Spit 16

[Widewing]

Originally posted by BaldEagl
If all the other Spits are so good why can I beat them consistantly with a XVI?  I've had VIII's, IX's and Seafires for lunch in many differing scenarios and many hard fought, fun fights.  Have I been beaten by them?  Yes, of course, but the ratio is by far in the XVI's favor.  

You cannot determine the capability of any fighter based upon experiences in the Main Arenas. Most of the players flying in the arenas are cannon fodder in a 1v1 fight. There are only a handful of highly skilled pilots that consistently fly Spitfires in the Main Arenas. Spitfires and P-51s are the fighters most commonly selected by n00bs in the TA. This often carries over to the Main Arenas.

I have my own rating standard for Spitfires, which I categorize by altitude.

Low alt: Sea level to 8,000 ft
SpitVIII - A little bit slower than the XVI, but similar acceleration and climb. Better turn and stability.
SpitXVI - Great E fighter, average turn fighter.
SpitIX - The forgotten Spitfire. Out-turns the VIII and XVI, gets better as you go up.
SpitXIV - Pure E fighter. Needs altitude to shine.
SpitV - Great turn fighter, but dominated by later models in everything but stall-fights.
Seafire - Too heavy for its available power.
SpitI - Eight .303s and gravity fed carburetor undo this model. Very poor roll at speeds over 350 mph.

Medium alt: 8,000 ft to 18,000 ft.
SpitVIII - Still offers excellent performance.
SpitIX - Coming into its element.
SpitXVI - beginning to lose its edge as you approach 15k.
SpitXIV - Good speed, climb and acceleration, but needs more alt to really excel.
SpitV - Not enough speed, climb and acceleration to compete with those above.
Seafire - Same issues as above.
SpitI -  same issues as above.

High Alt: 18,000 ft to 30,000 ft
SpitXIV - Up high, this Spitfire has few peers.
SpitIX - Up here, the Merlin 61 can strut its stuff.
SpitVIII - Out of its element, but still good enough to be a real threat.
SpitXVI - Also out of its element. Clipped wings pay a big penalty up high.
SpitV - At high altitude, speed is king. The MkV doesn't have much speed up high.
Seafire - Far too high for this fighter. Badly outclassed up here.
SpitI -  Same issues as before, but exacerbated.

My regards,

Widewing

[VooWho]

I have film of me offline in spit16. I just took it up in the air and did some other things. I don't know how to post it.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by BaldEagl
If all the other Spits are so good why can I beat them consistantly with a XVI?  I've had VIII's, IX's and Seafires for lunch in many differing scenarios and many hard fought, fun fights.  Have I been beaten by them?  Yes, of course, but the ratio is by far in the XVI's favor.  

The only Mark that will give the XVI a true contest in my opinion is the V because they share so little among the family.  The V against the XVI becomes a true test of horsepower vs. turning ability, slash and burn against turn and burn.  Against all the others simple throttle control and e management give the XVI an advantage.

And BTW, the stall handling of the XVI, while I agree is somewhat twitchy, is fine once you learn to finess it.  It will hang in a slo-mo pursuit stall as well as any other plane and come back to life more quickly than most if needed.

All of tht said, the K/D stats on the XVI overall are abysmal (1.3 one camp that I checked) so they must not be THAT easy to  fly or else every noob in the game grabs a XVI and dies and a few pilots that fly "dweeb rides" keep the scores up.

Personally, I prefer the V.  I think it's superior to every other Mark and it fits my style like a glove.

You've answered your own questions.  You know how to use the XVI well and that's the difference.

So far this tour I'm 7-1 vs 16s and the death was when he picked me while i was in with 3 other guys.  I've had a bunch of 1 v 1s against 16s in my 38G and I keep winning them.

Does that mean the 38G is uber and the Spit sucks?  Nah.  I've just reached the point where I know what I can do in my 38G just like you know what to do in your 16.  If I can get em to fight my fight, I'm ok.

Do keep in mind however that the Spit 16 could just as easily be called the Spit LFIXe.  I'd like to believe it was at our suggestion that Pyro went with the XVI instead of LFIX just to give us a different model number.    Same bird otherwise.

In retrospect it probably would have been better to name it the LFIXe and let the skinners be able to skin 16s as well on it.  I'm guessing folks would be much less worried about it if the number was 9 instead of 16.

