As I've said all this fuss over what is essentially a 1943 LF IX
Even with clipped wings its roll rate is inferior (though better than std wings) when compared to 190.
Think it basically came down to - If it was so pointless and not recommended why would all the XII and XVI be manufactured with clipped wings, and a lot of V and IX have clipped wings?
Yet the reports conclusion is not to clip the wings, doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by Crumpp
That is a good point. They were certainly better than not clipping the wings to combat the FW-190.
However it is also a fact that Spitifire pilots using clipped wing aircraft did not feel they it made much of a difference when fighting FW-190's. It was certainly improvement over a non-clipped wing but still unable to match the Focke Wulf.
It is also a fact that clipping the wings reduced the turn ability, raised the stall speed, lowered high altitude performance, degraded the handling characteristics, and detracted considerably from the fighting characteristics of the aircraft as this report concluded.
(http://img131.potato.com/loc285/th_51aca_pilotopinions.jpg) (http://img131.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc285&image=51aca_pilotopinions.jpg)
(http://img108.potato.com/loc126/th_eb7b9_clipped_wing_conclusions.jpg) (http://img108.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc126&image=eb7b9_clipped_wing_conclusions.jpg)
Clipping the wings was not a magical solution during the war nor should it be a magical solution in AH.
All the best,
Crumpp
Originally posted by Grits
The XVI out turns the VIII, look for the charts posted earlier this month.
Kev, I am not anti-Spit, I rather like them actually, but put aside your "RAF doesnt have a free '45 plane" Jihad for a second and tell me why the XVI should NOT be perked? It turns with a V, rolls just shy of a 190, accelerates like an La7, and climbs with a K-4. That sounds like a perk plane to me, regardless of year.
Safe to say the advantages outweighed the disadvantages? Seems like it when you consider the XIIs all went clipped, and the XVIs did as well and that was in 44-45.
Originally posted by Crumpp
I think Guppy that was more a move of desperation to combat the FW190 down low. Clipping the wings was better than not clipping the wings when dogfighting an FW-190 in a Spitifre. It just was not a vast improvement nor was it a complete answer as the Spitfire pilots who fought the FW190 comment.
All the best,
Crumpp
Wing design may not have changed, but the engines alt bands most certainly did.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Same thing happenend in the design of the Focke Wulf 190. It gained the exact same amount of power that the most powerful wartime Spitfire did and the 190 gained less weight. Does the RAF posses special "flying fairy dust" or were the physics of aerodynamics changed just for the FW-190?
All the best,
Crumpp
I think its actually the combination of the clipped wings, tall tail and Merlin 66 that is making the difference ingame compared to what people are used to (F IX).
Naw just R.J.Mitchells superior design
Originally posted by Crumpp
I think Guppy that was more a move of desperation to combat the FW190 down low. Clipping the wings was better than not clipping the wings when dogfighting an FW-190 in a Spitifre. It just was not a vast improvement nor was it a complete answer as the Spitfire pilots who fought the FW190 comment.
All the best,
Crumpp
Originally posted by Kev367th
RE: Turns with a V? - That I'd like to see.
Originally posted by Guppy35
Any of the birds you compared it to perked? :)
Originally posted by Grits
Badboy made EM charts comparing the V to the VIII and then the VIII to the XVI. The sustained turn rate of the VIII was better than the V, and much to my surprize, his testing showed that the XVI sustained turn rate was again better than the VIII. The differences were not large, but they were there. Couple that with its spectacular (for a Spit) roll rate, outstanding climb rate, great accelleration, decent top speed and its no stretch to see the XVI being perked.
This has nothing to do with the real plane, only its performance and resulting overuse in AH.
Originally posted by Krusty
I fear nothing in one. I have landed dozens of multi kill sorties in one. I've taken on bombers, dweebs, turn and burners, a 30k afk 190D heading to my HQ, and you name it I've fought it with ease in the spit16. Much as I actually like the ride, I smell a small perk coming.
Originally posted by Kev367ththe reason why the K/D is low (in your opinion) is because every two week noob is in one. I've out turned some players with a heavy 100% fueled up 110 while still keeping my bombs. the spit may not need to be perked but it would be better for game play if were mildly perked. I would argue to reduce the perk on the spit14 at this time as well. your argument regarding the LW models is not valid. were HTC ever to correct those models then perhaps it would be. I don't see HTC ever doing that though it would seriously hurt their quarterly projections.
Reasons -
Only has 1.12K/D
Acceleration is almost same as La7 up to the XVI top speed (still sub 400mph)
Roll still worse than the 190
Next inline would be the VIII
So perk the 1944 (cough) XVI, everyone moves to the 1943 VIII, perk that, we're back to a 1942 F IX!!!!
Now might be a good time to try a tour with the XIV unperked, see what happens.
The solution is to give MORE options, not take away what little the RAF has.
With the limited (but much better) Spit lineup, of course the XVI is going to see lots of use, it's the best (VIII very similar) performing FREE one, especially for the MA low alt furballs.
Before I get the "Spit has the most of any type ingame", consider this -
The main opponent was the 109 AND 190, which combined has much more than the Spits available.
The reason you don't see a lot of perk the D9, K4 or Pony threads is because both the USAF and LW have many more planes available to them that are competitve in the MA that none gets OVERUSED.
Solution is simple - Give the RAF more FREE options in the 1943 onwards area.
I would guess that even reinstating the old V as an LF Vc with clipped wings would reduce XVI usage.
Lets imagine we hadn't got the XVI, but just the VIII, we'd still be in the same situation.
So are we saying that any Spit produced after the 1942 Spit IX is going to be perked, because thats the way it's heading.
Even heard it suggested the Seafire should be perked to reduce it's usage of CV's - ITS INSANE.
What would be useful is to find out what planes have lost sortie numbers to the XVI, find out were all the 'extra' came from. Obviously the V and IX sorties have dropped.
