Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 1K3 on October 13, 2005, 04:55:30 PM
-
pleeese :)
Spitfire LF Mk. IX
I think we need Spit LF Mk. IX with +18 boost for 1943-44 so that we can have Spitfire LF XVI with +25 boost:)
(http://www.warbird-photos.com/Airshow04-Aircraft/images/IMG_0444.JPG)
Bf-109F-2
NO GONDOLAS for this variant. We need this for channel battle and Russian campaigns in the future VVS vs Luftwaffe ToD.
(http://the-72world.web.infoseek.co.jp/img869.jpg)
-
F2 was short run and underpowered, guns-wise. It had a 15mm with the same ammo count as our current F4 has, but had engine problems and teething problems.
I don't see why everybody's arguing for an F-4 without gondies -- they seriously inhibit your fighting ability, so it's a trade-off, you pay for the firepower with severe performance loss. To me, I see that as a fair trade.
-
Addressing the Spitfire end of it, if we get the LF.Mk VIII (and we may get it, we don't know yet) it can cover for the LF.Mk IX. Clipped wings are not required for that as many LF.IX's lacked clipped wings.
I think HTC has the Spit's pretty well in hand, particularly if we get the LF.Mk VIII.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
F2 was short run and underpowered, guns-wise. It had a 15mm with the same ammo count as our current F4 has, but had engine problems and teething problems....
15mm MG 151 has the redeeming value of much higher velocity. It seems to me like it could have been quite a useful weapon, but only one of them is certainly not much hitting power.
-
Perhaps a slightly higher MV, but still a piss poor killer :P
It'd be like having a single MG131 instead of a cannon. It'd be like 3 MGs (1x50cal 2x7mm). Totally undesirable.
-
MG151 was more powerful than a .50MG... and what engine problems had the F-2?
-
hmmm Krusty must be thinking about 109F-1 and 0... both had engine and tail problems from the start.
and yes the MG 151-15mm on 109F-2 was powerfull enought to kill 7000+* Soviet fighters during its operational debut.
(note most kills were I-16 and I-15 biplanes, both obsolete in 1941 standards)
-
In real LIFE it kills. Hell a 22 can kill ya in real life. In AH, the way we have things modeled, it would be most like an MG131, which is barely more powerful than a 50cal, despite the fact it fired mine rounds and was in fact a cannon.
Yes the F0 and F1 had engine problems (most notably) but I heard/read somewhere the F2 still had some problems.
-
Lol IK3 just saw your sig.
Don't forget pinging them to death with your .303's and plonking them to death with the Bredas of a C.202 :D
-
I do beleive we are getting a few more Spits yet, its just they have posted the IX pics 1st.
The 109s I think are well represented, there are now 7.
-
I think he brings up the F2 only as a way of having an F without gondies. He's been following the 109 armament thread, as have I.
-
Originally posted by Squire
I do beleive we are getting a few more Spits yet, its just they have posted the IX pics 1st.
The 109s I think are well represented, there are now 7.
Seven 109s whered you get that:
109E
109F4
109G2
109G6
109G14
109K4
Seems like six to me, and I only think theres ganna be six spits.
SpitI
SpitV
SpitIX
SpitXIV
SpitXVI
Seafire III
-
But then there is no clipped wing spit? i really would like a clipped wing spit, maybe add a spit mk 9 with clipped wing and a 109B ?
-
SpitXVI is cliped wing. 109B? Only two 7.9mms in the nose.
-
Whoever posted that list forgot the Spit VIII, which I recall is being added (unless the Seafire III is a VIII?)
-
They said it might be added thats why I didnt say it.
-
No, I thought Spit VIII was given and SpitXVI was the "maybe" plane?
-
I have a feeling we will find out this week
-
Well there are still other spits... We could see a re-do of the seafire (old, or new) and we could see a re-do of the XIV. That would be 3 109s and 3 spits (screenshots wise)
I think they'll hold some back til they're finished, so that they have some SS's to show on release day.
-
No
Spit XVI is a definate.
Spit VIII is the dodgy one.
Seafire IIc is being replaced by the L III - 18lbs boost, carries ord, Merlin 55M. (3x as many III's as IIc's.)
-
I don't really get the MkVIII thing.. having the same engine and same boost as either the MkIX or the XVI, it won't be any faster, won't climb any better, won't turn any better, and probably won't roll any better neither.
Basically it's the same plane three times, with the same performance, the MkVIII having more fuel capacity, which is great, but not in a flight sim... it's really a waste of development capacity,unless the MkIX stays as a IXF `42/43 one with Merlin 61 and +15, the MkVIII would be the LF version of 43-44 with Merlin 66/+18, and the Mk XVI being the 1945 on with some improvements and +25, which would make it a counterpart for the G-14 as a latewar free ride...
-
The Mk VIII is NOT the same aircraft as the IX.
Ok it has the Merlin 66 (same) or the Merlin 70 (in the IX too?).
Quill gives the comparison between the VIII and the IX in the following way:
"Paradoxically the "interim" Mk IX was produced in greater quantities than any other mark of the Spitfire. The Mk VIII, however, was by far the better aeroplane"
It was available with extended wings which Quill deemed unessecary. (It spoiled the aeleron control). But the aileron control on the standard one should have given it a better rollrate, - it had a different setup (stiffened structure).
So, a standard wing VIII vs a good IX has the following:
Better roll if anything.
120 rpg cannon ammo
50% more fuel.
More speed if anything.
-
It also has a universal wing in place of the e wing on the Mk XVI.
In addition, having the Mk VIII leaves open the possibility of raising the boost of the Mk XVI to +25lbs in the future should that be deemed desireable without opening a massive gap in the Spitfire lineup.