[SuperDud]

Nice write up WW!

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by Knegel
Try the same without the "magical flaps".

They're called Fowler flaps, and why would anyone not want to use them?  Even the Pilots Manual for the Lockheed P-38 Lightning recommended using the Fowler flaps for turning.  A fighter that heavy needs them to be competitive with lighter kites.

[Serenity]

Originally posted by loony1

turns inside a zero

Nope. Spitfire mk IX, VIII, V, Seafire IIc, and Spitfire mk I all turn inside it, not to mention Hurricanes and of course zeros. You were in a bad E-state. I completely agree they are overmodelled, but they are bad turners. The error I beleive, is in its lift and the strenght of the engine. It hovers. Its a UFO. It needs to be fixed.

[Serenity]

Oh, and yeah. the Spixteen has issues, again in the vertical. THats where its screwed up. Its VERY easy to kill. It really is. Any turn fighter, and any P-40E can easily incinerate one. Just never challenge it in the vertical. Thats why the kill stats are down. n00bs TnB, and thats where they get eaten. As soon as they learn to climb they are unstoppable.

lol Guppy. Im not so sure. Im more afraid of mk IXs than spixteens, because the only ones who fly the mk IX, are the ones who know how to fight. The same WOULD go for the V, but I know a lot of n00bs who are knowlageable (Yeah, I spelled that wrong, its been a long day) enough to recognize the V, and have been warned not to fly the Spixteen then go to Vs and are again baby seals. There are many more good pilots in mk Vs than in XVIs, I find. Id like to see the XVIe though. The non-clipped. Im curious as to if it too would be a UFO here.

[Knegel]

Originally posted by Benny Moore
They're called Fowler flaps, and why would anyone not want to use them?  Even the Pilots Manual for the Lockheed P-38 Lightning recommended using the Fowler flaps for turning.  A fighter that heavy needs them to be competitive with lighter kites.

I know fowlerflaps, but i never saw fowler flaps that double the liftfactor of a wing without to increase the drag dramatically, but thats what many flaps in AH do and thats why i call them "magic flaps".

Although the fowler flaps was more effective than most other systems, they dont made the P38 to a good sustained turning plane, like it is in AH!!

The P38 was know as a very good B&Z plane and the pilots wrote, "with help of the combat flaps, we could turn inside the smaler planes", to turn inside a plane dont mean to turn with it!!

Imho the AH P38 have a to high E-bleed without using the flaps, what make this "magical flaps" needed to provide a somewhat credible result, while the way to get this result isnt credible.

Same count for the magical F4U flaps, while the F4U without the flaps already show the great realistic advantages of this plane(high speed, good upzoom, good roll), this "magical flaps" in combination with its realistic advantages make the F4U (specialy the -4) to the monster dweeb plane in AH.

btw, this have nothing to do with Luftwhining, the 109F also behave to good in relation to the other 109īs and the A6M5 keep to much energy at highspeed(similar to the HurriIIc).

In hands of a good pilot the 16 was probably one of the best low level dogfighters in WWII, but according to the pilots already the normal winged Spits did need a good pilot cause the very light elevator, the cw Spit did count as even more difficult regarding the usage of the elevator.
Absolut nothing of this i can find in AH. Who wanna know how bad slowspeed handling and difficult stall behaviour feels in AH, should try the Ta152 at slow speed. In Ta152 the aspectratio related high lift dont seems to work, in oposide to the P38. Even with 25% fuel the Ta snap roll extreme from one side to the next at 105mph(engine out, so torque isnt a argument), while the extreme heavy wingloaded(100% fuel) P38L dont snaproll at all and lower the nose at 95mph(no flaps). The Spit16 lower its nose at 70-80mph and if a roll happen, its rather smoth.

Since the Ta152H is one of the few german planes that got rated as very good even by the allied testilots, i will compare it with the P38L and Spit16:

Wingload:
P38L(100% fuel): 260kg/mē
Spit16(100% fuel) : 158kg/mē
Ta152H(25% fuel): 188kg/mē

Wing aspect ratio(one of the best arguments to explain the good P38 behaviour, despite its high wingload and this is a absolut valid argument. The Aspecratio is at least as important as the wingarea, specialy if it comes to slowspeed lift/drag behaviour):

P38: 8,2
Spit cw: 4,59
Ta152H: 8,8

Power off stall speeds in Ah with the above settings:

P38L: 95-100mph(P38 manual say 100mph with a bit less weight, so thats rather ok)
Spit16: 70-80mph (Pilot notes say 95mph @ 3250kg)
Ta152H: 105mph.

