PDA

View Full Version : P38J/L vs Spitfire IX/VIII



Pages : [1] 2

mynameisroland
11-15-2005, 11:16 AM
Ok guys time to waste a few hours discussing/arguing the real life and ingame merits of each type over the other. In a high speed bounce scenario I consider the Spitfire to be superior, more elevator authority at high speeds, greater cannon firepower and also nice visibility.

In a fight that becomes a dogfight I would preffer the Spitfire again. It can pull in to turns that a P38 would need to deploy beaks to follow and its rate of roll at dogfighting speeds is superior.

Apart from range, manuveres like the Clover leaf and also ground pounding abilities is there anything the P38 can do better ?

JtD
11-15-2005, 11:52 AM
Yes, feathering prop one and make it back home with engine two.

p1ngu666
11-15-2005, 12:04 PM
being a american darling, well the 3rd or 4th, cos its got that heathen cannon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

it handles nicer, and is faster tho

mynameisroland
11-15-2005, 12:16 PM
Being twice the size helps make it easier for the Lufties to shoot one of your engines in the first place JtD! As for handling nicely, the Spitfire is as light as a feather compared to the P38 while diving at speeds.

JtD
11-15-2005, 12:18 PM
Lufties don't fly over the vast emptiness of the Pacific Ocean.

Vipez-
11-15-2005, 12:49 PM
good point http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kuna15
11-15-2005, 01:09 PM
LATE Lightning RoC is excellent. In fact on 25% climbs better than any prop except 44/45 Bf-109G/K. Also it should be noted that P-38LATE has in fact big advantage over Spitfire HF.Mk.9e in rate of climb since on 25% fuel Lightning has range around 900km!!, while Spitfire cannot be loaded with 25% fuel only (with full tank Spitfire can travel ~700km, noticeable less than P-38L on 25%...).

Also it can deccelerate faster due to 'airbrakes'. Can endure more punishment / is more reliable (2engines), and does not have torque effect like Spitfire.
Take offs/landings easier than in Spitfire.

polak5
11-15-2005, 02:08 PM
the p38 can climb better at a steeper angle...

DmdSeeker
11-15-2005, 03:08 PM
P38's faster; so it can disengage at will; and it out climb the Spit IF the angle is kept very shallow and the speed very high.

As so often is the case; the P38, like many other planes, need not fear the Spit unless the pilot insists on duelling to the death.

The Spit is the ultimate duelling plane.

But that doesn't make it the ultimate fighter in any thing like realistic conditions. Real pilots, real people generally fly to live; not to kill. Those that flew to kill either died themselves or won medals.

BSS_CUDA
11-15-2005, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Apart from range, manuveres like the Clover leaf and also ground pounding abilities is there anything the P38 can do better ?

well first off "IN GAME" the 38 cannot do the Cloverleaf if it did it would eat later Spits in a turn fight. it has greater speed than the Spit, so it can engage and disengage at will. it can Dive faster than the Spit, I've done 560mph without losing my control surfaces, it retains E in a climb better. as for high speed control just tap the brakes they dont need to be deployed fully. it will climb steeper than a Spit and retains stall control much better. and still its climb rate still isnt up to specs. it will climb faster than a Spit. and Only the 109K climbs faster than a 38 at a 10% climb. it carries more ammo than a Spit. so it is able to stay in combat longer. at Alt the 38 easily out performs the HF in speed and turning abilities, the HF just LOVES to depart a wing while turning over 25,000ft the 38 will not. its ONLY competition at alt is a TA.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-15-2005, 06:16 PM
Kuna makes a good point - dive brakes. I've shaken many an attacker using these and then climbed away from them.

Also, as mentioned, the P38 carries more ammo allowing you to be a bit more 'generous' on the spray front when you snapshot etc

I'm not much for the Spit, tbh..it seems like it's above average in most departments but never really is the master of anything. Which is fine, of course, until you come up against someone who utilises his plane's 'best' aspect to beat your 'above average'

Ta,
Norris

fordfan25
11-15-2005, 06:23 PM
in game one on one id take a spit. IRL id think id rather be in a 38. in game with say 10 vs 10 spit vs 38 im not sure who would win if team tactics were evenly deployed

p1ngu666
11-15-2005, 06:29 PM
its funny how things change with patches. pre 4x only cuda would say p38 was better, but now it probably is. just handles sweeter and is faster too.

mind the L late would be a contempory to the XIV, the L perhaps a 25lb boost IX.

the J was introduced at the tail end of 43, not sure when

jds1978
11-15-2005, 06:32 PM
Apart from range, manuveres like the Clover leaf and also ground pounding abilities is there anything the P38 can do better ?

keep in mind: CAS/Jabo wins wars http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
11-15-2005, 06:34 PM
spits a better interceptor, which stops u losing teh war http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
11-15-2005, 06:52 PM
'P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat. Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true.'

Adolf Galland

CaptJodan
11-15-2005, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
in game one on one id take a spit. IRL id think id rather be in a 38.

That's funny...cause I'm the exact opposite. Knowing that the 38 wasn't really that great IRL on the ETO, I would have taken the Spit. But in the game, where engines don't **** out because of the cold, I take the 38 as my ride.

berg417448
11-15-2005, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
'P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat. Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true.'

Adolf Galland

As long as we are posting pilot accounts:

1) "Johannes Steinhoff, Kommodore of JG 77 in North Africa, Sicily and Italy, flying Bf 109s, had this to say about the P-38, 'I had encountered the long-range P-38 Lightning fighter during the last few days of the North African campaign, Our opinion of this twin-boomed, twin-engined aircraft was divided. Our old Messerschmitts were still, perhaps, a little faster. But pilots who had fought them said that the Lightnings were capable of appreciably tighter turns and that they would be on your tail before you knew what was happening. The machine guns mounted on the nose supposedly produced a concentration of fire from which there was no escape. Certainly the effect was reminiscent of a watering can when one of those dangerous apparitions started firing tracer, and it was essential to prevent them manoeuvring into a position from which they could bring their guns to bear." P-38 Lightning, by Jeffrey Ethell/The Great Book of WWII Airplanes, Bonanaza Books, 1984, page 21.

2) "Oberleutnant Franz Steigler, a 28 victory ace in the Bf 109 with JG 27 in North Africa, said the P-38s "could turn inside us with ease and they could go from level flight to climb almost instantaneously. We lost quite a few pilots who tried to make an attack and then pull up. The P-38s were on them at once. They closed so quickly that there was little one could do except roll quickly and dive down, for while the P-38 could turn inside us, it rolled very slowly through the first 5 or 10 degrees of bank, and by then we would already be gone. One cardinal rule we never forgot was: avoid fighting a P-38 head on. That was suicide. Their armament was so heavy and their firepower so murderous, that no one ever tried that type of attack more than once."P-38 Lightning, by Jeffrey Ethell/The Great Book of WWII Airplanes, Bonanaza Books, 1984Pages 21,22.

3. (Heinz Knoke description of a duel with a P-38 (from "I Flew for the Fuhrer"):

"...At once I peel off and dive into the Lightnings below. They spot us
and swing round towards us to meet the attack.... Then we are in a madly
milling dogfight...it is a case of every man for himself. I remain on the
tail of a Lightning for several minutes. It flies like the devil himself,
turning, diving, and climbing almost like a rocket. I am never able to
fire more than a few pot-shots...."

jds1978
11-15-2005, 06:55 PM
spits a better interceptor, which stops u losing teh war

lol..true, but the Lightning does both well

Aviar
11-15-2005, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Apart from range, manuveres like the Clover leaf and also ground pounding abilities is there anything the P38 can do better ?

well first off "IN GAME" the 38 cannot do the Cloverleaf if it did it would eat later Spits in a turn fight. it has greater speed than the Spit, so it can engage and disengage at will. it can Dive faster than the Spit, I've done 560mph without losing my control surfaces, it retains E in a climb better. as for high speed control just tap the brakes they dont need to be deployed fully. it will climb steeper than a Spit and retains stall control much better. and still its climb rate still isnt up to specs. it will climb faster than a Spit. and Only the 109K climbs faster than a 38 at a 10% climb. it carries more ammo than a Spit. so it is able to stay in combat longer. at Alt the 38 easily out performs the HF in speed and turning abilities, the HF just LOVES to depart a wing while turning over 25,000ft the 38 will not. its ONLY competition at alt is a TA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you mean by this part? -----> "---just tap the brakes they dont need to be deployed fully."

You have a way of partially deploying the dive brakes?

Aviar

Xiolablu3
11-15-2005, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
'P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat. Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true.'

Adolf Galland

As long as we are posting pilot accounts:

1) "Johannes Steinhoff, Kommodore of JG 77 in North Africa, Sicily and Italy, flying Bf 109s, had this to say about the P-38, 'I had encountered the long-range P-38 Lightning fighter during the last few days of the North African campaign, Our opinion of this twin-boomed, twin-engined aircraft was divided. Our old Messerschmitts were still, perhaps, a little faster. But pilots who had fought them said that the Lightnings were capable of appreciably tighter turns and that they would be on your tail before you knew what was happening. The machine guns mounted on the nose supposedly produced a concentration of fire from which there was no escape. Certainly the effect was reminiscent of a watering can when one of those dangerous apparitions started firing tracer, and it was essential to prevent them manoeuvring into a position from which they could bring their guns to bear." P-38 Lightning, by Jeffrey Ethell/The Great Book of WWII Airplanes, Bonanaza Books, 1984, page 21.

2) "Oberleutnant Franz Steigler, a 28 victory ace in the Bf 109 with JG 27 in North Africa, said the P-38s "could turn inside us with ease and they could go from level flight to climb almost instantaneously. We lost quite a few pilots who tried to make an attack and then pull up. The P-38s were on them at once. They closed so quickly that there was little one could do except roll quickly and dive down, for while the P-38 could turn inside us, it rolled very slowly through the first 5 or 10 degrees of bank, and by then we would already be gone. One cardinal rule we never forgot was: avoid fighting a P-38 head on. That was suicide. Their armament was so heavy and their firepower so murderous, that no one ever tried that type of attack more than once."P-38 Lightning, by Jeffrey Ethell/The Great Book of WWII Airplanes, Bonanaza Books, 1984Pages 21,22.

3. (Heinz Knoke description of a duel with a P-38 (from "I Flew for the Fuhrer"):

"...At once I peel off and dive into the Lightnings below. They spot us
and swing round towards us to meet the attack.... Then we are in a madly
milling dogfight...it is a case of every man for himself. I remain on the
tail of a Lightning for several minutes. It flies like the devil himself,
turning, diving, and climbing almost like a rocket. I am never able to
fire more than a few pot-shots...." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess it depends what the situation is, the quotes you have posted are all boasting certain qualities of the p38 rather than the Galland quote which is much more general, it just wasnt that hard to beat them...

Plus I am sure that the next statement in the Knocke quote will be something like '..before 5 or 6 more lightnings are on my tail' as they were massively outnumbered at that time.


Before a massive arguament develops, I'll just say, I would rather be in a spitfire 8 or 9.

BSS_Goat
11-15-2005, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:

1) "Johannes Steinhoff, Kommodore of JG 77 in North Africa, Sicily and Italy, flying Bf 109s, had this to say about the P-38, 'I had encountered the long-range P-38 Lightning fighter during the last few days of the North African campaign, Our opinion of this twin-boomed, twin-engined aircraft was divided. Our old Messerschmitts were still, perhaps, a little faster. But pilots who had fought them said that the Lightnings were capable of appreciably tighter turns and that they would be on your tail before you knew what was happening. The machine guns mounted on the nose supposedly produced a concentration of fire from which there was no escape. Certainly the effect was reminiscent of a watering can when one of those dangerous apparitions started firing tracer, and it was essential to prevent them manoeuvring into a position from which they could bring their guns to bear." P-38 Lightning, by Jeffrey Ethell/The Great Book of WWII Airplanes, Bonanaza Books, 1984, page 21.

2) "Oberleutnant Franz Steigler, a 28 victory ace in the Bf 109 with JG 27 in North Africa, said the P-38s "could turn inside us with ease and they could go from level flight to climb almost instantaneously. We lost quite a few pilots who tried to make an attack and then pull up. The P-38s were on them at once. They closed so quickly that there was little one could do except roll quickly and dive down, for while the P-38 could turn inside us, it rolled very slowly through the first 5 or 10 degrees of bank, and by then we would already be gone. One cardinal rule we never forgot was: avoid fighting a P-38 head on. That was suicide. Their armament was so heavy and their firepower so murderous, that no one ever tried that type of attack more than once."P-38 Lightning, by Jeffrey Ethell/The Great Book of WWII Airplanes, Bonanaza Books, 1984Pages 21,22.

3. (Heinz Knoke description of a duel with a P-38 (from "I Flew for the Fuhrer"):

"...At once I peel off and dive into the Lightnings below. They spot us
and swing round towards us to meet the attack.... Then we are in a madly
milling dogfight...it is a case of every man for himself. I remain on the
tail of a Lightning for several minutes. It flies like the devil himself,
turning, diving, and climbing almost like a rocket. I am never able to
fire more than a few pot-shots...." ]

BAHHH German propaganda......be sure! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
11-15-2005, 07:29 PM
**** those cunning boshe using counter propaganda to make us think the lightning is actually any good. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
11-15-2005, 08:20 PM
p38 is best american interceptor, but the biggest disadvantage irl of lightning was cost. u could normaly have 2 or more planes for the same cost..

horseback
11-15-2005, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Ok guys time to waste a few hours discussing/arguing the real life and ingame merits of each type over the other. In a high speed bounce scenario I consider the Spitfire to be superior, more elevator authority at high speeds, greater cannon firepower and also nice visibility. That would be wrong. As long as the P-38 is below 20,000 ft, there is no danger of compressibility in RL. The P-38 had outstanding elevator authority at all speeds (look at its elevator: even measured proportionally, the friggin' thing is enormous compared to other fighters), so much so that in the Med (where the P-38 groups actually knew how to fly it) German pilots were expressly warned not to pull up after the bounce, but to continue in the dive passing beneath rather than chance their intended victim or his buddies lifting his nose and hosing the Me or FW down with 20mm and .50 cal, a fate much more feared in RL than on the DF servers in-game.

I can dig around a bit and give you quotes from LW experten who fought against the 1st and 84th FGs in the Med, coupled with the combat observations of USAAF pilots who confirm it form the other side...

As a bounce target, it took a lot more hits to disable, was generally (per USAAF doctrine) moving at a high rate of speed already in the combat zone, and because of its size, hard to judge range on; attackers tended to start shooting too soon or too late. The Spit was a well known target, and every German pilot had the Spit's dimensions at the proper range calibrated in his sights.

My understanding is that the Lightning was at least in the same class as the late model Merlin Spits in climb and acceleration, and as the bouncer in a high speed bounce, would use a more shallow dive, but build up a lot more speed in a shorter time (gravity or wieght + acceleration) and can hit more heavily at any range (nose mounted armament being always at or near convergence).


In a fight that becomes a dogfight I would preffer the Spitfire again. It can pull in to turns that a P38 would need to deploy beaks to follow and its rate of roll at dogfighting speeds is superior. It would depend on pilot skill more often than not; on this point I would agree with you in general, because the Spitfire was considered easy to fly and master for combat, while the Lightning had a much longer familiarization period. In terms of potential, though, the Lightning has some advantages that a master would take every time.

But in a real fight, with real experts in the cockpits, the Lightning has more concentrated firepower (one burst and the fight would be over), more survivability (it'll take more than one hit to bring it down), more firing time (you can afford to waste a few shots), and more time on station (extra range allows me to take my time; a Spit driver has to start looking at his fuel guage a lot sooner, and he's not faster, so running away is not an option as long as the Lightning has bullets left). Also, the elevator authority gives him the roller coaster option, to pop up above the enemy's sights or drop beneath his cowl very quickly without danger of stalling.


Apart from range, manuveres like the Clover leaf and also ground pounding abilities is there anything the P38 can do better ? Range and payload are what made it far more versatile for direct action against an enemy on the ground or in the air, but here's one: Kill bombers. Remember that the Lightning was originally designed to a USAAC requirement for less than 100 interceptors, apparently to cover our coasts from attack by individual bombers crossing the Atlantic (or possibly from er, Canada).

Again, the firepower in the nose is concentrated so that at any range, the rounds from the fifties at least will all land in a circle less than 75cm in diameter. Add the effect of the 20mm in the near vicinity of that circle at most ranges between 0-300m, and BIG pieces fly off every time you hit your target.

As I pointed out earlier, nose mounted guns tend to be easier to aim accurately at any range than wing mounted armament. Heavier firepower doesn't count if you don't hit your target.

Against the medium bombers of the LW and IJN/IJAAF that the Spitfire faced, the Spits were not all that effective (in the BoB, think of how much more damage they could have done with four or six fifties instead of eight rifle caliber MGs). P-38s happening upon Ju 88s or any other multi-engine Axis aircraft was a near automatic massacre.

A flight of Spits might or might not be able to down an equal number of unescorted medium bombers, depending upon pilot skill and fuel state, but P-38s, left unmolested, would get them all, almost every time. It happened far too often to be coincidence.

cheers

horseback

p1ngu666
11-15-2005, 09:56 PM
with two or four 20mms, spits CUT thru bombers

there was plans for spit to have SIX 20mm hispanos in the wings.

in terms of interceptors, the british had probably the best until germans bolted the mk108 noob cannon on things.

spit beats 109, 2x the firepower (admittidly wing mounted)
typhoon equalish with 190, 4 20mms, and will scare the cr4p outa anyone http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
beufighter and mossie probably beat the german heavy/nf. certainly the mossie does.

ingame, from my bomber slaughter missions, the germans are probably first, hotly followed by the raf planes. the VVS are perhaps the most challenging and fun, atleast without there la7 and yak3p/yak9ut.

the american planes dont have the firepower for the job really. excluding the unamerican f4u 1c http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

the spit is actully one of the fastest of its contemporaries, here we dont often fly against its contemporaries

Xiolablu3
11-15-2005, 10:49 PM
When was the hispano in the nose added to the p38? Before or after the spitfire?

Gibbage1
11-15-2005, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
When was the hispano in the nose added to the p38? Before or after the spitfire?

I dont know.

P-38D was 37MM armed and flying in 1941. It scored its first kill on August 14th, 1942 vs a FW-200.

P-38E was the 1st 20MM armed P-38. The first P-38E victory was in August 4th, 1942. First E's delivered in April 42 as F recon.

When did the B wings first fly?

ImpStarDuece
11-16-2005, 12:23 AM
Cannon armed Spitfires first flew in 1939, but didn't see regular service until the last 3 months of 1940.

On the initial trial aircraft (some flown during the Battle of Britain) the cannon installation was unacceptable and prone to jamming and 'case crushing', forcing the British to rely on an all machine gun armament. Eventually some boffin figured out that it was a feed problem and rotated the cannon and it drum magazine onto its side, giving rise to the characteristic 'bumps' on the wings of cannon armed Spitfires. They also dialed down the rate of fire from around 800 to 650 rpm, to stop cratridge deformation which had been causing jams.

There were ~30 Spitfire IBs and 170 Spitfire IIBs produced with cannon armament, first flying under the officially accepted 'B' designation in August, 1940. Some Mk IIs were converted from earlier type 'A' wings with 8 Brownings. There were just 94 Spitfire VAs produced, the majority of production being Mk Vbs (3,991) and Vc (2,467). While the first new build Mk Vs with cannon armament started to be delivered in March, 1941, there were many Mk Vbs that were converted from Spitfire Mk I/I delivered with cannon armament.

faustnik
11-16-2005, 12:24 AM
The first cannon armed Spits were Fall 1940, I think.

EDIT: Too late. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

p1ngu666
11-16-2005, 12:26 AM
cannons where first used in bob, think the vb is 41 tho...

Xiolablu3
11-16-2005, 12:31 AM
They were used but were very poor I think, maybe not hispano? I know that the pilots hated the BOB cannon cos they jammed more often than not.

I really meant the first proper full production run of cannon armed spits. So its Mk5 then 1941.

Sorry to take this off topic I am just interested.

ImpStarDuece
11-16-2005, 12:35 AM
No.

The first proper production run of cannon armed Spitfires was Spitfire Mk IIBs in 1940, with 150 produced off the line and about 20 converted from Mk IIA.

Initially, Spitfire Mk Vs were either converted straight from Mk I/IIs into Mk VAs or Mk VBs. I don't have exact figures as my copy of Spitfire; The History is with a work colleauge at the moment.

Xiolablu3
11-16-2005, 12:49 AM
Sorry Impstardeuce, somehow I missed your earlier thread, thanks for the info http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

mynameisroland
11-16-2005, 05:10 AM
Interesting replies guys,

To Horseback fair point about concentrated firepower, the P38 is my favoured US fighter for firepower. But your argument regarding experienced pilots goes both ways, an experienced Spitfire pilot will be able to hit a target at convergence where the extra weight of having 2 x 20mm makes a difference. For snap shots the Spitfire can get a larger weight of fire on a target in a split second burst.

With regards to speed at altitude I didnt know that P38's were faster ? below 20000ft yes but at high altitudes no. In game we have 660 or 670kmh for the Lightning and 685Kmh for the L.F Spitfire. For the H.F Spitfire we get 705kmh. In reality the P38's were out performed at high alitudes by two stage Merlin Spitfires. The Spitfire at altitude had few equals, the P38 certainly was not one of them. There is a great quote from J Johnson who said that once they were re equipped with the Spitfire IX they could fly over France at 40,000ft invulnerable from interception. At 30,000 ft up to 40,000 ft the Spitfire holds a real edge over pretty much any other fighter especially mid war aircraft in terms of climb, speed and manuverability. So using the rational that real life pilots like to fly aircraft that keep them alive flying the faster, higher flying fighter of the two does just that doesnt it?

Now why are we bringing the P38 Late in to the discussion? I was trying to keep it mid war, if we bring the Late in then we have to mention the Spit XIV which again raises the bar in terms of speed and ROC.

As for shallow climb I agree with you there but this tactic is best used for extending away after a diving pass. In a dogfight the P38 would presumably be more co speed than the Spitfire and extending away in a steady shallow climb may not be the best option it would mean the P38 is flying at a steady angle for a sprayed shot from the chasing aircraft. I am imagining a close in dogfight. I have read so many 'quotes' and opinions from people on this board that claim the P38 can out manuver pretty much any fighter in the ETO yet in a practical dogfight could it live with the Spitfire? I wouldnt be so confident as rate of roll really counts in a dogfight as does nice handling and split second firepower. The Spitfires performance is more easily accesible and if pushed to the very edge easily better than the best most other fighters can produce.

At high speeds, although both types could perform adequately, I dont think either type were as comfortable as a P47 or a Fw 190. As speeds deteriorate they both come in to the game much more effectively. The Spitfire had an airframe that enabled high speed diving and did not suffer the same problems with compressibilty

With regards to Jabo , yes the P38 was better, If I wanted to look at ground attack I would take a Typhoon or a Tempest or a Mosquito not a Spitfire or a P38. As for range the Spitfire VIII with drop tank has a respectable range, there is no hiding the superior range of the P38 but there is no hiding from the fact that aircraft with lesser range engaged in combat frequently too. As for pointing out that the aircraft with the greater range can dictate the fight and prevent the other aircraft from disengaging I really disagree, that would entail that every time a Bf 109 encountered any Allied fighter it wouldnt be able to disengage.

The USAAF used the Spitfire in the Med and the 31st emerged as the highest scoring American unit in that theatre. Many of the 31st's pilots regarded the Spitfire as the highlight of their tour.

Daiichidoku
11-16-2005, 08:17 AM
even though these are not J/L and IX's, they illustate my otherwise scientific analysis



flt sgt joe bob nosepickerton, wrt off chauncey dribdrab! scramble!
ok, pick your ship! there are fighters approaching/bombers sighted/troops,tanks,locos,field guns etc to be destroyed/photos of sensitive areas to be made/need a lead ship for bomb release for the heavies
do it at high/low alt, do it at long or short range, and GET BACK ALIVE!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/5746516.jpg


joe bob~ back off b1tch, i saw her first!
chauncey~ dreadful man, go back to montana or wherever youre from, and take that spit with you!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/102008733.jpg

BSS_CUDA
11-16-2005, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
'P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat. Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true.'

Adolf Galland


interesting comment comming from a man that never faced the 38 in combat
one would have to wonder how he would know that the 38 was not diffcult to handle

here is Gallands combat record, not once did he face a 38

Gallands combat record (http://members.aol.com/geobat66/galland/kills.htm)

mynameisroland
11-16-2005, 09:07 AM
[QUOTE]ok, pick your ship! there are fighters approaching/bombers sighted/troops,tanks,locos,field guns etc to be destroyed/photos of sensitive areas to be made/need a lead ship for bomb release for the heavies
do it at high/low alt, do it at long or short range, and GET BACK ALIVE![QUOTE]

For the job of fighters/bombers approaching and photo recon Id take the Spitfire. I think most WW2 pilots would have too. For the ground stuff/ship strikes id take the P38. Then again if I had a choice it would be the Typhoon or the Mossie for ground attack.

mynameisroland
11-16-2005, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
'P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat. Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true.'

Adolf Galland


interesting comment comming from a man that never faced the 38 in combat
one would have to wonder how he would know that the 38 was not diffcult to handle

here is Gallands combat record, not once did he face a 38

Gallands combat record (http://members.aol.com/geobat66/galland/kills.htm) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cuda all of this has been discussed in previous topics. Lets not drag this in to another ****ging match. Galland was a great pilot who cares if his record against one type was not great? How many other aces have made 'unqualified' comments about certain aircraft that bear no relation to facts and figures. Lets face it if Galland came up against P38's regulary he would have downed a few exapmles wouldnt he? We now talking about pilots not planes here.

In a dogfight what can the P38 do against the Spitfire> in game >in RL?

JtD
11-16-2005, 09:13 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Good one, Daiichidoku.

Rolang, apparantly you take your speed figures from IL-2 compare - and that is inaccurate. 685 for a LF Spit are wrong - not done in real life and not possible in game. 656 or so should be the true figure.

This of course means, that the fastest of all Lightnings, the J model is faster than the standard Merlin 66 Spit IX at all altitudes.

This is just one point on a long list of differences which make it very hard to compare the two planes. Imho you are comparing apples to oranges.

But I'll give a little input nonetheless.

Advantage P-38: Reliability. Already said, the two engined layout of the Lightning gave it a tremendous advantage as far as survivability goes. In case you lose one engine to mechanical failure you still have another one to bring you back. However, the Allisons had more trouble in the ETO than the Merlisn did, which somewhat limits this advantage.

Advantage P-38: Ground handling. The tricycle landing gear did not only allow a better view over the nose while taxiing, it also made a much more stable and controlled ride.

Advantage P-38: Take off. Again the tricycle gear score, along with the little to no torque and again better view over the nose this made for safer take offs. I can't imagine any P-38 ever flipped onto it's side on opening the throttle.

Advantage P-38: Landing. For the same reason as above, the P-38 is better. The gear will also allow a lot harder braking and a lot more steering than the Spit which with it's narrow gear is prone to drop a wing or to nose over on braking. The Spit however has a lower stall speed, which makes the disadvantage less severe.

