Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: fdiron on November 19, 2001, 10:10:00 AM
-
A few years back I heard about alot of reports on how the P51 was a mediocre plane in real life. Besides range, the Spit MkXIV was superior in every category than the P51. Now I personally dont believe any of this hogwash, but apparently alot of people do. Were than any mock combat tests done between the P51D and the Spitfire 14?
-
I think that it really would be decided by the pilot. Both have advantages.
The Spit's lay in its climb and turn.
The P-51D's lay in high speed handling and range.
Here is a link for you:
Spitfire MkXIV tests by the British during WWII:
Spitfire MkXIV testing (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14afdu.html)
From the above link:
TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH MUSTANG III
Radius of Action
31. Without a long range tank, the Spitfire XIV has no endurance. With a 90 gallon long-range tank it has about half the range of the Mustang III fitted with 2 x 62 1/2 gallon long range tanks.
Maximum Speed
32. The maximum speed are practically identical.
Maximum Climb
33. The Spitfire XIV is very much better.
Dive
34. As for the Spitfire IX. The Mustang pulls away, but less markedly.
Turning Circle
35. The Spitfire XIV is better.
Rate of Roll
36. The advantage tends to be with the Spitfire XIV.
Conclusion
37. With the exception of endurance no conclusions can be drawn, as these two aircraft should never be enemies. The choice is a matter of taste.
Edit: Yanked a link that I didn't read until after I linked to it. It was silly.
[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
-
Thanks for the links, very interesting!
-
Spit XIV was a great machine.
P51D was quite better IMO.
In AH the acceleration/climbrate/turnrate are way more important than they were in real life.
In real life what counted was speed,dive, zoom, hispeed handling, weapon punch, range and visibility. That is the reason why planes as the P51,P47, Fw190 or Corsair really shined. None of those accelerated or climbed especially well, and none of them was a turnfighter either.
Speed and visibility are so similar in both spit and P51 (assuming the spit is with bubble canopy), that there is no real advantage here. Dive,zoom and hispeed handling are owned by the P51D, without question. And I think that the weapons in the P51D were better for WWII fights (long ammo clips and very high RoF).
We wont even start talking about range, ok? ;).
IMO even a P47D was better fighter than a Spitfire XIV in real life. Depends on wich is your conception of a fight, tho. If it is wich one can accelerate and climb better, the spit is way better, f course :)
-
the p51 has the best cooling drag of any fighter at that point. its "laminar" flow wings actually did very little due to combat conditions, but it had an enormous drag reduction via the radiator exhaust.
-
The Spit XIV's radiators produce quite a lot of drag. The fact that they got P-51D-like speeds out of it is a more of a testament of the engine and prop system than anything else.
[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
-
In AH the Spit14 would give the mustang a lot of trouble at pretty much any alt. A spit 14 is really just a better handling and turning and possibly better climbing Bf109G10 armed with hispanos.
-
The Spit14 in this test had at least 2200hp in the first gear!
niklas
-
niklas,
How do you calculate that?
I don't see it in the report.
-
If I remember correctly, I heard from a ww2 pilot that the spit 14 was a faster plane than his mustang. That had to do with V1 chasing, where both Tempests and spit14's could catch them in level flight, while the mustang needed a slight altitude advantage. Could this be correct.
Anyway, the spit 14 would be THE monster in AH, outclimbing 109's, outspeeding practically anything but the 262, and outturning anything but a lot slower planes.
Not to mention those hispanos.......
Me wants it :D
-
How about a comparison of how well they perform towards the end of a 7-hour mission?
Methinks the grounded out-of-gas spit would lose, unless the P-51 driver flies like Gabby.
J_A_B
-
hi Karnak
i actually forgot to mention that i refer myself to the spitfire with the 5100ft/min climbrate.
Though the tactical trials again carefully avoid to mention absolut performance numbers, it is possible to estimate at least the sea level speeds.
Beginning with the FW-190, where we known that it did ~335mp/h near ground in english tests:
FW-190 (335mph / 540km/h)
Spit-14 +20 mph = 355mph (570km/h) - definitly not a speed king imo ;)
P51-III +20 = 355 mph (570km/h) very interesting, VERY interesting ;)
Temp V +40 = 375 mph (605km/h)
Spit9 - 15 = 320 mph (515km/h) with +18 ;)
109G - 20 = 315mph (505km/h)
niklas
-
Originally posted by niklas:
P51-III +20 = 355 mph (570km/h) very interesting, VERY interesting ;)
Hehehe niklas... AH's P51B makes around 360mph on the deck, is a difference but not that big ;)
However...FIX IT <G,D,R>
BTW, have you got more of those Fw190A5 charts?. Can't wait to see the climb ones! :)
-
R4M, were u read that 190s didnt accelerate well??
