Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Kev367th on August 03, 2005, 09:18:32 PM
-
General -
Remember - the Spit IX/XVI are the same aircraft, only difference is where the engine was made!
At 18lbs boost its a 1943 LF IX.
I seriously don't believe it would be the monster people seem think it would be, its the Ki-84 panic all over again.
Lets put it in perpective (1K3 used your figures hope you don't mind), at 25lbs boost
50+ mhp slower than 109K-4 at alt
40+ mph slower than P-51B at alt
40+ mph slower than Spitfire Mk. XIV at alt
30+ mph slower than P-51D at alt
20+ mph slower than Fw-190D-9 at alt
On the deck - at least the La7, D9 ,G10 ,Tiffy, Pony all faster.
Only outstanding attribute is its climb rate, but ALL current main MA planes have at least one outstanding attribute.
People just seem to get really nervous over what is a really a 1944 Spit IX, i don't understand it. Interesting if it had been announced a Spit IX with 25lbs was being introduced, is it the XVI tag that is confusing people?
Just to re-iterate - Spit IX/XVI SAME PLANE.
Pyro -
If you have definately decided it would be at 18lbs, in all honesty I would prefer you just fix the Current Mk IX and remodel the remaining as is.
I for one would take an 16lb Spit V over a 18lb Spit LF IX anyday.
I don't think any of us Spitfans mind giving up the uber spit V, but to be replaced by a 1943 Spit IX, no thanks.
Bring it in at 150 grade/25lbs boost with an ENY of 5/6 unperked.
Please keep this thread to 18/25lbs topic.
Thankyou
-
Agreed with Kev.
Seems to defeat the purpose of tweaking the Spit Vb back to 41 standards, getting the Spit IX to 42 standards, adding an LFVIII at 18+boost for 43-44 and then essentially just clipping it for the XVI.
They started using the 150 octane and 25+ boost in May 44 so there was an entire year where IXs and XVIs were operating at the higher boost before the war ended. Clearly 2 TAF birds got the fuel too so the ground attack Spits were using it.
Just remember the environment the Spit LFXVIe will be operating in the MA. It won't be a beast, but will finally give us a Spit that is closer to the late war pack.
Plus the clipped wing, tall tail Spit looks great :)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Kev I have to disagree with you here.
"Only outstanding attribute is climb" -- well first, that climb rate would be 1200fpm faster than the fastest climbing planes in the game. Second, the speed would be competitive with the top10 fastest planes in the game. You list there are some major players faster than it, yes, but it is faster than 85% of the rest of the planeset. Another outstanding attribute is that it has one of the tightest turn rates in the game. It would turn better than a spit9 (more powerful engine with nearly the same frame). Another outstanding attribute would be the ability to get kills very easily with 2x20mm hispano cannon, each with 125rpg, and I don't recall it if had 4x303 or 2x50cal, to boot.
That's a lot of outstanding attributes. In fact the only drawback this fighter would have would be the top speed, which is fast enough to catch most of the rides in the game (and those that outrun it would only be able to outrun it, never out climb, never out turn, never out shoot, and never out fly it). That's one pretty tiny chink in an otherwise invulnerable armor.
As such I must disagree.
-
hmmmm, spitfires with "clipped wings" (LF) has higher stall speed and doesnt have the trademark sustained turn found on "full wings" (F).
(btw there's a thread "The effects of clipped wing Spitfires" burried somewhere at page 7 or 8)
-
Originally posted by 1K3
hmmmm, spitfires with "clipped wings" (LF) has higher stall speed and doesnt have the trademark sustained turn found on "full wings" (F).
(btw there's a thread "The effects of clipped wing Spitfires" burried somewhere at page 7 or 8)
LOL just remember who was posting those quotes.
The only place the full span wings showed a marked difference was above 20K
Down low the roll rate, in particular with the 190s was more important.
And remember that an LF Spit doesn't mean it has clipped wings. It means the engine is rated for lower alts.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Still, all XVIs were clipped and the turn radius would be slightly worse than a full span Spit's turn radius.
Krusty,
It would have an "e" wing which means two 20mm Hispano Mk II cannon with 120 rounds per gun and two .50 caliber Brownings with 250 rounds per gun. It would also have three hard points.
That said, it would be an awful nasty package.
I would like to see it come in as a free plane and then be perked if it had to be, as in the case of the F4U-1C.
-
bubble canopy.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Kev I have to disagree with you here.
"Only outstanding attribute is climb" -- well first, that climb rate would be 1200fpm faster than the fastest climbing planes in the game. Second, the speed would be competitive with the top10 fastest planes in the game. You list there are some major players faster than it, yes, but it is faster than 85% of the rest of the planeset. Another outstanding attribute is that it has one of the tightest turn rates in the game. It would turn better than a spit9 (more powerful engine with nearly the same frame). Another outstanding attribute would be the ability to get kills very easily with 2x20mm hispano cannon, each with 125rpg, and I don't recall it if had 4x303 or 2x50cal, to boot.
That's a lot of outstanding attributes. In fact the only drawback this fighter would have would be the top speed, which is fast enough to catch most of the rides in the game (and those that outrun it would only be able to outrun it, never out climb, never out turn, never out shoot, and never out fly it). That's one pretty tiny chink in an otherwise invulnerable armor.
As such I must disagree.
You obviously missed what I put twice A SPIT XVI IS A SPIT 9, only with an American built Merlin 66 (known as a 266).
Will not turn better than a standard 9, in fact it should be slightly worse due to having clipped wings (Plenty discussion on that topic on the BB). But will roll better.
I'll say it again, A LF SPIT XVI IS THE SAME AS A LF SPIT IX - got it?
If you played in the MA you would realize that speed is everything, yes it could catch the top 4 or 5 given the right circumstances, but that holds true if you chasing them in a Zeke.
So it appears your main objection is if it does catch them it stands a good chance of killing them, well whoop dee doo, isn't that what the MA is all about? You should have seen the number of Spit 14's ive seen shot down the last few days, and they are far superior to the IX/XVI.
Plenty of planes turn tighter, plenty are faster, some carry the same guns a few have better guns, doesn't make it an uber Spit, especially in the MA environment.
If the main objection is that it stands a good chance of killing the speed demons - BRING IT ON.
Lets do a little scenario -
Incoming bogies, guy scrambles a Spit 16, hits WEP, a little over 4 mins later he is at 20k. He now has less than 1 min WEP remaining. If he continues climb and reaches 25k WEP runs out. - and the problem is?
Lets continue it, he only goes to 20k so has around a min WEP left, he chases a 190 (that hasn't used WEP) down in a dive, they both level, both hit WEP and the 190 strolls away, having not only default longer WEP left (10 mins?) but more than likely more speed - and the problem is?
Reverse the situation the D9 will catch the Spit eventually.
And no this is not a fantasy situation it is 70%+ of current MA tactics.
Its no real threat 20k+ where the inobunds usually hang out, its purely a low alt fighter.
Another overlooked chink - at 25lbs boost, fuel consumption is increased by approx 24%, so they aren't going roaming halfway across a map.
-
With some 5 mins on WEP to 20K, it vastly outclimbs our XIV, so this aircraft is nowhere near the IX we have.
Well, our IX is a hybe anyway.
Do you have the performance specs or a link for them somewhere?
-
Kev,
There is an awful lot more to air-to-air combat than simple top speed and the LF.XVI at +25lbs boost brings a lot to the table.
I think Krusty's concerns are honest and legitimate.
Look at it this way, you posted the top speed differences. Let's look at the sea level speeds where AH is mostly fought:
Tempest (perked): +28mph
La-7: +26mph
F4U-4 (perked): +24mph
Fw190D-9: +23mph
Typhoon: +20mph
Bf109G-10: +15mph
P-51D: +13mph
P-47N: +11mph
Ta152H-1 (perked): +9mph
Spitfire Mk XIV (perked): +4mph
F4U-1C (perked): +2mph
Coupled with the acceleration that the 5,700fpm sea level climb rate indicates those are not comfortable margins and in most cases not even useful ones. The Spit XVI at +25lbs would build E like mad down low.
I would not have a problem with two perked Spits, the Mk XIV at +21lbs perked higher and the Mk XVI at +25lbs perked as an introductory perk along the lines of the current Ta152H-1 and F4U-1C. I would rather have it with it's historical performance correctly modeled and perked than free, but underperforming.
-
Consider the fact that even with +18 it's faster and performs better than the spit9. The clipped wings increase roll rate (and thus the ability to change lift direction with a snap roll), and the clipped wings reduce wing drag, increasing the top speed.
