Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Nashwan on April 29, 2000, 08:53:00 AM
-
Which version of the Spit 9 do we have in AH, F, LF or HF? And which Merlin does it use? I haven't seen any offical anouncement on this, but then I hadn't even heard of AH when the Spit was introduced.
The reason I ask is because I was trying out the climb performance offline. Time to altitude seems a bit too fast for the basic 42 model, but way too slow for the HF and LF, or the later F models. It may well be that I got the parameters for the test wrong, so if somebody whith more experience has done this please post your results.
------------------
Spit dweeb and proud of it.
-
I believe Pyro said it was a spit 9 F with merlin 61.
-
I thought it had the Merlin 66.
Definitely remember that it is suppose to be the 1944 version of the Spit IX.
Don't know about climb tests, but up until this latest revision it was about 10mph too fast at critical altitude, and the critical altitude was about 5,000 ft too high.
Speedwise it was performing like an HF unless its changed recently.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Carpe Jugulum
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
-
if we r talking about the genuine mkix, then we got only 3 variants, the F LF HF.
the L had the 61 (1565hp) or 63 (1650hp), the LF had the 66 (1580hp) and the HF got the 70 at 1475hp.
[This message has been edited by [Sg]ShotGun (edited 04-30-2000).]
-
These are the figures I got for time to altitude, compared with the figures the A&AEE got during the war.
Alt...AH IX : 1942IX : HF IX : LF IX : 1944IX
4K.....1.07....1.10.......... ................0.50
6K. ...1.38...............1.24... ............1.15
10K....2.42...............2.2 5....2.15.....2.06
18K....4.58...............4.1 8................
20K....5.40....6.00.......... ...............4.30
30K....9.52...11.40.....8.05. ...8.40....8.17
My test was carried out by flying at sea level at 180mph then going full throttle and wep then engaging alt-x. The plane climbed at approx 170mph, which I believe is the correct climbing speed for the Spit. Full fuel and ammo were carried, but no drop tank.
Of course, due to the fuel modifier, the plane was a lot lighter in the latter stages of the climb than a real one would have been.
In the above chart the 1944 Spit IX is using 150 octane ful, which I understand was common by 1944.
The A&AEE results can be found at http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html)
[This message has been edited by Nashwan (edited 04-30-2000).]
-
Vermillion a Spitfire LF Mk. IX that is 10 mph too fast at critical altitude and has a critical altitude 5,000 feet too high - Sounds so me like a Spitfire HF Mk. IX.
-
Nashwan you might want to use M:SS for minutes and seconds. In the USA we use the "." to denote decimals, so 0.50 means 1/2 a minute to us...
------------------
Mike "FunkedUp" Waltz
Aces High Instructor Corps (http://www.hitechcreations.com/arenas.html#training)
S/L 308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF (http://www.raf303.org/308)
Northolt Wing (1st Polish Fighter Wing) (http://www.raf303.org/northolt)
-
Aces High Spitfire Mk.IX top speeds:
260mph IAS and 420mph TAS at 28,000ft.
275mph IAS and 415mph TAS at 25,000ft.
Are those IAS/TAS relationships correct?
It's still too fast though. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Juzz that's pretty close to 415.5 @ 27,800 feet for the Mk. IX HF with Merlin 70.
I guess you can argue about the 4.5 mph but considering measurement error I'd say a 1% variation from the real plane is a pretty damned accurate flight model! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Yes, it is mins:secs, sorry should have used the : to make it clear.
The speed figures make it sound like an HF, now if only we could have the climb rate to match. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Heheh thats the point Funked, it definitely fly's like a HF, but Pyro said its suppose to be the mid alt variant ( F or LF ? I always get them confused)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Carpe Jugulum
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
-
OK a conclusive answer from PYRO
=========
The AH Spit is a F.IX with a Merlin 61.
==========
from http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum1/HTML/001267.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum1/HTML/001267.html)
making it a '42 varient and i believe the worst performing spit 9.
Then again it may be overmodelled.
-
How ever many times i say this people seem to firget and in a month when there is another spit thread somebody who doesn't like spits will say yeah but ours is a 44 varient spit.
-
Thx Jmccaul, I hadn't seen that one!
-
funked; if the AH Spitfire Mk IX was really performing like a HF.Mk IX it would climb alot faster than it does already. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Juzz are you sure? The tests I have seen on the AH shows it performs a lot like an HF.