And personally I dislike both clipped wings and .50 cals on Spits for aesthetic reasons, so I would always take the Mk VIII over the Mk XVI.
-
Originally posted by Angus
The Mk VIII is NOT the same aircraft as the IX.
Ok it has the Merlin 66 (same) or the Merlin 70 (in the IX too?).
Quill gives the comparison between the VIII and the IX in the following way:
"Paradoxically the "interim" Mk IX was produced in greater quantities than any other mark of the Spitfire. The Mk VIII, however, was by far the better aeroplane"
It was available with extended wings which Quill deemed unessecary. (It spoiled the aeleron control). But the aileron control on the standard one should have given it a better rollrate, - it had a different setup (stiffened structure).
So, a standard wing VIII vs a good IX has the following:
Better roll if anything.
120 rpg cannon ammo
50% more fuel.
More speed if anything.
I have to disagree... You state these benefits over the IX... But the IX already has 120RPG, and the speed would be the same. 3mph does NOT make a "better" speed. I doubt there'd be any change in the flight model between the two, except for gas tanks. So unless the VIII was an LF (which the XVI might already be) it would be a triple redundancy. There's one too many spits... Either the VIII or the XVI is going to get the chop. Considering that the Seaf III is essentially a LFVIII we don't need the FVIII (per se).
-
Originally posted by Angus
The Mk VIII is NOT the same aircraft as the IX.
Ok it has the Merlin 66 (same) or the Merlin 70 (in the IX too?).
Quill gives the comparison between the VIII and the IX in the following way:
"Paradoxically the "interim" Mk IX was produced in greater quantities than any other mark of the Spitfire. The Mk VIII, however, was by far the better aeroplane"
[/B]
I don't see a conflict here, the MkVIII was a better aircraft as it had new airframe, and was far more useful on operations than the very short ranged MkIXs.
It was available with extended wings which Quill deemed unessecary. (It spoiled the aeleron control). But the aileron control on the standard one should have given it a better rollrate, - it had a different setup (stiffened structure). So, a standard wing VIII vs a good IX has the following:
Better roll if anything. [/B]
Maybe yes, maybe not. Was their any difference between the MkVIII and MKIX ailerons control ? Any details, testing etc?
120 rpg cannon ammo [/B]
Yeah but... MkIXC already had 120 rpg cannon rounds...!
[/QUOTE]
50% more fuel.
More speed if anything. [/QUOTE]
Err... these datasheets list the Merlin 66 Spit IX as 404mph maximum, and the VIII... well, the same, 404 mph.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitlf9ads.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitlf8ads.jpg
OTOH, while there was improvement in range/internal fuel amount (as big as 50%! ), the MkVIII also weighted 7800 lbs vs. 7450 lbs of the MkIX... that's 350 lbs extra, sure as hell it won't improve the manouveribility!
-
How about a 109T for use from carriers?
Basically just a 109E with longer wings and arrestor/catapult(?) gear.
-
109T also had the improved DB 601N engines, I guess it would make a nice step-in for the 109E-4/Ns of the BoB!
-
Bf109T never flew from a carrier for some reason.
No reason to add it really as it is not enough of an improvement over the Bf109E.
If another Bf109 were to be added I'd like to see something between the Bf109G-14 and Bf109K-4. Something with better altitude performance than the Bf109G-14 so that the high altitude bombers could be fought more effectively.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
I don't see a conflict here, the MkVIII was a better aircraft as it had new airframe, and was far more useful on operations than the very short ranged MkIXs.
Maybe yes, maybe not. Was their any difference between the MkVIII and MKIX ailerons control ? Any details, testing etc?
Yeah but... MkIXC already had 120 rpg cannon rounds...!
50% more fuel.
More speed if anything. [/B][/QUOTE]
Err... these datasheets list the Merlin 66 Spit IX as 404mph maximum, and the VIII... well, the same, 404 mph.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitlf9ads.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitlf8ads.jpg
OTOH, while there was improvement in range/internal fuel amount (as big as 50%! ), the MkVIII also weighted 7800 lbs vs. 7450 lbs of the MkIX... that's 350 lbs extra, sure as hell it won't improve the manouveribility! [/B][/QUOTE]
The IX will be a 1942 F IX with a Merlin 61.
The VIII a 1943 LF VIII with a Merlin 66 @ 18lbs
The XVI will be a 1944 (cough) with a Merlin 66 @ 18lbs. (clipped)
Yup Kurfurst I agree the XVI at 25lbs boost would be a perfect match for the G14, unfortuneately a 5700fpm climb @25lbs from 0-5000ft has people peeing their pants.
-
Yup Kurfurst I agree the XVI at 25lbs boost would be a perfect match for the G14, unfortuneately a 5700fpm climb @25lbs from 0-5000ft has people peeing their pants.
These results are for a plane with half the fuel load that had it's radiators wired shut for the tests for less drag. It wasn't the standard way of measurement. There was no way to manually shut the radiators on the MkIX once it began to open as temperature rose - that started already 10 celsius over normal pressure.
Apply the same standards to other planes, and you will get similiarly hyper-inflated results for quite a few latewar planes.
The last I checked under comparable conditions (full load, radiators open) it did around 5080 fpm, which is nice, between 0-500(five hundred) feet altitude, which is less impressive.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Yup Kurfurst I agree the XVI at 25lbs boost would be a perfect match for the G14, unfortuneately a 5700fpm climb @25lbs from 0-5000ft has people peeing their pants.
These results are for a plane with half the fuel load that had it's radiators wired shut for the tests for less drag. It wasn't the standard way of measurement. There was no way to manually shut the radiators on the MkIX once it began to open as temperature rose - that started already 10 celsius over normal pressure.
