Author Topic: can "we" have 1 more Spitfire/109 variant? (Read 2640 times)

Larry · « **Reply #15 on:** October 14, 2005, 01:01:57 PM »

They said it might be added thats why I didnt say it.

Krusty · « **Reply #16 on:** October 15, 2005, 12:58:21 AM »

No, I thought Spit VIII was given and SpitXVI was the "maybe" plane?

Raptor · « **Reply #17 on:** October 15, 2005, 04:14:20 PM »

I have a feeling we will find out this week

Krusty · « **Reply #18 on:** October 15, 2005, 07:11:57 PM »

Well there are still other spits... We could see a re-do of the seafire (old, or new) and we could see a re-do of the XIV. That would be 3 109s and 3 spits (screenshots wise)

I think they'll hold some back til they're finished, so that they have some SS's to show on release day.

Kev367th · « **Reply #19 on:** October 16, 2005, 12:47:38 AM »

No
Spit XVI is a definate.
Spit VIII is the dodgy one.

Seafire IIc is being replaced by the L III - 18lbs boost, carries ord, Merlin 55M. (3x as many III's as IIc's.)

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #20 on:** October 17, 2005, 05:23:09 AM »

I don't really get the MkVIII thing.. having the same engine and same boost as either the MkIX or the XVI, it won't be any faster, won't climb any better, won't turn any better, and probably won't roll any better neither.

Basically it's the same plane three times, with the same performance, the MkVIII having more fuel capacity, which is great, but not in a flight sim... it's really a waste of development capacity,unless the MkIX stays as a IXF `42/43 one with Merlin 61 and +15, the MkVIII would be the LF version of 43-44 with Merlin 66/+18, and the Mk XVI being the 1945 on with some improvements and +25, which would make it a counterpart for the G-14 as a latewar free ride...

Angus · « **Reply #21 on:** October 17, 2005, 09:54:39 AM »

The Mk VIII is NOT the same aircraft as the IX.
Ok it has the Merlin 66 (same) or the Merlin 70 (in the IX too?).
Quill gives the comparison between the VIII and the IX in the following way:
"Paradoxically the "interim" Mk IX was produced in greater quantities than any other mark of the Spitfire. The Mk VIII, however, was by far the better aeroplane"

It was available with extended wings which Quill deemed unessecary. (It spoiled the aeleron control). But the aileron control on the standard one should have given it a better rollrate, - it had a different setup (stiffened structure).

So, a standard wing VIII vs a good IX has the following:
Better roll if anything.
120 rpg cannon ammo
50% more fuel.
More speed if anything.

Karnak · « **Reply #22 on:** October 17, 2005, 10:00:57 AM »

It also has a universal wing in place of the e wing on the Mk XVI.

In addition, having the Mk VIII leaves open the possibility of raising the boost of the Mk XVI to +25lbs in the future should that be deemed desireable without opening a massive gap in the Spitfire lineup.

And personally I dislike both clipped wings and .50 cals on Spits for aesthetic reasons, so I would always take the Mk VIII over the Mk XVI.

Krusty · « **Reply #23 on:** October 17, 2005, 11:43:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
The Mk VIII is NOT the same aircraft as the IX.
Ok it has the Merlin 66 (same) or the Merlin 70 (in the IX too?).
Quill gives the comparison between the VIII and the IX in the following way:
"Paradoxically the "interim" Mk IX was produced in greater quantities than any other mark of the Spitfire. The Mk VIII, however, was by far the better aeroplane"

It was available with extended wings which Quill deemed unessecary. (It spoiled the aeleron control). But the aileron control on the standard one should have given it a better rollrate, - it had a different setup (stiffened structure).

So, a standard wing VIII vs a good IX has the following:
Better roll if anything.
120 rpg cannon ammo
50% more fuel.
More speed if anything.

I have to disagree... You state these benefits over the IX... But the IX already has 120RPG, and the speed would be the same. 3mph does NOT make a "better" speed. I doubt there'd be any change in the flight model between the two, except for gas tanks. So unless the VIII was an LF (which the XVI might already be) it would be a triple redundancy. There's one too many spits... Either the VIII or the XVI is going to get the chop. Considering that the Seaf III is essentially a LFVIII we don't need the FVIII (per se).

