Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on August 30, 2001, 05:37:00 PM
-
Right now the Spitfire MkIX we have is a mixture of Spitfire MkIX varients.
It has the Merlin 61 of an F.MkIX.
It has the gun options of an LF.MkIX or HF.MkIX.
It has the ordinance options of an LF.MkIX or HF.MkIX.
It has a German 300 litre drop tank.
Would it be possible in some future version, maybe 1.09 or 1.1, to have it narrowed down to a single version?
Say:
Spitfire F.MkIX
Engine: Merlin 61
Armament: 2 20mm Hispano MkII Cannon and 4 .303 Browning machine guns
Ordinance: 2 250lb bombs
Droptank: 1 90 Imperial Gallon drop tank.
HTC has never responed to the Spitfire MkIX issues raised here, at least not that I have seen.
Please fix the Spitfire MkIX.
[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
-
2x250lb wing bombs was available first on the Mk V, so the Spitfire VC and F.IX in AH should definitely have them. And the 30 gallon slipper DT too.
-
I don't think the Merlin 61 engined Spit F IX had mounting points for a fuselage bomb, let alone wing bombs.
In early 43 AAEE tested a bomb rack carrying a 500lb bomb. They noted the rack was designed and built by fighter Command, which makes it a field modification. The early F IXs (like the one in AH) didn't have bomb racks available as standard.
-
Fixed the ordinance in my request.
-
Punt
-
punt
-
How about giving it the universal wing (which it seems to already have) so that we can have 4 hispano's mounted......
Oh how they would whine :D
-
No reason not to have the Merlin 66 L.F. IX as well. It was one of the most widely used types. Either the C wing or the E wing armament. There is plenty of data on the type.
-
its not the point to have quad hispano, i can live without this
but
Mk IX was build in about 5500 airplanes in versions F, LF, HF
about 1300 whare build in F mk IX
about 200 where build with merlin 61 engine /this one we have in AH/ Worsest and earliest spit ever have.
This was planes with mkV fuselage
80% of spitfires mk9 ever made was equiped with merlin 66-70 engines with much better performance then merlin 61
about 2600 spitfires mk9 was LF version with merlin 63,66,70
so if we have unperked and powerfull planes like 190D9 and La7 + powerfull late war US planes, whichone going to be "fix" in AH2, why not fix spits /mk9 and mk5/ + varians /external drop tanks, bombs, wings types/
now we have something whats looks like spitfirre but its hard to name /versions of arment/
ramzey
-
Agreed.
In the same spirit, we request better 109G-6s.
Maybe a perk option? Shi*ty G-6 and Spit9s come free, give them engine/wing/armament upgrades and they become a light perk plane..??
-
Isn't 3 109G's enough? :eek:
-
no it isnt, especially in the mt and events.
The g6 we have is just as a hybrid as the spit 9. Its has the performance of an early g6.
I agree that theres other priorities. In particular on the japaneese and vvs side. But I think what karnak and the rest of you guys are asking in regards toward the mut spit 9 isnt unreasonable. I question the need to perk a better version in the same way I would in perking say a late war g6.
In reality we need many more 109s
109e3
109e4b
109e7b
109f2
109g6 late version
109g6/as
109g14
109k4
You can never have enough 109s
then more 190s
190a2
190a3
190a4
190a6
190a7
190a9
190 g variant
190 d9 44 variant
190d9 45 variant
the theres the heinkel bombers and a Do 217
:)
while we wait for those fixing the bastardized spit 9 can get worked in.
-
AH is going forward , right?
so its time to fix some things
now without reason opinion "spit outperform 109" was given
If FB can have various types we can have too
IIRC AH2 TOD will need more detailed planeset then current we have. I cannot imagine mission arena without correct planeset according to wartime. Of cours with numbers of aircraft produced in this time.
btw Wotan i long time wait to use this again;)
(http://www.raf303.org/ramzey/AAR/achtung-luftwhiner.jpg)
regards
ramzey
-
lol I wasnt whining I was agreeing with you :)
plus adding a plug for us lw :)
besides thwe spit is so ugly we need 3 109 and 3 190 to correct the beauty factor of the ah planeset........:p
-
Originally posted by Batz
lol I wasnt whining I was agreeing with you :)
IT DOESN'T MATTER!!! :D
-
Egads. I posted this thread almost two years ago.:eek:
I would still like to see a consistant Spit IX, but I am doubtful that the LF.IX is the way to go. The F.IX already gets more kills than anything else (Tour 41 stats (http://www.dbstaines.com/TourStats/Tour41/Tour41.htm) thanks to Mini D), so the LF.IX very well might be overkill.
I also agree with Batz about the geed for an MW50 equipped Bf109G-6, or simply a Bf109G-14. An Fw190A-2 would also be a good addition.
I disagree that we need all the models he listed just as I disagree that we need similar lists of Spitfires.
-
Originally posted by Batz
lol I wasnt whining I was agreeing with you :)
i know, but just cant resist:D :D
-
disagree that we need all the models he listed just as I disagree that we need similar lists of Spitfires.
Well forgive me, I may be a bit biased .......:)
-
Originally posted by ramzey
now without reason opinion "spit outperform 109" was given
I don't know exactly what you meant by this statement, but I can tell you that no Spit ever outperformed it’s contemporary 109, except in turning. The 109’s were always faster and had markedly better climb rates.
Edit: For instance the 109F4 and the Spitfire V are contemporaries. The 109F4 is vastly superior to the Spit V. The 109G2 is the contemporary of an early Spit IX, and again the 109 is the superior plane. If a late model Spit IX is modelled we’d need a 109G5 with MW50 boost, or a later version G6 to compensate for the historical difference, albeit the Spit LF.IX was slightly superior to the G6 (G6 being more of a bomber interceptor with heavier weapons and armor). Having historically contemporary models is very important for historical events.