I think the subtle advantages a spit16 (with clipped wing) has over a spit9 (without clipped wing) warrant the use of +18 on a later plane. It would STILL perform better in most areas than the spit9. I see no reason to make a plane that's vastly superior to the spit14 in all but top speed. And Pyro's said he likes the spit14 the way it is (he said it in one of these spit/109 threads), so there's no reason we would lose the spit14. So why have a +25 spit16? Makes no sense. And that climb rate would be suicide to fight against. We thought the spit14 and the f4u4 and the tempest could zoom NOW, imagine this thing, it would leave the me163 in the dust! LOL
-
Krusty, Kev
You 2 are over reacting
take a deeep breath, relax
:)
-
Well, we disagree to an extent Krusty. Teh Me163 has a climb of about 16,000ft/min.
The concern from Spit fans perspective is that the +25lbs boost is the correct historical performance. +18lbs was rare, or nonexistant in Mk XVIs.
I'd be perfectly comfortable with a lightly perked Mk XVI at +25lbs boost and a higher perked Mk XIV at +21lbs boost.
After flying the Mk XIV a couple of times on Tuesday I don't like it's current model at all. It is incredibly difficult to fly compared with any other fighter I can think of. It needs to be watched and fought constantly.
That said, I'll take whatever Pyro gives us quite happily. That list of seven made me very happy.
Spitfire Mk Ia
Spitfire Mk Vb
Spitfire F.Mk IX
Spitfire LF.Mk VIIIc
Seafire L.Mk III
Spitfire LF.Mk XVIe
Spitfire F.Mk XIV
That list is so great looking that I have to post it again. :p Whatever the boosts, that will be very nice in AH.
-
Ik3, I think I'm fairly calm.
Karnak, the 163 bit was a joke (the LOL indicated that). :P
Well, Karnak, what about hypothetically unperking the spit14 and skipping a spit16? The 14 would fill the role of a late war spit, and the perk price was just recently reduced (HTC is open to suggestions on the matter).
-
In regard to the Spit 16, this doc seems to suggest that there was a time that the Spit 16 ran on 100 octane in RAF 2nd TAF.
Its dated November 1944 (a month after the XVIE came into service, 5 months after the LF IXE came into service).
It would seem to suggest that up untill that time, only ADGB (UK based) Tempests, XIVs (in ADGB, not 2nd TAF), IXs (some) and probably P-51s (some) with the USAAF ran on 150 octane to chase V-1s.
Here it is:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/2taf150_112044.gif
I think one could conclude that many XVIs did eventually get the clearance, but certainly running on 100 octane was something they did in late 44, and I think its safe to say that a 100 oct XVI did exist. They certainly didnt run on 150 prior to getting clearance to do it.
For info.
-
OHHH the humanity spit XVI have 5 min of 25lbs boost. C'mon the people in ma who will fear this the most is the 10k pork auger crowd. The spit XVI would be awesome to defeat these pests. Spot em max dar grab a XVI and grab till ya get close. Then watch as soil their shorts. I say Bring on this plane. Or any new plane for that matter. Heck i'd love a Do 355 arrow for killing high alt buffs. Bet the high alt strat guys wouldn't bat an eye if they did introduce it.
Bronk
-
Yes, and the 1942 Spit V only runs at +16 for 5 min but look at all the whining about it.
Good point anyways Bronk. :aok
-
Originally posted by Squire
In regard to the Spit 16, this doc seems to suggest that there was a time that the Spit 16 ran on 100 octane in RAF 2nd TAF.
Its dated November 1944 (a month after the XVIE came into service, 5 months after the LF IXE came into service).
It would seem to suggest that up untill that time, only ADGB (UK based) Tempests, XIVs (in ADGB, not 2nd TAF), IXs (some) and probably P-51s (some) with the USAAF ran on 150 octane to chase V-1s.
Here it is:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/2taf150_112044.gif
I think one could conclude that many XVIs did eventually get the clearance, but certainly running on 100 octane was something they did in late 44, and I think its safe to say that a 100 oct XVI did exist. They certainly didnt run on 150 prior to getting clearance to do it.
For info.
Errr this might be a dumb question, but just wanna make sure.
What's the MAX boost of Spit XVI with 100 octane?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Consider the fact that even with +18 it's faster and performs better than the spit9. The clipped wings increase roll rate (and thus the ability to change lift direction with a snap roll), and the clipped wings reduce wing drag, increasing the top speed.
I think the subtle advantages a spit16 (with clipped wing) has over a spit9 (without clipped wing) warrant the use of +18 on a later plane. It would STILL perform better in most areas than the spit9. I see no reason to make a plane that's vastly superior to the spit14 in all but top speed. And Pyro's said he likes the spit14 the way it is (he said it in one of these spit/109 threads), so there's no reason we would lose the spit14. So why have a +25 spit16? Makes no sense. And that climb rate would be suicide to fight against. We thought the spit14 and the f4u4 and the tempest could zoom NOW, imagine this thing, it would leave the me163 in the dust! LOL
Lol.
Depends which IX you put it up against.
Pick a 1943 LF IX with clipped wing, performance is identical.
At higher alts 20K+ the 1942 Merlin 61 Spit IX would be better.
No direct comparison really.
We are not losing the XIV, its going up to more proper 21lbs boost.
Zoom - Yup but comparing it to those higher alt fighters is inacurrate. At the alt those ones zoom at, the 16 even with 25lbs boost is sadly lacking.
The LF 16 was purely a low alt bird, pref 20K and below. Even at 20k it cant manage 400mph straight and level with full 25lbs WEP.
In fact it can't break 400mph at any alt straight and level even with 25lbs WEP.
The closest it comes is 397 at 20k, plenty of much faster aircraft around that alt, and at 20k its climb is only 3720 fpm with WEP on.
Any direct comparison between a 14's climb rate and a 16's climb is misleading, they operated at completely different alts, where the 14 is just starting to get frisky, the 16 is really hurting.
1K3 - 18 I believe, could be wrong.
-
Well, the Mk XIV isn't really suited to it in my opinion. They could clip it's wings and unperk it I guess. Wouldn't make me happy though as we'd still lack an end war Spit. The IX/XVI went to +25lbs and the XIV to +21lbs and if you don't want a +25lbs XVI, I doubt you'd like a +21lbs XIV. As I said, for my part I am happy with the idea of two perked Spits or a Spit XVI at +18lbs. Either makes me very happy.
I'll accept whatever Pyro does, but I am really crossing my fingers to get both the VIII and XVI in adition to a reduced boost V and a fixed F.Mk IX.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Well, the Mk XIV isn't really suited to it in my opinion. They could clip it's wings and unperk it I guess. Wouldn't make me happy though as we'd still lack an end war Spit. The IX/XVI went to +25lbs and the XIV to +21lbs and if you don't want a +25lbs XVI, I doubt you'd like a +21lbs XIV. As I said, for my part I am happy with the idea of two perked Spits or a Spit XVI at +18lbs. Either makes me very happy.
I'll accept whatever Pyro does, but I am really crossing my fingers to get both the VIII and XVI in adition to a reduced boost V and a fixed F.Mk IX.
Almost guarentee they wouldn't like a 21lbs boost Spit XIV, but it's something Pyro mentioned.
-
I can hear "Spit XIV perks need to be back to tempst level." screams already.
Bronk
-
Yes, and no more hybrid Spits of any model. Model one at a time, and have them each with the right fuel load, engine, armament and performance specs based on the best data avialable. Thats what makes AH a great sim.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
I can hear "Spit XIV perks need to be back to tempst level." screams already.
Please, lets stop taking potshots at other players.
Lets play nice.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Well, the Mk XIV isn't really suited to it in my opinion. They could clip it's wings and unperk it I guess. Wouldn't make me happy though as we'd still lack an end war Spit. The IX/XVI went to +25lbs and the XIV to +21lbs and if you don't want a +25lbs XVI, I doubt you'd like a +21lbs XIV. As I said, for my part I am happy with the idea of two perked Spits or a Spit XVI at +18lbs. Either makes me very happy.
I'll accept whatever Pyro does, but I am really crossing my fingers to get both the VIII and XVI in adition to a reduced boost V and a fixed F.Mk IX.
Realistically we are still missing a late war Spit. Taking a 1943 LF IX throwing and 'e' wing without the performance gain, it basically still leaves you with a 1943 Spit LF IX, only with 50 cals.
If I throw 2005 wheels and rims on a 2004 car it doesn't make it a 2005 car!
-
Kev, you say the 16 clipped wouldn't be any better than the LF.9clipped... But we don't have an LF.9 clipped. We have a F.9 unclipped. So add to the clipped wings an engine rated at lower alts and you get a much better aircraft (even at the same boost levels) that performs better than its predecessor.
