Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Elyeh on November 11, 2005, 11:06:46 PM
-
Is the Spit 9 an upgrade from the Spit 8? Or was the Spit 8 Superior to the 9?
Also, how come the spit 9 no longer has .50 cals and bomb load?
Thanks
-
spit 9 is a stop gap plane. Its airframe is based on spit 5 with mrlin 61 engine
spit 8 is a whole new plane. spit 8 is like spit 14 with just a merlin 66 egine
-
Spit 8 is a strange story.
The 1942 F IX with the Merlin 61 was originally a stop-gap temporary mark to counter the FW-190's that had appeared. As you know the early ones were Mk V airframes with the Merlin 61 fitted, thats how 'rushed' it was.
During this time the VIII was in development and was supposed to replace the IX eventually.
So we have the strange situation where the Mk IX actually came before the Mk VIII, the IX was that successful it became the largest produced Spit Mk (5000+) in its various guises of LF, F , and HF after the Mk V (6000+).
The Spit IX as modelled in AH2 is a 1942 model, and therefore had no .50 cal or ord options, so it is correct.
-
Spit VIII was the most refined of the Merlin Spitfires. Retractable tail wheel, tropicalized from the start. Leading edge fuel tanks to increase range, short span ailerons, taller broad chord rudder. It was the peak of Merlin Spit development. That being said, getting Merlin 60s Spits into action became a higher priority with the introduction of the 190. This meant the 9 got their first because it was basically a Spitfire Vc with a Merlin 60 series engine.
Many of the refinements of the VIII ended up in the IX and XVI eventually.
Because it was the better of the two, the VIII ended up designated for overseas service so the RAAF got it as well as RAF and USAAF units in the MTO and CBI.
-
The Spit VIII was intended to be the definitive Merlin Spit. The Mk IX (and by extension the Mk XVI) was a stopgap to hold the line against the Fw190 until the refined Mk VIII was in production. In the actual event the Mk VIII was never produced in the numbers of the IX, but it dod go on to be the basis of the stopgap Griffon powered Mk XIV. The Mk XIV was intended to hold the line until the definitive Griffon Spit 21 was in production and, just as with the stopgap IX, the XIV was produced in far larger numbers than the 21.
As to the .50 cals, they should never have been on the Merlin 61 F.Mk IX in the first place. The Spitfire Mk IX we had prior to v2.06 was a Frankenstein that never existed. The Merlin 61 powered Spitfire Mk IX had a universal wing, which in practice meant two 20mm cannon and four .303 MGs. Only later on the Merlin 66 Spitfire LF.Mk IXe and Merlin 70 Spitfire HF.Mk IXe did the .50 cal show up. The Spitfire LF.Mk IXe is identical to the Spitfire LF.Mk XVIe that we also got in v2.06.
-
Hehe. I think we got it covered. :lol
-
Thanks for the info:aok
-
dan, what was the gain from tropicalising planes??? it surely just added more drag. did they have a larger air filter or something?
-
The early filters really added drag, while the later ones like on the Mk VIII didn't do so significally.
Basically, AFAIK the trop filters were not even needed in the North African theatre, - but it was the rules. They were needed in the Pacific where the RAF operated however.
Not sure how the US coped with it, but there were some troubles due to sand and coral dust at least.
-
Originally posted by Pooface
dan, what was the gain from tropicalising planes??? it surely just added more drag. did they have a larger air filter or something?
Well if you don't filter out the sand and dust from the air before it gets into the supercharger and the engine, it won't exactly prolong engine life. It was absolutely neccasary.
-
From Anthony Bartley's diaries (sqn leader 111 RAF) positioned in Gibraltar OTW to Algiers, November 10th 1942.
"The fuselages and wings had been crated seperatly, and assembled at the point of departure. with ill conceived tropical air/sand filters which were completely uneccecary in North Africa, and detracted considerably from performance which we were to discover to our substantial cost"
By the way those guys flew from Gibraltar to Algiers as an escort of Hudsons, which by opportunity attacked a Submarine on the way. It was a three hour flight or so.
-
Did the allied tropical filters continue to fliter the air for the duration of the flight? I mean besides that huge intake cowl they hung on the Spitfire.
The German ones were only used on take off and landing. After that the filter opened and no longer restricted airflow to the engine.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Really don't know. The only thing I do know is that there was a vast difference between the early generation filters abd the late ones.
A little to ad in the Med, - the air up high down there is actually colder than in N-Europe. Don't know why though. Maybe the clear sky all the time?
