF test the 190A could leave a P47 in the first 3000 feet of a dive. There were not many planes that could match a 190's dive speed and none that could match it's intitial accelleration. In AH Spit IX's match the 190's dive speed and even catch it once on the deck. The Spit IX shouldn't catch a 190 in a dive. This was confirmed by diving a spit IX side by side with a 190A5.
In AH the 190 bleeds energy in the zoom climb very quickly in AH. I imagine this will be reduced some when the climb speed is adjusted and that will fix it.
The 190's climb speed is too slow in AH. This one is a no brainer and is clearly marked on the charts.
Crumpp
-
Our old" spitV outaccelerates by far any 190A at level at 10k, and will outclimb any 190A from sea level to 30k.
Urchin, all your scenaries put 190As with alt advantage, now try the opposite. For a coalt engangement, 190As can flee only diving and with a very very long dive, on the other hand, spits can "flee" easily just climbing and always keeping the advantage.
As an example of substained climb on WEP, 190D9 vs SpitV from 0 to 10k, one after the other and D9 got only a marginal separation of 500 yards at 10k while being the first to take off.
Now go and try 190A vs spitV dives from 2k, 5k, 7k and 10k starting just above stall 150 or 175 mph.
-
It's initial dive accelleration is not fast enough. According to RAF and the USAAF test the 190A could leave a P47 in the first 3000 feet of a dive.
I've always wondered about just how big a seperation you could get in a dive. If the dive is sustained for 3,000ft, how mcu seperation would you get? Obviously, less than 3000 ft if the other plane was diving as well.
Will one accelerate at twice the speed of the other? 20% faster?
Someone on the IL2 boards posted the following from 'Mustang, a documentary history' By Jeff Ethell:
Dive acceleration:
10,000ft. The run was begun from a line abreast formation at 200 IAS, with full power applied as the dive was entered. The P-51 began to pull ahead immediately. The selected red line airspeed (325IAS) of the Zeke was reached after 27 seconds. At this time the P-51 had a lead of approximately 200yds.
25,000ft.
Result were much the same as at 10,000ft. The Zeke reached 325IAS after 20 seconds, and the P-51 was rapidly widening a lead begun shortly after the dive was entered.
Obviously not that steep a dive, but after 27 seconds the P-51 had a 200 yard lead over the Zeke, and those are two aircraft that are at the opposite ends of the dive acceleration range.
-
Our old" spitV outaccelerates by far any 190A at level at 10k, and will outclimb any 190A from sea level to 30k.
The AH Spit V certainly should outclimb the 190A. The real life Spit V, running at the boost pressure used in AH, had a climb rate of around 4,000 ft/min (20.3 m/s) up to 9,000ft.
-
No it should not outclimb a 190. According to the RAF test's a 190A3 maintained an average of 450ft/min climb advantage over the Spit Vb. In a zoom climb from cruise speed the Spit Vb had "no hope" of catching the 190A3.
We have the performance graphs of the 190A3 to compare with both the 190A8 and the 190A5 inlcuding best climb speed. You can look at the graphs and just like the Spit series the 190's continuously improved in performance.
The 190/Spit "Food chain" should go like this:
190A dominated the Spit Vb.
190A and Spit IX are equal with each having different advantages but niether dominates the other.
190A is dominated by Gryphon powered Spits.
The 190D-9 is able to compete with the Spit IVX but does have a larger performance gap to deal with than the 190A vs Spit IX fight.
This is all based on flight test data and performance graphs.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp, it is Rolls-Royce G R I F F O N, not Gryphon. :p ;)
What is a Spit IVX? A typo?
-
No it should not outclimb a 190. According to the RAF test's a 190A3 maintained an average of 450ft/min climb advantage over the Spit Vb.
That's when the Spit V was running at 9 lbs boost, the 190 at 1.35ata. The Spit went up to 16 lbs boost, which is what AHII models.
The climb tests for the Spit V are available. They show 4000ft/min up to 9000 ft for a Spit V with the same configuration as the AH Spit V.
I don't have the docs to show the 190A climb rate, but are you suggesting it was more than 4000 ft/min (20.3 m/s)? IF it was, I withdraw the claim, but I always thought the 190 A had a lower climb rate than that.
-
I have never seen 4000 fpm climbrates for any Mk Vs in any tests. The best they reached was about 3600 fpm, unless we are talking about the LF versions with the low-alt supercharger and much reduced altitude performance.
As for the FW 190A`s climbrate, US trials just show about 4000 fpm at 1.42ata. I assume the FW 190A-5 would do the same, w/o the Erhohte Notleistung. I believe this BMW boost and the often removed outer guns would make a (positive) difference to that. The later A-8 was much heavier, hence the lower climb rate and ceiling.
-
this sounds redicilous a spitV with a 4000FPM?
this will screw all the future scenarios in AH2 in which the spit5 will take part.
i do not see the reason behind giving the spit5 such a boost in the performence. it could certeinly hold its own in the MA on AHI
this is the cause for the current "imbalance" between the 109a5 and the spit5 imho
-
I have never seen 4000 fpm climbrates for any Mk Vs in any tests.
this sounds redicilous a spitV with a 4000FPM?
See http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html
The chart shows 3700 - 3710 ft/min up to 8,800 ft. However, the notes on the condition of the aircraft say:
The tests were made at a take-off weight of 6,965 lb. with the centre of gravity 7.3 inches aft of the datum. This is the loading of the aeroplane when fitted with 4 x 20 mm. guns and full service equipment. Although at the time of test 2 x 20 mm. and 4 x .303" guns were fitted, the aeroplane had been ballasted internally the give this weight in connection with the other tests being made to obtain comparitive performance figures with the two types of armament.
