Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on June 18, 2005, 03:02:25 PM
-
Here is my prefered list:
1940: Spitfire Mk Ia (As we already have)
1941-1942: Spitfire Mk Vc, +12lbs Boost (120 rounds per cannon, but reduce the boost to 1941 levels)
1942-1943: Spitfire F.Mk IXc (remove the options for the .50 cals, rockets and 250lb bombs, otherwise keep it as it is.)
1943-1944: Spitfire LF.Mk VIII (Merlin 66, full length Universal wings. Can stand in for the 1943 LF.Mk IX as well as be suitable for Med. and Pac. theatre usage)
1944-1945: Spitfire F.Mk XIV, +21lbs boost (Keep the armament options, but raise the boost to the +21 level to justify it's perked status and keep it as the ultimate Spitfire in AH)
1944-1945: Spitfire LF.Mk XVIe, +25lbs Boost (clipped wing and perhaps bubble canopy as the Mk VIII is available to stand in for the high back Mk IX in 1943/44. This would be the ultimate free Spitfire)
Royal Navy: Seafire LF.Mk III (the most common wartime Seafire)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Here is my prefered list:
1940: Spitfire Mk Ia (As we already have)
1941-1942: Spitfire Mk Vc, +12lbs Boost (120 rounds per cannon, but reduce the boost to 1941 levels)
1942-1943: Spitfire F.Mk IXc (remove the options for the .50 cals, rockets and 250lb bombs, otherwise keep it as it is.)
1943-1944: Spitfire LF.Mk VIII (Merlin 66, full length Universal wings. Can stand in for the 1943 LF.Mk IX as well as be suitable for Med. and Pac. theatre usage)
1944-1945: Spitfire F.Mk XIV, +21lbs boost (Keep the armament options, but raise the boost to the +21 level to justify it's perked status and keep it as the ultimate Spitfire in AH)
1944-1945: Spitfire LF.Mk XVIe, +25lbs Boost (clipped wing and perhaps bubble canopy as the Mk VIII is available to stand in for the high back Mk IX in 1943/44. This would be the ultimate free Spitfire)
Royal Navy: Seafire LF.Mk III (the most common wartime Seafire)
Nice list, 3 changes -
1) The Spit 1 was cleared to +12lbs boost in 1939/40, not the +6lbs we currently have.
2) VIII and XVI with the broad chord pointed rudders.
3) XVI Bubble canopy definate, so it looks different.
Of course your list makes too much sense to ever see it's way into AH2.
-
Hehe, the Spit was too good anyway.
We want aces High, not just Spits High.
Well, all jokes put aside, the Mk I should be on a higher boost. Our one is a "something" anyway. CS screw? 100 oct?
The V should be a middle one, not the ultimate one.
The Seafire should definately be another model.
The IX we have should move to only 2xHispano and .303
Then it comes to some configuration, perhaps a IX LF with a merlin 66
And a VIII with a Merlin 70
That would do the Merlin ones.
Our XIV is a tad off I think, - performs worse than Quill quotes for an early XIV.
Then there was the in-between XII for chase-jobs and such.
(190's were the threat mostly). Guppy could fill some info into that I am sure.
Oooops...to many Spitties.......
Well we have 5 109's already :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hehe, the Spit was too good anyway.
We want aces High, not just Spits High.
Well, all jokes put aside, the Mk I should be on a higher boost. Our one is a "something" anyway. CS screw? 100 oct?
The V should be a middle one, not the ultimate one.
The Seafire should definately be another model.
The IX we have should move to only 2xHispano and .303
Then it comes to some configuration, perhaps a IX LF with a merlin 66
And a VIII with a Merlin 70
That would do the Merlin ones.
Our XIV is a tad off I think, - performs worse than Quill quotes for an early XIV.
Then there was the in-between XII for chase-jobs and such.
(190's were the threat mostly). Guppy could fill some info into that I am sure.
Oooops...to many Spitties.......
Well we have 5 109's already :D
If you look at Karnaks list it fills all of what your saying -
He asks for the 1941 Vc, so a middle one, Merlin 45, 45M (if LF Vc), or 46.
The LF XVI was basically a LF IX but with an American built Merlin 266.
The VIII should really have the Merlin 66 as Karnak suggests.
Don't think we'll get the XII -
1) Only 100 built
2) Another Griffon Spit (even if we got it, would be perked)
Well we have 5 109's already - don't forget 4 190s also.
Karnaks list is well balanced and REPRESENTATIVE of the Spit Mks from BoB through to 1945, unlike our current lineup.
Shame theres no chance of getting the last wartime Spit -
Mk XVIII
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Karnaks list is well balanced and REPRESENTATIVE of the Spit Mks from BoB through to 1945, unlike our current lineup.
And that was my main goal, coupled with keeping the total number of varients as low as possible. HTC aren't going to do 15 marks of Spitfire, but maybe, just maybe, they'd do 7 to effectively cover the whole war.
-
Yup and even then -
Spit 14 would still basically be ahnger queen.
Ditto spit 1 only ever used in scenarios usually.
Only leaves
V, VIII, IX, VXI + 1 seafire.
Pretty fair when it's up against a combined 8 (leaving out the 109E same as Spit 1) list of 109s/190s.
Would do the Mk V with a Merlin 45M, Seafire III with a 55M
So
Ia - Merlin II 12lbs boost
LF Vc - Merlin 45M
F IXc - Merlin 61
LF VIIIe - Merlin 66
F VIXe - Griffon 65 21lbs boost
LF XVIe - Merlin 266 25lbs boost
Seafire L III - Merlin 55M
Hows that look?
-
Well, the VIIIs were 'c' winged, not 'e' winged and I like having the 'c' wing on the F.Mk XIV as an option as the first ones were armed with the two 20mm and four .303s.
Other than that, that is what I had in mind.
We need more Fw190s too and another Bf109G to fill the long gap between the Bf109G-6 and Bf109G-10.
Say:
Fw190A-2
Fw190A-5
Fw190A-6
Fw190A-8
Fw190F-8
Fw190D-9
Ta152H-1
And:
Bf109E-4
Bf109F-4
Bf109G-2
Bf109G-6
Bf109G-14
Bf109G-10 (Performance of a Bf109K-4)
-
Might be some confusion over 'wings'
a - 8x303
b - 4x303 + 2x20 +500lb bomb load
c - 4x303 + 2x20 + 500lb bomb load OR 4x20mm +500lb bomb load - sometimes called the 'universal wing'.
Now it gets confusing, after Spit V's -
what people call the 'c' wing was in fact the 'improved b wing'
improved b - 4x303 + 2x20 + 500lb bomb load
c - 4x20 + 500lb bomb load
e - 2x50 + 2 x20 + 1000lb bomb load
As you see the c wing after the Spit V was originally supposed to be 4x20mm.
I'm sure Dan will fix any errors, but I think I've got the main points right.
Which is why I believe Mk VIII pilots referred to them as VIIIb's.
-
190A-2's too rare. 190A-3 would be better...
BTW, for LW to keep up with mid and late SPITFIRES, HTC's Fw-190A-5 should use the RLM data (the one that had ~351 mph deck speed @ full power + WEP) and HTC's 190A-8 should use the most common engine variant of the BMW 801 TH version (ask crumpp for clarification, has also has TONS of documents on that...)
and btw, what i'm seeing is an ARMS RACE! WOW! one side's superior then the next day out paced.:D
-
Just like the real thing, it's exactly what happened.
Start with Spit MK V
LW brought out FW190
RAF brought out Spit Mk IX
etc etc
Excluding perk stuff -
Thats why I've always said with 9 LW frontline fighters, theres no way a representative Spit line up would encompass only 3 planes.
If you take out the Spit 1 and 109E - historical matchup.
That leaves 8 LW and a 'representative' lineup of 2 Spits - NOT
What HT is effectively saying is 2 1942 Spits are a representative selection against 1943/44 109s and 190s.
Remember were talking free stuff here not perked.
IK3 - I'm all for representative (most common made) planesets.
Look at RAF situation
Spit 1a - Only has 6lbs boost, 12lbs was actual cleared to.
Seafire IIc - Least produced variant, III had 4x as many built.
Spit F Mk IX - Least produced variant. LF IX had most produced.
Most common Spits (minimum of 1200+ built) -
Ia - 1939/40
LF Vb - 1941/2
LF IX - 1943
LF VIII - 1943
F XIV - 1944
LF XVI - 1944
Seafire III - 1942
-
What we should do (suggestion only) is pull all our info together and produce a proposal with sources etc we can send to HT.
Only reason I can see he wouldn't do it is being afraid the MA would be ruled by Mk XVI Spits.
I've made a start, if anyone wants what I have up to now let me know.
Desperately needed is -
Break down of Mk IX prod of F, LF and HF
Sources for 150 grade fuel use.
Question - Spits used incendiary rounds in addition to usual mix, this modelled in AH2?
The 'De Wilde' bullets were first issued in June 1940 and tested operationally in the air battles over Dunkirk. Their improved effectiveness, coupled with the fact that the flash on impact indicated that the shooting was on target, was much appreciated by the fighter pilots. It was at first in short supply, and the initial RAF fighter loading was three guns loaded with ball, two with AP, two with Mk IV incendiary tracer and one with Mk VI incendiary. Another source for the Battle of Britain armament gives four guns with ball, two with AP and two with incendiaries (presumably Mk VI) with four of the last 25 rounds being tracer (presumably Mk IV incendiary/tracer) to tell the pilot he was running out of ammunition. It is not clear why ball was used at all; presumably there was a shortage of the more effective loadings. (By 1942 the standard loading for fixed .303s was half loaded with AP and half with incendiary.)
-
We need more Fw190s too and another Bf109G to fill the long gap between the Bf109G-6 and Bf109G-10
Isn't AH's Bf-109G6 modeled with MW-50? If it is then it's already a Bf-109G14.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Nice list, 3 changes -
1) The Spit 1 was cleared to +12lbs boost in 1939/40, not the +6lbs we currently have.
2) VIII and XVI with the broad chord pointed rudders.
3) XVI Bubble canopy definate, so it looks different.
Of course your list makes too much sense to ever see it's way into AH2.
One unchange. Keep the LFXVI the high back version as very few bubble top XVI's made it into combat.
Makes more sense to take the XIV that way. Maybe an early XIV with a high back and Universal wing, and then a clipped wing low back FRXIV with E wing. Those operated in the ETO at the end and in the CBI.
Hey, one can dream :)
Added images of 602 Squadron clipped wing Spitfire LFXVIe's famous for their dive bombing.
Kinda partial to 602 Squadron from an old AW scenario where I GL'd em with CPorky as my wingman. Beer and Skittles flights :) Gotta have high back XVIs :)
Dan/CorkyJr
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/810_1119161558_602spits.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/810_1119161581_spitxvitb382tweaked.jpg)
-
Kev.
1054 production LFXVIe produced. That means all of them were LF.
Just went through the serial ranges break down in Bruce Robertson's "Spitfire-The Story of a Famous Fighter".
While it's a rough count, roughly 3500 of the 5600 + Spit IXs were LFIXs
Intersting breakdown of the VIII in the book too.
