Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Latrobe on November 22, 2006, 04:36:37 PM
-
This is why I think the Spit 14 is perked and not the Spit 16
The Spit 16 is more maneuverable than the Spit 14, but the Spit 14 is faster, has longer range with 3 fuel tanks to the 16s 1, can take more damadge, accelerates better, and has a longer WEP time.
The Spit 14 (being a larger plane) would be easier to hit and at low alt turns and rolls fairly well. At Mid alts it turns better and rolls OK, but at high alts it cant turn to well and rolls fairly well
The Spit 16 (being smaller) is harder to hit and at low alts turns and rolls great, Mid alts turns a bit worse but is still goos while it rolls better, at high alts it turns just as good as mid and rolls the same
putting these 2 planes in a dog fight a Spit 16 would come out victorious 9 out of 10 times but just because its more maneuverable. If the Spit 14 pilot can keep him going just long enough he could get on his 6 using its speed and better acceleration or the spit 16 would run out of fuel
the spit 16 isnt perked because it only beats the Spit 14 in the maneuverability catgory while the Spit 14 beats the 16 in all other catagories...but that is just my opinion
-
interesting i pretty much agree
-
The Spit XIV should beat the Spit XVI in a duel every time.
-
Originally posted by Stang
The Spit XIV should beat the Spit XVI in a duel every time.
And my bollocks should fire on both......."oh never mind".
Spit 14 is great over 23 k spit 16 is great under
-
they still taste like chicken
-
Where's Widewing when I need him...
-
spit14 does just fine 5k and under. not sure why more people dont fly it. i had some fun little fights with spit8/9/16, nikis and la7s down there in it. im sure pilot skill plays big part, but nonetheless...good ride.
-
A spit XVI is just a late model IX with a Packard built Merlin and the low altitude wing.
It's not a perk aircraft. It doesn't climb anything like as good as a XIV.
Put the XVI up against this and it's doomed. LF XIVE (http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/ite/spit14.htm)
-
Originally posted by palef
Put the XVI up against this and it's doomed. LF XIVE (http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/ite/spit14.htm)
now that just wouldn't be fair.. :D
-
Originally posted by palef
Put the XVI up against this and it's doomed. LF XIVE (http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/ite/spit14.htm)
No such animal as a Spitfire LF.Mk XIVe.
That is a Spitfire FR.Mk XIVe.
The engine is what determines if it is an "LF" "F" or "HF", not the wings. All Spitfire Mk XIV's had the same Griffon 65 optimized for altitudes above 20,000ft.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
No such animal as a Spitfire LF.Mk XIVe.
That is a Spitfire FR.Mk XIVe.
The engine is what determines if it is an "LF" "F" or "HF", not the wings. All Spitfire Mk XIV's had the same Griffon 65 optimized for altitudes above 20,000ft.
Correct.
Reason is not what you would expect.
All FR XIV's had clipped wings, so coupled with the Griffon it doesn't seem right.
Clipped wings work better at lower alts, Griffon 65 was for high alts.
Reason -
Without clipping the wing all the extra weight from the camera equipment was causing the wing roots to ripple.
-
Now try saying "wing roots to ripple" 10X real fast :D
-
Originally posted by Stang
Where's Widewing when I need him...
Down low, the Spitfire Mk.XIV (14) accelerates a tiny bit faster than the Spitfire Mk.XVI (16) up to 250 mph and gains a bigger advantage as speed increases. Climb rate to 8,000 feet is virtually identical. At medium altitudes, the Spit16 outclimbs the Spit14 (between 12k and 19k)
Acceleration at higher speeds favors the Spit14. It's also faster at all altitudes.
Turn radius measurement shows that the Spit16's turn radius is about 50 feet smaller than that of the Spit14. Rate of roll goes to the Spit16 by a large margin.
I think that the Spit16 is the superior dogfighter at low to medium altitudes.
That said, the Spit14 is still a very able fighter, even down low.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Turn radius measurement shows that the Spit16's turn radius is about 50 feet smaller than that of the Spit14. Rate of roll goes to the Spit16 by a large margin.
always found that strange in AH. from the flight test reports i have read, apparently the turning radius was identical for the 14 to the 9.
-
XIV--First with two-stage Griffon, 2050hp Mk 65 with deep symmetric radiators and five-blade propeller, completely redesigned airframe with new fuselage, broad fin/rudder, inboard ailerons, retractable tailwheel. F.XIV, two 20mm and four 0-303; F.XIVE, two 20mm and two 0-5in; FR.XIVE, same guns, cut-down rear fuselage and teardrop hood, clipped wings, F.24 camera and extra fuel. Active in 1944, destroyed over 300 flying bombs. Production: 957.
XVI--As Mk IX but 1,705hp Packard Merlin 266; LF.IXE, E-guns and clipped, many with teardrop hood, extra fuel. Production: 1,054.
-
Originally posted by Ball
always found that strange in AH. from the flight test reports i have read, apparently the turning radius was identical for the 14 to the 9.
Okay, time to resurrect another near-dead thread. I noticed this too, Ball. Evidently, from the tests I've read in my books like 'Late Marque Spitfire Aces 1942 - 45' by Alfred Price, this is said when compared to the Mk. IX:
'Turning Circle - The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Mk.XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starboard. The warning of the approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Mk. XIV.' (Price 88). Such ability to keep the turning circle comes from the huge amount of extra power from the Griffon engine which changes the power to weight load (power load) of the a/c.
According to other tests and other sims, the clipped wing of the Mk.XVI (16) widened turn radius by a small amount, so if anything, the Mk. XIV should turn tighter. The Mk. VIII as well, should turn just like the IX and XIV.
Well, thats my whine for the day.
Happy Holidays everyone!
-
Fight the 14/16 @ 25k and tell me which one is better.
-
How often do fights happen up there?
Seriously, for 99% of the fights that occur in the arenas, the Spit XVI just outclasses the XIV in one-on-one fights. Its E retention is insane, the roll rate is blazingly fast and the options it puts into the hands of its weilder make it one of the deadliest planes in the set.
I'd love for some of our vets to fly it exclusively one tour just to show its dominance and see how high we can get the k/d ratio. May have to buy much cheese to go with what would surely be comming over 200, though!
-
I totally agree that it's a mad dogfighter - however, the odd thing is (and many people have already complained, like Saxman and Krusty) that the E-retention is just way too good for the Mk.XVI. That thing is just way too overmodeled. It outurns the Mk.IX which makes no sense at all whatsoever since they are nearly identical in airframe. The only REAL difference is that the Mk.XVI has a Packard-built merlin 66 (266). In the game, it has got clipped wings and a larger rudder - the latter which gives worse turning than the IX which, according to tests at spitfireperformance.com, turn the same as the Mk.XIV.
Sure, the LF engine gives a boost in climb, but E-retention is NOT supposed to be that great. I've also heard, however, that some LF Mk.IX engines had a +25 lb. boost feature that helped it turn tighter due to the better power loading. If that's the case in the Mk.XVI, I'd like to know for sure, but in combination with the clip-tip, the 16 shouldnt be that tight turning. W/out clipped wings, it probably would.
Still, the only reason I don't fly it is b/c it's overmodeled in terms of E-retention.
-
The turn radius are compared at sea level, where the clipped wing does little to effect its turn rate. At alt, I have no idea, never seen a test done at higher alts.
For all the stuff about it being identical to the IX, well, if that was the case, it would be called a IX. The XVI is the same as an LF IX (which we dont have in the game), not an F IX (which is what we have in the game).
In any case, when you hit WEP it boosts at +18 lbs not +15 lbs, so they arent the same, obviously. The XVI (and VIII) produces more hp, and consequently, have a higher powerloading than the IX does. Same reason a heavier F4U-4 turns with an F4U-1D, despite being similar.
"but E-retention is NOT supposed to be that great"
...and you have some data, of course. Ch200 manual? more like.
And the WEP time for a XVI and a XIV are exactly the same as all the other Spits, 5 minutes. Takes more damage? I have my doubts, maybe a small bit, but I have a hard time beleiving its measurable by a player.
As for perking of the XIV, well, its a light perk, only 15 pts, so I dont think its a big deal .
-
Originally posted by Squire
The turn radius are compared at sea level, where the clipped wing does little to effect its turn rate. At alt, I have no idea, never seen a test done at higher alts.
For all the stuff about it being identical to the IX, well, if that was the case, it would be called a IX. The XVI is the same as an LF IX (which we dont have in the game), not an F IX (which is what we have in the game).