Advantage Spit: Climb. The Spit has the better power weigt ratio esp. with a loaden aircraft which allows it to reach altitude faster.

Advantage Spit: Operation. The Spit was a lot easier to operate than the Lightning, in fact the Lightning was terribly hard to operate, maybe even the most complex fighter of it's time. I think Gibbage once posted a to-do list for a P-38 that got jumped in cruising config and had to go to combat status. To cut the list short, it said: You are dead. This is not as tricky in a Spit.

Advantage Spit: Size. Small sizes are harder to spot and to hit.

Advantage Spit: Silhouette. The P-38 was easy to reckognize from far away and enemy pilots could adopt and set up for proper tactics.

Advantage P-38: Range. Obviously, the P-38 had a bigger range.

Advantage Spit: High altitude handling. Even though the P-38 was faster even at higher altitude, it's greater weight and wingloading together with it's worse powerloading made it an overall worse performer up high. Also, at high altitudes compressability becomes an issue the P-38 has to worry about.

Draw: Air combat abilities. If flow right, both of them have their unique strenghts and weaknesses which in the end even out in a fight at alitudes below 25000 feet.

Draw: Inflight cockpit vision. While the P-38 has advantages to the forward and rear, the big engines & booms almost completely block the vision to the low sides. The Spit's wings are less restricting.

Advantage Spit: Costs. A Spitfire was way cheaper to produce than a P-38.

Advantage P-38: Loadout. The P-38 could carry a lot more thingies than the Spitfire, not only more guns, rockets and bombs, but also radar, cameras or a second crewmember.

Advantage P-38: Ruggedness. The P-38's airframe could absorb more damage than the Spitfire.

Advantage P-38: Looks. Spit is and ugly girly plane, while the P-38 is a cleanly engineered aircraft that suits my taste perfectly. Also it has two engines which give it a score of about 95% where the Spit is roughly at 40%.

I'd be curious to know about maintenance and crusing speed of the two. I know the Spit wasn't the easiest to maintain, but I can imagine the P-38 wasn't much better as it was larger.

Xiolablu3
11-16-2005, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
'P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat. Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true.'

Adolf Galland


interesting comment comming from a man that never faced the 38 in combat
one would have to wonder how he would know that the 38 was not diffcult to handle

here is Gallands combat record, not once did he face a 38

Gallands combat record (http://members.aol.com/geobat66/galland/kills.htm) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe he talked to his men??

Anyway, sorry I dont mean to start an argument, I ruined this topic posting that quote. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

horseback
11-16-2005, 09:35 AM
Mynameisroland-you missed a large part of my point. I'll definitely concede the high altitude advantage of the Spit above 25,000 ft. If your aircraft starts experiencing compressibility in level flight, as the Lightning did at higher speeds around 30,000 ft, it's not going to be as effective. But there our agreement ends.

If we're discussing the aircraft we have in-game, your arguements are mostly valid. The 38L Late in the game is still a bit short of the actual L's numbers, even if we discount the fabled 150 octane purple passion fuel. If we are talking about the actual aircraft, much more weight has to be given to pilot skill. Every Lightning driver who got the chance to compare his ride to the world famous Spit maintained that he could outclimb it and outrun it up to 20-25,000 ft. With the exception of the jets, they generally believed (and preached as combat doctrine) that they could outclimb and out-accelerate anything in the Axis inventory in 1944 at most alts. They certainly believed that they could outturn the German fighters in most circumstances as well. You don't tell your pilots to use tactics that will get them killed, so they must have had some valid reasons for thinking that way.

If the Lightning could do what the USAAF and its experienced combat pilots believed, that puts it squarely in the same class as the late mark Merlin Spitfire in most areas of maneuverability. The Spit's greatest advantage is in the area of roll, and possibly dive, but mainly because the P-38s dive acceleration was so great as to be self-destructive.

In a shallow dive, however, it picks up speed at a manageable rate and much faster than a pursuing Spit VIII or IX, using its elevator and rudders to jink up and down and sideways to spoil his pursuers' aim.

Voila! Separation, zoom climb, with a reversal at the top, and the Spitfire has to face a headon pass from a fighter with a very heavy nose armament. Bear in mind that this was the usual solution in the Pacific, where the Japanese fighter pilots excelled at the art of knife-fighting, even at the expense of some ETO experienced Aussie Spitfire squadrons.

The P-38's firepower is available to its pilot at almost all ranges, whereas the Spit's pilot has to have his target at or near convergence range to have a realistic hope of making his shot(and pray that wing flex isn't screwing it up).

His firing solution is thus much simpler, and added to his extra firing time and greater ability to absorb hits, tends to be decisive.

Also, there is a huge underestimation of the kinetic power of four .50 MGs able to fire 150 1.1 oz (33gram) rounds at 2,749 ft/sec (838m/sec) in a three second burst, all of that energy being absorbed in a very small area. Even assuming you get strikes with both Hispanos, those four MGs more than make up for the extra 20mm gun of the Spit, HE rounds notwithstanding, IMO.

As for 4-cannon Spits, we can only point out that these were rarely used in combat, particularly in the Mk VIII and Mk IX, and again, these ran out of ammo even faster than they ran out of fuel. In target rich environment, I can think of nothing more frustrating.

Of course, all bets are off if we bring the Griffon engined MK XIV into the discussion. At that point, I start screaming for an F4U-4 or a Bearcat.

cheers

horseback

mynameisroland
11-16-2005, 09:41 AM
Hello JtD

As a ground attack specialist I know that you prefer the P38's greater payload capabilities in this area. I also know (just from knowing you!) that the spitfire is not your type of aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif fairplay this thread is about opinions as well as facts!

Now with regards to speeds I did say in game as well as RL. In game the Spitfire is faster at high altitude isnt it? In reality the Spitfire IX Merlin 70 was capable of 413 mph at 30,000ft and 415 at 20,000ft. Is the P38 J faster at altitudes above 25,000ft? The Merlin 66 engined Spitfire according to some Spitfire books was faster than 406 mph above 20,000ft. I have read 422mph varying down to 408 mph depending on sources.

[QUOTE]Draw: Air combat abilities. If flow right, both of them have their unique strenghts and weaknesses which in the end even out in a fight at alitudes below 25000 feet.[QUOTE]

As for air to air combat, below 25,000ft the P38 is in its prime. I still would not give it any superiority in combat manuvering at these altitudes. What unique P38 attributes would offset the Spitfires generally superior manuverability? At high altitudes ( where the RAF and USAAF did fly routinely) the Spitfire holds clear advantages in manuvering and climb.

[QUOTE]Advantage P-38: Reliability. Already said, the two engined layout of the Lightning gave it a tremendous advantage as far as survivability goes. In case you lose one engine to mechanical failure you still have another one to bring you back. However, the Allisons had more trouble in the ETO than the Merlisn did, which somewhat limits this advantage[QUOTE]

You are right when you mention reliability and the Allison being problematic. The P38 when used in ETO initially suffered so badly that P38's would often have to fly in formation with the bombers they were escorting for protection after an engine failure. Having 2 engines increases your chance of engine trouble by 100% when those engines are temperamental you have a problem. So as for engine reliabilty I would have to go for the Spitfire.

A lot of your other points like ground handling do not really help the P38 when in a dogfight with the Spitfire. Things like size do however.

The Spitfire isnt your cup of tea JtD, you know I prefer the Fw 190 and I agree with you to a certain extent that the Spitfire wasnt a high speed slashing attack style fighter. What it did have though was the ability to stay fast enough to its contemporaries to force a fight and to fly high enough (reliably http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) so that being bounced by higher flying aircraft becomes less of a problem. It also had the luxury of being able to outfight most opponents in a dogfight.

mynameisroland
11-16-2005, 10:06 AM
Again good points Horseback,

Zoom climb and seperation are valid points, if we imagine the combat taking place from 15,000ft to 25,000ft if the P38 decides it is time to extend then it is a short step from 15,000ft up to 25,000ft for the Spitfire. If the Spitfire maintains a position above the P38 by climbing at a steeper angle. The P38 faces a scenario where the Spitfire is again above it, albeit flying slower but still in a position where it can translate height to speed.

I know that if I was fighting a P38 I wouldnt follow a fast shallow climb, in the same way I wouldnt follow a Fw 190.

The concentrated firepower of the P38 is very effective (even in this game) and is effective over a wide range. I do have some reservations about wholy nose based armament as regardless of how deadly it can be it is easier to hit with wing mounted armament. This is an important factor because a stray hit with a 20mm can take you out of the game just as much as a concentrated dose of .50's.

The P38 could jink and use rudders to ruin a pursuers aim, so could the Spitfire pilot... I think here we are crossing over to the realm of what a good pilot would do rather than specific aircraft qualities.

As you imagine the fight you are flying the P38 as it should be flown, and see how you could take the advantage. I am imagining the fight from the Spitfire IX's point of view, I see the oppertunity to climb whenever the P38 extends and to try and position myself above and behind the target. It is an interesting matchup, based on a dogfight between two experienced pilots starting on an equal footing unless the P38 uses its speed advantage below 25,000ft to extend the Spitfire would make life uncomfortable for the P38 pilot.

You are right when you talk about USN pilots experience against Zekes and Oscars, its a good contrast to how the RAF fought the Germans. The RAF would generally never shy from engaging an opponent in a manuvering fight in the ETO, the strong point of the Spitfire is this style of combat. However the similarites should end there because the RAF also used their aircraft to boom and zoom and the performance differential was in most cases slight or non existant. So instead of being more manuverable and flying at 350 mph in your Zeke you are more manuverable but flying at 400mph in an aircraft with self sealing tanks and pilot armour./

regards

Boemher

Daiichidoku
11-16-2005, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

For the job of fighters/bombers approaching and photo recon Id take the Spitfire. I think most WW2 pilots would have too. For the ground stuff/ship strikes id take the P38. Then again if I had a choice it would be the Typhoon or the Mossie for ground attack.


sure, to attack incoming fighters its an arguement

to attack bombers, esp ones at alt, the 38 is the way go to, with superior climb, and 2 engines to rtb with, after being shot out by gunners...spits single engine means your going down...now!

honestly cant see why you would take a spit for recon over a 38...given its speed advantage, and esp given its range, for some deeper recces, the spit would need tankshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif...plus 38 better stability (IRL, not FBhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )for better photos

mynameisroland
11-16-2005, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

For the job of fighters/bombers approaching and photo recon Id take the Spitfire. I think most WW2 pilots would have too. For the ground stuff/ship strikes id take the P38. Then again if I had a choice it would be the Typhoon or the Mossie for ground attack.


sure, to attack incoming fighters its an arguement

to attack bombers, esp ones at alt, the 38 is the way go to, with superior climb, and 2 engines to rtb with, after being shot out by gunners...spits single engine means your going down...now!

honestly cant see why you would take a spit for recon over a 38...given its speed advantage, and esp given its range, for some deeper recces, the spit would need tankshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif...plus 38 better stability (IRL, not FBhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )for better photos </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Id take Spitfire over P38 for recon because Phot recon Spitfires were basically superior something to do with speed combined with high altitude performance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The USAAF used photo recon Spitfires also. The PR versions flew higher and faster than any intercepting fighter prior to the Me262 even then interception wasnt guaranteed, they also had increased internal fuel tankage.

And explain to me how the P38 outclimbs the Spitfire at altitude(some figures would be nice) and has superior weaponry to shoot down bombers?

p1ngu666
11-16-2005, 10:31 AM
IRL pilots favoured the mossie, and the spit for photo recon, i dont know why but the p38 never seemed to have done aswell in that role.

the mossie is concidered the ulitmate, cos of speed, handling etc http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

with nose armament its harder to get a hit tbh, u have that concentrated stream, so your more likely to miss http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

if u set wing gun convergance to say 250, your guns still effective upto 500ish.

ingame i prefer the p38 tbh, handles pretty much like it should. spits seem tobe on a slipery slope and always unstable to me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

horseback
11-16-2005, 10:32 AM
Sorry, Daiichidoku, the record is quite clear.

Recon Spits with the big 'chin' oil reservoirs and 'wet' wings were vastly preferable to the recon versions of the P-38 in the 8th AF. Much greater reliability, better high alt escapability, and so on. A lot of Photo Lightnings just flat disappeared early on. Simply put, more Spit XIs came back from long range high alt recon missions in the ETO than F-4 and F-5 photorecon Lightnings.

cheers

horseback

JtD
11-16-2005, 10:41 AM
You know, if two pilots of equal quality face each other with aircraft of similar overall performance but different qualities, the fight ends with both of them going home - or the one with less range making a ditch.

p1ngu666
11-16-2005, 10:43 AM
http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//spitvsp38.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mynameisroland
11-16-2005, 10:54 AM
Excellent Pingu thanks for the input, ps how do you work IL2 compare I can never get it to bloody work! I know that there isnt a current 4.02 version. whish is a shame.

p1ngu666
11-16-2005, 11:04 AM
oh just load up the exe, then click the little box with cr4p in. then click one plane (blue) and then click on the name of another plane (red).

then alt+printscreen to screeny it, paste in photoshop, save for web, upload, add "you is wrong http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif" (optional) with the pic to your post.

biggest argument against p38 is economics, u could have twice (sometimes more sometimes less) of competeing designs. so two spits would give u 4 cannon, 450cals/8303 (8cannons potentialy)
costly to run with the two engines, and the two troublesome turbos.

i can send u my copy of il2c if u want roland http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JtD
11-16-2005, 11:09 AM
The P-38's top speed is in the range of 415 mph at 26000 feet to 430 mph at 30000 feet. Sadly I cannot find some decent testing reports so I don't know how they compare to the Spitfires performance. Nonetheless, the J model was faster than a Spit IX Merlin 66 at all altitudes.

WRT Pingu's chart: The Spit IX performance is displayed faster than it actually is and the P-38 J is faster than the L model.

Also, the P-38 was not twice as expensive as a Spitfire.

mynameisroland
11-16-2005, 11:29 AM
That would be much appreciated Pingu, Thanks!

JtD can you point be to the sources that give 430 mph for the P38 at 30,000ft? They seem a little off for me. There is a very good Spitfire book ( I cant find it on Amazon - it is a library book )that documents all of the marks giving detailed tables of climb/ speed/ range ect and I if I was to cherry pick there was a table that presented a IX going at 422mph. I dont think these were general performance figures but they may be representative of later boosted variants?

The Spitfire in game may be faster than some of the variants in RL but then if you look at higher boost settings the Spitfire can claim to be misrepresented in game for 1944 for instance. It would be nice to see the Spitfire H.F IX figures vs the P38 J.

p1ngu666
11-16-2005, 11:31 AM
JtD, got price for spit vs p38 for same time period (costs per aircraft plumited thru the war)

680=422mph, 660=410 accordin to google..

p1ngu666
11-16-2005, 11:34 AM
the increase in boost didnt really effect top speed, but it increased speed at lower alts

the topspeeds of the 190A series dont vary much for example

faustnik
11-16-2005, 11:46 AM
OK, I'm on Team Colonial here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif The firepower issue.

The P-38s weight of fire is

1 x Hispano = 1300grams per second
4 x .50M2 = 2453
for a total of 3753

Spit IXc WOF is

2 x Hispano = 2600
4 x .303 = 840
for a total of 3440

So, the P-38 is putting more lead on the target. The P-38 only has 1/2 as much explosive effect as the Spit's two Hispanos, but, it does have a much better grouping of weapons.

mynameisroland
11-16-2005, 11:50 AM
Do you have any figures on the Spitfire IXe Faustnik? Also the chemical effect of the Hispanno needs to be quantified before we look at projectile weight as a basis for 'firepower'.

regards

Boemher

faustnik
11-16-2005, 12:00 PM
Sure. Spit IXe would be:

2 x Hisp = 2600gps
2 x .50 = 1226gps
Total = 3826gps

Darn, UK pulls ahead, by a nose. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Chemical effect (from Flying Guns of World War Two):

Hispano HE - 201
.50M2API - 46

p1ngu666
11-16-2005, 12:27 PM
http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//il2c_v25_pf302.rar

my il2compair for u roland, and anyone else http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

gthgrrl4game
11-16-2005, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Sure. Spit IXe would be:

2 x Hisp = 2600gps
2 x .50 = 1226gps
Total = 3826gps

Darn, UK pulls ahead, by a nose. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Chemical effect (from Flying Guns of World War Two):

Hispano HE - 201
.50M2API - 46

Chemical effect o_O?

JtD
11-16-2005, 12:34 PM
Eeeeks, what's wrong with your sig, Roland?

Wrt P-38 top speeds: The numbers given come from a range of speeds I found during my search for test reports on the internet. True, however, is, that the P-38's pilot's handbook gives a critical alt of 28700 feet (with ram). Sadly, it gives no speed figure for this altitude. My guess would be around 420mph, but I'd really like to see Naca test reports. Guess some of our American friends can point me into the right direction - please. However, even the slowest, which is 415, is still faster than the Merlin 66 Spit at 407. And the Merlin 66 Spit was about THE Spit IX in service. pingu may compare the Spit VIII with the P-38J to get a close-to-real-picture.

Merlin 70 Spit is about 410 mph. Where is your 422 mph Spit? Still have a link?

Wrt boost: What pingu said. Doesn't matter much as far as top speed is concerned, but would close the gap down low a lot.

Pingu, I once found the prices at various sources on the internet and it was about 110000$ for a P-38 and 80000$ for a Spit and 60000$ for a P-51. Sorry I can't find them anymore.

Daiichidoku
11-16-2005, 12:36 PM
ok, fine, ur recce spits are better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

but mossie recce is even better

p1ngu666
11-16-2005, 12:40 PM
np JtD
the prices varied over the war by alot, and ive no idea how much a spit cost tbh. but its got 1 engine vs 2, a supercharger vs 2 turbos. plus its smaller.

workers may have gotten paid more in the UK, plus higher cost of raw materials?

JtD
11-16-2005, 01:33 PM
I guess it's more down to ease of manufacturing. As far as World War 2 material is concerned, the US were considerably better than the UK (and almost any other nation). Pound for pound, the Spit simply needed more time on the assembly line. Just think of that sick elliptical wing.

And back to the numbers: I know I invested quite some time into the research including several economic documents until I was fairly convinced the numbers were comparable. Too bad I completely lost track of that.

horseback
11-16-2005, 02:14 PM
Actually, Mitchell expected the Spitfire to be mass produced; like most single engine monocoque aircraft of the time, it was easily modularized and mass produced. If British workers cost more, it was not a matter of greater efficiency as much as the expense of feeding them (the wheat and corn of the American Midwest was lots closer to Burbank than to the UK).

The P-38 was originally intended to be literally hand built; it was designed for an Army specification for interceptors, and was never expected to have more than 200 (at most) sold during its design. The whole thing was laid out like a science project, with every new technology Lockheed could think of jammed into it.

Much of the later models were more simplified in some respects, at least in part to simplify and economize in production. It was never easy to mass produce, though, and this was the biggest contributer to the development of the P-47 and P-51 instead of a full reliance on the Lightning.

Had Lockheed and Allison been able to meet the military's demand for lots of high performance, long range fighters in 1942-43, the P-47 would have been an also-ran, and the Merlin Mustang would never have been conceived...

cheers

horseback

HellToupee
11-16-2005, 02:14 PM
Ild take spitfire, the p38 is massive when i fly on blue i love seeing them they are so large u just cannot miss on a pass, spitfires and small twitchy things hard to hit. The p38 also feels sluggish, it just hangs at the top of a zoom where u cant flip the nose around. Spit has better view and all cogpit instruments are easy to read and all there infront of u

Daiichidoku
11-16-2005, 02:18 PM
AFAIK, the wing and tail surfaces of the 38 were scaled-up and grafted directly onto the lockheed constellation (plus its own middle rudder, natch)

p1ngu666
11-16-2005, 02:23 PM
the constalation has a "normal" tail tho?
the rudder could well be the same but bigger http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ImpStarDuece
11-16-2005, 04:56 PM
Top speeds for Spitfire IX;

Merlin 61;
403 mph at 27,400 feet
408 mph at 25,000 feet

Merlin 66;
407 mph at 22,000 feet
404 mph at 21,000 feet

Merlin 70;
416 mph at 27,800 feet
396 mph at 15,000 feet

For Spitfire VIII

Merlin 61;
405 mph at 27,000 feet
408 mph at 25,000 feet
382 mph at 12,500 feet

Merlin 66;
394 mph at 30,000 feet (tropicalised Australian Mk VIII)
404 mph at 21,000 feet
384 mph at 10,500 feet
362 mph at sea-level

For Spitfire VII (high alt Spitfire VIII)

Merlin 64;
408 mph at 27,500 feet

Merlin 71;
409 mph at 40,000 feet
424 mph at 29,500 feet
400 mph at 20,000 feet

Daiichidoku
11-16-2005, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the constalation has a "normal" tail tho?
the rudder could well be the same but bigger http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


ok, sorry, the wings, outboard of the engines, and the horizontal tail http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Daiichidoku
11-16-2005, 05:33 PM
@ImpStarDuece

do the spitVII figures note if they are for xtended wing VIIs or not?

ImpStarDuece
11-16-2005, 05:56 PM
Figures I have are for the VII with the extended wingtips. I think that all the operational trials data is for extended wingtip versions. All the pictures I have seen up to mid-1944 show the extended wingtips and short span alierons as standard.

Extended wingtips were, at the very least, used in the initial high altitude operations of the Spitfire VII, mostly with 124 and 616 squadrons. I also have pictures in 1944 of 417, 92 and 131 squadron Spitfire VIIs in 1944, all with extended wingtips. There were only 6 squadrons that operated the type, and it was generally used in the same manner as the MK IX in Europe and the MK VIII in the Meditterrnaean. The exception was some long range daylight escort missions that the VII did. In August 1944, MK VIIs of 131 Sqdn escorted Lancasters to the submarine pens a La Pallice, a round trip of some 690 miles, and about close to the Spitfire VIIs maximum combat radius. Flight time was 3 hours 50 minutes.

jds1978
11-16-2005, 06:29 PM
the price differentail made little difference to Uncle Sam...we weren't exactly worried about a tight budget in WW2 America

berg417448
11-16-2005, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by jds1978:
the price differentail made little difference to Uncle Sam...we weren't exactly worried about a tight budget in WW2 America

I don't think that is entirely true. If you can buy two P-51's for what one P-38 costs then that is a no brainer. And if you look at newspaper reports from the time...budget and cost were of major concern.

p1ngu666
11-17-2005, 02:51 AM
imp, i wonder if they copied and pasted the IX results for the VIII, it was a smidge better than the IX allround, cleaner airframe should make it quicker too..

JtD
11-17-2005, 03:33 AM
Okay, after a few shorties another longie...

Roland, wrt to air combat:
I already said, that I consider the two an even enough matchup to ensure both pilots can survive if they want. The Spit can always secure a position aobve the P-38 whereas the P-38 can always extend away from the Spit, esp. in a shallow dive.
The P-38 should also hold considerable advantages in zoom maneuvers which can very well exploited to kill the Spit. Another advantage would be the spin free slow speed handling due to the torque free engine configuration. If you compare a none clipped wing Spit with a aileron boosted P-38 the P-38 roll rate at higher speeds is far superior. I also consider the P-38's weapons layout far superior to the Spits - not only because the concentrated firepower helps, but also because the nose guns do not cause dirty air over the wing.
Advantages for the Spit driver of course are turn and climb as well as the small size of the aircraft which makes it hard to hit. In most setups it will also have the roll advantage. All in all I think the P-38 should seek vertical combat while the Spit's advantages are most pronounced in the horizontal.
With the number of participants increasing, you'll find vertical tactics more effective than horizontals.
Currently in the game, I'd prefer the Spit over the P-38 in dogfights, though. Much of this is down to the fact that vertical tactics do not work properly. Anyway, at a certain point, maybe from 3 vs 3 on, I'd feel better in the Lightning.
I also prefer the Lighting vs. 109's but prefer the Spit vs. 190's.

wrt reliability & ground handling:
In Eric Browns FW 190 article there is a passage that goes like that: Four Spits were detached to intercept the lone Focke. Two crashed on take off, one had to rtb due to mechanical failures and the Focke had little trouble with the last lone Spit.
I don't think Lighnings could have done much worse. In the end it doesn't matter how you lose a plane or a pilot. It only counts that the Fw was not intercepted by four Spits and the squadron had four less Spits for something like the next few days.
In the end it meant the RAF captured a Focke - sometimes it's good that you fly a plane with insufficient performance.

Daiichidoku,

the P-38 did not have superior climb if compared to a standard Spit - let alone a 25lb boosted Spit. It's about obvious from power weight ratios. The P-38 was far more than twice as heavy but did hardly have twice the power - no matter which tricks you use, a severe disadvantage cannot be translated into an advantage. Also, it had a far better dive acceleration which is typical for planes with no outstanding climb - like the Focke Wulf or the P-47.

Price of the P-38:
I found 115000$ per piece as a fixed price throughout the war(?). Today I also think the 80000 were to much for the Spit, probably got confused with the P-47. So please forget the numbers, just remember: P-51<Spit<P-47<P-38; 2xSpit>P-38; P-38 = 115000.

I don't think that wages matter very much when it comes down to the costs of specific WW2 fighter aircraft, really. Matter of fact is the Spit has a lot more curved shapes than the P-38 - harder to built. The P-38 does not need all the Spits components twice - i.e. gear, controls, weaponry, cockpit. The twin boom arrangement of the P-38 also meant that many parts could be used twice on the same aircraft, an important factor to reduce production costs. What about welding/riveting technologies used in the UK and US? Metallurgy? Infrastructure? All the same in UK and US? I don't think so. All in all the P-38 still is WAY more expensive than the Spit, it's just that a number of factors contribute to the smaller pound for pund price, which doesn't really matter.

As a sidenote: After the Italians developed their 05 series planes and achieved very good performance, a German comission was sent to investigate if Germany should take over these designs. The commision was impressed by the Italian planes until they found out that the Italian birds were 2.5 times as laboursome to produce as a Bf 109. The Germans went home immediatly.

