Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Wotan on January 11, 2005, 05:48:02 PM
-
Didn't all Spitfire F.IX (merlin 61, 63, 63a) have the 'c' wing with two 20-mm. and four .303-in. guns?
In AH doesn't the Spit 9 have the option of 4 x .303s or 2 x .50?
Would that mean its correct deisgnation would be Spitfire F.IXe?
Is there a such thing as a Spitfire F.IXe?
I know there's the LF IX (e) Merlin 66; two 20-mm. and two .5-in. guns. and HF IX (e) Merlin 70; two 20-mm. and two .5-in. guns. But is Spitfire F.IXe a proper designation?
TIA
-
I propse that our Spit 9 have 2 50cals and 4 303, problem solved...
-
There were FIXe's and HFIXes. Not many as the LFIX was the preferable aircraft considering the alt the war was being fought at.
The E wing replaced the Universal "C" Wing not too long after D-Day. It was NOT referred to as the C wing with the IX or any other variant other then the Spit V. It was referred to as the Universal wing.
124 Squadron as an example had HFIXes.
The Dutch, postwar, operated a mix of LF, F and HF IXs.
Dan/Slack
Using this as an excuse to wish for a clipped wing LFIXe or LFXVIe :)
-
So the proper (historically accurrate) designations for the Spitfire F.IX are:
Spitfire F.IX(without the 'c') (2 x 20mm, 4 x .303)
Spitfire F.IXe (2 x 20mm. 2 x .50)
I have read where there really wasn't a Spitfire F.IXc desigination.
What are the squadron service dates for both?
EDIT
I guess what I am looking for is the 'official' designations for the Spitfire F.IX with the 'C' or 'universal' wing and the Spitfire F.IX with the 'e' wing...
-
Wotan,
The AH Spitfire Mk IX is a Merlin 61 Spitfire F.Mk IX that can either have the correct Universal Wing or the incorrect "e" wing. To the best of my knowledge, no Merlin 61 Spitfire was armed with .50 cals. It should also not have the option for the rockets.
Really what AH should have is a Merlin 66 Spitfire LF.Mk IX with the option for either the Universal Wing or the "e" wing. The Merlin 61 Spitfire Mk IX is just silly. It is barely any faster than our overboosted 1942 Spitfire Mk V and less than 350 were built.
With AH2 speed has become, by far, the most dominant performance aspect of a fighter and where the Spitfire LF.Mk IX may have been too good for AH1, it would be, if anything, an underperforming unit in AH2.
-
Your second post showed up while I wrote.
In the years since WWII it has become pretty standard to refer to the Spitfire MK IX with the Univesal Wing as a Spitfire F.Mk IXc or Spitfire LF.Mk IXc or Spitfire HF.Mk IXc, depending on the engine(s).
I believe that during the war you would have simply had the Spitfire F.Mk IX, Spitfire LF.Mk IX, Spitfire HF.Mk IX, Spitfire F.Mk IXe, Spitfire LF.Mk IXe and Spitfire HF.Mk IXe.
-
Ok I am confused more...
Guppy wrote:
The E wing replaced the Universal "C" Wing not too long after D-Day. It was NOT referred to as the C wing with the IX or any other variant other then the Spit V. It was referred to as the Universal wing.
I know there were:
F IX Merlin 61; 63 or 63A; two 20-mm. and four .303-in. guns.
The above is what we have in AH
LF IX Merlin 66; two 20-mm. and four .303-in. guns.
LF IX (e) Merlin 66; two 20-mm. and two .5-in. guns.
and
HF IX Merlin 70; two 20-mm. and four .303-in. guns.
HF IX (e)Merlin 70; two 20-mm. and two .5-in. guns.
Karnak says:
To the best of my knowledge, no Merlin 61 Spitfire was armed with .50 cals.
So if there were only 350 F.IX (Merlin 61) armed only with 2 x 20mm and 4 x .303 then does this mean that there were no Spitifre F.IXe (none armed with 2 x 20mm and 2 x .50)?
Could you have an 'e' wing and be armed with 4 x .303 rather then the 2 x .50?
My assumption had been based I what I read on this forum and else where that the Spitfire F.IX was only armed with 2 x 20mm and 4 x .303 ('C' or 'universal' wing). Some one on another forum mentioned that there were Spifire F.IXc's amd Spifire F.IXe[/e]'s that saw service in '44.
I know about the LF.IXe and HF.IXe's. Am I correct in thinking the "C" was never an official designation ie
LF.IXc
HF.IXc
These were just designated as:
LF.IX
HF.IX
Implying the universal wing...?
-
Originally posted by Wotan
So the proper (historically accurrate) designations for the Spitfire F.IX are:
Spitfire F.IX(without the 'c') (2 x 20mm, 4 x .303)
Spitfire F.IXe (2 x 20mm. 2 x .50)
I have read where there really wasn't a Spitfire F.IXc desigination.
What are the squadron service dates for both?
EDIT
I guess what I am looking for is the 'official' designations for the Spitfire F.IX with the 'C' or 'universal' wing and the Spitfire F.IX with the 'e' wing...
A while back on the Flypast Forum I opened the debate on this with the Spit fanatics there. Peter Arnold, one of the real Spit experts out there, who I got to know through my Spit XII research, responded as did others. Mr. Arnold goes by Mark12.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=20000
We reached the consensus that there was no C designation for the IX or any other Spit beyond the V. So the official designations would have been LFIX, FIX, HFIX, LFIXe, FIXe, HFIXe.
Image from that Flypast thread, in case you didn't visit it. From the official Air Publications used for the Spitfire IX by the RAF. Note the designations.
It does seem to suggest there was no FIXe however :) Another reason for AH to get an LFIXe
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1105490724_email0214.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Ok I am confused more...
Could you have an 'e' wing and be armed with 4 x .303 rather then the 2 x .50?
Implying the universal wing...?
The answer to this is NO. The E wing internal structure did not have the set up for the 303s outboard. It was also not set up for 4 20mms.
The Universal Wing, that was called the C wing on the Spitfire V COULD have 4 303s in each wing, 2 303s and a 20mm or 2 20mms, totally Universal.
See the Flypast thread I referenced for more on this.
Dan/Slack
-
Thanks Dan,
I just finished that htread and was on the back to ask about that image...
