Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: TOMCAT21 on January 20, 2014, 06:54:43 AM
-
After 8 years in the game I decided to try the Spit 14 out. Is there anything specific to flying the Spit 14 and how does it compare to the Spit 16 or are they two different aircraft ?
-
After 8 years in the game I decided to try the Spit 14 out. Is there anything specific to flying the Spit 14 and how does it compare to the Spit 16 or are they two different aircraft ?
:airplane: Tom, u have flown with me enough to know I don't "jerk" aircraft around in this game like I see others doing, but I have flown the 14 a good bit, and the only comment I would have is just be careful when approaching compress speed, the wings will come off if not careful. Was chasing a 47M the other day, in a dive and he pulled up and left and when I tried to follow, right wing came off and I had not blacked out with two many "G's". Have done the same thing chasing other aircraft in the 16 and didn't have a problem.
Maybe I was to "ham fisted" on that pursuit of the jug. The 14 is a very good aircraft and I would recommend it to anyone, but until you find the limits, just be careful. Maybe take it into TA and put it thru some extensive maneuvers to see what you can do with it. It accelerates quickly, especially going nose down and holds its "E" pretty good going vertical. A little short on range, but what the heck, we usually don't stay up long anyway, at least I don't!
-
TC....if you get a chance, try and look up MachFly he flies rooks, and is very good in the 14
-
The 14 is about 20 mph faster than the 16 with the speed difference becoming greater once you're over 20000'. Climb rate is significantly better in the 14 vs the 16. The 16 has the advantage in the turn by about 1 degree/second in rate and 70' in radius (this from Mosqs' turn info).
The engine/prop turns anti-clockwise so you'll torque is opposite the norm. I like the 14, it's my go to airplane if I need a quick interceptor for fighter vs fighter/jabo. Handling is okay until you get to either extreme….roll drops off at high speed (it is a Spit) and at low speed the 14 is less forgiving than the other Spit models. Keeping it in trim helps, at least for me. It can depart violently but recovery is normal. Throttle control is important, you'll want to control your speed.
I haven't had any issue with pulling a wing off, but like ET I tend not to yank the stick around. Routinely play the edge of blackout so you don't have to worry about load factor at least up to the 6.5g range.
She does have short range, I take 100% plus the drop tank on all sorties.
-
After 8 years in the game I decided to try the Spit 14 out. Is there anything specific to flying the Spit 14 and how does it compare to the Spit 16 or are they two different aircraft ?
The Spit14 is the best 109 ever made. Fight like a 109 (in the vertical) and you'll do great!
-
Here's a period graph showing what the Spit 14 could do speed-wise at low level,
when boosted out to a bottom-end bearing bruising +25lbs boost on 150 grade gas for V1 catching..
(Note also the Merlin Mustang speed, also on +25lbs boost)..
Don't you wish that kind of WEP was available here, on A-H?
Yeah, you do..
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14+25lb.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/appendix.pdf
-
The Spit14 is the best 109 ever made. Fight like a 109 (in the vertical) and you'll do great!
Excellent advice, and a good comparison. Keep your feet nimble on the rudder.
- oldman
-
Here's a period graph showing what the Spit 14 could do speed-wise at low level,
when boosted out to a bottom-end bearing bruising +25lbs boost on 150 grade gas for V1 catching..
(Note also the Merlin Mustang speed, also on +25lbs boost)..
Don't you wish that kind of WEP was available here, on A-H?
Yeah, you do..
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14+25lb.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/appendix.pdf
Giving all allied rides their 1945 performance would be a bad idea in my opinion. Except as an optional perk price.
-
Giving all allied rides their 1945 performance would be a bad idea in my opinion. Except as an optional perk price.
1944, not 1945.
-
The SpitfireXIV is a very unstable platform in the air. I do not know why this should be. It was difficult on the ground but I've never read about it having problems in the air.
-
1944, not 1945.
Still a terrible idea.
-
Still a terrible idea.
Didn't say otherwise.
-
& yet the F4U-4, P-47M/N are in despite not being in action 'til `45..