From everything i read a D9 using MW50 was accelerating extremly good.
And when u compare speed charts of D9 and Spit XIV, it seems up to 22K the Ah Dora would still be a bit faster than the real Spit XIV.
Comparison off the charts i have on D9 and Spit XIV, leads to the conlcusion that D9 and Spit XIV are to each others what FW190A3 was to the Spit IX.
Under 22K the FW190 is slightly better above the spit.
For AH btw this would mean the Spit XIV will be THE plane, great turn, exellent climb, good dive. FW190s and P51s would fromt than on only attack a spit if it they have alt, if they dont have it they are dead.
-
Naudet, I dont say the 190 didnt accelerate well ;) the early A-series were very good climbers and accelerators,as it was the Dora.
However they didn't shine because their acceleration, even when it was quite good. That is what I say, the strong points of the D9 were speed, dive, zoom, visibility and weapons. Acceleration and climb never were that important for the german Boom-'n-zoom mentality :) That is why the Fw190A8 had as much success as the early antons...The A-8 had poor climbrate and acceleration, yet they were as effective or more than the A-5, for instance :).
-
Grunherz wrotte:
"A spit 14 is really just a better handling and turning and possibly better climbing Bf109G10 armed with hispanos."
I am sure that asi was in the reality, nothing that to object.
estoy seguro de que asi fue en la realidad, nada que objetar.
Angus wrotte:
"Anyway, the spit 14 would be THE monster in AH, outclimbing 109's, outspeeding practically anything but the 262, and outturning anything but a lot slower planes."
Against 109 series G yes, against series K no, the K (in teoria) surpassed Spit XIV in speed, acceleration and clim rate (sufficient to win a combat 1 versus 1, that I think), Spitfire XIV has better maneuverability. Without distance icon you see that the Hispanic is not a so great advantage, I think.
Contra 109 series G si, contra series K no, el K (en teoria) aventajaba al Spit XIV en velocidad, aceleracion y clim rate (suficiente para ganar un combate 1 vs 1, eso pienso yo), el Spitfire XIV tiene mejor maniobrabilidad.
Sin icono de distancia usted se daria cuenta que el hispano no es una ventaja tan grande, pienso.
Saludos
Supongo
-
La leche como traduce de mal este altavista :mad:
Supongo
-
Spit9 - 15 = 320 mph (515km/h) with +18
No, that's fora 15lb boost Merlin 61. Merlin 66 gave 336 at sea level, Merlin 70, optimised for high alt, gave 329 at sea level. Merlin 63, mid rang, 18lb boost would have been close to the Merlin 66 figure.
-
niklas,
The rate of climb that you quote is from 1,700ft. Most of the initial rates of climb that I've seen for aircraft seem to use the climb rate at 5,000ft, where, of course, the climb rate is reduced.
Garrido,
The typical climb rates I have seen for the Spitfire XIV and Bf109K-4 always put the K-4 as better, but by less that 100ft per minute (usually 80ft per minute more).
As others have noted, the Spitfire XIV is not really a speed demon until it hits higher altitudes.
According to the Russian chart posted by butch2k it doesn't surpass the La-7 until just under 4,000 meters, and then the La-7 surpasses it again at just over 5,000 meters, the Spitfire XIV finally gaining a significant and growing advantage over the La-7 at just over 6,000 meters.
The P-51D is faster than the Spitfire XIV up to just over 6,000 meters, whereafter the Spitfire XIV holds a steady advantage.
The Bf109K-4 holds a speed advantage over the Spitfire XIV to over 7,000 meters. This advantage is particularly strong at 4,000 to 6,750 meters. Above 7,300 meters or so the Spitfire XIV has a large advantage in speed over the Bf109K-4.
Another interesting note is the speaker at the Con who had flown Spitfire XIVs commented that it could not be held in level flight with an IAS above 450 (I don't recall if it was 450mph or 450 knots, mph I think).
The thing about the Spitfire XIV is that it would dominate the arena if it were free, however as an expensive perk (60-70 point) with a Spit14 icon over it, it'll do rather poorly. It isn't fast enough at AH combat altitudes to run from the gangbang that happens to perk planes and with the arena as crowded as it has been lately there are always higher aircraft around, particularly after a fight has been joined.