That confirms what I had thought all along (and seems to confirms what Karnak said).
So the Spitfire F.IX would be correct for a IX with a merlin 61, 63, 63a.
-
Wotan,
What I meant by "To the best of my knowledge, no Merlin 61 Spitfire was armed with .50 cals." was that there may have been a Merlin 63 or Merlin 63A Spitfire F.Mk IX that was armed with .50 cals. I have not seen anything to that effect, but I believe Nashwan claimed that there were some. I was stating, eplicitly, that I do not think that the Merlin 61 Spitfire Mk IX in AH should have the .50 cals as an option. I think the .50 cals and rockets should be removed as options and it should be renamed "Spitfire F.Mk IX"
To me that never really made sense though, because by the time the "e" wing was introduced they were a year into production of Merlin 66 and Merlin 70 Spitfire IXs. Heck, the first Mk XIV's had Universal Wings. I just don't see Merlin 63 production lasting that long, but I coukd be wrong.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Wotan,
What I meant by "To the best of my knowledge, no Merlin 61 Spitfire was armed with .50 cals." was that there may have been a Merlin 63 or Merlin 63A Spitfire F.Mk IX that was armed with .50 cals. I have not seen anything to that effect, but I believe Nashwan claimed that there were some. I was stating, eplicitly, that I do not think that the Merlin 61 Spitfire Mk IX in AH should have the .50 cals as an option. I think the .50 cals and rockets should be removed as options and it should be renamed "Spitfire F.Mk IX"
To me that never really made sense though, because by the time the "e" wing was introduced they were a year into production of Merlin 66 and Merlin 70 Spitfire IXs. Heck, the first Mk XIV's had Universal Wings. I just don't see Merlin 63 production lasting that long, but I coukd be wrong.
Agreed on the AH Spit. It shouldn't have the option for 50 cals or rockets as it's not an LF and definately not a variant that should have had an E wing with the hardpoints. Those were Post D-Day LFIXes and XVIes.
The AH bird is really just an mixed up FIX or FIXe although there were no FIXes. It's a late 42 early 43 bird.
And yes I wish we had the LFIX :)
Dan/Slack
-
After looking through the speed climb differences I don't see what the big deal would be in having a LF.IX.
It would certainly be a better performer then the current F.IX under 25k but the differences don't seem to me to be something that would be feared. It would render the F.IX a hangar queen but so what.
If I had magical powers I would put one in today. However I can't see much reason for a clipped wing variant. It isn't any faster speed wise and while it may increase roll especially at lower speeds the 2 attributes (at least imho) that make a good fighters are acceleration and climb. I don't imagine the clip wings would do any better then the full wing variants. In fact it might climb a bit worse. The clipped wings make the spit even uglier then it already is.
I would also like to see a Spit V with 12lbs max boost.
thats would give AH the
Ia
Spit V '41
Spit V '42
F.IX '43
LF.IX late 43 / 44
VIV for the very late war.
Plus the Seafire...
-
Originally posted by Wotan
After looking through the speed climb differences I don't see what the big deal would be in having a LF.IX.
It would certainly be a better performer then the current F.IX under 25k but the differences don't seem to me to be something that would be feared. It would render the F.IX a hangar queen but so what.
If I had magical powers I would put one in today. However I can't see much reason for a clipped wing variant. It isn't any faster speed wise and while it may increase roll especially at lower speeds the 2 attributes (at least imho) that make a good fighters are acceleration and climb. I don't imagine the clip wings would do any better then the full wing variants. In fact it might climb a bit worse. The clipped wings make the spit even uglier then it already is.
I would also like to see a Spit V with 12lbs max boost.
thats would give AH the
Ia
Spit V '41
Spit V '42
F.IX '43
LF.IX late 43 / 44
VIV for the very late war.
Plus the Seafire...
I imagine it's the same as for the 109 or 190 guys. When they start talking about variants of the G for example, it loses me because I'm not as knowedgable about 109s. Each of the 109 guys probably has a variant they would prefer that fits their interest.
For someone who likes Spits and their history, having something to fit a certain time frame helps.
I'm a longtime fan of the XII, but I doubt we'll ever get that one. So for me a clipped wing, tall tail IX or XVI fills that roll. It should be faster down low where most of the AH fights seem to take place. The clipped wings did help the roll rate considerably and because it was used down lower, the turn rate and climb were not greatly affected.
And if you are going to have a Spit IX lugging rockets and bombs it would be the LFIXe and more often then not a clipped wing version. All the XVIs were LF and they came off the production lines with clipped wings.
But that's just me :)
Dan/Slack
-
Thats one of the reasons I asked for a Spit 5 with the 4x20mm option (fairly common mid\late war). But that would scare the pants off the LW crowd :) .
Prob with current Spit 9 is that is a not a true spit 9, but a mish mash of spit 9 variants.
-
According to Jeffrey Quill's book, the outboard gun heating on the C wing was insufficient for the 20mm & it jammed in the cold. This is probably why the Mk.Vc Spits sent to Malta were armed 4 x 20mm, but ETO ones were not. I assume this issue was taken care of in the E wing, as the port for the 12mm gun looks like it was make for a 20mm, however I've never read anything by anyone who said they flew a 4 x 20mm Mk.IX into combat. The only 4 x 20mm Spits I've ever read about in WW2 combat were the Mk.Vc ones on Malta & although they were equipt with the massive battery I am not sure they were ever used in combat with the full arms package. I did read a book by one Malta RAF pilot (may have been Beurling) who said some prefer the weight saved by having only 1 cannon in each wing.
-
Notice that early Spit MkIXs still had float type carbs with neg-G cutouts.
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/wwiiol/Spit_carbs.jpg)
-
Umm, this:
"According to Jeffrey Quill's book, the outboard gun heating on the C wing was insufficient for the 20mm & it jammed in the cold. This is probably why the Mk.Vc Spits sent to Malta were armed 4 x 20mm, but ETO ones were not"
Is it from "Spitfire: A test pilots story"?
Anyway, I may have misunderstood this some time ago, but anyway, I thougt the problem was overheating.
At medium to high alt, the air in the med is actually colder than in Britain/France!!!!