Off hand I can't remember the extra weight involved of the 4 20mm armament, but it was somewhere around 400 lbs + iirc. There is a bit in Spitfire the History that gives the performance differences between the 2 20mm and 4 20mm aramament, which were in the order of 300 ft/min to the climb rate iirc.
Of course, you could always complain and demand the Spit V in AH should have the 4 20mm aramament, which will restrict the climb rate a bit ;)
Note that the report says the gain in climb rate is just over 1000 ft/min. A previous test of the Spit Vb gave a climb rate of over 3200 ft/min+, so a gain of 1000ft/min to this particular aircraft would put it at 4300 ft/min.
A previous test of a Vc with 4 20mm gave 2900 ft/min, so the gain here would put it at nearly 4000 ft/min with 4 20mm.
-
Read the Report Nashwan.
The Spit V with +16 lbs of boost could maintain that excellent rate of climb for 3 minutes or less and then it overheated. In fact that website has data for different tempatures and how they effected the overheating.
It's normal rate of climb was CONSIDERABLY lower and was well under the 190's climb rate of 3248.03 Feet per minute at 1.32 ata at 2400U/min. When the 190 used 1.42 ata at 2700U/min it's climb rate will increase too.
Crumpp
-
The Spit V with +16 lbs of boost could maintain that excellent rate of climb for 3 minutes or less and then it overheated.
It's actualy listed as 5 mins in the pilot's manual, and of course it takes less than 3 mins to climb above FTH, which means boost is dropping anyway.
In fact, the 5 mins listed in the manual will take you up to almost 18,000ft, and by then the boost pressure has almost dropped to 9 lbs, the level that's permitted for 1 hour. RPM won't drop of course, but at high alt the Spit is allowed to use 3000 rpm on the climb as a normal rating, ie for 30 mins or 1 hour.
It's normal rate of climb was CONSIDERABLY lower and was well under the 190's climb rate of 3248.03 Feet per minute at 1.32 ata at 2400U/min.
No, see the test of W3134 for example. Climb rate at normal rating was 3240 ft/min at low level, rising to 3250 ft/min at 15,000ft. And that's a 1 hour rating.
When the 190 used 1.42 ata at 2700U/min it's climb rate will increase too.
It certainly will, but afaik not to anywhere near 4000 ft/min. That's just AFAIK of course, if you have any data on the 190 climb rate at 1.42 ata 2700 rpm I'd be interested in seeing it, and will gladly accept I'm wrong if indeed it could outclimb the Spit V on WEP.
The RAF report on Fabers A3 ran the Fw190 A3 at 1.35 ata for climb speed, which was in fact WEP for the A3, and compared it to the Spit V at 9 lbs, which was it's 30 min or 1 hour rating.
Certainly later 190s used 1.35 (or 1.32, I'm not sure which) as a climb and combat setting, but they also gained some weight over the A3.
-
BTW, that was a SpitVc, is ours a SpitVc? And take a look at the "Condition of aeroplane relevant to tests made", that doesn't seem a normal SpitV in military service, but a test-bed plane to try new improvements into the in-production SpitV.
-
BTW, that was a SpitVc, is ours a SpitVc?
Ours is a Vc with 2 20mm cannons, not the 4 20mm cannons fitted to some of these test aircraft.
And take a look at the "Condition of aeroplane relevant to tests made", that doesn't seem a normal SpitV in military service, but a test-bed plane to try new improvements into the in-production SpitV.
The condition is as it would be in military service, apart from the ballast weight added to simulate the weight of the extra cannons. What makes you think otherwise?
-
Nashwan, your are refering to 190A1 and A2. 190A3 were using the BMW 801D2 instead of BMW 801C.
-
No, I'm refering to the A3. All A3s were derated in service, to 1.32 (or 1.35) ata start and emergency, 1.2something climb and combat. I think early A4s were also derated, later ones certainly weren't.
-
Since this was originally a question about the FIX vs the LFIX, I think what it comes down to in terms of AH is what Spit fits best for the game.
And since this is a land grab, ground attack sort of game, the LFIX is the best bet, with clipped wings.
In the old Airwarrior days, the fight used to be for having the alt advantage and you'd find the fights at 25-30K
I've never seen it in AH with any consistancy as most of the fights seem to be 15K to the deck.
In essence the airwar being fought in AH is the post D-Day battle for the continent, or the one that was being fought over the Eastern Front.
There's very little long range strategic bombing with high alt escorts. It's hit the forward airfields and knock out the other guys tanks and ground vehicles with the potential for air combat as you head for your ground target.
In that respect a FIX makes little sense as it doesn't fit for the game. The LFIXe or LFXVIe of 44-45 were the birds that did that job with the wing and centerline hardpoints for bombs and the potential to carry rockets.
And it has sounded like at times Pyro wants to do an LFIX so here's hoping :)
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
What makes you think otherwise?
Everything. It was a test-bed plane, not a production plane. It would be good to see these numbers for a common SpitVc with Merlin 45 in real combat conditions. The test perdiod for 16lb Merlin 45 extended to September 1942, we can assume that SpitVc combat units didnt start to use 16lb boost until end of 42 or early 43.
By summer 42, 190A4 was alreadly in production lines and 190A5 was also starting. A 16lb boost SpitVc would rarely find a 1.35ata 190A3.
-
Originally posted by GODO
Everything. It was a test-bed plane, not a production plane. It would be good to see these numbers for a common SpitVc with Merlin 45 in real combat conditions. The test perdiod for 16lb Merlin 45 extended to September 1942, we can assume that SpitVc combat units didnt start to use 16lb boost until end of 42 or early 43.
By summer 42, 190A4 was alreadly in production lines and 190A5 was also starting. A 16lb boost SpitVc would rarely find a 1.35ata 190A3.