RE: Turns with a V? - That I'd like to see.
Originally posted by Guppy35
Safe to say the advantages outweighed the disadvantages? Seems like it when you consider the XIIs all went clipped, and the XVIs did as well and that was in 44-45.]
That implies that any modification done to fill a need was desperate.
I think we've agreed in the past that the wartime development of the 190 and Spit parallelled each other with each taking steps up the ladder towards the far end of piston engined fighter development, and I think you'd agree when all was said and done they kept pace with each taking the lead on occasion with the other catching up or passing it again.
Originally posted by Squire
Had some time to kill, so took Spit XVI up with 100 gas clean, got 404 at +18 lbs at 19,900 ft, which I beleive is FTH (above that the boost drops off). Achieved without aid of a dive.
Just for info...:aok
Originally posted by Widewing
MK. VIII
Speed @ sea level: 337 mph ...aboutOK
Speed @ 22,000 ft: 402 mph .... - 2mph
Acceleration, time from 200 to 300 mph at SL: 33.66 seconds
Climb from SL to 10K, starting at 300 mph: 1:44.72
Mk. XVI
Speed @ sea level: 343 mph... too fast, +7mph (+18lbs)
Speed @ 20,000 ft: 405 mph... +1 mph
Limited testing of the new 109s produced the following.
109G-14
Speed @ sea level: 347 mph... to slow, -6mph
Note : The G-14 was also reported 10mph too slow at rated altitude.
109K-4
Speed @ sea level: 367 mph... about OK, should be 369mph (for 1.8ata)
Climb from SL to 10K, starting at 300 mph: 1:43.19
109G-6
Speed @ sea level: 337 mph.. too fast, should be 329mph, by +8mph
Climb from SL to 10K, starting at 300 mph: 1:53.79
Other revised Spitfires, limited testing.
Mk. IX
Speed @ sea level: 319 mph.... way too fast, by +9mph (for +15 lbs)
Climb from SL to 10K, starting at 300 mph: 2:05.94
[/B]
I've always had an issue with P-38 acceleration in Aces High. Pilots who flew both the P-38 and the P-51 universally agree that the P-38 was a "drag racer" in comparison, and the power loading of the P-38 seems to support that opinion. At normal weights in the RW, the P-38J uses little less than 65% of the runway distance to get airborne when compared to a P-51D.
My regards,
Widewing [/B]
The only reason I am saying I don't put much stock in the report is the aircraft they tested with clipped wings.
Mk. XVI
Speed @ sea level: 343 mph... too fast, +7mph (+18lbs)
Speed @ 20,000 ft: 405 mph... +1 mph
Mk. XVI
Speed @ sea level: 343 mph... too fast, +7mph (+18lbs)
Speed @ 20,000 ft: 405 mph... +1 mph
No Crump that data is for a NORMAL SPAN LF IX (same performance as a LF XVI), not a clipped wing LF IX/XVI.
The two remaining gun stubs were fitted with hemispherical blanks. All gun ports were sealed, but the ejection chutes beneath the wings relevant to the guns fitted were open.
Except for these modifications, the engine was a standard production Merlin 66, the aircraft being a normal Spitfire IX, with 10'9" diameter Hydulignum propeller and standard tropical type of air intake, operating as temperate. The aircraft was flown at a weight of 7,234 lbs. (84 galls. total fuel capacity).
Spitfires were tested with mirrors, the AH Spitfires don't have them. Removing the mirror accounted for about 6 mph.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
From what I have seen the P-51D Cd0 was around 0.0170, the P-38J's - 0.0270 Add the fact that the P-38 had much higher wing area with what you have to multiply the Cd0, and there's absolutely NO WAY the P-38 could be claimed a 'drag racer', esp. compared to the Mustang. Powerloading, dunno, the P-38 has about twice the weight, and twice as many similiarly powerful engines, so it could cancel it out.
This is exactly why things are out of whack in AH world. Whose modification can make it into the game as substitute for standard.
Francis Dean provides calculated data in America's Hundred Thousand that shows the P-38L with about an 8% advantage in acceleration rate over the P-51D. He used the following data for his calculation.
Should they model the drag of something that isn't fitted?
Originally posted by Crumpp
Have you checked out the TAIC tested results, Widewing?
All the best,
Crumpp
So we still have Spit LF IX with normal span wings and a sea level speed of 336mph with a Merlin66.
Facts are it came on the aircraft and should be modeled.
Originally posted by Crumpp
It is however clearly on the upper scale of performance and is no different from "normal" FW-190A6's doing 580kph on the deck. All are within manufacturer's tolerances.
None represent the middle of the road performance however.
I am not even advocating that modeled performance needs to be "average". I do advocate that performance can adjusted within tolerances to best reflect an aircraft's historical balance within the planeset.
Would it be correct if I posted flight tested data from 5 different aircraft in which three of them were above Focke Wulf's listed specifications and started claiming the FW-190 should be faster than those specifications always? They are simply possible performance within a normal range.
I mean come on. As much as some folks would love for it to be, the Spitfire was not running all over the skies during WWII outrunning, outdiving, outclimbing, or outturning all planes at all times. Like every other design it was about the engineering trade offs. Just as there are "Lemons" there are exceptional examples of any manufacturered product.
We can take selected data though and make charts all day long showing our favourite plane as the "uberfighter" proving it's prowness to ourselves.
All the best,
Crumpp
Exactly, and HT doesn't model lemons.
If he did he would include the poor build quality of late war LW rides, and such things as aircraft being delivered minus some instruments.
If anything I think the VIII is slighly under performance specs, seems more like the data came from a extended wing Spit VIII, not a normal span one.
Oh, I agree, but I believe the graphics hit is the reason they didn't model it. I don't think they'd model the drag for someting that isn't fitted.
Heaven help us if the RAF fans had some fun for a change.