-
Originally posted by Angus
Umm, this:
"According to Jeffrey Quill's book, the outboard gun heating on the C wing was insufficient for the 20mm & it jammed in the cold. This is probably why the Mk.Vc Spits sent to Malta were armed 4 x 20mm, but ETO ones were not"
Is it from "Spitfire: A test pilots story"?
Anyway, I may have misunderstood this some time ago, but anyway, I thougt the problem was overheating.
At medium to high alt, the air in the med is actually colder than in Britain/France!!!!
Yep, it's in Test Pilot's Story.
As for 4 cannon Spits. The only evidence I can find of any kind of squadron use was with 2 Squadron SAAF in the ground attack role in Italy in 44-45.
The Malta Spit Vcs in 42 were launched from Wasp with 4 cannons but they removed two after they arrived.
Image of 2 Squadron Spit Vcs with 4 cannon. Note they also had that large Vokes filter under the nose and carried 500 pound bombs. Not exactly a high performance Spit under those circumstances :)
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1105536909_4cannonspits.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Staga
Notice that early Spit MkIXs still had float type carbs with neg-G cutouts.
Interestingly the first Griffon Spit XIIs that arrived at 41 Squadron in February 43 still had those carbs too and suffered the engine cut out problems initially.
They fixed it quick, but considering they'd changed it on the Spit Vs, it's surprising they still were dealing with it in 43.
Dan/Slack
-
Saw a picture of a 6 cannon Spit somewhere.
Anyway, was this a heating or cooling problem?
-
Angus, here is a nice pic for you. Lots of Spits in it. :)
(http://www.mikekemble.com/ww2/aircraft/castlebrom3.jpg)
The 6 cannon Spit was only a mockup. Dan will know for sure.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Saw a picture of a 6 cannon Spit somewhere.
Anyway, was this a heating or cooling problem?
The 6 cannon Spit was the prototype Spit XII DP845 that for a brief time in May 42 had a wooden mock up of a 6 cannon installation. It never had the real deal.
It was a heating issue with the 4 cannon Spits. I guess that explains the only use being in the Med at low level where heating wasn't an issue.
Image is DP845 with the 6 cannon mock up
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1105539206_dp845c.gif)
-
Wotan,
The Spitfire LF.Mk IX is 15mph faster on the deck, using +18lbs boost, than the Spitfire F.Mk IX and it has about an 800fpm better climbrate. Those are both significantly better numbers.
Personally, I don't like the clipped wings, but I recognize that if we get a LF.IX it will have them. They's ugly and ruin the Spitfire's lines, IMO.
I agree about the Mk V. Frankly I can't understand why it was boosted to +16lbs in AH2. It creates a large gap. Perhaps they should rename it "Spitfire Mk Vc" and add in a "Spitfire MkVb" at +12lbs boost with a float carburator and 60 rounds per cannon.
-
whats the difference (in performence) between the spit F.IXs that has the merlin 61 to the spit F.IX that is powered by a merlin63 and a merlin 63a?
and why did they named them all F.IX?
-
The LF, F, HF designation referred to the altitiude band the engine was best suited for.
HF and the Merlin 70 obviously being optimized for very high alt work.
F for high to medium alts
LF for medium to low alts
Dan/Slack
-
Wotan,
The Spitfire LF.Mk IX is 15mph faster on the deck, using +18lbs boost, than the Spitfire F.Mk IX and it has about an 800fpm better climbrate. Those are both significantly better numbers.
I know, I just don't think its something to be feared or 'unwanted' in AH. I consider the above numbers as at best a moderate gain.
When I mentioned speed comparisons I was talking mostly about the LF.IX vrs the LF.IX clipped wing. The only real advantage I see worth mentioning is the improved roll rate, especially at lower speeds.
IMHO things like roll rate and turning are overated in these games. Its my opinion that acceleration and climb rate are far more important, at least in how I fly.
Basically I don't see any practical advantage in a clipped wing Spit over a standard winged Spit.
The LF.IX will certainly have a speed advantage over the F.IX at normal combat altitudes in the main but from what I read the clipped wing spits climbed slightly worse then their normal wing cousins.
Guppy says (referring to the clipped wing):
the turn rate and climb were not greatly affected.
I will take his word for it but I would prefer the better climbing variant, even if its only slightly better, any day.
Clipped wing aside, I think most of us agree a Spitfire LF.IX is a plane that AH could use.
The F.IX should be fixed to represent its true design.
Rename the Spit Vb a Spit Vc and add a new Spit Vb with a max 12lbs boost.
It seems to me these would be relatively minor model changes. just new engine modeling work and FM adjustments.
If they are going to re-work the models anyway then why not?
I am still waiting to see a Yak 9m (basically a 9t with a 20mm ShVak).
Anyway we will see...
-
Originally posted by Angus
....At medium to high alt, the air in the med is actually colder than in Britain/France!!!!
Really? I never knew the lapse rate varies with lattitude. What is the function for lapse rate vs. lattitude?
-
Don't really know, just had it from a pilot who fought in the med, and later flew all over the globe.
He just said he was surprized to find out how quickly it got cold there, and that it was actually colder than in N Europe.
-
Of course an easy quick fix would be to unperk the 14, it's not worth the perks anyway.
It only excels at hi-alt and most of the time if you come across a con they dive for the deck.
Still can't see how HT can justify the cost of a Spit 14 when Ponys, Lala's and 190D9's are free. Just plain insanity.
What are the criteria for perking -
1) If its to prevent overuse then the Pony, Lala and 190d9 definately fall into this category.
2) If its #s built then there are still unperked aircraft built in lower numbers than the Spit 14. La7 3 cannon option is one.
3) Or is it as I suspect just at HT's whim.
Any other ideas or explantions welcome, just to try and help me understand this clusterflob called perking.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Don't really know, just had it from a pilot who fought in the med, and later flew all over the globe.
He just said he was surprized to find out how quickly it got cold there, and that it was actually colder than in N Europe.
Could be because the Med is generally hotter than NE Europe. Sweating bullfrogs on the ground and then climbing to altitude would make it seem like it was colder.
-
Hello:
I would just like to point out that 4 x 20mm cannon was an officially sanctioned alternative loadout for the Spit LF VIII (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spitlf8ads.jpg) and was used in service - see Aussie Spit VIII:
(http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/4canspit3.gif)
p.s. I wouldn't get too hung up on semantics; for example "A Merlin 66 engined Spit" pretty much says what needs said.
