Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Yarbles on June 10, 2010, 04:47:34 AM

Title: Spit tradeoff
Post by: Yarbles on June 10, 2010, 04:47:34 AM
The nicest Spit to fly is the IX imo though the 5/seafire come a close second but the latter are badly under powered in the MA.

In the MA the IX lacks a bit of speed and acceleration. The 8 is quicker and climbs better but doesn't seem to role nearly as well or turn so nicely. The 14 is speed and climb focused and has lost allot of agility and is a worse compromise than the 8.

I reckon the optimum performance is somewhere close to our 9 for the Spit design but wonder if there would be a bit more climb/speed to be had before getting to the slugishness of our 8.

In other words I would like to know if there is a possible Spit better than both the 8 and 9.( I doubt we will get it but I can't ask if I dont know what it is. Not the 16 which to me is not the great turn fighter the 8 and 9 are and the wings arn't nearly so pretty.  
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: Bronk on June 10, 2010, 04:56:11 AM
Give us our old Mk V back. Was the best spit before the addition of the VIII and XVI.  That or a Mk XII. :noid
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: Yarbles on June 10, 2010, 07:19:46 AM
I worked out the 9 is infact more like the 5 than the 8 and was available with a more powerfull Merlin and the E wing with the 50's. I reckon that would be the optimum.

I wonder if I will live long enough to fly it  :headscratch:  
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: MachFly on June 10, 2010, 09:39:37 AM
How about mk XVI without clipped wings?

The one we have right now it for low altitude operations.
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: Yarbles on June 10, 2010, 11:02:37 AM
How about mk XVI without clipped wings?

The one we have right now it for low altitude operations.

Yes Basically a mk9 with a Packard Merlin 66  :aok

Unclip it and perk the clipped one to keep the anti spitters happy. Excellent idea :salute

I would assume it easy for HTC to model. I would rather it was a 9 but that should be easy as the only differnce was the 16 engine was a packard no diff in perfomance I believe so re model it and call it a 9.  

Then we would have a mid war 9

A late war 9

The 8 as an atack plane with the bomb and for long range.

a perked clipped 16

and ideally halve the perk cost of the 14.

 :pray



Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: SgtPappy on June 10, 2010, 11:22:31 AM
The best compromise is indeed an 'uncllipped' XVI or simply a IX with a Merlin 66, like mentioned.

Though, I find it less than ideal because the Mk.VIII has more fuel and really, is far from sluggish at all.

It's just not as maneuverable as the IX. Drain some fuel, unload your 303's and you should be fine.
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: MachFly on June 10, 2010, 12:56:43 PM
Just for the record:

Yes Basically a mk9 with a Packard Merlin 66

A late war 9

That is exactly what is meant when you hear Spitfimk mk XVI. The 16 that we currently have is an LF version for low altitude.  :D

The 8 as atackack plane with the bomb and for long range.

All spitfires were engineered for air superiority roll. The reason why 8 has longer range is because it has a totally redesigned wing making it stronger and giving it room for 2 extra fuel tanks.
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: 715 on June 10, 2010, 02:01:30 PM
I long for the old Spit V.  (It's not like any of the Spits, except the XIV, are fast enough to get away, so I'd prefer the Spit V if its engine wasn't nerfed and the ammo load cut in half.)
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: Raptor on June 10, 2010, 02:22:12 PM
I feel like the seafire is most similar to the old spitV
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: vonKrimm on June 10, 2010, 03:20:35 PM
How about mk XVI without clipped wings?

The one we have right now it for low altitude operations.

This is why we have the XIV.

Give us the XII and there will be even more howls from the anti-spit crowd.
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: MachFly on June 10, 2010, 03:49:04 PM
This is why we have the XIV.

 :O
WHAT?

You realize they have different engines? There wings and tail are constructed totally different as well (and I don't mean the clipped wing part).
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: Guppy35 on June 10, 2010, 04:10:00 PM
For AH in my opinion the best of the Spits is the VIII.  It's not any more an attack plane then the IX.  In fact the XVI is the one geared for low alt attack work with the wing hard points and the centerline hard point.

I think folks forget that 75 fuel in a VIII is more fuel then in the IX which makes it seem heavier as it has the extra leading edge wing tanks.  In real world Merlin Spit terms the VIII was considered the best of them by none other then Supermarine chief test pilot Jeffrey Quill.

Given that the AH Spit IX is based on the Merlin 61 and not the 66 like the VIII, the IX doesn't have the same power at lower alts as the 61 was geared towards higher altitude.  Give the AH Spit IX the Merlin 66 and it would be about the equal of the VIII.

