Author Topic: Spitfire IX overmodeled?? (Read 35598 times)

Batz · « **Reply #15 on:** January 20, 2004, 08:49:55 AM »

An extra 10mph at 22k isn't going make much of a difference at all.

Claiming Ht is biased against LW planes is the same crap that folks have been espousing for years and all but guarantees that these questions go ignored.

My post was a question not an accusation, for all I know I am completely off base.

I do know that even if the g6 is 10 mph to slow at 22k the g10 by HT's charts does 452 at alt. Now go a do a search and see if you can find any info that shows a g10 can hit 452. So it may be to fast.

Ecke-109- · « **Reply #16 on:** January 20, 2004, 09:06:07 AM »

Batz,
please calm down.
I spoke in general. Sometimes, 10mph makes THE difference.

@Storch
That wasnt a good idea. Your SA sux a bit.
This thread started not that bad.

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #17 on:** January 20, 2004, 10:21:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by F4UDOA
I have some outstanding 109 and 190 data.

I just need an impartial translator.

Well if you need, you can post those somewhere, or even email them to guys who speak German.. not a very hard task. Hell if u want even I can do it.

As for the Mk IX`s consumption, the manual says on page 37 130 imp. galls/h for 3000RPM/+15 lbs, and 105 imp.gall for 2850 RPM/+12 lbs . If I understand correctly we have this, the Merlin 61 variant here. Given the 85 liter internal tank, this should be enough for

40 mins of run at WEP (5 min limit)
74 mins of run at Max. Climb (1 hour limit).

MiloMorai · « **Reply #18 on:** January 20, 2004, 11:59:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Well if you need, you can post those somewhere, or even email them to guys who speak German.. not a very hard task. Hell if u want even I can do it.

F4UDOA, taking your chances if you do that. That is like keeping a pet Rattlesnake. Better to find another who can translate for you.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #19 on:** January 20, 2004, 12:59:22 PM »

MiloMorai,

You are 100% right. I have been down that road before.

I have sent some to Pyro on Fuel consumption.

HTC does not favor Allied planes or Axis planes IMHO. I have issues with the fuel consumption of the F6F and F4U as well as stall speeds etc. HTC provides a resonable representation of each A/C without getting to essoteric about any one. Believe me I have been whining about the F4U for years. Also our Spit IX has very low performance for any late 1942 version of the Spit. Imagine if we a Spit IX LF from 1944. The whines would be endless.

Isegrim,

You are right about weight and duration of the IX. That was my original post is that it is to light and flys to long.

I will upload some Luftwaffe stuff for general consumption. It's all from the web but mostly from other sources. Who knows maybe it's all old news. I will let the inmates figure it out.

Angus · « **Reply #20 on:** January 20, 2004, 06:22:51 PM »

I can read German.
+ Wife is German

Reaper5 · « **Reply #21 on:** January 20, 2004, 08:15:09 PM »

Fine with me to cut it's endurance, I usually only fly the spit when I'm not going far anyway.

Karnak · « **Reply #22 on:** January 20, 2004, 08:47:21 PM »

The Spitfire IX goes farther than my Mossie....

sniff

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #23 on:** January 20, 2004, 10:41:56 PM »

One thing that surprises me is how much more endurance a Spitfire or an La7 has on 3/4 fuel than a 109...

Karnak · « **Reply #24 on:** January 21, 2004, 12:37:52 AM »

Hmmm.

My books usually list a significantly shorter range for the Bf109 than for the Spitfire.

Spitfire IX : ~430 miles on internal
Spitfire XIV: ~460 miles on internal

Bf109E: ~450 miles on internal fuel
Bf109F/G/K: ~370 miles on internal fuel

Karnak · « **Reply #25 on:** January 21, 2004, 01:17:35 AM »

Your books look more detialed than mine, though I didn't look in the good Spitfire book for Spitfire numbers.

I need a good Bf109 book.

(I think that N1K2-J range includes drop tanks)

MiloMorai · « **Reply #26 on:** January 21, 2004, 09:10:40 AM »

An Fw190A-8 at a TO weight of 4365kg(no drop tank - 640L only) had a range of 615km(382mi) to 1035km(644mi) depending on what altitude flown at andwhat boost was used. Endurance was 1.2hr to 2.18hr.

