Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: skorpion on September 28, 2011, 05:56:14 PM
-
as the title says, what one rolls better? ive heard the 190 does but i think the Spit16 can roll with it depending on your compitence with it. also, is it better to out-roll a Spit16 in a D9 or is it better to outdive it? ive heard its better to out-dive because the Spits wings snap off like a toothpick if you pull too many G's suddenly.
-
Fw190s roll a little bit better than the Spitfire Mk XVI.
-
Fw190s roll a little bit better than the Spitfire Mk XVI.
anything else...? such as out-diving or out-rolling a spit16 in the D9?
-
D-9 should accelerate faster in a dive, but maximum controllable speed in the Spitfire may be faster. Many players seem to have greatly exaggerated expectations of dive acceleration difference though.
-
D-9 should accelerate faster in a dive, but maximum controllable speed in the Spitfire may be faster. Many players seem to have greatly exaggerated expectations of dive acceleration difference though.
i saw the last part you stated all too much, someone tries to dive in a plane that they have no knowledge of and end up killing themselves by auger or just plain hitting the guy there chasing. the Spit16 to me, seems that with its wings being clipped it would have dived faster due to less drag.
-
Depends on altitude and airspeed.
-
Depends on altitude and airspeed.
lets say at 12k and at max throttle.
-
i saw the last part you stated all too much, someone tries to dive in a plane that they have no knowledge of and end up killing themselves by auger or just plain hitting the guy there chasing. the Spit16 to me, seems that with its wings being clipped it would have dived faster due to less drag.
The calculations are a lot more complex than that. Apparently the Spitfire had an unusually high critical mach number for a piston engined fighter due to its aerodynamics. The clipped wings don't really play inot it.
-
The calculations are a lot more complex than that. Apparently the Spitfire had an unusually high critical mach number for a piston engined fighter due to its aerodynamics. The clipped wings don't really play inot it.
huh...i thought the wings would have helped because of them being clipped, but the aerodynamics part is what really intruiged me. i didnt know they were aeronomically superior to other spitfires, i just thought they kept the same fuselage and wings and upgraded the engines/guns up to the MK 14 spitfire.
-
lets say at 12k and at max throttle.
That should still favor the 190's roll rate if in level flight.
There are certain conditions that would favor the spitfire XVI but pretty narrow parts of the flight envelope.
Maybe 30,000 feet at 150mph.
-
huh...i thought the wings would have helped because of them being clipped, but the aerodynamics part is what really intruiged me. i didnt know they were aeronomically superior to other spitfires, i just thought they kept the same fuselage and wings and upgraded the engines/guns up to the MK 14 spitfire.
There were various structural changes as well.
Keep in mind that the speeds we're talking about are higher than what WWII fighters were designed for and the engineers of the day were encountering new problems aerodynamically speaking. That one fighter had a high critical mach number and another a lower number was almost entirely happenstance. Pilots, in generally, should not have been pushing the aircraft to those speeds and so it shouldn't have come up in combat very often.
-
That should still favor the 190's roll rate if in level flight.
There are certain conditions that would favor the spitfire XVI but pretty narrow parts of the flight envelope.
Maybe 30,000 feet at 150mph.
its kind of rare to find a decent fight against a spit16 at 30k in a 190...but im sure the spit would have the turning advantage at almost any altitude. unless it gets slow then the 190 might have a chance because ive noticed the spit16 doesnt like to handle well at stall speed turn fights. usually one wing stalls more than the other and manages to throw you off to the point where your forced to re-do the attack.
-
huh...i thought the wings would have helped because of them being clipped, but the aerodynamics part is what really intruiged me. i didnt know they were aeronomically superior to other spitfires, i just thought they kept the same fuselage and wings and upgraded the engines/guns up to the MK 14 spitfire.
The airframe and wings of the Spitfire changed considerably through the war. There was a significant in upgrade with the Mk Vc, both for the wings and the airframe. There was another significant airframe and skinning change in the Mk VII and VIII. There were also some major changes for the Mk XIV.
Spitfire airframe family progression is roughly :
Mk I -> Mk II -> Mk Va/b -> Mk Vc - Mk IX/XVI
Mk Vc -> Mk VII/VIII -> Mk XII -> Mk XIV -> Mk XVIII
Mk 21 -> 22 -> 24
There was a lot of cross-pollination between the Mk Vc/VIII airframe and the Mk IX/XVI, with improvements progressively incorporated as production stretched through the war.