I think that the Spitfire XIV should be a 15 to 30 point perk, maybe 40 on the outside. It would be the most historically significant (except for the incredible Me262A-1), nuemerically significant and earliest aircraft to be perked.
-
good post karnak
30 fer a spitxiv
-
Spit14 should be perked at least 30 points. Whatever its cost it should be limited in use, as its really too good for the AH environment and would be overused.
-
30 for a Spit XIV then make it 10-15 for the TA-152 please.
-
ROFL
-
Do they even realise how ridicuolus this looks?
-
I was recently reading the memoirs of an RAF WW2 fighter pilot (forget the guy's name - I'm not with my references) who also got to fly a lot of other aircraft. He specifically compared the P-51 with the contemporary Spit. He reckoned that the P-51 was very, very good; it did everything well, with no vices or weaknesses. But it also left him with no great impression of what it was like (he didn't use the word "boring" but that's what it sounded like...). Basically, it wasn't outstanding in any respect except for range. The Spit, OTOH, was a pilot's delight, far more responsive and agile.
On the armament side, the general reckoning is that one Hispano was about equal in destructiveness to three .50s (and this was the USN's view). Do your own sums....
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
NOTE NEW ADDRESS http://website.lineone.net/~a_g_williams (http://website.lineone.net/~a_g_williams)
Gun and ammunition discussions at: http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages (http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages)
-
"Do they even realise how ridicuolus this looks?"
Maybe in 5 years it'll all be remembered with a laugh.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams:
On the armament side, the general reckoning is that one Hispano was about equal in destructiveness to three .50s (and this was the USN's view). Do your own sums....
Maybe in hitting power ,but you MUST hit with it.
50cal had a better RoF than Hispano
50cals in Stang had WAY more ammo per gun than spit's hispanos.
And finally, there were SIX 50 cals for TWO hispanos.
You never kill what you never hit :D. I still think the P51D had WAY better weapons than the spit.
-
Originally posted by Seeker:
Do they even realise how ridicuolus this looks?
no they cannot ...
what about Perking the D9 ?
-
I think that the P51 would have a tough time against the spit. Both the P51 and late model spits were reaching the outside envelopes of piston plane performance. I think the main significant advantage the P51 had over the spitfire was its range. You cant fight if your out of gas. If a P51 and a Spitfire XIV met at 20,000 feet, both with plently of fuel and equally skilled pilots, I think the Spitfire would win. However, that being said, I think the P51 is a much more important plane due to the fact that it saved the lives of thousands of bomber crews.
-
No, the XIV should not be perked. Why are you using a double standard? If you perk a Spitfire XIV you should perk the G-10, the P-51D, the La7, the D-9 and so on. Would the Spitfire XIV be too good? Well, so be it. The range means nothing here: the MA is for fun. His range will be a problem (maybe) during scenarios.
In the meantime, we are still waiting an answer from PYRO about the lack of late war Spitfires.
Disclaimer: this is an opinion of a player flying axis 95% of his time :)
-
Nashwan, in the introduction of the tactitcal comparison it is clearly mentioned that the Spit9 was going with +18 boost and 3000rpm.
You know yourself why some spits shine in some Boscomb test, donīt you ? This is from you:
The reason I now doubt the 408mph figure is because of a quote from Jeffery Quill regarding Spitfire testing. It's on the Fourth Fighter Group page.
"As time went on Boscombe Down came increasingly to accept the firms figures, making only spot checks themselves, in order to save wear and tear on the prototypes. In other words Boscombe Down provided the offical seal of approval, though many of the performance figures quoted in their reports were in fact measured by Supermarine's experimental flight test unit at Worthy Point, later at Hight Point. The A and AEE made their own judgements on the aircraft's handling and other qualities."
( http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=000524) (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=000524))
Karnak: If you reed the report with the performances of the Spit14 carefully, you ll find the following line:
"It is understood that the final version of the Mk.XIV will have a Griffon 65 engine which differs from the engine now installed in having a higher MS supercharger gear ratio"
When you change in the 2nd. gear, you lose power. If you reduce a gear ratio, you gain power logically.
We donīt know how much power the Spit had at sealevel, BUT we know it from the 2nd gear, around 1800hp, right?
The difference in climbrate is 5100-3600 = 1500ft/min.
To lift 8400lb with another 1500ft/min, you need ~450hp.