I think you point to one of the potential flaws in the great numbers, reports, testing game that goes on here so often.
You'd like to see the numbers for a common Spit Vc in real combat conditions.
OK are we talking the Squadron CO's plane or the one they gave the brand new Pilot Officer? How many hours on the engine? Was it polished and waxed as some pilots did or is the paint work battered and beaten. Did the pilot on his own initiative change the triple exhausts to multiple ejector exhausts as that gave more speed? Some pilots did this too. Did they remove any of the MGs? How about the armor plate?
The RAF checked this out too and they increased the speed of a standard Vb from 357 to 385mph.
There are certainly numerous examples of pilots doing this to their aircraft on their own initiative to try and get an edge.
So how do you decide which numbers to use? :)
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
So how do you decide which numbers to use? :)
Whatever but the numbers of prototypes.
-
Oh look, MANDOBLE's ugly hatred of anything "Spitfire" rears it's head again and completely derails a thread.
I am so shocked.:rolleyes:
Is it possible, pray tell, to have a thread about an RAF fighter that does not become an ego contest between RAF and Luftwaffe fans about who's pet fighter is better?
-
I think the Luftwaffe fans would be deluded if they thought the 109 or 190 was better than a contemporary Spitfire. Hell, our Spit IX is the least suitable Spit IX possible for our MA, and it is still damn near a perfect airplane.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
I think the Luftwaffe fans would be deluded if they thought the 109 or 190 was better than a contemporary Spitfire. Hell, our Spit IX is the least suitable Spit IX possible for our MA, and it is still damn near a perfect airplane.
spot on.
if i am flying a spit9 the only thing i fear is a higher spit9.
i had plenty of times when i was engaged by a horde of planes (10-15 or more) which i had got out with about 7 kills.
the spit might be "slow" but its a premier Efighter- only plane that might take him is a masterly flown 109g10.
when i fight a horde the first thing i do is establish a E advantage. and then i am pretty much untouchable.
So no, we do not need another "batter" spit9
hell now that we have a boosted spit5 i predict it will be a monster aswell.
and lastly dont think i hate spits or anything, i love those beuties- i just think about the game play and how it will look if do get a UNperked uberspit.
-
OMG here we go again.
-
Everything. It was a test-bed plane, not a production plane.
It certainly was a production plane. The Spit V had been in production for well over a year by the time of these tests, which involved modifications to the allowable boost. That hardly qualifies as a prototype.
The test perdiod for 16lb Merlin 45 extended to September 1942, we can assume that SpitVc combat units didnt start to use 16lb boost until end of 42 or early 43.
I'm not sure what modifications were required to go from 12 lbs to 16lbs, but they would be relatively minor. Guppy probably knows the details, but afaik it didn't require much more than a modification to the boost control, if that. In other words, not something it would take a long time to get into service.
The test report on Faber's aircraft notes that the Spitfire V "has since been cleared for 16lbs boost" and the report is dated August 42, iirc, so I'd expect 16 lbs to be in widespread use by September 42.
By summer 42, 190A4 was alreadly in production lines and 190A5 was also starting. A 16lb boost SpitVc would rarely find a 1.35ata 190A3.
From what I can make out, the relative limitations were:
1941 Spitfire 9 lbs 2850 rpm normal rating, 9lbs 3000 rpm WEP
190 1.2something ata 2450 rpm normal rating, 1.35 (or 1,32) 2450 rpm WEP
late 41/Early 42
Spitfire 9lbs 2850 rpm normal rating, 12 lbs 3000rpm WEP
190 1.2something 2450rpm normal rating, 1.35 (or 1,32) 2450 rpm WEP
summer 1942
Spitfire 9lbs 2850 rpm normal rating, 16 lbs 3000 rpm WEP
190 1.35 (or 1.32) 2450 rpm normal rating, 1.42 ata 2700 rpm WEP
Comparing those, the Spit normal rating of 9 lbs 2850 rpm never changed, and should give a climb rate of around 3200 ft/min
The 190 started with a normal rating of 1.2x 2450 rpm normal rating. I don't know the climb performance with this.
In the summer of 1942 the 190 got it's full 1.35 ata 2450 rpm normal rating, which gave a climb rate according to Crumpp of 3250 ft/min
At that point, in the summer of 42, the 190 had the same climb rate at normal rating as the Spit V. Before that point, the Spit climbed better at normal rating.
Under WEP, in 1941 the Spit at 3000rpm 9lbs boost would be almost the same as the 190 at 1.35 ata 2450 rpm.
In late 41 or early 42 the Spit V boost increased to 12 lbs at WEP, which would give a clear climb advantage to the 190 that was still restricted to 1.35 ata.
In the summer of 42, the Spit V went up to 16 lbs boost, the 190 to 1.42 ata. That put the Spit up to around 4,000ft/min, nobody has yet come up with a figure for the 190 at this rating, but afaik it's quite a bit lower than 4000ft/min.
All this is just from memory of course, and I stand to be corrected, but one of the German aircraft experts like HoHun or Butch could probably tell you more.
Oh look, MANDOBLE's ugly hatred of anything "Spitfire" rears it's head again and completely derails a thread.
Is Godo Mandoble?
-
Nashwan, I doubt any full loaded 190A reached more than 3800 fpm in a substained climb on WEP at sea level. But to catch a climbing bandit, you need to match its climbing rate and also its speed.
As pointed in other thread by F4UDOA, optimum climbing speed for 190A5/U4 was found around 185 mph, probably the same for A3. A SpitV doing 4000 fpm at 170 mph simply wont catch a 3800 fpm 190A at 185 mph.
We should aslo consider the usage of WEP while climbing, 3 mins limit for SpitV can be reduced to 2 or 1 minute in a slow substain climb. This would affect with less degree to a 10 mins WEP 190.