In the end though I think it's personal preference in AH.  Some guys swear by the IX, others like me like the VIII while those who thing 16 must mean better then 8 or 9 because its a larger number take that :)
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: Warspawn on June 10, 2010, 04:19:24 PM
Which was the spit that had the 4xHispano option?  Now THAT would be happy days, indeed, for spit pilots.


Ah, found it:   Spitfire Vc's of 2 Sqn, 7 Wing, SAAF, Sicily, had that particular armament.
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: Wmaker on June 10, 2010, 05:05:24 PM
Well, then there's things like this...

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/w3228.html (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/w3228.html)

That'd be rather sick. That's the ticket if you truly, I mean truly need to "compensate". :)
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: Kev367th on June 10, 2010, 05:07:00 PM
Raptor - Current Seafire is nothing like our 'old' Cropped Vc. Now a Seafire LIII Merlin 55M would be a different matter!

Warspawn - A few Aussie Spit VIII had quad Hispanos also (neither version in any numbers to speak of)

Better than the VIII or IX - Hmmm... A Clipped, Cropped and Clapped Merlin 55M Vc. As fast as the IX low level, more manoeverable than both.
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: lyric1 on June 10, 2010, 05:16:51 PM
Raptor - Current Seafire is nothing like our 'old' Cropped Vc. Now a Seafire LIII Merlin 55M would be a different matter!

Warspawn - A few Aussie Spit VIII had quad Hispanos also (neither version in any numbers to speak of)

Better than the VIII or IX - Hmmm... A Clipped, Cropped and Clapped Merlin 55M Vc. As fast as the IX low level, more manoeverable than both.

I think it was the Spit V that had the quads on it for the RAAF & it was a pig & was done away with very quickly.
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: Guppy35 on June 10, 2010, 11:50:17 PM
Which was the spit that had the 4xHispano option?  Now THAT would be happy days, indeed, for spit pilots.


Ah, found it:   Spitfire Vc's of 2 Sqn, 7 Wing, SAAF, Sicily, had that particular armament.

It wouldn't, as the weight of the extra 2 20mm would clobber the speed and turning.  That's why those few were used for ground attack, not air combat.  There was a reason they took those extra 20s out when the Spit Vcs got to Malta.  They were struggling as it was with performance with the larger tropical filter against the 109s.  As pilots commented, if you couldn't shoot them down with 2 20mm, 4 weren't going to help anyway.

Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: 321BAR on June 11, 2010, 06:20:46 AM
:O
WHAT?

You realize they have different engines? There wings and tail are constructed totally different as well (and I don't mean the clipped wing part).
uhh...krimm meant that the XIV is for high altitudes... he didn't mean any of the structural differences. The Griffon is great at altitude. A Spit LfMkIXE a.k.a Spit 16 with elliptical wings wouldnt do much except make the Spit VIII have .50 calibers instead of .303s and the spixteen would be even better in turning yet slower in rolls. The Spit XII would be the best option for a new spit. We'd get another Griffon engine into the Spit list. But before we get a new noob spit we'd need alot of other planes/Vehicles... want a list?
He-111
M-18s
P51A
Ki-43
More M-18s
G4M2a Bettys
Yaks-3 1 and 7
Migs
More M-18s
Panthers
Maybe some SPs
Artillery
Sheep
Vickers Wellingtons
Beaufighters
Ki-21 Sallys
B17F (for scenarios and realism)
Pe-2s
Pe-4s
Mossi XVIs or VIIIs
REMODELED planes
Sheep again
A26
don't forget Brake turning and zero turn for GVs and more sheep
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: Guppy35 on June 11, 2010, 01:15:53 PM
I think it was the Spit V that had the quads on it for the RAAF & it was a pig & was done away with very quickly.

There are photos of one Spit VIII with the set up, apparently the CO's bird used to chase high alt Dinah recce birds.  I've not seen any Aussie 4 cannon Vc.  I think it was the Aussies that ended up hand bashing cowling panels so they could attempt to do away with the big tropical filter at one point too.
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: MachFly on June 11, 2010, 02:07:27 PM
uhh...krimm meant that the XIV is for high altitudes... he didn't mean any of the structural differences. The Griffon is great at altitude.

My apologies then.

A Spit LfMkIXE a.k.a Spit 16 with elliptical wings wouldnt do much except make the Spit VIII have .50 calibers instead of .303s and the spixteen would be even better in turning yet slower in rolls.