I'd like to try out a spit16 a few times. I think it has more of a purpose than a spit8 (which is 99% identical to a spit9, which we will already have)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I'd like to try out a spit16 a few times. I think it has more of a purpose than a spit8 (which is 99% identical to a spit9, which we will already have)
No it isn't. Merlin 61 in the F.IX vs Merlin 66 in the LF.VIII. That is a very significant change.
In the proposed lineup we need to fill the 1943-early 1944 period. You can't do that with a F.Mk IX and you can't do that with an LF.Mk IXe/XVIe. That is what the LF.Mk VIIIc is for.
-
Karnak,
Sorry i just get a little PO'ed with the "you MUST fly like I do" or "Perk every thing thats better than [insert plane of choise here]" people. I just want more planes not more PERK planes.
Once again sorry i just needed to vent a bit. My posts are not directed at any one person just the type of people.
Bronk
-
Depends on the alt Krusty.
The F and HF models are always faster than their LF counterparts. Even to the point of earlier F and HF being faster than later Mk LF's.
As the war went lower, it was decided to concentrate more on low (20k and below) performance, yes this required more powerful engines but leads to some wierd situations.
As described a 1942 Merlin 61 F IX has a higher top speed (400+) than a 1944 Merlin 66 LF XVI (even with 25lbs boost it cant hit 400 at ANY alt).
The big difference is that at the lower alt the LF's outperformed the H and HF models.
That was basically the difference between LF, F and HF models. The fastest Spits were all F or HF, the more powerful were all LF.
Typical Merlins
LF - 66 - 1580HP - 397 @ 20000 (this is with 25lbs boost) 1944
F - 61 - 1565 HP - 408 @ 25000 (assuming 16lbs boost, prob 18) 1942
HF - 70 - 1475 HP - 413 @ 26600 (ditto) 1942/3
All fitted to Mk 9's etc, fastest one out the lot was the HF verison, even with the lowest HP motor.
Hope it makes sense, depends what you mean by better I guess.
-
Karnak: Ahh, I forgot the spit8 was an LF, I thought it was just an F, that makes a bit more sense.
Kev, I know the difference, yes. That's why I'm saying that the spit16 with +18 boost and clipped wings won't at all be like the spit9 with +18 boost and unclipped wings. The flight envelope would be very different, thus allowing better performance from the later plane -- the spit16. Better peformance would be found in all alts below 20k, which, frankly, in AH nobody flies anywhere near that high unless they're in scenarios or the CT, in which case there are still spit F.9's to do the work at higher alts, and spit F.16s if more speed is needed.
To boil down what I'm saying, "You say there's no reason to put in a +18 spit16. We've supplied some reasons. So it could/would/should be put in with +18".
Back to Karnak: Pyro said he wasn't sure people would fly the spit8... Maybe this is because he's planning on the +18 spit16, as was mentioned... The spit16 at +18 would probably perform better than the spit8, and maybe he was thinking they were too close to each other?
-
There was a Merlin 70 Spit H.F. IXc and also the Spit F.VII but after Normandy these were used in regular mid-low alt fighter and fighter-bomber ops, and medium bomber escort.
The RAFs strategic bombers flew at night, and so there was no operational need for very many high alt tactical fighters as the war went on, unlike 8th AF that had a policy of daylight attacks escorted at high alt by fighters.
The LW also did not have that many high alt recon a/c or bombers operating in the west during daylight 43-45, so again, the need in the RAF for a high alt performer was just not that great, save a few for the odd 109 or 190 recon bird that came in above 30,000 ft.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Karnak: Ahh, I forgot the spit8 was an LF, I thought it was just an F, that makes a bit more sense.
Kev, I know the difference, yes. That's why I'm saying that the spit16 with +18 boost and clipped wings won't at all be like the spit9 with +18 boost and unclipped wings. The flight envelope would be very different, thus allowing better performance from the later plane -- the spit16. Better peformance would be found in all alts below 20k, which, frankly, in AH nobody flies anywhere near that high unless they're in scenarios or the CT, in which case there are still spit F.9's to do the work at higher alts, and spit F.16s if more speed is needed.
To boil down what I'm saying, "You say there's no reason to put in a +18 spit16. We've supplied some reasons. So it could/would/should be put in with +18".
Back to Karnak: Pyro said he wasn't sure people would fly the spit8... Maybe this is because he's planning on the +18 spit16, as was mentioned... The spit16 at +18 would probably perform better than the spit8, and maybe he was thinking they were too close to each other?
Sorry Krusty thought you didn't realize the LF H HF stuff, I should have known better.
Thats why I said 18lbs Spit XVI, bye bye Spit VIII. No reason for it anymore.
The whole idea was that the LF MK VIII could stand-in for the LF IX. With the XVI at 18lbs the VIII is redundant.
The 18lbs LF XVI and 18lbs LF VIII should perform 'almost' identically, same motor. Not counting the slightly bigger turn radius and better roll of a clipped Spit.
So kiss goodbye to our representative Spit lineup. Does shafted again spring to mind lol.
But Krusty the average MA furball is 20k down, alts perfect for a LF XVI, even with 25lbs boost its still easy meat in a furball. Boost only lasts 5 mins after which its just a Merlin 266 Spit XVI.
I think people believe Mk XVI's will be cruising around the MA for hours on end at 25lbs.
-
Still has the E wing with the .50s as well as 3 hardpoints.
Its also good to have an VIIIc with a standard wing if the XVI is clipped.
There are 3 1943-45 P-47s, I dont see it as a big deal to have 3 1943-45 Spits.
VIIIc (or LF IXc).
XVIe
XIVe
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Back to Karnak: Pyro said he wasn't sure people would fly the spit8... Maybe this is because he's planning on the +18 spit16, as was mentioned... The spit16 at +18 would probably perform better than the spit8, and maybe he was thinking they were too close to each other?
I see that too, but from a scenario perspective, especially if he wants to hold the possibility of going to +25lbs boost on the XVI open, we need coverage of mid-43-mid-44. In addition the VIII would be great for Pac and Med scenarios.
I would personally take the VIII over the XVI regardless of boost levels.
-
Yeah the VIII had a greater range for starters.
I think the LWeebles have effectively killed off any chance of 25lbs boost (present company excepted Krusty).
Look on the bright side we get another good replacement the Seafire L III, 358mph at 8000 feet is not to be sneezed at, it will probably give an VIII a run for its money down low.
Qucik guess
Mk I - 1940
MK Vb - 1941
Mk F IX - 1942
MK LF XVI - mmm you know my feeling on this
MK F XIV - 1944 (perked)
Seafire III - 1943
Kinda hosed up the reprsentative idea hasn't it?
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Sorry Krusty thought you didn't realize the LF H HF stuff, I should have known better.
Thats why I said 18lbs Spit XVI, bye bye Spit VIII. No reason for it anymore.
The whole idea was that the LF MK VIII could stand-in for the LF IX. With the XVI at 18lbs the VIII is redundant.
So kiss goodbye to our representative Spit lineup.
But Krusty the average MA furball is 20k down, alts perfect for a LF XVI, even with 25lbs boost its still easy meat in a furball. Boost only lasts 5 mins after which its just a Merlin 266 Spit XVI.
Gotta look at it from more then just performance Kev.
Scenario use, skins etc, I still think we should get the LFVIII. It's got better range then the XVI and is more refined. It was the ultimate Merlin Spit.
And no Krusty the XVI with +18 wouldn't perform better then the VIII with +18. Performance was the same if not better for the VIII.
The issue was production and it was faster to produce IXs and XVIs without different ailerons, retractable tail wheel, etc.
Since the performance gap wasn't that much it made sense to go with the quicker bird to get to the squadrons.
If we're going to crumble already then you'd better suggest a tall tail tropicalized, full span, E wing Spitfire LFIXe that can stand in for the VIII for the skinners, and be called an LFXVIe if you don't look too hard for the clipped wings.
But lets not do that yet :)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Just wait untill you announce an event with the XVI standing in for the LF IX or LF VIII.
Never ending b*** session about how its cheating bacuse the XVI has .50s and 3 bombs and clipped wings.
I aint kidding...
-
True Dan,
Unfortuneately the whiners usually get what they want, so no all conquering, uber duper 397mph Spit XVI.
Lol 397 mph and thats with 25lbs boost for 5 mins, sounds kinda sad don't ya think?
Doesn't even break the magical 400 mph barrier and they're up in arms about it.
Lets see how they like the 21lbs boost spit XIV, the whines will start as soon as it is officially announced, lol.
Nothing like a 2200HP Griffon to wake you up!
Should be thankful that the 25lbs boost Griffon 65 isn't being done - 2400HP+
-
LOL now now, nobody's crumbling yet lol. It's not even in our hands. Pyro's the one making the decisions.