-
The airframe and wings of the Spitfire changed considerably through the war. There was a significant in upgrade with the Mk Vc, both for the wings and the airframe. There was another significant airframe and skinning change in the Mk VII and VIII. There were also some major changes for the Mk XIV.
Spitfire airframe family progression is roughly :
Mk I -> Mk II -> Mk Va/b -> Mk Vc - Mk IX/XVI
Mk Vc -> Mk VII/VIII -> Mk XII -> Mk XIV -> Mk XVIII
Mk 21 -> 22 -> 24
There was a lot of cross-pollination between the Mk Vc/VIII airframe and the Mk IX/XVI, with improvements progressively incorporated as production stretched through the war.
did some of the airframes change due to the types of engines? i heard that if it was a griffon engine, the nose was longer and if it was a merlin it was shorter. is this true? also, thanks for the info on how it evolved. was wondering how the spits airframe changed.
-
did some of the airframes change due to the types of engines? i heard that if it was a griffon engine, the nose was longer and if it was a merlin it was shorter. is this true? also, thanks for the info on how it evolved. was wondering how the spits airframe changed.
The Spit Vb was basically the same airframe as the Spitfire I and II. The B Wing was also found on some versions of the I and II. The Spitfire Vc was a more strengthened airframe and had the redesigned universal wing. The Spitfire IX/XVI and first 50 of the XII were built on the Vc airframe. The VIII had a updated airframe with the retractable tail wheel. The last 50 Spit XII were built on that airframe. All XII had the pointed wider chord rudder as did all the XVIs. Many IXs did as well. The majority of the VII and VIII had this wider taller rudder too.
The Spitfire XIV was built on the VIII airframe with a redesigned tail to take on more of the torque.
In terms of diving, the thin wing of the Spitfire was the biggest factor. Testing was done at Farnborough with a Spitfire XI which had none of the guns or bumps for cannons etc. It reached the highest speed in a dive for a prop bird.
In terms of roll rate, the clipping of the Spitfire wing made a big improvement. This could be done to any of the Spit wings though as you could find clipped Vbs, Vc, IX, VIII, all XII and many XIVs in particular post war.
The Spit XVI used a Merlin rated for better performance down low so you wouldn't find it at 30K. The clipped wing was also meant to help down low, another reason it wouldn't be up high
-
One of the reasons that contributed to the Spits higher Critical Mach number was that its wing airfoil thickness was thinner than most of its peers. IIRC, it had a 12.5% root chord and 9% tip chord, compared to a 15% root chord on almost all other fighter aircraft in the war.
-
The Spit Vb was basically the same airframe as the Spitfire I and II. The B Wing was also found on some versions of the I and II. The Spitfire Vc was a more strengthened airframe and had the redesigned universal wing. The Spitfire IX/XVI and first 50 of the XII were built on the Vc airframe. The VIII had a updated airframe with the retractable tail wheel. The last 50 Spit XII were built on that airframe. All XII had the pointed wider chord rudder as did all the XVIs. Many IXs did as well. The majority of the VII and VIII had this wider taller rudder too.
The Spitfire XIV was built on the VIII airframe with a redesigned tail to take on more of the torque.
In terms of diving, the thin wing of the Spitfire was the biggest factor. Testing was done at Farnborough with a Spitfire XI which had none of the guns or bumps for cannons etc. It reached the highest speed in a dive for a prop bird.
In terms of roll rate, the clipping of the Spitfire wing made a big improvement. This could be done to any of the Spit wings though as you could find clipped Vbs, Vc, IX, VIII, all XII and many XIVs in particular post war.
The Spit XVI used a Merlin rated for better performance down low so you wouldn't find it at 30K. The clipped wing was also meant to help down low, another reason it wouldn't be up high
ok, i understood all of that until you got to the merlin engine part. it was designed for down low fights, ok got that down(heh no pun intended). but what about a griffon engine? werent those supposed to help up higher or is my WW2 engine history off? as for the clipped wings, i didnt know that they actually helped with the roll rates. that really got me intrested, thanks for posting. :salute
-
D-9 should accelerate faster in a dive, but maximum controllable speed in the Spitfire may be faster.
the D-9 maintains controllability at 600mph, something (please correct me if i'm wrong here) none of the spitfires can do.
-
the D-9 maintains controllability at 600mph, something (please correct me if i'm wrong here) none of the spitfires can do.
What I meant was that the Spitfire has a higher compression speed. Aileron control will last longer for the Fw190 due to stick forces, wing warping and aileron reversal on the Spitfire. Elevator control should last longer for the Spitfire.