Itīs easy to see that the Spit must have had more than 2200hp near ground. http://www.unlimitedexcitement.com/Griffon%20Budweiser/Griffon%20Engine.htm (http://www.unlimitedexcitement.com/Griffon%20Budweiser/Griffon%20Engine.htm)
this page has listed at nr.85 a griffon with 2350hp and the same low critical altitude (1250ft)
niklas
[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: niklas ]
-
I'm going to say it again, and the Spit lovers will burn me at the stake ;) but here goes.
The British equivalent in late 1944 and 1945 to the P-51D was the Spit IX (1944 varient). Not the Spit XIV. Just take a look at the production numbers as too which was the "important" (most prevalent) fighter to the British government. IE thats where they concentrated their production efforts.
In my opinon (and I'm sure to be toasted here too), if you want the American equivalent to the Spit XIV for comparison purposes, you would point to the F4U-4, the P-47 M/N, the P-51H, and maybe the Bearcat.
The reason is that the Americans knew they were already winning the war thru superior production, and a war of attrition. They didn't want to disturb production numbers by having to retool the lines. The British obviously had the same theory, since they concentrated on the production of the IX, however they did expend some effort to higher performance aircraft, and produced fairly limited numbers of the XIV. Just like the P-51H was planned for production, but the Germans colapsed prior to that need.
There was a very similar strategy that the Americans used for Tank production. I have read that the Pershing heavy tank could have been in production before D-Day, but the higher echelons decided it was better to have large numbers of Shermans, and to have less Pershings (only a handful in the last days of combat). Something that alot of US tank crews paid for in blood. But the strategy DID work.
So I guess my point is this. If your gonna play the "my noodle is bigger than your noodle" game, by comparing which country had better fighters, lets compare apples to apples. :)
*dons asbestos suit*
Ok boys, come get me :p
*battens down the hatchs on the blast shelter*
-
If the Spit XIV is modeled as a Spit IX with speed in the range of a Pony and Climb in the range of a G10...It will be a monster.
It will be more usefull then a tempest. 100 point perk...
-
Pongo,
If the Spit XIV is modeled like a Spit IX with the speed of a P-51 it'll be modeled wrong.
The Spit XIV was slower than the P-51 until it was over 24,000ft.
The fact that there are so many free aircraft that are faster than it means that it would have very low survivability in the MA with a "Spit14", e.g. "come kill me", icon over it. The La-7, Fw190D-9, Typhoon, P-51D, P-51B and Bf109G-10 are all faster than it. Two of those, the P-51D and La-7, are VERY common. Either the Spitfire XIV would stay up in the stratosphere, like the Ta152H-1, or the player would pretty much be throwing 100 perk points away.
The perk system is intended to control aircraft that would be too dominant if free, not eliminate them. At 30 points you wont see Spit 14s all over the place, but you will occasionally see them. At 100 points you would practically never see them.
Vermillion,
You are correct about which Spitfire was the main strength of the RAF in 1944.
However, do you see HTC modeling a second Spitfire MkIX? The one we have is, except for armament options, a 1942 Spitfire MkIX.
I would also point out that the main strength of the Luftwaffe was Bf109G-6s and Fw190As, however in AH by far the most common are the Fw190D-9 and Bf109G-10. What was true historically is not alwasy true in AH, to say the least.
Gatt,
The Spitfire XIV has to be a perk plane. It is simply too well suited to the MA otherwise. Fully 33% of the sorties would probably be Spitfire XIV sorties if it weren't perked.
Disclaimer: I fly RAF aircraft about 66% of the time. ;)
-
Karnak many of the G6s by early-mid 1944 were either G6AS with performance near that of G10, still others were G6AMs with MW50, and other G6s mounted GM1 for extra high alt performance. Our G6 is a plain February 1943 version in performance although it does mount the erla haube which began appearing in autumn of 1943. In other words it is a damn near contemporary of your late 1942 spit fIX.
-
Verm the pershing story is quite a bit more complicated than that, but certainly a tragedy.
-
I'll take a Spit IX over a P-51 over any situation where I've got enough gas. Hell, I'll take a Spit V!
One thing the yanks never understood (and it shows in their "sports" cars") is the distinction between power and the application of that power.
Take a Vette and a Aston DB 6 for instance. Who really would choose the over powered under developed plastic fantastic instead of a real mans car?
<sets rod, opens up the lunch box and waits....>
-
GRUNHERZ,
Er, that would make the AH Bf109G-6 a near contemorary of the Spitfire LF.MkIX that entered service in March, 1943, not the June, 1942 Spitfire F.MkIX that we have in AH. ;)
-
"Fully 33% of the sorties would probably be Spitfire XIV sorties if it weren't perked."