-
Been saying for a while an LFVIII would be great.
We already have the airframe, our spit 14 used Spit 8 frame. Would just need engine and performance tweaking.
-
Originally posted by mw
Hello:
I would just like to point out that 4 x 20mm cannon was an officially sanctioned alternative loadout for the Spit LF VIII (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spitlf8ads.jpg) and was used in service - see Aussie Spit VIII:
(http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/4canspit3.gif)
p.s. I wouldn't get too hung up on semantics; for example "A Merlin 66 engined Spit" pretty much says what needs said.
OK but clarify the photograph. That was the CO's Spit and they gave it 4 cannon and extended wing tips to chase high alt Dinahs. It was not done squadron wide.
Just because it could be done, didn't mean it was done on a regular basis. Trust me I'm a 30 year Spit fanatic, but it just wasn't something done often.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
The LF, F, HF designation referred to the altitiude band the engine was best suited for.
HF and the Merlin 70 obviously being optimized for very high alt work.
F for high to medium alts
LF for medium to low alts
Dan/Slack
guppy, that doesnt answer my question, im interested in the difference between the F.IX moddels. since you guys said the F.IX had 3 types of engines.
and what engine does the AH spit F.IX have?
-
IF HT and company were going to do it right, at least in my book, this is how they'd do it with the 2 stage Merlin crowd.
Keep the Spitfire FIX they have, remove the option for the E wing, remove the tropical filter and the option to carry bombs and rockets. Let it carry 30,45 or 90 gallon drop tanks. Merlin 61. 85 gallons internal fuel
This would cover the period from the summer of 42 to the Spring of 43.
Then add a Spitfire LFVIII with full span Universal wings with 2 20mm and 4 303s as well as the tall tail, tropical filter, 124 gallons internal fuel, short span ailerons, retractable tail wheel and a Merlin 66. The ultimate Merlin Spit. It can carry 30,45, 04 90 gallon drop tanks and a bomb on the centerline.
This covers June 43 to the end of the war in the Med and Pacific. It's also is skinners heaven as it carried the most varied of the schemes, whether it be Aussie, SEAC, USAAF, RAF MTO etc. It can also stand in for the VII
Then add the Spitfire LFXVIe. This covers the ETO from Mid 44 to the end of the war. This would probably be the MA favorite as it would have the Merlin 266, clipped wings, tall tail, E wing with 2 20mm and 2 50 cals along with 3 hard points with a load out of 3 bombs, a bomb and two rockets, or a drop tank and bombs or rockets. 85 gallons internal fuel. This would be the bird I'd fly :)
Image shows a Spitfire FIX, LFVIII and LFXVIe
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1105648128_3spits.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Flyboy
guppy, that doesnt answer my question, im interested in the difference between the F.IX moddels. since you guys said the F.IX had 3 types of engines.
and what engine does the AH spit F.IX have?
I would imagine we've got the Merlin 61 in the AH bird. The engines were just redesignated for certain mods. The Merlin 63 was in fact a modified Merlin 61 that changed the supercharger drive. The Merlin 63A was a modified Merlin 63. Performance would have been about the same.
61 had 1565 max horsepower and weighed1640 lbs
63 had1650 max horsepower and weighed 1645 lbs.
63A had 1710 max horsepower and weighed 1645 lbs.
Dan/Slack
-
Hello Dan:
"Just because it could be done, didn't mean it was done on a regular basis."
I don't disagree with that statement, and made no claims otherwise ;) Is there much about flight sims that is representative of a types service history? AH Spit I, IX, XIV being a perfect case in point? :(
I simply stated what the historical evidence shows to be the case: "...that 4 x 20mm cannon was an officially sanctioned alternative loadout for the Spit LF VIII and was used in service" without qualification. Do you have documentation demonstrating the statement to be factually in error? How the facts are implemented in-game is no concern of mine. With regards to your Spit lineup; F IX, LF VIII, and LFXVIe: nice! :) Only possible exception might be a +25 lb Spit IX circa Spring 1944 - heck of an arena plane, especially if the plane sets are based on selected time periods.
Flyboy see here (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9v109g.html) for some discussion about the various Merlins equipping Spit IXs.
-
Originally posted by mw
Hello Dan:
"Just because it could be done, didn't mean it was done on a regular basis."
I don't disagree with that statement, and made no claims otherwise ;) Is there much about flight sims that is representative of a types service history? AH Spit I, IX, XIV being a perfect case in point? :(
I simply stated what the historical evidence shows to be the case: "...that 4 x 20mm cannon was an officially sanctioned alternative loadout for the Spit LF VIII and was used in service" without qualification. Do you have documentation demonstrating the statement to be factually in error? How the facts are implemented in-game is no concern of mine. With regards to your Spit lineup; F IX, LF VIII, and LFXVIe: nice! :) Only possible exception might be a +25 lb Spit IX circa Spring 1944 - heck of an arena plane, especially if the plane sets are based on selected time periods.
Flyboy see here (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9v109g.html) for some discussion about the various Merlins equipping Spit IXs.
Fair enough :)
My fear in Flight Sims though is that folks can point to small instances of something and use that as their argument for it making sense. There were a small number of P80s in Italy with the 1st FG at the end of the war, therefore we should have P80s. Did they ever fire a shot in anger in WW2? Nope. You can argue that the Meteor was at least operational shooting down V-1s and I personally know a guy who was flying them with 616 in 44-45. But they never got involved in the airwar over the continent. So should we have them? I don't think so. But that's just me.
It's kinda like the guys wanting a 4 cannon Merlin Mustang because they've seen one image of a prototype with that armament.
It goes on and on :)
as for the +25 boost Spit LFIX. I figure that's the LFXVIe too. Same time frame. Just has the American built Merlin 266 instead of the Rolls Merlin 66. Airframe is identical, only the engine decided the designation.
Dan/Slack
-
Oh, I agree with you that aircraft modeled in sims should be representative of the type. Knowing what that is can, at times, be contentious ;)
"as for the +25 boost Spit LFIX. I figure that's the LFXVIe too."
Good point! To the extent time frame matters, and I gather it doesn't here, the +25 LF IX was operational rather earlier.