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #24 on:** October 17, 2005, 12:27:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
The Mk VIII is NOT the same aircraft as the IX.
Ok it has the Merlin 66 (same) or the Merlin 70 (in the IX too?).
Quill gives the comparison between the VIII and the IX in the following way:
"Paradoxically the "interim" Mk IX was produced in greater quantities than any other mark of the Spitfire. The Mk VIII, however, was by far the better aeroplane"

[/B]

I don't see a conflict here, the MkVIII was a better aircraft as it had new airframe, and was far more useful on operations than the very short ranged MkIXs.

Quote

It was available with extended wings which Quill deemed unessecary. (It spoiled the aeleron control). But the aileron control on the standard one should have given it a better rollrate, - it had a different setup (stiffened structure). So, a standard wing VIII vs a good IX has the following:
Better roll if anything. [/B]

Maybe yes, maybe not. Was their any difference between the MkVIII and MKIX ailerons control ? Any details, testing etc?

Quote

120 rpg cannon ammo [/B]

Yeah but... MkIXC already had 120 rpg cannon rounds...!

[/QUOTE]
50% more fuel.
More speed if anything. [/QUOTE]

Err... these datasheets list the Merlin 66 Spit IX as 404mph maximum, and the VIII... well, the same, 404 mph.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitlf9ads.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitlf8ads.jpg

OTOH, while there was improvement in range/internal fuel amount (as big as 50%! ), the MkVIII also weighted 7800 lbs vs. 7450 lbs of the MkIX... that's 350 lbs extra, sure as hell it won't improve the manouveribility!

Treize69 · « **Reply #25 on:** October 17, 2005, 12:36:41 PM »

How about a 109T for use from carriers?

Basically just a 109E with longer wings and arrestor/catapult(?) gear.

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #26 on:** October 17, 2005, 12:51:01 PM »

109T also had the improved DB 601N engines, I guess it would make a nice step-in for the 109E-4/Ns of the BoB!

Karnak · « **Reply #27 on:** October 17, 2005, 01:23:16 PM »

Bf109T never flew from a carrier for some reason.

No reason to add it really as it is not enough of an improvement over the Bf109E.

If another Bf109 were to be added I'd like to see something between the Bf109G-14 and Bf109K-4. Something with better altitude performance than the Bf109G-14 so that the high altitude bombers could be fought more effectively.

Kev367th · « **Reply #28 on:** October 17, 2005, 01:25:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kurfürst

I don't see a conflict here, the MkVIII was a better aircraft as it had new airframe, and was far more useful on operations than the very short ranged MkIXs.

Maybe yes, maybe not. Was their any difference between the MkVIII and MKIX ailerons control ? Any details, testing etc?

Yeah but... MkIXC already had 120 rpg cannon rounds...!

50% more fuel.
More speed if anything. [/B][/QUOTE]

Err... these datasheets list the Merlin 66 Spit IX as 404mph maximum, and the VIII... well, the same, 404 mph.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitlf9ads.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitlf8ads.jpg

OTOH, while there was improvement in range/internal fuel amount (as big as 50%! ), the MkVIII also weighted 7800 lbs vs. 7450 lbs of the MkIX... that's 350 lbs extra, sure as hell it won't improve the manouveribility! [/B][/QUOTE]

The IX will be a 1942 F IX with a Merlin 61.
The VIII a 1943 LF VIII with a Merlin 66 @ 18lbs
The XVI will be a 1944 (cough) with a Merlin 66 @ 18lbs. (clipped)

Yup Kurfurst I agree the XVI at 25lbs boost would be a perfect match for the G14, unfortuneately a 5700fpm climb @25lbs from 0-5000ft has people peeing their pants.

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #29 on:** October 17, 2005, 01:34:34 PM »

Yup Kurfurst I agree the XVI at 25lbs boost would be a perfect match for the G14, unfortuneately a 5700fpm climb @25lbs from 0-5000ft has people peeing their pants.

These results are for a plane with half the fuel load that had it's radiators wired shut for the tests for less drag. It wasn't the standard way of measurement. There was no way to manually shut the radiators on the MkIX once it began to open as temperature rose - that started already 10 celsius over normal pressure.
Apply the same standards to other planes, and you will get similiarly hyper-inflated results for quite a few latewar planes.

The last I checked under comparable conditions (full load, radiators open) it did around 5080 fpm, which is nice, between 0-500(five hundred) feet altitude, which is less impressive.