In any case, when you hit WEP it boosts at +18 lbs not +15 lbs, so they arent the same, obviously. The XVI (and VIII) produces more hp, and consequently, have a higher powerloading than the IX does. Same reason a heavier F4U-4 turns with an F4U-1D, despite being similar.
"but E-retention is NOT supposed to be that great"
...and you have some data, of course. Ch200 manual? more like.
And the WEP time for a XVI and a XIV are exactly the same as all the other Spits, 5 minutes. Takes more damage? I have my doubts, maybe a small bit, but I have a hard time beleiving its measurable by a player.
As for perking of the XIV, well, its a light perk, only 15 pts, so I dont think its a big deal .
If you check the full throttle height for the XVI, you'll find it is a Merlin 66 not 266.
In effect we HAVE an LF IXe. but not a XVI.
-
I'm still confused.
1. The Spit14 is a fighter produced in large quantities and served regular squadron strengths, active since 1944 to the end of war, and saw many sorties as a mainstay RAF fighter succeeding the Spit9.
2. The Spit14 performance is comparable to the various majority of late war fighters such as the La-7, Bf109K-4, Fw190D-9, P-51D, and etc etc.. with small bits of pros and cons revolving around each comparison.
3. The Spit16 does everything better than the Spit14 at typical MA alts. Both are essentially '44 Spitfires.
So someone please tell me why the Spit14 is perked. I still don't get it.
It's the only plane that fills none of the currently known criteria for perking planes, and yet still remains perked for no obvious reason except that it's name is 'Spit'.
I mean, we got the super late-war fighter Ta152H-1 unperked, right? It's rare, but it's performance sucks in conventional alt ranges when compared to the Fw190D-9... and the D-9 was free. So they finally got the Ta152H-1 unperked.
How's the Ta152H-1/Fw190D-9 relationship any different from the Spit14/Spit16 relationship?
The UTSTAFF movement goes on!
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
I totally agree that it's a mad dogfighter - however, the odd thing is (and many people have already complained, like Saxman and Krusty) that the E-retention is just way too good for the Mk.XVI. That thing is just way too overmodeled. It outurns the Mk.IX which makes no sense at all whatsoever since they are nearly identical in airframe. The only REAL difference is that the Mk.XVI has a Packard-built merlin 66 (266). In the game, it has got clipped wings and a larger rudder - the latter which gives worse turning than the IX which, according to tests at spitfireperformance.com, turn the same as the Mk.XIV.
Sure, the LF engine gives a boost in climb, but E-retention is NOT supposed to be that great. I've also heard, however, that some LF Mk.IX engines had a +25 lb. boost feature that helped it turn tighter due to the better power loading. If that's the case in the Mk.XVI, I'd like to know for sure, but in combination with the clip-tip, the 16 shouldnt be that tight turning. W/out clipped wings, it probably would.
Still, the only reason I don't fly it is b/c it's overmodeled in terms of E-retention.
It's not over-modeled for E retention. That is a perception resulting from its excellent acceleration.
There are several ways to measure for E retention. You can pull off power and measure time required to bleed off speed (Spitfires do horrible in that test). You can dive to a speed in WEP and time how long it takes to bleed off speed at full power (be careful to set minimum speed at least 10 mph above max sustained at that particular altitude). Finally, you can measure E loss in a max power level turn at corner speed.
This last test is the most relevant to air combat. I have tested most of the plane set under these circumstances. I climb to 5k, level off and accelerate to 300 mph. I then dive to 1,000 feet in WEP and wait for the speed to bleed down to 400 mph. Then, I make a 180 degree turn at near black out (very close to corner speed). I record air speed at the 180 degree mark.
So, let's look at the Spitfire Mk.XVI and see how it does. After 180 degrees, it is doing 332 mph, having bled off 68 mph in the turn. Now, I'll compare it to several other fighters. Understand that mass and max thrust are factors in E retention, as well as induced drag.
Spit16: 332 mph
190A-5: 331 mph
109G-6: 326 mph
F6F-5: 329 mph
La-7: 336 mph
P-47D-40: 318 mph
P-38L: 342 mph
F4U-1A: 334 mph
F4U-4: 346 mph
P-51D: 352 mph
Thus, we see that the Spitfire beats the 190A-5, F6F-5 and 109G-6 by a small amount. The Jug brings up the rear, 8 mph slower than the 109G-6. Out in front of the Spit16 is the F4U-1A and La-7 with a 2 and 4 mph edge, respectively. Then it is a 6 mph jump to the P-38L, followed by the powerful F4U-4 which is 4 mph faster than the Lightning. The fastest of the lot, by 6 mph over the F4U-4, is the P-51D (very low induced drag).
I repeated these tests several times and took the average to arrive at the posted speeds.
Because the Spitfire 16 is relatively light and is not an especially clean airframe (compared to the P-51), its E retention is only average. However, once unloaded, it accelerates very quickly. On the other hand, the P-51 retains E like crazy in a turn, but offers much slower acceleration when unloaded. The performance of the P-38L will not surprise our dedicated P-38 drivers. They know that the Lightning holds E very well when turning. Our La-7 is 1,200 lb lighter than the Spitfire, but has tremendous power for its size. So, it does better than the Spitfire, but has no advantage in acceleration at low speeds. Meaning that it cannot readily escape the Spit16. Once again, we see why the F4U-4 is such a terrific fighter. By pure thrust alone, it retains 12 mph more than the F4U-1A.
It is important to recognize what E retention really is and what factors control it. testing shows that the Spit16 is not over-modeled for E-retention, not at all. One could argue that the La-7 is, however. It does not have a high-activity propeller, but one that looks to be designed for high-speed. Be that as it may, the La-7 is not exceptional in E retention either.
My regards,
Widewing
-
WiDeWing pwns :aok
-
lawl zomfeg! he powned teh noobs!
Good job, WW, you've won once again. Now for idiots like myself, what do you mean by 'unloaded'?
I've looked up some info on the Spixteen's turning as well. The fact that it is slightly faster than the Merlin 63 Spitfire IX in both level speed, climb rate and acceleration proves that it is using the Merlin 266 modified to give +25 lb. boost. In the IL-2 simulations, this gave the LF Mk.IX a tighter turning circle, most likely due to the increase in power accompanied by the same amount of weight as the regular Merlin 66. Turns out that this Spixteen is supposed to turn just slightly tighter than the IX.
However, I'm still lost as to why the VIII and the XIV turn so terribly in comparison. Yes, they are not supposed to turn as tight, yet, according to tests, the differences in their turning circles was not supposed to be so pronounced.
I haven't seen very many good Spitfire pilots but those that are good are damn scary! I've only seen RCAF1 ever outturn a Spit5 w/ his Spixteen. He's a great Spit 16 pilot who I know flies it like it should be flown - with energy - yet my buddy hates RCAF since he flies uber high lol. At any rate, I may stick to the Spitfire as it was my first favorite plane and I've come to believe that the Hog may be slightly porked in the turning circle w/ its 'Wonder flaps'. That, and the Ki-84 just mauls my fave A-hog almost all the time, while the 4-Hog just doesn't have the climb.
While I'm on the subject, I'd like to point out that the IL-2 version of the Ki-84 doesn't break apart at +450 mph... everyone there pretty much laughed at those who said otherwise. Is the Ki-84 undermodeled? Then again, the IL-2 version IS based on a bareskin Frank using US grade fuel that the US captured during operation Paperclip.
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
lawl zomfeg! he powned teh noobs!
Good job, WW, you've won once again. Now for idiots like myself, what do you mean by 'unloaded'?
I've looked up some info on the Spixteen's turning as well. The fact that it is slightly faster than the Merlin 63 Spitfire IX in both level speed, climb rate and acceleration proves that it is using the Merlin 266 modified to give +25 lb. boost. In the IL-2 simulations, this gave the LF Mk.IX a tighter turning circle, most likely due to the increase in power accompanied by the same amount of weight as the regular Merlin 66. Turns out that this Spixteen is supposed to turn just slightly tighter than the IX.
However, I'm still lost as to why the VIII and the XIV turn so terribly in comparison. Yes, they are not supposed to turn as tight, yet, according to tests, the differences in their turning circles was not supposed to be so pronounced.