160 HF VIII with the Merlin 70
273 F VIII with the Merlin 61, 63 or 63A
1,225 LF VIII with the Merlin 66
I would imagine you can figure the percentages similar for the IX
Dan/CorkyJr
-
For the Spits were are talking about this is what I found, and incorporating Dans figures, for year introduced and numbers built -
Mk Year Number Manufactured
Ia 1940
Vb 1941 3993
Vc 1941 2447
VIII F 1943 273
VIII LF 1943 1225
VIII HF 1943 160
IX F 1942 -----------------------------------------
IX LF 1943 total of 5665 (3500+ LF variants)
IX HF 1942 -----------------------------------------
XIV 1944 957
XVI LF 1944 1054 (All made as LF)
Seafire
IIc 1942 372
III 1943 1220
This backs up Karnaks list being representative of Spit Mks and variants.
Ia
Vb
LF IX
LF VIII
F XIV
LF XVI
Seafire L III
All being the most produced.
What is needed now is a numbers breakdown on Spit Vb, F, LF numbers.
Then we can move onto engines.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
This backs up Karnaks list being representative of Spit Mks and variants.
Ia
Vb
LF IX
LF VIII
F XIV
LF XVI
Seafire L III
pssst you forgot the F Mk. IX :D
very goood lineup... but will spitfire LF 16 be perked?:(
-
Ooooopppps
Ia
Vb
F IX
LF VIII
F XIV
LF XVI
Seafire L III
I forgot the F IX, tks.
F IX covers 1942.
L.F. VIII can cover as an L.F. IX for scenarios etc.
No the XVI wouldn't be perked, it's a Merlin Spit.
Made a start on the engines
Ia - Merlin II
Vb - Merlin 45/46 if F, 45M if LF
F IX - Merlin 61/63/63A
LF VIII - Merlin 66
F XIV - Griffon 65
LF XVI - Packard Merlin 266
Seafire III - Merlin 55M
Only choices to make would be -
F IX - Merlin 61, 63 or 63A
Vb - If it turns out F Vb was most produced, Merlin 45 or 46, else LF had Merlin 45M
-
-
Dan,
I too prefer highbacked Spits, but some prefer lowback Spits and putting the XVI in as a lowback would give them the fighter they wanted. I'd still have the LF.Mk VIII and F.Mk XIV to play with.
Crump,
No, the Bf109G-6 in AH does not have MW50, which is why it's top speed is a mere 386mph. A Bf109G-14 would top out at about 420mph.
Furball,
That isn't needed.
-
No, the Bf109G-6 in AH does not have MW50, which is why it's top speed is a mere 386mph. A Bf109G-14 would top out at about 420mph.
Thanks for the clarification.
Pyro and I discussed the FW-190A series in AH.
Examining performance figures the best representation without overburdening the modeling programmers on one type is IMHO:
FW-190A3
FW-190F3
FW-190F8
FW-190A8 early (12bladed Lufterrad 801D2 without 1.58ata/1.65ata)
FW-190A9 (BMW801TH)
FW-190D9
Ta-152H
The early FW-190A8 had very similar performance to the FW-190A6 but better than the FW-190A5 due to engine improvements which gave it about 200hp more power available. It could sub for mid war after the FW-190A3.
It was Pyro's opinion at the time that keeping the FW-190A5 in the game does nothing for the lineup. It was the poorest performing FW-190A and the pilots admit to the Spitfire Merlin 66 being superior until pressurized ignition came out for the 801D2.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crump,
The bottom line is that we need a planned lineup for aircraft that fought the whole, or most, of the length of the war.
What we have now is an incomplete, or in the case of the Spitfire F.Mk IX and +16lbs Boost Spitfire LF.Mk Vc overcoverage for late 1942 leaving 1941 and 1943 bare, sampling of these aircraft that leave significant gaps. The three most obvious to us in the West are the Spitfire, Fw190 and Bf109 series of fighters. But a strong case can also be made for the LaGG/Lachovkin and Yak series needing the same treatment.
-
What we have now is an incomplete, or in the case of the Spitfire F.Mk IX and +16lbs Boost Spitfire LF.Mk Vc overcoverage for late 1942 leaving 1941 and 1943 bare
I agree, we need more spits and I have always supported bringing them to AH. Just letting everyone know the results of our conversation about the FW190A and it's modeling.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Wouldn't the Spit 16 be better than the Spit 14? Why would it be free?
Btw, stop bashing the Spit 14. Except for my own stupidity, nothing can down me in them.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Thanks for the clarification.
Pyro and I discussed the FW-190A series in AH.
Examining performance figures the best representation without overburdening the modeling programmers on one type is IMHO:
FW-190A3
FW-190F3
FW-190F8
FW-190A8 early (12bladed Lufterrad 801D2 without 1.58ata/1.65ata)
FW-190A9 (BMW801TH)
FW-190D9
Ta-152H
The early FW-190A8 had very similar performance to the FW-190A6 but better than the FW-190A5 due to engine improvements which gave it about 200hp more power available. It could sub for mid war after the FW-190A3.
It was Pyro's opinion at the time that keeping the FW-190A5 in the game does nothing for the lineup. It was the poorest performing FW-190A and the pilots admit to the Spitfire Merlin 66 being superior until pressurized ignition came out for the 801D2.
All the best,
Crumpp
Did 190A-3/F-3 see service in east front too? I believe A-3/F-3s were introduced in the west 1st and the East campaign saw its first 190 in a A-4/A-5 form
(im just curious and i'm not suppose to post this since im deviating from the subject/thread)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Wouldn't the Spit 16 be better than the Spit 14? Why would it be free?
Btw, stop bashing the Spit 14. Except for my own stupidity, nothing can down me in them.
No, the Spitfire F.Mik XIV at +21lbs Boost would have a lot more power than the Spitfire LF.Mk XVI at +25lbs Boost.
The difference being the Griffon 65 in the Spitfire Mk XIV and the Merlin 266 in the Spitfire Mk XVI.
Why would the Mk XVI be better than the Mk XIV?
Keep in mind that a Mk XVI is just a Mk IX with a US built Merlin 266 instead of a British built Merlin 66. The Merlin 266 and Merlin 66 are the same engine, save their manufacturer.
-
(I can read! Hur Hur!)
So what's different about the Spit 9 and the Spit 16?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
(I can read! Hur Hur!)
So what's different about the Spit 9 and the Spit 16?
In my suggested line up?
Spitfire F.Mk IX:
Merlin 61 engine at +15lbs boost.
Full span wings.
Same rounded vertical stabilizer/rudder as the Spitfire Mk I, Mk II and Mk V
Two 20mm cannon and four .303 calibre machineguns.
One 500lb bomb or one drop tank.
Spitfire LF.Mk XVI:
Merlin 266 engine at +25lbs boost.
Clipped wings, possibly with a bubble canopy.
Enlarged, pointed vertical stabilizer/rudder as on Mk VIII and Mk XIV.
Two 20mm cannon and two .50 calibre machineguns.
One 500lb bomb centerline or one droptank, and one 250lb bomb under each wing or one 60lb rocket projectile under each wing.
In actuallity the Spitfire LF.Mk XVIe is the same as a late production Spitfire LF.Mk IXe. Note that I am not suggesting such a Spitfire Mk IX. I am suggesting an early Spitfire F.Mk IXc.
Basically calling a Spitfire a Spitfire Mk IX tells us about as much as calling a Bf109 a Bf109G tells us about the Bf109, e.g. not much specific. Aces High doesn't do that to the Bf109s, but it does do that to the Spitfires. It makes it seem, wrongly, that a Spitfire Mk IX is a Spitfire Mk IX is a Spitfire Mk IX. There were a lot of subvarients of the Spitfire Mk IX.
-
Ok, now I'm going to try to get you to speak english.
Tell me how fast that Spit 9 and Spit 16 go in comparison to the Spit 9 we have now.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Ok, now I'm going to try to get you to speak english.
Tell me how fast that Spit 9 and Spit 16 go in comparison to the Spit 9 we have now.
Posted this in an older thread. The LFIX and XVI would be similar. Note how the LFV at the alts AH is fought was a better performer then the FIX. Note the improved climb of the LF over the FIX
Spit LFV 4000 feet. Top speed 350 mph
Spit FIX 4000 feet Top Speed 326 mph
Spit LFV 8000 feet Top speed 348 mph
Spit FIX 8000 feet Top Speed 344 mph
Time to climb
Spit LFV 8000 feet 1 minute 45 seconds
Spit F IX 8000 feet 2 minutes 20 seconds.
Now note the LFIX numbers
Spit LFIX 4000 feet Top speed 364 mph
10000 feet (didnt note 8K) Top Speed 370 MPH
Now note the climb to 10K 2 minutes 6 seconds. The LFIX went to 10K faster then the FIX could get to 8K.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
LF XVI/LF IX with proposed 25lbs boost-
Sea level - 358
500 - 360
1000 - 363
1500 - 366
2000 - 368
2500 - 371
3000 - 373
3500 - 376
4000 - 379
Actually makes it faster than a Tiffy by approx 8mph all listed alts :)
Only have data up to 4k.
Compare to the F IX figures in the post above.
@4K LF XVI/LF IX are 53mph faster than our current F IX.
I know Dan prefers the highback XVI but- this just looks sexy.
(http://www.fantasyofflight.com/Images/1.jpg)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Tell me how fast that Spit 9 and Spit 16 go in comparison to the Spit 9 we have now.
The others have gone over the LF.Mk XVI already. The Spitfire F.Mk IX is the exactly same fighter as the Spitfire Mk IX we have in AH performancewise. The AH one just has some armement options it shouldn't.
Originally posted by Kev367th
LF XVI/LF IX with proposed 25lbs boost-
Sea level - 358
500 - 360
1000 - 363
1500 - 366
2000 - 368
2500 - 371
3000 - 373
3500 - 376
4000 - 379
Actually makes it faster than a Tiffy by approx 8mph all listed alts :)
Only have data up to 4k.
The Tiffie in AH does 375 or so on the deck, and last I checked that was faster than 358.
-
Or as Quill put it, after beating the Tiffie (and Faber's 190) in a race, flying a Spitfire:
"The cat was well and still among the pigeons"
Some speed figures from Merlin 66 or 70 models with +25 boost are quite fine. The overboost, although officially limited to some certain minutes, was frequently abused by pilots in states of emergency. There are records of engines running up to 30 mins over the gate without damage.
But the climbing is another factor.
Some Mk IX's were from takeoff to 20K in some or less than 5 minutes, - which is actually a better performance than the AH XIV has. The MK VIII falls into that category as well, while hauling a lot more fuel. The figures I found also go for a Merlin 70, which is a good high alt engine if I remember it correctly.
I have a graph of some Spitfire IX and VIII speeds (as well as a 109G on 1.42 ata). Crumpp hosted it for me the other day. Will try to dig it up and post.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Or as Quill put it, after beating the Tiffie (and Faber's 190) in a race, flying a Spitfire:
"The cat was well and still among the pigeons"
Some speed figures from Merlin 66 or 70 models with +25 boost are quite fine. The overboost, although officially limited to some certain minutes, was frequently abused by pilots in states of emergency. There are records of engines running up to 30 mins over the gate without damage.
But the climbing is another factor.
Some Mk IX's were from takeoff to 20K in some or less than 5 minutes, - which is actually a better performance than the AH XIV has. The MK VIII falls into that category as well, while hauling a lot more fuel. The figures I found also go for a Merlin 70, which is a good high alt engine if I remember it correctly.
I have a graph of some Spitfire IX and VIII speeds (as well as a 109G on 1.42 ata). Crumpp hosted it for me the other day. Will try to dig it up and post.