Apply the same standards to other planes, and you will get similiarly hyper-inflated results for quite a few latewar planes.
The last I checked under comparable conditions (full load, radiators open) it did around 5080 fpm, which is nice, between 0-500(five hundred) feet altitude, which is less impressive.
Where does kev mention MK IX. He clearly talking about the MK XVI . I know you can read . I asume that you are trying to deflect attention from his point .
Bronk
-
Actually Bronk the LF IX and XVI motor were identical, just manufactured in two different places.
IX was RR Merlin 66
IVI was a Merlin 66 built in the U.S. , designated Merlin 266.
Performance should be identical 'clean'.
Re: Wired shut radiator flaps - looking at some docs that 'may' suggest this was not needed to obtain the 5700fpm @ 0-5000ft. Although even the RR tech guy I spoke to suggested that figure seemed high, maybe obtained with a 'cold' engine at the start.
WIERD.
Yup I have seen climb rates closer to your 5080fpm 0-5000ft.
-
Were the MK IX and XVI airframes also identical ? Also thank you for the engine info.
Sory for snap judgment about kurfy post but well ya know.
Also didn't the MK VIII have retractable tail wheel and the MKXVI not. Or am again misinformed.
Bronk
-
LF.Mk .IX and LF.Mk XVI are functionally identical. Using the two mark numbers in AH just gives an easy method to add the earlier F.Mk IX and the later LF.Mk IX/LF.Mk XVI.
The Mk VIII did have a retractable tail wheel as well as reduced length ailerons. The MK XIV was based off the Mk VIII airframe and shares all the Mk VIII features such as wing fuel, retractable tail wheel, reduced length ailerons and stiffened wings.
-
Hey Kuffie:
"Maybe yes, maybe not. Was their any difference between the MkVIII and MKIX ailerons control ? Any details, testing etc?"
Yes there was. It was the hinges I belive. Will did it up and post later.
As for the ammunition, - I hadn't noticed!
As for the fuel ,well, 50% internal makes quite a difference in AH
-
They really missed out not putting in a bubble canopy on the XVI.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
They really missed out not putting in a bubble canopy on the XVI.
It was too late to be representative and it would have been more work for SUPERFLY. Bubble canopy Spits didn't enter service until March, 1945. The LF.Mk XVI may need to be used from mid-1943 on to the end of the war, depending on if we get a Mk VIII or not. The bubble canopy would have limited it to only the extreme end of the war.
-
These results are for a plane with half the fuel load that had it's radiators wired shut for the tests for less drag. It wasn't the standard way of measurement. There was no way to manually shut the radiators on the MkIX once it began to open as temperature rose - that started already 10 celsius over normal pressure.
Isegrim, you'll be pleased to hear Neil has got hold of the cooling figures for the Spitfire at 25 lbs on climb. :)
What they show is that the radiators do not have to be wired shut, under normal conditions they will be shut throughout the climb, as temperatures will not reach the level at which the radiators open.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1130178802_merlin66cooling5.jpg)
This test was done at a sea level temperature of 8c (standard sea level temperature drops 4c with an altitude increase of 2,000ft)
As you can see, with the radiators shut, the coolant temperature climbs to a maximum of 106 centigrade.
The Spitfire radiators open when the coolant temperature reaches 115 centigrade.
So, at 8c, the radiators will not open even after a maximum power climb from 2,000 ft to 32,000 ft. In fact, it doesn't even come close to opening the radiators.
This chart also answers another question, Isegrim. The "standard summer temperatures" used in calculating the radiator suitability. The temperate summer temperature assumed in the standard is 27c at sea level, and the tropical summer temperature standard is 41c. Pretty high, but then the usual RAF practice of wiring the radiators open for climb tests shows they were interested in finding worse case numbers, not artifically inflating results.
Re: Wired shut radiator flaps - looking at some docs that 'may' suggest this was not needed to obtain the 5700fpm @ 0-5000ft.
No, looking at the cooling results, under normal conditions they would remain closed of their own accord.
These results were at 8c. Perhaps someone better at maths can work out likely results at higher temps?
The formula used in the tests was:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1090694499_climbcropped.jpg)
The value of Tn was 125c for full power and 115c for cruise.
Although even the RR tech guy I spoke to suggested that figure seemed high, maybe obtained with a 'cold' engine at the start.
I don't think they'd have run a full power test with a cold engine, or even taken off with one, for safety reasons. But you can see here that the coolant temp at 2,000ft at the start of the test was 78c. The report says that high speed radiator suitability figures are the temperatures reached after 5 minutes at full power in level flight.
Radiator suitability 1.36 = 125 - 21 / (coolant temp - 2)
coolant temp = 78c
(radiator suitability 1.36 at 3,000 ft level flight radiator closed, 125c max permissable coolant temp, 21c standard summer temp at 3,000ft, -2c observed temp at 3,000ft)
So 78c is the temperature reached after 5 minutes flat out with the radiators closed at 3,000ft. The climb test started at 2,000ft, but the start temp of 78c should still be very close to maximum in level flight at that altitude.
Yup I have seen climb rates closer to your 5080fpm 0-5000ft.
I suspect that's with radiator flaps wired open. The RAF usually tested with flaps forced open, to get a worst case figure. Of course, in real like the flaps didn't open until the temperature reached 115c, and cooling was pretty good even with the radiator flaps "shut" (shut on the Spitfire was about half the exit area of open, the flaps couldn't close completely)
Edit: This assumes my maths is right, and that's a dangerous assumption at this time in the morning :)
-
So the super uber 5700fpm was the WORST CASE???
