Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Vermillion on October 25, 1999, 10:15:00 AM
-
Has anyone else noticed the relatively mild high speed handling characteristics of the Spitfire in AH at High Speeds?
I didn't notice myself until I started doing my P-51 testing and found that none of the "classic" P-51 high speed evasion manuevers were not working very well.
So I flew the Spit for a while and I seemed to notice it from that perspective then.
It was my impression (I need to do some more digging for historical info and data) that the Spitfire had poor to very poor high speed handling characteristics.
Sure in AH, the Spitfire controls get a little stiff but they are nothing like the problems you can get into with the 109 when you hit 400 IAS.
On Saturday, I got bounced by a Spitfire with about a 5k alt advantage, while I was just finishing off his Bishcuit buddy (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif). So with plenty of alt under me (or so I thought)I rolled into the vertical and accelerated up to just over 400IAS (Spit was doing at least that much, maybe more since he seemed to be gaining on me). Then I rolled 90 degree's, pulled 3 g's for a few seconds, rolled 90 more and pulled for a few more seconds. The Spit stayed with me the entire time. So I then figured I would just level out and outrun the sucker. I evened out my dive and nailed the g meter to zero. By this time, we were pretty low, a thousand feet at most. And the Spitfire was still gaining on me and had began to pepper me at long range with MG fire. So we're on the deck at 425 IAS, I figure that my only hope would be to try to reverse on him in a high speed turn,using the Pony's superior high speed turnrate and combat flaps. Tried it, didn't work. By about this time I figured I was dead. Speed was way down, about 175 IAS, Spit was at 200 yards or less, and still tight on my tail. Fortunately for me the Cavalry arrived and finished him off, and I limped on home with my tail singed (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif). Oh.... did I forget to say it was HiTech in the Spitfire? Great Fight HT. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Admittedly this fight was against a superior pilot, but I was quite suprised that the Spitfire could perform in this manner. And this is just one occaison of several that were very similar.
So am I losing my mind or is the Spitfire just a little too mild at very high speeds? Wait... don't answer the part about losing my mind, your probably right. Just answer the part about the Spitfire (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
(http://web.mountain.net/~arringto/emote/Snoopy.gif)
-
better hold your tongue there vermillion, what you're insinuating just ain't pc (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Yeah I better watch it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Fd-Ski and the rest of the RAF squads, may try to "rub me out" with their enforcer's named Fd-Guido and Fd-Luigi (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Never ever slander the sacred Spitfire <G>
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
(http://web.mountain.net/~arringto/emote/Snoopy.gif)
-
you never mention which way you rolled either time... thats a big factor.
-
Ok while we are on the topic of spits, one other thing that BUGS THE CRAP OUT OF ME.
(Caps on purpose)
The spit had a very singular classic design flaw that appeared in all models and was responsible for a certain range of manuevers it could just _never_ do. It could _not_ take excessive negative G without stalling the engine. I believe it had something to with the style of Carb on the merlins.
It is this that is responsible for those beautiful classic inverted dives they are always shown doing. Putting your nose down in a spit was suicide, you would stall your motor within seconds. So instead you rolled on your back and kept positive G on the plane to prevent stalling.
Plus the classic escape of the German planes was to immediatly go nose down and drop fast then after the spit had inverted and dived to catch, pull up sharply and break while he tries to roll out and climb after you.
This is all well and good (read: probably boring old news for those as experienced as the readers here) but something that is not modelled in the game. I have read many books on spits and their pilots, while grey-out and black out are common, nobody ever complained of Red out. Therefore I estimate the +g needed some where in the 8-10 range to stall the motor. Just around the onset of red-out symptoms. Can this vital part of the Spitfire be modelled? ie: the plane stalling at high positive G? AFAIK it was one of the biggest performance factors in the spit, I hope it makes an appearence here as well.
-
I am admittedly no learned historian, but wasn't that negative G sputter corrected in later variants of the spit? Realistically, you would think that after the RAF realized what a lemon they were flying it would be fixed ASAP.
-
Float type carburetors were only used on the early merlins (Spit 1). They switched to pressure carbs later, not sure which mark they switched with.
-
I got the impression that even the later marks had negative-G engine problems, just not as bad as the early marks.