Guppy, I had forgotten the spit8 was LF when I made that comment, so it isn't accurate.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
But lets not do that yet :)
Dan/CorkyJr
Yes, I'm not very happy with the sudden collapsing of lists into things that still leave big holes. I want the list Pyro is thinking of. The whole list. It looks nigh perfect to me.
-
Have to agree. It actually has the opposite of holes, it has overlaps.
I simply share Pyro's concern for any aircraft that would have a 5700fpm climb rate.
-
Still don't understand how you can happily go along with taking a 1943 LF IX and throwing and 'e' wing on it without any of the performance enhancements and call it 1944 LF XVI?
The climb rate is good, but only for a limited time (5 mins) hell you'd use that getting to alt to intercept incoming bogies. Its also not as though pressing WEP results in the instant 30mph ish speed increase.
Yyou still aint gonna catch most of them as they will already be at top speed and probably diving in.
-
I sure missed it somewhere, but where is the information showing this monster climb rate for the XVI with +25 boost?
Can't find that 5700 FPM climb anywhere in my Spit library.
That seems to be the boogie man right now.
Does anyone have the XVI pilots notes? I looked for em at the RAF museum when Iwas there but the best they had was the LFVIII with the Merlin 66
And as mentioned previously, even with +18 boost for 5 minutes, the LFVIII was still limited to +12 boost for climb with the Merlin 66. Only the Merlin 70s for the high alt birds were OK'd for +18 boost to climb in the VIII pilot's notes.
So can someone show me where the LFIXe/XVIe was approved to climb at +25 boost?
Seems like thats what all the fuss is about. If it's actually like the Merlin 66 in the VIII and the climb boost is less then combat boost, then the climb rate is a non issue right?
Dan/CorkyJr
-
"I want the list Pyro is thinking of."
No s***, is there some reason we should be saying we dont want or need an VIII if he's considering it?
You guys drinking before dinner again? :D
-
Guppy I believe it was in the original "I spoke to Pyro" thread. Near the beginning. I think Kev relayed that Pyro was concerned about the climb rate a spit16 with +25 would have, and then somebody posted a couple of links about spitfire data, including climb rates and such. It's in the first or second page of the 4-5 page thread.
-
Originally posted by Squire
You guys drinking before dinner again? :D
Erm... So what if I am? :D
-
Dan ever wished we should have thrown the Mk XII in and seen what happened.
At least that would worth a mild perk, a 25lb XVI isn't, it would be the slowest perk plane!!!! Even slower once your whole 5 mins of WEP ran out.
Drink - sheesh I knew I was lacking sometihng ;) .
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Guppy I believe it was in the original "I spoke to Pyro" thread. Near the beginning. I think Kev relayed that Pyro was concerned about the climb rate a spit16 with +25 would have, and then somebody posted a couple of links about spitfire data, including climb rates and such. It's in the first or second page of the 4-5 page thread.
Good grief. This is what we're arguing about and the numbers weren't even right?
Altitude feet. Rate of climb Ft/Min.
0 Feet 5740 FPM
5,000 Feet 5080 FPM
10,000 Feet 5080 FPM
15,000 Feet 4470 FPM
20,000 Feet 3720 FPM
25,000 Feet 2950 FPM
30,000 Feet 2200 FPM
Where'd 5700 FPM come from? That's a figure quoted for 0 feet. Note that climb rate continues to drop. At 15K there is no real difference between +25 and +18 and after 15K it doesn't change at all. The rate of climb continues to drop dramatically all the way up to 30K so its not like the +25 boost Spit was climbing 5700 feet per minute to 25K.
Much ado about nothing after all this.
If the issue is straight and level speeds then so be it, but climb rate is a non factor considering there is minimal difference in climb between the +18 boost Spit and +25 boost Spit. with the biggest difference being between 10 and 15K.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by Squire
"I want the list Pyro is thinking of."
No s***, is there some reason we should be saying we dont want or need an VIII if he's considering it.
And yet Kev persists in doing so. I feel like I am fighting a rear guard action against him because he is having a tantrum about the +25lbs boost on the XVI and so wants to throw it all away.
-
Well I didnt wait these last years to finally get the Spits redone to tell Pyro "not to bother". Forget that :mad:
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Good grief. This is what we're arguing about and the numbers weren't even right?
Altitude feet. Rate of climb Ft/Min.
0 Feet 5740 FPM
5,000 Feet 5080 FPM
10,000 Feet 5080 FPM
15,000 Feet 4470 FPM
20,000 Feet 3720 FPM
25,000 Feet 2950 FPM
30,000 Feet 2200 FPM
Where'd 5700 FPM come from? That's a figure quoted for 0 feet. Note that climb rate continues to drop. At 15K there is no real difference between +25 and +18 and after 15K it doesn't change at all. The rate of climb continues to drop dramatically all the way up to 30K so its not like the +25 boost Spit was climbing 5700 feet per minute to 25K.
Much ado about nothing after all this.
If the issue is straight and level speeds then so be it, but climb rate is a non factor considering there is minimal difference in climb between the +18 boost Spit and +25 boost Spit. with the biggest difference being between 10 and 15K.
Dan/CorkyJr
Been trying to explain this for the last two days, but people are fixated on a Spit with a 5700fpm climb rate!!!
Hell straight and level doesn't even come into it, it doesn't even break the magical 400mph at ANY alt - even with 25lbs boost.
-
I disagree.. The climb rate is still an issue. While it starts out as 5700fpm at sea level, it very slowly drops off. I know for a fact a LOT of aircraft can't even climb at 500fpm at 30k, let alone 2200fpm. Consider that at 15k it's climb rate is just as good as the current 109G10 and the current spit14 at sea level. It's still a significant boost in climb over other aircraft
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Been trying to explain this for the last two days, but people are fixated on a Spit with a 5700fpm climb rate!!!
Hell straight and level doesn't even come into it, it doesn't even break the magical 400mph at ANY alt - even with 25lbs boost.
Irony is we're talking about a full span wing Spit LFIX in testing too, not a late in the war clipped wing LFXVIe with bomb racks and extra internal fuel.
Spitfire-The History lists the fuel for the LFIX as 150 Octane, +25 boost and then goes on to list the rate of climb as 3950 FPM with 5.7 minutes to 20K. This would be what XVI would be as well.
All that being said, I still think the original list is a good one.
Spit I
Spit Vb
Spit FIX
Spit LFVIII
Spit LFXVIe clipped
Spit FXIV
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I disagree.. The climb rate is still an issue. While it starts out as 5700fpm at sea level, it very slowly drops off. I know for a fact a LOT of aircraft can't even climb at 500fpm at 30k, let alone 2200fpm. Consider that at 15k it's climb rate is just as good as the current 109G10 and the current spit14 at sea level. It's still a significant boost in climb over other aircraft
But again you are comparing two completely animals.
When the Spit 14 and G10 are just getting going the poor XVI is really struggling.
Its like comparing the speed of a Lala on the deck to a P47 at 31k, there is no comparison they operate in two completely different environments.
-
Pyro would probably find this interesting, too. Perhaps a PM from you, Guppy? It might smooth out any problems he has with climb rate.
-
Yeah Dan,
I thought the climb rates looked too good to be true, I mean thats almost ballistic.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Spitfire-The History lists the fuel for the LFIX as 150 Octane, +25 boost and then goes on to list the rate of climb as 3950 FPM with 5.7 minutes to 20K. This would be what XVI would be as well.
huh...
is that the initial climb rate?
the one on spitfireperformance.com must be a typo
-
Just found out something else interesting -
Intially the LF XVI were fitted with the 2x20mm 4x303 option.
At the same time the 'e' wing was introduced the bubbletop canopy was fitted, and the larger tail fitted.
Comments?
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Just found out something else interesting -
Intially the LF XVI were fitted with the 2x20mm 4x303 option.
At the same time the 'e' wing was introduced the bubbletop canopy was fitted, and the larger tail fitted.
Comments?
Never heard of that. I'll look at my books when I get home.
-
E-wing allowed either 4x303 or 2x50cal. Just depends on what they had their hands on at the time.
I say leave the bubble off -- lol it's personal opinion, but if it's got bubble it's not a true spit!! :)
-
Krusty -
A quick look as some pics on the web seems to bear this out.
Every highback has the 2 cannons + 4 ports.
Every bubbletop has the 2 cannons + 2 stubs.
Unfortuneately the 'e' wing designation denotes 2x20 + 2x50 +1000lb bomb load.
There was no provision for 4x303 by 1944
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alemarinel/Spitfire/typeE.jpg)
notice no access panel where the 303 would be.
Compare to 'c' wing (I know Dan)
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alemarinel/Spitfire/typeCgun.jpg)
Access panels clearly visible.