I haven't seen very many good Spitfire pilots but those that are good are damn scary! I've only seen RCAF1 ever outturn a Spit5 w/ his Spixteen. He's a great Spit 16 pilot who I know flies it like it should be flown - with energy - yet my buddy hates RCAF since he flies uber high lol. At any rate, I may stick to the Spitfire as it was my first favorite plane and I've come to believe that the Hog may be slightly porked in the turning circle w/ its 'Wonder flaps'. That, and the Ki-84 just mauls my fave A-hog almost all the time, while the 4-Hog just doesn't have the climb.
While I'm on the subject, I'd like to point out that the IL-2 version of the Ki-84 doesn't break apart at +450 mph... everyone there pretty much laughed at those who said otherwise. Is the Ki-84 undermodeled? Then again, the IL-2 version IS based on a bareskin Frank using US grade fuel that the US captured during operation Paperclip.
1) F IX commonly used the Merlin 61 not the 63.
2) The XVI is not using 25lbs boost, it was requested when the Spits were remodelled, but not implemented.
Good check - at sea level at 25lbs boost Merlin 66 Spit will climb at over 5700fpm. Ours doesn't.
The 5700fpm was one of the main reasons given for NOT using 25lbs boost in our XVI.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Then, I make a 180 degree turn at near black out (very close to corner speed). I record air speed at the 180 degree mark.
This is a mis-statement on my part. Corner speed is in the range of 230 to 270 mph depending upon the aircraft. The turn I used was at max sustainable G loading (for the pilot), which is well above corner speed, but will generate the greatest induced drag.
Sorry for any confusion.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I liked it when the spit14 was unperked, but that guy SmashR was killing everyone so much in it, HT perked it! THat dweeb ruined it for all of us! :D
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
While I'm on the subject, I'd like to point out that the IL-2 version of the Ki-84 doesn't break apart at +450 mph... everyone there pretty much laughed at those who said otherwise.
So it is wrong because IL2's modeling is different ? :huh
-
Lol no, Bozon. I'm just pointing out that the games have different opinions - one may be correct or neither may be correct. The thing is, it DOES raise a few questions in your mind concerning the Ki-84, doesn't it?
It's hard to fly the F4U's just because of those damned Franks! I've only ever had trouble in my Hog when encountering a good Frank pilot or a good Spit16/14 pilot, but theyre seemingly impossible to come by.
Kev, thanks for the correction. Now that I know this, how is it that the Spixteen is turning tighter than the Spit8's 9's and 14's? With those clipped wings and a regular Merlin 266, it should be finishing a full turn circle at least 1.5 seconds behind the Spit 8,9,14.
Yes Skyrock, the XIV is great, but the whiner in me says it turns too smelly :rolleyes: Please, someone, if you have evidence against or supporting the tests concluding that the Spit 8,9, and 14 all turned so similarly, the difference was practically unnoticable, please show it :D
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
I liked it when the spit14 was unperked, but that guy SmashR was killing everyone so much in it, HT perked it! THat dweeb ruined it for all of us! :D
SmashR was gay though and quit the game to go marry his long term partner in San Fran.
-
I thought SmashR married hubs?
and didn't they have a bunch of 'squeakers' a few months ago?
-
I rejected a few rather indecent proposals, and in a hissy, he started spreading baseless rumors. The squeakers aren't mine, they're stang's.
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
Lol no, Bozon. I'm just pointing out that the games have different opinions - one may be correct or neither may be correct. The thing is, it DOES raise a few questions in your mind concerning the Ki-84, doesn't it?
It's hard to fly the F4U's just because of those damned Franks! I've only ever had trouble in my Hog when encountering a good Frank pilot or a good Spit16/14 pilot, but theyre seemingly impossible to come by.
Kev, thanks for the correction. Now that I know this, how is it that the Spixteen is turning tighter than the Spit8's 9's and 14's? With those clipped wings and a regular Merlin 266, it should be finishing a full turn circle at least 1.5 seconds behind the Spit 8,9,14.
Yes Skyrock, the XIV is great, but the whiner in me says it turns too smelly :rolleyes: Please, someone, if you have evidence against or supporting the tests concluding that the Spit 8,9, and 14 all turned so similarly, the difference was practically unnoticable, please show it :D
From various discussions including one with Pyro -
The 'e' wing was strengthened and had an improved main spar. Overall it contributed to wings improved rigidity compared to the earlier wings.
Very little is actually known about Spit 'e' wings compared to the rest of the aircraft.
E.g. Sometime before D-Day a field kit was issued to allow 'c' wings to fit 50cals, essentially becoming an 'c' wing but with 'e' wing armament.
This of course wouldn't have had the improved main spar I assume.
Looking at pics of 'e' wings I think there are at least 3 variations -
1) Ones with the field mod kit.
2) Ones fully converted to 'e' wings.
3) Ones built as 'e' wings.
I think #3 is distinguishable by it's lack of .303 panels, whereas #1 and #2 still have them.
All conjecture, but as i said very little known about them.
This of course doesn't explain the XIV which had the same wing :( .
Spit XIV's FM has been suspect for a while, not just turning but in climb also, maybe it's all related.
-
Spit 14 has more HP than a Spit 16. Thats why the 16 seems more manouverable. 14 vs 16 is like taking a 16 against a 5. 16 will win in a sustained turn fight unless the 14 uses his HP to gain vertical advantage.
Can't remember who it was and I wish I had filmed it but I was in a 16 one night against a 5. I couldn't seem to get a shot on him as he always had the turn advantage when I got close but everytime he got close I went vertical and gained enough extension to keep just out of his reach. We did this over and over for probably 10 minutes, neither of us gaining until I finally got frustrated and gave up too much E. Then he turned inside and got a lead shot on me.
It was a classic case of HP vs Turn in otherwise matched planes. Same difference with the 14 and 16.
14 is also better at alt because of the HP. I'm guessing the only reason it's perked is bacause it's the uber-Spit.
-
BTW, the Spit 8 and 16 are virtually the same plane. The only difference being the .50 cals arent available on the 8 (.303's only). In every performance catagory they are nearly identical.
The 9 has better turning ability than either the 8 or the 16 but only slightly so and I've beaten plenty of 9's with a 16 in a turn fight.
The Seafire and Spit 5 are also virtually identical but the added weight of the increased ammo load in the Seafire gives the 5 a slight turn advantage.
I think the TA152 was unperked because it's slow low. Over 25 K it's fast and lethal. A NIK can outrun it on the deck starting co-e, I think because of those glider wings (which also help it handle at alt). Overall the FW190A8 is more lethal and the D9 is faster The TA152 really fills a nitch between these 2 in most MA situations.
-
Ok guys, let's review the primary differences between the various Spitfires as to why there are differences in turn radius. Let's do a simply exercise that will demonstrate why the Spit14 cannot turn with the Spit9 and why any real world document that says it can is suspect.
All of the Spitfires (except the Spit16) have the same wing area. Thus, with only minor differences being possible, we can assume that all of them have the same coefficient of lift. At least they are close enough for this exercise.
I don't have the coefficient of lift for the Spitfires handy, but we can can plug in virtually any number into the equation as long as it is used for all versions with the same wing. I can take an educated guess though... I'm going to use 2.60 for this. The Spit16 presents the only variation due to its clipped wingtips. So, I will adjust the lift coefficient for the Spit16 down to 2.50 to account for the small loss of efficiency.
Now, to generate the equation, we need to know the wing loading for each version of the Spitfire. This is generated by dividing the aircraft weight by the wing area. Wing area is 242 square feet, except for the Spit16 which is quoted in print as being 228 square feet.
So, now we need the weight of each aircraft. Let's use the weights defined by HTC, except for their numbers for the Spit16, which appears to be a typo.
SpitI: 5,844 lb
SpitV: 6,785 lb
Seafire: 7,640 lb
Spit8: 7,875 lb
Spit9: 7,400 lb
Spit14: 8,500 lb
Spit16: 7,500 lb (HTC's weight of 8,500 is suspect as it is a basically a Mk.IX airframe)
Let's calculate wing loading in lb per square foot.
SpitI: 24.15
SpitV: 28.04
Seafire: 31.57
Spit8: 32.54
Spit9: 30.58
Spit14: 35.12
Spit16: 32.89
Now, we'll calculate something called the turn index. This is done when we simply divide the different wing loadings by the coefficient of lift. That will give you a ballpark idea in terms of proportion.
So, for the SpitI, we divide 24.15 by 2.60 to get an index of 9.29. For the Spit16 I will use 2.50.
SpitI: 9.29
SpitV: 10.78
Seafire: 12.14
Spit8: 12.51
Spit9: 11.76
Spit14: 13.51
Spit16: 13.16
Let's set the SpitI as the baseline and generate a percentage of difference and re-order the aircraft in order of turning ability. Thus the SpitI becomes 100%.
