Spit 16 observations (much ado about nothing)

[BnZs]

No, actually he is proving my point. The performance differences in various models of spitfires can be lost on someone like me. I cannot effectively use to my advantage, the better characteristics of the 16 over the 8.

Anyone who can has some skill and would be able to fly a "lesser" spit with success as well.

Well, truth is VIIIs and IXs are not *exactly* lesser Spits...not completely anyway, although I think the XVI's roll rate is more MA valuable than the VIII's slight edge in turn rate and radius.

[jimson]

Well, truth is VIIIs and IXs are not *exactly* lesser Spits..

A relative term.

[Anaxogoras]

Pretty sure he means the VIII and IX are very competitive in the arenas.  You can almost never go wrong in selecting them for a wide variety of combat conditions.  My only gripe with the IX is the difficulty of extending away from a bad position.

[Fulmar]

It's kind of sad that HTC's 3D modeling of the Spit 16 is pretty poor.  I mean just look at this picture, they look nothing alike!

[SgtPappy]

Pft. Our game doesn't seem to reflect what pilots thought about RL spits...

The Mk.VIII was superior to both the IX and the XVI. More fuel, stronger wings and a retractable tailwheel. Jeff Quill's favourite Merlin Spit.

The XVI was really more of bast*rd child. The ONLY reason why it was built from what I gather is because Rolls-Royce couldn't build enough Merlins for the LF.Mk.IX Spitfires so Packard was given license to build Merlin 66's designated 266's in RAF service.

This engine actually engaged and disengaged its 2nd supercharger impeller at different heights than the 66 and pilots actually thought that these XVI's were reject Mk.IX's! There's actually a thread on the Spit XVI's performance curve... it should differ from the Spit VIII's though the XVI uses the *same* engine, albeit, a copied; slightly different version.

[Scotty55OEFVet]

I think that's just a bit harsh, not to mention inaccurate.  You don't need to be an expert on ACM terms to see and experience the differences in the way different planes fly.

Jimson is on the right path, the one most of us have taken.  You start with planes that help compensate for your inexperience.  As your experience grows, you move on to planes that offer more of a challenge.

- oldman

I agree with you man.  Doesn't matter what plane you fly, and you will get a lot of crap for flying the Spits because "they are so easy to fly", but it still takes a talented pilot to be able to get on the nme aircraft's 6, get a good solution, stay with them while they jerk all to hell, and then land hits.  Good Post!!!

[boomerlu]

Nope, knowing these principles is all important if you want to compare plane performance. And when it comes to things like the example I gave (the difference between rate and radius and the implications thereof), they just are not the sort of thing  people just grasp intuitively that I have seen.

Pretty simple if you just explain it briefly. Turn rate is how fast the nose comes around, turn radius has to do with the size of the circle you make when turning.

Rate is more important to get your nose in position for a shot - whether it be a tracking shot or a snapshot. Radius is more important in a low speed TnB fight because the guy with the larger radius will perpetually be stuck in lag pursuit.

The turn numbers on the 8 vs 16 are VERY close from Spatula's stats. 16 has a tighter radius surprisingly and the 8 has a better rate (by about 1 dps).

[BnZs]

Pretty simple if you just explain it briefly. Turn rate is how fast the nose comes around, turn radius has to do with the size of the circle you make when turning.

Rate is more important to get your nose in position for a shot - whether it be a tracking shot or a snapshot. Radius is more important in a low speed TnB fight because the guy with the larger radius will perpetually be stuck in lag pursuit.

Sustained turn rate wins nose-to-tail turning fights. Which simply means both guys turning the same direction, i.e, perhaps the majority of turn fights you see. This bit of knowledge is surprisingly uncommon.

Which is why if someone says "Which turns better? Spit or Corsair? P-47 D-11 or Ta-152" to be honest one has to say "It depends"

Another common saw "Reduce throttle to turn better..." Well...not exactly. If you are in a nose-to-tail chase at or below corner speed, reducing throttle and speed to further below corner velocity is the last thing you want to do.

[boomerlu]

Sustained turn rate wins nose-to-tail turning fights. Which simply means both guys turning the same direction. Which is most turn fights you see.

Which is why if someone says "Which turns better? Spit or Corsair? P-47 D-11 or Ta-152" to be honest one has to say "It depends"

I wouldn't say sustained turn rate wins nose-to-tail fights. Consider an extreme example - suppose one pilot had a turn radius of zero, while the other had any non-zero turn radius. If they were engaged in a turning fight and pilot, the pilot with the bigger turn radius will NEVER be able to get his nose to point towards the guy with zero radius. It helps to imagine the guy with zero radius in the center of the circle.

In any less extreme case, if the circle of a plane with a smaller radius is completely inside the circle of a second plane with larger radius and both were committed to a nose-to-tail turn fight, the "outside" plane once again will NEVER be able to get his nose pointed towards the tighter turner.

Addendum: if the smaller radius plane is only partially inside the bigger radius turn circle, that means the circles intersect at some point and the bigger radius plane will have a chance for a snapshot.

[BnZs]

True in theory, in practice 1. Even the Zero doesn't have zero turn radius. and 2. There is an upper practical limit to how much larger a real airplane's turn radius can be than another and it still be able to sustain a superior turn rate, make sense?