-
Dan, not to disagree with your source but,
the Meteor did make it the continent. The were used for a2g missions. Four a/c on Jan 20 1945 were sent to Melsbrook Belguim. In March they went to Gilze-Rijen Holland where they were joined by the rest of the Squadron(616). On April 13 they moved to Nijmegen. On April 17 they attacked ground targets in the Ijmuiden area. On april 20 they were based at Quackenbruck and then on to Fassberg. May 3 they attacked Schonberg airfield, claiming 6 a/c. Sometime in the next few days, 4 Meteors attempted to attack some Fw190s but were jumped by Tempests and Spitfires and were forced to breakoff.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
IF HT and company were going to do it right, at least in my book, this is how they'd do it with the 2 stage Merlin crowd.
Keep the Spitfire FIX they have, remove the option for the E wing, remove the tropical filter and the option to carry bombs and rockets. Let it carry 30,45 or 90 gallon drop tanks. Merlin 61. 85 gallons internal fuel
This would cover the period from the summer of 42 to the Spring of 43.
Then add a Spitfire LFVIII with full span Universal wings with 2 20mm and 4 303s as well as the tall tail, tropical filter, 124 gallons internal fuel, short span ailerons, retractable tail wheel and a Merlin 66. The ultimate Merlin Spit. It can carry 30,45, 04 90 gallon drop tanks and a bomb on the centerline.
This covers June 43 to the end of the war in the Med and Pacific. It's also is skinners heaven as it carried the most varied of the schemes, whether it be Aussie, SEAC, USAAF, RAF MTO etc. It can also stand in for the VII
Then add the Spitfire LFXVIe. This covers the ETO from Mid 44 to the end of the war. This would probably be the MA favorite as it would have the Merlin 266, clipped wings, tall tail, E wing with 2 20mm and 2 50 cals along with 3 hard points with a load out of 3 bombs, a bomb and two rockets, or a drop tank and bombs or rockets. 85 gallons internal fuel. This would be the bird I'd fly :)
Image shows a Spitfire FIX, LFVIII and LFXVIe
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1105648128_3spits.jpg)
I absolutely agree with everything Dan said here and, for the penny it's worth, fully endorse such a AH Spitfire plan.
Please HTC, look at this as a way to fill out the Spitfire line in AH.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Dan, not to disagree with your source but,
the Meteor did make it the continent. The were used for a2g missions. Four a/c on Jan 20 1945 were sent to Melsbrook Belguim. In March they went to Gilze-Rijen Holland where they were joined by the rest of the Squadron(616). On April 13 they moved to Nijmegen. On April 17 they attacked ground targets in the Ijmuiden area. On april 20 they were based at Quackenbruck and then on to Fassberg. May 3 they attacked Schonberg airfield, claiming 6 a/c. Sometime in the next few days, 4 Meteors attempted to attack some Fw190s but were jumped by Tempests and Spitfires and were forced to breakoff.
I wasn't very clear when I typed that so you are right :) They certainly were on the continent. My friend along with his CO at war's end went and grabbed a couple of 262s and brought them to Fassberg.
The point is the same though. Their use was so limited, in terms of a Flight Sim it would make much less sense to add Meteors then it would to add Spitfire XIIs for example. Yet I'd say hold off on XIIs, as much as I like them, because their numbers were so limited.
There are too many other planes that saw more widespread use that should join the party first.
Dan/Slack
-
Very nice layout Guppy.
But...how about one of e'm being bubble hooded, - or modify our XIV????
-
Originally posted by Angus
Very nice layout Guppy.
But...how about one of e'm being bubble hooded, - or modify our XIV????
They got into the war so late that it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but then again who asked me :)
I don't like the look of the bubble tops nearly as much as the high profile fuselage. It doesn't look like a Spit to me.
Bubble topped XVI on top and XIV down low
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1105657930_bubblespits.jpg)
-
guppy why some spit moddels have a pointy vertical stabilazer and some dont?
does it make any difference?
-
Originally posted by Flyboy
guppy why some spit moddels have a pointy vertical stabilazer and some dont?
does it make any difference?
Like any of the WW2 fighters, the larger the engine and greater the power the more rudder they needed.
The Larger rudder was initially used with the Spit XII and the new Griffon III and IV it used. But it was also added to the Spit VII and VIII on the production line. Later on it was used with the Spit IX and XVI.
With the advent of the two stage Griffons and the XIV they redesigned the entire tail so that it was larger over all to take in the increased power of the Griffon 60 series.
Other Fighters used different methods. The P40 for example got a longer fuselage as the engine power increased. The 190D9 introduced a lengthening of the fuselage to help balance things out.
Bottom line it was to help handling and the increased horsepower of the larger engines.
Dan/Slack
-
thanks guppy.
you probably know it allready, but i really appreciate your effort to enlighten the uneducated.
its a real treat to learn from you guys, and i know i can allweys count on this forum to answer all my dumb questions :)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Like any of the WW2 fighters, the larger the engine and greater the power the more rudder they needed.
The Larger rudder was initially used with the Spit XII and the new Griffon III and IV it used. But it was also added to the Spit VII and VIII on the production line. Later on it was used with the Spit IX and XVI.
With the advent of the two stage Griffons and the XIV they redesigned the entire tail so that it was larger over all to take in the increased power of the Griffon 60 series.
Other Fighters used different methods. The P40 for example got a longer fuselage as the engine power increased. The 190D9 introduced a lengthening of the fuselage to help balance things out.
Bottom line it was to help handling and the increased horsepower of the larger engines.
Dan/Slack
Fw190D9 also got an extension on the vertical fin in front of the rudder, later an all new even larger fin/rudder were added to the Ta152 series and some late model As and Ds..
-
Dan
do you know how many 'bubble' and 'razorback' Spit XIVs were produced?
-
Fw190D9 also got an extension on the vertical fin in front of the rudder, later an all new even larger fin/rudder were added to the Ta152 series and some late model As and Ds..
Same with the 109 Series...
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Dan
do you know how many 'bubble' and 'razorback' Spit XIVs were produced?
I'm not sure Milo. I don't know that anyone has really taken the time to find out. Part of the problem is you can find planes in the same serial ranges with one being high back and one being low back.