Just remember that was Jeff Quill in DP845 the prototype Spit XII :)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Hehe, Guppy. I know. I pretty much figured you would spot this one as well and point it out ;)
But honestly, those Merlin 66's and 70's with +25 had some very nice performance. I do not have data on the clipped ones and cropped ones, but I imagine that the top speeds would be more, especially down low, and the roll rate very comfortable. Climb would suffer, but hey, - the climb is 4000 fpm from the deck to 20K on average anyway, so there is something to play with.
Top speed at preferred alt goes as high as 415 mph I belive, so after clipping, well.....?
Did they clip the VIII? I recall there being a discussion about extended wings, but am not so sure of it anyway.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hehe, Guppy. I know. I pretty much figured you would spot this one as well and point it out ;)
But honestly, those Merlin 66's and 70's with +25 had some very nice performance. I do not have data on the clipped ones and cropped ones, but I imagine that the top speeds would be more, especially down low, and the roll rate very comfortable. Climb would suffer, but hey, - the climb is 4000 fpm from the deck to 20K on average anyway, so there is something to play with.
Top speed at preferred alt goes as high as 415 mph I belive, so after clipping, well.....?
Did they clip the VIII? I recall there being a discussion about extended wings, but am not so sure of it anyway.
VIIIs weren't clipped in production but you can find photos of clipped VIIIs that were done locally in the MTO. I posted a couple of photos of them in the clipped Spit thread.
including one of them below. Note the short span ailerons of the VIII and the retractable tail wheel.
Quill talked about fighting not to have the extended wings on the VIII as a number were produced that way. Photos of 417 Squadron Spit VIIIs with those extended tips show up often. He though the normal span Merlin 66, Spit LFVIII was the ultimate Merlin Spit.
Dan/CorkyJr
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/810_1119289346_clippedviii.jpg)
-
I think they're all excellent choices, Karnak.
-
Guppy, yer awesome.
Nice pic.
Pilot and sqn?
-
Did 190A-3/F-3 see service in east front too? I believe A-3/F-3s were introduced in the west 1st and the East campaign saw its first 190 in a A-4/A-5 form
The FW-190A3 did not see service in the east in any quantity.
A few FW-190A3 remained in the Geschwaders for extended periods of time:
Fw 190A-3, White 9. This might be the machine named "Netty" which was later photographed at Herdla in 1945 (se Figure 10). Like the preceding photograph, female companionship is the order of the day, something that suggests that the both pictures were taken on the same day and place. That would indicate that White 9 and White 10 in the background, possibly another A-3, are two machines from 13. Staffel with what appears to be a Bf 109T from 11./JG 11 in between. The location is Lister in South Norway. Note what appears to be temporary white distemper on White 9 and the old style upper wing cross (what appears to be white snow camouflage is exaggerated light colour due to lack of quality on our original. For a better version see Marshall 2002: 311).
http://www.white1foundation.org/white1_history4.htm
This can hardly be considered typical however. You can find FW-190A3's operating well into 1943 in many Geschwaders, though.
JG5 "Eismeer" lost it's last FW-190A2 in late 1945. See Figure 14 on the page linked above.
The FW-190F3 was developed from the FW-190A5/U17 and primarily served on the Eastern Front.
As a general breakdown, Channel Geschwaders had priority for the FW-190A fighter varients while the Eastern Front had priority for the Ground Attack variants.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
So if you had one Fw190 model to choose, what would you suggest for a pre-'43, Channel Front Fw190, Crumpp?
A-2? A-3?
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
So if you had one Fw190 model to choose, what would you suggest for a pre-'43, Channel Front Fw190, Crumpp?
A-2? A-3?
I'd have thought a very nice match up would be the appropriate Tiffy's and FW for Dieppe; which was; as far as I know; the first time either were used in anger.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
I'd have thought a very nice match up would be the appropriate Tiffy's and FW for Dieppe; which was; as far as I know; the first time either were used in anger.
Two Typhoons (P/Os Lucas and Munro) from 266 shot down a Ju88 50km off Cromer on Aug 9 1942 though they had been operational from early June. They had been hunting jabos with no success.
-
spit5 is a monster right now. i wish they tune it down a bit for more historical ballance, i dont care about the MA much.
a 109f vrs spit5 used to be a great fight, now its really one sided
-
The 109F is faster. Play it clever and you'll be able to outrun the Spit. It is also the ultimate 109F.
Anyway, I agree. an older Spit V and a better IX or VIII.
-
So if you had one Fw190 model to choose, what would you suggest for a pre-'43, Channel Front Fw190, Crumpp?
Both types were present at Dieppe.
http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/dieppe.htm
Both types served well into the mid war period and both types recieved BMW801D2 motors. They were produced concurrently. Too further complicate things BMW801C motors were replaced during servicing with BMW801D2 power eggs if needed by the Geschwader maintenance personnel.
Production was very much dependant upon BMW powerplant availability.
http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/a-2.htm
http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/a-3.htm
My suggestion would be the BMW801D2 powered FW-190A3. It was present in all but the earliest portions of the Focke Wulf timeline and extend well into the midwar period.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Flyboy
spit5 is a monster right now. i wish they tune it down a bit for more historical ballance, i dont care about the MA much
Toning down the Spit V is included in the list in the OP. That is what I meant about reducing the boost to +12lbs. Currently it is +16lbs and that is why the AH2 Spit V is so different than the AH1 Spit V.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Guppy, yer awesome.
Nice pic.
Pilot and sqn?
Air Vice Marshal W.F. Dickson's personal aircraft.
In the old Otaki 1/48th scale Mk VIII model kit they had those markings included.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Doesn't the 109f also have an uprated engine?
-
It runs on 1.42 ata I beleive, thrila, and that's not represantative of '41 109Fs either.
Gotta ask the other experts about this though.
-
our 109F-4 is 1942
our spitfire V with + 16 is 1942
nothing's wrong with that picture... the year is moved by just 1 year.
-
current spit5 outclass our current 109f in eevrything but top speed.
-
Er.. Flyboy, maybe the Spit5 was that much better than the F-4... I don't see anything wrong about that...
-
Er.. Flyboy, maybe the Spit5 was that much better than the F-4... I don't see anything wrong about that...
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119392758_raftestflightstandards.jpg)
Not to start a comparison thread but I really think things come down to time period we are discussing, manufacturing tolerances, and "fit and finish" of the aircraft.
Comparisons such as:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/109f_spitvb.jpg
Really show nothing as we do not know the set up or condition for each aircraft. At the moment in time, the Spitfire was superior. However the Bf-109F1 or 2 (it is surprising the RAE does not know which variant they are testing) was a very short-lived variant and was soon followed by the Bf-109F4 with a different engine.
Bf-109F1 and Bf-109F2:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119393385_db601npowercurvebw.jpg)
Bf-109F4:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119391177_db601e-chart1.jpg)
The Bf-109's could gain as much 25mph from a filled and polish job.
When you understand the significance of CLmax to turn performance and the function of aerodynamic devices like the Handley Page slats of the Bf-109:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119391882_flaps.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119391814_slattienvaikutus.jpg)
And you read RAE test flight reports with comments like the 109 being "embarrassed" by it's slats opening or best turn performance was achieved just before the slats open it makes you wonder at the validity of the test because of the pilots experience in the type. It's a foreign aircraft in which he has no experience in the particulars of the design.
Without a doubt the Spitfire outturned the Bf-109. Just as certain it was not by much. As the RAE concluded, these planes were very evenly matched.
Only for a "game" does a few mph or few hundred feet per minute make difference for any plane. As a game, the point is having fun. Facts are the air war was a "tit for tat" war of technological one-upmanship. It teeters back and forth with each side trading advantages. The most fun times to play a game are when things were relatively equal with opposing strengths giving each side a chance to fight and win.
That is the beauty of a WWII era sim.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Comparisons such as:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/109f_spitvb.jpg
Really show nothing as we do not know the set up or condition for each aircraft. At the moment in time, the Spitfire was superior. However the Bf-109F1 or 2 (it is surprising the RAE does not know which variant they are testing) was a very short-lived variant and was soon followed by the Bf-109F4 with a different engine.
Indeed. The Bf 109F-2 they tested briefly (it soon crashed) was one captured and restored after belly landing, but the report says it had engine problems, plus what damage the airframe took when it landed. I think the report is available on Ring`s site.
The Spit V curve is for the prototype SpitV which was not operationally loaded. Which is why William`s is showing it. Prototypes vs. worst performing captured machine, as usual. Relevant information is held back.
The 109F-1/2 was not really much faster than the MkVs, perhaps 10-20 kph speed difference, altough at low altitudes it could more.
But if AH2 really has the F-4 with 1.42ata, it should do 670 kph at 6200m.. That`s a lot, even a MkIX would struggle. I wonder if it`s so, as in the case any smart 109F-4 pilot would simply outrun the opposing MkV just like FW 190s did in combat.
I`d except the MkV to outturn it, or it had really low stall speed and low weight, but speed, and probably climb, is definietely in the 109s favour. The pilot should use them, if they exist in the game.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Really show nothing as we do not know the set up or condition for each aircraft. At the moment in time, the Spitfire was superior. However the Bf-109F1 or 2 (it is surprising the RAE does not know which variant they are testing) was a very short-lived variant and was soon followed by the Bf-109F4 with a different engine.
Considering that the only difference between the 2, was the engine mounted cannon, it does not matter which variant is being tested as both would have simular stats.
-
F-1/F-2 had the 1175 HP DB 601N.
F-4 had the 1350 PS DB 601E.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
F-1/F-2 had the 1175 HP DB 601N.
F-4 had the 1350 PS DB 601E.
The comment was in reply to Crumpp's comment on the F-1, F-2, nothing to do with the F-4.:rolleyes:
Output of the 601E was initially restricted to 1200hp @ 2500rpm, which you nicely failed to mention.
-
Find another thread to flame.
-
Erm, I kinda meant this thread to be about what would be an appropriately complete representative line up of Spitfires and Seafires for AH while keeping the total number of versions to a minimum.
It really doesn't have anything to do with how well this fighter or that fighter matches up to them. They'll either be better or worse than the opposition at a given timeframe, and that is that.
There are many other threads in which to compare the Fw190 to the Bf109 to the Spitfire. Heck, I didn't even mean for this thread to get into Spitfire vs Spitfire capability discussions as capability has little to do with what would actually be representative.
Now, if any of you have suggested alterations to my suggested lineup I'd be interested in hearing them and the reasons for the suggested changes.
Thanks.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Erm, I kinda meant this thread to be about what would be an appropriately complete representative line up of Spitfires and Seafires for AH while keeping the total number of versions to a minimum.
It really doesn't have anything to do with how well this fighter or that fighter matches up to them. They'll either be better or worse than the opposition at a given timeframe, and that is that.
There are many other threads in which to compare the Fw190 to the Bf109 to the Spitfire. Heck, I didn't even mean for this thread to get into Spitfire vs Spitfire capability discussions as capability has little to do with what would actually be representative.
Now, if any of you have suggested alterations to my suggested lineup I'd be interested in hearing them and the reasons for the suggested changes.
Thanks.
Well said Karnak,
Think the
Ia - Merlin II 12lbs boost
LF Vb - Merlin 45M
F IX - Merlin 61
LF VIII- Merlin 66
F VIX - Griffon 65 21lbs boost
LF XVI - Merlin 266 25lbs boost
Seafire L III - Merlin 55M
Has to be the most representative.
-
Well said Karnak,
Think the
Ia - Merlin II 12lbs boost
LF Vb - Merlin 45M
F IX - Merlin 61
LF VIII- Merlin 66
F VIX - Griffon 65 21lbs boost
LF XVI - Merlin 266 25lbs boost
Seafire L III - Merlin 55M
Has to be the most representative.
