Author Topic: fixing Spitfires, not about engines (Read 1083 times)

Kev367th · « **Reply #15 on:** July 18, 2005, 11:41:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Squire
"Are you guys so sure ours is "wrong"? "

In a word, yes.

But look, nobody is "raving" against HTC, we just would like to see a few tweaked improvement in the IX series. By improvement I mean "more accurate" not "better". Its not a FM-whine about a missing 10mph.

Researching the E armament on the Spit IXs is not very hard, that armament came into service in mid-44, by which time the F.IX was no longer in use save a few units. Its pretty straightforward.

...and a new 1943-44 Spit of some kind added for TOD. Many discussions above.

Actaully the F IX wasn't a highly produced variant. It was supplanted very quickly in 1943 by the LF IX (most produced Mk IX).

For our current Mk IX to be accurate - Remove the 50 cal options AND the ord carrying capability.

Theres no definative numbers but the breakdown is 'roughly' -
LF IX - 3600+
F IX and HF IX - 2000
As you can see the LF IX outnumbers the combined production of both the F and HF Mk IX.

Remember also the early Mk IX were a Mk V airframe with a Merlin 61 shoehorned in.

The basic problem is the almost the whole Spit lineup is fugged -
Mk I is a 1939 6lbs boost one, not a 1940 12lbs boost.
Mk V should have a fuel tank option.
Mk IX is just a frankenstein.

1K3 · « **Reply #16 on:** July 18, 2005, 11:56:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th

Mk IX is just a frankenstein.

Good one!:lol

Krusty · « **Reply #17 on:** July 18, 2005, 11:57:47 PM »

Kill them all, let God sort it out.

By that I mean trash each and every spit there is and start over.

By the way, I don't think spits were running +12 at the BoB, if the spitVs came out with +12. Not likely.

Karnak · « **Reply #18 on:** July 19, 2005, 12:21:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
By the way, I don't think spits were running +12 at the BoB, if the spitVs came out with +12. Not likely.

There seems to be documentation that contradicts this however. It seems that Spitfire MK Is started converting to +12lbs boost WEP in March, 1940.

Kev367th · « **Reply #19 on:** July 19, 2005, 11:06:13 AM »

Yup Spits in the BoB were at 12lbs boost on 100 grade fuel, not 6lbs on 85 grade.

JB42 · « **Reply #20 on:** July 19, 2005, 11:33:22 AM »

Well in case you didn't know, Spit5 in AH WEP boosts to +16. Now I have heard the rant about hybriding the b with c to fill a gap, but you can't simply do that. The b ran the Merlin 45 engine while the c ran the Merlin 50 and an extra fuel tank. So what your getting is the agility of the b model with the power of the c. That's fine, as long as you put the A8 engine in my A5

Karnak · « **Reply #21 on:** July 19, 2005, 12:12:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by JB42
Well in case you didn't know, Spit5 in AH WEP boosts to +16. Now I have heard the rant about hybriding the b with c to fill a gap, but you can't simply do that. The b ran the Merlin 45 engine while the c ran the Merlin 50 and an extra fuel tank. So what your getting is the agility of the b model with the power of the c. That's fine, as long as you put the A8 engine in my A5

No Spitfire fan asked for this though and most of the vocal ones have asked for it to be made acurate, so buzz off.

Krusty · « **Reply #22 on:** July 19, 2005, 12:53:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
Yup Spits in the BoB were at 12lbs boost on 100 grade fuel, not 6lbs on 85 grade.

I don't buy that. Not entirely. From my understanding the 100 octane was in short supply AND was being stockpiled for use with upgraded spitfire engines, but was not yet widely dispersed, nor widely used.

100 octane was a fairly new idea for the Brits at the time (so to speak). I don't think it could be instantly distributed and every engine up-rated for its use so fast. Logistics takes time.

Kev367th · « **Reply #23 on:** July 19, 2005, 03:21:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by JB42
Well in case you didn't know, Spit5 in AH WEP boosts to +16. Now I have heard the rant about hybriding the b with c to fill a gap, but you can't simply do that. The b ran the Merlin 45 engine while the c ran the Merlin 50 and an extra fuel tank. So what your getting is the agility of the b model with the power of the c. That's fine, as long as you put the A8 engine in my A5

Well -
The highest model Merlin fitted to Vb was the 46 (F Vb)
The highest model Merlin fitted to Vc was the 56 (F Vc)

Highest horsepower for each one
LF Vb - Merlin 45M
LF Vc - Merlin 55M

So you weren't far off.

Kev367th · « **Reply #24 on:** July 20, 2005, 10:57:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
I don't buy that. Not entirely. From my understanding the 100 octane was in short supply AND was being stockpiled for use with upgraded spitfire engines, but was not yet widely dispersed, nor widely used.

100 octane was a fairly new idea for the Brits at the time (so to speak). I don't think it could be instantly distributed and every engine up-rated for its use so fast. Logistics takes time.

Yes it was stockpiled, from well before the war even started.
It was released to squadrons in May 1940, AFTER engine conversions were started in March. (Luftwaffe vs RAF Book). This would make sense considering it's when Churchill took over.
It increased the HP from 1030 to 1310

Nashwan · « **Reply #25 on:** July 20, 2005, 11:40:43 AM »

Quote

100 octane was a fairly new idea for the Brits at the time (so to speak). I don't think it could be instantly distributed and every engine up-rated for its use so fast. Logistics takes time.

The process of switching to 100 octane began with tests and order for the fuel in 1937, by November 1940 (just as the battle finished) the stockpile was 500,000 tons.

There are various air ministry documents recommending the immediate switch over dating from late 1939, and the technical documents show that it wasn't a very complicated procedure.

In fact, switching to CS props was probably more complex, and the entire Spitfire and Hurricane force was converted in very short order (1 - 2 months)

Quote

From my understanding the 100 octane was in short supply AND was being stockpiled for use with upgraded spitfire engines, but was not yet widely dispersed, nor widely used.

Apart from the size of the stockpile, Mike Williams has now documented 18 Spitfire squadrons running on 100 octane during the battle, which is pretty much all of them.

Wood and Dempster note that FC used 22,000 tons of 100 octane between July and October, which is enough for about 6000 Spit and Hurricane sorties a week, the actual total of operational sorties was about 4,000 a week.

Delirium · « **Reply #26 on:** July 20, 2005, 12:48:54 PM »

We can spew numbers and text all day long... it doesn't help the situation any.

What I don't understand is why the SpitV in AH has more sorties than the Spit9, it shows there is a problem.

Wotan · « **Reply #27 on:** July 20, 2005, 01:04:05 PM »

Quote

What I don't understand is why the SpitV in AH has more sorties than the Spit9, it shows there is a problem.

No it doesn't.

What it reflects is the typical combat altitude in AH.

The AH Spit F.IX is a better performer the higher up you go. If the combat in AH were typically at a higher alitudet (above 15k or so) useage numbers would be reversed.

The G-2 gets more sorties then the G-6. What 'problem' is there in that?

People who don't understand the issues at hand ought to just read and learn.

Kev367th · « **Reply #28 on:** July 20, 2005, 02:14:18 PM »

IF we get an LF IX or LF XVI with the remodel I think you'll see the Spit IX/XVI in front of the V again.

As was pointed out our current Spit is an F IX (using term loosely), more suited to higher alts, the LF models of the Spit would see more use.

Mk V with WEP is only marginally slower than the IX at low alts, but it turns a hell of a lot better, therefore it see's more use in the AH environment.

Throw an LF IX or LF VXI in the mix, then see the difference.