SpitI: 100%
SpitV: 116%
Spit9: 127%
Seafire: 131%
Spit8: 137%
Spit16: 142%
Spit14: 145%
Now, let's look at in-game test data for minimum turn radius for each type, listed in order of smallest to largest.
SpitI
SpitV
Spit9
Seafire
Spit8
Spit16
Spit14
Note that the calculated turn index corresponds to actual in-game test data, at least in terms of relative turning performance.
Naturally, fuel and ammo loads will determine actual weights. Thus, a low fuel Spit8 may actually turn a smaller circle than a fully fueled and armed Spit9.
When discussing the performance of the various airplanes, it helps a great deal to understand all of the factors that determine maximum performance. Without this understanding, you can find yourself wandering down a dead-end trail.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Ball
SmashR was gay though and quit the game to go marry his long term partner in San Fran.
I heard about your heartbreaking part with SmashR, Ball, but coming on the boards and spilling his private life is not going to ease your pain!:aok
-
Widewing, aren't you ignoring raw horsepower with that setup? Given a little extra weight that says the Spit14 should turn worse. However it also has WAY more power to "haul around" the turn more, meaning it can sustain a greater AoA? I seem to recall Hitech saying something about this long ago.
-
Originally posted by REP0MAN
I thought SmashR married hubs?
and didn't they have a bunch of 'squeakers' a few months ago?
I just got off the phone with SmashR and he said that after his breakup with Ball he considered hubs but doesnt like drunkards! Plus he said hubs was mean! hee hee:D
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
I rejected a few rather indecent proposals, and in a hissy, he started spreading baseless rumors. The squeakers aren't mine, they're stang's.
They can't be Stangs because SmashR told me Stang had taken care of that "mistake"! :D
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Widewing, aren't you ignoring raw horsepower with that setup? Given a little extra weight that says the Spit14 should turn worse. However it also has WAY more power to "haul around" the turn more, meaning it can sustain a greater AoA? I seem to recall Hitech saying something about this long ago.
Krusty, you are correct. I was just compiling histrical performance data on Spits when, unfortunately after 2 hours of work my laptop froze and I lost most of it. I do remember though that the Spit 14 top speed was 445 mph vs. 408 for the Spit 9.
This also doesn't take into account the carborated engine on the Spit 1 which will shut off in negative G loading due to fuel starvation, the single-stage, single-speed supercharger in the Spit 5 vs. the dual-stage, dual speed superchargers in the 8 and 9 and other factors.
Also, many of the Spit models shared airframes but not in chronological order. For instance the 5 and 9 shared the same airframe while the 8, 14 and 16 shared an airframe. That's because Spits were not introduced in chronological order by number.
The Spit 9 was a stop-gap measure awaiting production of the Spit 8. The 9 ended up having such success that by the time the 8 came out of production it was used in limited numbers primarily in the mediterrainian.
Interestingly the Spit 16 used a Merlin 266 which was a low altitude version of the Merlin 66 and, because of that, all Spit 16s used clipped wings to improve roll-rates in dog-fights even though both clipped and extended wings had been used on Spits beginning with the Spit 5.
The Spit 14 by contrast used the impressive 2050 HP Griffin 65 which, by the way, rotated in the opposite direction of the Merlins.
HP ranged from 953 in the Spit 1 to 2050 in the Spit 14. That's a big range.
If I can bring myself to do it I'll try re-compiling that data and post it.
-
Spit 16 and 9 had the same basic airframe. Have to understand that they are identical. The naming convention came from the engine put in it. If it was an American built Packard Merlin 266 it was a Spit 16. If it was a Rolls Royce built Merlin 66 it was a Spit IX. Both of these engines were rated for low to medium alt work. Same beast, different manufacturer.
They had IXs and XVIs come off the lines at the same time that way.
No way to really differentiate between a 1944-45 Spitfire LFIXe and LFXVIe outside of serial number.
Spit VIII had the strengthened airframe that was used on the Spitfire XIV. Also the high alt Spit VII.
My favorite, the Spit XII had 50 of the 100 built done on the Spitfire Vc fuselage and 50 done on the Spitfire VIII fuselage. Only way to tell the difference beyond serial number was the retractable tail wheel on the MB serialed XIIs, although that won't even always work as MB974 has a fixed tail wheel.
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
Also, many of the Spit models shared airframes but not in chronological order. For instance the 5 and 9 shared the same airframe while the 8, 14 and 16 shared an airframe. That's because Spits were not introduced in chronological order by number.
The Spit 9 was a stop-gap measure awaiting production of the Spit 8. The 9 ended up having such success that by the time the 8 came out of production it was used in limited numbers primarily in the mediterrainian.
Interestingly the Spit 16 used a Merlin 266 which was a low altitude version of the Merlin 66 and, because of that, all Spit 16s used clipped wings to improve roll-rates in dog-fights even though both clipped and extended wings had been used on Spits beginning with the Spit 5.
A Spitfire Mk.XVI is basically a late-model Spitfire Mk.IX fitted with the Packard built engine. It DOES NOT share the same airframe with the Mk.VIII and Mk.XIV. Don't let the late-war pointed vertical stabilizer fool you. Also, most, but not all Mk.XVIs had clipped wings. While the Mk.XIV was initially based upon the Mk.VIII, it evolved into a markedly different airframe due to the extended nose and required broad chord vertical stabilizer.
As to Krusty's question; for the calculation, all aircraft are considered to have sufficient power to maintain the turn without having to nose down to maintain airspeed. I real life, none of the WWII fighters had enough thrust to maintain minimum turn radius for very long without giving up altitude to maintain speed.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Great calcs, Widewing. However (lol here it comes), I'd like to point out that, in WWII, the Spitfire LF Mk.IX had a +25 boost feature (not all, but some). This allowed it to turn tighter according to some sims. Also, both the Spixteen and the Spit 8 have Merlin 66 engines (well 266, but theyre the same pretty much). How does the Spix outclimb and outrun the Spit8? Yes it's lighter, but it has less wing to help is up like that. It shouldnt do it that well.
Would the horsepower of the Spitfire XIV allow it to turn tighter in real life than planes with the slightly lighter wing loadings but a worse power loading?
Okay, with regards to Spitfire airframe confusion.
the first frame was Supermarine Type 300 (became the Mk.I).
It shared frames with these airframes entering service: II (type 329), Mk.V (type 349)
The V then went on to share frames with the Mk. VI (type 350; high alt interceptor with a bolted-down cockpit for pressurization) and the Mk.IX (Type 361)
The Mk. VII (type 351) was a new, rare production variant in use after the Mk.IX of 1942. The VII shared frames with the VIII (type 359).
Recon versions like the Mk.X (type 362; was from a IX airframe) and the XI (type 365) - which entered service before the X - was converted from a VII airframe.
The XII (type 366) was from V and VIII airframes, and this is noticable as some pics of the XII have tailwheels while others dont.
The XVI (also type 361) too, came from a IX frame. It was the same type as it was IDENTICAL, save the American-built Rolls-Royce Merlin 66, called the 266. Pilots didnt like the 266 as it broke down more often than the regular 66.
The Mk.XIV (type 379) came from an VIII frame.
The PR Mk.XIX (type 389) came from a XIV frame.
Btw... I met a very cocky pilot earlier today who said, 'Wow Papps - anyone can fly a Spit...'
I'd like to point out that against good pilots who know everything about their own planes, the Spitfire actually has less options available to it than other planes due to a lack of combat flaps, and the fact that its airframe isnt the most aerodynamic out there. It cant take that much damage and it will stall one wing on a hard break turn. Theres more too.
It may be a rookie plane but for those who make the most from the fewer options they have in their Spits show what a figther pilot really is.
-
mistake on my part, the Spit 16 outturns the 8 according to Gonzo's tests, doesnt outclimb and outrun.
Btw, Bald Eagle, the 266 is the 66, but built by Packard, requiring different tools for maintain.
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
mistake on my part, the Spit 16 outturns the 8 according to Gonzo's tests, .
This would depend on fuel load . Remember 25% fuel in a MK VIII is a bit more then 25% in the XVI.