On spitfire Ia with +12 boost,
When was +12 lbs boost cleared fo use? Did the climbrate improve or even exceed 109E with +12 boost?
(btw im sure the +12 Mk Ia SPEED are higher at low to high alts over that of 109E)
-
Hello 1K3:
There is information on Spitfire I and +12 lbs boost here:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
Regards,
Mike
-
Of course which Spit 1 do we have?
Yup you guessed, the 6lbs boost one.
-
1K3,
The immediately relevant section from mw's link:
The Merlin III data is from Rolls-Royce. Trials were successfully carried out in October 1939 to increase the power of the Spitfire's Merlin II and III engines by raising the manifold pressure to +12 lbs./sq.in. Emergency use of +12 lbs./sq.in boost was officially adopted 20 March 1940 with the release of the Air Ministry's Air Publication A.P.1590B/J.2-W. It was also in March 1940 that the Spitfire squadrons switched over to 100 octane fuel, without which +12 lb boost would not have been possible; therefore no Me-109 E ever met a Spitfire that did not have 100 octane fuel in its tanks. Combat reports show that +12 lb boost was used by the Spitfire squadrons during their first combats with the Me 109 E in May 1940 while covering the Dunkirk evacuation.
-
Proves 1 thing Karnak -
HT's total disdain for anything RAF.
We have a virtually unused (in combat) Spit 1 with 6lbs boost.
A really fugged up Spit 9
A very overpriced Spit XIV
And nothing between 1943 and 1944/5 thats free.
RAF must have the most fugged up planeset in the game.
-
+12 lbs boost was by no way the standard and solely used boost in the Mk I. It would require 100 octane fuel, otherwise with 87 octane
Mike claims on his site that 'all and every' Sqns switched to it, but as with his previous claims about +25lbs XIVs, nothing except his own fanatism underlines a complete and immidiate changeover from 87 octane and that 'no spitfire ever met a 109 without 100 octane fuel in it`s tank'.
He also foolishly assumes other things, and in contradiction with himself he claims tests of captured Spitfires in rechlin did not succeed because 'rechlin did not have 100 octane fuel', which is of course would be wrong even in 1939, in fact the rechlin papers themselves note the use of 100 octane fuel.
In short, it`s mere guess, important for the agenda of his spitfire uberness site.
However the British archives says not so. +12 boost was definietely used, but not in the amount MW would like it to be : shortage of 100 octane fuel prevented 100% coversion until November 1940.
The following is from a discussion from Butch`s board :
"The first bulk shipment of 100 octane fuel had arrived in Britain in June 1939 from the Esso refinery in Aruba. This and subsequent tanker shipments from Aruba, Curacao and the USA were stockpiled while the RAF continued to operate on 87 octane petrol. Having secured what were considered reasonably sufficient quantities of 100 octane, Fighter Command began converting its engines to this standard in March 1940, allowing boost (manifold) pressures to be raised without the risk of detonation in the cylinders. This initial increase in maximum boost from 6 lb to 9 lb delivered a useful power growth of around 130hp at the rated altitude.
By the time of the invasion of the Low Countries by Germany in May 1940 the RAF had converted approximately 25 % of it's total fighter force to 100 octane fuel use. The subsequent escalation in air activity and demands placed upon Fighter Command over the next two months put great strain on both the 100 octane fuel stockpiles and aircraft modified to use the fuel. Against the backdrop of total war the RAF found that it's reserves of 100 octane fuel was well below the level considered necessary for widespread use, for any sustained length of time.
Two actions were immediately undertaken by the British War Cabinet in May to resolve the looming crisis. Firstly 87 octane fuel was deemed the primary fuel source to be used until further supplies could be discovered and delivered in sufficient quantities to allow the Merlin conversions to again take place. Those existing fighters already so converted (approximately 125) would continue to use what supplies of 100 octane were available, but all other fighters that had not been modified to continue with the use of 87 octane (of which there was more than adequate supply). The second action was for the British Government to contract the Shell Oil Refining Company to assist the British-controlled Iraqi Petroleum Company at Kirkuk to produce 100 octane fuel. This arrangement proved quite successful as production was quickly converted to 100 octane fuel.
The first Middle East shipment of 100 octane fuel arrived in Portsmouth on 12th August, with a further two deliveries in September and four in October. Although too late to allow widespread conversion for the use of the fuel the deliveries did ensure that from this point on Britain would not be lacking in 100 octane fuel levels. With the newfound supply RAF Fighter Command again embarked upon a Merlin II and III conversion to 100 octane use from late September, finally achieving 100% conversion of it's fighter force by the end of November in 1940.
http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=230&hl=
I came across it when I was in fact researching another subject (Dutch East Indies Fuel levels prior to the Japanese Invasion) at the Australian War Memorial Archives.
It's from a document, copied to the Australian Military Commission in England in February 1941, by Roll Royce to Lord Beaverbrook outlining past, current and proposed changes to the Merlin; and factors that affect it's performance.
It was quite an interesting paper actually, even though i found it to be a very dry subject.
It was a collection of lose-leaf typed pages, included as an addendum in a report titled Fuel Supplies to The British Empire And It's Commonwealth; Outlook, Ramifications and Projections For The Prosecution Of The War.
The reason why it is included amongst AWM papers is because the Australian Government at that time was protesting vigoriously about the continued supply of lower grade 87 octane fuel when it too wanted 100 octane for the RAAF.
I believe that McFarland, Pugh, Hart, Perret, Lumsden and even Churchill have all quoted parts from the report.
-
Uhmm, from Izzy:
"+12 lbs boost was by no way the standard and solely used boost in the Mk I. It would require 100 octane fuel, otherwise with 87 octane
Mike claims on his site that 'all and every' Sqns switched to it, but as with his previous claims about +25lbs XIVs, nothing except his own fanatism underlines a complete and immidiate changeover from 87 octane and that 'no spitfire ever met a 109 without 100 octane fuel in it`s tank'. "
Okay, my .02$ on this.
12 lbs was the most common, but I belive the changeover didn't happen all at once. Izzy has a point there.
Another thing no less important was the changeover of the aircrews. the 3 blade rotol drastically changed ROC and acceleration, however not top speed.
At the end of BoB, most sqn's had +12 and a rotol.
I calculated the performance of some 87 oct Spitfires in climb to Nm's and the lift performance was some 10% above the 109E at the time, however I need more 109E's to get a better test, and I didn't come across the Spit I's 100 oct+rotol data either.
The Mk II also entered service in the BoB, - increased performance at high altitude.
Not all 109's were the newest model either, so you could basically expect many different things to line up.
I have seen somewhere 25 boost mentioned for the XIV, just can't figure where. Perhaps diver-hunters? Anyway, I remember it being discarded in the Izzy way that XIV's never were shipped to the far east, - but those I found.
Our Spitfire Lineup sucks IMHO, the I is the worst, the V the best, the IX is a hybe and the XIV is overpriced as well as being a sloppy XIV (climb performance is under). Well, many above in this thread already said that....
-
(http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/100+grade+fuel.jpg)
Now it does not break it down by month but that 22,500 bbls (787,500gal) per week is enough for 8949 Spitfire sorties per week.
Since some might be able to access the link:
by Neil
"2./ Notes of a meeting held in AMPDS room on the 16 March 1939, to consider the question of when 100 octane fuel should be brought into use in the RAF and of the number and type of squadrons to be supplied with the fuel.
16 fighter squadrons and 2 twin engine bomber squadrons by September 1940, annual consumption 10,000 tons. Brought forward to early 1940 by subsequent events.
4./ 11/7/40 RAF had 343,000 tons of 100 octane in store.
5./ 10/10/40 RAF had 424,000 tons of 100 octane in store. After 22,000 tons issued during the B of B."
That 343,000 tons in store in July 1940 is ~11,000,000 gals or enough for ~130,000 Spitfire sorties.
This seems to contradict the quote by Pips and as suggested by Neil could have been a deception by the Brits upon the Aussies.
-
Neil`s claims underline what pip`s document said. Neil claims 16 fighter squadrons, that`s about 1/4th of the RAF-FC strenght .
Furthermore, the 100 octane consumption was 6000t/week in the start of November. Pips doc underlines that by November, FC had 100% changed over to 100 octane.
During the battle, 10 July-10 Oct, 22 000 tons was issued.... 22/6=ca.3.5 weeks, let`s be generous and say, enough for either
a, only a month b] if everyone uses it.[/b]
b, 3-4 months if only 25-33% of the fighters are using it.
But of course 10 July-10 Oct was a 3 month period.
So, Pips document is underlined well. Moreover, it`s more believable that the transition took a few months than the NS/MW story about of a sudden, immidiate and 100% conversion as if touched with a magic wand...
it`s *interesting* though that while Neil and Mike have managed to find 100 octane consumption in the UK to support their cause, surprisingly, they never found or presented any paper on 87 octane consumption...
Even if that would clear up totally how much 100 octane was used in 1940 compared to 87 octane.
Perhaps that`s the reason why it`s never shown.
-
Naturally you only see and read what you want to be true Kurfy.
Here it is again:
"2./ Notes of a meeting held in AMPDS room on the 16 March 1939, to consider the question of when 100 octane fuel should be brought into use in the RAF and of the number and type of squadrons to be supplied with the fuel.
16 fighter squadrons and 2 twin engine bomber squadrons by September 1940, annual consumption 10,000 tons.
Brought forward to early 1940 by subsequent events"
Notice the bold. It does not say there was only 16 fighter squadrons in Sept. In Aug 1940 there was 19 squadrons of Spitfires so even though you comprehension is faulty that is only 3 less.
Now your 22,000 tons is 6,900,00 gals or enough for 78,750 Spit sorties or 6562 Spit sorties per week or 937 Spit sorties per day for that 3 months when the LW got its butt kicked.
Squadrons using 100 would be in 11 Group, were it was needed the most. Other Groups would be using 87. In Aug, 11 Group had 6 squadrons of Spits and 15 squadrons of Hurries. That is 33% of all Spit squadrons at the time.
There was not shortage of 100 fuel. The shortage would be in the parts required for the engine to use 100 fuel.
"4./ 11/7/40 RAF had 343,000 tons of 100 octane in store.
5./ 10/10/40 RAF had 424,000 tons of 100 octane in store. After 22,000 tons issued during the B of B."
You have not yet provided any docs on C3 production/consumption for 1945 either.:eek:
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Proves 1 thing Karnak -
HT's total disdain for anything RAF.
We have a virtually unused (in combat) Spit 1 with 6lbs boost.
A really fugged up Spit 9
A very overpriced Spit XIV
And nothing between 1943 and 1944/5 thats free.
RAF must have the most fugged up planeset in the game.
I disagree. I think that they went with the data they had on hand and it just happens that it is what we got.
-
Considering that the only difference between the 2, was the engine mounted cannon, it does not matter which variant is being tested as both would have simular stats.
Your absolutely correct Milo.
It speaks volumes that the RAE did not have a proper identification on the varient of 109 they were testing. It is a glaring and obvious difference. It would be very hard to miss as soon as the magazines were opened.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Did the Hurricanes not go to 100 octs as well?
I remember some anecdotes of Hurricanes outclimbing Spitfires when forming up to intercept a raid. That could also be an airscrew issue perhaps?
Anyway, off to bed. Cya :)
-
100 octane was standard for all RAF fighters in the BoB. Hurricane, Spitfire, Defiant et all.
