Originally posted by 1K3
For example
IF Spitfire 14 gets +21 boost and Spitfire 16 gets +25 boost, can 109K-4 get the 1.98 ata boost and as a bonus - an upgraded BMW 801 engine for 190A-8?
:D
Originally posted by Bronk
Shure your fw can get the upgraded engine.
As long as we spit dweebs can get the spit XII . :D
OHHH it has to be unperked also .:p
Originally posted by Guppy35
Bronk clearly understands! :)
Operational in 43-44. Not an end of the war bird. Built to go like a bat outa h*** on the deck. Bring on the Spit XII
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1103870266_41spitxiis.jpg)
Originally posted by 1K3
IF Spitfire 14 gets +21 boost and Spitfire 16 gets +25 boost, can 109K-4 get the 1.98 ata boost and as a bonus
Originally posted by frank3
oh darn...even more of those spits? I thought we already had what...7?
Originally posted by Bronk
Please do not complain about getting ANY new planes. Thats just silly.
Bronk
Originally posted by Bronk
My ohh my those birds are pretty. Guppy wernt those spits specificly designed to take on FW 190s at low alts?
Bronk
Originally posted by 1K3
For example
IF Spitfire 14 gets +21 boost and Spitfire 16 gets +25 boost, can 109K-4 get the 1.98 ata boost and as a bonus - an upgraded BMW 801 engine for 190A-8?
:D
Originally posted by Karnak
It is a Spitfire F.Mk IX using a Merlin 61 at +15lbs boost. It is completely outclassed by the Fw190A-8 and later if those aircraft are flown to their strengths.
Originally posted by Knegel
Hey, the current SpitIXc is already more than a match for the FW190A8, the 190A8 only can hit and run
a real combat is almost impossible. [/B]
The current Spit climb better, have a better upzoom, very similar diveacceleration and keep energy like hell while turning(it should be the other way around at medium to highspeed). [/B]
Looks to me that the AH FM makers dont know that a smal Liftload not only let a plane turn more tight, but at same time it bleed energy like mad. [/B]
Originally posted by Squire
"The Spit9 (the one we have) handles far better, can turn infinitely tighter, can climb like the wind itself is lifting it into the air, is very user friendly, and dives/accelerates, as has been mentioned, too well."
Wings that "out turn" other wings are the ones that bleed energy less, not more.
Badboy says:
Anyone reading this thread could be forgiven for wondering why the value of e should be so important. Why argue about the difference between something as small as 0.8 and 0.85 for example, when it only has a small influence on the overall drag coefficient. But before we get into this, let�s just apply a crude reality check to see if we have a realistic range for the fighters we are interested in? This diagram:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1127056488_oswald2.jpg)
taken from NACA 408 shows that Oswalds estimate agrees with the values that arise from approximate equations solely based on aspect ratio, for example, values between 0.85 and 1 for a cantilever monoplane. It is worth noting that he also quotes values between 0.95 and 1 just for a wing on its own, which is similar to approximate values produced earlier in this thread for a wing also.
Well, let�s put that in terms of air combat, and look at the difference that would make to an aircraft at the very bottom of Oswalds range 0.85, and one even lower, say 0.8 corresponding to a value at the high end of the range of average values Gripen posted from drag polars for various WWII fighters earlier in this thread.
Well, here is a diagram that shows the difference that these two values would have on the sustained turn rate of the same aircraft. Firstly, it would make very little difference at all to any other performance characteristics, the top speed for example being only 0.4mph different (and hardly distinguishable on the chart). You can see from the diagram that there is only 0.6 degrees per second difference (less than 3%) in the sustained turn rate, and no difference in the sustained turn radius, or any of the instantaneous values.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1127056447_eme3.jpg)
Alternatively, the pilot in the aircraft with an e = 0.8 could choose to match the turn rate of the less draggy counterpart, but to do so he would have to lose altitude in the turn at the rate of 260ft/min.
That;s a bout the size of it, not a decisive advantage by any means and because in a real engagement, that difference is small enough to be overwhelmed by other factors, such as pilot ability, fuel or other ordnance loads, or the significant differences between the dissimilar aircraft more likely to have been involved in real combat.
The tactical differences are caused chiefly by the fact that the Spitfire XIV has an engine of greater capacity and is the heavier aircraft (weighing 8,400 lbs. against 7,480 lbs. of Spitfire IX).
The turning circles of both aircraft are identical.
Originally posted by Angus
There was +25 boost around in 1943 or so - squadrons and squadrons. Yet definately fewer than others I think.
1.98 when and how much?
Originally posted by Angus
1.98 when and how much?