Bronk
-
the Mk8 is really not the best of turn fighters. remember the spitfire evolved many times to combat the excelent performance of the German aircraft designers. the mk8 is a fantastic E fighter that can pull alot of turn fighting tricks but.
the 16 we have is like any other spit except HT seems to have coad it slicked up with hyper go juice. its an outstanding performer for aceshigh.
the mk9 is wierd also because it flies like a turn fighter, more so than the mk8, possibly the result of the fuel tanks.
only real turn fighter is the mk5 or seafire. these are planes that once you enter a turn fight you aint leaving untill you have killed everything or been shot yourself.
i have very little experience of the mk14 but the mk16 is remarkable easier to get kills in for me. i dont like the mk14 as a gun platform, i think 5 prop blades does something to my head and makes me miss my shots and rip the wings off.
essentially the mk14 is a perk plane because its a rare elitist choice and it was the best of the spitfires for many years in AH.
the mk16 doesnt need a perk because its like the la7, its a readily available, relatively simple to fly power weapon. HTC probably realise that to make thier game fun for a larger audience they need to arm a noob with something formidable to give them the best chance of enjoying the two week trial. To heavily perk all the best planes would cut a huge hole in the ratio of two weekers that sign up, im geussing.
-
Speaking as an average flier. IMHO The Mk IX has the best balance for dog fighting. Has a bit more power and ammo than the Mk V. Turns tighter than the Mk VIII, XIV, and the XVI.
I just like it better than the VIII and the XVI.
Bronk
Edit: Ohh and the Mk IX has the pink skin .:D
-
The Spit8 will snaproll at a rate that makes me ill, but I prefer the IX and XVI. I find the IX to be a more stable platform, while the XVI seems to have a little more punch with the 50s, as well as being better suited to the type of fights I prefer.
-
SgtPappy, the 16 out runs AND out climbs the 8. It's got way more power, engine-wise, and can climb faster and attain a level speed faster than that of the 8. Not by much, but by enough. Actually I think the 8 is a little too powerful. It's only 10mph slower than the 16 and has almost an identical climb rate at all altitudes. It's very redundant to have both.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
SgtPappy, the 16 out runs AND out climbs the 8. It's got way more power, engine-wise, and can climb faster and attain a level speed faster than that of the 8. Not by much, but by enough. Actually I think the 8 is a little too powerful. It's only 10mph slower than the 16 and has almost an identical climb rate at all altitudes. It's very redundant to have both.
:huh :huh :huh :huh :huh
It's got the same engine . Why wouldn't the VIII be a close match for the XVI?
Bronk
-
I thought our "8" had less boost than our "16". Thus the 16 is faster and climbs better. If they had the same engine exactly, the 16 would be faster in the level but worse in the climb due to the clipped wings. However, even with the loss of wing surface it still climbs better than the 8, so it must therefore have a stronger engine, to not only compensate for the clipped wings but to also surpass its younger brother.
-
Nope XIII and XVI same boost.
Remember at 25% fuel is not the same for these AC.
25% fuel on take off with VII with wep on gives 13 min of fuel.
25% fuel on take off with XVI with wep on gives 9 min of fuel.
This fuel weight makes a noticeable diff.
Bronk
Edit: This is at fuel burn 1.0.
-
Well it ought to be easy enough to test... Up a VIII, set fuel burn extremely high as you fly around, drain the wing tanks, then coast while you set fuel burn to zero then test with full fuselage tanks only. Then with burn still at zero test the XVI at full fuel (no wing tanks to burn).
In this game, at least, the 16 has a big benefit for acceleration. It's a frikkin' UFO (with laserbeams on its frikkin' head!), and it seems to pull moves that the 8 cannot.
However, going back to the thing I mentioned before... If they are the same, why do we have both? Seems redundant (again).
-
Originally posted by Krusty
SgtPappy, the 16 out runs AND out climbs the 8. It's got way more power, engine-wise, and can climb faster and attain a level speed faster than that of the 8. Not by much, but by enough. Actually I think the 8 is a little too powerful. It's only 10mph slower than the 16 and has almost an identical climb rate at all altitudes. It's very redundant to have both.
LOL Come on Krusty. I could say that about 109s cause I don't care as much about 109s. How many G models do we need? I won't say it though cause the guys who love 109s are going to want the historical counterparts, whether it be for the MA or for scenaros.
If you are a Spit fan at all, the differences are huge.
Not a single Spit XVI left the ETO. The VIII did the Med and the Pacific. That in itself is reason enough.
More range, Universal wing, short span ailerons, full span wing, vs shorter range, clipped E wing, more ord etc.
Redundant my bellybutton :)
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Nope XIII and XVI same boost.
Remember at 25% fuel is not the same for these AC.
25% fuel on take off with VII with wep on gives 13 min of fuel.
25% fuel on take off with XVI with wep on gives 9 min of fuel.
This fuel weight makes a noticeable diff.
Bronk
Not the same boost. In essence we have the 43-44 VIII and the 44-45 XVI. 12 boost vs 16 boost.
Fuel load and weight make a difference for sure. Clipped wing bird would be a bit faster too.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Well it ought to be easy enough to test... Up a VIII, set fuel burn extremely high as you fly around, drain the wing tanks, then coast while you set fuel burn to zero then test with full fuselage tanks only. Then with burn still at zero test the XVI at full fuel (no wing tanks to burn).
In this game, at least, the 16 has a big benefit for acceleration. It's a frikkin' UFO (with laserbeams on its frikkin' head!), and it seems to pull moves that the 8 cannot.
However, going back to the thing I mentioned before... If they are the same, why do we have both? Seems redundant (again).
Umm krusty go to gonzo's page . The Mk XVI is not much better than the Mk XVI.
Why we have 2 . Range on the Mk VII is much better . The Mk XVI has better ords capability.
Don't just think MA think squad ops and events.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Not the same boost. In essence we have the 43-44 VIII and the 44-45 XVI. 12 boost vs 16 boost.
Fuel load and weight make a difference for sure. Clipped wing bird would be a bit faster too.
Hmm then gauge is wrong. Just tried off line . Both the VIII and the XVI go to 18 lbs.
Can post screens if ya want.
Bronk
-
Interesting. From memory, going back to the discussions about spits before they were updated, I thought the idea was to have different boosts for both.
Bronk: I did check Gonzo's page, but I also remembered that the 16 is the fastest unperked spit by about 10-15mph. The charts all run together at Gonzos because the scale is so large, but you can guesstimate about 10mph difference there as well.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Interesting. From memory, going back to the discussions about spits before they were updated, I thought the idea was to have different boosts for both.
Bronk: I did check Gonzo's page, but I also remembered that the 16 is the fastest unperked spit by about 10-15mph. The charts all run together at Gonzos because the scale is so large, but you can guesstimate about 10mph difference there as well.
If i remember right the XVI didn't get the 1945 boost cuz it would have been the 21 or 25 lbs . Think pyro said he was concerned this would have been a bit much.
I'll see if I can find the thread.
You think the clipped wings might make the 10-15 mph diff?
Bronk
Edit: this might be why we didn't get the '45 boost.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/merlin66_18_25.jpg
-
Not sure. Could be. Doesn't explain the better climb rate. I don't think fuel weight alone would do that, but I could be wrong.
-
I do remember that we did not get the late-war boost, but I thought that whatever we got in the spit16 was more than the spit8 got.
-
Think we'll need Pyro to clear up boost for these 2 AC .
Bronk
-
Krusty, thats the thing.. the Spit16 is clipped-winged and has the same engine essentially as the 8 - the Merlin 66 (266 in the XVI). I'm pretty sure they have the same boost but I'm not sure. If so, the 16 should not outclimb the 8 at any time. I find the Spitfire IX to be most successful platform, but the climb is kinda smelly compared to the 8 and XVI, and an LF IX would be much better.
And I don't know about you all, but I feel uncomfortable flying a plane in this game when I know that my worst enemy has a better form NOT in this game. I.e. Flying a 109 and barely winning to a Spitfire IX would may have felt great, but remembering that there is actually a BETTER Spitfire IX out there (Spitfire LF Mk.IX with +25 boost) would make me feel funky... since it's left out and I'm shielded by the fact that it's not in the game. Besides, an LF IX without the boost would still kick a lot of arse. I've also heard that those +25 boost IX's turn super tight and climb super quick because of the extra power with no extra weight.
I'm not saying 'put it in the game', however... that is if I have no fellow whiners :D To balance it out though, we could stick in the rear 75. Imp Gal. fuel tank in the Spitfire LF IX +25lb. boost... it would give more range but it would degrade initial climb and maneuverability. Besides, the thing would be found in the late-war arena where it's more or less competitive with uber planes like the 4-Hog. They've got in in IL-2, and, as good as it is, it still has troubles from Ki-84s and planes of the like.