As near as I can tell, they didn't start delivering the bubble top XIV and XVI aircraft until the end of the war late March or early April 45
Image shows Terry Spencer, then CO of 350 Squadron in a bubble top XIV.
Peter Cowell, who I stayed with in England back in 85 had a painting of his 41 Squadron Spit XIV done at the end of the war and it was a bubble top EB-P, yet two other paintings done at the same time for other 41 pilots had normal razorback Spit XIVs. So I think it was mix and match well into the postwar as you'd seen occupation squadrons operating both types together.
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1105672228_spencer1.jpg)
-
Thanks Dan.
That is what I found when I went looking for the spilt > same serial ranges had both.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Image shows Terry Spencer, then CO of 350 Squadron in a bubble top XIV.
He barely fits into the cocpit... :cool:
-
He needs to duck to close the canopy...
He must be a giant because we all know how 'roomy' allied cockpits were.;)
-
Originally posted by Wotan
He needs to duck to close the canopy... He must be a giant because we all know how 'roomy' allied cockpits were.;)
The photo is obviously a fake. This guy would have to bend U-form and kiss the gunsight after he closed the canopy. Of course this wasn`t so irl, I have a great oral story about a jazz concert that was held in Spitfire`s cocpit. They even had a seperated cigar room. I`ll post it - very soon(tm). But right now I am busy with my excell calculations how much it would take my garden waterpump to empty the thames. :lol
-
Don't be taking shots at Terry Spencer. He's a heckuva nice person who has lived a life most of us can only dream about.
I feel most privilaged to have been able to get to know him and spend some time at his home with he and his wife.
And yes the Spit cockpit is fairly roomy. I fit in it quite well and I'm bigger then Terry
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1105702052_spitdweeb.jpg)
-
Oh dear.
I can post a picture of the Elbe, which I once sailed along. It's too big to dry up though. So, when the puny RAF bombed the city, there was quite enough water. It burned anyway.
Would have been better for them to have more pumps, mine does 6500 ltr/min, and my "gardenhose" is 5 inches wide :D
Enough of that. I also had the honour of knowing an old Spit pilot, who in his younger days would have been roughly my size or maybe a tad taller (6 foot plus). He was a decent bit taller than Rall, who's quote on the Spit cockpit I have already posted to the great dismay of SOMEBODY. Anyway, he had the opportunity to meet his brother who was in the merchant navy (after having being sunk twice!) some time in 1943/44. So, he picked him up with his Spit IX, stuffed him in the cockpit and flew back to base.
I've heard some similar tales of 109's, now that must have ben tough.
Then, onto my excel project.
It's prowling along, - basically the excel formula is ready, but I have to calculate into missing gaps.
I overestimated excel, I must confess, but fear not, for I am writing the formula in code now, and in the final version you will just have to enter alt bands and speed at those, than you can get the exact digit for every 100 feet of altitude. How about that
;)
Oh, btw, Dan, have you been in a 109 cockpit?
Looks to me that I'd fit in there, but just so, a bit tight over the shoulders I guess.
Back to the Spitfire:
For all I know, one could crank the seat a bit up and down, to fit smaller or bigger pilots, - anything of that?
I remember a tale of a very short pilot who needed an extra cushion under the parachute. May have been one of the eagle squad pilots.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Don't be taking shots at Terry Spencer.
I am not taking any Dan, just noted that him, even smaller than you, barely fits into that cocpit - that`s plain obvious to see - and probably have to shave his head and only then he would have an inch between his head and the canopy`s plexiglass. Good to hear though people actually CAN fit inside. I guess that makes it possible to even fly it from the inside, eh?
-
He is really a midget standing up on the seat :p
Don't be taking shots at Terry Spencer.
No one is taking shots at him. We are just making a little fun out of some of the old stereotypes.
btw Kurfürst,
How's it going with that garden hose?
The Thames drains an area of approximately 12 900 km2.
(http://firma.cfpm.org/images/Thames-Valley.gif)
Angus,
Hydrological data (including yearly flow rates) for the UK and the Thames is available through the National River Flow Archive Office:
nwamail@ceh.ac.uk
National Water Archive Office
CEH Wallingford
Wallingford
Oxon
OX10 8BB
Yearly rain fall in the Thames Region is about 690 mm.
I don't care how many 5 inch hoses you have you won't be 'draining' the Thames any time soon.
They damn sure didn't drain it in '39 either...
-
Well, regardless of that link Wotan, it is an established fact that the Thames on it's low flow in the autumn of 1940 (extremely hot and dry autumn) could not provide enough water for the firepumps. They pumped it down to the mud.
Actually, without any pumping, the Thames can run dry.
But how typical to haggle about it.
Anyway, just finished my code programming.
Now I can enter any alt bands and speed bands and get the results broken down in 100 feet units, be it climb rate (I will however need fpm data there, yet) or speed.
So, with that, I can satisfy the excel formula, and finally compare anything with anything and graph it up.
Will look a tad funny though, for I will have to use all measure points provided, for say 3-5 different aircraft, plus some between (calculated), so it will be quite a bit of work.
I will start with a comparison between JL165 and some other Spitties in the same era.
Results will be mailed, and then later on posted on the link.
I will put it in the Spitfire/109 thread, and some maybe as well here, - i.e. of respect with the thread, the performance differences in the Mk VII-IX.
Best regards.
Angus
-
Found a few intersting quotes.
Johannes Steinhoff, Sicily, Commander JG 77 (July 1943):
The Malta Spitfires are back again... They're fitted with a high altitude supercharger and at anything over twenty-five thousand feet they just play cat and mouse with us.
Alan Deere, Biggin Hill, Wing Commander Flying (March 1943):
The Biggin Hill squadrons were using the Spitfire IXBs (Merlin 66), a mark of Spitfire markedly superior in performance to the FW 190 below 27,000 ft. Unlike the Spitfire IXA, with which all other Spitfire IX wings in the Group were equipped, the IXB's supercharger came in at a lower altitude and the aircraft attained its best performance at 21,000 ft, or at roughly the same altitude as the FW 190. At this height it was approximately 30 mph faster, was better in the climb and vastly more manoeuvrable. As an all-around fighter the Spitfire IXB was supreme, and undoubtedly the best mark of Spitfire produced, despite later and more powerful versions.
How ironic we get a very good MkV and probably about the worst MkIX produced.