-
Gscholz,
Umm, you will find that the Spitfire from the Mk IX on was decidedly superior to its Bf109 contemporaries if you do any sort of balanced review. For example your comparison of the Spitfire LF.Mk IX with a MW50 equipped Bf109 is simply wrong. The Spitfire LF.Mk IX is a full contemporary of the Bf109G-6 without MW50. The LF.Mk IX entered service in March, 1943. I have yet to find any information on a MW50 equipped Bf109 in service in 1943. The Spitfire Mk XIV is the contemporary of the MW50 equipped Bf109s.
You also completely ignore the fact that the Spitfire was much lighter on the controls at speed, even the ailerons and that the Spitfire's cockpit allowed 60lbs of force to be applied to the stick whereas the Bf109's cockpit only allowed 40lbs due to the cramped conditions.
From the introduction of the Mk IX on it was the Fw190 that was the main Spitfire killer, going two to one against the Spitfire in WWII.
-
Karnak, I don’t want to knock the Spit, I’m kinda a closet Spit lover myself. :)
The G6, as I amended in my edit, was outperformed slightly by the LF.IX (about 7mph in speed, however the G6 was slightly superior between 16k and 20k). The 109G series actually started production in 1942, and the G5 had MW50 boost and was a more pure fighter than the G6 and didn’t have the G6’s fanzy armament options and heavy armor. However in 1943 Germany needed bomber interceptors so the G6 was produced in far greater numbers than the G5. Not many spits over Germany remember. ;)
The Spit XIV is a 1944 model that match up to the G10 pretty well, not that they saw much combat with each other in WWII, the Spit XIV did however shoot down a lot of doodlebugs. Only 957 Spit XIV were made.
One on one any Spit is a deadly opponent, however in multi plane fights acceleration, climb rate and top speed are the important factors. All our historical setups in AH show this. In the 1942 N. Africa TOD the 109F4 were like Tempests compared to the slower Spit V’s, and when a squad of Spit V’s can do nothing but turn to avoid attacks the squad of 109F4’s will dictate the fight.
I primarily fly the 109F4 in the MA, and I have no problem fighting Spit IX’s with it. The 109F4 isn’t more manoeuvrable, it isn’t much faster (10mph or so at low alts, superiority goes to the Spit at high alts), however the 109F4 out climbs the Spit IX, and that’s the killer in an E fight.
I would prolly fly the 109G2 if not for the Finnish markings that make it so easily identified. The 109G2 is almost as powerful as the G10 in pure horsepower climbing (again lacking the heavy armaments and armour of a bomber interceptor). And in a co-alt E fight climbing power is the killer. However if the Spit (any Spit) has alt on me I’m having a bad day (no wonder the 109 pilots always climbed to their service ceiling before engaging ;))
I’ll give you this Karnak, the Spit IX is what I consider one of the most dangerous opponents in the MA in the hands of a good pilot. Not because it has superior performance, but because it hides energy so well, and it has those hizookas. Make one miscalculation and the Spit gets an opportunity to kill you.
To summarize:
109E4 vs. Spit I. 109 is superior (historically, dunno about AH though. I know there are issues with the roll rates of these two planes in AH).
109F4 vs. Spit V. 109 is superior.
109G2 vs. Spit IX. 109 is superior.
109G5 vs. Spit LF.IX. 109 is superior (I think).
109G6 vs. Spit LF.IX. Spit is superior.
109G10 vs. Spit XIV. I would say parity judged from the late war special events setups.
-
conclusion is: we have to many spits, dont whine about getting better/more...
now jug :D we need more of them in different paint schemes
-
We have three
THREE!!!!
P-47D sub variants.
And we can't get the most common Spit IX variant?????????????????????
:confused:
:mad:
:rolleyes:
:D
-
I have much of the data from the Spit data test site (one of the best on the web).
What would be the prefferred Spit IX varient of most AHer's?
HF, LF clipped wing? Maybe someone could post the data for one of these varients so we can see the performance differance.
Frankly I would like to see a better version of the Seafire myself but that is a subject for another thread.
-
this one?
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html
but im allways look for new data:)
-
109E4 vs. Spit I. 109 is superior (historically, dunno about AH though.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. All the performance figures you see for the Spit I were done at 6.5lbs boost. By the BoB, the Spit I was authorised to use 12lbs boost.
109G5 vs. Spit LF.IX. 109 is superior
I'd be very suprised if it was. Climb rate for the Spit LF IX was a max of 4700ft/min.
However, whilst the Luftwaffe used MW50 to allow higher boost pressures and performance, the RAF used 100/150 octane fuel.
On 100/150 fuel, the Spit LF IX gained up to 900 ft/min more climb, and around 30 mph top speed at low level. That gives the Spit LF IX in excess of 5,500 ft/min climb rate at low altitude, and around 360 mph at sea level.
I don't think MW50 was actually used on the G5, although I may be wrong.
109G10 vs. Spit XIV. I would say parity judged from the late war special events setups.
The AH G10 seems to be modelled like a K$ with C3 fuel and MW50. That's about the best configuration for the 109.
The AH Spit is modelled with 100 octane fuel, 18lbs boost. Spit XIVs also used 100/150 octane fuel, and 21 or 25 lbs boost, for a gain of around 200 - 500 hp.
In the real world, the 109G10/K4 were usually flown with B4 fuel and MW50, which gave around 200hp less than the performance figures AH models require. Because of the fuel shortage in Germany, the 190A units recieved the available C3, which they required, and the 109 units used B4, which they could get by on.