The BEF fighters used 87 octane in France.
-
So, has the jury reached a verdict?
Spit I, 100 oct
Spit V, 12 boost
Spit IX LF +25, clipped. Merlin 66
Spit VIII, + 25. Merlin 70.
Spit XIV with at least normal ROC.
Some seafire modifications....
uhm, did I forget some?
-
Originally posted by Angus
So, has the jury reached a verdict?
Spit I, 100 oct
Spit V, 12 boost
Spit IX LF +25, clipped. Merlin 66
Spit VIII, + 25. Merlin 70.
Spit XIV with at least normal ROC.
Some seafire modifications....
uhm, did I forget some?
Yes, you left out the 1942 Spitfire and made the LF.Mk VIII redundant.
The list:
Spitfire Mk Ia, Merlin III at +12lbs boost for 1940.
Spitfire LF.Mk Vb, Merlin 45M at +12lbs boost for 1941 to mid 1942.
Spitfire F.Mk IXc, Merlin 61 at +15lbs boost for mid 1942 to mid 1943.
Spitfire LF.Mk VIIIc, full span wings, Merlin 66 at +18lbs boost for early 1943 to mid or late 1944, also useful for a wide variety of theaters.
Spitfire F.Mk XIV, full span wings, Griffon 65 at +21lbs boost for the ultimate perked Spitfire 1944 to the end of the war.
Spitfire LF.Mk XVIe, clipped wings, Merlin 266 at +25lbs boost for mid 1944 to the end of the war.
Seafire L.Mk III, Merlin 55M as the most common Seafire.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Spitfire LF.Mk Vb, Merlin 45M at +12lbs boost for 1941 to mid 1942.
According to S:tH, the 45M was Mod 969 and was introduced 20-4-43.
-
Nice list Karnak! :)
-
Yes, the L.F. Vbs with the Merlin 50Ms (low alt rated) were +18 lbs boost (emergency setting) and were introduced spring 1943. Many with clipped wings, some with standard.
...you will hear the screaming in the MA for many miles if they ever introduce it too, hehe. :)
-
During the battle, 10 July-10 Oct, 22 000 tons was issued.... 22/6=ca.3.5 weeks, let`s be generous and say, enough for either
a, only a month b] if everyone uses it.[/b]
b, 3-4 months if only 25-33% of the fighters are using it.
No, 22,000 tons is enough for 100% of the fighters, if the bombers aren't using it.
And as the 22,000 tons figure is given by Wood and Dempster as fuel used by FIGHTER Command, I think it's safe to say the bombers weren't using any of it.
22,000 tons = 6,844,444 gallons.
The Spitfire or Hurricane carried a maximum of about 85 gallons, so assuming each sortie used the maximum amount of fuel (ie assuming the planes landed with empty tanks), 6,844,444 gallons is enough for something over 80,000 sorties.
That's over a period of 13 weeks, which works out at about 6200 sorties per week.
Actuall fighter command sorties, according to Hooton, Eagle in Flames:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1116610286_bobsorties.jpg)
(the Luftwaffe figures do not reflect fighter bomber sorties)
As you can see, 22,000 tons of fuel is enough for over 6,000 sorties per week, and the RAF didn't actually fly that many operational sorties, although non operational ones would account for the difference.
The RAF had ample fuel, and issued Fighter Command with more than enough 100 octane fuel for every fighter sortie flown in the BoB.
-
Thanks Nashwan for confirming my rough calculation.
-
So, they indeed DID fly totally on 100 octs.
That means that our Spitfire is not a BoB comparable model, - it rather would belong to France in May 1940, or over the Home front in 1939.
The airscrews were later to it, but bear in mind that the top speed of the coarse 2 bladed ones was actually a tad higher than on the 3 blade early rotol ones.
A Spitfire with a 3 blade rotol already outclimbs the 109E4 (the data I have) on 87 octs.
Top speed would be in the 109's favour.
But with 100 octs....
And for high alt, the Mk II entered in the BoB....
Anyway, Karnak is the man, that is the list :aok
-
Spitfire Mk Vs aren't really my thing and I was merely listing the engine that kev367th listed.
Which engine was the Spitfire Mk V using in 1941 and '42 at +12lbs boost? That is the one that we should have.
-
Merlin 45 on most of them, for the Spitfire Vb. +12 lbs.
...also I think the LF VIIIs were rated at +16 lbs (like the Merlin 66 LF IXs) not +18lbs.
-
Merlin 45 at +12lbs boost for the Spitfire Mk Vb then.
I understood the Merlin 66 to be rated at +18lbs boost on 100 octane and +25lbs boost on 150 octane.
I'll have to go over my data again when I get home, if I have time tonight.
-
Here's the short version of Battle of Britain Spitfires and 100 octane fuel. +12 lb boost was obtained on Spitfire Is, Hurricanes and Defiants by operation of the boost control cut-out (http:// http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1pn-port.jpg ) and could only be employed in conjunction with 100 octane fuel. Emergency use of +12 lbs./sq.in boost was officially adopted 20 March 1940 with the release of the Air Ministry's Air Publication A.P.1590B/J.2-W. (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ap1590b.jpg). Below is documentation of use of emergency boost, only obtained with 100 octane fuel, by Spitfire Squadrons during the Battle of Britain: 19, 41, 54, 64, 65, 66, 72, 74, 92, 152, 222, 234, 602, 603, 609, 610, 611, 616 = 18 squadrons. I havn’t got around to checking on 266 yet. Spitfire Squadrons began converting to 100 octane and +12 boost in March 1940:
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no611-100oct.jpg)
Spitfire Squadrons used it over Dunkirk in May 1940:
19 Sqdn., F/LT Brian Lane, 26 May 1940: “I gradually drew away from E/A using 12 lb. boost”
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/lane-26-5-40.jpg)
and right on through the Battle...
41 Sqdn:, F/Lt. John Webster, 28 and 29 July 1940: "I returned home at 0 feet 12 boost"
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/webster-28-7-40.jpg
41 Sqdn., P/O George Bennions, 28 July 1940: “Using the emergency boost”
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bennions-28-7-40.jpg
54 Sqdn., Al Deere, 26 May 40: “I gave chase using +12 boost”
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/deere-26-5-40.jpg
54 Sqdn., F/Lt George Gribble, 15 August 1940: “I dived to the attack, using 12 boost”
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/gribble-12lbs.jpg
54 Sqdn., P/O Colin Gray (NZ), 25 May 1940: “I pressed the emergency boost tit”
64 Sqdn., P/O Art Donahue, 5 August 1940, “I pushed in my emergency throttle”
65 Sqdn., Jefferey Quill: “It was only shortly before the Battle of Britain that we changed over to 100 octane.”
66 Sqdn., F/O Robert Oxspring, 6 September 1940: “I shoved the throttle through the gate for emergency power.”
72 Sqdn., P/O R. D. Elliott, 9 September 1940: “with the aid of MAX Boost (12 lbs)”
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/elliott-9-9-40.jpg
74 Sqdn., P/O John Freeborn, 24 May 1940: “I got away from it by using the boost cut out”.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/freeborn-24-5-40.jpg
74 Sqdn., F/Lt D. P. Kelly, 28 July 1940: “I found it necessary to use boost cutout”
92 Sqdn., Geoffrey Wellum, “Press the emergency boost override”
152 Sqdn., P/O Roger Hall, 4 September 1940: “emergency boost must not be used for more than five consecutive minutes, but now the occasion seemed to warrant the risk”
222 Sqdn., F/O D. McMullen, 15 October 1940: “I overtook E/A easily without 12 boost”
234 Sqdn., P/O Bob Doe: “Once we were in the vicinity of the enemy, I would 'pull the plug', which was the release so that we could get extra boost”
602 Sqdn., F/Lt Robert F. Boyd, 18 August 1940: “My Spitfire easily outdistanced Me 109's at 10 lbs boost 2800 r.p.m”
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/boyd-18-8-40.jpg
603 Sqdn., P/O James Morton, 28 August 1940: “I was being followed so pressed the tit”
603 Sqdn., P/O Ronald Berry, 31 August 1940: “To overhaul him I had to press the emergency boost”
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/berry-31-8-40.jpg
603 Sqdn., Sgt Jack Stokoe, 1 September 1940: “pushed in boost override”
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/stokoe-1-9-40.jpg
603 Sqdn., F/O Brian Macnamara, 27 September 1940: “with full throttle and the red lever pressed”
609 Sqdn., P/O David Crook , 30 Sept 1940: “'pulled the plug', i.e. pushed the small handle on the throttle quadrant that cuts out the automatic boost control thus allowing one to use emergency power”.
610 Sdqn: Hawkinge, July 1940: Check the fuel bowser ;)
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no610hawkinge-july40.jpg)
611 Sdqn., 21 March 1940: “The new aircraft are one by one being converted for the use of 100 octane fuel”
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no611-100oct.jpg
616 Sqdn., F/O Hugh Dundas, 15 August 1940, “rammed the throttle 'through the gate' , to get the maximum power output, permissible for only a very limited time.”
For the expanded version see: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
-
A bit tough to argue with that mw :)
Nice work and thanks for posting the combat reports etc.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/100+a.jpg
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/100+b.jpg
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/150+a1.jpg
In addition Merlin 24 and 25 +25lbs with 150 grade and later in 1945 the Centaurus V +12lbs with 150 grade.
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/150+c3.jpg
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/150+b2.jpg
Neil
-
Right you are Karnak, I was thinking of the latter Mk Vs (+16).
+18 lbs with the Merlin 66, and Merlin 70 series on 100 oct.
-
The only problem I have with Mikes comparision is the fact he compares different boost settings.
His page list's a Bf-109E1 prototype at "climb and combat" power against a Spitfire at +12 boost or it's emergency power.
Use of +12 boost was a definate overload condition for the engine as noted in paragraph 11 of the AP 1590B/J.2-W.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ap1590b.jpg
The Bf-109E DB 601A was capable of 1.42ata, a rating which clearly is the equivelent of (+12) boost for the Merlin.
From the Bf-109E4 Flugzeug-handbuch:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1120078013_109eemergency.jpg)
An early DB601A power curve:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1120078359_db601aearlycurve.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Wholly cow!
I'll save that thread.
If I get lucky, I'll have an interesting input in some 2 days.
All the best lads !
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The Bf-109E DB 601A was capable of 1.42ata, a rating which clearly is the equivelent of (+12) boost for the Merlin.
Not sure what you mean but 1.42 is only about 5.5lb of boost.
16lb of boost is near to 1.85-1.90ata. (the graph stops 53"Hg; 52"Hg = ~1.80ata)
-
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/clock+work.jpg
Neil.
-
Not sure what you mean but 1.42 is only about 5.5lb of boost.
Hey Milo,
Both are the emergency power ratings for the aircraft being compared. I was not comparing actual boost pressure.
Right now we are comparing the 109 at "climb and combat power" vs. the Spitfire at "emergency" power.
In other words, the Spitfire is giving everything it's got while the 109 is shown at a reduced power setting speed.
Neil,
Nice magazine article. It is a 1940 article speculating about an engine from a enemy power at war. You can get a good idea of the level of expertise the RAE had in German equipment by examining some of the reports and comparing them with the German operating instructions. Not a failing of the British intelligence, just a fact of life in wartime. Think of it this way, would you take your Jaguar to a Chevy dealer for a rebuild?
While testing of foreign aircraft by opposing warring powers is not useless to us in our studies, it is far from the "end all" of the capabilities of that aircraft.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
OK, just wanted to be sure where you were coming from. It was a bit ambiguous.