The evidence is there for clipped wings on all kinds of Spit variants, yet somehow the RAF screwed up, the records are wrong, the photo evidence is wrong, the Spit was a dog, etc etc.Heaven help us if the RAF fans had some fun for a change.
Originally posted by Crumpp
I certainly have to scratch my head at this statement Guppy.
Maybe it is because I fly the CT, an arena they very rarely added the AH Spitfire even in AH1, due to it's unbalancing effect. An effect with little basis in reality. I have to say that if it was "realistic" the Luftwaffe would have been destroyed in 1942.
No one has claimed anything of the sort Guppy. The documentation is clear and says what is written.
As I stated earlier, some chance is better than no chance. It makes sense to clip the wings.
Clipping them did not perform aviation miracles however.
What does not make sense is the fact it seems perfectly ok for some rides to exceed their published specifications while others are consistantly lagging behind.
As long as it good for the fans, right?
All the best,
Crumpp
Originally posted by Squire
Santa knows you have been good Guppy :)
Spit XVIE, yes indeed, its role was fighter-bomber at low level, hence the clipped wings.
Do you have "Invasions Without Tears" Guppy? its a great read on 126 Wing with 2nd TAF, and sheds a lot of light on the kinds of missions they flew, although Chris Shores books on simikar subjects probably covers the same ground, but its a more close up look at the ops of a fighter wing in France and Holland from the ground staff as well, and has a lot of interesting bits of info on the daily grind of the campaign. It war written from the memoirs of the Senior Intel Officer attached, F/L M. Berger RCAF.
Originally posted by Guppy35
It gets hard as a Spit fan to have been stuck with for so long a 1942 hodge podge Spit IX as well as listening to the whines about the Spit Vc we had.
So now we have 44-45 variants and the call is out that it/they should be perked because too many people are using them. In the end a Spit fan can't win, or at least has to be limited to Spits that aren't too good.
Originally posted by Crumpp
I am not asking for the Spitfire to be perked.
Originally posted by Kev367th
45
LW - Has more than a few at their MAX performance boost levels
USAF and RAF - Not ONE plane uses 150 grade fuel.
Originally posted by Kev367thjust out of curiosity how does the spitXVI stack up against the 110G2?
Conclusion - Looks like the new Spits are probably the newbies choice of plane, in fact it may be what is drawing them, and perhaps keeps them in AH2.
And people want it perked?
Nothing quite like biting off the the hand that feeds you.
[edit] XVI is the highest scoring La7 killer, and that can't be a bad thing :) [/B]
Originally posted by Crumpp
That is a good point. They were certainly better than not clipping the wings to combat the FW-190.
However it is also a fact that Spitifire pilots using clipped wing aircraft did not feel they it made much of a difference when fighting FW-190's. It was certainly improvement over a non-clipped wing but still unable to match the Focke Wulf.
It is also a fact that clipping the wings reduced the turn ability, raised the stall speed, lowered high altitude performance, degraded the handling characteristics, and detracted considerably from the fighting characteristics of the aircraft as this report concluded.
(http://img131.potato.com/loc285/th_51aca_pilotopinions.jpg) (http://img131.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc285&image=51aca_pilotopinions.jpg)
(http://img108.potato.com/loc126/th_eb7b9_clipped_wing_conclusions.jpg) (http://img108.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc126&image=eb7b9_clipped_wing_conclusions.jpg)
Clipping the wings was not a magical solution during the war nor should it be a magical solution in AH.
All the best,
Crumpp
Originally posted by Kev367th
Wrag I think the problem is with the VIII FM not the XVI. VIII FM seems to be based on the VIII with extended tips, not std ones.
BTW that report - A close look shows although it claims to have flown the V, IX and XII with and without clipped wings, the comments from the pilots are ALL flying the F V only.
All the pilots say it was definately better in roll than a standard wing, yet the guy summarising recommends not doing it.
Most of his problems wouldn't even be a problem with LF series Merlin 66 Spits
i.e. Reduced alt - No prob, LF were designed lower alts anyway
Reduced climb - No prob, Merlin 66 had much better ROC than a 45/46
Carrier - Seafires did in fact fly off CV's fully loaded with clipped wings WITHOUT a problem.
Deacrease in speed over 20k - No prob, led to increase at low alts, were the LF's were desinged for.
Inability to turn as fast - No prob, still outturned LW opponents.
Some of his conscerns are valid for F V Merlin 45/46 Spits, but cannot be applied to Merlin 66 spits.
Seems strange they never used a LF V in the 'tests'.
All the pilots say it was definately better in roll than a standard wing, yet the guy summarising recommends not doing it.
A close look shows although it claims to have flown the V, IX and XII with and without clipped wings, the comments from the pilots are ALL flying the F V only.
Originally posted by Kev367th
Dok, I see what your getting at but it will never happen, for the following reasons-
i) I would imagine that HT main player base is from the U.S.
ii) Newbs coming to the game usually look for one of the big 4 (Spit/Pony/109/190)
iii) Apart from the early models most of those are lower than ENY 10.
iv) A system that perks the Pony D at any level woud probably hurt HTC see (i) and (ii).
As for people charging into furballs, whats wrong with that?
I haven't been on recently (waiting for fix for the warpy/slidy/vanishing planes), but when the XVI was introduced there were a great many more furballs.
The reason the La7 wasn't perked was that although there certainly was a lot of them it never really managed a K/D much higher the 1.1 to 1.2, i.e. it didn't dominate the MA.
At the moment the XVI is in the same category, yup theres a lot of them, but it hasn't managed a K/D much over 1.1 . Now if it suddenly starts hitting 1.5+, then I think it may happen to get perked.
Still say the answer is to have more choices, not restrict the choices available.
[...]
All the conscerns or disadvantages he lists are not a problem for LF series Spits, especially the Merlin 66 series Spits.