-
Spitfire IA K.9791 with Rotol constant speed propeller
Me 109E-3 Werk-Nr 1304
Comparitive trials between the Me 109E-3 and "Rotol" Spitfire IA
1. The trial commenced with the two aircraft taking off together, with the Spitfire slightly behind and using +6 1/4 lb boost and 3,000 rpm.
2. When fully airborne, the pilot of the Spitfire reduced his revolutions to 2,650 rpm and was then able to overtake and outclimb the Me 109. At 4,000 ft, the Spitfire pilot was 1,000 feet above the Me 109, from which position he was able to get on its tail, and remain there within effective range despite all efforts of the pilot of the Me 109 to shake him off.
3. The Spitfire then allowed the Me 109 to get on to his tail and attempted to shake him off this he found quite easy owing to the superior manoeuvrability of his aircraft, particularly in the looping plane and at low speeds between 100 and 140 mph. By executing a steep turn just above stalling speed, he ultimately got back into a position on the tail of the Me 109.
4. Another effective form of evasion with the Spitfire was found to be a steep, climbing spiral at 120 mph, using +6 1/4 boost and 2,650 rpm; in this manoeuvre, the Spitfire gained rapidly on the ME 109, eventually allowing the pilot to execute a half roll, on to the tail of his opponent.
5. Comparitive speed trials were then carried out, and the Spitfire proved to be considerably the faster of the two, both in acceleration and straight and level flight, without having to make use of the emergency +12 boost. During diving trials, the Spitfire pilot found that, by engageing fully coarse pitch and using -2lbs boost, his aircraft was superior to the Me 109.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
We have three
THREE!!!!
P-47D sub variants.
And we can't get the most common Spit IX variant?????????????????????
Just give that spit an other paint job, it'll fly fine I guarantee you :p
-
Nashwan , your performance numbers seem a bit overly optimistic.
This link is for a F MkIX
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bf274.html
-
I think Nashwan was talking about the LF running 150 grade fuel which was pretty commonly available in the last year of the war, probably more common than things like MW 50 or GM1. Nothing optimistic about his figures.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/adgbs29867g.gif
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/adgbs29867g.gif
-
That's an F IX, the same type AH has.
Here's an LF IX:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bs543.html
Here's an LF IX on 150 octane:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html
(This plane, JL165, had problems by the time the A&AEE tested it)
Note this from the tests:
Estimated increase in rate of climb below full throttle heights
due to increase in boost from +18 to +25 lb/sq.in. = 950 ft/min
Estimated increase in speed below full throttle heights
due to increase in boost from +18 to +25 lb/sq.in. = 30 mph.
There's also these figures for the very similar Spit VIII on 150 octane:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit8.html
-
I think Nashwan was talking about the LF running 150 grade fuel which was pretty commonly available in the last year of the war, probably more common than things like MW 50 or GM1.
I was suprised to find out just how common 150 octane was.
Neil Sterling, who is active at http://pub131.ezboard.com/ballboutwarfare
has got a lot of information out of the public records office in the UK. As well as some of the docs Funked posted, he's got the figures for British fuel production.
Britain produced 663,348 tons of aviation fuel Feb 44 - Mar 45.
Of that, 369,385 tons was 150 octane.
-
The DB 605 as fitted to the 109 G was limited to 1.3 ata, Steig-und Kampfleistung (1310ps at 0m,1410ps at 2100 m) due to pistons burning through, from June 42 to June 43.
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/DB+605b.jpg
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/DB+605+c.jpg
Also LF IX Vrs G6 http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html
Neil.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Agreed.
In the same spirit, we request better 109G-6s.
Maybe a perk option? Shi*ty G-6 and Spit9s come free, give them engine/wing/armament upgrades and they become a light perk plane..??
Read "Perk the Big 4 This Tour" posting, and return to the drawing board...FAST! :)
Gainsie
-
Originally posted by funkedup
We have three
THREE!!!!
P-47D sub variants.
And we can't get the most common Spit IX variant?????????????????????
:confused:
:mad:
:rolleyes:
:D
You had a large influence on the D25 being skinned in Brazilian colors I believe, stating that would bring some folks from WB's to here. Around the same time the "hybrid" Spit IV we have came out with a brand new skin featuring your squad colors. What do you want? Your cake and you want to eat 5 peices too?
There are 4 Spitfires and 5 109's in the hanger, I hope the very near future doesn't include another one of either model.
-
skins are importand i hope AH2 give us choice in this
about types /onboard armament count only, correct me if im wrong/
Spitfires 4 types
Mk1
MkV- subtype Seafire IIC /one variant of armament , 2 diferent engines/
MkIX - 2 subvariants of armaments /not fit correct to current AH model/
MkXIV -2 subvariants of armaments
not much
P-47 - 3 types
D11 -4 subvariants of amament
D25 -4 subvariants of amament
D30 -4 subvariants of amament
bf109 3 types
109E - 1 subvariants of amament
109F - 2 subvariants of amament
109G- 10 subvariants of amament/3 diferent engines, 3 diferent planes anyway/
G2 - 2 subvariants of amament
G6 - 4 subvariants of amament
G10 - 4 subvariants of amament /can be counted as K type- performance/
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
You had a large influence on the D25 being skinned in Brazilian colors I believe, stating that would bring some folks from WB's to here.
Yep I posted it on the forums, repeating what the CO of the biggest Brasilian WB squad had told me. I don't know if Pyro had already thought of it or not.
Around the same time the "hybrid" Spit IV we have came out with a brand new skin featuring your squad colors.
No the Spit IX was one of the earliest AH planes, and it doesn't have 308 colors.
What do you want? Your cake and you want to eat 5 peices too?
Yes.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
HTC has never responed to the Spitfire MkIX issues raised here, at least not that I have seen.