-
Angus, just some more of the sour grapes from the Lufluvers. :aok
They also forget that it was at low tide. :)
-
Ah, Wotan provided an excellent lead.
Thames on low tide, - in recent years.
The dry autumn of 1996......
Lowest month total averages ca 13 million m3
That makes a humble 300 m3 per minute.
I'd need some.......whooping.........4 6........ of my personl pump's to balance that.
Not very much, is it?
Well, it's just a fishpond :D
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
I am not taking any Dan, just noted that him, even smaller than you, barely fits into that cocpit - that`s plain obvious to see - and probably have to shave his head and only then he would have an inch between his head and the canopy`s plexiglass. Good to hear though people actually CAN fit inside. I guess that makes it possible to even fly it from the inside, eh?
Just to put this to rest. Have you ever been in a Spit cockpit or a 109 cockpit for that matter Izzy?
Common practice in the Spit was to raise the seat to it's fullest height for take off as the view over the engine was so poor. They did take off and land with the canopy open and the side door slightly open to stop the canopy from slamming forward in case of an accident.
Images showing Christopher Doll, another Spit driver I got to know while chasing Spit XII info. He was 6'2". Apparently the seat must be lowered in the photo of him in his 131 Squadron Spitfire V as he would be looking under the gunsight if he was looking forward.
The other image is Chris Doll with his best friend in the RAF, Ray Harries. They were known as "The long and the short of it" Both the tall and the short guy became aces flying Spits and served together both in 131 squadron where they were both flight commanders and later in 91 squadron on Spit XIIs where Doll was a flight commander and Harries the Squadron CO and later Wing commander at Tangmere when they had XIIs.
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1105735614_cdoll1.jpg)
-
Any idea how tall Neville Duke was?
Must have been, for he would not fit the 109 cockpit :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
Any idea how tall Neville Duke was?
Must have been, for he would not fit the 109 cockpit :D
Ooh, time for personal experience...
I've sat in a Yak-9, a P-51( D and C ) and a Buchon (HA-1112/Bf 109G-2). I've looked in a Spit, although it was the two-seat version made by the Irish post-war.
I'm just about 6', I'm somewhat heaver than a WWII guy at about 210lbs ( my dad went into the Marines in WWII at 6'10" and 145 ). Oh, yeah, I do have a Pilot's License, mostly flying Cherokees. The Warrior is comfortable, the 172 is comfortable, the 150 is too small for me, for reference. Flyable, but uncomfortable.
Verdicts: P-51, roomy and comfortable. The seat adjusts vertically and the rudder pedals adjust. Definitely flyable for me ( hah! ignore the 150 hours of taildragger time and the addtional 250 hours of T-6 time recommended by our P-51s pilot, which I don't have! ).
Spit: Looks flyable, but would be tight. I can't remember if the pdeals adjust, but the seat does. The pilot is about 3-4 in shorter than me and he said it is tight because the addition of the aft cockpit shortened it down. How a guy 6'6" would fit in this thing is a mystery. I did not actually sit in the airplane.
Yak-9: Barely flyable. Shoulders against the cockpit sides at the canopy. Seat adjustable, rudder pedals not adjustable. Knees uncomfortably high. My friend who flys it is about 3 in shorter than me, but just as stocky. Canopy clearance would be tight, but OK with the seat lower.
109: Impossble. Seat adjustable on the ground ( 2 or 3 positions available, I think the mechanic said ), rudder pedals not adjustable. Distance from seat-back to pedals, maybe 24". Possible to close the canopy, but the top of my head brushed it. Shoulders totally hunched forward to fit in ( might be helped if the seat were lowered ). Would be very uncomfortable, and nearly impossible to get enough leverage to work the rudders. My knees were literally in my chin. The Germans had guys over 6' flying these things and I've got no clue how they did it.
-
Nice. Thanks :)
-
Hmm, he definietely seems to fit in nicely. A good deal more convincing than Dan`s original picture. Btw, I think angie wetted his pants about that picture some time ago. I faintly remember it was about nose-over view, something along the lines what dan said. ;)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1094754865_erlahaube.jpg)
Now as for the seat, if Tobak could fit in with his 190cm+, I guess anybody would. The seat was adjustable, I am not sure about the pedals, but Tobak also gave a story about a 109 pilot who jumped into another (taller) guy`s plane, but he could not reach the pedals OK - were not adjusted for him, too far away - and groundlooped. Took away half of a barrack in the process, with some german guy in it who`s shaving. :lol
-
Even Reinhard Heydrich was able to fit into and fly a 109. He was over 6 foot... There were many LW pilots over 6 foot. Some try tp portray the 109 as if only elves could fly it...
(http://www.deathcamps.org/reinhard/pic/bighey2.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2a/Himmler_Heydrich.jpg)
Angus keep dreaming about your garden hose draining the Thames...
-
How most of the Messycrap 109s ended their lives.
(http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/djb/92squadron/me109-crashed-2.jpg)
Not much headroom in these a/c.
(http://www.d-186.de/bilder/jg74/me109-1.jpg)
(http://www.todo-aviones.com.ar/aleman/bf109/bf109-08.jpg)
(http://www.todo-aviones.com.ar/aleman/bf109/Me109_33.jpg)
(http://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~wingman/pics/me109_8hungary1.jpg)
(http://home.monet.no/~oddbass/109E.jpg)
(http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/WanakaWarbirds/Bf109/Me109TaxyingSideView.jpg)
-
The Biggin Hill squadrons were using the Spitfire IXBs (Merlin 66), a mark of Spitfire markedly superior in performance to the FW 190 below 27,000 ft. Unlike the Spitfire IXA, with which all other Spitfire IX wings in the Group were equipped, the IXB's supercharger came in at a lower altitude and the aircraft attained its best performance at 21,000 ft, or at roughly the same altitude as the FW 190. At this height it was approximately 30 mph faster, was better in the climb and vastly more manoeuvrable. As an all-around fighter the Spitfire IXB was supreme, and undoubtedly the best mark of Spitfire produced, despite later and more powerful versions.
Absolutely true for RAE FW-190's they were testing!