-
Regarding the filters. The Spit IX originally did not have the tropical filter. Here is an image from Spit historian Peter Arnold, of MH434 a surviving Spitfire, and the one our AH Spit IX is skinned as. Note it does not have the tropical filter, has the Universal wing with the 2 20mm and 4 303 and the ability to carry the drop tank. It doesn't have wing hard points etc. The IX got the tropical filter in 44 mainly because of the dust and dirt from the airfields in Normandy and on the continent. The dust and dirt choked the engines without the filter. MH434 now flies with the tropical filter and did so in it's postwar career with various air forces.
If you were going to be real picky, our AH Spit FIX that's marked like MH434 shouldn't have the tropical filter, which it in fact has in the game.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/27/9-mh434-06-001.jpg)
This is the 44-45 Spit LFXVIe. Note it's a clipped wing bird, with tropical filter, tall tail, wing hardpoints for rockets or bombs and E wing with the 2 20mm and 2 .5 mgs. This is the same tropical filter that was introduced on the VIII. It didn't really detract from performance at all, unlike the large filter that was used on the first tropical Spit Vs in the MTO and Pac.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/27/74SqdnLFIXERockets.jpg)
-
Another view of an early IX with no tropical filter. This is from a book published in 43 so this is clearly one of the very early IXs.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/27/Early9.jpg)
-
Here is some information on SpitIX.....
In summer 1944 several major improvements were made to Mk. IXs coming off the production line:
They were fitted with the Mark II Gyro Gunsight. This gunsight helped pilots calculate the correct angle of deflection to use when leading their targets. Its introduction doubled the effectiveness of their gunnery and was a major factor in Allied air superiority.
The E Type wing was introduced. It removed the .303 machine guns mounted in the outer wings as most aircraft at that time had armour impenetrable by .303 bullets. The 20 mm Hispano cannon were moved outboard and the more effective .50 calibre Browning heavy machine gun was introduced. The improved armament was more effective for both air-to-air engagements and air-to-ground attacks.
Eat that and give me my 50 cals back in the IX
Pieper
-
Heres another on the Spit........
Role Day fighter
Crew one, pilot
First Flight March 5, 1936
Entered Service August, 1938
Manufacturer Supermarine
Dimensions
Length 29 ft 11 in 9.1 m
Wingspan 36 ft 10 in 11.2 m
Height 11 ft 5 in 3.9 m
Wing area 242.1 ft² 22.5 m²
Weights
Empty 5,000 lb 2300 kg
Loaded 6,770 lb 3,078 kg
Maximum takeoff 8,380 lb 3,810 kg
Powerplant
Engine Rolls-Royce Merlin 45
Power 1,470 hp 1,096 kW
Performance
Maximum speed 374 mph 602 km/h
Combat range 470 mi 760 km
Ferry range 1,140 mi 1,825 km
Service ceiling 35,000 ft 11,300 m
Rate of climb 1,653 ft/min 504 m/min
Wing loading 28 lb/ft² 137 kg/m²
Power loading 4.6 lb/hp 2.1 kg/hp
Armament
Guns 2 × 20 mm cannon
4 × 0.303 inch (7.7 mm) machine guns
Bombs 1 × 500 lb (230 kg) bomb
Now.....give me my 500lb bomb back!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pieper
-
Now I'm really Mad......heres a bit of information bout the V I found
SPECIFICATIONS
Span: 36 ft. 10 in. (32 ft. 7 in. in L.F. version)
Length: 29 ft. 11 in.
Height: 11 ft. 4.75 in.
Weight: 6,785 lbs. maximum takeoff
Armament: Normally two Hispano 20 mm cannon (120 rounds per gun) and four Browning .303 machine guns (350 rounds per gun). Some with four Hispano 20 mm. cannon
Bomb load: two 250-lb. bombs or one 500-lb. bomb
Engine: One twelve-cylinder, liquid-cooled Rolls-Royce Merlin 45 of 1,470 hp.
Crew: One
PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 374 mph. at 13,000 ft.
Service Ceiling: 37,000 ft.
Why Did the cut the MKV guns in half of what it truly had?????????
Give me back my bombs and my 240 rounds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pieper
-
Originally posted by Pieper
Here is some information on SpitIX.....
In summer 1944 several major improvements were made to Mk. IXs coming off the production line:
They were fitted with the Mark II Gyro Gunsight. This gunsight helped pilots calculate the correct angle of deflection to use when leading their targets. Its introduction doubled the effectiveness of their gunnery and was a major factor in Allied air superiority.
The E Type wing was introduced. It removed the .303 machine guns mounted in the outer wings as most aircraft at that time had armour impenetrable by .303 bullets. The 20 mm Hispano cannon were moved outboard and the more effective .50 calibre Browning heavy machine gun was introduced. The improved armament was more effective for both air-to-air engagements and air-to-ground attacks.