What was the time limit at 12lb?
"The DB 601A data charted above comes from the DB 601 A u. B Moteren-Handbuch of May 1942, which added the 1 minute take-off rating. This take-off rating was not mentioned in the Me 109 E Flugzeughandbuch; in fact the engine limits are stated as 1.3 ata, 2400 rpm."
1.42 was limited to 1 min.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
What was the time limit at 12lb?
In one of the links or quotes in this thread it is mentioned to be 5 minutes at +12lbs boost.
-
Hi Crump, Abflugleistung I think means "takeoff achievement". The May 1942 DB 601 A und B manual states for the use of 1.4 ata "am boden beim abflug" meaning i think "at the soil with the takeoff" Have you any proof that 1.4 ata was used/cleared for combat? Butch will know.
Neil.
-
The graph clearly states 6.25 lbs. unless im looking at the wrong one.
Shows @ 2800 fpm climb rate for both a/c.
The Speed graph indicates use of +12 lbs.
-
Hi Guppy35: "A bit tough to argue with that mw"
you watch ;) If the case is sound, however, one can always resort to smears and personal attacks :)
Milo, Karnak: see Dowding's memo with respect to time limit on +12 lbs.
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding1.jpg)
Angus: yeah, there are guys here that are very knowlegable about Spits: Guppy, Karnak, Kev367th, Milo, nashwan, Squire, and yourself, etc. Very impressive. Fun subject too :) Nice thread Karnak!
Good stuff Neil, dang I've never seen that Flight article. I have heard though that bombers could use 1 minute take-off power.
-
Hi Crump, Abflugleistung I think means "takeoff achievement". The May 1942 DB 601 A und B manual states for the use of 1.4 ata "am boden beim abflug" meaning i think "at the soil with the takeoff" Have you any proof that 1.4 ata was used/cleared for combat? Butch will know.
Neil,
AFAIK the DB605A was never cleared for 1.42ata not the DB601A as used in
the 109E.
You are correct for Abflugleistung, however I am referring to Erhohte Kurzleistung.
The DB power chart is a 1937 curve IIRC.
I have not seen the rating "Take off and Emergency" in the early war period before 1940 as a German standard as it is later in the war. However the Flugzeug-handbuch for the 109E4 clearly states 1.42ata as the "Emergency Short Achievement" rating under paragraph IVd. I suspect that ratings for German engines were standardized at some point early in the war.
I am referring to the level speed graph, Squire, and the 109's boost used on that graph. You must compare emergency power to emergency power. Not top power to climb.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Ahh, I thought you were talking about sustained climb rate. I agree, you have to talk apples to apples, as it were.
If you really want to get into muddy waters, you have several versions of each fighter a/c in the BoB as well. Hurricane I and II, Spitfire I and II, 109E-3, 109E-4 ect. Were there not 109E-7s at the closing stages in some quantity?...
I will say I think there tends to be too much "heated" debate over 5-8 mph or a small climb rate difference sometimes, any of the operational fighters in WW2 that saw hard use (like the BoB) would rarely hit their "test" #s anyways. If you are looking at a significant difference, thats something else. Its still interesting to have a look at it all, and I think we all learn something. I know I do.
"Emergency Short Achievement" - Hey I use that when the boss shows up downstairs! Over use will result in long term fatigue though...;)
-
HI Crump,
The DB power chart is a 1937 curve IIRC.
And its in the DB 601 A u. B Motoren-Handbuch Stand Mai 1942.
However the Flugzeug-handbuch for the 109E4 clearly states 1.42ata as the "Emergency Short Achievement" rating under paragraph IVd.
From DB 601 A u. B Motoren-Handbuch Stand Mai 1942.
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/DB+limits.jpg
Neil
-
Originally posted by mw
Hi Guppy35: "A bit tough to argue with that mw"
you watch ;) If the case is sound, however, one can always resort to smears and personal attacks :)
Mike, I would hope this myth some ppl claim for 100 fuel use and scarcity during BoB can now be put to a peaceful rest, after this thread.
Now if only these same ppl would accept that 150 fuel was in widespread use in the last year of WW2. Further, it would be nice if these same ppl could provide C3 fuel production/delivery/use numbers for the last year of WW2.
-
Originally posted by Neil Stirling1
From DB 601 A u. B Motoren-Handbuch Stand Mai 1942.
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/DB+limits.jpg
Neil
Interesting Neil. Both 1.3ata on the DB and 12lb on the Merlin have the same limit usage restriction (5 min).
-
And its in the DB 601 A u. B Motoren-Handbuch Stand Mai 1942.
Neil,
Since I have just about every Luftwaffe manual on the FW-190A series, it is not unusual for information that is still good to be reprinted in later manuals.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crump what does the E-4 manual say regarding the use of Emergency Short Achievement? When and how is it to be used?
Neil.
-
It does not give detailed instructions on it's use, Neil. It is only a couple of teils and not a complete manual.
It just says it can be used.
I grabbed it because Bf-109E documents are rare.
Here is something interesting:
http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/jg26/white4_peter.htm
An Bf-109E3 with a DB601N motor in mid-1940. Willing to bet the Germans had an engine exchange program for the DB601N. I've got the 1939 instruction sheets on that motor as well.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hello Crump, I found were the page you posted comes from its here,
http://www.bf109.com/manuals.html
This is an aircraft maintenance manual.
I have searched the PRO long and hard and asked the experts for original 109 E DB 601 N performance figures and so far nothing bar figs for the 109 T in William Greens book. Further more the issue is complicated by the derating of the DB 601 N.
I have started a thread regarding the used of 1.45 ata and the 601 a over at All about Warfare.
Neil.
-
Great! We do our best to get it sorted out.
I am looking for the Bf-109E performance curves I found. The speed curve is in Radinger and Schick's "Bf-109 A-E".
That curve matches the +(12) Merlin Spitfire speed curve almost exactly.
There is a stall speed issue I would like to discuss as well!
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Neil Stirling1
Hello Crump, I found were the page you posted comes from its here,
http://www.bf109.com/manuals.html
This is an aircraft maintenance manual.
http://www.bf109.com/acrobat/bf109ehighgerman.pdf
The above manual for DB 601A notes the use
of 1.45ata 'Erhohte Kurzleistung' power - for 1 min
Further it notes 1.35ata 'Kurzlesitung' - for 5 min
on PDF page 11.
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1120078013_109eemergency.jpg
The creator of that page notes for the manual :
"This is an original 100-page Luftwaffe Bf 109E manual (from 1939)."
Despite the evidence, Neil Stirling and Mike Williams deny that any boost higher than 1.3ata was used until mid 1942 (by when Emils long disappeared...).
I wonder if they have any proof of 1.3ata being the maximum allowed power or they just, automatically assume the worst figures for LW fighters, and best figures for RAF fighter.
So far it looks they have a mid-42 manual that lists it, and they assume that it was never used before. Such rationale would not be applied to RAF aircraft, of course.
On the MW/NS page, they of course compare the Emil on 1.3ata 'Erhohte dauerluistung' or 'increased continous' power..
no comment.They picked to two slowest tests of a prototype Emil, and the curve from the Kennblatt and cruise power - despite there is many other tests with better performance - they simply dismiss all of those.
Here`s one of them. It`s from the instructions of a Yugoslavian Bf 109E-3 .
(http://www.schmeisser.elsat.net.pl/leon/emil/BF109E-0011.jpg)
They also simply dismiss Swiss, French and Soviet flight tests.
They refuse to show performance data with DB 601N, the best engine fitted to Emils before the Battle of Britain, with 20% more power and improved supercharger.
Mike Williams and Neil Stirling are comparing RAF aircraft at the highest boost ever used with LW running on the lowest boost ever used.
In their articles, admittedly with revisionist goal agains the avaiable literature, they compare :
109E on 1.3ata, maximum was 1.45ata, no DB 601N powered versions..
109F - oh that`s missing, I wonder why :D
109G - 1.3 ata, maximum was 1.42ata
109K - 1.8ata (curves for heavy fighter version too), maximum was 1.98ata
Always the worst data they can find.
Not only that, but there are worst cases of purposeful manipulation, ie. if you look at the Emil article, Mike and Neil are compared the Merlin and the DB 601A. Altough the literature is full of notes about the better altitude performance of the DB engine, they 'revised' the fact, and used rammed power figures for the Merlin (rammed power increases engine output above rated altitude because of the high-speed motion of the plane), and static output (ie. no ram) for the DB engine, to convince the crowd all those books were lying.
The part I don`t understand, the reason of this bigot zealotry and using of the lowest tools to push forward the agenda.
-
Back on +12 lbs boost again :
It was interesting to comply the pilot stories of MW in regards of +12 lbs boost for Spitfire Squadrons.
Sqn/ First mention of use of boost :
611 Sdqn. March 1940
19 Sqdn - 26 May 1940
54 Sqdn May 40
74 Sqdn. May 1940
41 Sqdn - July 1940
610 Sdqn: July 1940
64 Sqdn. August 1940,
616 Sqdn. August 1940,
602 Sqdn August 1940
603 Sqdn. August 1940
66 Sqdn September 1940
72 Sqd September 1940
152 Sqdn September 1940:
603 Sqdn. September 1940
603 Sqdn. September 1940:
609 Sqdn., September 1940
222 Sqdn. October 1940:
+ 92 Sqdn. +234 Sqdn., no date mentioned.
Curiosly enough, there`s no mentioning of +12lbs boost in most squadrons early in the Battle.
If we rehearse the problems with 100 octane fuel from earlier on, it all cuts in well again.
The majority of Sqns (11 out 18)converted to 100 octane fuel during/from mid August and September, some in October.
[Two actions were immediately undertaken by the British War Cabinet in May to resolve the looming crisis. Firstly 87 octane fuel was deemed the primary fuel source to be used until further supplies could be discovered and delivered in sufficient quantities to allow the Merlin conversions to again take place. Those existing fighters already so converted (approximately 125) would continue to use what supplies of 100 octane were available, but all other fighters that had not been modified to continue with the use of 87 octane (of which there was more than adequate supply). The second action was for the British Government to contract the Shell Oil Refining Company to assist the British-controlled Iraqi Petroleum Company at Kirkuk to produce 100 octane fuel. This arrangement proved quite successful as production was quickly converted to 100 octane fuel.
The first Middle East shipment of 100 octane fuel arrived in Portsmouth on 12th August, with a further two deliveries in September and four in October., Although too late to allow widespread conversion for the use of the fuel the deliveries did ensure that from this point on Britain would not be lacking in 100 octane fuel levels. With the newfound supply RAF Fighter Command again embarked upon a Merlin II and III conversion to 100 octane use from late September, finally achieving 100% conversion of it's fighter force by the end of November in 1940.
http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/foru...owtopic=230&hl=
Though Mike and Neil propagetes that 100% conversion happened before the battle of Britian already, they failed to show any proof of such an early and complete conversion - which appearantly did not materialize until August just like the complete conversion to CS props which they also claim without any evidence.
The most interesting issue is of course, why Neil Stirling holds back the 87 octane consumption of the Fighter command during the Battle. This would clear up the issue completely as with would tell the ratio between 87/100 octane usage.
Why would he hold it back if it shows that only 100 octane was utilized...?
-
Kurfurst could you please poste the engine setting table as well ;) ...
As you know the Yugoslavian, soviet and Swiss a/c were not equipped with the DB601A-1 but with the more expensive DB601Aa. The power settings and limits of those two engines were not identical !!!