Spit VIII should indeed be faster than the IX but only by a very few kph. Basically it's the retracted tail wheel that should make the difference. 1-2 mph?

nakamura_kenji
11-17-2005, 03:41 AM
I have say spitfire it would suit my style of fight better most guess it own opinion guess.

game find p38 is far easy plane shoot down if catch on tail(fire range). it huge target and no manverable much and hit compressibilty high speed dive if pilot no careful.i have shoot down p38 think ki-61 no able follow steep dive. I also catch few when they try steep vertical climb expect me stall out first but only make self much easy shot. best escape p38 is go shallow dive + turn but only work if distance between or will make self easy target just like dive/climb. i have not see person use airbrake to force over shoot though chance ki-61 catch up so much speed that it would over shoot no much ^_^ can also diy airbrake way open canopy, combat flap, open radiator, lower gear(can belly + make plane light fall off ^_^) 0 throttle.

spitfire much hard as it match well with ki-61 it best use tight turn feel and hope break visual with so lose then able use speed run or climb above then Z&B.

big problem find with both is they superior ki-61 on fire power/speed problem me catch first place(usual dive).if they level me or above i no able catch best no try pick fight with either feel ^_^.

i rather take small plane do most thing nice than big plane that do few thing much well and rest bad. i prefer alrounder ^_^.

p1ngu666
11-17-2005, 04:30 AM
actualy JtD, wages are the only monitary cost of anything.

u pay the production workers, u pay the ppl for raw materials. at no point do u pay mother earth, apart from if u drop/lose your money http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

its not something u realise, until its pointed out tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

i wonder if those two spits crashed into each other?

im not aware of spitfires having a particulary bad reputation on ground handling or reliablity. theres still plenty flying around today aswell, unlike the 109s which seem to keep having accidents

nakamura_kenji
11-17-2005, 04:33 AM
was land gear fragile similar to bf-109 think read that while ago?

p1ngu666
11-17-2005, 04:48 AM
its not great, but the layout and geormatory (spelling) is better on the spit, but it is actully more narrow than a 109.

wide undercarriage was a requirement for russian, and probably japanease planes as they would operate from rougher landing strips.

spit and 109 where designed for best performance, and if the ground handling wasnt so good, well so be it

stathem
11-17-2005, 04:49 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Top speeds for Spitfire IX;

Merlin 66;
394 mph at 30,000 feet (tropicalised Australian Mk VIII)
404 mph at 21,000 feet
384 mph at 10,500 feet
362 mph at sea-level



Straight up? Is that a typo or am I just sh1te at flying ina straight line?

stathem
11-17-2005, 04:51 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
actualy JtD, wages are the only monitary cost of anything.

u pay the production workers, u pay the ppl for raw materials. at no point do u pay mother earth, apart from if u drop/lose your money http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

its not something u realise, until its pointed out tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif



No, we don't pay her, and the account is in serious debt...

She will get it back though in the end.

ImpStarDuece
11-17-2005, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Top speeds for Spitfire IX;

Merlin 66;
394 mph at 30,000 feet (tropicalised Australian Mk VIII)
404 mph at 21,000 feet
384 mph at 10,500 feet
362 mph at sea-level



Straight up? Is that a typo or am I just sh1te at flying ina straight line? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, that is a typo.

Sorry, Speed with Merlin 61 at sea-level is 326 mph, speed with Merlin 66 at sea-level is 338 mph and speed with Merlin 66 at +25lbs is 361 mph.

362 mph at sea level was obtained during trials of a Mk VIII with the 'Basta' (i.e. +25lbs boost) modifications. The same aircraft, with further modifications to the Merlin 66, made 445 mph on trial runs at 25,000 feet! Speeds at low altitude with +25 lbs boost were up to 29 mph faster than those at +18lbs.

mynameisroland
11-17-2005, 06:10 AM
Hi guys,

JtD, I dont have the book where I read the performance figure of 420mph it was a library book. I have checked Amazon and it does not appear so I can only assume its out of print at the moment. Nevertheless Imp was kind enough to post some figures, one of which is for the VII and quotes 422mph. Perhaps this was the model I was refering too. What I would say is that I have read conflicting reports for the IX and VIII some of which state 404mph while some state 420mph+ this is the usual situation for any aircraft I suppose it may also reflect that there were different speeds depending on which years model of IX we look at.

The P38 was a good climber , it was better than the P51, P47 and Fw 190 and was close to some Bf 109s but it doesnt climb as well as the Spitfire IX, this we agree on. As for initiative the aircraft that holds an altitude advantage has the upper hand, a Hurricane could shoot down a Bf 109 if situated above it. The speed margin between a Spitfire and a P38 is minimal so that the P38 would be at a real risk if it encountered a higher flying bandit. All aircraft were even Me 262's. Being able to extend away in a shallow dive is a viable tactic, and was used by the Fw 190 for instance to evade the Spitfire if spotted early enough. However if the Spitfire spotted the Fw 190 it had a very good chance of engaging and destroying the enemy. I dont see many tactical differences in speed compared to the Fw 190 or the P38 below 25000ft if anything the Fw 190 is able to utilise its greater maximum dive speed to greater effect. The P38 has other attributes which IMO would encourage the P38's pilot to maybe decide to accept and engagement.

It is in close combat however where I think the Spitfire IX scores, as we have discussed - rate of roll, climb and turn all would come in to play and although the Spitfire may hold a larger advantage in the horizontal plane the IX was no slouch in vertical fighting either. It was along with the VIII regarded as the best overall Spitfire for its combination of vertical and horizontal capabilities. The earlier VB maybe turned slightly better and the later XIV excelled vertically but the Spitfire IX sturck the nicest balance. It was like the Bf 109 F4, the peak of the development cycle before the origional design became compromised. Not that the XIV was compromised as much as say the G10 or K4, essentially the spitfire was a development cycle behind the Bf 109 in terms of obsolesence.

The comment regarding dirty airflow over the wings caused by firing is interesting and a factor I hadnt considered. Practically I wonder whether it would be offset by the lower wing loading and higher HP/lb ratio of the Spitfire in a dogfight scenario and also by the fact that once situated in a firing position does it really have much effect on the combat as the most important manuvers would probably have already occured prior to this point.

The RAF got their hands on the Fw 190 by pilot error where the Fw 190 landed in RAF Pembury IIRC? The instance you are refering to where 4 Spitfires were scrambled to intercept one Fw 190 were most likely Spitfire VB's and not the Spitfire IX, if thats not the case then correct me. Fw 190 Jabo's were always a problem later on the RAF chased them down with Typhoons which were fast enough to catch them. This doesnt weigh to heavily in the context of whether a Spitfire IX is superior in a dogfight to the P38 or vice versa.

I think in game yes most definitely it is, I agree that inertia and vertical combat is not that well represented in IL2 however. I would also say that in reality the Spitfire was no slouch in vertical combat and if placed above the P38 I doubt that it would be too difficult to follow a P38 in a shallow dive. Ofcourse being placed above the P38 is a pre-requisite here. As outlined in our prior discussions if the Spitfire was in combat with a P38 that did extend he would be able to climb at his higher sustained climb speed to still be above the P38 if he decided to come back and re engage.

As for multiple aircraft engagements I feel that roll rate and snap shot fire power make a lot of difference. The Spitfire (especially the CW http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) has a good rate of roll which allied to its decent elevator authority and wing cannons and decent E retention make it undervalued as a team fighter. Certainly if flown with speed in mind, rather than flying it like a RAF Zero, the Spitfire can be very effective, in game and also in reality.

ps whats up with my sig JtD is it the clipped winged nature of the aircraft? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Cheers

stathem
11-17-2005, 06:35 AM
Thanks Imp, sorry for the pull up, I thought it looked more like a +25lb boost speed.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The RAF got their hands on the Fw 190 by pilot error where the Fw 190 landed in RAF Pembury IIRC? The instance you are refering to where 4 Spitfires were scrambled to intercept one Fw 190 were most likely Spitfire VB's and not the Spitfire IX, if thats not the case then correct me. Fw 190 Jabo's were always a problem later on the RAF chased them down with Typhoons which were fast enough to catch them. This doesnt weigh to heavily in the context of whether a Spitfire IX is superior in a dogfight to the P38 or vice versa.



Mk XII's were also used to very good effect in hunting Jabo Fw190s from Feb. '43, being slightly quicker than a Tiffie otd. 91 Sq. flying MkXIIs was the highest scoring squadron in 11 Group in Sept. 43.

Xiolablu3
11-17-2005, 06:39 AM
I think the quote about the 4xSpit vs FW190 is a Spit Mk5 which is outclassed by the 190A by a fair bit? Spitfire had a very good saftey record compared to other combat planes of WW2.

As for the Spi8/9 vs Fw190A/D I dont really mind which I'm flying, both have fantastic charactersitics while being totally different planes,but sorry this is P38 vs Spit dont mean to go off topic.

I havent flown the P38 much so I cant really comment a lot, but I find the low roll rate very frustrating, once you slow down a little you are vulnerable, I also always feel like a masive target.

|Of course P38 for ground attack is a far far better choice than Spitfire.

The problem with comparing a dogfight with the p38 and Spit is that you are choosing one of the best interceptor/dogfighter with a clear All-rounder plane. The P38 can do ground strike attacks very well and escape with no problem.

Spit for dogfighting, P38 for strike missions. I think the Spit winning the dogfight is pretty much a no brainer.

Hi Nakamura http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, some of my favourite maps are Spitfire mk8/9/Corsair Versus Ki61/Zeros,KI84's, such a great match. I do not care which side I fly on on those maps.

JtD
11-17-2005, 10:02 AM
Pingu, even though your wisdom surprises me (not because of the person you are but because of the place you share it at), I know that money is for people. BUT costs are also very much about TIME. So the idea is to manufacture faster - which is why today we spend 5% of money for the actual goods and 95% for administration and transport...I am getting carried away.

And yes, I was referring to Fabers A-3 and therefore Spit V's.

While the Spit does not have much of a bad reputation with regards to take off, it certainly wasn't easier to master than the 109. But different from the 109 it did operate from decent airfield most of the time and did not have hundreds of rookie kids taking it into the air.

Also, the landing gear construction overall was worse than the 109's as it offered no big performance advantages over the German's competitor but was attached to the wing instead of the fuselage. This means a wing could be replaced a lot easier on a 109 than on a Spitfire.

Roland, for the Spitfire I really recommend this page:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html
The good thing is all of it are actual test reports which are very precise. I did not take time to invest all of that now, but I don't think you will find any Spit VIII or IX going 420. The maximum I find is 416 mph for a HF Spit with Merlin 70. But the usual Spit (Merlin 66) would go no faster than 409 mph no matter which boost.
But it is very hard to find data suggesting a J model P-38 was going slower than 415 mph.

The guns in the wings will not only disturb the airflow while firing, but always. Open holes or protruding cannon barrels have a severe impact. The mulitple holes are one reason the 109 came close in maximum turn to a Spit. The Spit's wing simply produces a lot less lift per square foot.

I don't think the Spit was bad in the vertical, I just think the Lighting was better.

So much for now.

lrrp22
11-17-2005, 11:14 AM
The 422 mph figure is for the PR XI. Clean 'Bowser' wing and retractable tailwheel

The Merlin 70 used by the HF IX (And PR XI) was cleared for +25 lbs boost, but I don't know if that setting was introduced operationally. It's possible that a +25 lbs HF IX could have broken 420 mph at a lower altitude than the +18 lbs boost full throttle Height.

LRRP

mynameisroland
11-17-2005, 08:18 PM
Think the 420 plus figure was for Spitfire VII, again I need to check I dont have the source anymore. The Spitfire website is a good site, however if Kufurst is to be believed it is a site that paints the best picture for the Spitfire with test reports that are perhaps not operational examples. Have to admit I think the site is pretty bonafied and seems reasonably even handed.

The P38 was capable of greater speeds but above 25000ft I am positive the performance fell off quicker than the Spitfire. It is easy to find figures for the Spitfire at 30,000ft and over but I cant find any tables for the P38. Maybe some expert could point us in the right direction.

Above a certain height the Spitfire is the better vertical fighter by default. It performs better and suffers less from the onset of compressibility up high. Is the P38 really a better vertical fighter if the two met co altitude? I have no doubt it accelerated faster and dove faster initially allied to the benefits this would have on zoom climb, however sustained climb in the Spitfire comes in to play in this comparison. How long would the P38 need to hold enough of a speed advantae to be able to outclimb a Spitfire IX that is chasing it. A fast shallow climb can be negated by a slower vertical climb - if the other fighter is very good at climbing ie Bf 109 or Spitfire. It works best when the faster shallow climber suckers the 'slower' faster climber in to following him on its own terms.

Interesting points about the airflow disturbance again, the P38's nacels would disturb airflow and also prop wash must have an effect. I know prop wash can be beneficial but I find it hard to grasp that twp 20mm barrels portruding along with 2 x .50 cals would place the Spitfire wing at a disadvantage to the P38's wing all things like loading, and washout ect being considered.

p1ngu666
11-17-2005, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Pingu, even though your wisdom surprises me (not because of the person you are but because of the place you share it at), I know that money is for people. BUT costs are also very much about TIME. So the idea is to manufacture faster - which is why today we spend 5% of money for the actual goods and 95% for administration and transport...I am getting carried away.

And yes, I was referring to Fabers A-3 and therefore Spit V's.

While the Spit does not have much of a bad reputation with regards to take off, it certainly wasn't easier to master than the 109. But different from the 109 it did operate from decent airfield most of the time and did not have hundreds of rookie kids taking it into the air.

Also, the landing gear construction overall was worse than the 109's as it offered no big performance advantages over the German's competitor but was attached to the wing instead of the fuselage. This means a wing could be replaced a lot easier on a 109 than on a Spitfire.

Roland, for the Spitfire I really recommend this page:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html
The good thing is all of it are actual test reports which are very precise. I did not take time to invest all of that now, but I don't think you will find any Spit VIII or IX going 420. The maximum I find is 416 mph for a HF Spit with Merlin 70. But the usual Spit (Merlin 66) would go no faster than 409 mph no matter which boost.
But it is very hard to find data suggesting a J model P-38 was going slower than 415 mph.

The guns in the wings will not only disturb the airflow while firing, but always. Open holes or protruding cannon barrels have a severe impact. The mulitple holes are one reason the 109 came close in maximum turn to a Spit. The Spit's wing simply produces a lot less lift per square foot.

I don't think the Spit was bad in the vertical, I just think the Lighting was better.

So much for now.

actualy thats not quiet true, there where plenty of rookie spit pilots. the first time u flew a spit it was solo, there wasnt two seaters for a few years iirec. the setup of the spit made it more stable or something, its not as bad as the 109.

p1ngu666
11-17-2005, 08:27 PM
oh and yes its todo with time, and the persons wages.
bill gates vs some random african dude for example http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Gibbage1
11-17-2005, 10:06 PM
This is a rather useless debate. The two aircraft are so very differant, they simply cant be compaired! The Spitfire is a pure dedicated short range fighter that has some other limited capabilities. The P-38 was a true multi-roll long range fighter. It was born with the sole intent to shoot down bombers at high alt, not to fight fighters! The fact that it is even able to do so it a testiment to its design. The P-38 is also 3x the weight of the Spitfire.

If you wanna compair hardware, then compair the Mossy to the P-38. While the Spitfire was patroling the coast, the P-38 and Mossy were delivering packages too down town Berlin.

p1ngu666
11-17-2005, 10:41 PM
the spit IS a bomber interceptor, there are very few fighter interceptors. maybe only me163 which was designed to go after PR aircraft (spit,mossie and p38)

p38 drop droptanks on berlin?, mossie do say sometimes, and stuff like 250,500lb, incenduries and cookies http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif and target indicators, a most important role http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
its speed and manoverablity made it perfect for the pathfinder and target indicating role

ImpStarDuece
11-17-2005, 11:27 PM
During the course of the war the Spitfire evloved into a true multi-purpose fighter as well. While it didn't have the range or hauling capacity of the P-38, it probably wasn't in the same class there, the situation with the Spitfire from 1943 onwards was wildly different to the fighter the first saw service in 1939.

Spitfires could carry up to 1000 lbs of bombs, or, more rarely, 6 60 lb rockets. It was commonly used as a fighter-bomber.

Later production Mk IX Spitfires and all Mk XVI Spitfires carried an additonal 75 imp gallon fuel tank in the rear fuselage. Depending on the canopy, standard foward tankage was either 85 imperial gallons (standard canopy) or 95 imperial gallons (bubble canopy). Add a 90 imp gallon slipper tank and all of a sudden the fuel capacity jumps up to either 240 or 250 imperial gallons. Late war Spitfire IX/XVIs flew daylight escort missions up to or over 4 hours long, enough to escort the heavies and mediums on penetrations deep into France, Norway or the Low Countries, if not all the way to Germany.

WOLFMondo
11-17-2005, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
This is a rather useless debate. The two aircraft are so very differant, they simply cant be compaired! The Spitfire is a pure dedicated short range fighter that has some other limited capabilities. The P-38 was a true multi-roll long range fighter. It was born with the sole intent to shoot down bombers at high alt, not to fight fighters! The fact that it is even able to do so it a testiment to its design. The P-38 is also 3x the weight of the Spitfire.

If you wanna compair hardware, then compair the Mossy to the P-38. While the Spitfire was patroling the coast, the P-38 and Mossy were delivering packages too down town Berlin.

Your aware that the Spitfire with long range tanks could actually reach the German border thenhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Spitfires did escort US aircrews back on the last legs of there missions over Belgium, Holland and France.

JtD
11-18-2005, 01:24 AM
The Merlin 66 speed at 30.000 feet was 395 mph and the P-38 J model still was going above 400 mph - simply because it had a higher critical altitude. I don't think the Spit had a speed advantage up to something like 35000 feet, probably even more. The rare Merlin 70 model did enjoy an advantage at these altitudes already.

The P-38 engine reliabilty was improved with the redesgined cooling of the engines in the J and later models.

1500 Photo recon P-38's were produced - out of 10000 produced. It was most valuable for the war effort in Europe.

The zoomclimb of the P-38 was exceptional and as it sustained climb was not much worse than the Spit's it is a lot better in this respect.

Cost of P-38: Indeed 115.000. Contemporary P-51D: 54.000. This is about the single best quality of the P-51.

Pingu, the difference between the German greenhorn and the Spit students was that the Germans total flight education was shorter than the British basic training. Making an emergency take off on a dusty field somewhere on the eastern front with Sturmoviks closing in is quite a bit more tricky than taking off from a concrete airfield on nice and warm day und supervision of a flight teacher. The 109 wasn't that hard to take off with either, you just had to lock the tailwheel and give rudder. Same as in the Spit. It's just that you happen to forget the tailwheel and might be a little less focused on rudder when hell is braking loose around you.

There is a NACA report dealing with the effects of guns at the leading edge of a wing and it showed that effects are severe. I'll link it once I find it.

WOLFMondo
11-18-2005, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
The Merlin 66 speed at 30.000 feet was 395 mph and the P-38 J model still was going above 400 mph - simply because it had a higher critical altitude. I don't think the Spit had a speed advantage up to something like 35000 feet, probably even more. The rare Merlin 70 model did enjoy an advantage at these altitudes already.


Wasn't the P38's main short coming its terrible cockpit heating?

At that height the P38 pilot would be a human ice cube.

HellToupee
11-18-2005, 02:48 AM
wasnt there like like 1000 merlin 70 spitfire mk9s hardly rare. How are a few guns poking out going to be more severe than 2 bloody great engines poking out of the wing. What about the p47 with 8 .50s poking out.

ImpStarDuece
11-18-2005, 03:12 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
The Merlin 66 speed at 30.000 feet was 395 mph and the P-38 J model still was going above 400 mph - simply because it had a higher critical altitude. I don't think the Spit had a speed advantage up to something like 35000 feet, probably even more. The rare Merlin 70 model did enjoy an advantage at these altitudes already.

The P-38 engine reliabilty was improved with the redesgined cooling of the engines in the J and later models.

1500 Photo recon P-38's were produced - out of 10000 produced. It was most valuable for the war effort in Europe.

The zoomclimb of the P-38 was exceptional and as it sustained climb was not much worse than the Spit's it is a lot better in this respect.

Cost of P-38: Indeed 115.000. Contemporary P-51D: 54.000. This is about the single best quality of the P-51.

Pingu, the difference between the German greenhorn and the Spit students was that the Germans total flight education was shorter than the British basic training. Making an emergency take off on a dusty field somewhere on the eastern front with Sturmoviks closing in is quite a bit more tricky than taking off from a concrete airfield on nice and warm day und supervision of a flight teacher. The 109 wasn't that hard to take off with either, you just had to lock the tailwheel and give rudder. Same as in the Spit. It's just that you happen to forget the tailwheel and might be a little less focused on rudder when hell is braking loose around you.

There is a NACA report dealing with the effects of guns at the leading edge of a wing and it showed that effects are severe. I'll link it once I find it.

Merlin 61/63 engined variants of the Mk IX/VII/VIII did 402 mph at 30,000 feet.

Merlin 70 engined variants of the Mk IX did 413 mph at 30,000 feet.

Merlin 71 engined variants of the Mk VII could do 409 mph at 40,000 feet.

A Griffon 65 engined Spitfire XIV could do 443 mph at 30,000 feet.

It all depends on which statistics you cherry-pick http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

I also have a NACA report on a Spitfire which states that the Spitfire had the "unusual quality that allowed it to be flown in a partially stalled condition in accelerated flight without becoming laterally unstable"

Here is a quote from Willy Ellenrieder, LuftWaffe test pilot who flew a captured Spitfire Vb "Well, this Spitfire was a dream, a pilot's aircraft. It was my real baby. I had never before flown an aircraft like this. We were accustomed to the Bf 109's ill manners; bad visibility before takeoff because the nose pointed skywards, the frightening takeoff with the common tendency to swing, the unweildy handeling during final approach and the bumpy landings"

Australian tests of the P-38F/Hs they recieved against the Spitfire VIIIs the recieved give the speed advantage at height to their Merlin 66 engined Spitfire VIIIs and the advantage altitudes below 10,000 feet to the P-38. Between about 10,000 and 22,000 they criss-cross over twice in top speeds.

Gibbage1
11-18-2005, 03:27 AM
I still find it amusing you guys are STILL compairing a big twin engine heavy fighter to a small light single engine fighter. I dont know if that says a lot about the P-38 or little about the Spit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stathem
11-18-2005, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
The Merlin 66 speed at 30.000 feet was 395 mph and the P-38 J model still was going above 400 mph - simply because it had a higher critical altitude. I don't think the Spit had a speed advantage up to something like 35000 feet, probably even more. The rare Merlin 70 model did enjoy an advantage at these altitudes already.



Theoretically, maybe. In reality;


MiIo Burcham, Jimmy Mattem and Ralph Virden skillfully went about their flying duties but were concerned when engineers wanted them to take the YP past 300-mph at 30,000-ft which, when factoring in the altitude, was beyond the YP's limiting Mach number of M 0.68.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3901/is_200504/ai_n13498412/pg_2

P-38 Critical Mach iro 0.67-0.69 depending where you look

Spitfire CM 0.86

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mach

To make a big inference, I think this is the reason that the Spitfire and Mosquito were far superior as PR aircraft, being able to operate at circa 40,000'. In terms of immunity to interception, that extra 10,000 makes a huge difference; I mean, even Fw190s could make 30,000. The RAF's (and probably the world's) greatest ever PR pilot, Adrian Warburton, was killed by AAA whilst on secondment to the USAAF doing a low level recce of a potential Me-262 base, in a PR P-38. I suspect the reason more '38s were lost was because they were more likely to be assigned these sorts of tasks than the high flying Spits and Mossies.

Incidently, I do hope the community mis-conception that the Bf109E was superior to the Spitfire I at high altitude (>20,000') continues right up the release of BoB - 'cos if Oleg gets it right, there's going to be a lot of embarrassed Emil drivers facing a long trip down under the brolly.


EDIT - I just did some more digging and realised that the above quote refers to IAS, not TAS which would be in excess of 400 mpn. Sorry. However CM would severely limit the P-38's ability to manouver (dive, etc) at those altitudes.

stathem
11-18-2005, 04:16 AM
Regarding the effects of guns in the wing, if it is a major effect - in the case of the RAF planes, this would only apply after the guns had been fired.

JtD
11-18-2005, 08:05 AM
This would be the NACA report I mentioned in my previous post:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-report-829/

If you have a little interest - it's worth the read.

Just a few results:

An idling prop would cause less lift overall if compared to a running prop, however, the running prop would cause a more one sided stall, meaning it induced a spin more easily. If you apply this to the Spit vs P-38 debate it means that at really slow speed, like at the top of a zoom climb or in a hammerhead, the Spit is in trouble sooner than the P-38.

The four machine guns on the P-51B would cause a 10% loss of maximum lift in these tests. Usually 3%-5% can be expected and the Spit's gun installation was probably more in the low range.

Engines do have a less severe effect because the do not have sharp edges close to the leading edge of the wing.

The P-38 indeed had terrible cockpit heating.

ImpStar, the topic says IX/VIII compared to J&L. So your data for the VII & XIV as well as the comparism to F/H is not valid.

And I do not think I am cherry picking by focussing on the major variant of the Spitfire - the Merlin 66 version. Merlin 70 is better above 25000 feet, worse below. That does not really make a difference. Simply because the P-38 was fast up high, but not at home there.

This speed comparism is not far off for both of the contenders:
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/P38vsSpit.jpg

ImpStarDuece
11-18-2005, 03:42 PM
Well, the Merlin 61,63,74,70 and 71 engined Mk VII/VIII/IX account for about 2,300 production airframes, a not insubstantial number. I know that they are not represantative of the Spitfires we have in the game (which is a pity, because we don't really have a representative frontline Spitfire for mid-1942 to mid-1943), but they did make up about 30% of producion. All these engines made over 400 mph above 30,000 feet.

Part of the problem, and the source of much of my fascination with the Spitfire, is that it was tailored and altered so much, in so many different models, to such a wide variety of tasks. It was a workhorse at all altitudes and in all roles, recon, ground attack, intercept, CAP, even the occasional long range escort.

Lets also not forget that there were several other modifications to the Merlin 66 engined Spitfire VIII/IXs that raised top speed at altitude. Two of the most important were the revision of the air intake and the addition of a new Rolls Royce injection pump, both of which raised the maximum throttle height of the Spitfire by between 200 and 800 feet, and both of which provided speeds of over 400 mph at 30,000 feet.

Its all swings and roundabouts though really, and it all comes down to which aircraft you like better. My personal preferance as far as WW2 airframes go is the Typhoon, but the Spitfire comes a close second (and I have a HEAP more data for it). I have tests that show the top speeds of Merlin 66 engined Spitfires that vary from 411 mph all the way down to 388 mph, and full throttle height that varies from 19,000 feet to 22,000 feet. Same engine, same basic airframe, but 23 mph difference in top speed, all due to some minor variations and modifications. I just use the right stats to support my arguments.

US test reports indicated that the MK V was unsually laterally stable while flown in an accelerated stall. Does that mean it wasn't prone to wing drop? No, of course not. But it was different than other single engied planes that the NACA tested.

Mostly I just enjoy the swapping of information that goes on here. Its so fascinating. All these pundits, rooting for their personal favourites.

bolillo_loco
11-18-2005, 05:52 PM
I would like to point out that just because one aircraft has a higher critical mach number does not make that aircraft more effective. There are too many things to consider. The most important is range. With out range it matters little how good an aircraft is, simply because it cannot get there to do any fighting.

In this regard the spitfire was pretty much useless. It lacked range and after the battle of Britain it played a very minor part in the war. In North Africa P-38s were the only aircraft available for missions because short ranged spits couldn't make it to the fight. The spitfire was pretty useless for ground attack as well.