No way this baby's getting the high boost y'all want, in that case. As-is it'll be enough of a monster :P
-
Originally posted by Krusty
So the super uber 5700fpm was the WORST CASE???
No way this baby's getting the high boost y'all want, in that case. As-is it'll be enough of a monster :P [/QUOTE
Not quite. Hop's cooling table is for operation in the second s/c speed - FS gear, with wired shut radiators.
With FS gear and closed rads, +25 lbs, the Spit IX climbed 4720 fpm at SL, not 5700 :
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165climb.gif)
The table is very interesting, and it finally tells the details of that spit cooling test. It was done at 4 degree celsius temperature, pretty cold, ie. automn/winter conditions, the best case for a cool engine. The coolant temperature at the start of the climb was well below the normal coolant temperature for the Spitfire (95 degrees), ie. 78 degrees. And as run in FS gear, the engine was developing quite less power at low altitude. The fact that the coolants can be shut at even high altitudes is pretty normal for all planes, since they loose power/boost quickly above FTH - and the FTH of SpiIX/+25 is very low, around 11 000 feet or around 3500m, above that the engine develops less power - and heat.
That explains the results very well.
BTW, Hop is wrong in that the radiators would open only at 115 celsius - they would be full open at that time, they began to open at 105 celsius, 10 degree above the normal operating temperature, ie. 95 degrees.
Hop chart show the temperature will rise 12 celsius in the climb from 2000 feet when it reaches 10 000 feet, ie. after climbing 8000 feet - this means, with 4700 fpm climb rate, that the radiators began to open after about 1.5 mins of operating at +25lbs boost, if starting at a normal operating temperature, not with a cold engine. As the rad flaps open, they cause more drag and the climb rate fells from 4700ish to 4200fpm when they are fully open. This assumes operation in FS gear, the temperature in MS gear would rise much more quickly, there's more power and more heat to deal with. Frankly this is nothing extraordinary compared to other cooling tests I have.
-
It was done at 4 degree celsius temperature, pretty cold, ie. automn/winter conditions, the best case for a cool engine.
8c actually, it was 4c at 2,000ft. Standard atmosphere is 15c, dropping about 2c per 1,000ft at low level.
The coolant temperature at the start of the climb was well below the normal coolant temperature for the Spitfire (95 degrees), ie. 78 degrees.
What is "normal coolant temperature"?
78c was the temperature after 5 minutes at maximum power in level flight. Cruise temperature was somewhat lower.
BTW, Hop is wrong in that the radiators would open only at 115 celsius - they would be full open at that time, they began to open at 105 celsius
Not according to the Spitfire manual, which states:
"On all aircraft the coolant flaps are fully automatic and are designed to open at a coolant temperature of 115 C"
10 degree above the normal operating temperature, ie. 95 degrees.
Where does this "normal operating temperature" come from?
Cruise at 3,000ft at a sea level temp of 8 C resulted in a coolant temperature of 73C, and that was the stabilised value.
Hop chart show the temperature will rise 12 celsius in the climb from 2000 feet when it reaches 10 000 feet, ie. after climbing 8000 feet - this means, with 4700 fpm climb rate, that the radiators began to open after about 1.5 mins of operating at +25lbs boost,
If you start the climb with coolant temperature of 103C. Considering the temperature after 5 minutes at maximum power was 78C, that's a rather high temp to be starting the climb.
So the super uber 5700fpm was the WORST CASE???
No, 5,700 ft/min would be pretty much best case. The sort of figures Isegrim is quoting are pretty much impossible case, though (ASSuming 103 C coolant in level flight at low level, for example)
But the point is, under normal conditions the Spitfire would climb with radiator flaps shut. The RAF tested to ensure the aircraft met cooling standards at sea level temperatures of up to 41 C, which is why they usually tested with radiator flaps wired open.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
It was too late to be representative and it would have been more work for SUPERFLY. Bubble canopy Spits didn't enter service until March, 1945. The LF.Mk XVI may need to be used from mid-1943 on to the end of the war, depending on if we get a Mk VIII or not. The bubble canopy would have limited it to only the extreme end of the war.
who cares about "the war"
Its not about scenarios its about experiancing the aircraft in the MA.
Say it was too much work if you like but admit thats the case, the plane they have added could have been represented with a clipped wing spit IX. With the XVI they had a chance to have a truely different plane and they passed on it.
-
The IX could just as easily have been a bubble top.
In any case I think they are making the aircraft for the MA and ToD, not scenarios primarily. For the MA either will do, though the bubble top may have been more interesting. For ToD though the only one that would be useful is the high backed Mk XVI.
-
The Spit XVI still has the armored headrest? wether its bubble top or not. I dont see it being that big a deal, at all.
Compare the P-51B and P-51D, somebody will have to show me what the huge vis diff is.
As for clipped wings and a Merlin 66, that actually has a difference on its manuerverbility, speed and climb.
In addition it has 3 pylons and the 50 calibers.
It is significantly different than a F.IX. They didnt pass on anything
-
The 5700fpm was made with radiators wired open. Thus inducing drag. So if you say that was just for testing purposes, and that normally the same spit would have had them closed if they were on "auto", then it would surely be about 6000fpm (far less drag in the climb with the radiators not wired open).
That's absurd, for AH's purposes.
-
Originally posted by Squire
Compare the P-51B and P-51D, somebody will have to show me what the huge vis diff is.
1) Internal view is far better at all angles behind and to the sides looking behind. With internal only views this makes a BIG difference seeing the enemy about to bounce your 6 or being bounced and killed unawares. The majority of spits were high back and so they should all have this "blind spot". The P51B and D have this same issue, only the P51B would have a better rear view than the spit as its head can move sideways more (Malcolm hood).