[edit] Yup haven't found a single pic that can definately be identified as a 16 that contradicts this.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
E-wing allowed either 4x303 or 2x50cal. Just depends on what they had their hands on at the time.
I say leave the bubble off -- lol it's personal opinion, but if it's got bubble it's not a true spit!! :)
E Wing DID NOT have 4 303 option
E Wing was standardized with 2 20mm, 2 .5 cal MGs and the wing hard points outside of the cannon bays.
IF you see LFIXe or LFXVIe it means it has 2 20mm and 2 .5 mgs. the E designation was specifically for that armament type
Go here, where we hashed it out and then some :)
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=20000
The bubble canopy had nothing to do with the introduction of the E wing. E Wing was in use almost a year before the first bubble top Spits arrived.
Be sure and look at the images in that thread I posted. It explains it well. Also the comments from the guys who work on Spits.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Yes Dan, but -
What is said is at the same time they converted the 16 to the 'e' wing, the bubbletop was fitted. Not that the 'e' wing became available in 1944.
Can you confirm they started off as 2x20 + 4x303?
I have yet to find a pic contradicting this. Including the famous silver/red one.
Wish I'd never gone looking for Spit 16 climb rates ^^&^&%^%$@
-
Clarifying.
First image is an LFIXe. NOTE! bomb racks under wings, clipped wing, shorter cannon shroud of the E wing.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/810_1119072892_pt961.jpg)
Next one is also an LFIXe with full span wings. Note that both images are high back Spit IXs.
Again, E wing is purely an armament designation specific to 2 20mm and 2 .5 mgs
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1090652232_bombfireix.jpg)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
You guys have to understand that the E wing was the standardized fighter-bomber wing with 3 hardpoints and the .50 cal + 20mm loadout.
All the XVIs were "Universal" or "E" wing armed.
"C" wings had one hardpoint only...it was never used on the XVI.
The 1st XVIs had regular canopies. Later ones had the bubble. Many (most?) had clipped wings.
Not surprising since the 1st XVI entered service in October 1944, by which time the E wing was standard on Spit IXs and XIVs. The RAF wasnt bothering with C wings anymore by then.
The XVI was a standardized version of the LF IXe with a Packard Merlin. 3 hardpoints, 20mm and .50 cal., broad rudder.
-
Only one problem Dan, they are IXe's NOT XVIe's.
I am not disputing the use of use of 'e' wings, what I am saying is that orignally the XVI had the earlier 4x303 + 2x20mm option.
Then when the were fitted with 'e' wings a bubbletop was fitted at the same time.
So far every pic I have found on the web that can clearly be indentified as a XVIe seems to confirm this.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Just found out something else interesting -
Intially the LF XVI were fitted with the 2x20mm 4x303 option.
At the same time the 'e' wing was introduced the bubbletop canopy was fitted, and the larger tail fitted.
Comments?
See the photos I posted of Spit LFIXe's. Bubble top had nothing to do with the larger rudder or the E wing.
Whoever wrote that was wrong :)
Record cards for the first XVI lists it as an XVIe.
I'm talking production XVIe's btw not the Spits used to test the Merlin 266.
Bubble canopy didn't show up until March/April 45, E wing right after D-Day from everything I can find.
Logbook I have of a 91 Squadron Spit XIV pilot shows that his E wing Spit XIV was July 14, 1944 and he was the Flight Commander. He designates clearly that it was an XIVe. It was a high back too. Lots of photos of high back E wing XIVs as well as XVIs and IXs.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
This and some of the other Spitfire remodel threads has been educational for me. I haven't had the time to read/research on aircraft variants and performance for a long time now, and never really paid attention to Spitfires. From what is written here, I would have no qualms with Pyro's list, nor a XVI with 25lbs. boost. As the MA stands right now, it doesn't seem like that particular XVI would cause mass migrations. There are enough people that fly particular aircraft just because they want to rather than because it's an MA-beater.
mauser
-
Coud you post a pic and put my mind at ease please ;) . I can't find ONE on the web.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
E-wing allowed either 4x303 or 2x50cal. Just depends on what they had their hands on at the time.
No, "e" wing was just the two 20mm and two .50s. The Universal wing was the eight .303s or two 20mm and four .303s or four 20mm/
I say leave the bubble off -- lol it's personal opinion, but if it's got bubble it's not a true spit!! :)
Ginger Lacey agreed with you. When low backed Mk XIVs were delivered to his squadron in Burma he refused them saying, if I recall correctly, "That's not a Spitfire." So they gave them to a squadron that was flying war weary Hurri IICs and got some high back Mk XIVs for Lacey.
I also agree with you.
-
Panic over found one, even starred in the movie BoB
(http://www.warbirdregistry.org/spitregistry/images/spit-te184.jpg)
Just wanted to make sure everything was spot on.
Interesting site
http://www.warbirdregistry.org/spitregistry/spitregistry.html#mk16
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Only one problem Dan, they are IXe's NOT XVIe's.
I am not disputing the use of use of 'e' wings, what I am saying is that orignally the XVI had the earlier 4x303 + 2x20mm option.
Then when the were fitted with 'e' wings a bubbletop was fitted at the same time.
So far every pic I have found on the web that can clearly be indentified as a XVIe seems to confirm this.
OK two photos of XVIs from the same Canadian squadron both taken in April 45. Both have E wings. Note that the bubble top was the first to reach the squadron and it was April 45.
Part of the strengthening of the wing and adding the hard points was not having the guns outboard of the cannon bays. The LFIXe and XVIe were built side by side at the same factory and ended up doing the same job. Tons of photos of XVIes and IXes with the wing hardpoints and bombs or rockets out there.
Again this image shows two XVIs flying at the same time in the same RCAF squadron. That was common at that point to have both bubble top and high backs. 41 Squadron Spit XIVs were the same as I've seen photos of bubble tops and high backs operating together.
Dan/CorkyJr
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1123199851_spitxvis.jpg)
-
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Fea1/501-600/Fea563_Spitfire_Main/08.jpg
Model of an RCAF XVI.
-
Thank, as I said wanted to make sure everything was 100% accurate, come to far to let something slip by.
Squire - Models are notoriously inacurrate, how many Spit IXc can you buy, yet really there never really was a Spit IXc, IXb would be more accurate. 'c' wing was orignally 4x20mm.
But thanks for taking the time to help and participate, especially the Seafire L III info, that could be quite a handfull in the MA dont you reckon.
Ah, I can dream
(http://www.warbirdregistry.org/spitregistry/images/spit-la198.jpg)
-
Kev, for what it's worth, the change from high back to bubble top XVI took place somewhere in the TB serialed Spits. A surviving Spit, TB863 is a high back XVIe and the one pictured is TB886 so somewhere within that stretch it changed.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Excellent, ya like the Spit F.21, now that would be a monster in the MA ^^^^^^^^^
For all those who didn't reckon the Spit XVI would be worthwhile or needed heres a little snippet of information -
Its was the RAF's LAST mainstay Spit frontline fighter, kinda makes it important dont you think.
Dan can maybe narrow it down further TB863 is still a highback.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Excellent, ya like the Spit F.21, now that would be a monster in the MA ^^^^^^^^^
For all those who didn't reckon the Spit XVI would be worthwhile or needed heres a little snippet of information -
Its was the RAF's LAST mainstay Spit frontline fighter, kinda makes it miportant dont you think.
Had chance to correspond with some 91 Squadron Spit 21 pilots during the course of my XII research as they gone from XIIs to XIVs to IXs to 21. They flew em operationally.
A pretty bird, and of course with the 4 20mms it would be a beast :)
Image of a 91 Squadron 21 that I got from a former pilot
Dan/CorkyJr
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1115751753_spit21.jpg)
-
I suppose if you allow the fact that F.21's strafed a midget submarine that counts as combat.
So they did see aciton of sort, although I believe only 120 out of the 3000 ordered were actually delivered.
Still an evil looking beast :)
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Panic over found one, even starred in the movie BoB
(http://www.warbirdregistry.org/spitregistry/images/spit-te184.jpg)
Just wanted to make sure everything was spot on.
Interesting site
http://www.warbirdregistry.org/spitregistry/spitregistry.html#mk16
LOL hate to break it to ya, but the guy who restored that bird TE184 actually took it from it's original low back and changed it back into a high profile again. No idea why other then he liked the look :)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
NOOOOOOOOOO. lol
Get ye behind me satan, and get ye back to doing profiles :) .
Tell ya what is funny, I know exactly why you would like VIII.
You'll be wanting UP-S redone I guess?
Quick few questions-
How much did the retractible tailwheel add to max speed on VIII?
Did the bubbletop affect speed in anyway?
-
Originally posted by Squire
You guys have to understand that the E wing was the standardized fighter-bomber wing with 3 hardpoints and the .50 cal + 20mm loadout.