-
ok, i understood all of that until you got to the merlin engine part. it was designed for down low fights, ok got that down(heh no pun intended). but what about a griffon engine? werent those supposed to help up higher or is my WW2 engine history off? as for the clipped wings, i didnt know that they actually helped with the roll rates. that really got me intrested, thanks for posting. :salute
It depends on the blower attached to the engine. The Merlin 61 in the Spitfire Mk IX has a critical altitude of about 27,000ft, about the same as the Griffon 65 in the Spitfire Mk XIV or the Merlin 71 and 72 in the Mosquito Mk XVI. The Merlin 70 used by the Spitfire HF.Mk IX and HF.Mk VIII had an even higher critical altitude. The Merlin 66 in the Spitfire Mk VIII and XVI has a critical altitude of about 18,000ft. The Merlin 25s in the Mosquito Mk VI have a critical altitude of about 13,000ft. If I recall correctly, the Merlins in the Spitfire Mk VIII, Spitfire Mk IX, Spitfire Mk XVI, P-51B, P-51D and Mosquito Mk XVI have two speed, two stage superchargers for better performance at their critical altitudes. The Merlins in the Spitfire Mk I, Spitfire Mk V, Seafire Mk II, Hurricane Mk I, Hurricane Mk IIc, Hurricane Mk IId and Mosquito Mk VI have a single speed, two stage supercharger. I am not sure which group the Lancaster or P-40F falls into, but I believe it is the second group.
-
The Merlins in the Spitfire Mk I, Spitfire Mk V, Seafire Mk II, Hurricane Mk I, Hurricane Mk IIc, Hurricane Mk IId and Mosquito Mk VI have a single speed, two stage supercharger.
The earlier Merlins from I to 50-series all had single stage blowers.
-
The Spit XII, which was the first with the Griffon had a single stage supercharger and was rated for it's best performance at lower altitudes. The majority of the Spitfire VIII, IX, XVI had their Merlins, either 66 or 266 set up for medium to low alt performance as the airwar had moved down by that time.
One of the gripes about the old AH Spitfire V was that it was better then the Spitfire IX. What folks never considered was the Spitfire LFV had a performance band that was better then the Spitfire FIX which did not perform as well down low as it did up high with the Merlin 61. The XVI we have and the VIII have the Merlin 266 or 66 and peform better at lower alts then the Spitfire IX we have which still has the higher alt rated Merlin 61
-
The Spit XII, which was the first with the Griffon had a single stage supercharger and was rated for it's best performance at lower altitudes. The majority of the Spitfire VIII, IX, XVI had their Merlins, either 66 or 266 set up for medium to low alt performance as the airwar had moved down by that time.
One of the gripes about the old AH Spitfire V was that it was better then the Spitfire IX. What folks never considered was the Spitfire LFV had a performance band that was better then the Spitfire FIX which did not perform as well down low as it did up high with the Merlin 61. The XVI we have and the VIII have the Merlin 266 or 66 and peform better at lower alts then the Spitfire IX we have which still has the higher alt rated Merlin 61
so in during the end of the war, they tuned the engines for lower fights correct? but, if that holds true then is it modeled into the game? i did some testing at 10, 15 and 5k with the roll rates. i have to say that at 5k the spit16 rolled just as good as the 190 down there, and at 10 and 15k the 190 had the clear advantage. i tested the spit9 and spit5 turning capabilities, and i have to say that there fairly equal, but the spit5 turns just a bit better. (maybe thats just me)
EDIT: forgot to mention this earlier, would the 190A5 be outrolled by a Spit16? and also, does torque from the engine affect rolling?
-
does torque from the engine affect rolling?
Absolutely. If the plane naturally wants to roll right due to the torque of the propeller spinning in said direction, it will roll faster to the right side. Always roll right in a Jug... Just sayin'.
-
Absolutely. If the plane naturally wants to roll right due to the torque of the propeller spinning in said direction, it will roll faster to the right side. Always roll right in a Jug... Just sayin'.
ok, thanks. i think the props from the engine turn right on the spit16. not sure about the 190's though. i know the D9 and i think the F8 had electronically enhanced controls so that might help some more.
-
and also, does torque from the engine affect rolling?
1) I believe the spit-16's propeller does spin in the same direction as the 190's.
2) Yes.
3) GOD yes.
Anyone got a graph somewhere comparing various engine/aircraft torques values?
-
Absolutely. If the plane naturally wants to roll right due to the torque of the propeller spinning in said direction, it will roll faster to the right side. Always roll right in a Jug... Just sayin'.
The 190 d11 had boosted controls its not in game though.