While it is a pleasure to discuss about early 190s vs early spits, sadly Karnak thinks it is a barbaric hijack of this "only-Spit" related thread, so, I'm out.
And yes, its me.
-
Originally posted by GODO
Nashwan, I doubt any full loaded 190A reached more than 3800 fpm in a substained climb on WEP at sea level. But to catch a climbing bandit, you need to match its climbing rate and also its speed.
As pointed in other thread by F4UDOA, optimum climbing speed for 190A5/U4 was found around 185 mph, probably the same for A3. A SpitV doing 4000 fpm at 170 mph simply wont catch a 3800 fpm 190A at 185 mph.
Anyone have the data on the best sustained climb speed for a Hispano 20mm shell?
-
Nashwan,
Your numbers are plain wrong on the 190. The 190A1 had the exact same climb best rate as the 190A3. 16.5 Meters/sec. best climb.
Not only that you are looking at ONE set of numbers for ONE altitude that was the very best that plane accomplished.
Pyro has the graphs and will compare them.
Now like ANY airplane this changed with altitude. So which Altitude are you taking the spit climb rate from, what altitude is the spits best climb and what altitude is the 190's best climb? Plane performance is not just a simple ONE set of numbers.
AND
It's not that a Spit IX with a higher climb RATE cannot outclimb a 190 at lower climb RATE...of course it can.
BUT
Remember there is a difference between SPEED and RATE.
According to Aeronautical Engineers Generally speaking about Lower Winloading vs Higher Wingloading the following is true. This does bear out in the 190 vs Spit IX fight according to the performance graphs and flight tests.
The spit will climb at a steeper angle and slower speed (170 mph) because of its lower wingloading and lower stall speed. Which means more drag (more surface area) and slower forward speed (thrust is used to overcome drag) but at a steeper angle to achieve best climb rate. Now thrust to weight can overcome this but the thrust to weight ratio on the Spit IX did not give it an accelleration advantage over the 190. Except for Altitudes that the Spit was faster, the 190 out accellerated it. So for a very narrow altitude band the spit would be able to climb at about the same speed as the 190. If the spit driver climbs at his best climb speed/angle then he will end up ABOVE the 190. However since the 190 holds the dive advantage both in sustained speed and initial dive accelleration then all the 190 driver has to do is dive when the spit driver dives on him. If the fight ends up on the deck the 190 holds the level speed advantage anyway on the deck. That's why spit drivers did not fight 190's in the verticle.
NOW remember the 190 climbs at a faster speed but a shallower angle. It has a higher stall speed and higher wingloading which means less drag in the climb (less surface area) AND it's thrust to weight ratio give it the accelleration advantage (also gave it the zoom climb advantage for the same reasons). IF a spit driver attempts to follow the 190 directly he will soon find the 190 above him and holding the cards in the verticle fight.
This assumes a co-energy engagement.
There are good reason's why the RAF did not recommend it's Merlin Powered Spitfire pilots to "mix it up" with any version of the 190A. That is also the reason Spit drivers didn't fight 190's in the verticle but used their turn advantage.
Crumpp
-
Nashwan,
BTW the Summer of '42 was called the Focke Wulf Summer by the RAF. This is because the FW-190 had complete domination in performance over the Spit Vb. The RAF was so desperate to get ahold of an FW-190 and try to find a counter for it they accually planned and where about to launch a SOE operation to steal an FW-190 from a Luftwaffe base in France.
When Faber, thru a mistake in navigation, accidently landed on an RAF base in England the British got their FW-190. They promptly tested it in every way possible looking for weaknesses. The only advantage the Spit V had was turning. And as one Spitdriver put it...TURNING DOESN'T WIN AIRBATTLES.
Obviously he never flew in AH. :eek:
The Spit IX went a long way to closing that performance gap. It matched the 190 in most areas and still maintained it's sustained turning advantage. Matching is not dominating nor is an advantage dominating either. Both aircraft had thier advantages over the other. The areas the 190 held advantages were key ones though; Manuverability, accelleration, and dive speed/level speed.
Crumpp
-
Crummp,
The Spitfire LF.Mk IX was a direct result of comparing the Fw190A and Spitfire F.Mk IX. Chief among the findings was that the Spitfire F.Mk IX had too high a critical altitude and gave up too mauch performance at low altitude. It did dominate the Fw190A up above 25,000ft, but in the kind of air battles being fought at that time over France and the low countries that wasn't the most usefull plance to be competitive. The Spitfire LF.Mk IX lowered the critical altitude quite a lot and the SL speed of 336mph (later 350+ on 150 octane) was a lot closer to the Fw190A's performance down low.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Nashwan,
BTW the Summer of '42 was called the Focke Wulf Summer by the RAF. This is because the FW-190 had complete domination in performance over the Spit Vb. The RAF was so desperate to get ahold of an FW-190 and try to find a counter for it they accually planned and where about to launch a SOE operation to steal an FW-190 from a Luftwaffe base in France.
When Faber, thru a mistake in navigation, accidently landed on an RAF base in England the British got their FW-190. They promptly tested it in every way possible looking for weaknesses. The only advantage the Spit V had was turning. And as one Spitdriver put it...TURNING DOESN'T WIN AIRBATTLES.
Obviously he never flew in AH. :eek:
The Spit IX went a long way to closing that performance gap. It matched the 190 in most areas and still maintained it's sustained turning advantage. Matching is not dominating nor is an advantage dominating either. Both aircraft had thier advantages over the other. The areas the 190 held advantages were key ones though; Manuverability, accelleration, and dive speed/level speed.
Crumpp
That about sums it up. The LFIX caught the Spitfire up so it could compete with the 190. The Spit V was totally outclassed.