With a 300L dt(940L total) and TO weight of 4683kg, the range was 915km(568mi) to 1470km(915mi). Endurance was 1.85hr to 3.10hr.

The Fw190A-3, 2 hrs and a range of 950km(590mi) at economy setting for 1000hp(1.1ata & 2100rpm??? > depends on altitude).

Karnak · « **Reply #27 on:** January 21, 2004, 09:29:43 AM »

I have JANE'S.

Frankly its only interesting for historical views on aircraft performance. It is wrong in so many places, but given it was first published in 1946 that is hardly surprising.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #28 on:** January 21, 2004, 11:59:47 AM »

To me the single most important variable in A/C performance other than speed is fuel consumption and weight. Why? Because if a 10,000lbs A/C carry's 1,500lbs of fuel is fighting a 5,000lbs A/C with 500lbs of fuel he can compete only if relative fuel and ammo loads are equal for endurance. Otherwise he is forced to fight with an extra 1,000lbs of weight which ruins climb/accleration and turning ability. In real life this truth was proven by the success of the heavy fighter. In AH the light fighter rules because it is unaffected by the limitations of it's short endurance.

There are many questions about various fuel consumption in AH A/C that don't make sense to me.

1. Typhoon- 190GPH IMP at +7 lbs of boost with 154 gallons imp of fuel internal. 47 minutes of endurance in the MA it should be 23.5 minutes.

2. The NIK2- A 2000HP engine with 190 gallons of internal fuel. This airplane had very poor fuel available and yet has 43minutes of flight time in the MA equaling 1 hour 26 minutes of duration at Mil power in real life. This is virtually impossible when compared to the Napeir Sabre or P&W R2800 which require over 200GPH to achieve the same HP for one hour. The NIK2 would have to be almost twice as efficient.

3. La-7- Again produces 1,850HP peak and 1,600+Hp sustained in mil power with only 122 gallons internal. I have two sperate documents showing that this A/C could only fly for very short durations.

Batz · « **Reply #29 on:** January 21, 2004, 12:55:05 PM »

Quote

To me the single most important variable in A/C performance other than speed is fuel consumption and weight. Why? Because if a 10,000lbs A/C carry's 1,500lbs of fuel is fighting a 5,000lbs A/C with 500lbs of fuel he can compete only if relative fuel and ammo loads are equal for endurance. Otherwise he is forced to fight with an extra 1,000lbs of weight which ruins climb/accleration and turning ability. In real life this truth was proven by the success of the heavy fighter. In AH the light fighter rules because it is unaffected by the limitations of it's short endurance.

You certainly are obsessed with this "issue". Most wartime tests were conducted with full internal fuel. Most data you find reflects this. I would bet HT models the AH FM on such data. IMO all planes in AH should be forced to take off at normal TO weight. Use this as a minimum and work up from there. If some wants to fly around and burn off fuel then that’s up to them. With HT leaning to 512 x 512 maps make the fuel mod x1 and go through and match fuel consumption to the real data.

In AH the 152 always has fuel in its wing tanks, the a8 always has fuel in the 115-liter aft tank. The Soviets captured a "lightened a8" (W. -Nr. 580967) that weighed just 3986kg (normal take-off weight of 4360 kg).

If you are going open this can of worms I bet everyone who has a favorite plane can make a post describing instances where their favorite ride was "lightened".

Planes fought when they had to, whether like in Bodenplatte when US fighters had to up with full fuel to engage the incoming German attack or when low on fuel 262s were bounced when landing. You seem to argue that planes only fought after X amount of fuel has been burned off.

Heavy planes hold more E through a dive, they may accelerate slower but they will "zoom higher" and hold E as the pull out. In some instances there are advantages to "more weight". You may believe weight is the most important factor in your style of playing AH but I know many folks who fly with 100% every time in every plane they fly and don't think twice about it.

I would agree that with the density of planes and with the types of fighting in AH that in many instances being light has an advantage (I was/am a furballer) but that’s no more "real" then anything else in AH.

Here's a discussion they had over at AGW.

YMMV

http://agw.warbirdsiii.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26181&highlight=109g6