They have. Pyro answered some engine/performance questions, and I remember one of the artists chiming in about either the wing pylons of the cannon tubes. I think there is a general trend of them responding less frequently to specific airplane issues, because it only encourages us plane-whiners when they do so. :)
-
Originally posted by funkedup
They have. Pyro answered some engine/performance questions, and I remember one of the artists chiming in about either the wing pylons of the cannon tubes. I think there is a general trend of them responding less frequently to specific airplane issues, because it only encourages us plane-whiners when they do so. :)
I posted that two years ago. It may have been true for me at that time, but I have certainly seen Pyro make statements about the Spitfire Mk IX in AH.
It is also possible that I meant it as a statement that they have never said "Yes, we'll fix it when we get some time." or "Buzz off, it is staying how it is." and have been silent on the whole "The Spitfire MK IX in AH is a mish mash, is it going to be fixed?" question. I still have not seen a response to this question.
I honestly don't recall.
I certainly agree with your sentiment that it only encourages whining when they directly respond. I'm fine with their comments showing up for the first time in the release notes of a new version. Of course this also means that they would be eternally silent on an issue if their response would be, if spoken aloud, "Buzz off, it is staying how it is."
-
funked said-
No the Spit IX was one of the earliest AH planes, and it doesn't have 308 colors.
I can't honestly say I remember what skin the spit had prior to its change, and i don't know what unit its present skin represents. It did change, and it is a Polish unit now.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
Your cake and you want to eat 5 peices too?
Just for Funked french version of this :
"C'est vouloir le beurre ,l'argent du beurre et la crémiére."
-
Well I’ve said my piece and I stand by it. Some of you Spit enthusiasts are deluding yourselves though, especially you Furball if you base your believes on a British test of the 109E flown by a British pilot who obviously didn’t know how to.
“When fully airborne, the pilot of the Spitfire reduced his revolutions to 2,650 rpm and was then able to overtake and outclimb the Me 109. At 4,000 ft, the Spitfire pilot was 1,000 feet above the Me 109, from which position he was able to get on its tail, and remain there within effective range despite all efforts of the pilot of the Me 109 to shake him off.”
Obviously the 109 pilot didn’t try the “standard” negative-G dive used by the Germans, and left the Spit standing still.
The 109E and the Spit I has very similar climb rates up to about 8000 feet, after that the 109E had a major climb advantage, as the AH performance charts also show. The test was performed at low alt … how very convenient.
Over 8000 feet the 109E is vastly superior to the Spit Ia. The German bombers generally operated between 10k and 15k, wonder where the fights were fought? Hmmmm …
-
GScholz,
I am a Spit fan, but I agree with you that the Bf109E was in most ways superior to the Spitfire Mk I.
I think the gap closes when looking at the Spitfire Mk Vb and the Bf109F-4, with the Bf109F-4 being slightly better, and is then reversed with the introduction of the Spitfire Mk IX after which the Spitfire maintains overall superiority to one degree or another.
-
Over 8000 feet the 109E is vastly superior to the Spit Ia. The German bombers generally operated between 10k and 15k, wonder where the fights were fought? Hmmmm …
The Spit should be quite a bit faster than the 109 at altitude, as much as 20mph difference at 17,000ft, rising to nearer 30 mph above 20,000ft.
-
Climbrate is the killer in an E fight ... unless you just want to run ;)
-
Originally posted by straffo
Just for Funked french version of this :
"C'est vouloir le beurre ,l'argent du beurre et la crémiére."
aussi la vache :)
-
it wasnt the spitfire that gave the emils the most trouble in BoB. Even though the Hurricane was a worse "performing" plane it still proved its value.
Has the lw went with the he100 over the 109 things might have been different. Either way the lw was operating over enemy territory against a determined defense.
Look at Dieppi where the rolls were reversed the lw (jg2 and 26) gave back far more then they took.
Simply deciding that XX plane is better and XXX sucks based on a glance without seeing the overall picture is misleading. The brewster is enough to show this.
You also need to consider the mission, tactics and strategy. ZLw pilots in BoB referrred to themselves as "chained dogs".
-
Originally posted by funkedup
aussi la vache :)
J'irais pas jusque là ;)
-
Its no secret that the 109E had a better climb rate than the Spitfire I over certain alts. Its also common knowledge that the Spitfire could out turn a 109E, and that a 109E could do a neg-g dive to try and escape if the pilot had the proper position. As for speed, they were very close at most alts. Both ac could give the other real problems depending on who the pilot was.
As for tests on the 109 vs the Spit, there were many, some with 109E-3s, some with 109E-4s, some vs Spitfire Is (with different fuels), some vs Spitfire IIs. Some were RAF tests, some were LW. There is a lot of it that contradicts. The reports were written for combat pilots and were generalisations in a lot of cases.
As for the LW fighting between 10-15k, there is no evidence that shows Spitfires had any trouble whatsoever fighting 109s at that alt? They flew at 10-15k because thats the alt their bombers needed for accurate drops in 1940, not because the Spitfire was at some big disadvantage.
In large air battles, performance edges tended to not count as much, as it was the unwary that were hit, wether in a 109 or a Spitfire. In the end, it was the pilot not the plane, that determined success in most cases.
-
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit1.html
-
Squire, you're missing my point. If comparing two aircraft that are fairly close in performance I’d rather fly the one with the better climbrate than the one with the better turnrate. Today I switched back to the 109G10 (usually fly the 109F4) seeing how many Jugs and Ponys are flying these days. I got killed 3 times today and got 11 kills. Approx. 50% of those kills were fighters, but all my deaths were to bombers (those blasted B26’s). If you fly a 109G10 right, you’re almost untouchable.
Pilot skill and numerical superiority will of course be a greater factor when performance is this close.