To compare a single engine aircraft to the P-38 in the photo recon role, and then state that it was better is pretty silly or marks the short sightedness of the person making the statement. The P-38 is better than any single engine aircraft for photo recon simply because it could carry more cameras. With its ability to carry not only bigger and better cameras, but also 4-5 times as many, this makes it far superior when it comes to photo recon. Due to the P-38's long booms it was a very stable aircraft. The elevators and rudders were placed so far from the center of gravity that they had significant leverage and dampened out the bobbing and weaving common to small single engine aircraft. This stability is critical when taking photos or high altitude bombing. Why would somebody even bring up dive speed for a photo recon aircraft? A single aircraft flying above 30,000 feet was very hard to intercept if it was traveling at 400+ mph. The P-38 could cruise at 30,000 ft at 400 mph while using maximum continuous power. Again range is also critical for photo recon aircraft. The spitfire's maximum effective combat radius was around 175 miles, a fraction of the P-38's range. The P-38s were frequently used for missions that were ten or twelve hours in duration for a radius of action approaching 1,000 miles, or roughly six times further than any spitfire could travel.

If we are talking about a point defense fighter one could argue that the spitfire was better than a lightning, but in all other missions the P-38 was far superior than any war time spitfire.

faustnik
11-18-2005, 05:57 PM
If we are talking about a point defense fighter one could argue that the spitfire was better than a lightning

Well, wouldn't flight duration would be a big advatage in point defense too? The a/c with more duration can stay over the defense point at altitude longer, right?

Grey_Mouser67
11-18-2005, 06:56 PM
I've never seen actual data from the photo recon P-38's, but I understand from reading that with the ammo and guns removed and camera's added, they had quite a jump in performance in terms of speed, climb etc....How much is quite a bit, I don't really know but I am sure it is more than the published 421mph J model figures.

Gibbage1
11-18-2005, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
I've never seen actual data from the photo recon P-38's, but I understand from reading that with the ammo and guns removed and camera's added, they had quite a jump in performance in terms of speed, climb etc....How much is quite a bit, I don't really know but I am sure it is more than the published 421mph J model figures.

Since the guns and ammo were forward of the COG, they had to replace the weight with something else. The camera's were a lot lighter then the guns, making the aircraft back heavy. NOT a good condition to fly in. They added a few hundred pounts of ballast to get the COG back. So no savings of weight. The gun ports were faired over, so the nose was sleeker. But that would only add a little speed.

The thing was the Recon lightnings were FAR FAR from "stock". Those things were true hotrods of the sky!!! With a good engineer, you could get a lot of performance out of those things. Im sure there were P-38 F's braking 450MPH easy with over boosted engines, and everything waxed and polished clean.

bolillo_loco
11-18-2005, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If we are talking about a point defense fighter one could argue that the spitfire was better than a lightning

Well, wouldn't flight duration would be a big advatage in point defense too? The a/c with more duration can stay over the defense point at altitude longer, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My exact belief as well, but spitfire fan boys need something to cling to. I was just trying to be nice and give something to the spit.

p1ngu666
11-18-2005, 07:51 PM
well the p38 didnt seem todo well in photorecon its low mach number wasnt a help, as the PR often dived away from enemy fighters, (even 262s)

for successful photo recon, u want to avoid interception, and even more important, to get home (its pointless to take the pictures and then get shotdown...)
p38s had a habbit of not returning as much as spits and mossies. btw the PR spit could get to berlin and back http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

bolillo_loco
11-18-2005, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
I've never seen actual data from the photo recon P-38's, but I understand from reading that with the ammo and guns removed and camera's added, they had quite a jump in performance in terms of speed, climb etc....How much is quite a bit, I don't really know but I am sure it is more than the published 421mph J model figures.

Interesting point mouser; I've got some interesting sources for both the weight and performance of the fighter and PR version. I've often wondered if any of the P-38's were modified by mechanics to make them lighter. The Army Air Corps treated P-38s and F series photo recon aircraft as being the same. If you look at the flight manual you will find that the same weight is listed for both the F series PR aircraft and the fighter version.

Lead shot was placed in the nose to make the F series PR aircraft the same weight as the fighter version.

From "The P-38 Lightning" by Pamela Reynolds, ISBN 0-938021-35-4.

In brief; "Double Loaded" page 45:

"To replace the weight that had been removed, lead shot-sacked in canvas bags, was put in under the cowling." "I was hanging on with one hand as I pushed the rest of the power on. The P-38 would pull 68 inches or so if you had to use it, just about enough to blow the had off the cylinders." "They were all frantically trying to figure what happened. It probably took them 15 minutes to run into the fact that it had two loads of shot buried in the front end under that cowling."

Anecdotal evidence about the PR Lightning's performance; "An Ace Of The Eighth" by Norman "Bud" Fortier, page 238:

"Early that morning, a P-38 landed at Steeple, but this was not a run-of-the-mill P-38. It was an F-4. It had no identifying letters or numbers on the fuselage, and there were no .50-caliber machine guns in its nose. It was a photo reconnaissance plane, stripped down to minimum weight, with sophisticated cameras in the nose instead of guns, and with souped-up engines. The 354th had the unusual mission of escorting this unarmed F-4 to a target at Coblenz.

The F-4 pilot made several runs over Coblenz at about twenty thousand feet, then headed home. Apparently he wanted no company from that point; he poured the coal to those two engines and climbed away, leaving the escort far behind, unable to match his speed, much less catch up. "What the heck did he need us for?" asked Mendy at debriefing. "He was probably laughing all the way home."

The 354th was flying P-51 Mustangs at the time that this happened.

bolillo_loco
11-18-2005, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
well the p38 didnt seem todo well in photorecon its low mach number wasnt a help, as the PR often dived away from enemy fighters, (even 262s)

for successful photo recon, u want to avoid interception, and even more important, to get home (its pointless to take the pictures and then get shotdown...)
p38s had a habbit of not returning as much as spits and mossies. btw the PR spit could get to berlin and back http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

That's interesting p1ngu; might I ask what your sources are? I've never heard anything like that myself. I do not see how any wartime spitfire could fly from England to Berlin and back again. Unless you can provide proof that the Spitfire had 250-300 gallons of internal fuel with the ability to carry an additional 150-220 gallons externally, long range Spitfires are a pipe dream. Additionally the spitfire could only carry one camera, and its position wasn't very favorable. It would take three to five Spitfires to provide the same amount of photographical reconnaissance as one Lighting.

It wasn't until Me-262s began flying intercept missions against PR Lightnings that the Germans had an aircraft that could possibly intercept fast highflying PR Lightnings. The Mosquito was much slower at altitude than the PR Lightning, although I am quite sure it was an excellent PR aircraft.

The Lightning was a very successful PR aircraft so I do not understand why I am getting the impression by a few that it was useless at this job.

hop2002
11-18-2005, 09:04 PM
Again range is also critical for photo recon aircraft. The spitfire's maximum effective combat radius was around 175 miles, a fraction of the P-38's range. The P-38s were frequently used for missions that were ten or twelve hours in duration for a radius of action approaching 1,000 miles, or roughly six times further than any spitfire could travel.


You do realise that the Spitfires didn't remain with just 85 gallons o internal fuel throughout the war, don't you?

To the basic 85 gallons in the forward fuselage, add the later options of

another 10 gallons in forward fuselage
26 gallons in wing tanks
up to approx 70 gallons in rear fuselag tank
up to 170 gallons in drop tank

And that's just the fighter versions. The recce aircraft had up to 250 gallons internal, and a large drop tank.

The Spitfire was carrying out recce missions over Berlin before the US entered the war. Supermarine put forward their proposal for a PR Spitfire in 1939, range was:

at 25,000 ft 1,885 miles at 250 mph, 1,615 miles at 300 mph.

Spitfires had the range the RAF required of them. The RAF had little requirement for very long range. The basic Merlin Spitfire had 85 gallons in the forward tanks. It wasn't until a requirement for more range for the Spitfire VIII for overseas that the forward tanks were increased to fill the space available, which added 10 gallons. Wing tanks were also fitted, adding 26 gallons.

30 gallon tanks under the pilot's seat were added to early PR aircraft, some Spitfire Vs were fitted with the same size tank in the rear fuselage to get them to North Africa easier.

Extending the range on the Spitfire was pretty easy, the USAAF even modified 2 in the states and flew them back across the Atlantic. But there was no requirement for a super long range Spit (apart from the already successful PR versions). The US didn't have a requirement for super long ranges early in the war eiher, it was only when the policy of unescorted daylight bombing was shown to be prohibitively expensive that such a requirement was identified, and aircraft modified to suit.

The best practical range for a fighter Spitfire would be a Spitfire VIII (95 gallons forward fuselage, 26 gallons wings) with a rear tank (say 60 gallons, although they went as high as 70+) and a 90 gallon drop tank. All these options were used on Spitfires, although the rear tanks were rarely used.

That gives 121 gallons normal inernal fuel, 60 gallons in rear tank, 90 gallons in drop tank.

That should give a radius, at 300 mph cruise, with combat and reserves, of more than 500 miles. Berlin is about 500 miles from East Anglian airfields.

"The Spitfire" had plenty of range, most Spitfires were simply not fitted with the extra tankage available, because the RAF had no requirement for such range. The most commonly used droptank on the Spitfire was only 30 gallons.

p1ngu666
11-18-2005, 09:28 PM
"The PR.XI was chronologically well ahead of the PR.X, being derived from the Mk IX. Powered by a Merlin 70, it could climb to 44,000 ft (13,420 m) and attain a speed of 422 mph (679 km/h). The only Mk IX derivative to have a retractable tailwheel, the PR.XI had the broad chord rudder; an enlarged oil tank like all PR variants; and the same leading-edge fuel tanks in the wings pioneered by the PR.IV, bringing the total fuel capacity up to 228 Imp gals (1,036 litres). Deliveries commenced in late 1942, early aircraft being powered by the Merlin 60 series engine.
Production: 471"

http://hsgalleries.com/images/spitfirexitb_4.jpg

2 cameras work together to get a 3d effect for pictures. plus it could take a oblique camera too iirec


The famous British Mosquito--known to many as "Mossie"--was a versatile aircraft used extensively during World War II. Constructed primarily of plywood with a balsa wood core, it had excellent speed, altitude and range. First flown on November 25, 1940, the Mosquito entered production in Mid-1941 and was produced until well after the end of the war. Almost 8,000 Mossies were built in Great Britain, Canada and Australia. Although best known for their service with the Royal Air Force, Mosquitos were also used by several U.S. Army Air Forces units for photo and weather reconnaissance, and as night fighters. During the war, the AAF acquired 40 Canadian Mossies and flew them under the American F-8 (photo reconnaissance) designation. In addition, the British turned over more than 100 Mosquitos to the AAF under Reverse Lend-Lease. These aircraft retained their British designations.

The aircraft on display is a British-built B. Mk. 35 manufactured in 1946 (later converted for towing targets) and is similar to the P.R. Mk. XVIs used by the AAF. It was flown to the Museum in February 1985. This Mosquito has been restored to a Mk. XVI configuration and painted as a weather reconnaissance aircraft of the 653rd Bomb Squadron, 25th Bomb Group, based in England in 1944-45.

SPECIFICATIONS
Span: 54 ft. 2 in.
Length: 40 ft. 6 in.
Height: 12 ft. 6 in.
Weight: 23,000 lbs. loaded
Armament: 4,000 lbs. of bombs in bomber version
Engines: Two Rolls-Royce Merlins of 1,690 hp. ea.
Crew: Two
Cost: $100,000 (approximately)
Serial Number: RS709
Displayed as (S/N): PR.XVI NS519

PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 415 mph
Cruising speed: 276 mph
Range: 1,955 miles
Service Ceiling: 42,000 ft.

the max speed isnt cherry picked, its possibly higher. in proper service trim the mossie was the fastest aircraft about..

and what i know from p38s comes from general reading, and abit about the type in a couple of books i have on the p38. they failed to return more than other types.

p38 wasnt useless, just didnt do aswell as other types for whatever reason.

bolillo_loco
11-18-2005, 10:01 PM
Thank you p1ngu. I would like to point out one thing, the way you calculated range isn't the way "effective range" range is calculated. The only way for a spitfire to have an effective combat radius is if it carried 250 gallons of internal fuel along with an additional 150-200 external gallons via drop tank for a total tankage of 400-450 gallons, any thing less would make it ineffective due to short range. I've seen pics of spits that had extra fuel tankage, but it was usually some slipper tank that was bolted to the underside of the aircraft giving it questionable value. Using the methods you described to calculate range, the spitfire has half the range of a P-51 or P-38.
Also I would like to point out that spitfire carrying as much fuel as you have stated (and I believe you) would render it much less maneuverable and reduce its rate of climb to well below that of a P-38.

HellToupee
11-18-2005, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:

In this regard the spitfire was pretty much useless. It lacked range and after the battle of Britain it played a very minor part in the war. In North Africa P-38s were the only aircraft available for missions because short ranged spits couldn't make it to the fight. The spitfire was pretty useless for ground attack as well.


Then why did they persist and make over 30,000 spitfires if they were usless and played no role, didnt the US use spitfires in the med theater? Some chart skychimp posted about sortie loss rates showed the spit having a better sortie loss ratio than the p47 in us service :P

ImpStarDuece
11-18-2005, 10:26 PM
Some quotes from the Spitfire IX, XI & XIV manual (Air Publication 1565J)

"Late Mk. IX and all F. Mk. XIV aircraft mount two additional fuel tanks with a combined capacity of 75 gallons (66 gallons in aircraft with "rear view" fuselages); they are fitted in the fuselage behind the cockpit. These tanks should only be filled for special operations at the discretion of the appropriate Area Commander and normally their ***** should be wired to OFF."

According to the pilots manual, when fitted with rear fuselage tanks and drop tanks, the standard operational procedure was this;

P. 16

"Start the engine, warm up, taxy and take-off on the main tanks; then, at 2,000 ft. change to the rear fuselage tanks and continue to use fuel from them until they contain only 30 gallons. Turn ON the drop tank (turning OFF the rear fuselage tank **** when the change has been made) and drain it, then change back to the rear fuselage tanks and drain them. Revert to the main tanks"

General Flying;

"1. Stability

...

(b) When the rear fuselage tanks are full there is a very marked reduction in longitudinal stability, the aircraft tightens in turns at all atlitudes and, in tthis condition is restriceted to straight flying, and only gentle manoeuvers; accurate trimming is not possible and instrument flying should be avoided whenever possible
(c) When a 90-gallon drop tank is carried in addition to full fuel in the rear fuselage tanks the aircraft becomes extreemly difficult and tiring to fly and in this condition is restricted to straight flying and only gentle manoeuvers at low altitudes.

...

(e) When 90 (or 170) gallon drop tanks are carried on these aircraft, they are restricted to straight flying and gentle manoeuvers only.


RAAF tests flying Spitfire Mk. VIIIs with both Merlin 61s and 66s, showed that the best range fuel consumption was -4 lbs boost at 1800 rpm. At this level the engine consumed 22 imperial gallons per hour, (almost exactly 100 litres per hour). Standard cruising output seems to have been a little higher, at about 30 imperial gallons per hour.

HellToupee
11-18-2005, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Some quotes from the Spitfire IX, XI & XIV manual (Air Publication 1565J)

"Late Mk. IX and all F. Mk. XIV aircraft mount two additional fuel tanks with a combined capacity of 75 gallons (66 gallons in aircraft with "rear view" fuselages); they are fitted in the fuselage behind the cockpit. These tanks should only be filled for special operations at the discretion of the appropriate Area Commander and normally their ***** should be wired to OFF."

According to the pilots manual, when fitted with rear fuselage tanks and drop tanks, the standard operational procedure was this;

P. 16

"Start the engine, warm up, taxy and take-off on the main tanks; then, at 2,000 ft. change to the rear fuselage tanks and continue to use fuel from them until they contain only 30 gallons. Turn ON the drop tank (turning OFF the rear fuselage tank **** when the change has been made) and drain it, then change back to the rear fuselage tanks and drain them. Revert to the main tanks"

General Flying;

"1. Stability

...

(b) When the rear fuselage tanks are full there is a very marked reduction in longitudinal stability, the aircraft tightens in turns at all atlitudes and, in tthis condition is restriceted to straight flying, and only gentle manoeuvers; accurate trimming is not possible and instrument flying should be avoided whenever possible
(c) When a 90-gallon drop tank is carried in addition to full fuel in the rear fuselage tanks the aircraft becomes extreemly difficult and tiring to fly and in this condition is restricted to straight flying and only gentle manoeuvers at low altitudes.

...

(e) When 90 (or 170) gallon drop tanks are carried on these aircraft, they are restricted to straight flying and gentle manoeuvers only.


RAAF tests flying Spitfire Mk. VIIIs with both Merlin 61s and 66s, showed that the best range fuel consumption was -4 lbs boost at 1800 rpm. At this level the engine consumed 22 imperial gallons per hour, (almost exactly 100 litres per hour). Standard cruising output seems to have been a little higher, at about 30 imperial gallons per hour.

p51 was about the same with rear tank issues, also whats p38s internal fuel range?

p1ngu666
11-18-2005, 10:57 PM
bolilio, the slipper tank is detachable (its a proper droptank) and it requires no racks either, which reduce speed

a p51 (from a quick google) carried about 400gallons of fuel.

not having to form up, fly in formation etc would save alot of fuel

ive found my spitfire in blue book, heres some of the sorties of one spit (PL965)
im pickin em at random, those that sound deep in germany http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

mechernich railway yard
osnabruck detmold
lingen brmerhaven
vechta-hoya-nienburg-diepholz
bremen-papenburg
dunkirk http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
dortmund hamm
ruhr-xanten-wulfen
hanover
rhine
ulzen wittenburg
hamburg area
kiel
lubeck
hauge
emden-denmark A/Fs
schwerin-rechlin (ooo look a 109z http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif)
ruhr-munster
"low level obliques"

average height is 25,000+ft

the book also has a nice little bit with specs of various planes
XI, 422mph @ 27,000ft
ceiling 44,000ft (tho u could creap up slowly higher)
max range 1,360
oh and 355mph @ sea level

has roc, 30,000ft about 8.3 minutes, 20,000 in 5

amusingly it can get to 30,000ft twice as fast as the dora (16.8) but only 2mins ahead to 20,000ft (7.1)

me163, time to 29,500feet, 2.6 minutes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
intial, 15,950 feet per min
at 32,800 33,470 feet per min http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif!

id also haveto highly disagree with the spitfire did hardly a thing after BOB... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
11-18-2005, 11:04 PM
"An internal fuel capacity of 410 gallons could be increased to 1,010 gallons with two external drop tanks and gave the Lightning a range of 450 miles, "

bolillo_loco
11-19-2005, 12:29 AM
p1ngu I would suspect that you haven't any dedicated P-38 books, but only general reference ones. The 450-mile range with two 310-gallon tanks is so incorrect that it's strikingly indecent. Keep in mind that missions of 12 hours weren't uncommon in the 38J and L. The 450 mile range you have stated isn't even reasonable; consider this, even at 200 mph (2 1/4 hours to complete 450 miles) the 38 would have to burn over 500 gallons per hour. The fuel consumption at full throttle was 320 gallons per hour and was 62 gallons per hour at minimum specific consumption. At this low power setting, and using your methods to calculate range, the P-38 could fly for 16.3 hours. This translates into 2753 statute miles. As far as field modifications go, I've seen PR lightings in the pacific loaded with two 75 gallon drop tanks in addition to the two 310 gallon tanks. This would give the lighting a 18.7 hour range or 3,169 statute miles. The pilot€s endurance was the limiting factor not the 38's range. In the MTO and PTO 38s flew missions that were much longer than those in the ETO. ETO and MTO 38 units were much more effective simply because they were crewed by better people. The spitfire's speed and rate of climb that you posted is not for a spitfire that is carrying 200+ gallons of fuel internally. The spitfire would have to have just over half the total amount of fuel that a P-38 could carry (1,010 like you have stated) in order to achieve the same range. The allisons in the lightning had a bit better fuel consumption than the rollys royce merline. Even for PR work you needed to figure in warm up, take off, climb, 15 minutes at military power over the target, and a fifty-gallon reserve. This is the method used; for fighter aircraft five minutes at WEP is also considered.

The basic spitfire used for air-to-air combat lacked range and lacked the ability to provide ground support. I can remember reading about an English unit that had to turn in its spitfires near the end of the war because bomber command switched from night time bombing to day time bombing. The reason? The spitfire lacked range. A token hand full of specially built spits is not representative of your average spitfire; more over, any spitfire that had decent range was a lot heavier than the early model spits, thus much less maneuverable.

JtD
11-19-2005, 12:35 AM
Small comment on range: When they reworked the cooler on the J model they did not only reduce the reliability problem a lot, the also filled up the space with new fuel tanks which gave the P-38 a tremendous range even without external fuel tanks.

"Spitfire was mostly useless" - It's not like that the Germans stopped attacking Britain in 1940. There was no cease fire over France the following three years. It were Spitfires that made a difference in the air over the Mediterrainian.

Pingu, none of the German target you Spit went to is as far as Berlin from Britain. Schwerin/Rechlin comes close, but you'd still need an extra 300+ km to make it to Berlin and back.

ImpStarDeuce - do you happen to have data for the Typhoon that is worth opening an extra topic? Whenever I look for something specfic for this plane I start searching the web with little to no success. I'd very much apprechiate it.

WOLFMondo
11-19-2005, 03:00 AM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:


The basic spitfire used for air-to-air combat lacked range and lacked the ability to provide ground support. I can remember reading about an English unit that had to turn in its spitfires near the end of the war because bomber command switched from night time bombing to day time bombing. The reason? The spitfire lacked range. A token hand full of specially built spits is not representative of your average spitfire; more over, any spitfire that had decent range was a lot heavier than the early model spits, thus much less maneuverable.

Heavier? Less manouverable? Sorry, you don't know ANYTHING about Spitfires.

Its British, not English. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The RAF isn't English, its British. Its not like Wales has its own Welsh Air force.:P

You need to read up about the RAF 2nd Tactical Airforce and just how many of its 1700+ front line combat aircraft were Spitfires and what they did with those Spitfires.

With drop tanks Spitfires could reach the German border from Biggin Hill, they did the first and last legs of Escorts into Germany, they escorted US planes all over France, Belgium and Holland before the 8th AF advance fighter units appeared.

There was nothing specially built about these Spitfires, just standard IX's with drop tanks used from 1942 onwards. The MkVIII's were built en masse, one of the major production varients and they had enough range to work in the Pacific.

At the end of the war when RAF and 2nd TAF units were based in Holland and Germany itself they did have plenty of range to escort the Lancasters and Halifax's doing daylight raids.

Aaron_GT
11-19-2005, 03:11 AM
the max speed isnt cherry picked, its possibly higher. in proper service trim the mossie was the fastest aircraft about..

Pingu, I think 415mph for the B.35 is the loaded speed. The B.XVI's speed loaded (4000lb) was 408mph, rising to 420mph without bombs. I would guess the B.35 would probably manage 425mph without the bombs, much like the NF.30.

Aaron_GT
11-19-2005, 03:22 AM
Heavier? Less manouverable? Sorry, you don't know ANYTHING about Spitfires.

boilo_loco is right in that it would be less manoueverable during the initial parts of flight when the rear fuselage tank was full or the slipper tank was still full and attached, but this is pretty much the same behaviour as the P51 in the same condition.

The P51 had the advantage of being a larger plane in the first place, so there was more room for additional tankage, but even then it required additional tanks to make it to Berlin and back. Photo recon Spits could make it to Berlin and back, but armed Spits could not, even with additional tankage.

The P51 did very well on the same engines as the Spitfires despite being larger as it was the next generation on in terms of design and was aerodynamically a bit cleaner - the nose is a bit pointier and the radiator placed better. The wings were also lower drag, which is one of the reasons why the Spitfire could turn inside the P51. The Spitfire wings were still good for exceptionally high speed, though, but beyond what a prop plane could manage. The Spiteful was an attempt to extend the Spiteful design via laminar flow wings, but it was the age of the jet by that point.

The Spitfire was a fantastic design for the mid 1930s, but its design ethos was for point defence. It did well to get the extended range in versions such as the VIII but it was always going to be a losing battle against something designed for longer range from the outset in terms of range. In terms of speed performance the battle was a lot closer except in the 0-10000 range, and there the Typhoon and Tempest (especially with 3000hp overboost) did relatively well, although the Typhoon had critically poor roll.

bolillo_loco
11-19-2005, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:


The basic spitfire used for air-to-air combat lacked range and lacked the ability to provide ground support. I can remember reading about an English unit that had to turn in its spitfires near the end of the war because bomber command switched from night time bombing to day time bombing. The reason? The spitfire lacked range. A token hand full of specially built spits is not representative of your average spitfire; more over, any spitfire that had decent range was a lot heavier than the early model spits, thus much less maneuverable.

Heavier? Less manouverable? Sorry, you don't know ANYTHING about Spitfires.

Its British, not English. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The RAF isn't English, its British. Its not like Wales has its own Welsh Air force.:P

You need to read up about the RAF 2nd Tactical Airforce and just how many of its 1700+ front line combat aircraft were Spitfires and what they did with those Spitfires.

With drop tanks Spitfires could reach the German border from Biggin Hill, they did the first and last legs of Escorts into Germany, they escorted US planes all over France, Belgium and Holland before the 8th AF advance fighter units appeared.

There was nothing specially built about these Spitfires, just standard IX's with drop tanks used from 1942 onwards. The MkVIII's were built en masse, one of the major production varients and they had enough range to work in the Pacific.

At the end of the war when RAF and 2nd TAF units were based in Holland and Germany itself they did have plenty of range to escort the Lancasters and Halifax's doing daylight raids. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for clearing up my mistakes with English and British.

You do realize that in order for a spitfire to have the same range as a mustang or lightning it would have to be carring 400+ gallons. It is a fact and the spitfire lacked this. Books are full of the fact that spitfires lacked range and other aircraft had to be used. Any spitfire that would have the range of a Mustang or lighting would have at least 250 gallons of internal fuel, and I imagine that it would have to be higher because the spitfire had a lower cruise speed than either the mustang or lighting. This would mean the spitfire would me much heavier due to the extra 150 gallons of internal fuel and the tanks to hold them. It woudl also mean that the aircraft would have to be completely redesigned, thus making it heavier. I know enough about spitfires to know that they were short ranged and pretty useless after BOB.

Aaron_GT
11-19-2005, 03:43 AM
I know enough about spitfires to know that they were short ranged and pretty useless after BOB.

Ok, I was with you up to this point, which is total rubbish. Spitfires were used extensively in many theatres, and very usefully so, and the USAAF used them quite a bit too. If they were so useless then the USAAF wouldn't have used them. In reality they were used extensively and successfully in a number of theatres where the distance to target was within their range - e.g. operations over France (including D-Day, when the USN even used Spitfire Vs), in the Med, and Far East. They were also used for part of the escort of 8th AAF raids on Germany. They were also the premiere high altitude photo recon aircraft in the ETO except for long range missions when it became the Mosquito, or low altitude, when it was the P51A.

What Spitfires weren't useful for was long range escort.

But there were plenty of other things for the Spitfire to do.

Now if the Typhoon and been what it was supposed to have been (which was basically what the Tempest ended up being) then the Spitfire would likely have been phased out sooner except for some high altitude variants and photo recon. But historically the Spitfire carried on giving excellent service except in the long range escort role.