Eat that and give me my 50 cals back in the IX
Pieper
You've got it in the Spit XVI which is nothing more then an LFIX with an American built Packard Merlin 266 in place of the Rolls Merlin 66.
The IX you describe was coming off the production line next to the XVI but it had the Rolls Merlin 66 in it. It too had clipped E wings etc.
the FIX we have is pre E wing from the 42-43 time frame. This is the Spit IX we have from 43.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/27/MJ175.jpg)
Image below is of the LFIX your description covers from 44-45. Same as our XVI. This one still has the rounded rudder but that's the only dif besides the engine maker.
Always best to do a bit more digging before screaming too loud :)
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/27/PT961.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Pieper
Now I'm really Mad......heres a bit of information bout the V I found
SPECIFICATIONS
Span: 36 ft. 10 in. (32 ft. 7 in. in L.F. version)
Length: 29 ft. 11 in.
Height: 11 ft. 4.75 in.
Weight: 6,785 lbs. maximum takeoff
Armament: Normally two Hispano 20 mm cannon (120 rounds per gun) and four Browning .303 machine guns (350 rounds per gun). Some with four Hispano 20 mm. cannon
Bomb load: two 250-lb. bombs or one 500-lb. bomb
Engine: One twelve-cylinder, liquid-cooled Rolls-Royce Merlin 45 of 1,470 hp.
Crew: One
PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 374 mph. at 13,000 ft.
Service Ceiling: 37,000 ft.
Why Did the cut the MKV guns in half of what it truly had?????????
Give me back my bombs and my 240 rounds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pieper
Again, do a little research. There were three basic variants of the Spit V.
The Spitfire Va which had 8 303 mgs
The Spitfire Vb which had 2 20mm cannon with 60 rounds each and 4 303s
The Spitfire Vc which has 2 20mm cannon with 120 rounds each and 4 303s.
There were also numerous engine types used on the Spit V.
We have the early production Spitfire Vb with drum fed 20mms with 60 rounds each, not the Spit Vc with belt fed 20mms with 120 rounds each. It's not the later LFVc either with the low alt merlin, it's the earlier Merlin in the Spit V so it's not the best performer of the Spit Vs. It's the 41 version pre bombs, clipped wings, etc. It's not the 1943 version you are looking for.
Imagine yourself flying the first sweeps over France in the newly issued Spitfire Vbs and being pumped about finally having cannons. No drop tanks fitted yet, and the Malta experience hasn't happened either where bombs were stuck on the Spit Vcs involved creating the first "Bomb fires"
This is what we have. A 1941 basic Spitfire Vb
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/27/SpitVb.jpg)
This is what you describe and want a 1943-44 Spitfire LFVc with all the refined bells and whistles that came with it. It's not the AH Spit V :)
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/27/4CannonSpitVc.jpg)
-
Interesting Stuff, Guppy. Essentially then all Spitfires are tropical. Wonder how they got around the physics and not suffered a cooling drag increase?
It didn't really detract from performance at all, unlike the large filter that was used on the first tropical Spit Vs in the MTO and Pac.
According to Shacklady and Morgen it went from 8% to 12% with new filters in Spitfire Mk IX. The Spitfire MK VIII had a "universal" filter but it still seems to effect performance as you are hanging extra cooling drag on the aircraft and was the same on used on the Spitfire Mk IX AFAIK.
However it does not answer my question:
Did the allied tropical filters continue to fliter the air for the duration of the flight?
Do you know the answer?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crumpp, I think the later trop filter that was fitted to all spits as standard was a bypassable, so it could be either used a tropical or normal, though I can't recall if that was possible to set from the cocpit or only by the mechanics on the ground.
Guppy, can you tell how did the Spitfire improved regarding bombracks and droptanks, what were the milestones when these were first operationally used? Ie. when did they first use dt, when was the belly racks and later the wing racks for bombs first employed?
-
Crumpp, I think the later trop filter that was fitted to all spits as standard was a bypassable, so it could be either used a tropical or normal, though I can't recall if that was possible to set from the cocpit or only by the mechanics on the ground.
It appears that way in the diagrams. I was thinking someone might know for sure.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
The air intake shutter was operated from the cockpit. The control was mounted on the port side of the cockpit.
See diagram pg 282 of S:tH. 1st issue
Initial trials with overload tanks (30gal) under each wing were conducted in early 1939.
-
I know about the trials etc, I was interested in the first actual use. Those early trials afaik were concentrating on fixed external tanks that were not jettisonable, and not very successfull because of that, if ever used.