-
You want an LFIXe, fly the XVI. It's the high-boost later version. It just has a different name because of the US built engine.
As for feeling bad for not having defeated the best of the best? Bah. You won't get much chance in a 109 vs most spits. If you get a kill enjoy it. Doesn't matter which version you killed.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
You want an LFIXe, fly the XVI. It's the high-boost later version. It just has a different name because of the US built engine.
As for feeling bad for not having defeated the best of the best? Bah. You won't get much chance in a 109 vs most spits. If you get a kill enjoy it. Doesn't matter which version you killed.
Umm look at the link I posted kman. Its a Mk IX .
hehe unless you turn fight a 109 f.:p
Bronk
-
LOL he's got a point! That's my fave 109!
Anyway, Krusty, the XVI does not have the boosted engine. As said before by some1 else, the +25lb. boost (not only gave tighter turning according to my research) but a climb rate of over 5,000 fpm. The Spix in AHII does not have those abilities. Additionally, a bunch of LF IX's +25lb. boost had longer tips wings which gave 'em the better turning.
-
Both the 8 and 16 are at 18lbs boost on WEP.
The 2 spits are practically identical, except for fuel load, wing construction, armament, ammo load, range, and performance.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Both the 8 and 16 are at 18lbs boost on WEP.
The 2 spits are practically identical, except for fuel load, wing construction, armament, ammo load, range, and performance.
Coulda swore the boost guages went to different levels when I flew em.
Then it comes down to weight with the VIII being the heavier beast
I do kinda regret that we suggested calling it the XVI instead of the LFIXe.
My guess is there would be a lot less moaning about it if it was just called a clipped wing Spitfire LFIXe to go with the full Span FIX we have.
-
Yep, Bronk, I looked. My comment was more in response to SgtPappy.
-
I noticed that too, Guppy. That's why we can conclude that Spixteens which only outclimb and outrun the Mk.VIII marginally in-game do NOT have the +25lb boost i really like lol
Any fellow whiners?
-
Just double checked, mil/wep for both is 12/18. Just tested at SL, no idea if those change at alt, I'm not all planesmart like Widewing.
-
Just checked em. 18 boost for both the VIII and XVI 14 for the IX
Funny that I prefer the VIII of the three of em. XVI just doesn't seem that big a deal unless a really good stick has it.
-
Fuel wt diff at 100% fuel load.
Mk XVI 85 gal at 7.2 lbs. per gal = 612 lbs of fuel.
Mk VIII 123 gal at 7.2 lbs per gal = 885.6 lbs of fuel
Now how big a diff does 273.6 lbs make in an AC of this type ?
Bronk
-
I think a lot like the VIII over the XVI for 2 main reasons:
1) extra gas -- they're short-legged already, this helps a lot
2) ENY values -- more perks earned in the VIII, and it's available longer than the XVI when ENY kicks in.
Some say the wingtips help the 8 turn better. I think this is a placebo effect. The difference is very small between the two, and you're already in an uber spitfire. I've flown both, and to me the 16 seems more lethal, mostly because of higher speed, increased roll rate, and the 50cals (they're worth 6+ .303 guns, so you're gaining a good % of firepower by dropping the 4x.303s and adding the 2x.50s.)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Coulda swore the boost guages went to different levels when I flew em.
Thats because you drank all my bribe scotch you intercepted .:furious :D
Bronk
-
In AH it's 102 gal for the 16, and 149 gal for the 8, for a difference of 338.4 pounds at 100%, no DT.
-
Ahh was going buy spitfire perf page numbers for the LF IX and early Mk VIII.
They don't have the Mk XVI numbers.
(well i cant find em anyway :P)
Bronk
Edit: Or are they listing it in IMP gallons ?
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Thats because you drank all my bribe scotch you intercepted .:furious :D
Bronk
Bronk, if they ever give us the XII, the rest of the AH world will have a stroke and it's a measly little 1943 bird too, not one of those latewar monsters :)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1103870266_41spitxiis.jpg)
-
YES THE MK.XII! Problem is... i never liked its 390 mile range... :p
-
One can dream Dan .
Bronk
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
YES THE MK.XII! Problem is... i never liked its 390 mile range... :p
They didn't seem to mind when they were the high scoring wing in the fall of 43 :)
Tangmere Wing with 41 and 91. 9 for no loss being their best day October 20, 1943. No overclaims that day from everything I've seen too.
They did carry 30, 45 and 90 gallon tanks. 30 was a given and they early on at times forgot they had the 30 on during combat. Still could outrun the 190s :)
-
The Spitfire LF IX +25lb. boost and/or the Ml.XII are on my wishlist! drools**
-
Yet another mark I've never heard anything about. Someone got a link for some pertinent info?
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Yet another mark I've never heard anything about. Someone got a link for some pertinent info?
Prepare to drool.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-XII.html
Bronk
-
The Mk.XII was THE first Griffon Spitfire to have entered service. It was built to counter the low flying Fw190 and 109 jabo threat. It was converted from Mk.V and Mk.VIII airframes and it had a 4 bladed prop. The thing was faster at sea-level than teh XIV due to the single-stage Griffon. Problem was its range was extremely short and only late variants had the wing fuel tanks which gave them range similar to that of the XIV - which is why I prefer an uber Spit LF IX +25lb boost and rear fuel.
-
im nowhere near a spit expert, as a matter of fact I dont know S*** about em.. but the mk XII looks like it has XIV perfformance with XVI handling..I only say this cuz of the cliped wings and the long nose..
-
I think I want one of those, too. How many bottles of scotch is that?
-
Originally posted by Platano
im nowhere near a spit expert, as a matter of fact I dont know S*** about em.. but the mk XII looks like it has XIV perfformance with XVI handling..I only say this cuz of the cliped wings and the long nose..
It would most likely be a bit more "twitchy" like the Mk XIV in game.
So you probably couldn't toss it around like a merlin powered spit.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
I think I want one of those, too. How many bottles of scotch is that?
LoL HT quoted me 200 .
Was trying to sell a kidney cuz that stuff in not cheap.
:p
Bronk
-
A couple of things:
The Spit Mk VIII came with a 1565 HP Merlin 61 or a 1710 HP Merlin 63. I'm assuming in game we have the Merlin 61 (Also used in the IX).
The Spit Mk XVI came with the Packard built 1372 HP Merlin 266
The extra HP in the VIII probably makes up for the extra fuel weight (I didn't bother to calculate to be sure).
The 2 .50's in the XVI are definitely more lethal than the 4 .303's in the VIII.
Performance-wise the VIII and XVI are nearly identical (speed, climb and turn although roll rates are probably better in the XVI).
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
A couple of things:
The Spit Mk VIII came with a 1565 HP Merlin 61 or a 1710 HP Merlin 63. I'm assuming in game we have the Merlin 61 (Also used in the IX).
BZZZZZT we have the merlin 66 version.
Link>>>http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-VIII.html
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
BZZZZZT we have the merlin 66 version.
Hmm. How do we know that? Just wondering.
-
Back when they were first introduced Pyro stated what engine each model used.
You'd have to do a bit of searching to find it but its there.
Why I remember is because I'm a spit dweeb and was asking bunch of questions in those threads.
Bronk
Edit: My bad Kev367th spoke with pyro about the spits at that time.
Kev relayed the info to us on the boards.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Yet another mark I've never heard anything about. Someone got a link for some pertinent info?
How far do you want to get buried on Spit XII info Hub? Them's my boys :)
Spent from 1980 on researching the XII and the two squadrons that flew them on Operations. I can go on for years with Spit XII info and stories :)
Posted before, but one of my favorite pictures of the Tangmere Spitfire XII Wing, taken October 30, 1943 not long after their big day where they downed 9 for no loss. Wing Commander Ray Harries in the center. Ray Harries German Shepard "Wing Commander Boris"is in front of the 91 Squadron guys. S/L Bernard Ingham of 41 to his right. S/L Norman Kynaston to his left from 91 Squadron. F/L Ian Matthew of 91 is on the prop. He later commanded 41 Squadron. F/L Pinky Glenn is 3rd from Harries right. He started as a Sgt. Pilot with 41 and ended up CO before he was done. Clive "Jumbo" Birbeck is on the far left. He lied about his age and was flying Spits at 16. Shot down and made POW in a Spit XVI while dive bombing sub pens. Next to Birbeck is Jacko Andrieux, a Free French pilot with 91. He ended up a General in the French AF post war. Next to Jacko is Herb Wagner, who only recently passed away. An American flying with the RAF. Shot down June 2, 1944 over Guernsey. Got roughed up by the Gestapo as they thought he might know of the invasion plans. For a while no one in the POW camp would go near him as they thought he was a German plant because he didn't have a British accent. Peter Cowell is next to Wagner. He shot down a 262 in a Spit XIV. On one trip on the deck back from France in a Spit XII he bounced off the water. Shattered a foot or more off each prop blade but somehow staggered back at full power.