You mean 66% right? The 33% that fly the old spits now will hop on along with the sissyfire cheerleaders on to the new spit.
:)
-
F4U-4, the P-47 M/N, the P-51H, and maybe the Bearcat.
Ridiculous Verm. Spitfire XIV was in squadron combat service from Jan 44 and saw widespread service in the ETO after that. None of those aircraft you mention were introduced anywhere near that early or had the same kind of combat record. Spit XIV was in full production and combat months before bubble canopy P-47D or P-51D made it into battle.
The Brits built 957 Mk. XIV. If production of XIV was less than it could have been because the Griffon engines were needed for the even faster Mk. XIX, Mk. 21, and Seafire 45 which were coming into production by the Fall of 1944. Those marks are the ones that are comparable to the ultra-late-war US planes you mention.
[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
I would agree with Funkedup on that point.
The Spitfire that would compare with the F4U-4, the P-47 M/N, the P-51H, and maybe the Bearcat would be the Spitfire F.21.
There isn't any direct comparison, that I can think of, of a US aircraft with the role the Spitfire XIV played in the RAF. I'd say that the best comparison of other nation's aircraft would be the La-7, Bf109K-4 and Fw190D-9.
-
38,
I think you'll find that the Spitfire MkIX scored 9.25% of the kills in the MA this tour. That is far below the 33% that you claimed, and actually significantly lower than the 15% I was going to guess.
One of the reasons that people hate the Spitfire so much in AH is because numbers like that are thrown about and people believe them. Beliving them, they remeber seeing a lot of Spitfires and forget about the P-51s, Yaks, 109s and 190s that they also saw.
-
Niklas, you seem to have quoted me totaly out of context. My quote from above was a first paragraph, and then went on to ask if the manufacturers tests had been of an early variant running only 15lb boost.
It turns out that was the case. Test I have seen of later Spits, running 18lb boost, give higher performance figures than you are quoting. Could you point me to a link for the tactical comparison you are quoting?
You seem to be insinuating the Spit performance claims aren't valid because they may have been done by the manufacturers, before being independantly verified.
You have recently posted a speed chart for the 190A5 done by FW, with no verification, and expect that to hold weight?
Though the tactical trials again carefully avoid to mention absolut performance numbers, it is possible to estimate at least the sea level speeds.
Beginning with the FW-190, where we known that it did ~335mp/h near ground in english tests:
FW-190 (335mph / 540km/h)
Spit-14 +20 mph = 355mph (570km/h) - definitly not a speed king imo
P51-III +20 = 355 mph (570km/h) very interesting, VERY interesting
Temp V +40 = 375 mph (605km/h)
Spit9 - 15 = 320 mph (515km/h) with +18
109G - 20 = 315mph (505km/h)
Carefull to avoid exact performance figures?
You are calculating rough performance figures from a tactical comparisson, which isn't intended to provide exact figures, and then want those rough calculations to be taken as more representitive than the real performance tests?
To lift 8400lb with another 1500ft/min, you need ~450hp.
Itīs easy to see that the Spit must have had more than 2200hp near ground. http://www.unlimitedexcitement.com/Griffon%20Budweiser/Griffon%20Engine.htm (http://www.unlimitedexcitement.com/Griffon%20Budweiser/Griffon%20Engine.htm)
this page has listed at nr.85 a griffon with 2350hp and the same low critical altitude (1250ft)
That's running at 25lb boost. Read the performance figures for the Spit XIV test, and you will see it's limited to a max of 18lb boost. That's why they fitted automatic boost control to the Spits, to stop them running too much boost at low altitudes. It doesn't matter what the supercharger could deliver, 18lb is all it was allowed to deliver.
Tell me how you can get an extra few hundred HP out of the Griffon without increasing the boost. The RR engineers must be kicking themselves they didn't think of it during the war.
posted 11-21-2001 09:32 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to say it again, and the Spit lovers will burn me at the stake but here goes.
The British equivalent in late 1944 and 1945 to the P-51D was the Spit IX (1944 varient). Not the Spit XIV. Just take a look at the production numbers as too which was the "important" (most prevalent) fighter to the British government. IE thats where they concentrated their production efforts.
In my opinon (and I'm sure to be toasted here too), if you want the American equivalent to the Spit XIV for comparison purposes, you would point to the F4U-4, the P-47 M/N, the P-51H, and maybe the Bearcat.