-
Chisel: The carb change was not uniformly applied. Some Spit V and Spit IX had it, some didn't. I was reading the report of the RAE fly-off between the Spit IX and the Fw 190A-3 and the mentioned that the Spit really needed to have one of those carbs installed because the A-3 kept bunting away from it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
My point is that this was part of the spitfire funked. Yes, by a certain point they were recieving pressure carbs from Packard (all Mustangs had them) but once again, due to wartime shortages a fair number had ones that would stall under negative G.
As a result every (I mean EVERY) spitfire pilot ever trained was taught to never use negative G manuevers. Even once they were finally able to handle Neg. G it was more of a safety net than anything, no pilot in his sane mind would put the plane into them. It would go against every principle he was trained with. The only advantage the Pressurized ones had was that if the plane DID do a neg. G manuever the plane would not stall as quickly.
If I am not too entirely wrong the problem with neg G stalling was never "solved", it was inherent in the basic use of Carb systems. Short of designing a Fuel injected machine I can't see it being avoided. A pressurized carb obviously reduced the danger, probably increased the amount of -g before stall. But basically through training and inherent nature of the equipment, the Spitfire just should not ever be doing nose down high negative G dives. I just cannot fathom that being in the sim?
-
they model the planes (atleast as far as I know) in 100% condition... or else later we will see like the P51 (a-b-c versions) having problems with kinked ammo which will randomly jam a gun (doesnt even need to be substained bursts). some IJN fighter had random engine lose. but for game play they let them be figured at optimum quality when first hitting runway. the early spits and A6M fighters will have the carb problems Im sure. but with the later spits "fixed" prolly wont see them changed.
-
Aircat, on the issue of which direction I rolled.
I can see this being a big issue (engine torque) at low speeds, or if the plane I was fighting had an engine that rotated in the opposite direction (ala the Griffon Spitfires).
But the Pony and the Spit had the same engine in them, so neither should have an atypical advantage in either direction (due to this issue). And speeds were quite high, so that engine torque should play little effect in this case.
However to answer your question, in the vertical rolls, I rolled right both times (90 degree's), and in the low altitude horizontal turns I turned left.
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
(http://web.mountain.net/~arringto/emote/Snoopy.gif)
-
actualy the spits used Merlins and the P51D used the Pratts... the brits that used the earlier P51s (a-b-c) changed the engines from alisons to merlins as a refit. US wised up saw there was hope for the P51 after all and placed a larger engine into the D and K series. SuperMarine for the most part stuck to the Merlin engines throughout.
but if you have a high speed bogie on your 6 (especialy spit) roll and bank LEFT... the natural torque/trim on a spit for cruise and climb is to balance right wing down, so when they gain speed this force is increased and when a spit gets to fast it tries to roll right. you banked into it natural cornering side. the 109 tends to do the same. the other do as well but not to the same degree.. so you can use this to your advantige.
-
Vermillion - By all accounts the Spitfire (all Marks) had poor roll performance at high speeds. Apparently the wing had a problem with torsional stiffness, so that deflecting the aileron caused the wing to twist and counteract the aileron's rolling moment. As far as I know, the elevator performance was OK, definitely better than the Me 109.
Sorrow - You obviously know more than I about the Spitfire carbs. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Aircat - Sorrow's point is that the Spit IX still had limitations for neg-g operation even with the special carb. in place.
-
actualy the spits used Merlins and the P51D used the Pratts...
You mean the Spitfire's used the RR Merlin and the P51D used the Packard, a copy of the RR Merlin.
the brits that used the earlier P51s (a-b-c) changed the engines from alisons to merlins as a refit.
Both the British and Americans modified Allison engined P51A's with various RR Merlin engines, finally resulting in the production of the P51B/C with the Packard-built RR Merlin copies.
US wised up saw there was hope for the P51 after all and placed a larger engine into the D and K series.
The P51D/K's had the exact same Packard engine as the P51B/C's.
SuperMarine for the most part stuck to the Merlin engines throughout.
Although, the Spitfire MkIX, fitted with a Packard built Merlin 266 engine was called the MkXVI.
but if you have a high speed bogie on your 6 (especialy spit) roll and bank LEFT... the natural torque/trim on a spit for cruise and climb is to balance right wing down, so when they gain speed this force is increased and when a spit gets to fast it tries to roll right.
Is this a real life occurrance with the Spitfire, or just an AH-specific anomoly? I suspect the latter case.
-
Regarding the negative G cut out of the Merlin....