If i compare this datas i would say in Ah they did install the airfoil of the Ta152H headover, or they did calculate it with the Spit16īs aspect ratio, while they took the Ta152H aspectratio to calculate the Spit16 lift.

This would explain why hte Ta152H perform the snap roll of a unstable wing-form and why the Spit16 stall rather smooth(at least in this relation).

This incredible high lift also explain the incredible energy management of the 16.

Greetings,

Knegel

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Serenity
It hovers. Its a UFO. It needs to be fixed.

You have film and accurate data to back up your claims?


ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Serenity
Oh, and yeah. the Spixteen has issues, again in the vertical. THats where its screwed up.

Again, do you have any data to back your claims?


ack-ack

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by Knegel
I know fowlerflaps, but i never saw fowler flaps that double the liftfactor of a wing without to increase the drag dramatically, but thats what many flaps in AH do and thats why i call them "magic flaps".

The Fowler flaps do not double the lift on the P-38 in Aces High II, Herr Knegel, or anything like it.  Do some actual testing.

Originally posted by Knegel
Although the fowler flaps was more effective than most other systems, they dont made the P38 to a good sustained turning plane, like it is in AH!!

Yes, they did.  Without flaps, the P-38 out-turned the FW-190 and P-47, but with flaps it also out-turned the Me-109 and P-51.

Originally posted by Knegel
The P38 was know as a very good B&Z plane and the pilots wrote, "with help of the combat flaps, we could turn inside the smaler planes", to turn inside a plane dont mean to turn with it!!

The only country the fighters of which P-38s typically had to use the "boom-and-zoom" tactic against was Japan, because the Japanese had just about the most maneuverable fighters in the world.  Generally, all fighters had to use that tactic against Japanese crates, not just the P-38.  However, Standard U.S.A.A.F. tactics for the P-38 in Europe was dogfighting; specifically, P-38 pilots were instructed to - wait for it - use the Fowler flaps to out-turn the enemy.

Of course, that's a generalization.  There's a time and a place for everything.  Sometimes it was necessary to boom-and-zoom German planes, just as it was sometimes necessary for P-38s to turn fight with Zekes.  When doing the latter activity, they used maneuver flaps and sometimes even full flaps.

[Knegel]

Hi Benny,

i dont know where you did read that the P38 pilots got introduced to make a close dogfight over europe, but thats absolut new to me.

What i most times read is that the P38 had bad problems in Europe, until the pilots did use B&Z tactics.

btw, the P38G in AH dont have fowler flaps!! At least the graphic show normal split flaps.

The P38 had a much to bad rollratio at slower speeds to make a effective dogfight. A systained turn dont mean the turnability in general, a sustained turn get much influenced by powerload and here the P38, like all other US planes was rather bad(actually so they are without flaps in AH).
Even the late P38J and L with 2 x 1600HP was rather poor in relation to the 109G10, G14 and K4, former versions was  even worse in relation to the german planes.

And again, the statement to be able to turn inside a plane dont mean to turn with it for longer time or to be able to make a good stallfight.

Actually the P38G flaps in AH double the turnperformence, they maybe dont double the lift, but they simply dont work like flaps should.

Without flaps it need roundabout 28sec to turn 360° at around 160mph in 4k alt.(thats actually what i would expect by a so underpowered plane)
With FULL flaps(full flaps have no "fowler effect" at all in any P38) it need 26sec for 360° at 105mph.  
The P38 maybe was able to fly with 105mph fully banked, but for sure it dont would turn faster than without flaps, simply cause the flaps create a very high drag.

Thats what i call "magical flaps"(F4U flaps work in the same way, maybe even more magical)!!

Greetings,


Knegel

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Knegel
Hi Benny,

i dont know where you did read that the P38 pilots got introduced to make a close dogfight over europe, but thats absolut new to me.

What i most times read is that the P38 had bad problems in Europe, until the pilots did use B&Z tactics.

btw, the P38G in AH dont have fowler flaps!! At least the graphic show normal split flaps.

Yes, the P-38G does have combat maneuvering/Fowler Flaps.  It doesn't have dive flaps, those didn't come until the late model J and L series.