I can go on and on with stories about those guys. Met a lot of them in the 80s. Sadly most are gone now :(
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1115831054_tangmere-wing.jpg)
-
OMG!!! An intelligent conversation with no flaming:eek:
I'm not counting hub in the intelligent part.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
It would most likely be a bit more "twitchy" like the Mk XIV in game.
So you probably couldn't toss it around like a merlin powered spit.
Bronk
Not sure that's true Bronk. The guys who flew it, really liked it. Opposite torque like the other Griffons, and needed a bit more trimming for the torque but rolled well and turned just fine with the 109s and 190s.
Tactics were simple since it was geared for lower alts. Fly below the 109s and 190s, hoping they came down so the XIIs could turn into them and clobber em because they were better. It went against the grain of the guy with the alt controlling the fight.
They escorted the mediums often. Only problem came when the 109s and 190s quit coming down:)
The prototype Spit XII DP845 was Jeffery Quill's favorite Spit.
-
Tactics were simple since it was geared for lower alts. Fly below the 109s and 190s, hoping they came down so the XIIs could turn into them and clobber em because they were better. It went against the grain of the guy with the alt controlling the fight.
Sooooo ... these guys were the original "furballers" then ?
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Tactics were simple since it was geared for lower alts. Fly below the 109s and 190s, hoping they came down so the XIIs could turn into them and clobber em because they were better. It went against the grain of the guy with the alt controlling the fight.
Sooooo ... these guys were the original "furballers" then ?
If that means dangling yourself out there hoping to get bounced.....then yes :)
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Tactics were simple since it was geared for lower alts. Fly below the 109s and 190s, hoping they came down so the XIIs could turn into them and clobber em because they were better. It went against the grain of the guy with the alt controlling the fight.
Sooooo ... these guys were the original "furballers" then ?
Well it's official. Everyone can now blame the spit dweebs for the furball mentality.
Carry on.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Not sure that's true Bronk. The guys who flew it, really liked it. Opposite torque like the other Griffons, and needed a bit more trimming for the torque but rolled well and turned just fine with the 109s and 190s.
Tactics were simple since it was geared for lower alts. Fly below the 109s and 190s, hoping they came down so the XIIs could turn into them and clobber em because they were better. It went against the grain of the guy with the alt controlling the fight.
They escorted the mediums often. Only problem came when the 109s and 190s quit coming down:)
The prototype Spit XII DP845 was Jeffery Quill's favorite Spit.
I was thinking in game Dan. Kinda like how the Mk XIV is at lower speeds.
If your not on top of it when slow she'll snap stall on ya quick.
I don't know if that was how real Mk XIV were. So I was was guessing from game experience.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Not sure that's true Bronk. The guys who flew it, really liked it. Opposite torque like the other Griffons, and needed a bit more trimming for the torque but rolled well and turned just fine with the 109s and 190s.
Tactics were simple since it was geared for lower alts. Fly below the 109s and 190s, hoping they came down so the XIIs could turn into them and clobber em because they were better. It went against the grain of the guy with the alt controlling the fight.
They escorted the mediums often. Only problem came when the 109s and 190s quit coming down:)
The prototype Spit XII DP845 was Jeffery Quill's favorite Spit.
Hmm LET'S GET ONE! Do we have it on the wishlist?
Btw, Gupp, you wouldnt by any chance have the endurance and the range of the a/c (the XII with wing tanks) after warmup, take-off, climb etc. using different sized DT's? Thanks!
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
Hmm LET'S GET ONE! Do we have it on the wishlist?
Btw, Gupp, you wouldnt by any chance have the endurance and the range of the a/c (the XII with wing tanks) after warmup, take-off, climb etc. using different sized DT's? Thanks!
Don't have specific figures. I have copies of a lot of logbooks from pilots of 41 and 91.
Longest flights are 2hours 10 minutes, flown in August 44. Terry Spencer of 41 squadron comments on the first one of these that 'its the longest Spit XII flight yet" when they escorted buffs to Rouen. I have photos of 90 gallon tanks on Spit XIIs so I imagine this was one of those.
Average escort flights in the summer and fall of 43 were 1 hour 40 minutes when they covered Bostons, Mitchells and Marauders on numerous raids into France.
As a comparison, Bruce Moffet's logbook when he was with 91 squadron shows them escorting Halifaxes and Lancs in August 44 after they gave up their XIVs for Spit FIXs. Those flights with 90 gallon tanks were 2 hours 40 minutes. Moffett flew XIIs with 41 and 91, then XIVs and IXs with 91.
The XII clearly burned fuel faster which is why flying with the 30 gallon tank was standard.
Hope that helps a bit.
91 Squadron Spitfire IX in August 44 with a 90 gallon tank.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1091644365_91spitix.jpg)
41 Squadron Spitfire XII in August 1944 with a 90 gallon tank.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1167259738_mb854.jpg)
-
Thanks, Guppy. That certainley clears things up.
Personally, I prefer a regular wing tip LF IX, but the XII is awesome.
-
Ok back to the XIV's turning.
According to WW's great info, the XIV has a turning circle some 20% worse than the IX - over 55 feet of extra turning circle.
According to RAF tests, the XIV's turning for the 2 planes were 'identical'. Now of course this sentence is far from good, but doesn't it show that the XIV turned so similarly to the IX that a 55' difference would seem quite overdone?
Yes, the XIV MUST turn worse than the IX, but if the test is correct, the XIV must have some quality that allows it to turn so well. My theory is power loading. WW's tests show turning conclusions from turn index. Though those tests are great, the power of an a/c must give better flat, straight forward turning.
'No. By that argument, the F-15 (weighing about four times your average World War Two fighter) shouldn't be able to turn well at all. But it does! In fact, it turns much better than aircraft with far, far lower wingloading. The reason is powerloading.
Powerloading and liftloading cannot be dismissed as easily as you do. Dismiss aspect ratio and the others if you must as "less than secondary," but powerloading is easily the most important factor in turning ability. After all, missiles don't need wings. Liftloading, a good indicator of climbing ability, also greatly impacts turning ability.
I'm no aeronautical engineer. I don't know much about aerodynamics. But I do know enough to know that you're making a big mistake when you calculate turning ability based soley or even just mostly on wingloading.' - Benny Moore
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
Ok back to the XIV's turning.
According to WW's great info, the XIV has a turning circle some 20% worse than the IX - over 55 feet of extra turning circle.
According to RAF tests, the XIV's turning for the 2 planes were 'identical'. Now of course this sentence is far from good, but doesn't it show that the XIV turned so similarly to the IX that a 55' difference would seem quite overdone?
Yes, the XIV MUST turn worse than the IX, but if the test is correct, the XIV must have some quality that allows it to turn so well. My theory is power loading. WW's tests show turning conclusions from turn index. Though those tests are great, the power of an a/c must give better flat, straight forward turning.
'No. By that argument, the F-15 (weighing about four times your average World War Two fighter) shouldn't be able to turn well at all. But it does! In fact, it turns much better than aircraft with far, far lower wingloading. The reason is powerloading.
Powerloading and liftloading cannot be dismissed as easily as you do. Dismiss aspect ratio and the others if you must as "less than secondary," but powerloading is easily the most important factor in turning ability. After all, missiles don't need wings. Liftloading, a good indicator of climbing ability, also greatly impacts turning ability.
I'm no aeronautical engineer. I don't know much about aerodynamics. But I do know enough to know that you're making a big mistake when you calculate turning ability based soley or even just mostly on wingloading.' - Benny Moore
Umm but there is a HUGE difference in thrust between 15 and a XIV.
The difference in thrust between a IX and the XIV is much smaller.
You cant compare apples to oranges.
As a side note you can get close to spit IX turning right, and no where as good turning left.
Bronk
-
Hmm that does make sense sine the Griffon turns the opposite way. Thanks, Bronk.
P.S. Nerf the F4U's turning! Love the plane, though.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
You want an LFIXe, fly the XVI. It's the high-boost later version. It just has a different name because of the US built engine.