_________________
(http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00007/331_skv_7202a.gif)
-
Just to chime in here.. I think it is a shame that the British planeset doesn't have a good late-war unperked Spitfire. I don't know how the Spitfire 8 stacked up against the Spit 14, but I'd like to see one of those or a Spit 9 LF, just because the LF were the most common varients by far of the Spit 9, and they were good planes.
-
I agree, I would prefer climberate as well.
Ughh, new squad there Gscholz? l like the crest.
-
spit mkVIII its about 5-10% slower then spitXIV
but much better or same climb
MkVIII is a monster:)
-
Originally posted by Urchin
I don't know how the Spitfire 8 stacked up against the Spit 14, but I'd like to see one of those or a Spit 9 LF, just because the LF were the most common varients by far of the Spit 9, and they were good planes.
The AFDU conducted a tactical trial between a Spitfire VIII and an early prototype Spitfire XIV (converted from Spitfire VIII) in 1943:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14afdu.html
Summary:
"Of the two aircraft the Spitfire VIII is preferable at all heights up to about 25,000 feet except for its turning capabilites. It is much lighter on the elevators and easier for the average pilot to fly. Its performance and fuel consumption are better. The Spitfire XIV is superior above 25,000 and with its better turning characteristics it is more than a match for the Spitfire VIII. The difficulties of trimming will probably be reduced as pilots gain familiarity."
-
Originally posted by Squire
Ughh, new squad there Gscholz? l like the crest.
Yup. Just started a week ago with two of my friends. The 331 Sq. flew Spits for the RAF back in WWII, now they fly F-16's from the RNoAF airbase here in my hometown.
Not trading my 109 for a Spit though. ;)
_________________
(http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00007/331_skv_7202a.gif)
-
Guppy, I found this part very interesting. Not quite like the poor 190 in AH is it? ;)
Dive
40. After the initial part of the dive, during which the FW 190 gains slightly, the Mk XIV has a slight advantage.
Turning Circle
41. Spitfire XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190, though in the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so quite pronounced.
Rate of Roll
42. The FW 190 is very much better.
Conclusion
43. In defense, the Spitfire XIV should use its remarkable maximum climb and turning circle against any enemy aircraft. In the attack it can afford to "mix it" but should beware of the quick roll and dive. If this manoeuvre is used by the FW.190 and the Spitfire XIV follows, it will probably not be able to close the range until the FW.190 has pulled out of its dive.
_________________
(http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00007/331_skv_7202a.gif)
-
"Of the two aircraft the Spitfire VIII is preferable at all heights up to about 25,000 feet except for its turning capabilites. It is much lighter on the elevators and easier for the average pilot to fly. Its performance and fuel consumption are better. The Spitfire XIV is superior above 25,000 and with its better turning characteristics it is more than a match for the Spitfire VIII. The difficulties of trimming will probably be reduced as pilots gain familiarity."
The Spit XIV in that test was an early prototype and limited to 15 lbs boost, instead of the 18lbs of the production model. That means it had around 300hp less than the production Spit XIV.
Turning Circle
41. Spitfire XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190, though in the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so quite pronounced.
Read the part futher down, tests of the Spit with a 90 gallon drop tank fitted:
55. The Spitfire XIV now has a definitely wider turning circle than before, but is still within those of the FW.190 (BMW.801D) and Me.109G.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
GScholz,
I am a Spit fan, but I agree with you that the Bf109E was in most ways superior to the Spitfire Mk I.
I think the gap closes when looking at the Spitfire Mk Vb and the Bf109F-4, with the Bf109F-4 being slightly better, and is then reversed with the introduction of the Spitfire Mk IX after which the Spitfire maintains overall superiority to one degree or another.
Sorry, missed this post.
I agree to some extent. The 109F4 is quite superior to the Spit V. The 109F4 and the Spit IX are very close in performance, but the 109F4 is slightly faster, climbs a little better, and can outturn the Spit IX at all speeds (using flaps at low speeds, like Hans-Joachim Marseille did in North Africa). In AH I’d take a 109F4 over a Spit IX any day.
Spit LF.IX was superior to the G6, but later in the war the 109G10 achieved parity with the Spit XIV, and the 109K4 during the last months of the war was slightly superior to the Spit XIV and Spit XVIII.
So in my view the 109 had the advantage early in the war, the Spit got the advantage in mid-late war (most important historical period), but in late war the 109 again held the advantage … albeit it could do nothing facing such numerical odds.
_________________
(http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00007/331_skv_7202a.gif)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I agree to some extent. The 109F4 is quite superior to the Spit V. The 109F4 and the Spit IX are very close in performance, but the 109F4 is slightly faster, climbs a little better, and can outturn the Spit IX at all speeds (using flaps at low speeds, like Hans-Joachim Marseille did in North Africa). In AH I’d take a 109F4 over a Spit IX any day.
Spit LF.IX was superior to the G6, but later in the war the 109G10 achieved parity with the Spit XIV, and the 109K4 during the last months of the war was slightly superior to the Spit XIV and Spit XVIII.
So in my view the 109 had the advantage early in the war, the Spit got the advantage in mid-late war (most important historical period), but in late war the 109 again held the advantage … albeit it could do nothing facing such numerical odds.
You're smoking something. Tell me you're smoking something.
The Bf109F-4 as fast as a Spitfire F.Mk IX? Brahahahaha.
That's a joke, right?
The Bf109F-4 climbs better than a Spitfire F.Mk IX?
Please, you're killing me.
The Bf109F-4 out turns the Spitfire F.Mk IX?
I'm not sure of this one, but because Hans-Joachim Marseille did it doesn't mean it can. What were the circumstances? What was the skill level of the Spitfire pilot? What were the relative energy states?