In practical terms, there can be quite a dramatic difference in turn radius and the plane with superior rate will still eventually be able to bring his nose to bear. For instance, Ta-152 vs. P-47D-11, the 152 will eventually come around on D-11 in a sustained nose-to-tail chase, even though the disparity in turn radius is fairly dramatic.

I wouldn't say sustained turn rate wins nose-to-tail fights. Consider an extreme example - suppose one pilot had a turn radius of zero, while the other had any non-zero turn radius. If they were engaged in a turning fight and pilot, the pilot with the bigger turn radius will NEVER be able to get his nose to point towards the guy with zero radius. It helps to imagine the guy with zero radius in the center of the circle.

In any less extreme case, if the circle of a plane with a smaller radius is completely inside the circle of a second plane with larger radius and both were committed to a nose-to-tail turn fight, the "outside" plane once again will NEVER be able to get his nose pointed towards the tighter turner.

Addendum: if the smaller radius plane is only partially inside the bigger radius turn circle, that means the circles intersect at some point and the bigger radius plane will have a chance for a snapshot.

[boomerlu]

True in theory, in practice 1. Even the Zero doesn't have zero turn radius. and 2. There is an upper practical limit to how much larger a real airplane's turn radius can be than another and it still be able to sustain a superior turn rate, make sense?

In practical terms, there can be quite a dramatic difference in turn radius and the plane with superior rate will still eventually be able to bring his nose to bear. For instance, Ta-152 vs. P-47D-11, the 152 will eventually come around on D-11 in a sustained nose-to-tail chase, even though the disparity in turn radius is fairly dramatic.

Right, this is because nobody flies the "perfect" turn circles I described and because there's always a way out of "faster rate, slower radius" so that you can kill your opponent - extend away and come back. When all's said and done, I'd much have a faster rate because it's more flexible.

As far as the upper practical limit - we do have several examples of planes with a larger radius but faster rate than others.

Taking my example of a very small radius versus a larger one that turns with a faster rate in nose-tail: the guy with the faster rate will again be perpetually stuck in lag pursuit but will "go around" the circle much faster. Thus he will fly in front of the smaller radius plane's guns briefly, but then move out of them quickly. The problem with the small radius low rate turner is that he won't ever be able to "properly" line up a shot - the high rate turner WILL pass in front of his guns, but unexpectedly since he will be coming from underneath (ie from a blind spot).

[BnZs]

Right, this is because nobody flies the "perfect" turn circles I described and because there's always a way out of "faster rate, slower radius" so that you can kill your opponent - extend away and come back. When all's said and done, I'd much have a faster rate because it's more flexible.

As far as the upper practical limit - we do have several examples of planes with a larger radius but faster rate than others.

Yes we do...my point is that the turn radius disparity would have to be VERY large for the guy with the faster sustained turn rate to fit in your example below. And as you correctly point out, the guy with superior turn rate can go out-of-plane to adjust the geometry.

Practical end of all of this is that there are several matches in AHII where the plane with notably larger turn radius can win the "turn fight" through superior sustained with rate, but this is not widely known. La* vs. F4U-1* and Ta-152 vs. D-11 are probably the best examples.

Taking my example of a very small radius versus a larger one that turns with a faster rate in nose-tail: the guy with the faster rate will again be perpetually stuck in lag pursuit but will "go around" the circle much faster. Thus he will fly in front of the smaller radius plane's guns briefly, but then move out of them quickly. The problem with the small radius low rate turner is that he won't ever be able to "properly" line up a shot - the high rate turner WILL pass in front of his guns, but unexpectedly since he will be coming from underneath (ie from a blind spot).

[BnZs]

Re: SpitVIII vs. SpitXVI

Remember that these tests are usually done at some nominal fuel load, like 50%. It can skew the results if one plane carries a good deal more fuel. For example, P-47N vs. P-47D-40, the N actually has about the same flight time on 50% that the D-40 has on 75%, and the climb numbers come out much more similar when both are loaded this way.

[boomerlu]

Yes we do...my point is that the turn radius disparity would have to be VERY large for the guy with the faster sustained turn rate to fit in your example below. And as you correctly point out, the guy with superior turn rate can go out-of-plane to adjust the geometry.

In theory, turn rate that is ANY smaller CAN give rise to the situation I describe. Practically, the bigger the disparity the easier it is to achieve. For the practical purposes of our AH discussion, you're right.

Practical end of all of this is that there are several matches in AHII where the plane with notably larger turn radius can win the "turn fight" through superior sustained with rate, but this is not widely known. La* vs. F4U-1* and Ta-152 vs. D-11 are probably the best examples.

Right, as we both mentioned - I'd probably use out-of-plane maneuvering to adjust and go in.

Re: SpitVIII vs. SpitXVI
Remember that these tests are usually done at some nominal fuel load, like 50%. It can skew the results if one plane carries a good deal more fuel. For example, P-47N vs. P-47D-40, the N actually has about the same flight time on 50% that the D-40 has on 75%, and the climb numbers come out much more similar when both are loaded this way.

Good point, I completely forgot about this. The 8 does have quite a bit more fuel than the 16, which should account for the difference in "expectations" and "test numbers".

[Shuffler]

I'm waiting on Dan (Guppy/corkyjr) to post here. He knows about spits.