WOLFMondo
11-19-2005, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
I know enough about spitfires to know that they were short ranged and pretty useless after BOB.

Proves you know nothing I'm afraid with a statement like useless after BoB. I really suggest you find out the reason why over 20,000 Spitfires in 24 different MK's were built and used until the Mid 50's. I also suggest you read up on the 2nd TAF and just how many bombs Spitfires dropped on the occupied territories.

ImpStarDuece
11-19-2005, 05:18 AM
Some Spitfire IXs were used as long range escorts, just not especially frequently. They usually had an extra 10 gallons in the foward fuselage tanks (95 imperial gallons instead of the usual 85), full rear fuselage tanks (75 gallons), and generally a 90 gallon drop tank (170 slipper tanks were primarily reserved for PR and ferry flights, but there were no actual limitiations on their used on a Mk. VIII or Mk. IX). Some were also fitted with two 13 gallon wing leading edge tanks.

So, 95+75+90 = 260 imperial gallons, or 312 US gallons.

or, more rarely with wing leading edge tanks installed;

95+75+90+26 = 286 imperial gallons or 345 US gallons.

An finally, just as a theoretical possibility to see the maximum fuel a Spitfire IX could carry;

95+75+26+170 = 366 imperial gallons, or 435 US gallons.

Spitfire VII/VIIIs could probably go a little further, having slightly larger internal tankage (129 or 122 imp gal standard), which is why most of them went to the Mediterranean and the Pacific, were longer operation ranges were common.

Funnily enough, the greatest internal tankage for a Spitfire was for the Mk. XI, a direct derivitave of the Mk. IX. It had 228 gallons internal tankage, and the capacity to carry a 170 gal slipper tank, for a grand total of 398 imperial gallons, or about 475 US gallons. Maximum ferry range was about 2300 miles, so its action radius was probably around 700-800 miles.

Spitfire VIIs with 129 imperial gallons internal tankage + a 90 gallon drop tank did 3 1/2 hour daylight escort sorties. There are recorded Spitfire XI escort sorties of over 4 and 1/2 hours. Not the 6-8 hour endurance of the fighters of the USAAF, but not bad for something designed as a point defensive fighter.

p1ngu666
11-19-2005, 12:55 PM
thanks imp, also the difference between imperial and american gallons is fairly big http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

JtD, i just picked some at random, dunno much about german georgraphy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

but there just some of the sorties one particular plane took.

incidently, the spitfire was a very big deterent to any german air activity over britain.
only the low level tip and run raids that happened with fighter bombers on mostly coastal targets (targets is often a very loose term for german bombing of uk from midwar on)

they couldnt really use proper bombers in daylight as they would be mauled very badly indeed.

luftluuver
11-19-2005, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
thanks imp, also the difference between imperial and american gallons is fairly big

5 Imp gal = 6 US gal or 1.0:1.2

1 US gallon = 3.79 liters
1 Imp gallon = 4.55 liters

p1ngu666
11-19-2005, 06:50 PM
20% then? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

mynameisroland
11-21-2005, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
This is a rather useless debate. The two aircraft are so very differant, they simply cant be compaired! The Spitfire is a pure dedicated short range fighter that has some other limited capabilities. The P-38 was a true multi-roll long range fighter. It was born with the sole intent to shoot down bombers at high alt, not to fight fighters! The fact that it is even able to do so it a testiment to its design. The P-38 is also 3x the weight of the Spitfire.

If you wanna compair hardware, then compair the Mossy to the P-38. While the Spitfire was patroling the coast, the P-38 and Mossy were delivering packages too down town Berlin.

Why not Gibbage?

Apparently the P38 was the USAAF's 'best' dogfighter so why not look at it in comparison with THE best dogfighter. And if you like to think of the P38 as a F14, F15 or a FA 18 then think of the Spitfire as a Grippen, a Mirage 2000 or a F16.

Range is not a pre requisite for 'Multi-role'

Cheers

mynameisroland
11-21-2005, 06:36 AM
Hi JtD the performance chart is for the slower of the two in the comparison the Spitfire VIII and the faster P38 the J model rather than the L. In game we have the Spitfire IX which fortunately seems to be modeled at a higher speed and represents the figures of 420mph plus at high altitude.

So we can look at Pingu's chart for these figures. Either way I think that the Spitfire VIII or IX performs better at altitude. In manuvering combat at high altitude where compressibilty is reached easily the Spitfire has a clear advanatage.

ImpStarDuece
11-21-2005, 07:15 AM
Spitfire IX, with a Merlin 66, should hit about 410-412 mph at high alt maximum. That is with the Rolls Royce S.U. pump fitted, instead of rhe Bendix Stromberg unit, but this is a mid-late 1944 thing.

You might get a few more miles out of the redesigned air intakes that appeared on producion airframes in early 1944, but it would only be n the order of 3-4 mph.

The highest top speeds I have seen for the Mk IX with a Merlin 66 are 411 mph at 21,000 feet and 409 mph at 28,000 feet. 417 mph for a Spitfire HF. Mk. IX with a Merlin 70 seems to be the closest a Mk IX got to 420 mph.

Best speed for a Merlin engined Spitfire seems to have been with the Mk VII. Fitted with a Merlin 71 and extended wing tips, it did 424 mph in service trials in 1943. However, only one squadron used the Merlin 71 engined variant, most used Mk. VIIs with Merlin 64 or 70 engines. Given the improvements to the Mk. IX it is quite possible that later modifications increased this speed, but I have seen no evidence of that. By mid 1944, some Mk VII squadrons had reverted back to standard wing-tips, and operated the Mk VII like a longer ranged version of the Mk. IX.

mynameisroland
11-21-2005, 07:37 AM
Cheers for the figures Imp,

I think its great reading these kinds of threads as it educates me on all kinds of subjects that I have not had thought of before. The performance we have in game for the Spitfire IX E is 685km/h at high altitude which roughly works out at 420mph or so. This to me seems reasonable of a late model IX incorparating the modifications you outlined in you post above. The 1st IX models reached 404pmh, the high altitude Merlin 70 engined VII's and IX's reached higher speeds at higher altitudes from the beginning with the trade off at lower levels accepted.

What is being ignored or side stepped in this thread is that the P38 would have trouble sticking with the Spitfire IX in a dogfight. Yet in other threads we have to consider the excellence of the P38 in dogfight manuvers compared with the Fw 190 or the Bf 109. As soon as the boot is on the other foot so to speak some experts on this board are content to simplify arguments and liken the Spitfire vs P38 to the Zero vs the P38 while ignoring that the performance margin is slim to non existent for the P38. Once that has been contradicted we are told to look at range. Yes range is greatly important but does it render the P38 a good dogfighter or a better interceptor? The answer is no. It does make it a longer ranged escort fighter, that is all. You cannot pick and choose when to intercept an enemy you have to intercept when intelligence concering a raid reaches you. Having standing patrols of long range fighters was a pre war concept. When radar became advanced enough fast climbing interceptors are more efficient, less maintinence is needed, less pilot fatigue, less fuel consumed the list goes on. If your enemy is based 60km/h away like in a BoB scenario rof is paramount. If you are flying to a target 500 miles away ofcourse you will have time to climb, but roc will always be useful in air to air combat.

To say that the Spitfire did nothing after BoB while at the same time inferring the P38 contributed more to WW2 shows complete ignorance.

JtD
11-21-2005, 11:23 AM
Roland, how often do I have to say that the Spit IX data you see in IL-2 compare is not what we have ingame. When I tested the Spit IX it did exactly 656 kph max.
.
.
.
Well, plusminus 5.

The faster of the VIII models is a clipped wing model and I chose the none clipped because they were more commom to my knowledge. Also, the clipped version should be a little slower at high alt, but it doesn't as it is not considered in IL2-compare.

I have always pointed out that I was comparing to the P-38J model which is the fastest Lightning.

I also prefer that setup because I find 1943 more interesting that 1944 in terms of plane sets.

Gibbage1
11-21-2005, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Why not Gibbage?

Apparently the P38 was the USAAF's 'best' dogfighter so why not look at it in comparison with THE best dogfighter. And if you like to think of the P38 as a F14, F15 or a FA 18 then think of the Spitfire as a Grippen, a Mirage 2000 or a F16.

Range is not a pre requisite for 'Multi-role'

Cheers

Now your just trolling. The P-38 was far from the best dogfighter the USAAF had. One of the best "fighters" yes, but that does not specify ONLY dogfighting. If you cant look at the hole pitchure, your short sighted. In WWII, one fighter shooting down another was USELESS to the progress of war. A lot of people forget that you simply cant win a war in the air. Air dominancy helps a lot, but you still need boots on the ground, and the P-38 helped those boots a lot more when doing direct ground support then a Spitfire shooting down a 109.

Xiolablu3
11-21-2005, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
I know enough about spitfires to know that they were short ranged and pretty useless after BOB.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I cant believe someone who claims to know about planes wrote that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


If a fighter shooting down another fighter doesnt do anything for the war then why bother?, may as well just not have fighters altogether? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DmdSeeker
11-21-2005, 02:42 PM
Just finished watching the original Memphis Belle (the war time one with commentary by Clark Gable).

One of the last action shots while under attack is a 109 coming in onto the Belle while the R/H side gunner suddenly pulls off because he can see a Spit is on the 109.

Hardly Battle of Britain time frame...

Gibbage1
11-21-2005, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
If a fighter shooting down another fighter doesnt do anything for the war then why bother?, may as well just not have fighters altogether? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A fighter defending a B-17 does something tward the war, without shooting down the attacker. How many long range Spitfires escorted B-17's or Lancasters deep into France and Germany? None. Since if they had the fuel to do that, they had no guns. P-38, P-47, and P-51 not only had the fuel to do that, but the guns.

luftluuver
11-21-2005, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
I know enough about spitfires to know that they were short ranged and pretty useless after BOB.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I cant believe someone who claims to know about planes wrote that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Seems he doesn't know enough.

Spitfires escorted B-17s/B-24s on the outward leg and picked them up on the return. This allowed American escort fighters to fly directly to the tranfer points over Holland which gave them more fuel as they did not have to stooge around with the slow bombers.

p1ngu666
11-21-2005, 07:27 PM
spits did the first and last leg, then the p47s, then the p38s

and remmber those p51's where pretty iffy on full tanks, without spits the bombers would be vunrable, and the escorts for later on. USAAF would also haveto make up the numbers, spread themselves more thinly.

dont underestimate the photo recon work, best example of what no photo recon does.

stalingrad, the soviets bulit up two large pincers, which then crashed through the axis lines, and encircled them. the germans had NO idea of these soviet armies, and they paid a very heavy price.

the spits where also a VERY powerful deterent to the german bombers not tobe over britain in daylight.

incidently, german bomber crews considered attacking malta a death sentance.
malta was defended by hurricanes, spits and a few other types

ImpStarDuece
11-21-2005, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
If a fighter shooting down another fighter doesnt do anything for the war then why bother?, may as well just not have fighters altogether? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A fighter defending a B-17 does something tward the war, without shooting down the attacker. How many long range Spitfires escorted B-17's or Lancasters deep into France and Germany? None. Since if they had the fuel to do that, they had no guns. P-38, P-47, and P-51 not only had the fuel to do that, but the guns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually, Spitfires performed both escort, cover and withdrawl duties for the heavies from 1942 onwards, all the way up to the German border and well into France. The Mk VII/VIII had an endurance of over 4 hours with a 90 gallon slipper tank and 129 gallons internal tankage. For example, No 131 Sqdn, flying Mk VIIs on 11 August 1944, escorted Lancasters on a daylight raid to the submarine pens at La Pallice, their longest range mission of the war. The 690 mile round trip took 3 hour 50 minutes, without seeing enemy contact.

In the 1944 period, Spitfires based from the UK regularly flew 3 hour patrols, well past Paris and Reims. Given that later build Spitfire Mk IXs and all Mk XIVs had rear fuselage tanks fitted, internal fuel capacity could be anywhere from 160 to 185 imperial gallons, or about 30% more than that of the 'long range' MK VII/VIIIs, its not unreasonable to conclude that they could fly deep penerations for the last 12 months of the war.

Daiichidoku
11-21-2005, 08:37 PM
spits and jugs continued to perfom escort even after 51s took over

yes, they all had a hand in recieving viermots, but they also did what they could within the means of thier range...

they escorted b 25s, b 26s, marylands and baltimores to tgts in france, low countires, and in MTO, sardinia, french riviera, and baltic environs

not high profile as 17 and 24 raids to berlin, but just as impotant, ask any twin bomber crewhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

pourshot
11-21-2005, 10:35 PM
From Alfred Price's SPITFIRE




Reginald Mitchell had intended the Spitfire as a short-range interceptor fighter but, such was the versatility of€ his design, it was also to prove one of the most effective photographic reconnaissance aircraft of World War 2. Operating at extreme altitudes, reconnaissance Spitfires ranged far and wide over German-occupied territory, bringing back thousands of valuable photographs. A few Spitfire PRXIs were supplied to the US 8th Air Force and equipped the 14th Photo Squadron, 7th Photographic Reconnaissance Group based at Mount Farm near Oxford. In this account Walt Weitner, who as a Major commanded the unit, describes the mission on 6 March 1944 when, flying his personal Spitfire High Lady, he conducted the post-attack reconnaissance immediately, following the first full-scale US daylight attack on Berlin. His was the first US-operated reconnaissance Spitfire to fly over the German capital.

A reconnaissance mission to Berlin would take the Spitfire PRXI almost to the limit of its effective radius of action from even the nearest airfield in England. So beforehand Walt Weitner flew High Lady to the Royal Air Force airfield at Bradwell Bay near Clacton, where the aircraft's tanks were filled to capacity: 84ga1 in the two main tanks in front of the cockpit, 132ga1 in the integral tanks built Into the leading edge of each wing, and 90ga1 in the `slipper' drop tank under the fuselage. This gave a total fuel load of 306ga1, more than four times the capacity of the tanks of the prototype Spitfire when she made her maiden flight almost exactly eight years earlier.
Once the refueling was complete Weitner, wearing several layers of thick clothing to keep out the cold at high altitude, climbed into High Lady and strapped in. At 13.30hr, as briefed, he took off.

'With a full load of fuel and that narrow undercarriage, the Spit would "lean" disconcertingly during turns when one taxied. But once you got off the ground and got a little speed she really perked up, she would leap away. Once the gear was up and you pulled up the nose, boy would she climb! I took the direct route for Berlin, heading out on 086? over the North Sea towards Holland. Thirty-nine minutes after take-off I passed my first checkpoint, The Hague, at 39,000 feet. There was 5/lOths cloud cover below, through which I could make out the Zuider Zee.
The Spitfire was easy to handle at very high altitude. This one was well trimmed and stayed pretty level. One had always to have hold of the stick, but it, needed hardly any pressure. In the reconnaissance business you do not fly straight and level for long, you are continually banking to search the sky all around for enemy fighters and check the navigation.

With all the extra clothing, the parachute, dinghy, life jacket and oxygen mask, the narrow cockpit of a Spitfire was no place for the claustrophobic! The heavy flying clothing kept me pretty warm. Though my extremities did begin to get a bit cold. The temperature outside was about -60`F, and from time to time I would stamp my feet to get the circulation going.

Throughout the flight at high altitude my Spitfire left a long condensation trail. I could have avoided it by descending below 22000 feet, but I did not think that was the thing to do on a deep penetration like this. I thought the best bet was to cruise near to the ceiling of a Messerschmitt 109 then, if I had to go up, I had a little margin of altitude I could use. The Germans must have known I was up there but nobody was paying any attention to me. I thought that if enemy fighters did come after me they would have to leave trails too, and I would get plenty of warning.

As I passed over Hannover the skies were clear and I decided to make a photo run over the city. The intelligence people could always use such photos. There were trails ahead at about my level, but they were moving on an easterly heading and obviously not aware of my presence.'

The reason for the Germans' lack of interest in the lone Spitfire is not hard to fathom: almost every available Luftwaffe fighter in the area was in action against the force of more than 600 Flying Fortresses and Liberators and their escorts now battling their way westwards back to England, after the attack on Berlin. Over the VHF Weitner could hear snippets of conversations from the distant combats: `Three Me's at 12 o'clock, 2,000 feet above us. Let's go!'. . . `One lone bomber down there, shall I escort him home?'. . . `Here comes one at you, Joe. Dive! I'll tag him...... Good show! He's smoking now!'

As the Spitfire neared Berlin, however, the Luftwaffe finally reacted to the intruder high over the Fatherland. Glancing in one of the mirrors in the side-blisters of his canopy, Walt Weitner suddenly realised he was no longer alone.

`1 saw three black forms, also trailing, following an uncomfortable 1,500 yards behind, their altitude just below my own.'

The discovery came at a bad time for the American pilot. He was running his engine on the drop tank and from his calculations he knew it was almost empty; but since it had no fuel gauge the only indication when it was dry would be when the engine started to splutter - which might leave him without power at a critical time. He thought of switching to one of the wing tanks and dropping the slipper tank, but the mission required all the fuel the aircraft could carry; if he released the tank it would mess up his fuel calculations and might force him to abandon the mission short of the target. Nor would it solve the problem to switch the engine over to one of the wing tanks for the time being leaving the slipper tank in place, because the latter contained insufficient fuel for him to be sure it would resume feeding if he re-selected it. As an old flying saying puts it: `the three most useless things to an aviator are the runway behind, the sky above and the fuel he cannot use.

Walt Weitner decided to try to outrun the enemy fighters using the last of the fuel in the drop tank, and see what happened.

`I pushed the throttle forward as far as it would go without selecting emergency power, eased up the nose and began to climb. The whole time I nervously held the tank selector valve, ready to switch to one of the internal wing tanks the moment the engine faltered. As I climbed through 40,000 feet I could see that the German fighters behind me had split: one went on my right and two on my left, to box me in. And at that moment the engine coughed. I immediately selected internal fuel and the engine caught right away. At 41,500 feet I levelled off and my indicated airspeed increased to 178mph [a true airspeed of about 360mph]. After what seemed forever, but was probably only 2 to 3 minutes, the German fighters began to fall back and slid out of sight. Had they come any closer I should have gone to emergency boost, but it never got that desperate.'

Almost certainly the enemy fighters were Messerschmitt 109s fitted with nitrous oxide power boosting to enhance their high altitude performance, belonging to one of the special high altitude interception units. From German records there is evidence that the aircraft which attempted to intercept Weitner belonged to lst Gruppe of Jagdgeschwader 3, based at Burg just to the south of the Spitfire's track.

Still keeping a wary eye for the enemy, Weitner checked his navigation and prepared for the first photographic run on the target. `By now the target was only a few minutes away. I could see the huge Lake Mueritz, some 50 miles north-north-west of Berlin, away to the north but I could not yet see the city itself because of the smoke and industrial haze. I looked around and noted with relief that the enemy aircraft appeared to have abandoned the chase.'
Because the Spitfire lacked a pressurised cabin Weitner had no wish to remain at maximum altitude longer than necessary, so he eased the aircraft back down to 38,OOOft. Then he suddenly caught sight of the enemy capital laid out beneath him. The time was 15.30hrs, exactly two hours since he had taken off from Bradwell Bay.

`There was quite a lot of haze, but I could see the sun glinting off the red brick and tile houses. If the German fighters re-appeared I might be able to make only one photographic run so I planned to make the first from almost due north, down wind, to get a good line of photos without drifting off the target. I rolled the Spitfire on its side to line up the string of lakes I was using as check points, levelled out using the artificial horizon and switched on the cameras.'

In the rear fuselage of the Spitfire the two vertically mounted F.52 cameras, each with a 36in telephoto lens, clicked at five-second intervals to photograph a three-mile wide strip of ground beneath the aircraft. During the photography accurate flying was essential: even a small amount of bank could cause gaps in the cover, and 10? would be sufficient to miss a target altogether. Any correction to the aircraft's flight path had to be made in the five-second intervals between photographs.

`My orders were to photograph the bombers' targets and I had been given aerial photos of the city taken previously by the RAF, with the targets marked on them. But I could see smoke rising from places other than my assigned targets so 1 decided to photograph the sources of the smoke also. The whole time I kept checking the sky behind my tail, as I expected further interference from the enemy fighters. But none showed up. There was some flak, I could see the smoke bursts mushrooming, but none of it was close. I spent about 25 minutes over Berlin, during which I made runs from different directions and took about 70 photographs. Then a solid layer of cloud began moving over the city from the east, and as fuel was beginning to run low I set a course of 297? for home.'

On the return flight Weitner had another drama with his fuel. The order of using the Spitfire XI's fuel was, first, that in the drop tank; next the pilot used the fuel in the wing leading edge tanks, alternating between the two at 15 minute intervals so that the aircraft did not get out of trim; then he was to switch to the lower main tank and finally to the upper main tank. As the last of the fuel in the wing tanks was consumed, the Merlin coughed briefly. Weitner switched to the lower main tank and the engine's even roar resumed. How long it would continue to do so was a moot point, however, for the American pilot was disconcerted to see the needle of the fuel gauge hard against the zero mark. Could there have been a fuel leak, leaving the aircraft with insufficient to regain friendly territory? Or might it be simply that the gauge had frozen up?

`I discovered why I had toiled over maths for so long without learning its true value! Some rapid calculations almost proved the main tanks had to be full. During these reveries nothing of a threatening nature showed itself except a few far-off trails to the east. Soon the cloud covering the English coast was within gliding distance, and all was well again. Over the North Sea I descended to 30.000 feet and called "Gangplank" [Bradwell Bay] on the VHF for a homing. Over the coast of East Anglia the gas gauge suddenly came to life showing about 20 gallons. At my altitude I knew I had enough fuel to reach Mount Farm without having to land at the coast to take on more.'

Weitner descended to Mount Farm with the engine throttled back, made a low pass over the airfield, pulled round hard into finals, lowered his flaps and undercarriage and landed. High Lady had been airborne for four hours and 18 minutes.

`On entering the dispersal area the gas and the maths ran out simultaneously, leaving a spluttering and dead engine on my hands just a few safe feet short of "according to plan€ . . .'

Daiichidoku
11-21-2005, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by pourshot:
From Alfred Price's SPITFIRE

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

`On entering the dispersal area the gas and the maths ran out simultaneously, leaving a spluttering and dead engine on my hands just a few safe feet short of "according to plan€ . . .'
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>



see? spits dont have the range and fail in thier appointed tasks

pourshot
11-21-2005, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pourshot:
From Alfred Price's SPITFIRE

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

`On entering the dispersal area the gas and the maths ran out simultaneously, leaving a spluttering and dead engine on my hands just a few safe feet short of "according to plan€ . . .'
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>



see? spits dont have the range and fail in thier appointed tasks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


LOL You have been reading to many of Kurfurst's post, you have his selective reading down pat. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WOLFMondo
11-22-2005, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
If a fighter shooting down another fighter doesnt do anything for the war then why bother?, may as well just not have fighters altogether? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A fighter defending a B-17 does something tward the war, without shooting down the attacker. How many long range Spitfires escorted B-17's or Lancasters deep into France and Germany? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

14th October 1943, first time Spitfires entered Germany. They performed the first escort legs and the last 2. Target was a ball bearing plant.

YOu guys seem to forget the Spitfire IX was one of the most numerous ground pounder of the invasion and subsequent campaigns. And the thousands of raids at 12,000ft with B25 mitchels, Mauraders, A20 etc to hit targets in support of the invasion or suppression of the luftwaffe.

The daylight bombing campaign was not the be all and end all of WW2.

Without the Spitfire No 2nd Tactical Airforce. No 2nd TAF, no CAS for the invasion forces, no 2nd TAF, no invasion. The Spitfire was crucial to the allies. As much as any long rang escort.

Some of these post just show up peoples ignorance when it comes to the RAF and the Spitfire.

Daiichidoku
11-22-2005, 03:22 AM
Originally posted by pourshot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pourshot:
From Alfred Price's SPITFIRE

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

`On entering the dispersal area the gas and the maths ran out simultaneously, leaving a spluttering and dead engine on my hands just a few safe feet short of "according to plan€ . . .'
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>



see? spits dont have the range and fail in thier appointed tasks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


LOL You have been reading to many of Kurfurst's post, you have his selective reading down pat. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mynameisroland
11-22-2005, 05:36 AM
JtD if you are happy to compare the Spitfire VIII to the P38 J then I dont mind localising the argument to those two specific models in game.

Although the J model is the fastest it is also the least manuverable and suffers at speed especially in terms of roll. The VIII is the best handling Spitfire at high speeds in game, it was also the model which the later Griffon engined XIV was based on. It featured a strenghthened heavier airframe along with extra internal tankage and some aerodynamic refinements. Altoghther probably one of the best marks.

Try each of them out and bounce some aircraft at speeds of over 400mph and you will see which is the easier to fly in a high speed engagement. That aside it still retains a significant manuvering advantage at lower speeds and also at higher altitudes.

Cheers

mynameisroland
11-22-2005, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Why not Gibbage?

Apparently the P38 was the USAAF's 'best' dogfighter so why not look at it in comparison with THE best dogfighter. And if you like to think of the P38 as a F14, F15 or a FA 18 then think of the Spitfire as a Grippen, a Mirage 2000 or a F16.

Range is not a pre requisite for 'Multi-role'

Cheers

Now your just trolling. The P-38 was far from the best dogfighter the USAAF had. One of the best "fighters" yes, but that does not specify ONLY dogfighting. If you cant look at the hole pitchure, your short sighted. In WWII, one fighter shooting down another was USELESS to the progress of war. A lot of people forget that you simply cant win a war in the air. Air dominancy helps a lot, but you still need boots on the ground, and the P-38 helped those boots a lot more when doing direct ground support then a Spitfire shooting down a 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right Gibbage I am trolling the best dogfighter the USAAF employed were those pesky english Spitfire V's and IX's.

JtD
11-22-2005, 09:15 AM
You can read my opinion on a P-38 J vs. Spit Merlin 66 on page 4 of this thread.

p1ngu666
11-22-2005, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:


The daylight bombing campaign was not the be all and end all of WW2.



indeed!, other such things like what u would see on teh warclouds, or is wanted on warclouds, they where the most important http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

mynameisroland
11-22-2005, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
You can read my opinion on a P-38 J vs. Spit Merlin 66 on page 4 of this thread.

Read it, dont see how the P38 J is superior. The P38 holds no advantage in the vertical except in shallow dive and shallow zoom climb. The Spitfire can dive at higher terminal speeds and remain controllable it can also climb faster when not in a zoom climb.

The advantage in high speed roll rate is also not a factor as the P38 J rolls like a Zero at high speeds. The CW Spitfire on the other hand retains a significant roll advantage across the board. With regard to armament smaller dispersion of fire vs larger dispersion of heavier firepower again it is down to how good a shot the pilot is. Consider this, the P38 is a large target, the Spitfires dispersion is not a great problem when attacking a twin engined aircraft that is larger than a tennis court. The Spitfire on the other hand is a small target that pay prove difficult to hid with concentrated armament especially if the attitude of the two planes in relation to each other is constantly changing and the P38 J cannot keep up due to inferior roll rate and roll response.