But that's how it worked. Spit I.II vs 109E variants. Then the 109F variants vs the Spit V variants. 190 shows up and upsets the applecart. Spit IX lash up evens things out a bit. 190s go down low where the FIX isn't at it's best. Typhoons rushed into service. Tails come off a few. Spit XII is introduced and the low level raids on England are curtailed because the XII can handle the 190 down low.
LFIX is introduced with max performance at a lower height band then the FIX where the 190s play, and in particular where the medium bombers fly in 43 over France. Spit Vs are clipped clapped and cropped to provide some usefulness but still can't really keep up.
Spit XIV shows up along with the Tempest. 190D series appears a bit later. 109G10s, 14s Ks etc added to the mix to compete some more. Of course the Jugs and 51s are also in this fight.
Just the nature of progress.
Anyone claiming the Spit V was an equal with the 190 is kidding themselves. And the guys who fly against it in AH and let it fly to it's strengths pay the price because of that turning circle etc.
And in terms of AH we still should have an LFIX :)
Dan/Slack
-
Although this is a spit thread (or should be) I have to ask a question.
Crumpp, as for what I have made out from the 190 A5 Deck Speed thread, the conclusions in there have been that our 190 actually climb too good (judging from RLM charts) and that it is running on higher boost then it should due to a misstake in converting units.
So the spit should actually be even more superior to the 190 then it already is? So the fact that the 190 had a better zoom in R/L doesn't seem to apply in AH2 nor will it apply even if the 190 is changed, in fact, the spit will get more of an advantage over the 190 once it is changed...
-
Wilbus, our 190As (100% fuel and 4 guns) are matching more or less correctly the historical substained climb rate (3740fps for 190A8 at sea level), at least at low level, higher the 190As seem to climb too slow. But they seem to be reaching the best substained climb at slower speed. They are not really running at higher boost, may be the gauge is simply indicating a wrong conversion between ata and "MAN.
If you have time, take the following reference points of real 190A8 full loaded and compare them to AH 190A8:
sea level: 3740 fps
6k: 3149 fps
15k: 2952 fps
18k: 2466 fps
21k: 1968 fps
25k: 1525 fps
-
Bringing this thread around once again, My vote goes to the Spit VIII.
It has a very similar performance to the Spit IX LF, in some ways better.
The wing is not clipped, but improved and stiffer giving enhanced roll rates.
The aircraft was available in 1943 and was suited for tropical conditions.
-
You got it Guppy!
Crumpp
-
Well the situation is a bit more sticky than described here and may well end up being one of those times when you better watch what you wish for. I do plan to do quite a bit of work in the performance modeling of planes to try and smooth out inconsistencies. So I'm willing to completely remodel the performance on the A-5. But if I'm going to take the RLM data as the basis of the model, then I'm going to work with all of the RLM data and not just a single data point. Much of the RLM data, particularly in climbing, is inferior to the current AH model.
Posted by Pyro in the other thread. So acordingh to Pyro, if he will work after RLM charts, as you guys want him to, the 190 will climb worse then it does now.
So when you say the 190 quite closely matches real numbers, what charts do you go after?
The 190 is my favorite plane, and as for the charts I have seen the climb rate matches quite nicely when it comes to ft/min but I think you two are misstaking when you think the 190 will be changed for the better once Pyro remodells it after the RLM charts he's got. That is what I've made out from the other thread atleast.
As for Spitfires, I agree on adding more of them, spit VIII would be very nice IMO aswell as a clipped wing 9. Another later version of the Seafire would be nice aswell!
-
Sorry for further strenghtening the hijack attempt here, let's bring it over into the other thread again...
-
i had plenty of times when i was engaged by a horde of planes (10-15 or more) which i had got out with about 7 kills.
Why do I seriously doubt this. 10-15 to 1 and you kill 7? Not even the best pilots in AH would accomplish this I am pretty sure.
-
Levi in his Spit V can do that while being drunk with both eyes shut.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
So acordingh to Pyro, if he will work after RLM charts, as you guys want him to, the 190 will climb worse then it does now
Just did a very quick test, our 190A8 full of fuel and with 4 guns is doing 3500 fpm at sea level, real one with same configuration 3740 fpm. Why do you thing it will be worse than actual one??
-
Nashwan,
Your numbers are plain wrong on the 190. The 190A1 had the exact same climb best rate as the 190A3. 16.5 Meters/sec. best climb.
I thought those were the figures I gave, quoting you as the source?
Not only that you are looking at ONE set of numbers for ONE altitude that was the very best that plane accomplished.
For the Spit, the figures I gave hold true up to 9,000 ft for 16 lbs, about 15,000ft iirc for normal rating. I've repeatedly said I don't know the full 190 performance figures.
Now like ANY airplane this changed with altitude. So which Altitude are you taking the spit climb rate from, what altitude is the spits best climb and what altitude is the 190's best climb? Plane performance is not just a simple ONE set of numbers.
That's why I specified the altitude range for the Spit figures.
Remember there is a difference between SPEED and RATE.
Of course there is.
I made a simple comment to someone's "complaint" that the Spit V could outclimb the 190A in AH. I said it should be able to.
Obviously that might not hold true for all altitudes, but then again it might. The 190 wasn't noted for it's high alt performance, after all. But, like I said, I don't know the full climb figures for the 190.
I've seen a scan of an original doc that shows figures for a 190A5, at 1.32 ata 2450 rpm (climb and combat).
It shows 15 m/s at sea level, rising to 15.3 at approx 1 km, dropping to about 12 at 2.5 km, then dropping to 11 at 5.5 km, and 1.5 at 10 km. I don't have the full details about the condition of the plane, or any futher details about the test.