2) I've seen a lot of pilots that do this, and I do it myself more often than not, but when flying with an enemy behind you many pilots will look behind as they pull manuvers, to see where the enemy is and time manuvers. This includes rear six and high six views. In a bubble top p51D you can see the enemy far better than in a p51B. The P51B has a lot more guess work, and you lose the enemy more. I make this a different category, as the one above is "spotting the enemy in the first place" and this one is "fighting the enemy once inside guns range".
3) The high back P51B is much more stable at low speeds due to lateral stability, that the P51D does not have. The high back actually helps (like a wider stab) to keep the plane flying properly. I find that I can pull some moves in a P51B that make me spin out in a P51D (mind you I'm no expert and I haven't flown them too recently). The Spitfire with the low back and bubble top would have different drag and different forces acting on it at different times. It would be more unstable and would spin at times that a SpitV would never spin.
The improvements for the pilot are enough, but the flight model would be changed as well. I say stick with the far more common high-back version.
-
Im not saying that there is absolutely no improvement, but I mean, go into AH and compare the P-51B and P-51D, there just isnt a huge increase . I really think its over stated.
Btw the 5700fpm thing is on 150 avgas, HTC already pretty much said its going to be a 100 avgas version, its climb will be less than a XIV, but better than a F.IX. I dont think anybody should freak out.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The IX could just as easily have been a bubble top.
In any case I think they are making the aircraft for the MA and ToD, not scenarios primarily. For the MA either will do, though the bubble top may have been more interesting. For ToD though the only one that would be useful is the high backed Mk XVI.
There were some late production Spit IXs with the bubble top.
Folks gotta quit seperating the IX and XVI. It was the same bird, outside of the engine being either Rolls Royce Merlin 66 or Packerd Merlin 266.
Here's an image of a lowback Spitfire LFIXe. Had it been engined with a Merlin 266, it would have been designated an LFXVIe.
It's all about the engine. The late IXe and XVIe are the same bird otherwise.
The serial is TE215 if anyone wants to check the serial against the type Spit it is.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1130359159_lowbackixe.jpg)
-
Not that I was freaking out, more like asking for clarification. That's what it sounded like reading all these different posts. Not sure what to take away from it. Thanks for clearing that up.
Re: High back: well the p51s aren't a perfect comparison because they have different engines in them (B for higher alt D for med alt), so the performance is going to be a bit off regardless. However I'd like to add that teh bubble top looks ugly as sin, in the hopes that HTC doesn't add it to AH ever :D
-
LF Spitfire are for the clip wing of any Mark, really fine for ops under 15k feet.
HF Spitfire are for longer winged Marks, really fine if you are flying over 20K feet.
Mark VIII were for Tropical areas.
Mark X were photo Recon Spits.
Each had the Dash number engines that was opminized for where they were flying.
High Low
If you had a LF Mark IX, do not engage in combat above 15k. Dive away and pull them down to where you will operate the best.
I read the Spitfires Pilot's handbook printed by the RAF for pilots of VII, VIII
and X.
-
Dan,
That is what I was trying to explain to Pongo. The highback LF.XVIe would be no more of a missed oportunity than a highback LF.IXe from his perspective. His post seemed to separate the two and list the XVI as having more to do with the bubble tops.
-
You might want to double check some of your facts there... The wing had nothing to do with LF/F/HF, that was the engine rating. The engine alone doesn't dictate what you do, just emphasizes a different altitude band than other engines. The IX was a fighter, not just a recon. There were some recon made, but it was a fighter foremost. The VIII was not specially made for tropical areas.
-
"LF" was not a designation for the wing. Thats probably the most common misconception of the Spit LF V and Spit LF IX. LF reffered to the engine, many had standard wings. Many HF IXs and HF VIIIs did not have extended wings either.
Was just referring to the vis issue re the difference between 51B and 51D.
Personally, I think HTC should just rename it Spit LF IXE and be done with it, the XVI just confuses too many people (too close to XIV too). I blame the RAF of course, but they weren't worrying about pc games in 2005 at the time...
Spit Ia
Spit Vb
Spit FIX
Spit LF IXE
Spit XIV
Looks better like that, and is easier to explain.
And you are right of course, there is no diff between a IXE and a XVIE at all. Both had clipped wings, and broad chord rudders in some versions. I think it was the early call for a "XVI" that got HTC into that mode of thinking.
No big deal either way, I love it just the same :rolleyes:
-
The reason I picked the Mk XVI was because HTC seemed to want to just go with basic mark numbers. Note for instance that they called the Mosquito a "Mosquito Mk VI" when it was universally a "Mosquito FB.Mk VI" in reality. The FB is reduntant in that case as all Mossie VIs were FBs.
Going with the Mk XVI allowed an earlier Mk IX without giving basic players coniptions as they saw different Mk IXs listed for the first time ever in their lives. I think most people are smart enough to learn the difference between a Mk XIV and Mk XVI. Thus my list was:
Mk Ia
Mk Vb
Mk VIII
Mk IX
Mk XIV
Mk XVI
Mk III (Seafire)
That list kept the simple mark numbers while giving the coverage I thought was good. Pyro was already thinking along similar lines (hardly surprising as there are only so many viable ways to get coverage) so my list was far more a predictive list than a list HTC adopted. The discussions we all had on this forum did help though.
We'll see how it looks when the new version gets here.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
You might want to double check some of your facts there... The wing had nothing to do with LF/F/HF, that was the engine rating. The engine alone doesn't dictate what you do, just emphasizes a different altitude band than other engines. The IX was a fighter, not just a recon. There were some recon made, but it was a fighter foremost. The VIII was not specially made for tropical areas.