JtD
11-22-2005, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

Read it, dont see how the P38 J is superior.

Probably because I did not claim it was. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In the game I can stay alive in a P-38 vs. a Spit and vice versa - everything else does hardly matter.

And in real life an aircrafts quality was not really defined by how it reacted to some jerky stick twisting.

Daiichidoku
11-22-2005, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
You can read my opinion on a P-38 J vs. Spit Merlin 66 on page 4 of this thread.

Read it, dont see how the P38 J is superior. The P38 holds no advantage in the vertical except in shallow dive and shallow zoom climb. The Spitfire can dive at higher terminal speeds and remain controllable it can also climb faster when not in a zoom climb.

The advantage in high speed roll rate is also not a factor as the P38 J rolls like a Zero at high speeds. The CW Spitfire on the other hand retains a significant roll advantage across the board. With regard to armament smaller dispersion of fire vs larger dispersion of heavier firepower again it is down to how good a shot the pilot is. Consider this, the P38 is a large target, the Spitfires dispersion is not a great problem when attacking a twin engined aircraft that is larger than a tennis court. The Spitfire on the other hand is a small target that pay prove difficult to hid with concentrated armament especially if the attitude of the two planes in relation to each other is constantly changing and the P38 J cannot keep up due to inferior roll rate and roll response. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



yes!

and history has proven this, what with all the spits and lightnin's constantly shooting each other down to fight the german and JP menace!

Daiichidoku
11-22-2005, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
JtD if you are happy to compare the Spitfire VIII to the P38 J then I dont mind localising the argument to those two specific models in game.
Cheers


yes!

in game is a critial point

Kelly Johnson desgined the P 38 IRL, using all possible expertise and facilities of Lockheed, Naca and USAAC

Oleg Maddox designed the P 38 in game, using all possible exper....ummmm, nevermind



remember, in game, (yes, this one that cannot account for lack of torque) its contention over most spits are overmodelled in certain regards, and the 38....well, the 38 Late only barely matches the L's climb...gee, wasnt the J (yea i know, a HUGE ammount) 20 lbs lighter than the J?..and the J was faster than the L? (dunno why that is, same power, etc, only diff really is the ailerons)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

p1ngu666
11-22-2005, 07:48 PM
p38 handles much better than a spit now, in 3.x for sure p38 was a dog

now its the other way round

L has divebrakes, so should be a weee bit slower

the spit is curiously enuff the benchmark of handling, its the sweetest warbird to fly, perhaps any plane of any type?

even the germans liked its handling better than there 109s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mynameisroland
11-23-2005, 04:24 AM
As Im sure you realised this is a discussion regarding the P38 vs Spitfire in the game and also in WW2.

In what way is the Spitfire over modeled in game?

Oh and JtD, I can stay alive in both aircraft also but I find it easier to achieve kills in the Spitfire and easier to run away in the P38. I dont for one second think the Spitfire can take out ground targets as easily as a P38 but from my gaming experience I think the Spitfire converts an altitude advantage in to a killing oppertunity far better.

stathem
11-23-2005, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
JtD if you are happy to compare the Spitfire VIII to the P38 J then I dont mind localising the argument to those two specific models in game.
Cheers


yes!

in game is a critial point

Kelly Johnson desgined the P 38 IRL, using all possible expertise and facilities of Lockheed, Naca and USAAC

Oleg Maddox designed the P 38 in game, using all possible exper....ummmm, nevermind



remember, in game, (yes, this one that cannot account for lack of torque) its contention over most spits are overmodelled in certain regards, and the 38....well, the 38 Late only barely matches the L's climb...gee, wasnt the J (yea i know, a HUGE ammount) 20 lbs lighter than the J?..and the J was faster than the L? (dunno why that is, same power, etc, only diff really is the ailerons)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, the words 'Spitfire' and 'overmodelled' in the same paragraph...good job it didn't include 'clipped wing' and 'roll rate', otherwise there'd be trouble.

MEGILE
11-23-2005, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by stathem:


Hmm, the words 'Spitfire' and 'overmodelled' in the same paragraph...good job it didn't include 'clipped wing' and 'roll rate', otherwise there'd be trouble.



Agree 100%

If you think the FW has it bad, check out the undermodelled roll rats of the Spit CW.

WOLFMondo
11-23-2005, 05:16 AM
Can always ask Tagert if he can do some tests to prove or disprove the roll rate problem.

stathem
11-23-2005, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Can always ask Tagert if he can do some tests to prove or disprove the roll rate problem.

It's been done Mondo,

Here (http://airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=3062#3062)

Pay close attention to the rates around the Spits best combat speeds 200-250mph

mynameisroland
11-23-2005, 07:34 AM
Whats interesting is that the Spitfire CW's roll rate increases in game to the point where it becomes superior to the Fw 190 at speeds of 360 mph plus. These are important speeds when bouncing an opponent in game and allied to the fact that the Spitfires elevators are responsive enough to black you out but not tear of the wings make it a very good high speed bounce aircraft.

JtD
11-23-2005, 08:36 AM
I'd rather discuss the various advantages and disadvantages of Spit and Lightning vs. various Axis aircraft, because that is what I usually find in my crosshairs.

Just recently had a great time on the D-Day map on UK-D server where I succeded in bombing the targets even though the were covered by two Fockes on both occasions. First sortie I shot down both of them after the bombing run, the second time the mission was won so I had no chance to...in this case I think: die.

Plane: P-38J.

In game the Lightnings biggest advantage: No wobbles.

mynameisroland
11-23-2005, 08:59 AM
On sunday evening I flew on that map also JtD, went across to the targets providing escort for IceFire.I encountered initially one Fw A8 and one 109 G14, I took care of the A8 and Gordano took the G14, then Gordano rtb'd and I stayed over the targets providing cover. Next I downied a G14 for myself then another two G14's after that one in a running fight back to red base. The combat took place between 50m and 6500m.

Aircraft flown Spitfire IXe CW

Sortie time 40.2 minutes.

JtD
11-23-2005, 10:09 AM
But I guess you didn't start your fights carrying 2000lbs of bombs with an alt disadvantage of several hundred meters?

On the other hand, when the opposition switched from Focke to G-14 I found it my best option to take the Jug and leave the P-38 at base.

Guess this very much tells the story - it always depends on the situation. There is no better plane in general, not even between the Spit and the P-38 in terms of air combat.

p.s.: What would you have done, if the AAA had disabled one of your Spits engines? Feather prop and rtb? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

mynameisroland
11-23-2005, 10:25 AM
If AAA had damaged my engine I would have glided out to sea and bailed in my little rubber dingy. the Royal Navy are so efficient that id only have to wait for 5 min until Id be picked up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

As for starting at a tactical disadvantage I never willingly put myself in one of those but while mixing it up and dogfighting you do tend to put yourself at greater risk than just booming and zooming in faster aircraft.

Best case scenario on that map is for a couple of P38s to attack bombed up with Spitfires over target as high most of the blues up to dogfight at 5000m where we had a great manuvering advantage, Scrappy, Singaslinga, GreyMouser and I ranged over their targets and base with impunity.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

For engaging targets at high speeds the Spitfire is more responsive in game, and from what I have read it wasnt too bad in WW2 either. Two 20mm's help when making a slash attack and the wing placement of the cannons allow for dewinging rather nicely.

I had a nasty surprise when I noticed the Bf 109's I was fighting were G14's and not G6's as I was manuvering with them throttled back and almost got shot down after I overshot by their ability to climb with Mw50 engaged. Once the fight settled in to a series vertical scissors after three and a half manuvers I positioned my slef on to the 109's six and was able to down it. Fw 190's on the other had are much easier to get in your gunsight in a dogfight and even if they run to the deck you can stay on their 6 enough to damage them.

HellToupee
11-23-2005, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
p.s.: What would you have done, if the AAA had disabled one of your Spits engines? Feather prop and rtb? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

The aa gunners would miss my much smaller and harder to hit spitty, and instead shoot at the lumbering bomber sized target of the p38.

JtD
11-23-2005, 11:47 AM
I don't think size matters to the 8.8 shrapnel.

Xiolablu3
11-23-2005, 11:54 AM
Just carrying on Pingus comment about 109 pilots thinking the Spit handled better.

'You know why the RAF won the battle of Britain? Because ANY fool can fly a Spitfire...'

said with malice by a captured German airman. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

CUJO_1970
11-23-2005, 12:29 PM
The only place the P-38 compares favorably with the Spitfire or Mosquito on the _western front_ would be a piece of paper, or maybe a flight sim.

Both the contemporary Spitfire as well as the Mosquito were much more effective, more reliable, and more respected by the Germans than any P-38 - and that is a true fact of history.

In the photo-recon role the Mosquito was considered superior to the P-38(more reliable, more surviveable), and was highly sought-after in the 8th AF for photo recon at a time when there were a wealth of P-38s on hand and Mosquitos were hard to come by. The US 8th AF operated every Mosquito they could get their hands on right up to the end of the war in Europe, when they had to return them to the British.

The greatest contribution in the recon role for the P-38 was the relatively short ranged, mid alt runs over Normandy before/after D-Day. They were used because they were easily recognizable by the ship AAA gunners due to their twin booms.

Those claiming the Spitfire was "useless after BoB" and that it didn't fly escort and recon missions into Germany are just plain wrong, it's actually funny to read.

Some of you seem to think that once the 8th AF showed up in Europe the RAF grounded all their planes, parked them in hangers and served tea to the Yanks for the rest of the war.

p1ngu666
11-23-2005, 12:29 PM
for me the p38 wobbles if i use rudder, otherwise its nice and stable. the spit on the other hand is all over the place, much like some yak types, p51's etc http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

for ground attack, id rather have a mossie tbh. problem with jabo is uve got bombs/rockets that weigh and slow u down. the enemy fighters of similer performance dont.

the spit can operate from carriers, dont think the p38 did (maybe delivery flights) due to size, and where would u put the hook?

p1ngu666
11-23-2005, 12:31 PM
cujo...

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//bolpwnies.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

RAF crew said they got more busy as teh war went on, only last few months it slowed down

JtD
11-24-2005, 08:54 AM
You know what is funny about this P-38 vs. Spit topic?

The first time ever I really want the Mosquito flyable in FB. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

bolillo_loco
11-24-2005, 11:56 AM
Until somebody can prove that a spitfire could carry 275 gallons of internal fuel and 220 gallons of external fuel, the spitfire was useless because it lacked range. Adding the slipper tank proves nothing, but the fact that the spit lacked internal fuel space. The fact that it had to carry so much of its fuel externally dooms its effectiveness. It was also a very poor ground attack aircraft.

We all seem to be forgetting about North Africa and the Pacific. Targets in North Africa were out of range for spitfires, while other targets the spits could only provide ten minutes of aircover. Even the early P-38s with less range than the J and L model could loiter over these targets for an hour.

Yes spitfires performed escort for the first out bound leg, and again for the last return leg of the trip, a pretty insignifican task. The bombers were rarely attacked at these stages in the trip.

In North Africa and Italy the P-38s performed every role you can imagine, shooting down more German aircraft than the Mustang and Thunderbolt combined.

I ask, if spitfires had such great range, then why didn't they perform the role of long range escort, if they were so versitle, why were they rarely used for ground attack?

To disregard what the Americans did in the war with their long range day light raid is silly. The british raids at night were not as readily attacked. The Americans performed a significant role in defeating the Luftwaffe. Because the Americans attacked during the day, on long penatration raids, they were easily intercepted. This forced the germans into a war of attrition with the United States; during this period of time, the United States possed more manufacturing capacity than the entire world combined.

It's easy to see how this foolish way of attacking the Germans sapped their resources dry.

Daiichidoku
11-24-2005, 12:52 PM
I dont think the spit was the be-all end-all many spit fanbois would like it to be, however, it cannot be called useless, it did what it had to well enough, some things better than others

this can also be said of the 109, and like it, the spits overall effectiveness and deployment options did have some biting limitations due to range, especially in the context of a continential, nay, global, conflict

granted, again as with the 109, it was concieved and developed in a world of theoretical future war, and could not take into account what was to be; that said, both had a great stretchablilty and adaptablilty to different tasks and situations, although the spit did indeed take that aspect much further than the 109 couldl have dreamed of


the 38 was developed in a similar vacuum, although for a slightly different intended role, but had an inherent design that allowed for far greater flexability and usefulness across the board, with nothing lacking, as one could say of the spit, vis-a-vis range, heavy lift, and all-round pilot safety


sure, a spit could out manuver most of its potential enemies...but so could the 38, once you can do that, does it matter by how many degrees so?



they both were a match or better for thier enemies in so many ways, but to stack them up against each other as an overall package for both an air war, and t assist a ground war, the 38 outshines the spit by far, not counting simple $$$, not a supercritical consideration in peacetime, given how a modern monetary economy is largely "imaginary", let alone during a war with potentialy hge stakesinvolved for the winners and losers



had Britain ordered, or been given "representitive" lightnins, ie: contra propped, turbosouped examples, IMO the spit would have taken a rear seat, and likely would not have had as much development as it did, and probably would have led to more rapid 38 development (P 38 K, "chain lightning", "swordfish", and..."?" )



@ loco:

to disregard day ORight bombing is silly

and the night raidersWERE readily attacked, not in the same numbers as daytime, and without the additional firepower of visual computed flak, but with components daytimers wouldnt have to put with, ie: fighters in the very midst of bombers, undetected, in stream ovre germany, or nailing them in "secure" areas, on finals, etc


overall, day and night bombing was not as effective as hoped in some ways, esp in regards to losses and expended ordinance for complete tgt misses or inefective damage to facilities/infrastructure, although let it not be said it didnt accoplish anything

Daiichidoku
11-24-2005, 01:02 PM
oh yea, the germans already started a war of attrition with the russians, way before, red army had way more fodder than wermacht had bullets http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


oh, and IMO, they shoulda s***canned ALL the "heavies"...

day and night, US and Brit crewing Mosquitos, high and low, all the plce, all the time, short range, long range, and with Mosquito and Lightning escort, too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

imagine the output of mossies using USAs might, instead of 17s 24s 25s 26s WOW!

plus non-stop merlin output for the mossies and 38 Ks


yes, i now, my THC count etc etc http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


now thats an allied force i would want to see

p1ngu666
11-24-2005, 01:33 PM
yeah, bomber command aircraft where hardly ever attacked, actully 55,000 men all made errors which led to them smacking into the ground.

BC lost over 8000 aircraft during the war

incidently spits did do ground attack, even at night, there just not famous for it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

i wonder why the germans didnt attack on the first and the last legs.. didnt they nearly always go for the weakest link?

CaptJodan
11-24-2005, 01:45 PM
Given how much wood was still present in the US, I think if they had switched some production over here, we would have seen an awful lot of those Mossies.

The bulk of the mods done by BF-109s and 190s were to intercept those heavies though. Realistically, if they had switched to mossies, the Germans would not have necessarily carried heavier calibar weapons, but would have developed more streamlined fighters to catch them. Losses probably would have still been high.

How tough was the Mossie, BTW (not to hijack the thread, but I would think such a wooden plane would be fairly fragile if actually hit)

p1ngu666
11-24-2005, 02:06 PM
for bilo

Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Some Spitfire IXs were used as long range escorts, just not especially frequently. They usually had an extra 10 gallons in the foward fuselage tanks (95 imperial gallons instead of the usual 85), full rear fuselage tanks (75 gallons), and generally a 90 gallon drop tank (170 slipper tanks were primarily reserved for PR and ferry flights, but there were no actual limitiations on their used on a Mk. VIII or Mk. IX). Some were also fitted with two 13 gallon wing leading edge tanks.

So, 95+75+90 = 260 imperial gallons, or 312 US gallons.

or, more rarely with wing leading edge tanks installed;

95+75+90+26 = 286 imperial gallons or 345 US gallons.

An finally, just as a theoretical possibility to see the maximum fuel a Spitfire IX could carry;

95+75+26+170 = 366 imperial gallons, or 435 US gallons.

Spitfire VII/VIIIs could probably go a little further, having slightly larger internal tankage (129 or 122 imp gal standard), which is why most of them went to the Mediterranean and the Pacific, were longer operation ranges were common.

Funnily enough, the greatest internal tankage for a Spitfire was for the Mk. XI, a direct derivitave of the Mk. IX. It had 228 gallons internal tankage, and the capacity to carry a 170 gal slipper tank, for a grand total of 398 imperial gallons, or about 475 US gallons. Maximum ferry range was about 2300 miles, so its action radius was probably around 700-800 miles.

Spitfire VIIs with 129 imperial gallons internal tankage + a 90 gallon drop tank did 3 1/2 hour daylight escort sorties. There are recorded Spitfire XI escort sorties of over 4 and 1/2 hours. Not the 6-8 hour endurance of the fighters of the USAAF, but not bad for something designed as a point defensive fighter.

95+75+26 = 196, abit less than 220 US gallons with conversion

this website http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/p38.htm

Fuel Capacity: Internal
Early model through H: 306 U.S. Gallons
P-38L & J: 416 U.S. Gallons
Fuel Capacity: External
Typical: (2) 165 U.S. gallon tanks
Ferry: (2) 300 U.S.gallon tanks.

so the spit could have slightly more fuel (or very similer) per engine internaly (208 vs abit less than 220)

it loses out on the droptanks, a single 108 us gallon tank, vs two 165 (165 per engine ofcourse)

p1ngu666
11-24-2005, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by CaptJodan:
Given how much wood was still present in the US, I think if they had switched some production over here, we would have seen an awful lot of those Mossies.

The bulk of the mods done by BF-109s and 190s were to intercept those heavies though. Realistically, if they had switched to mossies, the Germans would not have necessarily carried heavier calibar weapons, but would have developed more streamlined fighters to catch them. Losses probably would have still been high.

How tough was the Mossie, BTW (not to hijack the thread, but I would think such a wooden plane would be fairly fragile if actually hit)

it was tough, but yes fighter design would go another way, all out speed. i imagine the 109s would have the mg's removed and just have cannon.

it was night time operations where the mossie really showed its worth. the germans didnt have a fast night fighter really, and day fighters who where quicker than the night fighters would really be able to find the mossies.

with oboe, the mossies could drop within 100metres of target from 28,000 to 29,000ft, which is **** good for irl, proper operations over europe.

the weather in some places of america where they did there test runs made it really easy to hit the target (relativily)

28 000 feet = 8 534.4 meters

bombs would be "off" by 1 metre every 85metres down?
given that the bombs curve down, could be talking about 1% or something tiny off in terms of flightpath http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Daiichidoku
11-24-2005, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:

incidently spits did do ground attack, even at night, there just not famous for it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

i wonder why the germans didnt attack on the first and the last legs.. didnt they nearly always go for the weakest link?


yes, spits did ground attack...nobody can deny that

but given thier not-world-beating stability in this role, it left much to be desired, at least compared to 38s, 47, stukas, beaus, mossies, typhoons, et al

that, and the lighter loads they carried meant more planes to be sent for each tgt, a greater risk of losing mor epilots, not desirable

attacking the tgt itself was riskier for the lighter spit, in terms of surviving small arms fire and flak



germans did indeed attack (night) bombers on the last leg....more commonly made attacks in the circuit, sneaky buggers

but attacking (sigh, i wish i didnt have to say this) bombers in the "middle" leg made sense

mainly two reasons, both interactive with each other;

range...defending fighters need to be based closer in for protection while on the ground...this means they will have to fly farther, if they want to nail obmbers way out, on first leg, this in turn means less gas, and less time to engage

vector:...no sense in sending up fighters to waste gas to intercept bombers that arent there...they had to wait to detirmine just where the bombers were likely headed, not as easy task at all, but easier the deeper the bombers got into germany


also remember that german night air defence, in particular, was a very ridgid system, and largely waited until bombers passed thru "boxes" ( kammhuber(sp?) line) delineated by radar and sound detection eq...even when they knew bobmers were coming (they did almoist everynight DUH!) they waited for them to fall under the set conditions dictated by the sytem to attack them

and it worked fairly well, too, until "window" appeared....but window was a mixed blessing..

for the RAF, it was marvellous....for the first few weeks of operation....

for the LW, is really was a blessing in disquise, it forced them to adopt new tactics and stratigies, and actually make them open up the system, and make it far more flexible to cope with more and different situs

had window never been used, LW would have kept old ridgid system, and been more quickly overwhelmed by an ever increasing night-time bomber fleet

p1ngu666
11-24-2005, 04:18 PM
it was window AND bomber stream, rather than crews doing whatever they wanted

bolillo_loco
11-24-2005, 06:03 PM
Daiichidoku, I agree whole-heartedly with the fact that your proposals for the bombing of Germany would have resulted in much less loss of life for American aircrew and aircraft. The thing that you are missing is that the Americans forced the Germans into a war of attrition they were destined to lose. Wars are won as a result of supply and logistics. The United States was far better at supply and logistics than the Germans were. Great amounts of manpower and machine were consumed with the interception of American bombers. Imagine how that man and machine power could have been used to combat undefended night bombers and how the bulk and majority could have been turned on the Russians. The Germans could have put much more pressure on America's supplies heading to Russian ports. The combination of increased pressure of the Luftwaffe with out the American supplies could have spelled disaster for the Russians early in the war.

Spitfires lacked range, this is a well-known problem and it shocks me to find so many people who think that it had great range potential. If you recall, the spitfire wasn€t the only aircraft that had a slipper tank. For example, the P-47 had one as well as the P-40. It was never used for combat and there are reasons behind this. It is very impractical, causes excessive drag, and the smaller the aircraft the more strain it puts on it. The original mustang was a much more sturdy aircraft before the addition of so much extra fuel. As a result, its working G-load was reduced to about 6 Gs when carrying a fuel load of internal fuel. Its handling qualities were also greatly reduced. What effects do you think a spitfire would suffer from carrying twice its internal fuel load of 126 gallons? Its handling would suffer greatly. For the spitfire to have the same range as a P-38J/L, P-51B/C/D, or a P-47N it would necessitate the installation of 275 gallons of internal tankage, something the spitfire never had.

In order to figure out how the American€s calculated the range of their aircraft they used the following methods: Warm up and take off fuel consumption is equivalent to 5 minutes at normal rated power; climb to 25,000 feet and distance covered isn€t included into the range; 5 minutes of combat power, and 15 minutes of military power, distance covered during this time isn€t included in total range; allowance for a 30 minute reserve at minimum cruise is subtracted from range. To break this down: 103 gallons during climb can be subtracted from range allowance; 19 gallons can be subtracted from range allowance for warm up and take off; 30 gallons for 5 minutes of combat power, and 83.5 gallons for military power can be subtracted from range allowance. Since the reduced power settings of the return leg€s decent aren€t included, the range is actually longer. The distance covered during combat could actually take the plane closer to base or farther away, thus it isn€t included. 235 gallons aren€t even considered into the 38€s rage, thus one can easily see why there is a lot written about 12 €" 16 hour missions flown by P-38s that included combat and a radius of action that was 1,000 miles. All one has to do is look at the ferry range of one of the three American types I have listed, you will notice that it is always at least double that of the spitfire, slipper tank included. Slipper tanks and combat do not mix. The spitfire's fuel consumption was slightly more than half that of the 38's. If you use the American's methods to calculate range, it's quite easy to see that 120+ gallons can be quickly deducted from the spitfire's useful range. Considering it only carried 90-126 gallons of internal fuel......

I€m quite through debating this topic with spitfire fan boys who obviously cannot see that the spitfire lacked range.

Xiolablu3
11-24-2005, 06:40 PM
I think they know it didnt have great range, they are just confused by the statement:-

'I know enough about spitfires to know that they were mostly useless after 1940.'

DmdSeeker
11-24-2005, 06:43 PM
Please bear with me; this is the first time I've tried to post images here.

But any way; I'm posting the following as a rebuttal to the idea that Spits didn't do ground attack.

I think the following shows that Spits were extremely busy well past the battle of Britain; and were put to good use.

It is of course true that the Spit didn't have the range of the P38. But for a P38 fan to infer that the Spit was redundant post 1940 is a disingenious as a Jug or Stang admirer to imply that the Jugs broke the back of the LW while the Stangs finished them off; because, as we all know; the P38 simply couldn't handle the long range escort role; which is why it was relegated to mud moving.

The fact is that the P38 gave stirling service; as did the Spitfire. To suggest anything else is verging on the borders of "Isengrimism".

http://www.fakedane.com/~seeker/assets/images/JMierzejewski-Logbook-Oct44.jpg

http://www.fakedane.com/~seeker/assets/images/JMierzejewski-LogBook-Final_20Combat_20Flight.jpg

ImpStarDuece
11-24-2005, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
Until somebody can prove that a spitfire could carry 275 gallons of internal fuel and 220 gallons of external fuel, the spitfire was useless because it lacked range. Adding the slipper tank proves nothing, but the fact that the spit lacked internal fuel space. The fact that it had to carry so much of its fuel externally dooms its effectiveness. It was also a very poor ground attack aircraft.

After mid 1944 standard internal fuel load for a IX or XVI was 160 or less frequently 170 imperial gallons, depending on canopy fit, and occasionally 186 gallons in some production runs with the wing leading edge tanks. You can add a 30, 45 or 90 imp gal slipper tank to that, or more rarely with the 108 gal teardrop tanks.

Spitfire VII and VIII had either 122, 124 or 129 imperial gallons. You can add a 30, 45 or 90 imp gal slipper tank to that.

Adding the 90 gal slipper tank gave the Spitfire IX a 75-90% increase in range when standard internal fuel was just 85 imperial gallons. Adding a 90 gal slipper tank increases the range by about 50% when internal fuel was 160-170 gallons. Not an insubstantial increase.

Imperial gallons are also 20% larger than US gallons. So 85 imperial gals is 102 US gals. 160 imperial gals is 192 US gals. 90 imperial gallons is 108 US gallons.



Yes spitfires performed escort for the first out bound leg, and again for the last return leg of the trip, a pretty insignifican task. The bombers were rarely attacked at these stages in the trip.

Maybe the bombers weren't attacked PRECISELY because there was an escort there on the home leg. Spitfires couldn't get to Berlin, but they could get to the German border, central France, Belgium, Holland, ect.


In North Africa and Italy the P-38s performed every role you can imagine, shooting down more German aircraft than the Mustang and Thunderbolt combined.

I ask, if spitfires had such great range, then why didn't they perform the role of long range escort, if they were so versitle, why were they rarely used for ground attack?

Spitfires didn't see significant upgrades to their range until the middle of 1943, and then only with the Mk VIII. Spitfire XIs didn't get internal tanks fitted as standard until June/July 1944. These improvements were made precisely bacause the RAF knew that the Spitfire was hamperd operationally by its short legs. So they went and added between 50-100% to its range in the last 12 months of the war. The Spitfire could fly for about 1 1/2-2 hours maximum in 1939-1942. Added external tankage bumped that up to 2-2 1/2 hours by the end of 1942. By the middle of 1944 that figure was up to around 4 hours. So the endurance of the Merlin engined Spitfires more than doubled during the course of the war.