Comparing that to the Spit V at normal rating, which held about 16.4 up to 4.6 km, 14 at 5.5 km, 3.9 at 10 km, the Spit on normal rating wins all the way.
I don't have combat rating figures for the 190s, but I think there's broad agreement it wouldn't reach 4,000 ft/min.
BTW the Summer of '42 was called the Focke Wulf Summer by the RAF. This is because the FW-190 had complete domination in performance over the Spit Vb.
I've never disputed that the 190 was a better fighter than the Spit V. I merely pointed out that the Spit V in AH outclimbing the 190 was, by and large, correct.
When Faber, thru a mistake in navigation, accidently landed on an RAF base in England the British got their FW-190.
He didn't land at an RAF base in England. He landed at RAF Pembrey, which is not far from where I live, and my grandmother worked there during the war. I can assure you it's not in England.
The only advantage the Spit V had was turning.
And climbing.
Don't forget, the RAF did climbing trials with the Spitfire running at normal rating, the 190 running on WEP. Only later on did the A4 gain the increase in power that made the old wep rating the new climb and combat rating. Even then, the independent tests of 190s and Spit Vs found no real difference between a Spit V on normal rating and a 190 on 1.32 ata.
Edit: I didn't want to post the scan of the 190 climb figures in case the person I got it from had asked me not to (I had no idea where the pic came from).
However, a search for the filename found it on the UBI boards, it was originally posted by Butch. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=807101562&r=745102962#745102962
-
Speaking of 190s..
has anyone tested the roll?
The figures I get for both As and the F, is about 2.8 seconds for full 360degrees aileron-only roll at 300mph IAS, 1000ft altitude. Seems a bit too slow - I thought it was supposed to be about 1.8 seconds for full 360 at that speed.
-
I think it has been proved that the AH roll rate of the 190 is a tad slow.
Not that it would make it any better, my feel is actually that the 190's roll rate is uncomfortably fast!
In real life however, that would definately make a bit of a difference.
Errr...Nashwan,,,you from Wales? Southern?
I spent some time on a farm in CLWYD ;)
My great uncle also was trained at LLandow.
-
RAE and NACA measured maxium rate of the roll ie peak rolling speed during roll. I have a some German measurements for one 360 deg roll and here are some examples:
Fw 190 400km/h 3,2s
Bf 109F 390km/h 4,5s
Bf 109H 400km/h 6s
gripen
-
BF 109H?
What is that for a plane?
-
Originally posted by Angus
BF 109H?
What is that for a plane?
It's the high altitude variant of the Bf 109 with extended wing. See here (http://www.vectorsite.net/avbf1092.html#m4).
gripen
-
Nashwan,
That's is ONE of the charts we are using.
I know Faber landed in Pembrey. It's kind of like my Family is Scottish. We don't say we are English. We are Scottish. Facts are though we were conquered by the English and are part of England. Nobody points to the map of Europe and says. "Hey, Look it's Wales" nor do they say "It's the United Kingdom!" People point as say, "It's England! Yeah Wales is a part of England just like Scotland is a part of it too."
So I apologize If I stepped on your sense of national pride. It was not my intention.
Kweassa,
I think the roll rate might be a tad slow. Unfortunately there is not much good data on the roll rate of planes out there. I've read something like in the references I have on the 190. I'll try and dig it up. It certainly does not seem to "flick" like the RAF pilots describe it.
For sure the 190 seems to "pause" after a hard roll and resist's changing direction. This really cuts down on the advantage the roll rate is suposed to give the 190 in manuverability.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
In the old Airwarrior days, the fight used to be for having the alt advantage and you'd find the fights at 25-30K
I've never seen it in AH with any consistancy as most of the fights seem to be 15K to the deck.
In AW, you could evade a rope or high 6 attack by getting your nose pointed up against the attacker. This tended to keep the fights higher.
-
Just did a very quick test, our 190A8 full of fuel and with 4 guns is doing 3500 fpm at sea level, real one with same configuration 3740 fpm. Why do you thing it will be worse than actual one??
This was posted by Pyro:
But if I'm going to take the RLM data as the basis of the model, then I'm going to work with all of the RLM data and not just a single data point. Much of the RLM data, particularly in climbing, is inferior to the current AH model.
No more explonations needed to that I hope...
-
Levi in his Spit V can do that while being drunk with both eyes shut.
No he can't :)
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Obviously he never flew in AH. :eek:
Have you ever flown in an AH event matching Spit Vs against 190A5s?
-
I have mz.....and the spit V's got spanked.
Wil has a point. You can't expect pyro to pick the highest performance for speed from one source, then use the best climb from another source. When in different areas of performance the sources were quite different.
More spits to AHII1:)
-
No I am sure he is going to go off the RLM data since in the USAAF data is developing 1.35 ata instead of 1.32 ata.
Wilbus, I don't think Pyro is going to pork the 190. Relax bro, The sky is not falling Chicken Little. :)
He is not talking about just fixing the climb speed and rate. Pyro is talking about completely redoing the 190 FM.
If AH is a sim then in order to "simulate" WWII Air to Air combat they will have to be able to reproduce the Historical fights in the style in which they occurred.
That means no matter what the "numbers" are it is really all relative in the artificial "Skies" of AH.
Crumpp
-
Wilbus, 3740 fpm is from original Focke-Wulf charts.
Crumpp, you have mail ;)
-
The Spit V gets dominated by the 190a5 because the 190 has a large speed advantage at typical MA alts. This translates into a much higher zoom and then energy conserving bore n zoom.
-
Í bet that cruising speeds also had something to say, since WW2 aircraft would not cruise at those top speeds we have.
Anyway, I feel pretty sure that the 190 cruised rather fast.