I've out turned Spitfire Mk IXs in AH in the Bf109G-2 and Mosquito. I doubt that those aircraft can actually do so against a good pilot.
The Bf109G-10 doesn't even approach parity with a Spitfire Mk XIV limited to +18lbs boost, let alone one that can go to +25lbs boost. The Spitfire is equal or superior in all categories save dive acceleration and flat out deck speed.
Climb rate: Spitfire Mk XIV
Zoom Climb: Spitfire Mk XIV
Speed on deck: Bf109G-10
Speed at altitude: Tied
Roll rate: Spitfire Mk XIV
Turn rate: Spitfire Mk XIV
Turn Radius: Spitfire Mk XIV
Acceleration: Tied
Dive Acceleration: Bf109G-10
Fuel Endurance: Spitfire Mk XIV
Durability: Tied
Firepower: Tied
Visibility from Cockpit: Spitfire Mk XIV
You're claiming that is parity?
-
I see you find the need to behave in a demeaning manner.
Originally posted by Karnak
You're smoking something. Tell me you're smoking something.
The Bf109F-4 as fast as a Spitfire F.Mk IX? Brahahahaha.
That's a joke, right?
The Bf109F-4 climbs better than a Spitfire F.Mk IX?
Please, you're killing me.
I don’t know if we got a Spitfire F.Mk IX in AH, but our Spit IX is inferior to our 109F4. Let’s just say I trust HTC’s research a little more than yours, a Spit enthusiast.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/spit9speed.gif)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/109f4speed.gif)
As you can see the 109F4 holds a significant speed advantage up to 22k, above 22k the Spit is faster.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/spit9climb.gif)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/109f4climb.gif)
As you can see the 109F4 holds a slight advantage in climb at low alts, parity at 8k, the Spit is slightly better at 10k to 14k, above 14k the Spit’s climbrate drops sharply and the 109 gains the advantage again. The Spit again reaches parity at 20k and is superior above 22k.
Not bad for a 1941 model 109 now is it?
If you compare the charts for the 109G2, which was the early Spit IX’s contemporary, you will find that the 109G2 is clearly superior in every respect except turnrate and top speed above 25k.
Originally posted by Karnak
The Bf109F-4 out turns the Spitfire F.Mk IX?
I'm not sure of this one, but because Hans-Joachim Marseille did it doesn't mean it can. What were the circumstances? What was the skill level of the Spitfire pilot? What were the relative energy states?
I've out turned Spitfire Mk IXs in AH in the Bf109G-2 and Mosquito. I doubt that those aircraft can actually do so against a good pilot.
The Spit suffers from not having useful flaps in a slow turnfight. Although I never stallfight a Spit in the 109F4 unless I’m in deep doodoo, I have outturned Spit IX’s on several occasions. At higher speeds the 109F4 can turn with the Spit IX and retain energy better. The 109F4 is at least equal in turning with the Spit IX, if not superior.
Originally posted by Karnak
The Bf109G-10 doesn't even approach parity with a Spitfire Mk XIV limited to +18lbs boost, let alone one that can go to +25lbs boost. The Spitfire is equal or superior in all categories save dive acceleration and flat out deck speed.
Climb rate: Spitfire Mk XIV
Zoom Climb: Spitfire Mk XIV
Speed on deck: Bf109G-10
Speed at altitude: Tied
Roll rate: Spitfire Mk XIV
Turn rate: Spitfire Mk XIV
Turn Radius: Spitfire Mk XIV
Acceleration: Tied
Dive Acceleration: Bf109G-10
Fuel Endurance: Spitfire Mk XIV
Durability: Tied
Firepower: Tied
Visibility from Cockpit: Spitfire Mk XIV
You're claiming that is parity?
Again I refer to AH’s charts:
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/spit14speed.gif)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/109g10speed.gif)
As you can see the 109G10 is only somewhat faster up to 12k where the Spit XIV’s speed suddenly drop off and the 109G10 gains a significant speed advantage. The Spit XIV doesn’t regain parity until 25k, between 25k and 27k the Spit XIV is faster, but above 27k the Spit XIV again loose the advantage to the 109G10 as the Spit’s speed drops off sharply and its WEP is ineffective.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/spit14climb.gif)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/109g10climb.gif)
As you can see the Spit XIV holds a significant climb advantage up till 10k where it drops sharply and the 109G10 achieves parity. Between 10k and 23k the 109G10 hold the advantage (about 1000 ft/min at 15k), at 23k the Spit XIV achieves parity briefly as its climbrate drops off shaply and the 109G10 gains a slight advantage.
I claim this to be parity given the better turnrate of the Spit XIV. Given the Spit XIV’s phenomenal climbrate at low alts combined with its very good turnrate it is no wonder why it is perked in the MA. The 109G10 however, like the P47 was a medium to high alt fighter and its phenomenal performance is less useful in the MA. In 1944 though the fight was not on the deck.
So tell me Mr. Karnak, what have you been smoking? … If it makes the Spit look that good to you I must try some!
_________________
(http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00007/331_skv_7202a.gif)
-
GS... I can tell you right now the 109F4 isn't even close to the Spit IX in turning radius or rate. The 109E4 comes fairly close, but it is hampered by everything else.
As far as speed and climb performance go, the 109F4 is faster than the Spit IX by about 10 mph at 0 feet. By 5k, the 2 are equal, and they stay equal until 15k, at which point the 109F enjoys a brief resurgence, topping out at about a 15 mph difference at ~18k. Above 22k the Spit IX is faster, with the margin increasing with altitude.
Climb performance- The 109F enjoys a 250 feet per minute advantage up to ~10k, being approximately equal from 10k to ~17k, and then being less than the Spit IX.