All the XVIs were "Universal" or "E" wing armed.
"C" wings had one hardpoint only...it was never used on the XVI.
The 1st XVIs had regular canopies. Later ones had the bubble. Many (most?) had clipped wings.
Not surprising since the 1st XVI entered service in October 1944, by which time the E wing was standard on Spit IXs and XIVs. The RAF wasnt bothering with C wings anymore by then.
The XVI was a standardized version of the LF IXe with a Packard Merlin. 3 hardpoints, 20mm and .50 cal., broad rudder.
Just to mess things up a bit :) Spitfire Society founder David Green in his 73 Squadron Spitfire LFIX with universal "C"wings and bombs hanging underneath :)
Those guys in the MTO tended to mess with their birds a bit more. Note that his IX is clipped wing while the guy behind him has full span and two bombs.
No it wasn't standard to have wing bombs on a Universal "C" winged Spit IX :)
Dan/CorkyJr
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1123201690_greenix.jpg)
-
I don't know about speed, but it did reduce stability. It was like the vertical stabilizer was reduced.
-
Same thing as the P47 and P51... The early razorback models are a bit more stable. The bubble models lack a little something (usually it's made up for with a larger stabilizer, but that doesn't always help in every situation)
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
NOOOOOOOOOO. lol
Get ye behind me satan, and get ye back to doing profiles :) .
Tell ya what is funny, I know exactly why you would like VIII.
You'll be wanting UP-S redone I guess?
Quick few questions-
How much did the retractible tailwheel add to max speed on VIII?
Did the bubbletop affect speed in anyway?
Nothing I've seen says the bubble top helped or hurt speed. Not sure on the benefit of the retractable tail wheel on the VIII. BUT!
To give you an idea of the differences. Quoting Alfred Price's book "The Spitfire Story".
"In 1943 engineers at Farnborough carried out a series of trials on Spitfire Vb EN946. The aircraft underwent a series of minor modifications to improve performance and after each the increase in maximum speed at full throttle height was carefully measured. Initially the maximum speed was 357 mph. The fitting of multiple ejector exhausts in place of the previous "fishtail" type gave an increase of 7mph. The removal of the carburator ice guard gave 8mph. The fitting of a different rear view mirror with a fairing gave 3mph. The installation of a whip aerial in place of the early mast type gave 1/2 mph. Cutting the cartridge case and the link ejector chutes flush with the wings gave 1mph. Painting and polishing the leading edge of the wing gave 6 mph. Polishing the remainder of the aircraft with wax gave 3 mph. Together the small changes increased the speed of the Spitfire Vb from 357 to 385 mph."
Every little bit helps :)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
I have plenty of pics in my book of XVIEs with standard canopies, but I never did figure out how to post pics on the forum, so I often use links...
Actually models are usually very accurate, imho. but thats neither here nor there. They can be usefull for a quick pic.
The IXC designation is used in many, many books, as is the IXB designation. Both are considered proper ways of describing the type by historians. Model companies just use what are already historical ways of describing the a/c.
Actually, I just went through a source and it says the Ministry of AC Production introduced the F IXC, LF IXC, and HF IXC designations as "official", to put an end to the confusion. The IXA and IXB were designations the pilots came up with, but I guess either is ok.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Same thing as the P47 and P51... The early razorback models are a bit more stable. The bubble models lack a little something (usually it's made up for with a larger stabilizer, but that doesn't always help in every situation)
Usually a larger fin and/or rudder was used to get some stability back.
-
Ya no prob Kev, we all get a bit tired going at this, but its been a decent debate and conversation. :aok
Guppy, there was an E wing conversion kit I have heard about that LF IXc squadrons got later in the war...I wonder if thats a result of those your showing. Odd. Do you have a date for that photo? Im assuming its Italy.
-
Originally posted by Squire
Ya no prob Kev, we all get a bit tired going at this, but its been a decent debate and conversation. :aok
Guppy, there was an E wing conversion kit I have heard about that LF IXc squadrons got later in the war...I wonder if thats a result of those your showing. Odd. Do you have a date for that photo? Im assuming its Italy.
It's late war in Italy. Guessing it was a field mod kinda like they did with the first "Bombfire" Spitfire Vcs back in the Malta days. It looks similar.
Image is from the Air Ministry Spit IX manual. There was no official designation for the C wing on the IX.
If you check that thread I posted from Flypast, we really hashed it out. It was an easy mistake for the historians to make, but only the Spitfire V carried the A, B and C designations for the wing. Otherwise it was the Universal wing for the IX until the E.
Technically there was never an XVIe either as there was only one wing type on the XVI so they didn't have seperate designations.
Dan/CorkyJr
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1105490724_email0214.jpg)
Edited to add a page from the Spit XII maint. manual. Note how it doesn't refer to the Spitfire FXIIc but just the FXII. It does however refer to the Universal type main plain "as fitted to the Spitfire Vc".
So it's easy to see where the mistake got made in calling them IXc's or VIIIc's
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1123209645_spitxiimanual.jpg)
-
Its pretty confusing to many, I only know the types because of so much exposure to reading up on them over many years.
"Spitfire Varients" could be a college course :lol
-
When the Spitfire Mk IX was fitted with the Merlin 66, it was called Mk IXB for a while. I believe it was an unofficial designation used by the pilots & mechanics?
-
Yes, the pilots did the same with the VIII. Called it VIIIb.
Was because of the screw up with wing designations.
Originally
'a' wing - 8x.303
'b' wing - 2x20mm + 4x.303
'c' wing - 4x20mm
'e' wing - 2x20mm + 2x50 cal
Now when the 'b' wing was modified to allow ord and mixes of guns people started calling it the universal 'c' wing, hence the mixup.
More correctly would have the 'improved b wing'.
This is why I said earlier strictly speaking there never was a IXc.
99% of the time a 'c' wing Spit will actually be an improved 'b' wing wing.
99%?
Well there were some Spits with 4x20mm that can be correctly called a 'c' wing Spit.
-
Was thinking about the whole 25lbs / climb thing.
Wouldn't this actually create better fights?
Think about it.
Usually a large hoard arrives at a field with the defenders still climbing up to them. So it turns into a beat the defenders lower till they are on the deck getting buzzed by loads of cons.
With the XVI, they'd have the possibilty of using all the WEP to get to decent alt to intercept them on a more equal basis.
Oops, just said equal, don't want equal do we ;)
Remember - once WEP has gone it is just a standard Merlin 66 - there will be no XVI cruising round the MA for hours on end at 25lbs boost.
OK so it may mean the XVI becomes the Spit of choice for initial base defence until others can get there.
Would still like to find more climb charts for thr XVI to either confirm or debunk the only one we have at the moment. That rate of climb puts it on par with a Spit F.21.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Yes, the pilots did the same with the VIII. Called it VIIIb.
Was because of the screw up with wing designations.
Originally
'a' wing - 8x.303
'b' wing - 2x20mm + 4x.303
'c' wing - 4x20mm
'e' wing - 2x20mm + 2x50 cal
Now when the 'b' wing was modified to allow ord and mixes of guns people started calling it the universal 'c' wing, hence the mixup.
More correctly would have the 'improved b wing'.
This is why I said earlier strictly speaking there never was a IXc.
99% of the time a 'c' wing Spit will actually be an improved 'b' wing wing.
99%?
Well there were some Spits with 4x20mm that can be correctly called a 'c' wing Spit.
Pilots referred to the Spitfire LFIX as the Spitfire IXB. It had nothing to do with the wing armament in that case. It was an unofficial designation.
The C wing on the Spitfire V was a complete redesign to allow for the three different set ups of 8 303s, 2 20mm and 4 303s or 4 20mms. That made it "Universal"
The A wing on a Spitfire V could only hold 8 303s. The B wing on the Spitfire V could only hold 2 20mm and 4 303s.
When the VII, VIII and IX got moving they already had the Universal wing of the Spitfire Vc. They were not going to go backwards and have the two previous wing designs produced anymore as the Universal wing could handle all three set ups.
This in turn lead to there being no designation for the Universal wing on any other Spits beyond the Spitfire V.
Only later when the E wing was developed that was only 2 20mm and 2 .5MGs did they add the E designation to the IX and XIV.
The XVI did not have the E designation added as the XVI was only produced with the E wing set up.
Confusing isn't it :)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Kev,
That would be better in that very narrow and specific circumstance.
However, imagine the cons are arriving in Mk XVIs with WEP unburned. Not even any more is it.