Still like to see whine-o-meter if we had got a XII and F.21
The conclusions maybe valid for F V's, not IMO valid for a LF IX or XVI. T
Yeah Crumpp it's all a conspiracy.
There were however 31000+ extra deaths overall last tour prob attributable to both people playing more and new customers.
Originally posted by Crumpp
I bet HTC would make up any lost revenue from realistically modeling the Spitfire in the increase fun of the fights.
All the best,
Crumpp
Originally posted by Kev367th
Still like to see whine-o-meter if we had got a XII and F.21 :) .
Originally posted by Kurfürst
I'd like to remind you that the whine-o-meter only gets crazy by your boasting about how uberscary the XII or the F21 would be. As Crumpp nicely put it, that's a fine opinion, but I very much doubt that any decent 109/190 would be actually that much scared of the nothing extra,poor altitude performance XII, or the 700 lbs heavier, 200 lbs worser climb than it's precedessor XIV plus directionally troubled F21, that on the plus side has.... 1-2mph faster speed and two extra Hispanos, and is plagued by handling problems. I'd take a XIV over that sucker any day. The 109 analogy to the XIV/21 is a 109K with gunpods vs. a clean 109K... at 1.98ata. :D And we don't have to make assumptions about the whine-o-meter in connection with that, we have already seen that from you. :D
Originally posted by Urchin
I think it is great that the RAF fans finally got a 1944 Spit to fly around in. The only spit 9 really wasn't competitive (which was obvious, seeing as the old spit 5 got more use).
It will be a sad sad day when you can't get a free RAF plane later than 42/43. (AGAIN)
It mentions F Vb, F IX and XII on the 1st page, yet on the comments from the pilots page it clearly states at the top its only the Vb being flown.
As for as the LW planes go, they've pretty much always sucked, assuming you wanted to knife-fight in them. I haven't played in a while, but the 190 was pretty much a "make 1,2 moves then run if you haven't killed em" type plane. No comment on the 109, since I haven't flown the new ones.
Originally posted by Kweassa
I say leave the Spit16 alone, and unperk the Chog, 4hog, Ta, Spit14.. and drop the Temp, 262 perk price to half.
Either that, or if people want to perk Spit16s, then they'd better be ready to accept to perk all '44 planes along with it. 190A-8, D-9, 109G-14, K-4, P-51s, P-47s, P-38s, Typhoons, Temps, La-7s, and the post '43 Spits.. etc etc.
Originally posted by Kev367th
Yeah Crumpp it's all a conspiracy.
Just about every flight simulator has it wrong.
Every allied plane is overmodelled, every axis plane isn't, they should all turn like Zekes, accelerate like F15s, have totally unobstructed views and have guns like lasers.
...
The V's being tested - makes no mention of aileron type (metal or fabric).
Turn radius - They still turned inside their opponents.
Just correct the cherry picked data more online to what Supermarine says it should be.
Or did I miss the thread where he got all the FM data from the community?
Pyro already had the data he needed for the XVI (spoke to him at length about the XVI well prior to its release), I don't believe anything came from the community.
Originally posted by Kev367th
Visibility- Everything I've read says the Spit had better visibilty.
Guns - If it were a live pilot in a real Spit, no you wouldn't, however its not. As yet another example - how many times you been in something like a 110 with the complete gun package and something like a A6M will try and ho you.
How many guys gets kills in IL2's because people try to ho them.
Hispanos - Only real complaints I ever read about conscerned the early ones that were prone to jamming, but HT doesn't model any kind of failure.
You can't compare real life anything to AH2.
Things happen on a regualr basis in AH2 that would probably be one in a million 'real life', because we only have our virtual life on the line.
then only include comments from the Vb pilots?
One report (pilots comments) stating clipping definately improved roll
Any probs with them?
Originally posted by Crumpp
Now how come there is no outrage from Spitfire fans who want to see a correctly modeled Spitfire when the data exceeds Supermarines guarenteed percetages?
Crumpp
Small increase in take off run (serious for ship borne aircraft).
Decrease in speed over 20,000ft
Originally posted by Crumpp
Does the Bf-109 outturn the Spitfire Mk XVI in AH? It should as the RAE determined that the 109 was greatly superior.
All the best,
Crumpp
I think it interesting that it's LW fliers that are the ones leading the charge to neuter the Spit XVI, and in some cases LW junkies who don't even play the game.
Originally posted by Crumpp
There is no charge to neuter the Spitfire. IMHO it would be silly to not model the aircraft as accurately as possible even if it is not one I routinely fly.
If the FW-190 was doing things it should not in the game, I would be the first to speak out. I don't run around and post every flight test of exceptional aircraft screaming that this is what a Focke Wulf should be doing in this game. I would want Focke Wulf Gmbh published figures to RLM modeled. The ones they staked their company reputation on that every Focke Wulf produced could come with 1.5% above or below.
In fact you will see I have complained in several threads that the FW-190A5 is too light. It's all up weight is completely wrong. The AH FW-190A's gain almost as much weight between the two variants modeled as the entire series in reality.
It seems to me that the Spitfire experts should be doing the same thing. Instead of picking "the best" data they should be picking the most representative.
All the best,
Crumpp
Originally posted by Guppy35
So far in my limited flying this tour, I'm 20-2 vs XVIs and that's flying the 38G and the Spit IX. And I suck! It can't be that good if I'm knocking em down like that.
Originally posted by Shane
it's not that you suck. it's that they suck harder.
:aok
Originally posted by Urchin
....Congratulations if you got through it all lol.
Originally posted by Urchin
Congratulations if you got through it all lol.
Does the Bf-109 outturn the Spitfire Mk XVI in AH? It should as the RAE determined that the 109 was greatly superior.
Originally posted by Guppy35I was just thinking that last night as an endless wave of spit16s was hitting a base they were trying to capture. sadly the anti spit medicine for me is the La7 once it's fighting more than one spit. it's a conundrum. the spits take an average of 5-6 20mm cannon hits to kill from the LW cannon so in a single popgun 109G2 it takes me forever to kill one. I've been in the 110G2 and the La7 mostly now. but you are right. they stick around until they realize their buds are down and then they can't run away.