-
Look at Nashwan's numbers above, from the Spitfire Performance Testing page.
Eg:
Aces High Mk IX time to 18k: 4'58".
A&AEE HF.Mk IX time to 18k: 4'15".
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Hehe, and if AH Spitfire IX WAS really a 1944 IX, it would climb to 20k in four and a half minutes!
PS: I found a book with the same Spitfire Mk V data from that page in it, and a few important things aren't mentioned.
1. The X4922 vs N3053 test was carried out with both planes fitted with a 10ft 6in Rotol 4-bladed prop, instead of the normal Hamilton 3-bladed type.
2. At the bottom of the page there is a Spitfire Mk V vs Me 109 chart. From the info in the book, I believe the Spitfire was actually fitted with a DB605 engine, and as mentioned carried no armament; which would add about 600lbs to its weight.
In fact, the A&AEE data I read in this book throws some doubt onto the modelling of the AH Spitfire Mk V as well. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
( if you could clarify that for WB we well it would be cool )
There were 3 very different types of Spit IX produced: F, HF, LF. 3 different engines - and very different when it coms to speed and climbrates.
Please clarify which one is modeled in AH ?
( and in WB ? )
Thank you.
------------------
(http://www.raf303.org/banner.gif)
Bartlomiej Rajewski
S/L fd-ski Sq. 303 (Polish) "Kosciuszko" RAF www.raf303.org (http://www.raf303.org)
The AH Spit is a F.IX with a Merlin 61.
Don't ask me questions about other games.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
"The side with the fanciest uniforms loses."
------------------
leonid, Komandir
5 GIAP VVS RKKA (http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero)
"Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. Victory will be ours."
-
What were the fuel and ammo loadouts on the planes, on both the historical and AH version?
Is fuel consumption equal to its real life counterpart?
-
its 3 times greater for all planes I believe
-
I carried out my tests with full fuel and ammo, and I think the A&AEE did as well. As I said, the fuel modifier means the AH spit was a lot lighter towards the end of the test than it's real life counterpart would have been. That means the AH Spit is even futher off being a 44 version than it first appears.
-
I don't think there is a fuel modifier in offline mode.
-
Juzz,
What book did you find? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
It's my belief that the only difference between MkV and MkIX is the supercharger and that the Merlin 45 put out the same if not more power at sea level than a Merlin 61 (depending on fuel grade). With the plane being much lighter, the MkV would outclimb the MkIX below 10k. I hope you are implying that the MkV is underperforming in AH! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by wells (edited 05-04-2000).]
-
I seriously doubt the Merlin 45 has even the same output as the Merlin 61 at any altitude. I'll try to find out more details.
Use this link (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html) for data on Spitfire marques I,II,V,VIII,IX and XIV data.
All IMO:
The AH Spitfire Mk V performs like an early Mk Vb, the ones that were converted from a Mk I or Mk II.
BUT; the ammo load of 120rpg for the cannon certainly makes it a Vc, a later model which weighed more and had slightly more drag on the airframe. Accordingly, performance should suffer somewhat.
The book: SPITFIRE The History
Authors: Eric B. Morgan and Edward Shacklady.
ISBN 0 946219 10 9
This book has lists of every single Spitfire serial number for every marque, perfomance tables from the A&AEE, details of weapons, performance and handling trials, pages of official engineering sketches from Supermarine, etc.
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 05-04-2000).]
-
Both Merlin 45 and 61 had same displacement and same compression ratio. Merlin 45 was some 200 lbs lighter (supercharger components?). According to the manuals, both engines were limited to +16 lbs boost, implying same fuel grade (100). Reduction gearing was different (0.42 for 61 compared to 0.477 for 45). That makes sense given the 4-bladed prop. Takeoff power is listed as the following (+12 lbs boost)
45- 1185 @ 3000 rpm
61- 1290 @ 3000 rpm
Hmm, although the single speed blower on the MKV shouldn't draw as much power, perhaps the reduction gearing cancels that and then some?? Just thinking out loud...
In any case, the MkV has the better power loading, no? (under 10-15k only)
-
Remember the Merlin 61 is intercooled.
It certainly seems the Mk V has better powerloading. But how much of a difference does the four-blade prop make to performance?