In all other performance areas, the Spit IX is clearly superior.
-
Thank you Urchin for confirming that this statement …
Originally posted by Karnak
You're smoking something. Tell me you're smoking something.
The Bf109F-4 as fast as a Spitfire F.Mk IX? Brahahahaha.
That's a joke, right?
The Bf109F-4 climbs better than a Spitfire F.Mk IX?
Please, you're killing me.
… is wrong.
As for the turnrate/radius issue I can only speak from my own experiences, but one thing is certain … I would never want to face you in a Spit IX … ever! :D
Edit: the 109E4 outturns even the Spit V.
_________________
(http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00007/331_skv_7202a.gif)
-
I don’t know if we got a Spitfire F.Mk IX in AH, but our Spit IX is inferior to our 109F4.
The very first Spit F IX model was designed as a high altitude fighter. That's what we have in AH.
The F4 has a critical altitude of just under 20,000ft. The early Spit F IX 27,400 ft
If you compare the charts for the 109G2, which was the early Spit IX’s contemporary, you will find that the 109G2 is clearly superior in every respect except turnrate and top speed above 25k.
The Spit F IX had a climb rate advantage over the G2 at medium alt and above, and rough speed parity at lower alts. Above 20,000ft it is faster, better climbing, and of course retains it's turn advantages.
The problem is AH models the 109G2 at 1.42ata, when for most of it's life it was restricted to 1.3ata (see Neil Sterling's post earlier)
If you compare the Spit F IX to the 109G2 in the Finnish tests, at 1.3ata, the Spit is clearly superior.
As you can see the 109G10 is only somewhat faster up to 12k where the Spit XIV’s speed suddenly drop off and the 109G10 gains a significant speed advantage. The Spit XIV doesn’t regain parity until 25k, between 25k and 27k the Spit XIV is faster, but above 27k the Spit XIV again loose the advantage to the 109G10 as the Spit’s speed drops off sharply and its WEP is ineffective.
AH models the G10 with C3 fuel and MW50. In real life, the G10 usually flew with B4 fuel and MW50, with a power output of 1800ps instead of the 2000ps those figures refer to.
AH models the Spitfire XIV running on 100 octane fuel, at 18lbs boost, with arouind 2000hp. In real life, by late 44/early 45 they were running on 150 octane fuel, either 21 or 25 lbs boost, with a maximum power of between 2300 and 2500hp.
I claim this to be parity given the better turnrate of the Spit XIV.
In real life, you could safely knock off around 200ft/min from those G10 figures at low altitude, and even more at altitude.
The 109K4 climb chart that Pyro posted here a year or so ago shows very different figures, especially at altitude.
For example, at 30,000ft the 109K4 climbed at around 1900 ft/min, way below the Spitfire with 2350 ft/min.
At 25,000ft Pyro's chart puts the K4 on 2,660 ft/min. The Spitfire test reports put the Spitfire at 3,150.
At 20,000ft the K4 did 3385 ft/min, the Spit XIV 3650 ft/min.
AH seems to have given the Spit XIV too high a rate of climb at low altitude, and too low at high altitude.
However, on 150 octane fuel, the AH figures are probably too low for low alt, and still too low for high alt.
-
GScholz,
You have only indicated that which I already stated.
The Spit IX is faster than the 109F-4, for example.
According to AH the climb rates are more parable than I recalled though.
There is still the issue of cockpit visibility, which favors the Spit, and high speed controlability, which vastly, vastly favors all Spitfires with metal control surfaces.
The Bf109K-4 has less controlability at high speed than does the beknighted Spitfire Mk Vb, let alone the Spitfire Mk XIV or XVIII.
You focus too much on specific portions of the overall performance package where the 109 equals or surpasses the Spitfire, then you ignore those performance areas where the Spitfire is superior and declare the Bf109 better. Nobody that I am aware of who flew these late war versions ever felt the 109 was the better of the two. The aircraft I see listed as the best fighter by people who flew them are the Fw190D-9, Spitfire Mk XIV and F4U-4.
The Spitfire beats the Bf109 because of its overall performance, even though the Bf109 is technically better in some ways and genuinely better in others.
Do you think the AH Spit XIV is superior to the AH Bf109G-10 or vice a versa?
-
I actually like the G-10 better for the MA. Its faster, it can climb better for longer. The Spitfire XIV doesn't really turn all that well, and it is fairly slow. The climb on WEP is good, but WEP only lasts 5 minutes. The guns are far superior, of course.
-
oooo....i would love to have a spit LF mk.XVI or VIII with clipped wings. A seafire L mk.III wouldn't be such a bad thing either (seeing as it was the most common Seafire in ww2).:)
I want a 43/44 spitfire damit!:D
Urchin don't forget that the spit14 also has that horrbile "i'm a perk plane ignore everyone else in an attempt to kill me" neon sign too, it really doesn't help matters.:D I was doing really well in the spit14 this tour (i was 59/2 before yesterday) but i died a whole bunch of times yesterday costing me a fortune. Sorry to get side tracked but the spit14 does cost an awful lot for more or less being an equal to the g10.
-
Karnak, as I see it the most important factors of aerial combat is climb and speed … in that order. All other factors are secondary. As long as the plane can turn better than a bomber maneuverability is a non issue, that at best can aid you in a bad situation.
Why do you think that maneuverability progressively got worse in the newer Spitfires? Why do you think that all the late war monsters are B&Z style fighters? Why do you think that the FW was so successful against the Spitfire (as you your self stated).
Here’s the answer: In a one-on-one turnrate/circle is an advantage, many-on-many turnrate/circle means squat. The FW and the 109’s could attack the Spitfire two-on-one in multi-plane fights because their superior E characteristics allowed them to do so almost with impunity. This was also done in the Pacific where the US planes were superior E fighters than their Japanese better turning counterparts. E fighting allows for better teamwork, turnfighting does not.