Vermillion
As funked an Karnak said. One extra point though, you say production effort. The US produced more than 3 times as many aircraft as Britain during 44. That means as a proportion of production effort, those 957 Spit XIVs are equivalent to more than 3000 US fighters. Far more important than the Bearcat, P47M/N and P-51H combined, and off the scale with the numbers of those aircraft produced in 1944.
As a proportion of "production effort", the Spit XIV was more important than the US fighters you mention, but also the 190D9, and probably the 109K4 (I don't know how many of those were produced)
Regardless, I'd be happy with a perked Spit XIV, but I have yet to see any justification other than play-balancing for the abscence of a later version of the Spit IX, ie one of the 5000+ (6000+ if you include the XVI) rather than one of the first, worst, 350.
-
Originally posted by R4M:
Maybe in hitting power ,but you MUST hit with it.
50cal had a better RoF than Hispano
50cals in Stang had WAY more ammo per gun than spit's hispanos.
And finally, there were SIX 50 cals for TWO hispanos.
You never kill what you never hit :D. I still think the P51D had WAY better weapons than the spit.
From my next book (with Emmanuel Gustin):
"The kill probability of a 2.5 second burst from a quartet of Hispano Mk II was quoted as 80% at 275 m and 60% at 365 m."
You can work out what it would be with two cannon. The .50s needed LOTS more hits to kill a plane, as attested by the number of German fighters which returned safely to base despite being damaged in action against US bomber formations.
Comparison of the 20mm SAPI with the .50 M8 API is instructive. The M8 had a hard core with about 1 gram of incendiary material in the tip. The SAPI was a cannon shell with a hard cap. It could penetrate about the same as the M8 (15-20mm armour) but contained 11 grams of incendiary material - yep, eleven times as much. The 20mm HEI contained the same amount of Pentolite or Tetryl. In destructive ability it was in a different league from the .50
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
PLEASE NOTE CHANGE OF ADDRESS http://website.lineone.net/~a_g_williams/index.htm (http://website.lineone.net/~a_g_williams/index.htm)
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum: http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages (http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages)
-
Hi Nashwan
Niklas, you seem to have quoted me totaly out of context.... Could you point me to a link for the tactical comparison you are quoting?
I only wanted to know whether you can remember yourself to that info. When you compare the performance gain of a spit9 with +18lb compared to +15lb, then itīs quite obvious that it wasnīt alone a power raise that brought the given performance increases....
For the link just follow Karnaks first link in this threat and read the first lines again. It clearly mentions a spit9 with +18lb
You have recently posted a speed chart for the 190A5 done by FW, with no verification, and expect that to hold weight?
this is not true, i said itīs a performance calculation from the department of flight mechanics in the other thread. I didnīt started the "our 190a5 is too slow" threat btw.
You are calculating rough performance figures from a tactical comparisson, which isn't intended to provide exact figures, and then want those rough calculations to be taken as more representitive than the real performance tests?
Well, first i have to say: What is a report worth where aircrafts are compared without mentioning the exact weight, aircraft condition, power setting etc.??? NOTHING!
Nevertheless the speeds from my simple calculation are not unrealistic. It wasnīt me who found out the speed differences. Fact is:
There doesnīt exist a 190A in english reports which did more than 340mph near ground afaik. So when the Spit14 did more than 355-360mph, why didnīt they mention this 190A in reports?
The speed of the MustangIII is very realistic.
When the tempest is in climbrate not in "the same class" as the spit14, then it didnīt have the same power as our tempest in AH. That means 2240hp maybe. When the spit14 was much faster than 355mph, then the tempest would have done 390-400mph near ground...with 2250hp - unrealistic
They mention that the spit14 will be as fast as a new 190D with DB603 engine. This is very interesting. Obviously they had information about the german tests. I have the test of the dora with DB603A engine (1750hp), and the speed near ground was...:572km/h, 355mph
How much more proof do you need?
About the other spitfire with 5100ft/min climbrate.
Whenever +25lb was used, it was mentioned in the page. Donīt forget that the other engines with +25lb put out ~2500hp with larger supercharges AND higher gear ratios.
How do you explain the climbrate difference of 1500ft/min??
I give you another hint: If you interpolate the curve from the 2nd gear down to sealevel, youīll end at approximatly 335mph.
Speed increases approximatly with a funcion of (power ratio)^1/3
So:
(362/335)^3 = 1,26
1,26*1800hp = 2270hp
The speed difference AND the climb rate difference indicate both that the spit had probably ~2250hp in this test near ground
niklas
-
Tony oh Tony,
would you kindly please stop clouding the discussion with facts !!!