Just to clarify on the VIII. It was decided that that VIII would be designated for overseas service. The VIII did not see service from England. This was why it was tropicalized and went to the MTO, CBI and RAAF in the Pacific. The IX was not tropicalized initially and did not have the same filter under the nose until 44 when the dust and dirt of Normandy caused problems for the IXs and the tropical filter was added.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
You might want to double check some of your facts there... The wing had nothing to do with LF/F/HF, that was the engine rating. The engine alone doesn't dictate what you do, just emphasizes a different altitude band than other engines. The IX was a fighter, not just a recon. There were some recon made, but it was a fighter foremost. The VIII was not specially made for tropical areas.
In fact the FR IX was flown by 16 sqn on D-Day, it's the infamous 'Pink Spit' in the game. :)
-
Originally posted by Pongo
who cares about "the war"
Its not about scenarios its about experiancing the aircraft in the MA.
Say it was too much work if you like but admit thats the case, the plane they have added could have been represented with a clipped wing spit IX. With the XVI they had a chance to have a truely different plane and they passed on it.
A bubbletop XVI would have really stood out, shame they passed on the chance.
Didn't make any difference to performance so would have still have been able to stand in for a LF IX. (ignoring 'cosmetic' differences).
Plus in the future if any further Spits were added (eg F.21) the basic modelling would have allready been done. Would have also gave options for bubbletop IX's and XIV's.
-
Cockpit visibility is a performance characteristic.
Also, the F.21, should it ever happen (I doubt it), is a high backed Spitfire.
-
Spit 21 had the high back profile. Spit 22 and 24 were low back and postwar.
Of course I just prefer the high back looks. It still looks like a Spit then. Now should someone give me a real low back LFXVI I won't turn it down....:)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Cockpit visibility is a performance characteristic.
Also, the F.21, should it ever happen (I doubt it), is a high backed Spitfire.
Yup F.21 was high back, my bad.
Was looking to the future.
Who's to say whether we might get a further 'fattening out' of Spit/109/190 etc.
Still room for II, XII, F.21 (dunno why not, seen service from early 45)
Now that would be a line up -
I
II
F Vb
LF Vc
F IX
LF VIII
LF IX (highback 18lbs)
XII
F XIV
LF XVI (bubble 25lbs)
F.21
Anyway maybe we should be thinking about Hurris, Mossies, Tiffs.
Get one step ahead.
e.g. Hurri I, IIc, IId, Sea Hurricane
Mossie B IV, FB VI, +later war one.
-
Have to agree -- turn our attention elsewhere, where it's more needed. We could use another version or two of the Mossie. Eventually mind you, I know HTC has a full plate right now.
As for the hurri's, ditch the sea hurri (it's a hurri mk1, basically) and add the MkIIb, and you'll have every major hurricane. Although.... the hurr IIb didn't see much use. They put them to work as ground pounders (1 bomb under each wing). Royal Navy didn't have too many sea hurricanes. They took up far too much room (no folding wings). Usually hurris were ferried on the deck, and if they had to land on it sandbags were strapped to the tail to keep them on the deck while landing (once to land on the ship, take sandbags off and it'll land on land once it arrives at destination).
Not a vital fighter to the Royal Navy. They lacked good naval fighters. I guess that's why they went with the US F4F/F6F/F4U series instead.
-
Sea Hurricanes were based on -
I, Ib, IIb, IIc, XII
From FAA website
The first of the Sea Hurricanes to see service with the Fleet Air Arm arrived in February 1941 and were operating with front line unit 880 squadron from 15 March 1941. Overseas deliveries commenced with shipping in HMS Furious to 807 squadron at Gibraltar 1 July 1941 (eg V7301, V7623), Many shipped to Simonstown in SS Lt St Lonbert Brie thence to 800 squadron HMS Indomitable in July 1942 (eg V7416), some shipped to South Africa in SS City of Bombay 9 January 1942 (eg Z4056) and others shipped in SS Belgian Seaman to Takoradi from Liverpool 30 June 1942 (eg BP709). A significant loss occurred when Sea Hurricanes were sunk with HMS Eagle which was torpedoed on 11 August 1942 (eg V6854).
The Sea Hurricane Mk I were followed by about 300 Mk Is converted to Sea Hurricane Mk IB configuration, these having catapult spools plus a V-frame arrester hook: in addition 25 Mk IIA were modified as Sea Hurricane IB or Hooked Hurricane II fighters. Their initial role was a considerable improvement on CAM-ship deployment, for from October 1941 they began to go to sea aboard MAC-ships, these being large Merchant ships fitted with a small flight deck.
Sea Hurricane Mk IC fighters, introduced in February 1942 were conventional Mk I conversions with catapult spools and arrester hook; they had, however, the four-cannon wing of the land-based Hurricane Mk IIC. The Sea Hurricane Mk IIC, was intended for Fleet carrier operations and, consequently, was without catapult spools. This version was also used as hurri-cats. They introduced also to navy service the Merlin XX engine, and carried FAA radio equipment. Mk.IIC's with 4-cannon wings built by Hawker and delivered between December 1942 and May 1943. The Sea Hurricane Mk X - Canadian built Hurricane X converted to Sea Hurricane standards were all classified either Mk.IA or Mk.IB by the RN, even though all used the two-stage Packard Merlin 28. Thet were all built with eight .303 machine guns. The Sea Hurricane Mk XII - Conversion of Canadian Hurricane XII for Royal Canadian Navy with full naval equipment. Packard Merlin 29 with twelve .303 machine guns. The last of the Sea Hurricane variants was the Sea Hurricane Mk XIIA, of which a small number were converted from Canadian-built Mk XIIs, and these were used operationally in the North Atlantic. Although the Sea Hurricane last saw service in 1945, Sea Hurricane NF670 was still extant on the East Kirby dump in 1956/57.