Spitfires were also used regularly and in large numbers as fighter bombers. The Spitfire Vc was the first F/B Spitfire, capable of carrying a single 500 lb bomb. All later Spitfires had the capacity to carry bombs and rockets. The Spitfire IX could carry 1000lbs external ordanance, or 1 500 lb bomb and 4 60lbs rockets. Spitfires regularly provided ground support, bombed convoys, columns, installations ect. It was a pair of RACF Spitfires that straffed the column transporting Rommel in Normandy.


o disregard what the Americans did in the war with their long range day light raid is silly. The british raids at night were not as readily attacked. The Americans performed a significant role in defeating the Luftwaffe. Because the Americans attacked during the day, on long penatration raids, they were easily intercepted. This forced the germans into a war of attrition with the United States; during this period of time, the United States possed more manufacturing capacity than the entire world combined.

It's easy to see how this foolish way of attacking the Germans sapped their resources dry.

No-one is disregarding the American effort at all. No-one is ragging on the P-38. All we are saying is that the Spitfire was more versatile and had longer range than most people give it credit for. No, it wasn't a 6-8 hour escort fighter. No, it wasn't a 7 ton ground attack platform. But, it did do deep daylight escorts into France and the Low Countries and it did perform ground attack missions in every theatre it was deployed in (with the possible exception of the defence od Darwin). It wasn't a long range fighter or a G/A bird. It was an interceptor and air superiority fighter that evolved during the course of the war. It got faster, flew further and carried more in 1944 than it did in 1940 or 1941.

p1ngu666
11-24-2005, 07:22 PM
the daylight offensive curtailed german bombers being bulit, the german bomber force was disolved.

but most of the air defense would be there for night time attacks.

AAA guns, Radar, listening, control rooms etc

without the daylight offensive, there would be more aggresive german forces on the frontlines, including bombers.

they did produce alot of nightfighters at the end, iirec in the final months all ju88's where produced as fighters

stathem
11-25-2005, 01:46 AM
€œComrades of the PFoSH, I arsk you, What have Spitfires ever done for us?€

€œWell, there€s the Battle of Britain€

€œYeah, Yeah, granted, Battle of Britain, yeah€

€œStrategic PR over most of Occupied Europe€

€œWell, yeah, photo-recce€

€œEscorting US heavies over France€

€œDefending Malta€

€œEnsuring air supremacy over Britain whilst US forces built up€

€œWell, OK, yep, but APART from Escorting Heavies, Defending Malta, control of the Air over Britain, PR, BoB €" apart from that , what have Spitfires really done for us?€

€œCAS in North Africa€

€œIntercepting Ju-86s at over 40,000€€

€œFlying off carriers€

€œCAS in Italy€

€œKilling V1s€

€œFirst Aircraft to land in France D-Day +4 on scratch fields€

€œShooting up Rommel€s car€

€œBurma€

€œCompletely suppressing Luftwaffe tactical air power over Holland and Northern Germany after they€d given up on intercepting daylight raids€

€œDarwin€

€œDive-bombing V2 sites€

€Right!. Apart from, from Escorting Heavies, Defending Malta, control of the Air over Britain, PR, BoB, CAS in North Africa, Intercepting Ju-86s at over 40,000, flying off carriers, CAS in Italy, Killing V1s, First Aircraft to land in France D-Day +4 on scratch fields, Shooting up Rommel€s car, Burma, Completely suppressing Luftwaffe tactical air power over Holland and Northern Germany after they€d given up on intercepting daylight raids, Darwin, dive-bombing V2 sites, -- APART from that €" WHAT HAVE SPIFIRES ever done for us?€

Aaron_GT
11-25-2005, 02:18 AM
bolio loco wrote:

Adding the slipper tank proves nothing, but the fact that the spit lacked internal fuel space

It added range to the design, just as the requirement for adding external tanks to the P38 did. The P38 required external tankage to perform its assigned roles too.


. The british raids at night were not as readily attacked.

Actually they were frequently attacked and loss rates were similar to daylight attacks by mid war. Night offered a reduction in loss rate only in the 1940-2 period before German nightfighter units were up to full strength.


I ask, if spitfires had such great range, then why didn't they perform the role of long range escort

Noone is arguing that the Spitfire had great range, just pointing out that its range was not as poor as you think.

Aaron_GT
11-25-2005, 02:21 AM
Given how much wood was still present in the US, I think if they had switched some production over here, we would have seen an awful lot of those Mossies.

Hap Arnold wanted to start production of the Mosquito in the USA. De Havilland was already fully stretched with UK production and starting lines in Canada and Australia and had to decline.

Wood shortages were actually a problem for the Mosquito. The balsa came from Ecuador and supplies were fairly reliable. The softwoods all came from Canada and the first type used (I can't remember which sort of spruce it was) ran out and an alternative had to be used.

People imagine that the advantage of the Mosquito was that is used a non strategic material. It was not. The advantage was that it used non strategic WORKERS - i.e. woodworkers rather than metalworkers.

Aaron_GT
11-25-2005, 02:28 AM
It is very impractical, causes excessive drag

The point of slipper tanks is that they are lower drag than drop tanks (when still attached).

luftluuver
11-25-2005, 03:21 AM
Aaron, Sitka spruce is the wood of choice for a/c. The skin was birch plywood.

The Spit IX could carry a 500lb under the fue****e and a 250lb under each wing. Most of the Spit IXs in the 2TAF were used as FBs. As for being structurally weak, sure, that is why they could dive at a 60 deg angle.

Edited bomb weights for Imp. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

bolillo_loco, the only fanboy here in this thread is you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

ImpStarDuece
11-25-2005, 03:43 AM
I don't think that the Spitfire was ever cleared for 1000 lb bombs.

General configuration was 500 lbs under the fuselage or 2 x 250 bombs on the wings for the Spitfire Mk. Vc. The Vc could also carry 4 60 lb rockets or two SBC (Small Bomb Container) dispensers on the wings, but didn't do so regularly. Max load was usually 500 lbs. Many LF Vbs were retro-fitted to carry 500lb bombs.

The Mk IX had the capacity for 1 500 lb bomb and 2 250 lbrs. It could also carry 4 60lbs rockets. Sometimes 2 or 4 60lbrs were combined with a centerline 500 lb bomb, but apparently the set-up was less liked than the standard 500/250 combination.

WOLFMondo
11-25-2005, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:

I€m quite through debating this topic with spitfire fan boys who obviously cannot see that the spitfire lacked range.

I don't think theres any Spitfire fan boys here, just people who do know something about it and one person who knows absolutely nothing about it.

No one is saying it was long ranged, but saying its not as short as your making out.

mynameisroland
11-25-2005, 07:05 AM
QUOTE Bolio. " In North Africa and Italy the P-38s performed every role you can imagine, shooting down more German aircraft than the Mustang and Thunderbolt combined." QUOTE Bolio

Did the P38 shoot down more axis aircraft in the MED theatre than the Spitfire ?

hop2002
11-25-2005, 07:55 AM
Slipper tanks gave a bit higher drag than conventional drop tanks when fitted, but didn't reguire a rack for mounting, so had less drag when dropped. (there's a popular misconception slipper tanks weren't droppable, but they were, of course. Dcotrine was not to drop them unless entering combat, as they were not disposable like some of the US paper tanks)

SkyChimp
11-25-2005, 08:09 AM
"Isegrimism." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kurfurst__
11-25-2005, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
After mid 1944 standard internal fuel load for a IX or XVI was 160 or less frequently 170 imperial gallons, depending on canopy fit, and occasionally 186 gallons in some production runs with the wing leading edge tanks. You can add a 30, 45 or 90 imp gal slipper tank to that, or more rarely with the 108 gal teardrop tanks.

Now that's really pushing it. Spitfires never had rear tanks installed as 'standard', though some were equipped this way. If you read the Spitfire's RAF manual, it's very clear on that it was only on some planes, and filling those rear tanks required special permission. Like with these rear tanks, they badly effected the CoG and the stability of the plane, making it unsuited for manouvers, ie. the manual notes the manouver restrictions imposed when using a rear tank, especially on very late aircraft with teardrop canopies. If those rear tanks would have been ever standard fit, there'd be no problem to use Spits as escorts deep into Germany - which is somewhat hard to find in their operational records. So basically the MkIX and XVI had the same internal capacity, 85 gallons up until the end of the war, enough for 430-450 miles range on economical slow-speed cruise of 220 mph ias, not something you can do over enemy territory. Of course I am open see things differently if you can show me any evidence that those rear tanks were fitted as 'standard' to late production planes, and they were practical for everyday missions not just what it seems they were - long range ferry tanks in non-combat area.





Adding the 90 gal slipper tank gave the Spitfire IX a 75-90% increase in range when standard internal fuel was just 85 imperial gallons. Adding a 90 gal slipper tank increases the range by about 50% when internal fuel was 160-170 gallons. Not an insubstantial increase..

So a Spit took for a sortie with a 85 internal, and a 90 impgallon droptank. It used up the 90 gallon one get to somewhere, then dropped and returned on... err, 85 gallons internal minus the amount used up for fighting etc....? Sounds like a one-way ticket to me.

The only practical droptank for real missions were those below 90 gallons capacity - it's a bit hard to return to base on 85 gallons, after using up that 90 gallon tank to get there after you dropped it when enemy showed up... So it was something like 85 int+ 45 gallon external, enough for ca. 700 miles on eco cruise, and less if you are doing any high-power run. Pretty short legged...

Kurfurst__
11-25-2005, 08:36 AM
"Monkey-business" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

hop2002
11-25-2005, 09:25 AM
Daiichidoku, I agree whole-heartedly with the fact that your proposals for the bombing of Germany would have resulted in much less loss of life for American aircrew and aircraft. The thing that you are missing is that the Americans forced the Germans into a war of attrition they were destined to lose. Wars are won as a result of supply and logistics. The United States was far better at supply and logistics than the Germans were. Great amounts of manpower and machine were consumed with the interception of American bombers. Imagine how that man and machine power could have been used to combat undefended night bombers and how the bulk and majority could have been turned on the Russians. The Germans could have put much more pressure on America's supplies heading to Russian ports. The combination of increased pressure of the Luftwaffe with out the American supplies could have spelled disaster for the Russians early in the war.


What American pressure on the Luftwaffe early in the war? The USAAF didn't begin to engage the Luftwaffe on a large scale until 1943, and well into 1943 at that. By then the Germans had already lost the war.


Spitfires lacked range, this is a well-known problem and it shocks me to find so many people who think that it had great range potential.

No. You are confusing potential with use.

The RAF didn't really require a long range fighter for most of the war, so they didn't fit for long range. In exactly the same way that the P-47 and P-51 didn't have the range for deep penetration escort into Germany until the USAAF needed escorts, and then they were fitted to carry more fuel.

A good example with the Spitfire is the forward tanks. It had two, one above the other.

The top was 48 gallons, the bottom 37 gallons, for a total of 85 gallons. That was what the RAF specification had demanded.

Later on, when they wanted more range, the Spitfire VIII was equipped with the same 48 gallon upper tank, but the lower tank was enlarged to 47 gallons. That wasn't difficult, the tank had never filled the space available for it, there was just no requirement for more tankage.

When Spitfire Vs needed to be ferried to Malta, they fitted 29 gallon tanks behind the pilot. There were no real problems encountered (stability wasn't an issue, and was only an issue with the much larger rear tanks, of up to 75 gallons)


If you recall, the spitfire wasn€t the only aircraft that had a slipper tank. For example, the P-47 had one as well as the P-40. It was never used for combat and there are reasons behind this. It is very impractical, causes excessive drag, and the smaller the aircraft the more strain it puts on it.

I don't know the design of P-40 and P-47 slipper tanks, but they were extensively used on Spitfires for combat operations.


The original mustang was a much more sturdy aircraft before the addition of so much extra fuel. As a result, its working G-load was reduced to about 6 Gs when carrying a fuel load of internal fuel. Its handling qualities were also greatly reduced. What effects do you think a spitfire would suffer from carrying twice its internal fuel load of 126 gallons?

The same sort of problems the Mustang did.

But bear in mind, the Spitfire will still have the same power as the Mustang, more wing area, and lighter, so it will end up, even with the same amount of fuel as the Mustang, lighter, with a better power and wingloading.


For the spitfire to have the same range as a P-38J/L, P-51B/C/D, or a P-47N it would necessitate the installation of 275 gallons of internal tankage

Why?

The P-51B had 150 imp gallons in it's main tanks, with a 71 imp gallon rear tank.

The Spitfire VIII had 120 imp gallons in it's main tanks, with an optional 75 imp gallon rear tank.

The Spitfire would have worse economy at high speed, but somewhat better economy at low speed, and use less fuel on the climb.


In order to figure out how the American€s calculated the range of their aircraft they used the following methods: Warm up and take off fuel consumption is equivalent to 5 minutes at normal rated power;

To apply the same figures to a Spitfire VIII with rear tank and drop tank:

5 mins warmup and takeoff, on main tanks: 8 gallons

Fuel left: 112 gallons main tanks, 75 gallons rear tank, 90 gallons drop tank


climb to 25,000 feet and distance covered isn€t included into the range

Climb to 25,000ft: 14 gallons

Fuel left: 112 gallons main tanks, 61 gallons rear tank, 90 gallons drop tank

Cruise out to target: 120 gallons (to empty drop tank and reduce rear tank to 30 gallons so full stability restored): 720 miles at 310 mph, 102 miles at 250 mph

Fuel left: 112 gallons main tanks, 30 gallons rear tank


5 minutes of combat power, and 15 minutes of military power, distance covered during this time isn€t included in total range;

5 minutes combat power, 15 minutes military power: 11.5 and 28 gallons.

Fuel left: 102 gallons main tanks


allowance for a 30 minute reserve at minimum cruise is subtracted from range.

Reserve: 11 gallons

Fuel left: 91 gallons main tanks

That leaves 91 gallons to return to base, without eating into reserves.

Fuel consumption will be lower on the return leg, as the drop tank has gone and the plane is lighter.

590 miles at 310 mph, 820 miles at 250 mph.

Berlin is 500 miles from East Anglian air bases.


To break this down: 103 gallons during climb can be subtracted from range allowance; 19 gallons can be subtracted from range allowance for warm up and take off; 30 gallons for 5 minutes of combat power, and 83.5 gallons for military power can be subtracted from range allowance. Since the reduced power settings of the return leg€s decent aren€t included, the range is actually longer. The distance covered during combat could actually take the plane closer to base or farther away, thus it isn€t included. 235 gallons aren€t even considered into the 38€s rage,

Where on earth do you come up with those figures? The warm up and takeoff figures look OK, as do the combat and military power figures. But the climb?

If 30 gallons gives you 5 minutes at combat power, then 103 gallons on climb would be over 17 minutes at combat power. If it takes 17 minutes at combat power to reach 25,000 ft, then the climb rate must average less than 1,500 ft/min, at combat power, which is far too low.


All one has to do is look at the ferry range of one of the three American types I have listed, you will notice that it is always at least double that of the spitfire, slipper tank included.

What Spitfire? A Mk I? A Mk VIII? There was a big difference. How about one of the Mk IXs flown across the Atlantic?


Slipper tanks and combat do not mix.

That's why you jettison them before combat starts, just like any other drop tank. I wouldn't fancy combat in a Mustang with 2 62 gallon tanks on the wings, or in a P-38 with two 300 gallon tanks under the fuselage, either.


The spitfire's fuel consumption was slightly more than half that of the 38's.

Source please. Which Spitfire?


If you use the American's methods to calculate range, it's quite easy to see that 120+ gallons can be quickly deducted from the spitfire's useful range.

Not if you use actual figures rather than assumed ones.

Edit: sorry, worked out the fuel to climb fiure for 20,000ft, rather than 25,000ft, but I worked out all the range figures at 20,000 ft as well, rather than 25,000ft, so the fuel used on climb will be a bit higher (perhaps an extra 5 - 6 gallons) but the fuel used in cruise will be a bit lower.

p1ngu666
11-25-2005, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
€œComrades of the PFoSH, I arsk you, What have Spitfires ever done for us?€

€œWell, there€s the Battle of Britain€

€œYeah, Yeah, granted, Battle of Britain, yeah€

€œStrategic PR over most of Occupied Europe€

€œWell, yeah, photo-recce€

€œEscorting US heavies over France€

€œDefending Malta€

€œEnsuring air supremacy over Britain whilst US forces built up€

€œWell, OK, yep, but APART from Escorting Heavies, Defending Malta, control of the Air over Britain, PR, BoB €" apart from that , what have Spitfires really done for us?€

€œCAS in North Africa€

€œIntercepting Ju-86s at over 40,000€€

€œFlying off carriers€

€œCAS in Italy€

€œKilling V1s€

€œFirst Aircraft to land in France D-Day +4 on scratch fields€

€œShooting up Rommel€s car€

€œBurma€

€œCompletely suppressing Luftwaffe tactical air power over Holland and Northern Germany after they€d given up on intercepting daylight raids€

€œDarwin€

€œDive-bombing V2 sites€

€Right!. Apart from, from Escorting Heavies, Defending Malta, control of the Air over Britain, PR, BoB, CAS in North Africa, Intercepting Ju-86s at over 40,000, flying off carriers, CAS in Italy, Killing V1s, First Aircraft to land in France D-Day +4 on scratch fields, Shooting up Rommel€s car, Burma, Completely suppressing Luftwaffe tactical air power over Holland and Northern Germany after they€d given up on intercepting daylight raids, Darwin, dive-bombing V2 sites, -- APART from that €" WHAT HAVE SPIFIRES ever done for us?€

you forgot being iconic, beautiful and wowing airshow fans the world over http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

also rapid envolvement. from 8 303 to 4 20mm cannons, double the roc, a hefty speed increase, faster roll, longer range, better engine sound http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

luftluuver
11-25-2005, 11:07 AM
LOL Kurfurst, you are really that ignorant on the Spitfire, aren't you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Why don't get rid of your bigotry and bias.

The rear fuselage tank, as were wing tanks, became standard on the MkXI sometime in 1944.

This gave it 162gal of <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">internal</span> which is more than what the drop tank carried. So lots of fuel to get home with after dropping the 90 gal tank. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

That 162gal is good for almost 1000mi(~1600km) using 2300rpm (6.03mi/gal). Now I will let you do the math if a 90 gal external tank was fitted.

So you are saying the fuselage tank of the P-51 was not practical? The P-51 and Spit had the same problem when fitted with the fuselage tank.

Daiichidoku
11-25-2005, 11:42 AM
and we are all so lucky, RJM designed the spit expressly with the SURC system in mind, an exclusive to the spit

p1ngu666
11-25-2005, 12:27 PM
SURC?

ImpStarDuece
11-25-2005, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
After mid 1944 standard internal fuel load for a IX or XVI was 160 or less frequently 170 imperial gallons, depending on canopy fit, and occasionally 186 gallons in some production runs with the wing leading edge tanks. You can add a 30, 45 or 90 imp gal slipper tank to that, or more rarely with the 108 gal teardrop tanks.

Now that's really pushing it. Spitfires never had rear tanks installed as 'standard', though some were equipped this way. If you read the Spitfire's RAF manual, it's very clear on that it was only on some planes, and filling those rear tanks required special permission. Like with these rear tanks, they badly effected the CoG and the stability of the plane, making it unsuited for manouvers, ie. the manual notes the manouver restrictions imposed when using a rear tank, especially on very late aircraft with teardrop canopies. If those rear tanks would have been ever standard fit, there'd be no problem to use Spits as escorts deep into Germany - which is somewhat hard to find in their operational records. So basically the MkIX and XVI had the same internal capacity, 85 gallons up until the end of the war, enough for 430-450 miles range on economical slow-speed cruise of 220 mph ias, not something you can do over enemy territory. Of course I am open see things differently if you can show me any evidence that those rear tanks were fitted as 'standard' to late production planes, and they were practical for everyday missions not just what it seems they were - long range ferry tanks in non-combat area. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which Spitfire manual are you quoting Kurfurst? I know you have the same one as I do, because you have posted exerpts from it before. Both our Spitfire IX, XI & XIV manuals (Air Publication 1565J) state the the same things. I actually posted all the relevant exerpts on page 5 of this thread, if you care to look. Here they are again:

P. 6.

"Late Mk. IX and all F. Mk. XIV aircraft mount two additional fuel tanks with a combined capacity of 75 gallons (66 gallons in aircraft with "rear view" fuselages); they are fitted in the fuselage behind the cockpit. These tanks should only be filled for special operations at the discretion of the appropriate Area Commander and normally their ***** should be wired to OFF."

According to the same pilots manual, when fitted with rear fuselage tanks and drop tanks, the standard operational procedure was this;

P. 16

"Start the engine, warm up, taxy and take-off on the main tanks; then, at 2,000 ft. change to the rear fuselage tanks and continue to use fuel from them until they contain only 30 gallons. Turn ON the drop tank (turning OFF the rear fuselage tank **** when the change has been made) and drain it, then change back to the rear fuselage tanks and drain them. Revert to the main tanks"

General Flying;

"1. Stability

...

(b) When the rear fuselage tanks are full there is a very marked reduction in longitudinal stability, the aircraft tightens in turns at all atlitudes and, in this condition is restricted to straight flying, and only gentle manoeuvers; accurate trimming is not possible and instrument flying should be avoided whenever possible
(c) When a 90-gallon drop tank is carried in addition to full fuel in the rear fuselage tanks the aircraft becomes extreemly difficult and tiring to fly and in this condition is restricted to straight flying and only gentle manoeuvers at low altitudes.

...

(e) When 90 (or 170) gallon drop tanks are carried on these aircraft, they are restricted to straight flying and gentle manoeuvers only.


Its not in the least suprising that the Spitfire had instability problems with full fue****e tanks, or with full fuselage tanks and full drop tanks. After all, the most famous long range fighter of the war did as well, but the P-51 doesn't seem to have been hampered by it when it got into combat.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Adding the 90 gal slipper tank gave the Spitfire IX a 75-90% increase in range when standard internal fuel was just 85 imperial gallons. Adding a 90 gal slipper tank increases the range by about 50% when internal fuel was 160-170 gallons. Not an insubstantial increase..

So a Spit took for a sortie with a 85 internal, and a 90 impgallon droptank. It used up the 90 gallon one get to somewhere, then dropped and returned on... err, 85 gallons internal minus the amount used up for fighting etc....? Sounds like a one-way ticket to me.

The only practical droptank for real missions were those below 90 gallons capacity - it's a bit hard to return to base on 85 gallons, after using up that 90 gallon tank to get there after you dropped it when enemy showed up... So it was something like 85 int+ 45 gallon external, enough for ca. 700 miles on eco cruise, and less if you are doing any high-power run. Pretty short legged... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. The Spitfires take off on internal fuel, but burn up the most fuel in the climb up to their desired altitude. Then they high speed cruise off the droptank, to give themselves a nice buffer in terms of time to fight. The initial leg of any flight is much more thirsty than the homeward bound leg. Then they cruise home on the remaining 30 gal in the rear tank and ~73 gal in the front tank (taxying and climb to 2,000 feet consumed approximately 10-15 gallons).

Spitifre IX/VII/VIIIs climb at +7 lbs boost and 2650 rpm, which consumes 80 gallons an hour. The Spitfire XIV/XIX manual (Air Publication 1565T) gives a figure of 30 gallons to climb to 30,000 feet, and a figure of 88 gallons per hour of at 2400 rpm and +7lbs. I know its not completely and directly comparable (A Griffon vs a Merlin), but from inference you can concluded that a Mk IX would get to the same height on about 10% less, as its best climbing consumption figure is about 10% lower (80 gal/hour at +7lbs and 2600 rpm for the Merlin 60 serise vs 88 gal an hour at +7lbs and 2400 rmp for the Griffon 60 serise). So, 30,000 feet (and 50 miles traveled) on 27 gallons is a reasonable looking figure.

Obviously, you arent going to go; "OK, we fly 90 gallons out, 75 gal at the target site and 85 gallons back". No its more like "I'll consume X gal on the ground from the main tanks, Y gal climbing to height from the main and rear tanks, Z gal an hour for V hours at high speed cruise on the inbound leg from the droptanks, leave K gal available for dogfighting from the main tanks and rear fuselage tanks, then R gal an hour for T hours on the homebound leg from the main and rear fuselage tanks, landing with M gal left over as a saftey margin, in the main tanks"

hop2002
11-25-2005, 02:29 PM
Spitifre IX/VII/VIIIs climb at +7 lbs boost and 2650 rpm, which consumes 80 gallons an hour. The Spitfire XIV/XIX manual (Air Publication 1565T) gives a figure of 30 gallons to climb to 30,000 feet, and a figure of 88 gallons per hour of at 2400 rpm and +7lbs. I know its not completely and directly comparable (A Griffon vs a Merlin), but from inference you can concluded that a Mk IX would get to the same height on about 10% less, as its best climbing consumption figure is about 10% lower (80 gal/hour at +7lbs and 2600 rpm for the Merlin 60 serise vs 88 gal an hour at +7lbs and 2400 rmp for the Griffon 60 serise). So, 30,000 feet (and 50 miles traveled) on 27 gallons is a reasonable looking figure.


There's a climb test on spitfireperformance.com of the Spitfire VIII at 12 lbs, 2850 rpm, which is maximum climb power (1 hour limit).

30,000ft took 10 mins, fuel consumption 105 gallons/hour. 17.5 gallons to 30,000ft at maximum climb power. 2650rpm/7 lbs would take longer, but use less fuel. Carrying a drop tank would increase the amount of fuel required to reach atltitude.

BaldieJr
11-25-2005, 02:47 PM
The Spitfire is an icon of english bigotry.

You can put Spitfire brand poop in a london store and it will sell out in minutes while Yak brand bread would go stale.

MEGILE
11-25-2005, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
The Spitfire is an icon of english bigotry.

You can put Spitfire brand poop in a london store and it will sell out in minutes while Yak brand bread would go stale.

The FDA would shut you down if you tried to sell Yak branded bread in the US.

BaldieJr
11-25-2005, 03:03 PM
Eat your delta wheat comrade.

SkyChimp
11-25-2005, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
What American pressure on the Luftwaffe early in the war? The USAAF didn't begin to engage the Luftwaffe on a large scale until 1943, and well into 1943 at that. By then the Germans had already lost the war.


Astonishing, my granddad stayed there two years too long. But I€m not going to debate this. It€s proved as fruitless as arguing with Isegrim.





Source please. Which Spitfire?


I don't know specifics about the Spit, but with respect to the P-51D, the P-38L's engines were significantly more fuel efficient.