As for feeling bad for not having defeated the best of the best? Bah. You won't get much chance in a 109 vs most spits. If you get a kill enjoy it. Doesn't matter which version you killed.
Okey dokey lets clear this up.....
The VIII and the XVI have exactly the same boost, the XVI was requested at 25lbs but as was said earlier Pyro thought 5 mins of 25lbs boost was too much.
Just to reiterate again - What we have isn't in fact a XVI, the full throttle height of 21k shows it is in fact a mid 1944 LF IXe.
A Merlin 266 fitted to the XVI has a FTH of 22k.
Speeds - Clipped wing birds are slightly faster than their non clipped counterparts. This documented in a scan from another thread of a flight test.
Differences -
VIII - more fuel, full wings, retractible tailwheel.
XVI - less fuel, clipped wings. fixed tailwheel.
All in all they almost equal each other out.
What you have to watch when comparing the XVI to the IX, is which IX you are using.
3 models -
F IX Merlin 61
LF IX Merlin 66
HF IX Merlin 70
Then of course you have clipped, noraml and extended wings.
You have to be sure exactly what configuration the 'IX' is in.
Hub - XII was the first production Griffon Spit, avail way back in 1942 ;) . But as Dan said if it ever appeared it would make the XVI whines pale into insignificance.
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
'No. By that argument, the F-15 (weighing about four times your average World War Two fighter) shouldn't be able to turn well at all. But it does! In fact, it turns much better than aircraft with far, far lower wingloading. The reason is powerloading.
Powerloading and liftloading cannot be dismissed as easily as you do. Dismiss aspect ratio and the others if you must as "less than secondary," but powerloading is easily the most important factor in turning ability. After all, missiles don't need wings. Liftloading, a good indicator of climbing ability, also greatly impacts turning ability.
I'm no aeronautical engineer. I don't know much about aerodynamics. But I do know enough to know that you're making a big mistake when you calculate turning ability based soley or even just mostly on wingloading.' - Benny Moore
When we look at Benny's quote, we need to understand that WWII fighters didn't have much thrust. Especially when compared to modern jets like the F-15, which has 58,000 lb of thrust available.
A typical WWII fighter has considerably less than 2,000 lb of thrust to propel it through the air. Some late-war fighters have a bit more, but not much more.
Here's a simple calculation presented by Francis Dean in his book America's Hundred thousand.
375 x prop efficiency (let's use 80%, or .8) x horsepower / speed.
So, we have the Spitfire Mk.XIV doing 358 mph at sea level making 2050 hp.
375 x .8 x 2050 / 358 = 1,718 lb of thrust.
How about the Spitfire Mk. IX?
375 x .8 x 1660 / 314 = 1,586 lb of thrust.
The Spitfire Mk.XIV has 108% of the Spit Mk.IX's thrust at sea level. just 8% more.
Let's use the F4F-4 for contrast.
375 x .8 x 1,000 / 285 = 1,052 lb of thrust.
Now, look at the F-15 again. It has roughly 34 times more thrust than a Spit14!
That F4F-4 easily out-turns a Spit16, and it does so with only 61% of the Spit14's thrust. So, I ask you; how important is thrust as compared to wing loading and lift coefficient? Not important at all at these levels of thrust.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
if it ever appeared it would make the XVI whines pale into insignificance.
That's exactly what I'm looking for. ;)
-
Kev, he was talking about flying a IX. I mentioned the XVI was a higher boost IX. I wasn't comparing to the VIII.
-
" XII was the first production Griffon Spit, avail way back in 1942 . But as Dan said if it ever appeared it would make the XVI whines pale into insignificance."
I doubt it. The IX is a 42 bird too, and XII matches the 190A5 closely in speed (because it was a JABO hunter) except that at height it is slower and IX needs to go 3000ft higher before it can match A5's speed. :p.
Only 100 built. Shows the significance the Brits thought it had, so the IX was clearly a better choice for mass production.
But hey I guess you gotta suck your joy from where ever you can... :rofl
-C+
-
So Widewing, what you're saying is essentially that an a/c would need a whole lot more thrust in order to make a turning difference.
Okay, i get it! Hurray!
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
So Widewing, what you're saying is essentially that an a/c would need a whole lot more thrust in order to make a turning difference.
Okay, i get it! Hurray!
That, in a nut shell, is it. ;)
WWII fighters simply did not have enough thrust to make any significant difference in turning ability. Even the most powerful fighters of the time still had to turn nose-down to maintain airspeed and avoid stalling. Modern jets often have a considerable surplus of thrust, allowing them to maintain the tightest possible turn without trading altitude for speed.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Charge
" XII was the first production Griffon Spit, avail way back in 1942 . But as Dan said if it ever appeared it would make the XVI whines pale into insignificance."
I doubt it. The IX is a 42 bird too, and XII matches the 190A5 closely in speed (because it was a JABO hunter) except that at height it is slower and IX needs to go 3000ft higher before it can match A5's speed. :p.
Only 100 built. Shows the significance the Brits thought it had, so the IX was clearly a better choice for mass production.
But hey I guess you gotta suck your joy from where ever you can... :rofl
-C+
Two ways to look at it. The XII only had the single stage Griffon. It was in essence produced to stop the hit and run 190s on the south coast of England. It did that.
But it wasn't going to be developed further as the two stage Griffon was already in the works for the XIV and the Merlin development finally got around to the Merlin 66 for the medium alt band where the fighting had fallen to from the earlier high alt fights.
In many ways the XVI is comparable to the Spit XII for the low alt war fought in AH.
But as mentioned with the XIV in the works a single stage Griffon Spit wasn't going to get far with the RAF in terms of development. But it did keep going for the RN with the Seafire XV and XVII which also had the single stage Griffon VI.
All that being said, I'd like to try an XII in the MA and see what happens in that low alt world we fight in :)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Two ways to look at it. The XII only had the single stage Griffon. It was in essence produced to stop the hit and run 190s on the south coast of England. It did that.
But it wasn't going to be developed further as the two stage Griffon was already in the works for the XIV and the Merlin development finally got around to the Merlin 66 for the medium alt band where the fighting had fallen to from the earlier high alt fights.
In many ways the XVI is comparable to the Spit XII for the low alt war fought in AH.
But as mentioned with the XIV in the works a single stage Griffon Spit wasn't going to get far with the RAF in terms of development. But it did keep going for the RN with the Seafire XV and XVII which also had the single stage Griffon VI.
All that being said, I'd like to try an XII in the MA and see what happens in that low alt world we fight in :)
It would get perked.
-
I've also noticed that the Siptfire Mk.IX we have in the game is MH434. According to my research, MH434 was an LF Mk.IX meaning it was equipped with a Merlin 66 engine, like that of the Mk.VIII. Too bad it's equipped with a Merlin 61.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
It would get perked.
As it should.
What were there...100 of them?
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
As it should.
What were there...100 of them?
- oldman
UMMM
How many Ta 152s were there.
Like what 63?
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
As it should.
What were there...100 of them?
- oldman
Yep, flying combat with 41 and 91 Squadrons from Februarly 43-September 44.
Far more action then a Ta152 ever saw :)
-
Originally posted by Bronk
UMMM
How many Ta 152s were there.
Like what 63?
Bronk
Well, er, isn't the Ta152 perked?
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Well, er, isn't the Ta152 perked?
- oldman
Not any more.
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
Not any more.
Zingggggggggggggggg
:D
Bronk
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
Not any more.
oops! Well, there goes that rationale then.
- oldman
-
All the theorizing and fact quoting aside, the simple truth is that in competent hands the Spit Mk XIV is a monster in AH. What it can't out run it can out climb and out turn and/or out accelerate. It is a superb E-fighter, a better than average BnZ fighter and better than average in an angles fight, all of which make it a powerful furballer. There are only two airplanes in the AH livery that give me pause in the XIV - the 4-hog and the tempest. The rest in the stable are meat. Having said that, the XIV in the hands of someone who isn't familiar with it tends to be a dog, so it isn't a cure-all for the unskilled dweeb, but a sky full of XIV's in AH would be a nightmare for anyone flying anything else. It's worthy of the price.
Just my $0.02
asw
-
Landed 2 kills in the XIV last night. WEP on, ran down a 38 after a sector. He really didn't know how to fly the 38 and I bet he was a little choked when I poped him at D600. Second kill was on a Typhoon which someone setup for me.
XIV is a monster, nice plane to fly. That's my analysis. :aok