The point remains the same. If these guys in what they believe is the uber Spit XVI are sticking around to fight, because they think they can win in it, how can that be a bad thing? :)
They'd have been running for the hills after their HO in thier LA7. So perk the XVI that they're at least trying to dogfight in, and send them back to LA7s? How can that be a good thing?
Originally posted by Kev367th
Kurfy - At least with Crumpp it's possible to have a civil, if sometimes heated discussion, maybe a little humor and sarcasm also.
With you it always ends up with you resorting to personal insults, think from now on your IGGIED.
So what is the most representative from your point of view?
The proverbial 'not a chinaman's chance', Crumpp.
Also the better handling characteristics caused by wing clip is not a surprise.
The speed increase was at low alt.
Does the Bf-109 outturn the Spitfire Mk XVI in AH? It should as the RAE determined that the 109 was greatly superior.
All the best,
Crumpp
Roll rates seem to vary rather wildly in the Spitfire due to flow seperation at the aileron surface. So I imagine when you had one which was not experiencing such difficulties, there was not much of a difference as the report concludes. That is essentially all clipping the wings did was remove or reduce the amount of flow seperation at the tips.
Originally posted by Guppy35
OK I know I'm dumb as a fencepost when it comes to these discussions, but having just taken the time to re-read it, what are we arguing about?
Originally posted by Guppy35
OK I know I'm dumb as a fencepost when it comes to these discussions, but having just taken the time to re-read it, what are we arguing about?
What is it that the Spit XVI is doing that it shouldn't? Best I can figure is that some are arguing that it's 7 mph too fast at sea level and it rolls too fast? Is that it?
Are we saying we need to perk it because too many people fly it?
Or is this a round about way of complaining that the LW birds are undermodeled and can't compete?
...
Originally posted by Guppy35
Are we saying we need to perk it because too many people fly it?
Crumpp, what's the source for that claim?
One is to get the LW planes where they should be ... especially before ToD.
HT has said that overuse is the reason for perks, not plane performance in and of itself.
The trials of W3248. I have ordered the report and will post them when it comes in. The line actually says the Bf-109G's performance is "greatly superior" to the clipped wing spitfire.
Originally posted by Nashwan
Do you have part of the report, or are you quoting from a book? And do you mean overall performance is greatly superior, or roll performance? Can you at least give us the paragraph that says this, rather than just part of sentence? (sorry to hassle, but it's the sort of thing I really like to know :) )
What's the problem with the roll rate?
Originally posted by Guppy35
It's still nothing more then a Spitfire LFIXe with clipped wings and the American made Packard Merlin 266 in place of the Rolls Royce Merlin 66.
Originally posted by gripen
There is some differences between the RR Merlin 66 and Packard Merlin 266, shortly:
Reduction gear:
66 0,477
266 0,479
1st SC gear:
66 5,79
266 5,80
2nd SC gear:
66 7,06
266 7,35
1st FTH rating +18lbs:
66 1705hp 5750ft
266 1710hp 6400ft
2nd FTH rating +18lbs:
66 1580hp 16000ft
266 1490hp 19400ft
Generally the 266 is very similar with the V-1650-7.
gripen
W3248 was a very early production Spitfire FVb.
3-4k higher 2nd FTH than the LFIX and therefore also max speeds should be a bit higher.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Wow, Do engines gain more power below or above FTH?? You should probably check that logic as it completely wrong.
That is rather dismissive and insulting Crump, particularly given that he is right and you are wrong.
Originally posted by gripen
There is some differences between the RR Merlin 66 and Packard Merlin 266, shortly:
Reduction gear:
66 0,477
266 0,479
1st SC gear:
66 5,79
266 5,80
2nd SC gear:
66 7,06
266 7,35
1st FTH rating +18lbs:
66 1705hp 5750ft
266 1710hp 6400ft
2nd FTH rating +18lbs:
66 1580hp 16000ft
266 1490hp 19400ft
Generally the 266 is very similar with the V-1650-7.
gripen
Originally posted by Crumpp
Engines loose power after FTH.
Mustang III with V-1650-7 1505hp at 2nd FTH 24500ft 442mph
Tales from GripenWorld.
ny ways, all kind of moot given that Kurfurst just posted data that confirms what I understood to be the case originally. That the Merlin 266 is a Merlin 66 built in the USA and with American tooling.
Originally posted by Karnak
Any ways, all kind of moot given that Kurfurst just posted data that confirms what I understood to be the case originally. That the Merlin 266 is a Merlin 66 built in the USA and with American tooling.
Why don't you just compare speeds at 1st and 2nd FTH in the graph you posted.
Originally posted by gripen
I'm quoting directly the RR listing of ratings from the appendix of "The Merlin in Perspective" by Alec Harvey-Bailey.
gripen
Any ways, all kind of moot given that Kurfurst just posted data that confirms what I understood to be the case originally. That the Merlin 266 is a Merlin 66 built in the USA and with American tooling.
Well, at least according to my eyes the Fw 190 (with internal intake) in your graph did about 680km/h at 2nd FTH 6500m and only 610km/h at 1st FTH 2000m.
Guys, stop arguing with Gripen.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
.... and I am qouting the RAF Air Intelligence's datasheet for British and enemy aircraft, from February 1945.I'd rather trust a primary source over a secondary one which may have printing errors, or simply the author is in error.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Karnak, you are one of those whose opinion I do value. I understand what you are saying but I do not think just raising the FTH alone is the reason for the gains. Unless it is a significant FTH gain to a much higher altitude and thinner air.
Code change was mainly because of the different tooling required, British measument system vs the American measurement system.