Elliptical wings would give it better overall performance at high altitude. Your comparing spit 16 to 8, but they are totally different. 16 still has that old wing that the mk9 had, while 8's wing is totally redesigned (that's why 2 fuel tanks fit in). So Spit 16 with elliptical wings would be a a Spitfire mk IX with .50cals instead of .303s and have a more powerful engine.

But before we get a new spit we'd need alot of other planes/Vehicles... want a list?

100% Agreed.
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: Guppy35 on June 11, 2010, 02:17:54 PM
My apologies then.

Elliptical wings would give it better overall performance at high altitude. Your comparing spit 16 to 8, but they are totally different. 16 still has that old wing that the mk9 had, while 8's wing is totally redesigned (that's why 2 fuel tanks fit in). So Spit 16 with elliptical wings would be a a Spitfire mk IX with .50cals instead of .303s and have a more powerful engine.

100% Agreed.

Actually the E wing on the Spit 16 was a strengthened redesign as well.  The Spit IX wing is closer to the VIII wing in that both are Universal wings with the 2 20mm and 4 303s. 

What you probably want (don't need) is a Spit LFIXe with normal span wings and the larger rudder like the VIII and XVI.  With a Merlin 66 the performance would be better in the AH world lower down.
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 11, 2010, 02:31:53 PM
Give us our old Mk V back. Was the best spit before the addition of the VIII and XVI.  That or a Mk XII. :noid

The old V with the incorrect boost figures?


ack-ack
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: Bronk on June 11, 2010, 03:57:49 PM
The old V with the incorrect boost figures?


ack-ack
Yup. :noid  :devil
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: SgtPappy on June 11, 2010, 04:56:27 PM
Was that the Spitfire Vc with +16 lb. boost?

Those settings are correct as were used by many Spitfire Vs later on starting in 1943, but those are also settings that are not reflective of the performance seen by most V's which were Mk.Vb's whose Merlin 45's maxed out at +12 lb. boost.
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: Kev367th on June 12, 2010, 08:51:05 AM
Was that the Spitfire Vc with +16 lb. boost?

Those settings are correct as were used by many Spitfire Vs later on starting in 1943, but those are also settings that are not reflective of the performance seen by most V's which were Mk.Vb's whose Merlin 45's maxed out at +12 lb. boost.

Although the Vb was the most produced Spitfire V, that doesn't tell you which of the Merlin 45 / 46 / 50 / 50A / 55 / 56 were orignally fitted or upgraded with during their life.
Bearing in mind there was only about 6-7 months between the Vb and the original Vc.
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: Kazaa on June 12, 2010, 08:57:07 AM
A clipped version of our old Mk. Vc would be nice!
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: SmokinLoon on June 12, 2010, 10:34:31 AM
The current version of the Spit16 is used as a dog-fighter regardless of its hard points.  With its super ability to turn, climb, roll, run, gun, and ability to carry 1k worth of ordnance, I think it is still under-rated and it has far too much of an impact in AH, MA or scenario.   

There are few things worse than having an aircraft meant for one thing and used completely for another.  The Spit16 is the poster child for such things.   

If there was a way to have an low altitude attack version of the Spitfire without all the fanfare as the Spit16, and the Spit LFIXE for LW use, then a lot of the issues would go away.  Im not sure which other Spitfire was used as a ground pounder.  Perhaps the Spit16 without the clipped wings?
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: Karnak on June 12, 2010, 01:07:33 PM
All Spitfire Mk XVI's came from the factory with clipped wings, as did LF.Mk IXes that were produced at the same time, as I understand it.

Basically, there really isn't a Spitfire that does what you are asking of it.  An early LF.Mk IXe could very well have full span wings, but that is about it and I don't think HTC wants to confuse players by having two Mk IXs.

The only Spitfires I would not mind seeing added at some point in the future, really, would be the Spitfire Mk IIa, Spitfire Mk XII and Seafire Mk III.  To satisfy the Luftwaffe fans, yes, there are also a couple Bf109s and Fw190s I'd still like to see added too.
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: Bronk on June 12, 2010, 01:11:23 PM
All Spitfire Mk XVI's came from the factory with clipped wings, as did LF.Mk IXes that were produced at the same time, as I understand it.

Basically, there really isn't a Spitfire that does what you are asking of it.  An early LF.Mk IXe could very well have full span wings, but that is about it and I don't think HTC wants to confuse players by having two Mk IXs.