Versions
Mk I One Hurricane Mk I conversion; Catapult spools and arrester hooks
Mk IA 50 Hurricane conversion; catapult spools only; specially produced for
CAM fighter scheme - launched from CAM ships
Mk IB 300 Mk I (merlin III) and 25 Mk IIA series 2 conversions; Catapult
spools and arrester hook (MAC-ship service)
Mk IC Hurricane Mk I conversion with four-cannon wings; catapult spools
and arrester hook
Mk IIC Arrester hook and naval radio equipment
Mk XIIA Canadian built navalised Mk XII, with Packard Merlin XXIX engine
Lol - imagine the XII, 12x303s !!!
-
Most Hurri IIb pilots had the outer four guns removed as I understand it. They had a noticably effect on manuverability.
If we're looking at other versions of aircraft in AH that would be good, I'd want some of the following:
A6M3
B-17E or B-17F
B-24D
F6F-3
Fw190A-3
Fw190A-6
Ju88G-1
Ki-61-I-Ko
Ki-61-I-Otsu
LaGG-3
La-5
Mosquito B.Mk IV
Mosquito B.Mk XVI
Mosquito NF.Mk XIX or Mosquito NF.Mk XXX
N1K1-J
Yak-1
Yak-7
Yak-9D or Yak-9M
-
(off topic but...)
it would be nice to have 190A-3 and A-6. What about the A-5. Should AH keep 190A-5 or replace A-5 with A3 and A-6?
-
Originally posted by 1K3
(off topic but...)
it would be nice to have 190A-3 and A-6. What about the A-5. Should AH keep 190A-5 or replace A-5 with A3 and A-6?
More is better, but if it were an issue I'd say replace it.
-
I say there's no reason for the A6 except the outer MG121/50s. In that case there's no difference between the A8 and the A6, 20mm wise. There's no reason to take one as opposed to the other, except a few MPH on the A8. By keeping the A5 (and not the A6) the outer MG/FF present an "early" war armament that better differentiates "early" a5s and "late" a8s.
My logic behind wanting to keep the a5 and not get the a6.
-
By keeping the A5 (and not the A6) the outer MG/FF present an "early" war armament that better differentiates "early" a5s and "late" a8s.
There is no such thing as an FW190A5, A6, A7, A8, or A9 fighter variant that was produced without the outboard weapons.
It simply is not a Jagd-einsatz.
Why? It has a negliable effect on performance. In flight testing it was found that removing the outboard weapons increased performance by less than 1%. So small was the performance increase that in the air it made no difference. The benefits of more powerful weaponry far outweighed the insignificant "loss in performance".
The FW190A5 saw no power increases over the BMW801D2 found in the FW-190A3. The only motor development during FW-190A5 production was an adjustment of the Kommandogerät supercharger gear changing operation. The operation of the hydraulic clutch was smoothed out so the torsional shock was eliminated. In other words, it did not "clunk" and jar the aircraft.
The FW-190A6 on the other hand experienced a laundry list of engine improvements during it's production that significantly increased the power of the motor. Everything from exhaust changes to receiving the pistons of the BMW-801E motor.
The FW-190A6 not only has more firepower, it is a better performer than the FW-190A5.
There are significant differences between the FW-190A8 and FW-190A6 as well.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
quote:
"By keeping the A5 (and not the A6) the outer MG/FF present an "early" war armament that better differentiates "early" a5s and "late" a8s."Originally posted by Crumpp
There is no such thing as an FW190A5, A6, A7, A8, or A9 fighter variant that was produced without the outboard weapons.
It simply is not a Jagd-einsatz.
Crumpp
Krusty is saying no such thing. He was commenting on the change from FF to 151 cannons mounted outboard. You do have your reading problems.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Krusty is saying no such thing. He was commenting on the change from FF to 151 cannons mounted outboard. You do have your reading problems.
His assertion is that there is no difference between an FW-190A5 and an FW-190A6 except the armament as noted in his very first sentence. (http://www.readingsuccesslab.com/Reading-Tips/ImproveReadingComprehension.html)
Krusty says:
I say there's no reason for the A6 except the outer MG121/50s.
In fact there is a huge difference.
If the FW-190A3 is modeled then we will have the early war armament that extends to cover 1942-3.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
On the section you quoted, you showed you have a problem. You were the one that read into Krusty's statement that the outer wing cannons were not fitted.
Originally posted by Crumpp
There is no such thing as an FW190A5, A6, A7, A8, or A9 fighter variant that was produced without the outboard weapons.
It simply is not a Jagd-einsatz.
in reply to: quote:
"By keeping the A5 (and not the A6) the outer MG/FF present an "early" war armament that better differentiates "early" a5s and "late" a8s."
How anyone could read that the outer cannons were not fitted in Krusty's statement quoted by Crumpp is beyond logical comprehesion .
LOL, Crumpp did not even comment on the first part of Krusty's statement until caught and then tries to weasel out of his problem.
-
On the section you quoted, you showed you have a problem.
No, you just did not read it and take it into context, Milo.
As usual you jumped to conclusions and offered snide input without comprehending.
On the section you quoted, you showed you have a problem.
Now your telling me what I meant in my own post.
:huh
The FW-190A6 not only has more firepower, it is a better performer than the FW-190A5.
Modeling the FW-190A3 cover us for the MGFF armed FW-190's.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
hmmmmmm
i've always been told that later 190s got worse due to weight. now it seems not after looking @ a3 and a6 marks.
-
Nice weasel job Crumpp. To bad it is so tranparent to all.