The concern, if the climb is 5700ft/min, is that we'd have a fighter with better acceleration than anything other than an Me163, roll rate of a Ki-84, speed of an F4U-1, the turn capability of a Spitfire only slightly less and good firepower. That is a very potent package. From your posts it seems to me that you focus on top speed too much. In a dogfight acceleration is, in my experience, much more important. Who cares if that P-51D's top speed is 13mph faster than your Spit XVI's when it takes him a 45 seconds to go from 200mph to 300mph and it takes you 25 seconds to do the same. He'll never live to reach 367mph. You'll either force him to manuever, thus preventing him from getting there, or kill him.
Now, if the real climb is less, and I'd not be surprised if it were, then the issue may not be present at all.
-
Understood Karnak -
But it's almost like saying we shouldn't have - aircraft because it may stand a good chance of killing the late war speed demons.
As someone showed even with WEP its still only the 12th fastest aircraft compared to the rest.
I know I concentrate on speed, but you should know in the MA speed is everything.
Knock it down to 18lbs boost and it falls further behind (-24mph) the speed demons.
I think all most of us wanted was a Spit that 'may' stand a chance of catching these guys without going to more Griffon engined (certainly perked) aircraft.
Just seems we are destined never to get a free Spit at full performance because they are too good.
Lol, the Brits produced an aircraft thats too good to compete with the late war speed demons, compliment I guess.
Yeah I think it's lower, might be worth comparing a different clipped Spit to non-clipped Spit and extrapolating what it may be.
[edit] Went thru the clipped wing spit thread, no graphs on climb vs standard wing :( .
Did find something on web that said intial rate of climb for a XVI was 4100fpm, but no mention on 18/25 clipped/unclipped.
AH HA - Clipping results in loss of climb of approx 160-200fpm at all alts, would assume the 160 is at low alts, 200 higher alts.
-
RE: Clipping.
As previous post loss in climb 0f 160-200 fpm
Doesnt mention specific alts (tested up to 20k) but assuming it's reasonably linear -
0ft - -160
5000ft - -170
10000ft - -180
15000ft - -190
20000ft - -200
Would have to extrapolate for alts >20000 (-10fpm per 5000ft?)
You should definately read that report again, seems full of typos -
Mentions 160 grade fuel?
An average increase of 1100fpm, yet the MAX gain is only 800fpm.
Didn't the XVI carry slightly more fuel than the IX, and wasn't it heavier?
I think we need another source!
Even sent an email to Rolls Royce history dept:)
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Understood Karnak -
But it's almost like saying we shouldn't have - aircraft because it may stand a good chance of killing the late war speed demons.
As someone showed even with WEP its still only the 12th fastest aircraft compared to the rest.
I know I concentrate on speed, but you should know in the MA speed is everything.
Knock it down to 18lbs boost and it falls further behind (-24mph) the speed demons.
I think all most of us wanted was a Spit that 'may' stand a chance of catching these guys without going to more Griffon engined (certainly perked) aircraft.
The thing is that in my experience speed isn't everything. You want adequate speed, but once that is obtained acceleration, manueverabilty and E retention are a bigger factor. If the climb is 5700ft/min only the La-7 might have a realistic shot of escape after a tangle that the La-7 pilot determines he can't win. The Spit will simply out sprint all others, and probably the La-7 as well.
I don't think it would have a chance against the speed demons, I think it would dominate them. And then, when 20% of the kills each tour are Spit XVI it would be perked.
And think what it would do to something like a P-38, C.205, Bf110G-2, Mosquito Mk VI, Ki-61-I-Tei, Bf109G-6, P-47D, ect, ect. Those would all be absolutely helpless before it. You have to think about it's total impact, not just the impact on a few select aircraft. That is Pyro's concern.
-
Hehe, the XVI is THE knifefighter, but would be endangered by much faster planes, or other Spits.
Would be a headache for the llw down guys, and that time to alt is really impressive.
Well, that's the Spitty. RL Spit is too good for AH :D
-
In regards to the XVIs climb rate, im not so sure whats shocking, its a Mk IX with the hp of a heavier XIV ( @ 2000) when its boosting +25. Its going to be a freaking rocketship...
Even a LF IX on 100 octane is impressive at +18 lbs.
Albeit thats only on WEP for a limited time.
-
Thats it Squire limited to 5 mins, does everyone expect XVI flying the MA at 25k+ (lol, you know it will happen) for hours on end at 25lbs?
5 freakin minutes.
Anyway as I said in other thread trying to find more data to either confirm or debunk the ONLY source we have at the moment.
I have an unconfirmed source that puts initial climb at 4100 NOT 5700fpm.
Apart from that if the figures are to belived that 5700fpm is only up to 5000ft.
Very little diff at 10k between 18/25 boost
15k and up theres no diff between 18/25 boost.
for 18 boost if the source is accurate
0 - 4960fpm
5000 - 4970fpm
10000 - 4280fpm
15000 - 4280fpm
20000 - 3730fpm
25000 - 2950fpm
30000 - 2200fpm
Karnak - I wish we had acceleration figures just to see if what is being assumed is true.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
They started using the 150 octane and 25+ boost in May 44 so there was an entire year where IXs and XVIs were operating at the higher boost before the war ended. Clearly 2 TAF birds got the fuel too so the ground attack Spits were using it.
Dan/CorkyJr
According the Neil Stirling, only 2, then 3 MkIXs Squadrons were operating at +25lbs boost in 1944.
The other 34 MkIX Sqns operated at the normal +18lbs boost with 100 octane fuel.
The 2nd TAF did not get 150 grade fuel until 1945, and until then, operated at max. 18 lbs.
-
Posting it here, too, about the +25 lbs ROC...
The 5700 fpm data at +25lbs is believable, if you know how it was arrived.
The 5700 fpm was measured in Spit IX test and noted for the VIII when the coolant radiator flaps were overridden and force-closed. With the standard way of measuring climb rate in other spitfire tests, with the radiators open, they measured 5080 fpm, a believable figure compared to the 4650 fpm measured under similiar conditions but at +18 lbs boost at SL.
Force-closing the rads during the test of course reduced drag and increased performance, but was highly theoretical, given that the radiator flaps were automatically operated and the pilot could not set them manuall on the MkIX/XVI - they would open very soon after the temperature started to rise to compensate (they were thermostatically controlled). Hence why the RAF always measured ROC with open radiators, with the exception of these tests.
See here : http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165.html
Bottom line, the +25 lbs Spit9/16 was good for around 5100 fps under normal, comparable conditions to other planes. Of course, other could as well increase climb rate by manipulating radiators, and reducing drag, with similiar limiations.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Posting it here, too, about the +25 lbs ROC...
The 5700 fpm data at +25lbs is believable, if you know how it was arrived.
The 5700 fpm was measured in Spit IX test and noted for the VIII when the coolant radiator flaps were overridden and force-closed. With the standard way of measuring climb rate in other spitfire tests, with the radiators open, they measured 5080 fpm, a believable figure compared to the 4650 fpm measured under similiar conditions but at +18 lbs boost at SL.
Force-closing the rads during the test of course reduced drag and increased performance, but was highly theoretical, given that the radiator flaps were automatically operated and the pilot could not set them manuall on the MkIX/XVI - they would open very soon after the temperature started to rise to compensate (they were thermostatically controlled). Hence why the RAF always measured ROC with open radiators, with the exception of these tests.
See here : http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165.html
Bottom line, the +25 lbs Spit9/16 was good for around 5100 fps under normal, comparable conditions to other planes. Of course, other could as well increase climb rate by manipulating radiators, and reducing drag, with similiar limiations.
Insteresting. Now that you mention it, I vaguely remember reading something about forced closed radiators during some tests else where.
I have been trying to think of how adding 400hp added 1200ft/min of climb.
-
The 5700 fpm was measured in Spit IX test and noted for the VIII when the coolant radiator flaps were overridden and force-closed. With the standard way of measuring climb rate in other spitfire tests, with the radiators open,
What Isegrim isn't saying, of course, is that the other tests he's talking about had radiators forced open.
Other aircraft, like the 109, had radiators set at certain positions for certain tests. For example, most German speed tests were done with radiators almost closed, something that could only be done for short periods. In AH, though, which doesn't model complex engines/cooling settings, the 109 can maintain such speeds for 10 minutes, in other words the AH 109 can maintain closed radiators/maximum boost for 10 minutes, something the real life 109 couldn't do.
The Spitfire had automatic radiators, that would open when the coolant temperature reached 115 c. Below that temperature they would close (closed on the Spitfire actually means half open, as the radiators cannot fully close)
So, what Isegrim is arguing for is climb figures for the Spitfire with radiators fully open. 109 figures are given with radiators half open, 109 speed figures with radiators almost fully closed.
AH doesn't model the extra drag from opening radiators, why should it do so for the Spitfire?