Yes, looking at Gripen's numbers, even though they seem pretty well countered now they still work to play with, the Merlin 66 would be producing 90hp more than the Merlin 266 with an altitude difference of only 3,400ft and that is not much different in terms of thinning the air. That does seem that it would not produce much difference whereas the Merlin 61's 11,000ft difference would be quite significant.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Good lord Gripen. The line with the lower FTH is the faster one at all altitudes.
THE CLIPPED WING VB
Prototype for the clipped wing Spitfire VB can be considered to be W3248 and this variant was developed for low altitude duties, appearing in all war theatres. In the Middle East local modifications resulted in wooden tip fairings with more rounded profile than those fitted in England. In the fighter reconnaissance (FR) role several Spitfires, including EP878. were fitted with an oblique camera behind the cockpit. All skin joints were taped over and other blemishes removed and the whole aircraft highly polished. Engine supercharger blades were also cropped in an effort to increase speed. Several FR VBs were operated by No 40 Squadron of the SAAF during the fighting and chase of the Afrika Korps after the Second Battle of El Alamein in November 1942.
Production of the Mk V continued until the latter half of 1943, with Castle Bromwich building their last example-MH646- in August, and Westland the following October when they rolled out EF753. These models were very different from the original Mk Vs by having metal covered ailerons, an inertia weight on the elevator control system, modified horn balance to elevator. Engines included the Merlin 45, 46, 50, 50A, 50M, 55, and 56.
An interesting Mk VB was EN830 of No 131 Squadron which, whilst flying over France in a sweep on a dull November day. was intercepted and made a forced landing in a practically undamaged state. It was repaired and painted in standard Luftwaffe fighter splinter camouflage of dark and light green upper surfaces and blue under surfaces. It was coded CJ+ZY and seconded to Daimler Benz for the installation of an l,475hp DB605A engine. Armament was recovered and many minor modifications carried out. An example was the carburetter air intake installed on the port side of the engine cowling.
During trials the Mk V was no match for the BflO9G as the following figures demonstrate, but it is interesting to note that its climb rate to 19,000ft was far better than that of the German aircraft. It must be borne in mind, however, that the Spitfire's armament would have added 600 lbs dead weight.
SPITFIRE (AUW6550) Me109G (AUW6054)
Max speed s/l 300 mph 316
Max speed @ 22,000ft 379 mph 385
Rate of climb to 19,000ft 3,540 f/min 2,520
It seems to much to be a coincidence that they talk of a Spit V tested with 600 lbs armament removed right next to discussion of W3248's roll rate.
Originally posted by Crumpp
:o
You could be right. I took the paragraph about the captured Spit Mk V to be an interesting side note.
Since the chapter is on clipped wing spits, I would assume EN830 had clipped wings. Otherwise it seems an interesting but rather silly footnote to include in the THE CLIPPED WING VB section.
Either way the tactical trials of a clipped wing spitfire are on the way.
All the best,
Crumpp
Originally posted by Kurfürst
I guess the 'greatly superior 109G' part that ticks off poor Nashwan comes from the simple fact that even the possibly worst variant of the 109F/G was at 30-70 kph faster than the Spitfire V at altitude or even more at the really high altitudes, which let's face it was the mainstay of the RAF Spitfire squadrons,the MkIX being just as 'common' as the Me 262 until mid-1944.
They must have felt they're chasing jets anywhere over the MkVs modest critical altitude. There was no 'fight', either the 109 choose to engage the Spit or it didn't. Hell even that poor G-6 cruised as fast as the MkV's all-out. :p
Originally posted by Kurfürst
I guess the 'greatly superior 109G' part that ticks off poor Nashwan comes from the simple fact that even the possibly worst variant of the 109F/G was at 30-70 kph faster than the Spitfire V at altitude or even more at the really high altitudes, which let's face it was the mainstay of the RAF Spitfire squadrons,the MkIX being just as 'common' as the Me 262 until mid-1944.
They must have felt they're chasing jets anywhere over the MkVs modest critical altitude. There was no 'fight', either the 109 choose to engage the Spit or it didn't. Hell even that poor G-6 cruised as fast as the MkV's all-out. :p
Originally posted by Kurfürst
I guess the 'greatly superior 109G' part that ticks off poor Nashwan comes from the simple fact that even the possibly worst variant of the 109F/G was at 30-70 kph faster than the Spitfire V at altitude or even more at the really high altitudes, which let's face it was the mainstay of the RAF Spitfire squadrons,the MkIX being just as 'common' as the Me 262 until mid-1944.
They must have felt they're chasing jets anywhere over the MkVs modest critical altitude. There was no 'fight', either the 109 choose to engage the Spit or it didn't. Hell even that poor G-6 cruised as fast as the MkV's all-out. :p
Originally posted by Karnak
I would say that it was a mix, with the Mk IX's being tasked with the activities more likely to involve air-to-air combat.
I am also skeptical that there were only 10 squadrons on Mk IXs by the end of 1943.
EN830 did not have clipped wings.
That section is written poorly in Spit the Hist. There is no transition from mentioning the clipping of the one Spit Vb to talking about the captured Vb
Originally posted by Crumpp
Then in that case we are still left with conclusion of the full wing spitfire being greatly inferior.
He does jump around a bit. I can't tell from Kurfurst photograph if the wings are clipped or not.
Now I am even more interested in seeing those reports from the PRO.
All the best,
Crumpp
Originally posted by Crumpp
Then in that case we are still left with conclusion of the full wing spitfire being greatly inferior.
He does jump around a bit. I can't tell from Kurfurst photograph if the wings are clipped or not.
Now I am even more interested in seeing those reports from the PRO.
All the best,
Crumpp
Just because there were clearly so few clipped. Vs, VIIIs, IXs, XIIs, XIVs, XVI
Originally posted by Guppy35
Just because there were clearly so few clipped. Vs, VIIIs, IXs, XIIs, XIVs, XVI
Originally posted by Crumpp
In comparison to normal wing variants, it is not very common.