:D
As for perking of Spit XIV, how convinient that most of those calling for it are 109G10/P51D/La7 drivers protecting thier dominance... :)
Verm, Spitfire LF IX would be even more wreck to the arena that XIV i think...
:)
-
imo lf.ix should be added unperked with 10 eny. xiv added as perk 20 perk point range.
-
The ADFU comparison figures are far to general to draw exact figures from them:
38. From 0 - 5,000 ft and 15,000 - 20,000 ft., the Spitfire XIV is only 20 m.p.h. faster; at all other heights it is up to 60 m.p.h. faster than the Fw 190 (BMW.801D). It is estimated to have about the same maximum speed as the new Fw 190 (DB.603) at all heights.
(109G)
44. The Spitfire XIV is 40 m.p.h. faster at all heights except 16,000 ft. where it is only 10 mph faster.
And from figures like that you want to guestimate speeds of aircraft down to a few mph?
There doesnīt exist a 190A in english reports which did more than 340mph near ground afaik. So when the Spit14 did more than 355-360mph, why didnīt they mention this 190A in reports?
340 for a 190A. The AFDU report says:
38. From 0 - 5,000 ft and 15,000 - 20,000 ft., the Spitfire XIV is only 20 m.p.h. faster; at all other heights it is up to 60 m.p.h. faster than the Fw 190 (BMW.801D). It is estimated to have about the same maximum speed as the new Fw 190 (DB.603) at all heights.
Which would make the Spit XIV around 360 at sea level. The actual performance trials showed a speed of 363 at sea level, which I think fits pretty nicely with 20mph faster than a 190A.
Well, first i have to say: What is a report worth where aircrafts are compared without mentioning the exact weight, aircraft condition, power setting etc.??? NOTHING!
I agree. So why do you wish to take such a report (the AFDU comparison) and value it more highly than full performance evaluations?
Nowhere in the AFDU report does it give aircraft speeds to a greater than 5mph accuracy:
At all heights the Spitfire XIV is 30-35 mph faster in level flight
From 0 - 10,000 feet the Tempest V is 20 mph. faster than the Spitfire XIV. There is then little to choose until 22,000 feet, when the Spitfire XIV becomes 30-40 mph. faster
From 0 - 5,000 ft and 15,000 - 20,000 ft., the Spitfire XIV is only 20 m.p.h. faster; at all other heights it is up to 60 m.p.h. faster than the Fw 190
The Spitfire XIV is 40 m.p.h. faster at all heights except 16,000 ft. where it is only 10 mph faster.
They are rounding the figures to at best 5mph, possibly even 10mph.
So a 360 mph Spit XIV is easily a 363 mph (they probably didn't even do full performance trials for all aircraft at the AFDU, that was the A&AEE's job)
The "30 mph faster than a Spit IX" can easily be 27mph faster than a Spit IX, which would put the Spit IX at 336mph at sea level, coincidentally exactly the figure given by the A&AEE during their tests of the Spit IX.
We donīt know how much power the Spit had at sealevel, BUT we know it from the 2nd gear, around 1800hp, right?
The difference in climbrate is 5100-3600 = 1500ft/min.
To lift 8400lb with another 1500ft/min, you need ~450hp.
Itīs easy to see that the Spit must have had
more than 2200hp near ground.
I'll admit I don't understand this too well, and I may be very wrong, but I don't believe it had 2200hp.
I have never seen a figure of more than 2050 hp quoted for the Griffon 65, unless it's running on higher octane fuel.
I believe the actual figure was 2035hp, which is usually rounded to 2050.
I do know that the same Griffon 65 could produce 2350hp, running at 25lb boost. In the tests where it achieved 363mph at sea level, and 5110 ft/min at low level, it was running at 18lb boost. That is clearly stated in the test report.
So far we have 200-250 hp extra accounted for, which just leaves around 200 hp.
But doesn't full superchrager gear ratio take more power? Don't you have to work harder to compress the air at higher alts to maintain that 18lb boost? Would the FS gear require a lot more HP than MS geat, which is all you needed at lower alts?