From cooling trials of the Spitfire LF IX, running at 25 lbs boost, after climbing at maximum power from 2,000 ft, overheating occured at 25,000 ft, under temperate summer conditions. That takes 6 minutes 17 secs, AH would of course have cut the power long before this, before the overheating would have occured. In fact, AH would have cut the power for a 25 lbs Spitfire LF IX at about 21,000 ft.
In normal service, the Spitfire would begin a climb with radiators closed, they would only open some time into the climb, this is modelled in AH by the system of automatically shutting off WEP after a pre determined time.
That's how it works for all aircraft in AH, having an extra penalty of forcing the radiators open on the Spitfire would be unfair unless the same rules are applied to other aircraft.
I have been trying to think of how adding 400hp added 1200ft/min of climb.
It's actually about 1,000 ft/min.
An extra 1,000 ft/min for the Spitfire LF IX would be about 20 - 25% better climb rate, 25 lbs boost added 25% more power. Weight was the same.
-
JL165 had been around for some time before the test took place. From 27-3-43, with the testing starting in Oct 43.
Karnac, you should look at this link, http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bs543.html which gives data for rad flaps open (as noted on the chart). 4640 to 4700 ft/m (SL to 7000ft) See this link to show what the RoC was over 18lb, http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl 165rr.html Averging 800ft/min to 10,000ft. (the 110 number and the 190 number are wrong if you look at the rate in the other link)
This gives a 5400 to 5500ft/m RoC, rad flap open.
-
That's still awfully high
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Insteresting. Now that you mention it, I vaguely remember reading something about forced closed radiators during some tests else where.
I have been trying to think of how adding 400hp added 1200ft/min of climb.
Karnak,
you can read the Detail of the tests in the JL 165`s reference to other tests, it`s a table. With some cross refernce, you can see the +25 MkVIII was also tested with force-closed radiators. I guess they wanted constant data without the thermostat interfering.
The drag effect is quite noticable from the radiator position, even during climb. For example, there are the German figures for the 109G which show 4133 fpm climb rate... if it goes by the German standards, the radiators were half open below FTH.
but I also found a Finnish test for the same model and power, than shows 4900fpm, though strangely only at low level, otherwise very similiar to the other dataset, and I was quite :confused: .
But a finnish collegue cleared it up for me, that the Finns were climbing at a bit higher speed and not the optimal one... but with more speed they got more cooling, and the thermostat opened the radiator only at higher altitude, hence the higher values at low altitude because the reduced drag.
Other docs I have show that an opened radiator could cause as much as -50 kph slowdown... more than carrying a bomb!
Nashwan is of course mad as usual that the little secret about the test is exposed, and of course he`d want to the highest dataset available. He would want the Spitfire in minimum drag position without the real life inaduquate cooling, all the others in their normal drag position. Always the double standards.
Why not I`d say, but then lets either have :
a, All aircraft`s ROC referring to minimal drag position of the radiator, not just the Spit
b, All aircraft`s ROC referring to normal drag position of the radiators, not all except the Spit.
There are some points needed to be corrected, he claims :
Other aircraft, like the 109, had radiators set at certain positions for certain tests.
No, the Bf 109 had manual or automatic radiator flap control. The pilot could set any setting or leave it automatic. He used minimum drag setting to attain high speeds, of course.
A Spitfire had only autotmatic control, thus the pilot had no say when the radiators opened due to overheating and added more drag. This changed on the MkIX and later, previous Marks had only manual.
Another difference between the Spit and 109 is that the Spit`s radiators have only two positions (open and closed), while the 109`s has infinitive number of gradual positions between totally closed and half-meter wide open.
For example, most German speed tests were done with radiators almost closed, something that could only be done for short periods.
I`d like to see evidence that 'almost closed' radiators could only be used for short periods of the 109 - which is your Nashwan`s own tale of course. But, he is a notorious liar we all know.
In AH, though, which doesn't model complex engines/cooling settings, the 109 can maintain such speeds for 10 minutes, in other words the AH 109 can maintain closed radiators/maximum boost for 10 minutes, something the real life 109 couldn't do.
Your source about the 109 cannot maintain maximum boost for 10 minitues? That`s laughable nonsense.
For example, the DB 605A engine of the Bf 109 notes in it`s engine manual that the engine is allowed to handle 115 degrees for exactly 10 minutes. Which shows AH`s modelling is correct.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
JL165 had been around for some time before the test took place. From 27-3-43, with the testing starting in Oct 43.
Karnac, you should look at this link, http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bs543.html which gives data for rad flaps open (as noted on the chart). 4640 to 4700 ft/m (SL to 7000ft) See this link to show what the RoC was over 18lb, http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl 165rr.html Averging 800ft/min to 10,000ft. (the 110 number and the 190 number are wrong if you look at the rate in the other link)
This gives a 5400 to 5500ft/m RoC, rad flap open.
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Krusty That's still awfully high
Of course it is. The data he qoutes is a lightly loaded aircraft from a factory test, perhaps without ammo..
If you look at the climb papers, http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165rrclimb.jpg
You will see the weight is for 7234 lbs for the plane.
Normal takeoff weight for the MkIx was 7445 lbs, and this what the same plane was tested at later on :
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165climb.gif
See the loading of the MkIX
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ab197.html
Considering the first test Milo is showing is no less than 200 lbs lighter, one would except much higher ROC figures - weight is a major factor in climb.
You should not except much of an honesty from either Nashwan or Milo Morai. They wouldn`t tell you such details, of course, but manipulate the truth.
-
Lol talk about manipulaitng -
This ring a bell?
"The introduction of the use of 150 grade fuel in the summer (1944) for the Merlin 66 "
Note - I added the (1944) to clarify, not in the original text.
Should do , its off your OWN site.
Actually Kurfurst if you read the whole thread we are trying to find a way of showing the XVI at 25lbs had a LOWER climb rate than shown, because we would like it at 25lbs not 18lbs boost.
Looking at other data eg for the Mk VIII and factoring in loss due to clipped wings I would estimate it closer to 5000-5200, something Pyro might find acceptable.
Let me clarify - We want to prove the XVI DIDN'T have a climbrate of 5700fpm 0ft to 5000ft.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
You should not except much of an honesty from either Nashwan or Milo Morai. They wouldn`t tell you such details, of course, but manipulate the truth.
LOL Barbi, if I wanted to deceive people I would not have included any links. I give most people intelligence enough to draw their own conclusions and Karnac is a bright lad. :) We are MUCH more honest than you could ever hope to be or will be.
Do an edit, for you have a quote that is someone elses but says it is me.
-
Nana, the Brits were desperately short of fuel late war because of highly effective german bombing.
The LW had ample fuel, due to the fact that they used oxen to pull their aircraft around the ramps to save huge stocks of fuel.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Let me clarify - We want to prove the XVI DIDN'T have a climbrate of 5700fpm 0ft to 5000ft.
Well I merely shown that the IX/XVI was capable of 5500-5700 fpm climb rate near SL - funny from someone being accused of being a Spit hater... - but it`s under conditions that are not comparable to other aircraft`s conditions for ROC data.
As noted, the IX/XVI climed 5080 fpm at +25 lbs under standard conditions, but it could not be maintained for long, the MS s/c gear only maintained the boost up to 500ft altitude...
-
A RL XIV made it to 20K in 5 minutes, fully armed and loaded, - I belive before they started overboosting it.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Well I merely shown that the IX/XVI was capable of 5500-5700 fpm climb rate near SL - funny from someone being accused of being a Spit hater... - but it`s under conditions that are not comparable to other aircraft`s conditions for ROC data.
As noted, the IX/XVI climed 5080 fpm at +25 lbs under standard conditions, but it could not be maintained for long, the MS s/c gear only maintained the boost up to 500ft altitude...
Excellent, post all the details so we can pass them on to Pyro and get our XVI at 25lbs boost. He shouldn't have any problem with 5080fpm.
-
Kev
i sent PM
pls read it
thx
:)
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Excellent, post all the details so we can pass them on to Pyro and get our XVI at 25lbs boost. He shouldn't have any problem with 5080fpm.
Kev, more deception.
25lb could be held to 11,400ft(fth) in FS gear. At 12,000 the boost was 24.3lb.
MS is the lower level gear. FS is the higher level gear.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Kev, more deception.
25lb could be held to 11,400ft(fth) in FS gear. At 12,000 the boost was 24.3lb.
MS is the lower level gear. FS is the higher level gear.
Why am I not surprised :) .
Oh well , looks like we're relying on Dan the Man's contacts.
1K3 - Check Pm's
OH LOLOLOL
Was checking another forum when I came across this snippet -
1944 - 3 Sqns Mk IX Spit using 150 grade fuel.
Jan 45 - 30 sqns (2TAF) Spit IX converted to 150 grade
His reason - a nice matchup to a G-14.
All from our old friend Kurfurst.