-
& yet the F4U-4, P-47M/N are in despite not being in action 'til `45..
And that is relevant how?
Ta152 and N1K2-J are also in despite not seeing action until 1945.
-
Did you read the thread Knak?
Even your own posts?
If very late war combat flying fighters are in ( & in totally fictional scenarios to boot),
then why are other factual late war matters like high boost/150 grade petrol excluded?
-
Because it would be severely unbalancing to the game. Duh :lol.
Basically, anything running 150 octane gas would need to be perked.
-
Unbalancing something?
Reality be damned or words to that effect, as Gopher, sorry - Golfer would put it..
Or - someone, duh..
-
JAW,
If you actually played AH you'd understand what's meant by unbalancing,but since you dont all you can do is troll and try to instigate.
I'm not sure exactly what your agenda is but I wish you'd go and push it in the game you do play.
:salute
-
I understand perfectly, & probably likely there are fair reasons for it, anomalous or otherwise,
-but to use labels such a 'troll' with an 'agenda' - in response to posting of historical facts shows
a certain raw spot for someone who claims to be unaffected by interweb forum interactivity..
-
Merely observational.....
:salute
-
Merely observational.....
:salute
Correctly I might add. JAW derailed both "Best fighter bomber" threads so he could bash radial engines, and anything not designed in line with the Tempest. Particularly the P-38.
Wrecked a thread about the 190 with more blather about the Typhoon and Tempest, and their cannons.
Sure there's more I'm forgetting.
If he's not a troll, he's certainly not very bright.
-
& T-A typically resorts to bogus ad-hominem rants when his spurious beliefs are held up to the facts..
FYI T-A, the need to effectively punish cross-channel (& as far as London, in daylight, even) FW 190 JABO raids
was a prime reason the whole Typhoon/Sabre program was not cancelled..
-
The ironic part is that the best tempest and it's faster brother the fury were powered by........ yup a radial! :rofl :rofl :rofl
:salute
-
Ah, wrong there again Mf, the best performing Tempest & Fury were Sabre-powered, in fact..
http://www.aafo.com/hangartalk/showthread.php?2812-Hawker-Fury-Prototypes-3-amp-4&p=110375
& of course - the same applied to the FW 190 too.. the liquid cooled V12 equipped variants were best..
-
Ah, wrong there again Mf, the best performing Tempest & Fury were Sabre-powered, in fact..
How many were front line a/c?
-
Most Tempests were Sabre powered, inc' the final production variant Mk6.
& while the jet-bent RAF didn't order the Sabre-Fury, there were twice as many built - as you thought m.m...
-
Your uber Saber Fury was behind the P&W R-2800 radial powered P-47J and P&W R-4360 radial powered XP-72.
-
Yeah right, m.m. just post a link to those USAAF flight tests that give actual figures then..
Or were they just wiki-mythical?
& FYI the Tempest I prototype was tested at 470+mph in 1943..
& so, sure those porcine Jugs could wind out up-stairs where their fat-bellied airframes had less drag,
& their turbo-chargers kept on pumpin'.. ..for a little while. 'til they over-heated , or gas-hogged all their juice..
-but at those Sabre-Fury best - lower altitudes, they'd
be barbequed like crispy roast pork, mmmm...aaarrghhh, as Homer J, would put it..
-
Here is the liquid-cooled V-16 Chrysler Hemi powered P-47..
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/hemi-aircraft.html
-
Yeah right, m.m. just post a link to those USAAF flight tests that give actual figures then..
Or were they just wiki-mythical?
& FYI the Tempest I prototype was tested at 470+mph in 1943..
& so, sure those porcine Jugs could wind out up-stairs where their fat-bellied airframes had less drag,
& their turbo-chargers kept on pumpin'.. ..for a little while. 'til they over-heated , or gas-hogged all their juice..
-but at those Sabre-Fury best - lower altitudes, they'd
be barbequed like crispy roast pork, mmmm...aaarrghhh, as Homer J, would put it..
Got a reference for the Tempest I prototype reaching more than 470 mph? No referenced figure I can find has the Mk I prototype making more than 466 mph.