-
The 190 d11 had boosted controls its not in game though.
so the electronically enhanced controls arent modeled into the game?
wow that sucks...
-
Check the hangar, please be sure and let me know when you find a FW-190 D-11 :D
-
Check the hangar, please be sure and let me know when you find a FW-190 D-11 :D
:bhead
i thought you were talking about the P47D11 :lol
"DOH!"
-
so in during the end of the war, they tuned the engines for lower fights correct? but, if that holds true then is it modeled into the game? i did some testing at 10, 15 and 5k with the roll rates. i have to say that at 5k the spit16 rolled just as good as the 190 down there, and at 10 and 15k the 190 had the clear advantage. i tested the spit9 and spit5 turning capabilities, and i have to say that there fairly equal, but the spit5 turns just a bit better. (maybe thats just me)
EDIT: forgot to mention this earlier, would the 190A5 be outrolled by a Spit16? and also, does torque from the engine affect rolling?
The primary Merlin engines used in Spitfires were tuned for lower alts. The majority of Spitfire IX and XVI had Merlin 66 or 266 engines. The 66 was Rolls Royce built. The Merlin 266 was license built in the US by Packard.
Spit 16s would not have encountered 190A5s. The clipping of the Spitfire V and others was done to counter the roll rate of the early 190s encountered by the Spits, in particular as the airwar moved down in alt in late 42-43.
-
The primary Merlin engines used in Spitfires were tuned for lower alts. The majority of Spitfire IX and XVI had Merlin 66 or 266 engines. The 66 was Rolls Royce built. The Merlin 266 was license built in the US by Packard.
Ok I that written down. So is this actually modeled into the game though? I've had some very unrealalistic fights up at 20k against 190's and 109's. If the spitfires were tuned for lower altitudes IRL then my question is it modeled correctly in game?
-
Ok I that written down. So is this actually modeled into the game though? I've had some very unrealalistic fights up at 20k against 190's and 109's. If the spitfires were tuned for lower altitudes IRL then my question is it modeled correctly in game?
Keep in mind what 'lower means. The Merlin 61 engined IX was geared for higher then that. The Merlin 66/266 best height was 15k-25K. Prior to 1942 the fights were taking place above 25K. For some reason, probably because the medium bombers of the RAF flew 15-20K, the fights dropped down. And in 44 after the invasion, the tactical airwar took over and the fights were even lower.
-
Skorpion, here is an example of what we're talking about. I found this quicker so it's a Spitfire V, but it's the same idea as the differences between the FIX and LFXVI or LFIX
Note the performance of the Spitfire FVb. It has better performance higher as the engine was built to perform best at those altitudes. Keep in mind this is the Spitfire Vb we have in game.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Vb.jpg)
This is a Spitfire LFVb. The LF being the designation for Spitfires with engines rated for lower alt performance. It's identical on the outside to a Spitfire FVb. You wouldn't note any difference when you sae one in the air. But note the performance at different altitudes for this Spitfire Vb with the engine built to perform better lower.
Take two identical on the outside Spits and let them fight and the FVb wins up high and the LFVb wins down low.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/LFVb.jpg)
-
i did some testing at 10, 15 and 5k with the roll rates. i have to say that at 5k the spit16 rolled just as good as the 190 down there, and at 10 and 15k the 190 had the clear advantage.
If you do comparison testing, you need to use a stopwatch and record roll times. That's the only way to truly gauge what the exact relative performance is. You also need to test them at different entry speeds--250, 275, 300, 325, etc. because some planes rolled faster, comparatively speaking, at lower/higher speeds than others. For example, a 190 might roll faster than a Spit 16 at 250 and slower at 350 (don't know, just an example).
-
Not to enter into the aerodynamics conversation but to answer the OP since I fly Spit XVI's and FW190A-8's as two of my three primary MA rides (along with the F6F-5) the 190's roll considerably better then the XVI and that trait becomes greater and greater as speeds increase.
The 190's can dive and remain controllable with little loss of roll rate at almost 600 mph while the XVI can rip the wings off under sudden manouvers over 480 mph although it can be pushed further if you're smooth on the controls.
Diving or rolling? Well, that might depend on the situation. Even in a dive the XVI will out accelerate a 190. If you do manage to dive away from the XVI, unless you're in a Dora, the XVI will eventually run you back down using WEP and manageing his dive angle. In the end you're probably best off to keep the fight fast and use roll rate to work for a shot or an overshoot.
-
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg)
-
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg)
Mmmm, good soup.
So, how often does spit get into a rolling battle with a FW-190 at slower than 220 mph? :D