I don't see anywhere the conclusions of the RAE regarding clipped wing performance are invalid. It clearly has engineering trade offs but offers advantages against the FW-190, the most common Luftwaffe fighter for much of the time on the Kanalfront, than the normal wing variants. For rolling performance the surveyed Spitfire pilots comments are valid.
All the best,
Crumpp
They didnt need to be.
If your looking for black and white reason or circumstance, there isn't one.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yeah. We obviously are not looking at the same information or documents. You should probably re-read what the Spitfire pilots wrote:
http://img121.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=275e4_pilotopinions.jpg
A normal wing Spitfire has NO CHANCE of following an FW-190 in an aileron turn. It's called agility. The FW-190 has estabilished a turn long before the Spitfire even begins. Every document printed by all sides agrees on this point. Some with comments like "would rip the wings off a Spitfire".
It is not just Spit V's that the RAE concluded on their own aircraft:
http://img120.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=cfd2f_Effect_of_clipping_Spitfire_Wings.jpg
http://img130.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=b2870_715_1094128429_rolltestonspit5_9_12_conclusions.jpg
Clipping the wings came at a real price. The science and engineering of aerodynamics say it is so. The fans may not like it but the fact remains.
The RAF was certainly concerned with the FW-190 the entire war. If you get the documents and trace the history of the RAF's involvement with the Focke Wulf, familiarity did not breed contempt. The Focke Wulf was considered a much more dangerous opponent AFTER the tactical trials than it was before them. In 1942-43 they paid a heavy price from a realitively few Focke Wulfs too.
I think Guppy will agree that the major driving factor behind Spitfire development was the Luftwaffe's low level superiority over the allied fighters. If you examine the chart I posted, in 1943 there was not a fighter in the allied inventory that did not have a tough time catching a Focke Wulf at tree top level. The majority could not do it and certainly no Spitfire in the 1943 inventory was capable of catching one. England was bombed almost daily by FW-190's from SKG 10 and other bomber units and they needed something to stop it.
See above. It is called a desire to win the war and gain an edge over your enemy.
All the best,
Crumpp
In fact I consider the rolling to be a quite useless defence because the 190 lacks so much in other maneuverability that it is simply a waste of energy to try to roll and break away from the enemy.
The Medium bombers of 2 Group and the USAAF were flying at lower altitudes to targets in France and the LW also if they chose to oppose those flights had to play at those lower altitudes.
Most Spits 44-45 did not have clipped wings. If it was so imperative that they have them just to shoot down a Fw190 then they would have all been standardised that way from 1943 to war's end.
On top of that the LW fighters they ran into were from many different units, so it would have been impossible to "guess" what their opposition might be on any given day. In many air combats post Normandy they also ran into mixed groups.
As it was, the price paid down lower was not great as the benefit of the improved roll rate,
The minimum turning circle of the clipped wing Spitfire at 20,000 feet has been increased by 55 feet .
Originally posted by Guppy35
Sorry Kurfurst. You said 10 squadrons of Spit IXs til Mid 44. I said 56 Squadrons operated IXs in 42-43. Don't go changing what I said.
And Crumpp, - you couldn't rip the wing of a Spitfire with an aeleron turn,- you're stuck with "would" again.
The quick pitch of the Spitfire as you hopefully remember could also not easily be followed,- no wonder, - it had to be calibrated down so it would not break the aircraft.
As of 18th May 1944.
Spitfires with Sqn's
MkV 531
MKVII 62
MK VIII 209
MK IX 996
Mk XII 22
MK XIV 61.
Neil.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
A large number of MkIX were just converted MkV airframes. And, looking on the numbers it seems the production of the MkIX did not run up until 1944.
In 1942 only the Merlin 61 one was producted, Hop/Nashwan claims that w/o a source as only 350, inc. some 1943 production.
Say, 300 MkIXs produced in 1942.
And looking how slowly the new Squadrons emerged, well...
June 1943 - 19 Squadrons
Sept 1943 - 29 Squadrons
Dec 1943 - 39 Squadrons of MkIX.
It took them a steady 3 months to equip 10 new squadrons, with 12+8=20 planes each. That's 300 planes if we assume reserves and losses, or 100 MkIX produced a month and I am being very generous here.
That's a very small scale, but given what we were shown about the MkXIV production, and the fact that the mkV was still produced in 1943, I am not surprised. Perhaps there was shortage of proper engines. Most seem to have been produced in 1944, which is when coincidently the IX finally replaced the V with most units.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
I didn't say there were only 10 Squads of IX til mid-1944. I said there were 35-odd MkV and 10 MkIX squadrons, I should have added its for the Figher command (see John Foreman) in June 1943, but the ratio beween MkV and IX was correct even then.
Though this small diffo between 56 Sqns operating the type at one time or another, and the absolute max. of 39 Squadron operating the type at one time by the end of 1943 didn't bothered you until I pointed out the correct facts..
Moral of story, the IX was not the mainstay Spitfire until 1944, period. MkVs must have had a bad time vs. 109Gs.
The quick pitch of the Spitfire as you hopefully remember could also not easily be followed,- no wonder, - it had to be calibrated down so it would not break the aircraft.
Obviously you have not comprehended this before. The problem on the Spitfires end was that the elevator kept BEING effective. Feel and action alike. Coupled together with the delicate C.o.G. this could break the aircraft with forces presumably in excess of 12G.
The problem being that at a high speed enough the pilot could pull the aircraft into a narrowing circle, as well narrowing itself with the shift of C.o.G. aftwards. The control still remained effective, hence the chance of getting out, which some of the quickest sticks did.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Nope, you are completely wrong. The Merlin 66 and 266 had exactly the same rating.