-
Did the allied tropical filters continue to fliter the air for the duration of the flight?
I don't know about the early filters, but those fitted to the Spit VIII/IX onwards were switchable in flight by a lever in the cockpit, for ground running they filtered the air, for normal flight the filter was bypassed.
According to Shacklady and Morgen it went from 8% to 12% with new filters in Spitfire Mk IX. The Spitfire MK VIII had a "universal" filter but it still seems to effect performance as you are hanging extra cooling drag on the aircraft and was the same on used on the Spitfire Mk IX AFAIK.
No extra cooling drag, as the radiators didn't change afaik. I think M&S are talking about a prototype, with possible changes in the intercooler radiator as well.
The early filters caused a lot of drag. The later type caused little external drag, but initially air bled around and through the filter even when it was bypassed in flight, leading to a reduction in ram. Later blanking plates were fitted to fully bypass the filter when if flight. see page 281 - 282 of Spitfire the History, which includes tests of several Spitfires with and without the blanking plates. Adding the plates increased full throttle height by 900 - 1300 ft, and increased speeds by 5 - 11 mph.
-
So to rephrase the question :
When and what model Spitfire was the first to use droptanks in combat?
Introduction date of various DTs, afaik 90 gallon ones did not come until '44.
When and what model Spitfire was the first to use belly bomb rack in combat?
When and what model Spitfire was the first to use wing bomb racks in combat?
I presume all were introduced first onto the MkVs, at least I cannot recall to see earlier Marks with bombs or DTs.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Later blanking plates were fitted to fully bypass the filter when if flight. see page 281 - 282 of Spitfire the History, which includes tests of several Spitfires with and without the blanking plates. Adding the plates increased full throttle height by 900 - 1300 ft, and increased speeds by 5 - 11 mph.
You mean the blanking plates came with less performance loss than the early filters. I cannot see how a blanking plate can increase speed.
Were these plates put into serial production, or they were subject of various experiments?
-
Spit V
Mod 436 - 30gal drop tank - 29.8.41
Mod 437 - 90gal drop tank - 29.8.41
-
I dont know why they are so dead set against having the Spit V with a DT, must be a MA-whiney thing. Least they added one to the Seafire, bomb too, so thats cool.
-
No extra cooling drag, as the radiators didn't change afaik. I think M&S are talking about a prototype, with possible changes in the intercooler radiator as well.
The extra drag of intakes is lumped under cooling drag. See page 312.
The later type caused little external drag, but initially air bled around and through the filter even when it was bypassed in flight, leading to a reduction in ram. Later blanking plates were fitted to fully bypass the filter when if flight. see page 281 - 282 of Spitfire the History, which includes tests of several Spitfires with and without the blanking plates. Adding the plates increased full throttle height by 900 - 1300 ft, and increased speeds by 5 - 11 mph.
Yes but that performance is lumped into the evaluation on Pg 312 of the intakes on the Mk IX I would imagine as the trials took place almost a year later.
Facts are there are no "magical" tropical filters. Adding that feature has engineering consequences.
Does anyone have the manufacture’s guaranteed performance percentages on the Spitfire Marks? Seems the aircraft exhibits a very wide swath of performance even among the same variant. I assume that the General Performance specs listed in Shacklady and Morgan are the manufacture’s listed specifications.
It would be nice to get a representative model. Since real aircraft performance is not as exact as a computer model, one of the first things the community should recommend to HTC is where in that range we should model.
This will prevent some aircraft from being represented by performance figures that are at the upper end of the manufacture’s guaranteed performance percentages while others are modeled at the lower end. We can avoid gross misrepresentation of Historical engagements that way and end up with better fights.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
From what Neil posted, British defined 3% variation in max speed for production fighters. Ie a 404mph plane like the spit9lf, was accepted for service from the manufacturer anywhere between 392mph and 404mph.
-
From what Neil posted, British defined 3% variation in max speed for production fighters. Ie a 404mph plane like the spit9lf, was accepted for service from the manufacturer anywhere between 392mph and 404mph.
Yes, I have a copy of that memo. That seems to be a generalization explaining aircraft performance variations and not anything specific to the Spitfire.
It does list the 3% as an industry standard for fighter performance.
Focke Wulf, G.m.b.h., Bremen also lists 3% speed variation in the Anton.
I was hoping for something from Supermarine on their design. It looks to me like the variation is a little wider than 3%.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
First wing bomb racks hung on Spits were by 126 squadron flying from Malta in August 1942 when they hung two 250 pound bombs from racks underneath the outboarf cannon bay on the Spit Vc
Not positive but I believe the first use of the IX with bombs was in April of 44 when they were going after No-Ball targets. I believe it was a single 500 pounder on the centerline at that point and that it was post D-Day with the intro of the E-wing that the 2 wing hard points were added on the LFIXe and LFXVIe.