You say I don’t credit the Spit for it’s superiority in other areas … you’re wrong. The Spit was superior in other areas than climb and speed, but those areas are rendered secondary to climb and speed.
The 109G10 has controllability issues at very high speeds, never the less the 109G10 has no problems pulling black-out turns at any speed except low. The 109K4 had aerodynamic improvements over the G10 that to a practical extent resolved these issues.
The Spit in AH is somewhat overmodeled when it comes to structural integrity however. The Spit was known to shed its wings at very high speeds, in AH you can dive any model Spit from 30k straight down with WEP and nothing breaks.
You say the Spit beats the 109 because of overall performance … I say the 109 beats the Spit in the early war, and is the Spit’s equal in late war because the 109 is better where it counts. Ultimately though tactical consideration will for most part be the deciding factors of a battle, and very few aerial battles were fought with both sides starting with equal advantage.
_________________
(http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00007/331_skv_7202a.gif)
-
i thought spit got tested to one of the highest mach numbers for piston engined a/c? and also dont forget the AH spit IX is a strange, low performance cross breed of spit IX's as the title of the post says, so you saying the 109 F is superior is a bit of a joke.
Spit IX vs. 109G6
Speeds
When 25 lbs.boost is employed in the Spitfire it is about 25 m.p.h. faster at heights below 15,000 feet and 7 m.p.h. faster at heights in excess of 15,000 feet.
Climb
The climb of the Spitfire is superior to that of the Me.109 at all heights. It has a particularly marked advantage below 13,000 feet using 18 lbs.boost, and this is naturally more pronounced when using 25 lbs. boost. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the performance is almost identical, but when climbing speed is reached the Spitfire slowly pulls away.
Diving
Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty.
Turning circle
The manoeuvrability of the Spitfire IX in this respect is greatly superior to that of the Me.109 and it easily out-turns the Me.109 in either direction at all speeds.
Rate of Roll
Here again the Spitfire has a marked advantage at all speeds.
Conclusion
The Me.109G has an inferior performance to the Spitfire in all respects with the exception of acceleration in a dive and the slight advantage in speed which it possesses at heights between 16,000 and 20,000 feet.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html
-
Furball, this is the second or third time that test has been posted in this thread. It has been very well made clear that the Spit LF.IX is superior to the 109G6.
The AH 109F4 has better performance than the AH Spit IX, albeit the advantage is only slight. I still think this is pretty good for a year old (at least) 109 compared to the Spit IX. The Spit V is thoroughly outperformed by the 109F4.
At this point I guess we just have to agree to disagree. We’ve all made our opinions clear.
_________________
(http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00007/331_skv_7202a.gif)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The Spit in AH is somewhat overmodeled when it comes to structural integrity however. The Spit was known to shed its wings at very high speeds, in AH you can dive any model Spit from 30k straight down with WEP and nothing breaks.
[/IMG]
Yeah they need to fix that bigtime. I don't wanna hear ANY whining about the Spit not having this and that. Those damn things are diving with Thunderbolts, Corsairs, and P38's for Cripes sakes:mad:
Looking forward to AH2, and some appropriate engine management modeling, for that matter.
-
GScholz,
Can you post some indications of Spits shedding wings?
The only Spits shedding wings stories I have ever found were when Spit IXs did hard pullups after dropping 500lb bombs, only the bombs didn't drop and some Far East Mk XIVs that were reassembled incorrectly.
Everything else I have ever read indicated that the Spit did not have a wing shedding problem.
-
No Karnak I cannot, and you may very well be right.
Furball, you failed to mention that the 109G6 in that test had gunpods, no MW50 and limited to 1.3ata. How convenient for you.
_________________
(http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00007/331_skv_7202a.gif)
-
Gscholz: Regarding Spitfire wing failures, it was not a structural problem. Spits had no problem staying together in high speed dives - they dove to some of the highest recorded Mach numbers for a prop fighter.
The problem with Spitfire Mk. V wing failures is detailed in Chapter 21 of Jeffrey Quill's book "Spitfire: A Test Pilot's Story". The explanation in the book is a bit technical but the short story is that some airplanes were being loaded improperly in the field, causing an aft CG shift and longitudinal instability. The instability manifested itself by stick force reversal in hard maneuvers. Stick force reversal meant that as the pilot pulled harder and harder, suddenly the thing would go all the way back in his lap and stay there unless he pushed forward with all his might. When this happened in a high speed dive recovery, the airframe was subjected to loads way beyond design limits, sometimes resulting in wing spar failure and disintegration. The problem was resolved by modifications to the elevator and its control circuit.
-
Thanks for the info Funkedup. :)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Thanks for the info Funkedup. :)
-
NP yer welcome. :)
PS I just re-read the section of the book and it seems it wasn't actually a stick force reversal. It was just that the elevators would become incredibly "light" and the pilots ended up pulling way more gees than they intended.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
NP yer welcome. :)
PS I just re-read the section of the book and it seems it wasn't actually a stick force reversal. It was just that the elevators would become incredibly "light" and the pilots ended up pulling way more gees than they intended.
um...did they become light, because they were ripped off the aircraft? :D
Sorry, couldnt resist....way too much time on hands:rolleyes:
Gainsie
-
LOL
No, the stick forces became lighter and lighter as you pulled more and more gees. I've read of similar things happening to P-39's and P-51's if they were loaded improperly or had elevator rigging problems.
-
so everyone agree we need this beauty?
(http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/photo_galleries/merhar/Photos/01097628_031.jpg)
sorry just find this picture and cant resist;)
ramzey
-
Mk XII!!!