The only Spitfires I would not mind seeing added at some point in the future, really, would be the Spitfire Mk IIa, Spitfire Mk XII and Seafire Mk III.  To satisfy the Luftwaffe fans, yes, there are also a couple Bf109s and Fw190s I'd still like to see added too.
Seafire III would be sweet
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 12, 2010, 01:31:54 PM
Perhaps the Spit16 without the clipped wings?

We basically already have that with the Spitfire Mk VIII. 

ack-ack
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: SmokinLoon on June 12, 2010, 01:59:57 PM
We basically already have that with the Spitfire Mk VIII. 

ack-ack

'cept for the inferior guns, 500lbs less ordnance, worse climb rate, and slower speeds at all alts.   :)

Also, I didnt think any of the Spit 9's were produced w clipped wings and only a portion of the spit 16's were.
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: Kev367th on June 12, 2010, 02:35:35 PM
'cept for the inferior guns, 500lbs less ordnance, worse climb rate, and slower speeds at all alts.   :)

Also, I didnt think any of the Spit 9's were produced w clipped wings and only a portion of the spit 16's were.


All XVI's came out the factory clipped.

LF IX's I'm not sure if they came out clipped, full span or a mixture of both. Complicating it is that the LF IX could be swapped between clipped and full span at squadron level. Pics of both on the web.
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: SgtPappy on June 12, 2010, 09:41:51 PM
There are a couple of photos in Alfred Price's books which show war-time Mk.XVI's with normal 36' 10" wing spans. You can confirm they're XVI's looking at the slightly more bulbous nose.

(http://www.jerrybilling.com/images/SL721%20AVM%20Robb.jpg)
History of Spitfire MK XVI SL721: Built in 1945 (although originally ordered as a Mk 21) it was initially delivered into storage at 6 MU in August.

(http://folk.uio.no/hungnes/avia/spitfire/evol-ix-nose.jpg)
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: Karnak on June 12, 2010, 11:29:52 PM
Yes, but they didn't come out of the factory that way.  It took about 15-20 minutes at an airfield to turn a Spit into a clipped or back to a standard wing.
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: Guppy35 on June 12, 2010, 11:57:55 PM
'cept for the inferior guns, 500lbs less ordnance, worse climb rate, and slower speeds at all alts.   :)

Also, I didnt think any of the Spit 9's were produced w clipped wings and only a portion of the spit 16's were.


That would be an inaccurate statement as Spit IXs and XVIs were coming off the same lines of production and when ground attack was the name of the game the clipped wing was as well.

As Kev mentioned 16s came off the line with clipped wings.  Some were fitted in the field with wing tips on occasion.

Two examples of clipped from the start Spit IXs
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/PT961.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Spitfire3.jpg)
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: WMLute on June 13, 2010, 12:45:04 AM
'cept for the inferior guns, 500lbs less ordnance, worse climb rate, and slower speeds at all alts.   :)

(http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4540/90873578.jpg)

You don't see a huge difference in performance between the 8 and the 16.

Honestly, there is very little different between the two.
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: SgtPappy on June 13, 2010, 01:03:53 AM
Agreed. I say the Spitfire VIII really deserves more respect... It's been proven time and again to be a Spit XVI killer. Plus, it's got more fuel.

The absolute best Merlin Spitfire, and my favorite Spitfire of all time.
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: Kev367th on June 13, 2010, 05:33:59 AM
There are a couple of photos in Alfred Price's books which show war-time Mk.XVI's with normal 36' 10" wing spans. You can confirm they're XVI's looking at the slightly more bulbous nose.

(http://www.jerrybilling.com/images/SL721%20AVM%20Robb.jpg)
History of Spitfire MK XVI SL721: Built in 1945 (although originally ordered as a Mk 21) it was initially delivered into storage at 6 MU in August.

(http://folk.uio.no/hungnes/avia/spitfire/evol-ix-nose.jpg)

Spit XVI SL721 was the personal hack of Air Vice Marshal James M Robb.
It flew in that configuration from August 1946, doesnt mean it wasnt built clipped.
There would be a good chance the full span tips were fitted at unit level as clipped wings would not be needed, it being a full 15 months after the end of the war in Europe.
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: The Grinch on June 13, 2010, 06:18:05 AM
The best Spit are the kind of spit that burns  :neener:
Title: Re: Spit tradeoff
Post by: SgtPappy on June 13, 2010, 06:36:42 PM
Spit XVI SL721 was the personal hack of Air Vice Marshal James M Robb.
It flew in that configuration from August 1946, doesnt mean it wasnt built clipped.
There would be a good chance the full span tips were fitted at unit level as clipped wings would not be needed, it being a full 15 months after the end of the war in Europe.

Ah gotcha. makes sense.