-
Sure, check Mason's "The British Fighter since 1912",
& from R. Beamont, one of the Hawker test pilots (& Tempest combat Wingco)..
"My 1st experience was on HM 599, the Tempest I prototype, on 22 June 1943,
& at once this felt a livelier, more precise & in some curious way a more aggressive fighter than the Typhoon.
HM 599 was on performance testing at the time & for a period Bill Humble & I found ourselves alternately
exceeding the existing world speed record... we pushed 'max levels' progressively up to the maximum power
altitude at which a TAS of 471 mph was ultimately obtained.
For that stage of the war this was very high performance..."
-
Sure, check Mason's "The British Fighter since 1912",
& from R. Beamont, one of the Hawker test pilots (& Tempest combat Wingco)..
"My 1st experience was on HM 599, the Tempest I prototype, on 22 June 1943,
& at once this felt a livelier, more precise & in some curious way a more aggressive fighter than the Typhoon.
HM 599 was on performance testing at the time & for a period Bill Humble & I found ourselves alternately
exceeding the existing world speed record... we pushed 'max levels' progressively up to the maximum power
altitude at which a TAS of 471 mph was ultimately obtained.
For that stage of the war this was very high performance..."
Sounds a like some non FAI certified stunt flight to me. Probably into a stiff cold headwind catapaulted off a conveyer belt with WEP running the whole time.
-
Mason writes,
" When Bill Humble carried out the initial performance checks with HM 599 on 4 June that year, (`43)
he recorded a max' speed of 460 mph TAS at 24,000ft
&, after fitting a thinner tailplane, this was increased to 472 mph in September."
-
Sounds a like some non FAI certified stunt flight to me. Probably into a stiff cold headwind catapaulted off a conveyer belt with WEP running the whole time.
Very possibly, Baldy - for sure, they didn't put in a FAI air speed record claim either..
-
Mason writes,
" When Bill Humble carried out the initial performance checks with HM 599 on 4 June that year, (`43)
he recorded a max' speed of 460 mph TAS at 24,000ft
&, after fitting a thinner tailplane, this was increased to 472 mph in September."
He said she said blah blah blah. Post the test data.
-
He said she said blah blah blah. Post the test data.
Yeah, & we' re still waiting for m.m. to come up with anything more than Wiki-myth figures for those Super-Jugs.
-
Mason writes re Tempest Mk 6..
" Performance trials at Boscombe Down revealed a maximum speed of 462 mph at 19,800ft,
& exhaustive trials were flown to clear the carriage of a wide range of ground attack stores."
-
After 8 years in the game I decided to try the Spit 14 out. Is there anything specific to flying the Spit 14 and how does it compare to the Spit 16 or are they two different aircraft ?
The thread is getting rather long, so please excuse me for not reading the whole thing.
To answer your question, 14 and 16 are about as different as they can possibly be. Different engine, prop, wings (not just the clipped part, the internal structure of the wing is different), and tail. The purposes of the aircraft are also different, 16 is a low altitude ground attack fighter, 14 is a mid-high altitude air-superiority fighter.
When flying the 14, try to keep it above 10K, it's fast there, faster than a P-51.
For combat use vertical maneuvers. It has a high power to weight ratio and as every other spit keeps it's energy for a long time. Try not to get too slow (bellow 230ish), it's heavier than most other spits and you will most likely be at a disadvantage. Stay between 260 and 360.
Practice low energy high AoA maneuvering offline, the thing is very torqey. Make sure the torque doesn't kill you, you can actually learn to take advantage of it.
Try to avoid using your flaps in combat, you will bleed off a lot of energy with them down.
If you get in trouble, Spit14 accelerates very fast, if you can't outrun something you can outclimb it. 109K4 is an exception, but they are so close that the numbers depend on the fuel state of both aircraft.
When in cruise burn wing tanks first, then the top tank, then the bottom. The reason why you are leaving the bottom for last is it is self-sealing and armored, the other ones are not. Also the bottom tank is kinda small, so by the time you start burning it it's probably time to head home. The plane does burn quite a lot of fuel, do not use WEP unless you actually need it, WEP uses even more fuel, and it's noticeable.