On 12 May 1941, MAP (Ministry of Aircraft Production) issued a notice to the effect that all new production Merlin 46 and 47 engines would be fitted with the Rolls-Royce negative G carburettor. (Engines used in the Spit MkV)
Earlier F Mk.V Spits with the Merlin 45 engine were retrofitted with the 'Shilling' orifice into the carburettor initially, and the adoption of a modified Bendix Stromberg carburettor later.
Negative G cut out was NOT an issue with the Spitter after mid-1941. It only effected MkI, II and early MkVs.
B
-
..........
[This message has been edited by aircat (edited 10-26-1999).]
-
Verm - "fd" stands for Fighter Duel - which is what i used to play on Kali. That's the way FD players found each other.
Has nothing to do with spitfires.
As for highspeed handling - Spitfire's elevator was by far more controlable then that of 109. Roll on the other hand is a different story.
Negative E manouvers - funked correct me if i'm wrong, but don't then cause excessive E loss ? If i remember correctly "push over" was a last ditch manouver, and in Simulators such as AH, where con will follow you anywhere - it's quite irrelevant.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Frankly i found 51 in AH to be the easiest plane to kill in. I did have a good laugh when i was flying spitfire and had 4 P51's try to turnfight me at 150mph (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
(http://www.raf303.org/banner.gif)
Bartlomiej Rajewski
S/L fd-ski Sq. 303 (Polish) "Kosciuszko" RAF
www.raf303.org (http://www.raf303.org)
-
Baal:
While I don't doubt the MAP made that declaration, the RAE report of the flyoff between the Fw 190A-3 and the Spit IX (Fall '42) very specifically indicates that the negative g carburetor was not fitted to their Spit IX. And in the summary they request that this carburetor be immediately fitted to all Spit IX in service.
Fd:
It's frequently mentioned by early-war pilots that they were taught to use a bunt (push the stick forward sharply) when they needed to escape. The negative-g moves were favored by the Luftwaffe because it allowed them to exploit the advantages of their fuel injected engines over some of the carbureted engines in RAF planes. I think eventually they figured out that the British had cured the problem and they stopped trying to use it.
Other evasive stuff by the krauts:
"Hartman" escape which some Me 109 pilots used, this was basically an outside snap roll with lots of forward stick. It didn't take advantage of any engine features, but it was painful to execute or follow.
A lot of Fw 190 pilots were taught to intentionally spin the plane. Pulling the stick all the way back would invert the plane really quickly and bleed a lot of speed and altitude, but it recovered instantly when the stick was released. Basically the 190 would "warp" straight down and end up in a dive where it could speed away. I was amazed to read about this maneuver and realize how the Warbirds 190 will do the exact same thing.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-26-1999).]
-
You're right Funked, I went back and read that 1942 report and it does mention neg G cut out in a MkIX.
There were 20+ versions of the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine used in various Spit marks. Will try to dig up the info as to which suffered from neg-Gs and how many of each were used in various Spit marks.
B
-
Baal if you can find that info I commend you.
I got it wrong - the 1st mention wasn't in the "summary", it was in the attached letter from Sholto to the MAP.
I for one don't have a problem with using the best possible configuration of a plane with a given designation. For instance the Warbirds P-47D simulates a very late D with rocket racks, stabilizer fillet, etc. Not all P-47D had this, all a lot did.
If we try to track down the equipment variations on every last plane that came of the line, we'll never get there. On the Allied planes it will be difficult, and on the Axis planes it may be impossible because the records were destroyed.
Rather than saying "124 were built with the XXXX and 125 were built with the YYYYY so we'll use the XXXX version", I'd like to see the sim give the pilot a choice, or just give the plane the benefit of the doubt and use whichever version was better.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-28-1999).]
-
Find that book written by Pope, he was a flight tester for spits in the war and his book has REAMS of info on each varient. I don't have a copy but I have seen at least 1 person here pipe up and admit to owning it.
FYI, J.E. Johnson flew a Mark IX until the end of the war and his was not a retrofit, the one time he was shot it was because of a stall under negative G following a FW.
-
Sorrow, can you provide us with an ISBN # ? It should be right inside the cover on the title page.
That will make it much easier for us to track down and order. Thanks (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
(http://web.mountain.net/~arringto/emote/Snoopy.gif)
-
Verm: I don't actually own it. I read it in the Library about 5 years ago. But at least 1 person here has referenced it in a post and admitted to owning it. Unfortunatly I think his post is too old and it got deleted (I think it was the one on CS props?)
------------------
If your in range, so is the enemy.