Why not just admit you screwed up.
-
Stop stop STOP!
Let it be. It's all cleared now.
The FW-190A6 not only has more firepower, it is a better performer than the FW-190A5
Yes.. the A-6 is much closer to the a7, which was stopped after 80 planes and then production was started on the A8. So the A6 is closer to the A8 than an early war plane. I still say the A5 is a better representative plane (not for numbers, but for matching up against '43 planes). I wouldn't mind if the A3 is added someday, no, not at all! But given an A6 vs an A5, I think the A5 rounds out the selection much more than the A6. Heck we have the A8 already. A6 pretty much went right to A8 in terms of plane production. Too close a margin, if ya ask me (not that you have but I'll offer my opinion anyways).
Like I said, this is my logic, and my reasoning for not wanting an A-6. If we have one I might fly it, but if we don't I'd say "turn that effort elsewhere, as we don't need it".
-
So the A6 is closer to the A8 than an early war plane.
FW-190A6 - 1192 produced from May 1943 to March 1944.
Most definately a major variant and a mid-war FW190A. It is the third most numerous variant produced in the Anton series.
I wouldn't mind if the A3 is added someday, no, not at all!
I think the FW-190A3 could be a welcome addition to the series. There is only a 2 month gap between the end of FW-190A3 production and the begining of FW190A5 production in November 1942.
I think the A5 rounds out the selection much more than the A6.
Not really IMHO. Both are major FW190A mid war variants yet one is the worst performer of the series. To hold it up as representative of the entire mid war line up is simply not true.
Look at the numbers from some of the Geschwaders, the FW-190A5 had a short rather lackluster fighter career.
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg26.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg1.html
In the East:
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg54.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg54.html
The FW190A8 was produced from Feb. 1944 until Jan. 1945 and the FW-190A9 from September 1944 until Feb. 1945.
The FW-190A8 is a late war Anton, IMHO.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
For the 190s they should scrap the A-5 designation (like they did the G-10) and it make is an A-6 (update gun options) and then add an A-4.
The A-4 - A-6 combo could cover everything but the A-2 period...
An A-2 would be nice just because it pushes down the introduction date of the 190 in events, scenario and ToDs. Other then that it would be a hangar queen.
-
190s had major problems up until the A3, from what I read. The A3 was the first actually combat worthy one, and it was the first one that really got shipped out in decent numbers.
-
190s had major problems up until the A3, from what I read.
Actually the BMW801C2 motor became reliable. The antiknock resistance of C3 was the next big hurdle for the 801 series and caused more problems than the motor.
An exerpt from an article I am writing:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When it first appeared the BMW801 14 cylinder radial engine was one the world’s most powerful radials. It was the culmination of BMW’s limited experience in radial design. Although some tradeoffs in weight were accepted for ease of design BMW produced a world-class engine. From the beginning it produced almost 200PS more than BMW’s previous radial, the BMW139. The prototype engine, BMW801V14, had completed its 100-hour bench test and was ready to replace the troublesome BMW139 used in the initial prototype FW190V1.
Like all new designs there were problems to be solved. When it first appeared the motor was extremely unreliable when cowled and installed on the aircraft. Its life expectancy was measured in a few short hours. On 01 August 1941 Oblt. Otto Behren’s Operational Test Squadron, Erprobungsstaffel 190, moved from Rechlin to Le Bourget outside of Paris to begin training the II Gruppe Jadgeschwader 26 on the FW-190A1. Although many minor technical difficulties would be solved over the next few weeks it would not be until the 06 November 1941 that III Gruppes Technical Officer, Rolf Schröder would make the biggest leap forward in reliability for the engine. At BMW’s repair shop in Albert during the investigation into engine failures Schröder noticed that a simple exhaust reroute would prevent the back bottom two cylinders from overheating. The design change was immediately implemented and the aircraft modified both at the Geschwader and the Factory. Within a short period of time, the 8th Stafflekaptain, Oblt. Karl Borris received a gold watch from BMW for having the first engine to reach 100 hours of operational flight time. Borris’s luck would continue to hold as he later survived a fall from 22,000 feet with a collapsed canopy suffering numerous broken bones. Average reliability would now be measured in triple figures for the BMW 801C series motor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Good stuff. I think I read something similar about the back row's overheating tendencies. I think the A3 introduced the side slits in the exhaust panel, which helped a lot over the A2 (if I remember what I read properly)
-
Actually, Krusty, it was the FW-190A2 which introduced the fixed cooling gills.
Around 100 FW-190A1's were produced and half that number of FW-190A0's.
FW-190A2/3's were produced concurrently with the only difference being the motor begining in August 1941.
I would like to see the FW-190A3 in the game but either early FW-190A would be fine. I don't see much of a point though for the FW-190A2 as it's performance was just a little bit better in some areas than the Bf-109F4 and significantly worse in others.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Dan,
That is what I was trying to explain to Pongo. The highback LF.XVIe would be no more of a missed oportunity than a highback LF.IXe from his perspective. His post seemed to separate the two and list the XVI as having more to do with the bubble tops.
No I know that the IX, XIV and XVI all had razor and bubble top versions.
I was mearly trying to point out that for icon purposes having the bubble top be the XVI instead of the IX might be clearer.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Actually, Krusty, it was the FW-190A2 which introduced the fixed cooling gills.
Now I remember.. What I read was worded "the third version" -- but their counting started at 0 (190A-0), so I was +1 in my math :)
-
Now I remember.. What I read was worded "the third version" -- but their counting started at 0 (190A-0), so I was +1 in my math
Np at all. You have a wealth of knowledge on the design, Krusty.
All the best,
Crumpp