Best glide speed is 135mph.
Let me know if you have any more specific questions.
BTW, do note that I have not been playing for a year and got back only last week, there is a small possibility I might be forgetting something.
-
TC....if you get a chance, try and look up MachFly he flies rooks, and is very good in the 14
Appreciate it.
-
The Spit14 is the best 109 ever made. Fight like a 109 (in the vertical) and you'll do great!
Agreed.
I've only goofed around in the 14 but it's climb and ability to hang on the prop seems incredible. Then it turns about as well as you'd expect a Spit to turn.
boo
-
According to Alfred Price..
"As a stop-gap the Mk XIV was placed in production, being essentially a Mk VIII fitted with the Griffon 65
engine...a considerable improvement in performance compared with the Mk IX."
-
According to Alfred Price..
"As a stop-gap the Mk XIV was placed in production, being essentially a Mk VIII fitted with the Griffon 65
engine...a considerable improvement in performance compared with the Mk IX."
The tail was also extended.
-
If by 'tail' you mean rudder, then that, along with a retracting tail wheel - was a Mk VIII deal too..
-
If by 'tail' you mean rudder, then that, along with a retracting tail wheel - was a Mk VIII deal too..
No, I mean the whole empennage. The CG got screwed up when they put a much heavier Griffon in a Spit 8, and the handling sucked, the solution was to extend the tail.
-
Figures, just about every WW2 single engine fighter had to do that to cope..
-
Figures, just about every WW2 single engine fighter had to do that to cope..
Hey, I bet you could make an argument that those wildly elongated stunt Grummans climbed faster because the extra tail weight pointed the nose higher.
-
Hey, I bet you could make an argument that those wildly elongated stunt Grummans climbed faster because the extra tail weight pointed the nose higher.
omg I wish I could +1 a post. Thank you for that BE I needed that laugh.
-
What, you mean they removed the tail-hook too?
Jest caint trust them dang cheatin' swabbies can ya...
-
Hey, I bet you could make an argument that those wildly elongated stunt Grummans climbed faster because the extra tail weight pointed the nose higher.
& FYI, Grumman DID have to elongate the F8F fin/rudder to fix instability, viz incipient dutch-roll..
According to Corky, anyhow..
-
Thanks for the answer(s) to my questions. :salute
-
Hey, I bet you could make an argument that those wildly elongated stunt Grummans climbed faster because the extra tail weight pointed the nose higher.
:rofl
-
:rofl
Yeah, & how's YOUR tailhook hangin', A.A., - still draggin' yo' ask backwards?
-
Yeah, & how's YOUR tailhook hangin', A.A., - still draggin' yo' ask backwards?
P-38s don't have tail hooks. :D
ack-ack
-
They were proposed for possible CV ops though A.A., do you know if it was ever trialled?
-
They were proposed for possible CV ops though A.A., do you know if it was ever trialled?
USN didn't like the idea of such a large plane cluttering the carrier's flight decks and didn't like the idea of liquid cooled engines so the Model 822 never progressed beyond Lockheed's paper proposal. As such the FO-1's (USN designation for F-5B) only operated from land bases in North Africa.
ack-ack
-
Ok, thanks A.A..
& the USN did trial P-51s though, & even paid to have Bell turn a P-39 in to a tail-dragger..
Wonder if there was some anti-tricycle undercart thinking there..
Mind you the F7F was bigger than the `38 & tricycle equipped, so who knows..
( F7F was limited to the biggest CVs too..)
-
spit 14 has low engine performance when off of WEP from 17,500 to 23,000 feet.
I never use WEP in that plane unless in a fight in order to coax 70 minute flights out of it.
-
Ok, thanks A.A..
& the USN did trial P-51s though, & even paid to have Bell turn a P-39 in to a tail-dragger..
Wonder if there was some anti-tricycle undercart thinking there..
Mind you the F7F was bigger than the `38 & tricycle equipped, so who knows..
( F7F was limited to the biggest CVs too..)
Eric Brown landed a tricycle geared P-39 fitted with arresting gear on a CV.