Just a quarter to a third of all Luftwaffe 109s were equipped with the Aa variant.
-
Originally posted by Squire
If you really want to get into muddy waters, you have several versions of each fighter a/c in the BoB as well. Hurricane I and II, Spitfire I and II, 109E-3, 109E-4 ect. Were there not 109E-7s at the closing stages in some quantity?....
There were also E-1s (with MG armament) and the E-4/N with the most powerful engine mounted the Emils, from the very begining of the battle in July - though Mike as usual claims it did not appeared until the battle ended, which is of course only he made up.
Basically, the LW had the E-1, E-3, E-4 and E-4/N in it`s fighter inventory when the battle commenced.
E-7s were seeing action from August 1940. The primary difference was the imporved nose spinner aerodynamics, and the ability to use droptanks.
A version of the E-7 was the E-7/Ns with the DB 601N engine appeared somwhere late in 1940, but I am not sure when production commenced. Though again Mike claims it saw service only pennypocket numbers, in reality it was produced in hundreds, see the contemporary Lieferplans (Mike and Neil saw those as well, but tends to be selective a bit).
I will say I think there tends to be too much "heated" debate over 5-8 mph or a small climb rate difference sometimes, any of the operational fighters in WW2 that saw hard use (like the BoB) would rarely hit their "test" #s anyways. If you are looking at a significant difference, thats something else. Its still interesting to have a look at it all, and I think we all learn something. I know I do.[/B]
Good points indeed. Probably there was no better match up between fighters than between the Emil and the MkI spit in the BoB. It`s almost a perfect match in every altitude, which is a rare thing in WW2, that`s why I don`t get this zeal from MW/NS to make such silly, manipulated comparisions that it wasn`t so.
-
Originally posted by butch2k
Kurfurst could you please poste the engine setting table as well ;) ...
That one I don`t have, but my take is the low altitude data to about 2.5km refers to the 1-min rating (1.45ata), which should give about as much. The rest shows the the normal WEP of 1.35ata, it`s a good match with Swiss data with the same engine.
The curve itself appears to be a mix of the performance with the low-alt 1.45ata and the 'normal' WEP 1.35ata with the 601Aa powered Emil. Would you agree ?
As you know the Yugoslavian, soviet and Swiss a/c were not equipped with the DB601A-1 but with the more expensive DB601Aa. The power settings and limits of those two engines were not identical !!!
Just a quarter to a third of all Luftwaffe 109s were equipped with the Aa variant. [/B]
Yes, both LW (along A-1) and export version Emils had the same Aa engine. But there`s not that much of a difference between the A-1 and Aa in output, ie. 990 vs 1045 PD at SL (1.3/1.35ats limit).
1-min WEP being 1100 and 1175 PS (1.4/1.45ata).
But if that`s so, Mike should really update his site in which he claims LW did not use the Aa at all, for which he uses you as a source, see reference 98 (I guess it`s a very old post from you).
Even though the British report on the captured Emil he is also using clearly notes the DB 601Aa engine. ;)
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
Though the qoute from you might go the way of the dodo, like it happened with the qoute from you about 1.98ata usage, which was present on his site for a while, but was deleted when it no longer fit him, and the DC engine and 1.98ata was declared 'non existant by him and appearantly, Neil.
Things like this selective using which makes me very critical about those articles and their authors, you see.
-
Butch
Just a quarter to a third of all Luftwaffe 109s were equipped with the Aa variant.
Were these in service during the B of B?
Neil
-
Neil,
Are the speed figures presented for the Spitfire Mk I in your article coming from some sort of flight test (I saw no such reference)
or
the claimed figures are just your own estimations/calculations ?
Do you think it`s a double standard to present the Merlin at rammed power and the DB engine at only static power as it is presented in your article?
Do you plan to expand the article by presenting the Bf 109
1, at full boost not cruise power
2, with every engine it mounted, DB 601Aa and DB 601N
with which information you just received?
-
Hello Milo: "Both 1.3ata on the DB and 12lb on the Merlin have the same limit usage restriction (5 min)."
Precisely! :) Please note what German data shows for performance of the Me 109 E at 1.30 ata:
Messflüg vom 7.11.38, 1.3 ata, 5,653 lbs resulted in 285 mph at sea level and 342 mph at 14,763 ft. Messung E.Stelle Bericht Nr. 2652/39 shows 280 mph at sea level and 342 mph at 14,763 ft. Recalculations of the test data at Augsburg from 14.10.39 gives 290 mph at sea level and 342 mph at 14,763 ft at 1.3 ata for a Me 109 E3. Trials of BF 109 E3 W.Nr. 1792 by Messerschmitt as reported in Meßprotokoll vom 16.2.39 resulted in a sea level speed of 290 mph at 1.3 ata. Kontrollflug vom 31.4.39 at 1.3 ata shows 299 mph at 2,132 ft. (which extrapolates to 291 mph at SL) . Also note that curve charted from ME 109 E Flugzeughandbuch Flugleistungkurven, Höchste waagerechtgeschwindigkeit gives 287 mph at SL! ;)
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/db601englimits.jpg)
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/DB+limits-s.jpg)
Mike
-
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/db601englimits.jpg)
The above engine limitations posted by Mike williams are coming from the following Emil manual which I own :
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1120139606_emilmanual.jpg)
Note the date of the dataset Mike Williams is using : it was authorized in OCTOBER 1938..
At that time, the 109E was not even operational in the Luftwaffe. Appearantly Mike Williams is using some temporary instructions for a plane that was still under development and testing in 1938.
The 1938 figures were of course superseeded in later manuals, and were increased.
As the following page from the 1939 Emil manual shows, the 1.3ata Mike Williams is using in his articles, was only the 'Erhohte Dauerleistung', which translates to 'Increased continous power' and was not the maximum power available from the DB 601A.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1120078013_109eemergency.jpg)
Mike Williams is appearantly comparing the cruise speed of the Emil to the Spitfire at overboost that came with the danger of engine failure.
-
Isegrim the latest chart is for an a/c equipped with the DB601 Aa engine, the later manual clearly stating that the 1.45ata setting is for "abflug" only, just the same as the DB 601A-1.
Those setting were no combat settings at all, and the several DB 601A (-1/a) manuals i own clearly state that it should be used only if really necessary as it put a lot of strain on the engine.
I would not consider them for comparison since their use was limited to very specific cases, like taking off heavily burdened.
-
Hi Butch,
>As you know the Yugoslavian, soviet and Swiss a/c were not equipped with the DB601A-1 but with the more expensive DB601Aa. The power settings and limits of those two engines were not identical !!!
>Just a quarter to a third of all Luftwaffe 109s were equipped with the Aa variant.
Here's an overview of the range of power plants used by the Me 109E for the Battle of Britain time frame:
Ca. 75% of production (Source: Butch2k :-):
DB601A-1 (early type supercharger)
DB601A-1 (late type supercharger)
(Conversion from early to late type was possible. There's evidence for the use of the early type supercharger in the Battle of France and for the use of the late type in the Battle of Britain. I have no idea how the actual proportions were, though.)
Ca. 25% of production:
DB601Aa (early type supercharger)
DB601Aa (late type supercharger)
(Same comments as for the DB601A-1 apply.)
1 Staffel at the beginning of the Battle of Britain, 1 Gruppe near the end (production sahre rapidly increasing towards the end of 1940):
DB601N
(Source: Petrick/Mankau's Zerstörer book.)
I have not analysed the Yugoslavian chart yet, so I can't comment on that. I haven't prepared a DB601Aa analysis yet, either.
Here's my current perspective on the Me 109E power settings and speeds:
http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/Me109TopSpeed.gif
http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/Me109E_DB601N.gif
Note that I haven't used the 1.40 ata, 1 min setting. As far as I know, it was not used for the Me 109E, and the engine chart is quite clear on that it was only to be used for take-off.
Apparently, it was possible to over-rev the DB601 above its full throttle height, though, but as this was not mentioned in the manual (and potentially harmful for the engine), I did not include that either.
Now I know that Mike has some data contradicting my conclusions, but the data on the French-captured Me 109E, the data from the German manual and the German data on the Me 109T are pretty well in agreement so that I'm reasonably confident that my analysis is fairly accurate.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hohun so far i haven't seen any proof of a late type supercharger being used on The Aa, even the in late 1939 documents i have.
-
Hi Butch,
>Hohun so far i haven't seen any proof of a late type supercharger being used on The Aa, even the in late 1939 documents i have.
Thanks, that's an interesting information to keep in mind for the analysis of the Yugoslavian data.
Technologically, if early/late type superchargers can be swapped freely with the DB601A-1, the same should be true for the DB601Aa, though.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by butch2k
Isegrim the latest chart is for an a/c equipped with the DB601 Aa engine, the later manual clearly stating that the 1.45ata setting is for "abflug" only, just the same as the DB 601A-1.
[/B]
Regardless, it shows the maximum performance that could excepted from DB 601Aa powered 109E-3.
And, to be more precise, the power curves for DB 601A-1 show that`s it`s usable in only the first supercharger speed (up to 1.6km altitude with the old type supercharger, and up to 2.1km with the new 4.5 km supercharger). Not strictly for takeoff, but for relatively low altitudes.
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1120078359_db601aearlycurve.jpg
That`s from 0 to 6800 ft in static/climb conditions, and about up to 3km or 9000 ft in speed conditions. That`s quite an altitude range, similiar to the practical power boost achieved with +12lbs emergency boost on Merlins.
Basically :
a, The 1.4/1.45ata boost was present on DB 601A/Aa engines
b, As you say, about 30% of the Luftwaffe`s Emils had the Aa engines
c, Nothing prevented the pilot from using it.
So he used it if he wanted, but of course he didn`t neccesary had to.
Those setting were no combat settings at all, and the several DB 601A (-1/a) manuals i own clearly state that it should be used only if really necessary as it put a lot of strain on the engine.[/B]
Butch, basically all German manuals mention that the highest power should be used 'only if neccesary because puts great strain on the engine etc'. 601E, 605A manual mentions the same, it`s a common formula for War Emergency Power, not only in Germany but also in US or the RAF.
Ie. in regards of +12 boost, they warned the pilots not to use it unless neccesary because of the overload :
[IMG]http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding1.jpg
It`s all similiar, it calls it 'emergency boost' and to be used only when 'circumstances demand it'. It overstrains the engine, just like on the DB. Same thing.
I guess an enemy fighter on the tail counts as such 'neccesity' or 'circumstance'. There was absolutely nothing that prevented the pilot from using it when he needed it. ;)
I would not consider them for comparison since their use was limited to very specific cases, like taking off heavily burdened. [/B]
I`d agree that it was generally not used. It`s nothing specific about the 601`s WEP, pilots engaged WEP on very rare occasions when they were in trouble. Nowadays people develop the idea that everybody was contsantly whacking the engine by running on maximal power - it`s just so untypical for real life! But when it was neccesary, it could be used.
Personally, I find it strange to include in a comparison the RAF`s special low altitude boost that required high grade fuel and was gradually introduced during the BoB, and NOT to include the special low altitude boost that was present on ALL Emils... it`s the kind of double standard that repeated and plagues the credibility of those comparision articles from MW/NS.
-
FYI
(http://butch2k4.free.fr/DB601Aa-Abflug.jpg)
-
Hi Butch,
>(http://butch2k4.free.fr/DB601Aa-Abflug.jpg)
Thanks for that! :-)
I'll translate:
---cut--------
Power Increase for Departure (Permissible Duration 1 min)
By pushing the throttle lever beyond the "Full Power" position - without pausing - up to the stop "Departure".