Drop tanks development was begun in 39 with the first operational extra tank being the tank they fixed on the port wing of the Spit II that were introduced in late 41. It didn't work very well and was limited to only a couple squadrons. The 30,45 and 90 gallon tanks were developed in 1941 but I can't find an exact date of introduction other then it would have been in late 41 or early 42. The Malta flights with the 90 gallon tanks began in March of 42.
I think the reason our Spit Vb in AH doesn't have the tank is that it is the early 1941 version prior to the tanks being introduced.
-
Guppy,
Do you know Supermarines manufacture’s guaranteed performance percentages for the various Spitfire Marks?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Interesting Stuff, Guppy. Essentially then all Spitfires are tropical. Wonder how they got around the physics and not suffered a cooling drag increase?
According to Shacklady and Morgen it went from 8% to 12% with new filters in Spitfire Mk IX. The Spitfire MK VIII had a "universal" filter but it still seems to effect performance as you are hanging extra cooling drag on the aircraft and was the same on used on the Spitfire Mk IX AFAIK.
However it does not answer my question:
Do you know the answer?
All the best,
Crumpp
The filters had shutters that could be opened or closed from the cockpit for filtering or not filtering the air. This was true on the large Spit Vc tropical intakes and on the streamlined version used on the VIII, IX and XVI
-
On page 244 it shows the operation of the large tropical filter on the Spitfire. It looks to me like you could open and close the intake but you could not bypass the filter element in flight.
The German systems closed the intake forcing air through the filter. When the aircraft was in flight, the intake would be opened and the filter bypassed.
This seems to be a feature in the "universal" intake found on the later Mark Spitfires but does not seem to be the case in the earlier tropical filter.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
On page 244 it shows the operation of the large tropical filter on the Spitfire. It looks to me like you could open and close the intake but you could not bypass the filter element in flight.
The German systems closed the intake forcing air through the filter. When the aircraft was in flight, the intake would be opened and the filter bypassed.
This seems to be a feature in the "universal" intake found on the later Mark Spitfires but does not seem to be the case in the earlier tropical filter.
All the best,
Crumpp
Yep, my mistake, I thought you meant whether it could be closed or opened similar to the way the 109 had set up.
Always dangerous when I start delving into the technical side of stuff. Guess that's why I ended up with a History and English degree and not engineering or math :)
-
Thanks for the answer, Guppy, though it's a bit strange if no IX would fly bombing sorties for almost 2 years in service. OTOH their mission profile was probably high escort until 1944 when they became numerous enough to take the other tasks from the Vs.
When did the E-wing appeared in production, August-September 1944? How widespread it was?
Note on the Sandfilters on the 109s, it operated the way Crumpp describes it, the shell could be opened/closed from the cocpit with a bowden. It was a simple, easily added device to filter the dust out near the ground. According to specs I have, it came with a -10kph speed penelty near SL, and -200m cost in FTH. Pretty typical for these filters, see the MkV tests with iceguard, there's similiar penalty in FTH.
-
'e' wing was used on -
all the XVI's
retrofitted to a number of XIVs and IXs.
From the F.21 onwards I believe the wing was a new design, standard fit was 4 x 20mm.
Didn't know about this one though -
'd' wing - long-range wing for reconnaissance versions with armament replaced by fuel tanks
-
Can it be confirmed that XVIs only came with E-wing ? One Brit datasheet I have lists them with either 4x,303 or 2x,50...
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Can it be confirmed that XVIs only came with E-wing ? One Brit datasheet I have lists them with either 4x,303 or 2x,50...
I don't have an exact date on the E wing. They appear in photos of Spit IX/XVIs post D-Day. The Spit pilot's logbook I have, shows his first flight in his E wing Spit XIV as mid July 44. He designated it it specificallly a Spit XIVe.
From the official RAF Spit IX/XVI maint manual. Note how the E wing is designated on the IX as well as the type, ie; LF, F, HF, while there is only a single line for the XVI, meaning it was only built as an LF and with only the E wing. as it lists only the Merlin 266 and the armament of 2 20mm and 2.5mg
Also interesting to note that there is no FIX listed with an E wing. Another reason any call for it on our FIX in AH is wrong
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/27/email0214.jpg)
-
For the XVI, they entered service in October 44 with 2nd TAF, by which time the E wing was standard in production (6/44). I doubt you will find any photos or refs to operational XVIs with C wing armament. I understand the early versions tested by the AFDU in the summer of 44 had C wings, and docs probably show that.