The P38 had a much to bad rollratio at slower speeds to make a effective dogfight. A systained turn dont mean the turnability in general, a sustained turn get much influenced by powerload and here the P38, like all other US planes was rather bad(actually so they are without flaps in AH).
Even the late P38J and L with 2 x 1600HP was rather poor in relation to the 109G10, G14 and K4, former versions was  even worse in relation to the german planes.

True, the early model P-38s did have problems with the roll rate at medium to slow speeds but with the boosted ailerons that came in with the L series, that was alleviated somewhat.  However, at high speeds the P-38's roll rate was very good.

And again, the statement to be able to turn inside a plane dont mean to turn with it for longer time or to be able to make a good stallfight./quote]

I think a lot confuse the term "turn fighting" and actually think that it's just only a fight based around flat turns.  Most turn fighting engagements were angle fights, planes maneuvering for an angle and not necessarily using flat turns to gain the angle.  While the P-38 would be fodder against most planes in a flat turn fight, in an angles fight where the P-38 can use its flaps to gain an angle, the P-38 was quite capable in this regard.  Dan has posted a story of an engagement between some new pilots flying P-38Gs that got bounced on the deck by Bf109s and beat the German planes in an angles fight using their flaps.

Actually the P38G flaps in AH double the turnperformence, they maybe dont double the lift, but they simply dont work like flaps should.

[/b]

Since I've never flown a real P-38, I really can't say who the flaps were supposed to perform but from what I've read over the years, AH has it quite close, the only exception being the auto-retracting feature.

Without flaps it need roundabout 28sec to turn 360° at around 160mph in 4k alt.(thats actually what i would expect by a so underpowered plane)
With FULL flaps(full flaps have no "fowler effect" at all in any P38) it need 26sec for 360° at 105mph.  
The P38 maybe was able to fly with 105mph fully banked, but for sure it dont would turn faster than without flaps, simply cause the flaps create a very high drag.

Thats what i call "magical flaps"(F4U flaps work in the same way, maybe even more magical)!!

But the flaps in real life generated a nice amount of lift which in a turn fight can help make the turn a little tighter.  Here is an example, the P-38L had dive flaps that generated positive lift when deployed to aid in the recovery after a high speed dive.  P-38 pilots soon learned that you can also deploy the dive flaps during a high speed turn fight to help in high speed maneuvering.  And when they used the flaps, they only deployed them as needed and raised them afterwards.  So again, you're assuming that when a P-38 pilot uses flaps that he keeps them deployed the entire time.  I only use my flaps when needed and then raise them when I don't.  That's why if you watch any of my films you always hear the flaps moving.  I'm guessing the real P-38 pilots used the flaps the same way.


ack-ack

Greetings,


Knegel [/B]

[Karnak]

Ack-Ack,

I understood that the boosted ailerons didn't help with low speed, where the pilot could just muscle maximum deflection, but only with high speed where the P-38s before the boosted ones really faired poorly.  The boosted ones roll great at speed, the unboosted ones roll terribly at speed.

That is how I understood it in anycase.

[Benny Moore]

One thing to keep in mind is that the real P-38s had a lot more power, although we are talking about the early ratings we have in the game.  NACA data indicates that the boosted ailerons significantly improved roll rate at almost all speeds.  All P-38's from the P-38F-15 and onward had the maneuver flaps (but I believe they had Fowlers even before that).  It's the dive flaps that didn't appear until the P-38J-25.  Real Fowler flaps do improve turn time; they extend the wing area and therefore lower the wingloading, as well as providing all of the benefits of conventional flaps, and Fowlers cause no more drag than conventional flaps.  The P-38 does not, however, "double" its turning ability with flaps in the game.  As I said, it's not even close to that.  Fowler flaps should add about 40% more lift (30% more than conventional flaps, I believe, according to NACA).  The P-38 turns quite a bit less than 40% better (I'm not saying it should turn 40% better, as it's obviously a lot more complicated than that).  Lastly, if you've never read about P-38 pilots being told to out-turn the German fighters, you haven't done hardly any reading on the P-38.  The only situation where P-38s were not able to effectively dogfight with the Me-109 was at high altitude, where the engines did not put out enough power to make the maneuver flaps effective.  Below 20,000 feet, however, the two were very close in turning ability, with all of my sources giving the edge to the P-38 as long as it used the maneuver flaps.