Holding the lever in the "Departure" position is not permitted since it's pointless, instead, the lever is to be re-set to the "Full Power" position again. The clockwork that has been wound by pushing forward the lever terminates the boost increase independendly of the lever position after 1 minute. Holding the lever in position "Departure" would not prolong the boost inrease or refresh it, but merely result in a continued fuel enrichment - meaning an increase of the fuel consumption without a power increase.
---cut--------
Do we have any evidence on the use of the "Departure" setting in the Bf 109 at all? I think I have an old "Flugzeug" issue somewhere that quotes the clockwork regulator a requirement for the use of Departure power.
(I'd compare Bf 109 and Spitfire on corresponding power settings, 30 min power vs. 30 min power and 5 min power vs. 5 min power. A 1 min power setting, even if available in combat, would appear only like a small advantage to me.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Thanks butch for posting it. But I have to point out, reading the text and HoHun`s translation, there`s absolutely nothingin it that would prevent the pilot from using the 1-min 'Erhohte Kurzleistung' if he wanted, provided he was flying at lower altitudes. OTOH, it`s nice evidence to the existance of the boost system, but I fear it will be looked over. ;)
The fact that the type of WEP was primary intended for takeoff at heavy loads has nothing to do with the possibilty. He can operate it at any time he sees neccesary, by pushing the lever forward and the system automatically resets after 1min.
HoHun is very sensible in that comparisions are to be made at similiar settings. Currenltly, its not done, the articles compare the 109E and G on 30 min power to the Spitfire on 5min power.
However, if there`s a system that was found on only one of the planes, it cannot be ignored on the basis the other doesn`t have. You cannot exclude GM-1 for istance (MW/NS does though) on the basis that it was only employed in the LW.
Actual usage is muddy water. How many pilots used the 1-min WEP? How many used +12lbs overboost? Certainly not all of them, every time.Certainly not every pilot pushed the aircraft to it`s limits, but that does not re-define the absolute limits the a/c is capable of. ;)
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Regardless, it shows the maximum performance that could excepted from DB 601Aa powered 109E-3.
for one (1) minute only while the Spit could do it for five (5) minutes.
That`s from 0 to 6800 ft in static/climb conditions, and about up to 3km or 9000 ft in speed conditions. That`s quite an altitude range, similiar to the practical power boost achieved with +12lbs emergency boost on Merlins.
could the E-3 reach that altitude in 1 minute? It took ~3 minutes to reach 3 km
Butch, basically all German manuals mention that the highest power should be used 'only if neccesary because puts great strain on the engine etc'. 601E, 605A manual mentions the same, it`s a common formula for War Emergency Power, not only in Germany but also in US or the RAF.
for one (1) minute only while the Spit could do it for five (5) minutes.
Ie. in regards of +12 boost, they warned the pilots not to use it unless neccesary because of the overload :
[IMG]http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding1.jpg
Why did you not post a link to page 2?
It`s all similiar, it calls it 'emergency boost' and to be used only when 'circumstances demand it'. It overstrains the engine, just like on the DB. Same thing.
That is why the DB was restricted to 5 minutes at 1.30 and 1 minute at 1.45
Personally, I find it strange to include in a comparison the RAF`s special low altitude boost that required high grade fuel and was gradually introduced during the BoB, and NOT to include the special low altitude boost that was present on ALL Emils... it`s the kind of double standard that repeated and plagues the credibility of those comparision articles from MW/NS.
and the N motor required special/high grade fuel, C3, which according to Radinger/Schick was not readily available.
LOL Kurfy. You talk about credibility, you the grand master at data manipulation, selective quotes/facts, etc, ect, ect... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
HoHun is very sensible in that comparisions are to be made at similiar settings. Currenltly, its not done, the articles compare the 109E and G on 30 min power to the Spitfire on 5min power.
IT does?
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-109espeed.jpg)
Notice there is a line for the Spit at 12lb and one for the 109E-1 (notice also that the 109 type is specificaly mentioned) at 1.33 which was restriced to 5 minutes.
-
for one (1) minute only while the Spit could do it for five (5) minutes.
Hey Milo,
The Merlin did not start out with (+12) boost for 5 minutes. The limit was increased over time. This is normal for most engine boost progression.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1120086803_spit29.jpg)
What I do see after listening to the 109 Experts is still a questionable comparison. It attempts to deal in absolutes with a subject which has no absolutes.
Some facts to consider, the new boost setting appears to required cylinder head modification and/or new piston rings so it seems highly unlikely the conversion happened overnight.
The RAF had received roughly 400 Spitfires, according to Shacklady and Morgan, along with the well over 1000 Hurricanes without the modification before the order was issued.
A total of 1,715 Hurricanes flew with Fighter Command during the period of the Battle, far in excess of all other British fighters combined.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/hurricane.html
These would have been torn down and modified. A time consuming job. The parts have to be available as well.
Now the maintenance may not seem like such a big deal but keep in mind that the RAF was at war. They had to maintain operational readiness. This is why it appears that the RAF ordered the modifications to be done during normal scheduled maintenance of the engine. Seems a logical way to handle such a maintenance/operational issue.
New production engines came with the modification.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ap1590b.jpg
So while I tend not to believe the "overnight and immediate introduction" I also do not believe the "snails pace" theory either. It was most likely somewhere in the middle with the majority of RAF fighters using the modification by the BoB's end in late 1940. Anybody have a maintenance scheduale of the number of hours a Merlin flew before overhaul?
A total of 1,715 Hurricanes flew with Fighter Command during the period of the Battle, far in excess of all other British fighters combined.
Just as the Luftwaffe was introducing more powerful engines for the 109E series, the RAF was increasing the power output of the Spitfire. As can be seen from the Yugoslavian export variant 109E (DB601Aa), some 109E performance did match/exceed the (+12) boost Merlin Spitfire. So what we have in both air forces is an ever-growing pool of better performing fighters?
Some Spitfires are superior to Some 109's and vice versa. Never is it all Spitfires are superior to all 109's or reverse.
Yugoslavian export version 109E climb:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1120181567_bf109e-0012.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crumpp, :)
I guess you missed the image posted that had the 601 still limited to 1.40/5 ata for 1 minute in 1942.
During BoB, 12 lb was good for 5 minutes. (see ref 16, the one Kurfy would not post)
The Merlin XII was a Spit II engine. You give no date for the image. The emergency of BoB had passed.
I noted in a previous post that parts would be a restriction on conversion, not the availablity of 100 fuel, of which there lots of stock. Remember though that 11 Group was the Group that faced the Germans the most and would have preference for any converted Spits.
Using the 5 minute limit for both a/c, which the graph shows, is a fair comparison. Using the 1 minute at 1.40/5 for the 109 is not, but could be included as a comparison to satisfy Kurfy in his quest to have the 109 the uber a/c. ;)
If Mike had only used a genaric designation, ie 109E, then Kurfy would have a reason for his crocidile tears and have to use a life vest. Do really expect Mike to be nice and include other models after Kurfy's character assination and slandering of him all over the net?
As a side note, RR was experimenting with water injection in 1938, but was relegated to a 'B' priority.
-
I guess you missed the image posted that had the 601 still limited to 1.40/5 ata for 1 minute in 1942.
Hey Milo,
I did not miss that image. In 1942 the development of the 109E was at a standstill as it was being replaced. Its replacement entered service in early summer, 1941. Something else to consider is that many manuals regurgitate older information or rely on technical orders. For example, you won't find the operation/installation/maintenance of MW-50 in any FW-190 manual. That is contained in technical orders seperate from the Flugzeug-handbuchs.
The POH is dated Jul 40. Do you know the differences between these Merlins?
If Mike had only used a genaric designation, ie 109E, then Kurfy would have a reason for his crocidile tears and have to use a life vest. Do really expect Mike to be nice and include other models after Kurfy's character assination and slandering of him all over the net?
No I would expect Mike to see that kind of behavior for what it is as most of us do. I would not expect Mike to "retaliate" in kind and stoop to that level. Especially when it creates a false impression. While his comparison may involve two particular Bf-109E's, for which little setup information is posted, the impression created is an attempt at a broad spectrum analysis that is just not true.
The percentage of these aircraft at the front is debatable. The fact they were operational contemporaries is not.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Merlin II - 1030hp Fitted to Ia (1537 made.) and Ib (30 made)
Merlin XII - 1175hp Fitted to IIa (750 made) and IIb (170 made)
Increased speed by approx 10mph+ over the Merlin II.
First delivered to the RAF June 3rd 1940
From BoB
The Mk I Spitfire was to continue service throughout the Battle of Britain, and was a worthy opponent of its German equivalent, the Messerschmitt Me 109. But in August 1940, at the height of the battle, the Spitfire Mk I gave way to a faster and more powerful Mk II with its Merlin Mk XII power plant. Most of these MK II's were to arrive after the Battle of Britain, although some squadrons had been allocated them in late August and during September 1940. The first recorded Mk II being shot down was with 611 Squadron on September 11th 1940.
-
Crumpp, :)
Might be your impression but I don't see it that way.
Did Mike get a thank you when he made corrections? Nope, only more slander and ridicule.
What does it matter if the E was at a standstill in 42 for the 1.40/5 time limit had not been raised even when it was in service.
-
(off topic but...)
Our spitfire mk I does run +12 boost at WEP.
-
Are you sure it does?
I tested the Spit I not long after AH II came out. It said 12lbs on the boost gauge, and the fuel consumption was correct for 12 lbs. But it was 15 - 20 mph too slow at low level, and didn't climb anywhere near well enough for 12 lbs.
IIRC, it was somewhere between 6.25 lbs and 9lbs in performance, with fuel consumption equal to 12 lbs.
Might have changed since then, of course.
-
Might be your impression but I don't see it that way.
It is my impression and you are entitled to yours.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
nevermind
Spitfire I still has the same speed from AH1
I feel fooled:(
-
btw: Germans where quite early very well informed about Merlins and 100octan possibillity
(http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/sonstiges/MerlinGer.jpg)
Also interesting notes which show the informations on the other sight
(http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/sonstiges/MerlinXXGer.jpg)
niklas
-
Nice one!
Neil
-
I could have sworn I have the same document (the one further up) in English.
Will look and let you know if I find it.
Anyway, Nice input ;)
-
It seems that what a good lineup of Spitfires would be has become a hot issue so I am bring this thread back to the top.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
It seems that what a good lineup of Spitfires would be has become a hot issue so I am bring this thread back to the top.
Just back home after 10 days in England and France. Made it to Legends and saw many a Spit :)
That included flying, a Spit II, Spit Vb, Spit VIII, Spit IX, Spit XIV, Spit XVIII and a Spit PR19.
Talk about Spit heaven. The sounds of Griffons and Merlins on the move. Tried to bring one back in a suitcase but it was too big :)
That being said, the Line up still should be:
Spit I
Spit Vb with 2 20mm and 4 303s. 60 round drums for the 20mm and the engines of the 41-42 bird
Spit LFVIII, Merlin 66, regular span wings, drop tank or bomb on centerline
Spit LFIXe/XVIe-clipped wings, E wing, bomb or drop tank on centerline, wing hard points for bombs and option to take rockets as the 44-45 Spit IX/XVI could and did.
Spitfire XIVe
Seafire III
Dan/CorkyJr
Oh but the Spit XIV and XVIII roaring past with those big Griffons sure sounded great :)