-
I am not worried Pyro will "pork" the 190, I hope, and think, he will modell the way he finds best using the charts he finds best.
I have read every post in the other thread, I know he is talking about totally remodelling the 190 Crumpp, no need to explain that, what I am saying is that it won't be "all good" as some people may think. Pyro clearly states that if he will be using RLM charts, the climb he finds there is clearly inferior to the current AH 190.
Mandoble, I believe you, BUT if you read what Pyro wrote, if he will modell after the RLM charts (or atleast the ones he's got, I don't know......) the climb rate of the 190 will be less then it is now, that means less then the 3500 we have now and less then the 3740 you have in your charts.
-
Very few L.F. IXs had clipped wings.
Have a look at all the photos you can find of Merlin 66 L.F. IX Spitfires (C or E wing) from 43-45 you will find few if any with "clipped" wings. They were a small #, and not the standard type in service. Truth be told I cant find a single pic of one, or any mention of a squadron using a clipped wing type.
The L.F. stood for its engine not its wings.
The more numerous "clipped" wing Spit was the L.F.V. (a 1943 version with a more powerful engine for low level performance).
The RAF/RCAF was perfectly content with the L.F. IX with its standard wings. If there was some drastic need to clip them to fight 190s I doubt that would have been the case.
You will find more examples of the Packard Merlin L.F. XVI Spitfire with a clipped wing, and some with a bubble canopy, but those are not Mk IXs. The main reason they went with a clipped wing in that version is because by late 44-45 they were mainly deployed in the fighter-bomber role. It had zip to do with Fw190s.
Some folks see a pic of a Spit XVI and they mistakenly i.d. it as a Spit IX with a clipped wing (they are very similar). I think this is the main cause for the "clipped wing IX" subject that keeps cropping up. I bet any pic you find of a "Spit IX" looking Spit with a clipped wing...dollars to dhonuts its a Packard Merlin Spit XVI.
-
The 190A8's most economical cruise speed was around 355 mph at 21,000 feet using 1.20ata with 2300U/min.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The 190A8's most economical cruise speed was around 355 mph at 21,000 feet using 1.20ata with 2300U/min.
Crumpp
Tthe 801 sucked 360kg/hr at 1.20ata/2300rpm while at 22,967ft it was 325kg/hr.
Reducing to 1.05ata/2000rpm gave 215kg/hr and 195kg/hr, much more economical. The speed/range of 317mph/612mi and 308mph/644mi compared to the that at 1.20ata/2300rpm of 357mph/431mi and 360mph/481mi. for the 16,405ft and 22,967ft altitudes.
Definately not the most economical cruise speed.
see range/endurance calculation doc dated 23.12.43
-
You are correct Milo. We are quoting two different cruise speeds for two different objectives.
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.html
Milo Check out the BMW 801D chart on this website. I think you are quoting the "max economy settings" of 1.10ata at 2100U/min.
I am quoting the "Max Endurance settings" of 1.20ata at 2300U/min.
Guess that little bit of extra speed gets you farther down the line than going a little slower and burning less fuel per hour.
If you have more 190 performance charts please post them. The more data the more accurate a FM we will have. Yes, contrary to some folks opinion, it is best to have more than one source. The same A/C with different set-ups (propeller tuning, engine condition, airframe condition, atmospheric conditions, etc..) will give different performance figures. The more known's we have the less "best guessing with a slide rule" that will have to be done on the Unknowns.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Why do I seriously doubt this. 10-15 to 1 and you kill 7? Not even the best pilots in AH would accomplish this I am pretty sure.
yes, i did it, and not just once. its a matter of discipline after you establish a E advantage.
and im not that good of a pilot too. after flying only the 109g10 for a while, the spit9 feels like on EZ mode when roping cons (which is the way to fight the hord).
try it and you will see its not that impossible- just hope there are no smart pilots around
:)
-
Well Flyboy, with E advantage, it's possible... thought you were jumped by em. And yeah, with any kind of better or average pilot around you'll be dead soon.
-
Originally posted by Squire
Very few L.F. IXs had clipped wings.
Have a look at all the photos you can find of Merlin 66 L.F. IX Spitfires (C or E wing) from 43-45 you will find few if any with "clipped" wings. They were a small #, and not the standard type in service. Truth be told I cant find a single pic of one, or any mention of a squadron using a clipped wing type.
The L.F. stood for its engine not its wings.
The more numerous "clipped" wing Spit was the L.F.V. (a 1943 version with a more powerful engine for low level performance).
The RAF/RCAF was perfectly content with the L.F. IX with its standard wings. If there was some drastic need to clip them to fight 190s I doubt that would have been the case.
You will find more examples of the Packard Merlin L.F. XVI Spitfire with a clipped wing, and some with a bubble canopy, but those are not Mk IXs. The main reason they went with a clipped wing in that version is because by late 44-45 they were mainly deployed in the fighter-bomber role. It had zip to do with Fw190s.
Some folks see a pic of a Spit XVI and they mistakenly i.d. it as a Spit IX with a clipped wing (they are very similar). I think this is the main cause for the "clipped wing IX" subject that keeps cropping up. I bet any pic you find of a "Spit IX" looking Spit with a clipped wing...dollars to dhonuts its a Packard Merlin Spit XVI.
How much you wanna bet? :)
And how many pics of clipped IXs you want?
Initially the clipped wing was for the Spit V as mentioned to increase the roll rate and help performance down low against the 190s in 43. But as mentioned the 44-45 Spit IX often had the clipped wings for the same reason and certainly the XVI since it was built specifically with the clipped wing for the ground attack roll.
You are correct that the LF designated the engine not the wing, but again as the air war became much more ground support oriented, it made sense to clip the wings on the IX.