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html
However it does not hold true for the FW-190's maintained by the Luftwaffe.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Hmm, he definietely seems to fit in nicely. A good deal more convincing than Dan`s original picture. Btw, I think angie wetted his pants about that picture some time ago. I faintly remember it was about nose-over view, something along the lines what dan said. ;)
The problem is, all I posted the photo of Terry Spencer for was to show that there were bubble canopy Spit XIVs flying before the war ended. Somehow it ends up being the catalyst for talking about Spits vs 109s again.
Who the heck cares? Clearly pilots fit in both of them as they made thousands of both types and used them successfully throughout the war.
All I've ever heard about the 109 is that the heavy braced canopy prior to the Galland Hood, made it feel a bit cramped.
Talking about the Spitfire doesn't automatically equate to criticism of the 109 or vice versa.
Dan/Slack
-
The problem is, all I posted the photo of Terry Spencer for was to show that there were bubble canopy Spit XIVs flying before the war ended. Somehow it ends up being the catalyst for talking about Spits vs 109s again.
Yep, it`s sad some (well, two..) people have only one possible reaction.
Who the heck cares? Clearly pilots fit in both of them as they made thousands of both types and used them successfully throughout the war.
100% agree. I just noted it looks a bit tight.
All I've ever heard about the 109 is that the heavy braced canopy prior to the Galland Hood, made it feel a bit cramped.
Well actually it isn`t so, a great many people liked the cocpit. The two type of canopies were btw exactly the same in size. It`s Erla Hood btw from one factory, the galland stuff is for the transparent head armor that appeared some time before the new canopy. Easy to mix up, I know. ;)
This is for an early 109, well before the new hood:
...The longer one is at the flying business, the more firmly convinced he becomes that he knows very little about it. I must say, however, the Messerschmitt Me109 is the finest airplane I have ever flown. It was a very happy day for me thus to enjoy the opportunity of flying and studying one of Germany's first-line single-seater fighters. I was told, of course, that the performance of the Heinkel 112 was about the same as the Messerschmitt, and I have been assured on this point, repeatedly. As far as I know, I'm the only pilot outside the members of the air force who has ever flown a first-line Messerschmitt Me109.
Along with its delightful flight characteristics, the visibility in this Messerschmitt is all that a fighter pilot could reasonably ask. There are a great many single-seater fighters in the world that I have not flown, but I had formed my opinion of the flight characteristics of the Messerschmitt after studying it on the ground and before flying it. And those estimates were confirmed in flight. I had made my own estimates of the performance and maneuverability characteristics of a lot of other single-seater fighters, and I'd be willing to wager that none of them represent the general, all-around flight and fighting characteristics possessed by the Me109."....
-US Marine Corps Major Al Williams, Schneider Trophy competitor with his own Kirkham-Williams aircraft, Pulitzer winner from '23 and a head of the Gulf Oil Company's aviation department, had a chance to fly the latest aircraft in the German Luftwaffe's arsenal, Messerchmitt 109 D in summer 1938. Major Williams' view on the capability of the fighter gives an interesting view on the usual commentary about flying and the capabilities of the Bf 109 fighter.
Appearantly he also flew the Spit and Hurri, and I guess dozens of other fighters.
Talking about the Spitfire doesn't automatically equate to criticism of the 109 or vice versa.
Do you hear that MiloMoron and Angie? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
The problem is, all I posted the photo of Terry Spencer for was to show that there were bubble canopy Spit XIVs flying before the war ended. Somehow it ends up being the catalyst for talking about Spits vs 109s again.
Yep, it`s sad some (well, two..) people have only one possible reaction.
For sure you, Barbi and Wotan did your usual Luftluver crud.
Who the heck cares? Clearly pilots fit in both of them as they made thousands of both types and used them successfully throughout the war.
100% agree. I just noted it looks a bit tight.
With your usual little barbs(ie. trolling) Barbi.
Talking about the Spitfire doesn't automatically equate to criticism of the 109 or vice versa.
Do you hear that MiloMoron and Angie? :rolleyes:
Take your own advice Barbi. Kindly point out where I have been critical of the 109 unlike you who at every chance will put down the Spit.:p
-
Look at what Glenmorangie said:
"Verdicts: P-51, roomy and comfortable. The seat adjusts vertically and the rudder pedals adjust. Definitely flyable for me ( hah! ignore the 150 hours of taildragger time and the addtional 250 hours of T-6 time recommended by our P-51s pilot, which I don't have! ).
Spit: Looks flyable, but would be tight. I can't remember if the pdeals adjust, but the seat does. The pilot is about 3-4 in shorter than me and he said it is tight because the addition of the aft cockpit shortened it down. How a guy 6'6" would fit in this thing is a mystery. I did not actually sit in the airplane.
Yak-9: Barely flyable. Shoulders against the cockpit sides at the canopy. Seat adjustable, rudder pedals not adjustable. Knees uncomfortably high. My friend who flys it is about 3 in shorter than me, but just as stocky. Canopy clearance would be tight, but OK with the seat lower.
109: Impossble. Seat adjustable on the ground ( 2 or 3 positions available, I think the mechanic said ), rudder pedals not adjustable. Distance from seat-back to pedals, maybe 24". Possible to close the canopy, but the top of my head brushed it. Shoulders totally hunched forward to fit in ( might be helped if the seat were lowered ). Would be very uncomfortable, and nearly impossible to get enough leverage to work the rudders. My knees were literally in my chin. The Germans had guys over 6' flying these things and I've got no clue how they did it."
I've peeked into those, and feel slightly jealous about his fittings.
Anyway, pretty much what I thought whenn peeking into those.
Note that he does include some measure figures.
Anyway, I suggest that we give this measure pond a rest untill some of us pops up with actual numbers.
I should be able to, but it will be a year or so before I can have a go at a 109 AND Spitfire cockpit.
So all we have until then is anecdotal data. Most of those, German and allied rank the cockpits as similar, the 109 being slightly smaller.
Of course, no-one save Izzy will try to make a P51 saloon propogandaly look similar to a 109 can.
Then on to Heydrich.
I just wish that bastard had groundlooped and lost his blond head in a 109!!!:D
-
Better bail out of this thread now Izzy. You won't have anyone left at the bottom of your sig!
Crumpp
-
LOL, Crumpp, did he just add you?
Anyway, he will do about anything BUT ignoring those.
Welcome to the club of us merry gents!
-
So is the spit equal to two 109's or three?