(http://img127.potato.com/loc113/th_42455_Spit16_266.jpg)
Originally posted by Guppy35
Lets narrow it down for you. The frontline squadrons of 11 Group that carried the fight to France, were primarily equipped with the Spitfire IX. Throw in the two XII squadrons and the Tiffies and that about covers 11 Group.
How many LW fighters based in France to oppose those RAF fighters along with the USAAF fighters?[/B]Quote
Certainly a lot less, there was no reason or threat coming from the RAF to make the Luftwaffe think about more fighter should be deployed in France. But, they were provided with the technological edge, receiving always the latest models, whereas the RAF was pretty slow in getting the 'anti-190' MkIX in service in numbers.QuoteHow many 109s in France compared to IXs operating in England?[/B]
A handful, since most of the Gruppes at the Channel had FW 190, the 109s were mostly of pressurized high altitude types with GM-1, providing high cover and other special tasks.
But why narrow it down to France? There was nothing important happenning there, the RAF launched nuisancse raids for years with a handful of bombers as bait, but the LW didn't buy the trick as the JG2/26 kill ratios show. The Bf 109s were primarly used in the Med, and that's where Spitfires and 109s mostly met. And there the ratio of MkVs was even higher vs. MkIX. The typical Spitfire vs. 109 engagement in 1943 was usually 109G-2, G-4 or G-6 facing old MkVs against which they were quite superior, or when a MkIX turned up once in a month, it put them on equal footing.QuoteOF course as always, this is a waste of time as you aren't listening anyway [/B]
Well perhaps back up your statements with OOBs of 11 group in 1943, or the sortie statistics of MkV vs MkIX in 1943, and then your posts will have more weight than what they seem now, an mere opinion.
If we look the speed values in the same sheet,
Originally posted by gripen
If we look the speed values in the same sheet, we got different a bit different picture:
(http://img124.potato.com/loc1/th_7fd8f_406.jpg) (http://img124.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc1&image=7fd8f_406.jpg)
The sheet gives same rating as for the Merlin 66 but 1500ft higher 2nd FTH and 2mph higher top speed if compared to the LF. IX values (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitlf9ads.jpg).
gripen
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
... I really gotta try to install a Wiki on my server over the holidays so we can start capturing all this data in one place ...
Originally posted by Kurfürst
I thought we were discussing engine outputs and rated altitude, not top speeds, you should understand the difference.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
As I understand, your point to ignore/dismiss the engine ratings given for the Merlin 266 by the datasheet, and then speculate about the top speeds based on the same datasheet you dismissed two times already...?
2mph higher top speed if compared to the LF. IX values.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
But why narrow it down to France? There was nothing important happenning there, the RAF launched nuisancse raids for years with a handful of bombers as bait, but the LW didn't buy the trick as the JG2/26 kill ratios show. The Bf 109s were primarly used in the Med, and that's where Spitfires and 109s mostly met. And there the ratio of MkVs was even higher vs. MkIX. The typical Spitfire vs. 109 engagement in 1943 was usually 109G-2, G-4 or G-6 facing old MkVs against which they were quite superior, or when a MkIX turned up once in a month, it put them on equal footing.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Does anybody else see the absolute absurdity and ignorance of this statement in terms of aircraft performance?
All the best,
Crumpp
Originally posted by zorstorer
As a side note....nice site Dok
:aok
Originally posted by Kurfürst
You claimed :
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Spit IXLF, Merlin 66.
66's FTH = 16 000 feet
IXLF's rammed FTH = 404mph at 21 000 feet.
FTH difference to, ram .5000 feet.
Spit XVILF, Merlin 266.
266's FTH = 19 400 feet
IXLF's rammed FTH = 406mph at 22 500 feet.
FTH difference to, ram .3100 feet.
Explain me how can this be, if the two engines are different.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Does anybody else see the absolute absurdity and ignorance of this statement in terms of aircraft performance?
Hmm, all these superior LW fighters couldn't even beat a handful of Hurricanes and 3 Gloster Gladiators in Malta.
Yeah, 2mph is meaningless as you could just as likely find an LF.IX that did 405mph and an LF.XVI that topped at 397mph. All well withing manufacturer's spec.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Do you think that is even close to an accurate account of History? Come on Kev, quit being silly and baiting. You too Kurfurst.
There is a little bit of knowledge in this thread. We could have a great discussion or we can nit pick on each other’s nerves.
Exactly. Arguing or even presenting the "fact" my plane is 2 mph faster or slower is comical. It would only have some relative bearing in a side-by-side performance trial. Even the "2mph" is rather relative and would mean one plane was creeping away from the other very slowly. The "2mph" would assume all corrections are absolutely perfect.
It's rather funny some of the "theories" that get pushed on these boards. In the years of research I 've done now a few glaring points stand out.
1. They really did know what they were doing, on all sides. They were much smarter than we are on their own aircraft.
2. No organization spends money on equipment without knowing exactly what that equipment can do. Most important "specifications" are the manufacturers guaranteed performance. These do change too. I can actually trace a few technical developments in the FW-190 form the discovery of the problem, testing, and issuance of new specifications or instructions. Graphs of individual plane performance are useful for gleaning trends or effects of aircraft set up/outfitting. Not for claims of absolute performance of a type.
3. Calculations are generally conservative not optimistic. Simple things, like the mathematical modeling of the atmosphere can have huge effect though and lead to erroneous conclusions. In other words, if you took a flight test vs. a calculation or even two calculations, if the atmosphere model was not the same performance absolute conclusions will not be correct.
In general 90 percent of the "my graph is better than your graph" is just ignorance. I did it too when I was ignorant and now that I am better educated it does not have the same appeal.
All the best,
Crumpp
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Dokgonzo,
I can also recommend PmWiki.
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
OK ... I think I have things set up on the Wiki and all the cool plug-ins loaded (incl. one for entering all these fizzicks equations you guys love).
Originally posted by Angus
Mac was late 80's, - before it was the C64 and the awesome AMIGA