-
Yikes, got to pull on my hip boots, the crap is getting deep in here! ;)
First the AFDU tests were done at the behest of Fighter Command and later ADGB for the pilots that had to fly the planes. It gave some context to how the RAF planes would fly as compared to their contemporaries. What the pilots needed to know was things such as; is my plane faster, better climbing, better turning, etc. Since the report in question is number 117, I figure Fighter Command pilots got something out of them or they wouldn't have kept doing them. If nothing more it gave the RAF pilots flying the Spit XIV confidence to "mix it" with any 190's they should encounter ;)
There's some umm... creative math being misapplied here, lol! Lets just look at the speed comparisons on the AFDU report, focusing on Sea level speeds.
Spit XIV vrs Spit LF IX "At all heights the Spitfire XIV is 30-35 mph faster in level flight." From A&AEE LF IX did 336 Spit XIV 363. Close enough Ok checks out. (446 vrs 407 at alt)
Tempest V vrs Spit XIV: "From 0 - 10,000 feet the Tempest V is 20 mph faster." I have two reports on Tempest V series I sea level speed. 376 and 380 mph for the Tempest V versus 363 for the SPit XIV. Checks out.
FW 190A4 vrs Spit XIV: "From 0 - 5,000 ft and 15,000 - 20,000 ft., the Spitfire XIV is only 20 m.p.h. faster." 340 mph for the 190 according to above account vrs 363 for the Spit XIV. Ok close enough.
Adds up to me.
In addition if you read the first para. of the AFDU report it says " It was discovered that this aircraft (RB.141) was not representative of production aircraft for Squadrons, and Spitfire XIV No. RB.179 was made available and delivered on 25.2.44.
As far as distorting what Quill said, hehe, sheesh... The planes that A&AEE wrote reports on were located at Boscombe Down and tested by their pilots. Heck I've got pics of all the Spit XIV's that were tested AT Boscombe Down, JF319 among them. A&AEE didn't feel they had to test EVERY mod as they had a degree of trust in Supermarine. However, if you look at the the Spit IX A&AEE test of a Spit IX running at +25 boost one is likely to conclude A&AEE felt a need to check the results of the manufacturer and indeed concluded "The agreement between the Rolls-Royce and A.& A.E.E. performance figures is quite reasonable though the speeds particularly are much lower than those obtained by Messrs. Bickers Armstrong on the other aircraft." If I were doing the FM I'd use the A&AEE data. It's what the Ministy of Supply bought after all. I too am suspicious of manufacturer's data and like others figured that 190 chart to be "optimistic" and without sufficient supporting documentation.
hmmm I'm not sure, but is the implication that the AFDU Spit XIV was operating at +25 boost? Hey, if that were so those comparisons would have been way off as a Spit XIV at +25 boost was pushing 400 mph at sea level. Be very glad no one is asking for THAT monster here. They were operational too :)
edit: LOL Nashwan, you type faster ;)
[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: mw ]
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams:
From my next book (with Emmanuel Gustin):
"The kill probability of a 2.5 second burst from a quartet of Hispano Mk II was quoted as 80% at 275 m and 60% at 365 m."
You can work out what it would be with two cannon. The .50s needed LOTS more hits to kill a plane, as attested by the number of German fighters which returned safely to base despite being damaged in action against US bomber formations.
Comparison of the 20mm SAPI with the .50 M8 API is instructive. The M8 had a hard core with about 1 gram of incendiary material in the tip. The SAPI was a cannon shell with a hard cap. It could penetrate about the same as the M8 (15-20mm armour) but contained 11 grams of incendiary material - yep, eleven times as much. The 20mm HEI contained the same amount of Pentolite or Tetryl. In destructive ability it was in a different league from the .50
Tony I dont say the spit Hispanos were better/worse when hitting. I say that it was easier to hit with the 50 cals on the P51 than with the Hispanos in the Spitfire.
Simply said, the P51 puts more lead in the air per second, and can put it for much more time than the Spitfire.Given the very low hit-rate on an average pilot gunnery in WWII the P51 weapons still seem more effective for me than the Hispanos.
IF a hit was achieved, of course, cannons were much better; but I still think that it was better to have a weapon easier to hit with,at the cost of a lower hitting power. Main problem for an average pilot in AtA fights was to hit, and the american birds allowed for much more forgiving fire practices (high-deflection low-probability shoots, long range shooting, etc) than the spitfires.
Of course then you take Marseilles, who with one 20mm mauser and two 7.9mm MGs caused real havoc ;) but I'm talking about the average pilot here :)
-
Ahhh Funked, you know I'm just messing with you. :)
Hell, don't forget that I was the first to coin the term "Nancy Boy Spit Dweebs". :D
That was my signature for a Loooooong time, and was I believe famous in AW, AH, and WB's all at the same time. heheheheheehheheh.