My wish for a clipped IX/XVI is more based on the type of 'airwar' there is in AH which is the down lower, 'ground attack' kind of airwar. And being a Spit XII fanatic, I liked clipped wing Spits. I seriously doubt we'll ever get an XII however so an LFIXe/XVIe is about as close as I can hope to get :)
5 images of clipped non XVI Spits, 3 IXs and 2 VIII. I can post lots more if you want. Note that 3 of them are Med based Spits where the XVI never operated, while the other was operated by one of the Norwegian RAF squadrons. The small rounded tail is a giveaway that they are IXs and the serial ranges match IXs too.
Keep in mind, that the LFIXe and XVIe were essentially the same aircraft with the only real difference being the engine installed being either the Merlin 66 or the American built Packard Merlin 266. The airframes were the same as you can find photos of bubble canopy LFIXe's as well.
I have more clipped IX photos I can post if you want em :)
Dan/Slack
Spit LFIXe served with 127 and 129 Squadrons
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1087932462_pt961.jpg)
Spit LFIXs with 601 Squadron in Italy
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1087915169_cliped9.jpg)
Spit LFIX 331 Squadron
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1087915189_clipped92.jpg)
Spit LFVIII 253 Squadron in Yugoslavia 1945
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1087915223_clipped93.jpg)
Spit LFVIII of AVM Dickson
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1087915248_clipped8.jpg)
-
I am quoting the "Max Endurance settings" of 1.20ata at 2300U/min.
Maybe so but that is not how I read your original statement. You need to put the 1.20ata before most economical cruise speed so as not to make it look like you are claiming 355mph is the most economical cruise speed.
Anyways,
Lets just use the 7km/22,967' data as I have none for the altitude you say.
1.20ata/2300rpm - 1.48h, 775km, 580kph/360mph
1.02ata/2000rpm - 2.18hr, 1038km, 495kph/308mph
So to quote you, "The 190A8's most economical cruise speed was around 355 mph at 21,000 feet using 1.20ata with 2300U/min."
It is more economical at the lower ata and gets you further. So the "most economical cruise speed" is 495kph/308mph @ 7.0km @ 1.02ata @ 2000rpm.
-
I didnt say there weren't any, I said they were few (vs all produced). I would rather see a standard wing L.F. IX in AH if we got one, as most were configured that way.
You are right about the XVI being almost identical, thats true.
If I had a choice I would add a L.F. VIII with a standard wing, would make a nice addition, and an L.F. V version.
...and I stand by my point that many "clipped" IXs that are pointed out by many are in fact, VIIIs or XVIs.
-
ok i am convinced, give us the clipped IX
BUT only if it will be painted like this:
(http://101squadron.com/101real/assets/images/Spit_pics/White26modern2.jpg)
:D
-
actually i prefer this scheme by much :
(http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/7934/spit7c.jpg)
:)
-
Check the chart, maybe I made a mistake in reading it. It is hard to get it to the exact KM/h. You have to count the lines and extrapolate.
I took the reading from the "best speed" altitude just to confirm Angus's assumption that the 190 (high wingloading) would have a high cruise speed.
I am confused at just what you are trying to say? The data for the BMW 801 is available to examine from BMW AND Focke Wulf on the FW-190A8. It is clearly marked "best endurance" and most economical".
Please just click on the link and examine the FW-190A8 chart AND the BMW-801 performance chart.
I think it will clear this up. Please send your data in from your '43 chart.
Thanks!
Crumpp
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.html
BTW we need to move this back to the 190A5 level speed thread or start a new one. Looks like our Spit 190 discussion is over.
-
Originally posted by Squire
I didnt say there weren't any, I said they were few (vs all produced). I would rather see a standard wing L.F. IX in AH if we got one, as most were configured that way.
You are right about the XVI being almost identical, thats true.
If I had a choice I would add a L.F. VIII with a standard wing, would make a nice addition, and an L.F. V version.
...and I stand by my point that many "clipped" IXs that are pointed out by many are in fact, VIIIs or XVIs.
Actually very few clipped VIIIs with many more clipped IXs. Many of the IXs that went to the Soviet Union were also clipped wing LFs.
And my choice would be a full span wing LF VIII with the Universal wing of 2 20mm and 4 303 and a clipped wing LFIXe/XVIe with the E wing of 2 20mm and 2 50 cals. with the 3 hard points for the 44-45 time frame.
A clipped V was not progress so much as desperation to give it some survivability.
For AH the later LFIX/XVI makes much more sense considering the nature of the game.
The Spit I covers 39-40, the Spit V covers 41-42 and an LFVIII would cover 43-44 as well as the Pacific, while the LFIX/XVI covers 44-45 and gives enough variety in performance and armament to make it worth it.
Dan/Slack
-
Crumpp, to bad that site did not copy the other data pages in the Fw190A-8 Handbook. ie. the pages with the clean and various load configurations for 'Range and Endurance Calculations'.
-
That's Ok.
The Luftarchive has the pilots handbook for the FW-190 A1-A9 and the Technical manual for the FW-190A5-A8 bis A7 enroute to me now. Soon as they get here by airmail I will pour through them. Any charts or info I find will definately post on the website.
If you get them on CD the manuals are not very expensive. Around 16 bucks each and of course they are in German. I ordered the BMW 801D technical manual too.
Crumpp
-
Ohh one last thing....
Check out the 190A8 charts. So far we have with and without GM-1, 190A8/R2 (internal wingmounted Mk108's), and the FW-190A8 Normal Jager with clamshell gear doors with and without ETC-501 universal weapons mount.
Even have the climb rate chart for a BMW-801TS FW-190A9.
If you dig there is some really good stuff posted. Mandoble put the site together. I have just contributed a few things. It is a great place to consolidate our data to present to Pyro.
Crumpp