An important consideration with respect to the range of an aircraft is fuel consumption during cruise conditions. The V-1650-7, similar to the V-1650-3 but with slightly lower supercharger gear ratios, was used in the major production Mustang, the P-51D. In cruise at 16,500 feet it delivered 520 bhp at 2000 rpm from 27 in HgA, while burning 48 gallons of fuel per hour. This is a BSFC of 0.60 pounds per HP per hour. By comparison, the contemporary (two stage via turbosupercharging) Allison V-1710-111/113 used in the P-38L, cruising at 15,000 with 525 bhp from 1600 rpm and using 31 in HgA, consumed 0.45 pounds of fuel per horsepower per hour. The conditions are not quite the same, but close enough to see the Merlin required more fuel. This was due to the lower compression ratio and power required to drive the two-stage supercharger, even when the engine was throttled back, and in low gear. The difference in fuel consumption (efficiency) between the two-stage Merlin and the turbosupercharged V-1710 is over 33 percent, which is entirely due to the P-38's turbosuperchargers providing the bulk of power required to supercharge the intake air at altitude." (source: Vee€s For Victory) The author goes on, IMO correctly, to suggest the most efficient plane would have been a turbosupercharged Mustang.

If Spitfires of Mustangs had any range advantages over thee P-38, it was due to clean designs. The 2-stage Merlin was a gas guzzler compared to the turbosupercharged Allison.

Daiichidoku
11-25-2005, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
SURC?


shooting up rommel's car



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SkyChimp
11-25-2005, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
"Monkey-business" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

As much as I'd love to hate you, I just can't http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Daiichidoku
11-25-2005, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
The Spitfire is an icon of english bigotry.

You can put Spitfire brand poop in a london store and it will sell out in minutes while Yak brand bread would go stale.

British gov standards, however, dictate that poop would have to be certifiably 100% made-in-Britain poop, to the highest possible quality, ensure consumer satisfaction and value


Yak=

1)a smelly quadraped herd mammal, found in large numbers, usually grazing on overly springy grass

2)verb~ to vomit. syn.~ upchuck, barf, puke, spew, blow de groceries, toss de cookies

hop2002
11-25-2005, 03:56 PM
What American pressure on the Luftwaffe early in the war? The USAAF didn't begin to engage the Luftwaffe on a large scale until 1943, and well into 1943 at that. By then the Germans had already lost the war.



Astonishing, my granddad stayed there two years too long. But I€m not going to debate this. It€s proved as fruitless as arguing with Isegrim.

You are claiming there was major USAAF pressure on the Luftwaffe before 1943?

According to the USAAF, operational sorties in the European theatre 1942: 2,453, of which 1,704 were effective.

It wasn't until March 1943 that the USAAF flew over 1,000 operational sorties in a month in Europe, and they dropped below that total again in April, before climbing above it, and staying above it, in May and onwards.

Again according to the USAAF, operational sorties in the Med were 7,296 in 1942.

The USAAF flew somewhat less than 10,000 sorties against the Luftwaffe in the whole of 1942. They dropped just over 6,000 tons of bombs.

To put that in context, in 1942 the RAF in Britain flew over 200,000 sorties (bomber, coastal and fightter commands), the RAF in the Mediteranean flew over 120,000 sorties. They dropped 75,000 tons of bombs.

SkyChimp
11-25-2005, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:

You are claiming there was major USAAF pressure on the Luftwaffe before 1943?



No. Your claim that Germany was beaten by 1943.

hop2002
11-25-2005, 04:23 PM
No. Your claim that Germany was beaten by 1943.

Can you see any way for the Germans to win from 1943 onwards?

Put it another way. If you were a German officer in 1943, with full knowledge of the situation, would you believe in victory?

Bear in mind the original point I was replying to:


The Germans could have put much more pressure on America's supplies heading to Russian ports. The combination of increased pressure of the Luftwaffe with out the American supplies could have spelled disaster for the Russians early in the war.

The suggestion was that USAAF pressure early in the war prevented disaster for the Russians.

Daiichidoku
11-25-2005, 04:34 PM
americans supplied russians to absorb german bullets?

p1ngu666
11-25-2005, 04:38 PM
poor infrastructure, but moreso stout defense saved the russians. collective bravery and determination by the russian peoples, to not give in, a particulary russian trait. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

SkyChimp
11-25-2005, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Can you see any way for the Germans to win from 1943 onwards?

Put it another way. If you were a German officer in 1943, with full knowledge of the situation, would you believe in victory?


I don't see anyway they could have won once the major allies declared war on them and and became sincere in their attemtps to defeat them.





Bear in mind the original point I was replying to:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Germans could have put much more pressure on America's supplies heading to Russian ports. The combination of increased pressure of the Luftwaffe with out the American supplies could have spelled disaster for the Russians early in the war.

The suggestion was that USAAF pressure early in the war prevented disaster for the Russians. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure who said that. In literal sense, I'd agree with you. Perhaps he was thinking in terms of the air-war, as I was. I agree there was no real USAAF effort against the Germans before 1943. But with respect to pressure after 1943, there is no doubt it offered considerable help to the Russians.

Prior to the start of the American bombing offensive, the principal portion of the Luftwaffe was tied down on the eastern front. Up until the start of US deep penetration raids, the Germans did not believe cross-channel, shallow operations and occassional long range bombing missions had any real affect on their war effort. According to the USAAF, in late 1942, the Germans only had about 100 fighters on the entire western coast from Heligoland Height (north Germany) to Biarritz (France/Spain Atlantic boarder). Prior to Dec 1942, Germany apparently didn't feel enough of a threat to be turning out as many fighters as it could. Between Dec 1942 and June 1943 the Luftwaffe had increased its fighter strenght 40% and shifted the prinicpal portion of its fighters, 55%, to the western front. Some of these came from the eastern front, some from the Med, but mostly the increase in fighters in the west came from newly produced planes. Most of the pilots came from the Eastern front.

The US effort which began in earnest in 1943 caused a huge reassessment and rearrangement of German defenses. This caused a reduction of German fighters on the eastern front, and a huge decrease in experienced fighter pilots on the Eastern front. That had to be of considerable help to the Soviets.

Aaron_GT
11-25-2005, 05:46 PM
According to the USAAF, in late 1942, the Germans only had about 100 fighters on the entire western coast from Heligoland Height (north Germany) to Biarritz (France/Spain Atlantic boarder).

Are you suggesting this is the entire Western Front or just the coast itself? One third of the LW fighter force was on the Western Front in 1942

I also think you are underplaying RAF deep penetration raids from 1941 onwards, first 1000 bomber raids in 1942, and the tonnage dropped by bomber command on Germany in 1943 which was approximately 4 times that of the 8th AF, US strategic bombing from Italy not being a factor at that point.

SkyChimp
11-25-2005, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Are you suggesting this is the entire Western Front or just the coast itself? One third of the LW fighter force was on the Western Front in 1942


Along the coast.





I also think you are underplaying RAF deep penetration raids from 1941 onwards, first 1000 bomber raids in 1942, and the tonnage dropped by bomber command on Germany in 1943 which was approximately 4 times that of the 8th AF, US strategic bombing from Italy not being a factor at that point.


I'm not underplaying anything. And I'm not talking about quantities of bombs dropped. I€m talking about the Luftwaffe response to the threats before and after 1943. The best to judge how effective the aerial campaign prior to 1943 was is the Germans themselves.

Prior to 1943, the Germans maintained a small but effective fighter defense in the west. Most of the German air force was in Sicily and the Eastern front. Whatever effect the RAF bombing campaign had in 1942, this is the defense the Germans felt was adequate. The Germans did not feel the western threat prior to 1943 had a truly serious effect on their war effort. If they felt the RAF posed the threat to them that the US bombers did later, they would have undertaken then the measures they undertook later in response to the added US threat.

What did the Germans think of the new US threat? Their actions speak for themselves.

The appearance of US bombers was the THE first major impetus in the Germans revising their defensive thinking. It was the US bombing offensive that spurred huge increases in German fighter production, the movement of the principal portion of the Jadgwaffe to the western front, the reorganization and layering of aerial defenses. Between 1 January and 1 November 1943 the number of German fighters on the Western front were nearly tripled, while being reduced by around 25% in both the Med and Eastern front. As time went on, it got even more skewed. It caused them to employ their best fighter pilots for the defense of Germany, and Berlin in particular. Less talented fighter pilots were sent to France. The worst remained in the East. These actions were taken due to German concern that they may actually lose control of the air over Germany.

With the appearance of US escorts, the German fighter force had to employ a truly defensive strategy. Not just defend to Germany from bombers, but defend themselves from destruction. This caused yet another reorganization. Fighters west of Germany were principally tasked with engaging US escorts at the coast. After a few engagements, they committed to moving the majority of their fighter defenses inland to protect Germany. The major line of defense became a line from Hanover to Berlin. Of course the losses continued to mount with the well-known outcome.

It appears the US bomber offensive did this: it cause the majority of German fighters to be shifted to the west. It put the majority of the German fighter force in reach of escort fighters. The appearance of the US escort caused a major contraction of the area over which the majority of German fighters operated. It created the proverbial €œfish in a barrel€ scenario. The Germans themselves called the US bomber offensive and their escorts the final and decisive medium to the destruction of the German air force.

Daiichidoku
11-25-2005, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Prior to 1943, the Germans maintained a small but effective fighter defense in the west. Most of the German air force was in Sicily and the Eastern front. Whatever effect the RAF bombing campaign had in 1942, this is the defense the Germans felt was adequate. The Germans did not feel the western threat prior to 1943 had a truly serious effect on their war effort. If they felt the RAF posed the threat to them that the US bombers did later, they would have undertaken then the measures they undertook later in response to the added US threat.



the sense of threat from RAF night bombing and subsequent buildup and development of nightfighting eq and systems was not insignifigant and should not be overlooked

SkyChimp
11-25-2005, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
the sense of threat from RAF night bombing and subsequent buildup and development of nightfighting eq and systems was not insignifigant and should not be overlooked

Again, the Germans responded in the manner they felt appropriate, or later in the best manner they could. Again, their actions speak for themselves.

CaptJodan
11-25-2005, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
the sense of threat from RAF night bombing and subsequent buildup and development of nightfighting eq and systems was not insignifigant and should not be overlooked

Apparently, especially according to Hop, American invovlement on the other hand should be overlooked, as it was insignificant. The war was already won by then, after all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

luftluuver
11-25-2005, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by CaptJodan:
Apparently, especially according to Hop, American invovlement on the other hand should be overlooked, as it was insignificant. The war was already won by then, after all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

This deserves some http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

p1ngu666
11-25-2005, 08:49 PM
it was when the german army was facing major reversals.
the war was pretty much unwinable for the germans.

the daylight offensive by the RAF hadnt been that big, only 2 group of bomber command did regular daylight raids i think, and not many, their pace did increase as the war went on.
they where mostly using blehiums, a20's, and other medium bombers, it was the mossie that really gave them added potency

the dayfighters would be near useless at night, hence there low numbers..

hop's pointing out there wasnt a big american presence until 43, and there wasnt..
this is perhaps why nearly all usaaf8th missions/df's are in 44...

Aaron_GT
11-26-2005, 04:05 AM
I'm not underplaying anything. And I'm not talking about quantities of bombs dropped. I€m talking about the Luftwaffe response to the threats before and after 1943.

Ok, I agree with you then.

The damage being done alarmed Germany enough that especially from 1942 onwards increasing amount of effort was put into developing night fighters and radar systems to counter them, as well as a lot of AAA. Night fighting and night bombing being what it was a lot of the effort was put into the radar and control aspects and the number of frontline night fighters required to inflict losses similar to those encountered by the USAAF by day was actually relatively modest as a single crew could down a number of aircraft on a good night in a way that was not possible against large bomber boxes by day. The limiting factor was a combination of training crews to operate as night fighters and control limits on the number of nightfighters in the air that could be controlled. Certainly the effectiveness of the LW nightfighter force was such that the bombers were escorted by Mosquito night fighters in turn.

In daylight much less equipment is required and massed formations of fighters become possible and required. This was a huge strain on the LW.

So the tonnages dropped by the USAAF in 1943 were much less than by the RAF, but the fact that daylight raids could (due to being in daylight) and had to be countered by massed fighter formations meant that the drain on LW resources was much larger for a given tonnage. But the RAF was doing more damage to the ground in 1943.

Kurfurst__
11-26-2005, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Which Spitfire manual are you quoting Kurfurst? I know you have the same one as I do, because you have posted exerpts from it before. Both our Spitfire IX, XI & XIV manuals (Air Publication 1565J) state the the same things. I actually posted all the relevant exerpts on page 5 of this thread, if you care to look. Here they are again:

P. 6.

"Late Mk. IX and all F. Mk. XIV aircraft mount two additional fuel tanks with a combined capacity of 75 gallons (66 gallons in aircraft with "rear view" fuselages); they are fitted in the fuselage behind the cockpit. These tanks should only be filled for special operations at the discretion of the appropriate Area Commander and normally their ***** should be wired to OFF."

Sorry, I usually dont read page 6 on 10+ page thread if it's about two parties fighting over who had the coolest fighter.

Now one thing you should mind is that the XIV manual is for all types, including the FR XIV and photo-recce (and post-war F18 figher type), which did not appear until automn 1944. It seems that only those FR types and F18s had those rear tanks, the other did not. Ie Loading data for the FXIV states :

"3. Maximum capacity of tanks.

Fuel Fuselage tank 85 gallons
. Wing tanks (2) 27 gallons
. Total 112 gallons
Oil Fuselage tank. 9 gallons"

No mentioning of rear fuselage tank is made.

Now I looked into the MkIX rear tank thing but couldn't find anything definietive. Alfred Price seems to suggest that rear tanks were fitted to IX when the mkXVI appeared (Sept1944) and that's kinda late from the party, but I'd welcome any more precise info about when exactly rear tanks become standard fitting to 'late' IXs (and XVIs).

Another document from brit air intelligance shows the ranges of the mk16, 14 and 21, and notes the range of the XIV at 276mph ias most economical cruising speed in still air, and XVI's at 220mph ias MECSSAas :

XVI :
434 miles w. 85 gallon
980 miles w. 175 gallon (ie. 85i + 90DT)
+ 320-390 miles with 62 gallons (in rear tank I presume)

XIV :

460 miles w. 112 galon int.
850 miles with. 202 gallon (112+90)
+ 310 miles with 62 gallons (in rear tank I presume)

Not at all comparable to the range of US escort fighters, not even in the same league. And it must be noted that supposes ideal conditions with low-speed cruise, well, I think any 109/190 pilot would happily welcome something restricted to straight and gentle manouvers, at 220-250 mph...



Not really. The Spitfires take off on internal fuel, but burn up the most fuel in the climb up to their desired altitude. Then they high speed cruise off the droptank, to give themselves a nice buffer in terms of time to fight. The initial leg of any flight is much more thirsty than the homeward bound leg. Then they cruise home on the remaining 30 gal in the rear tank and ~73 gal in the front tank (taxying and climb to 2,000 feet consumed approximately 10-15 gallons).


That can work, but then again the whole procedure would cancel out that range increase that was gained by loading more fuel, if that fuel is being burned rapidly from the droptank (90 gallons) which would cancel out much of

Ie. in your example, we have 73+30= 103 gallons after we dropped that DT, and we have burned that 90 gallon in a high speed cruise already. Some allowance must be made for combat (I use 5 mins at WEP w. 150 gallons/h, which is rather generous imho = 13 gallons minus). Which leaves you with 103-13= 90 gallons, well, that was enough on the Spit lFIX for 434 miles range, on a slow speed economic cruise, that ain't much. In other words, you combat radius again is always limited by your internal tankage on which you have to return, no matter how many and how big droptanks you carry. I didn't look at the map, but in the end that 400-odd miles radius (with some safety margin as you correctly noticed) seems to be enough to perhaps the belgian borders for a rather brief, 5 min show-up and some actual fighting, or rather skirmish, in practice useless for any serious effect.

In practice it could be worser, since if the enemy is not as kind letting you to make full use of the droptank until you empty it, and say some Jaeger turn up at the Channell already, you have to drop the droptank not to get into severe disadvantage. regardless of what happens after that, it's MISSION FAILED. You can't do your long-range job you supposed to do on your internal capacity.

Xiolablu3
11-26-2005, 06:13 AM
Normal fighters could not find the British Planes at night, they needed Nightfighters, which they had but not in as big numbers.

Its not like they were going to send up all their 109's and FW190's to fly around in the dark looking for Lancasters. They just had to grin and bear it. This would take massively experienced pilots and planes equipped for night flying, which only a fraction were.

They could, however direct their whole weight against the US daylight bombing. Which they did, and caused such high losses, the daylight raids were stopped, as the losses were unsustainable. The German fighters inflicted such a heavy toll.

It was the arrival of decent long range escort fighters from 1943 on which changed this.

ImpStarDuece
11-26-2005, 06:46 AM
Sorry, the fuel capacity of the XIV was a typo, it was meant to be for the XVI. The two manuals I have list 111 and 112 imperial gallons standsard internal fuel, plus a 30 imperial gallon rear fuselage tank mounted to the F XIVE and FR XIVE sub-types.

The Spitfire manual is pretty definitive. It says all XVIs and all late production IXs. Alfred Prices notes that the drop tanks began to appear in Summer of 1944, his definition of "late production" seems the be post D-Day. i.e. June, July, August ect. Stewart Wilson notes that the rear fuselage tanks were first trialed and used operationally in Spitfire Mk IXs. The sucess of the rear tanks on these trials meant that design of the Mk XVI was altered to incorporate the tanks as standard.

Obvioulsy, new production airframes with rear fuselage tanks aren't going to go to squadrons straight away, so there is going to be a lee period between implementation and usage. August/September 1944 seems a reasonable enough figure for the new tanks to start to become prevalent. After October, you have all the Spitfire V squadrons converting to Mk IXs and 5 or 6 XVI squadrons operational.

Average combat cruise figures for the Spitfire IX/XIV with an external 90 gal tank were;

Weak cruise; +4 lbs, 2650 rpm

10,000 feet:
270 mph TAS, 60 gal/hour

20,000 feet:
310 mph, 64 gal/hour

Fast cruise; +7lbs, 2650 rpm (maximum 1 hour continious)

10,000 feet:
300 mph, 74 gal/hour

20,000 feet:
330 mph, 77 gal hour.

Those figures are for combat cruise speeds. Obviously, the figures for range cruise are going to be a little different.

Absolute best consumption figures much lower;

Full economy figures;

10,000 feet:
192 mph, 28 gal/hour

20,000 feet:
217 mph, 22 gal/hour

(*******EDIT*******)

The above figures are taken from the Spitfire IX/XIV/XIX manual and the RAAFs wartime testing of the Spitfire VIII (Merlin 66). Other documents in the same serise give the Spitfire IX a 'economy cruise' figure of 33 gal/ hour at 20,000 feet and 160 mph A.S.I (not true airspeed). The same document gives the endurance figure for a Spitfire Mk. IX with 85 gallons as 2 hours at 20,000 feet and 1 hour at 37,500 feet, after climbing.

I'm having fun, hope this isn't boring for everyone else. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

luftluuver
11-26-2005, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Sorry, I usually dont read page 6 on 10+ page thread if it's about two parties fighting over who had the coolest fighter.

This absolutely hilarious Kurfurst as you are usually the main participant. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Your extra large sig (breaks 2 Ubi rules) helps in filling up the pages.


Now I looked into the MkIX rear tank thing but couldn't find anything definitive. Alfred Price seems to suggest that rear tanks were fitted to IX when the mkXVI appeared (Sept1944) and that's kinda late from the party
Can we write off the K-4 @ 1.98 as it was kinda late for the party as it only appeared in the last few weeks of the war and at that, only in <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">very</span> small numbers.


Not at all comparable to the range of US escort fighters, not even in the same league. And it must be noted that supposes ideal conditions with low-speed cruise, well, I think any 109/190 pilot would happily welcome something restricted to straight and gentle manouvers, at 220-250 mph...
Not in the same league as the P-38 and P-51 but is with the P-47. The Americans (P-51) with a heavy fuel load had no trouble with German fighters in the early stages of the escort, so why would the British? Anyways not all the Spitfire escort would drop tanks to take care of the very few odd German fighters that would appeared.


I didn't look at the map, but in the end that 400-odd miles radius......seems to be enough to perhaps the belgian borders for a rather brief, 5 min show-up and some actual fighting, or rather skirmish
Spitfires were flying missions over Holland, even in 1943 which was not much less (~50mi) than the P-47's range. You should have looked at a map for London to a few miles short(~20-25mi) of Hannover is 400mi. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:They could, however direct their whole weight against the US daylight bombing. Which they did, and caused such high losses, the daylight raids were stopped, as the losses were unsustainable. The German fighters inflicted such a heavy toll.
Now where did you read this? The Americans never stopped their bombing, they just did not fly missions beyond the range of the escorts. It was Black Thursday in Aug 1943 which caused the American bombers restrict their targets to escort range for a short 5 months. The Ruhr was still within the escorts range.

All in all some pretty lame arguements.

BaldieJr
11-26-2005, 07:59 AM
Do you know why spitfire wings are tapered? I do.

SkyChimp
11-26-2005, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Are you suggesting this is the entire Western Front or just the coast itself? One third of the LW fighter force was on the Western Front in 1942


Along the coast.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The number I gave refers to single-engined fighters. And while that the number I gave may have been fighters along the coast, it must have represented a huge proportion of all single-engined fighters in the west.

At 1st January, 1944 the total strength of single engined fighter force in the west did not exceed 130 aircraft, and throughout the spring of 1944 the heavy weight of Allied day bombing of Germany compelled all available forces to be employed for defense. (The Rise and Fall of the German Air Force 1933-1945)





So the tonnages dropped by the USAAF in 1943 were much less than by the RAF, but the fact that daylight raids could (due to being in daylight) and had to be countered by massed fighter formations meant that the drain on LW resources was much larger for a given tonnage. But the RAF was doing more damage to the ground in 1943.


Essentially, until the introduction of the escort fighter, the airwar in the west had reached a sort of stalemate, with the Germans more or less correctly believing that after the Autumn of 1943 their air defenses were adequate. So, regardless of the tonnage of bombs dropped, the Germans believed they had thrwarted the major threat.

It seems like proof to me that until the the beginning of the US bombing campaign which spurred huge increases in German fighter production, Germany had been fighting the airwar in the west with one hand tied behind her back.

WOLFMondo
11-26-2005, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:

At 1st January, 1944 the total strength of single engined fighter force in the west did not exceed 130 aircraft, and throughout the spring of 1944 the heavy weight of Allied day bombing of Germany compelled all available forces to be employed for defense. (The Rise and Fall of the German Air Force 1933-1945)


On the northern coast of France there was JG2 and JG26 which totalled around 150 aircraft. That total you quoted from that book is for Northern France only and doesn't count any of the fighter or nightfighter groups in the low countries or the rest of europe.

*crafty edit* It doesn't take into account all the night fighter groups which made up some 15% of the luftwaffles in Europe.

Daiichidoku
11-26-2005, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Do you know why spitfire wings are tapered? I do.

becuz it sounds ridiculous to called anchovied?

Daiichidoku
11-26-2005, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Normal fighters could not find the British Planes at night, they needed Nightfighters, which they had but not in as big numbers.

Its not like they were going to send up all their 109's and FW190's to fly around in the dark looking for Lancasters. They just had to grin and bear it. This would take massively experienced pilots and planes equipped for night flying, which only a fraction were.

They could, however direct their whole weight against the US daylight bombing. Which they did, and caused such high losses, the daylight raids were stopped, as the losses were unsustainable. The German fighters inflicted such a heavy toll.

It was the arrival of decent long range escort fighters from 1943 on which changed this.

AFAIK, from early on, most night"fighters" were obsolescent me 110s, do 17/217s, ju 88/188 wtc

they preferred the twins, as they were more stable, could carry the larger guns needed o kill bobmers, had at least one extra set of eye onboard, had sufficient speed, and later were well suited to carrying AI radars

they did not employ a lot of 109/190s, and as they were needed more for day ops, and more twins were available by daytime obsolescence, or elimination of thier proper roles, more and more as the war progressed

p1ngu666
11-26-2005, 12:11 PM
they used single engined ones, in wild boar missions. basicaly they flew over target area, which ofcourse was lit up like a hellish christmas tree, and that lighted up the bombers.

there was searchlights aswell, and flares etc..

the big problem with that is your defense relies partly on failure, the target hastobe burning... which ofcourse means u have failed to defend that target, but u may bag some bombers, reducing it for the next target..

plus i think they lost a fair number of single engine fighters from crashes and suchlike.

if the germans hadnt contested the bombing at all, then the allied bomber fleets would be huge

think bomber command lost 8,800aircraft, and ended the war with 1600aircraft, maxium strength

so 5.5 times...

chimp
Essentially, until the introduction of the escort fighter, the airwar in the west had reached a sort of stalemate, with the Germans more or less correctly believing that after the Autumn of 1943 their air defenses were adequate. So, regardless of the tonnage of bombs dropped, the Germans believed they had thrwarted the major threat.

ofcourse the bad thing for the germans, was that the bombers where blasting stuff, so there was a effect...

Low_Flyer_MkII
11-26-2005, 12:21 PM
Bomber Command lost more men during one night over Nuremberg than Fighter Command lost during the entire Battle of Britain.

SkyChimp
11-26-2005, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

On the northern coast of France there was JG2 and JG26 which totalled around 150 aircraft. That total you quoted from that book is for Northern France only and doesn't count any of the fighter or nightfighter groups in the low countries or the rest of europe.

*crafty edit* It doesn't take into account all the night fighter groups which made up some 15% of the luftwaffles in Europe.

I knew it didn't take into account single engined fighters defending Germany itself. The number is much too low.

Aaron_GT
11-26-2005, 02:35 PM
Skychimp wrote:

At 1st January, 1944 the total strength of single engined fighter force in the west did not exceed 130 aircraft,

Is this a typo for January 1943? According to the USAAF's own official statistics the figure in the West of all types of fighter was about 350 in early 1943, rising to 600 through the year. I am not sure what the mix of fighters with regards to twin engined and night fighters was (until I work out where my book with nightfighter force stats is - my shelves are very disorganised as I am in the middle of revarnishing the living room floor).

Aaron_GT
11-26-2005, 02:36 PM
I knew it didn't take into account single engined fighters defending Germany itself. The number is much too low.

Ah I thought you were suggesting it was the figure for the Western theatre as a whole.

Aaron_GT
11-26-2005, 02:40 PM
The number I gave refers to single-engined fighters. And while that the number I gave may have been fighters along the coast, it must have represented a huge proportion of all single-engined fighters in the west.

If there were about 600 of all types at the start of 1944 then it probably means about 400+ single engined. There were around 70 or so nightfighters in the theatre (from memory) but those were almost all twins.

With regard to nightfighters I have read the 109 was more popular as a single engined cats eye fighter as the undercarriage of the 190 was strong and very rough night landings on barely illuminated strips could lead to flipping the plane over. Both 109s and 190s were used, though.

SkyChimp
11-26-2005, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I knew it didn't take into account single engined fighters defending Germany itself. The number is much too low.

Ah I thought you were suggesting it was the figure for the Western theatre as a whole. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. The USAAF figured on January 1, 1943 there were 670 fighters on the whole western front, increasing to 1,660 by November 1, 1943. The vast majority were employed in the defense of the Reich itself.

Edit: BTW, I think these represent all fighter types.

Aaron_GT
11-26-2005, 02:46 PM
No. The USAAF figured on January 1, 1943 there were 670 fighters on the whole western front, increasing to 1,660 by November 1, 1943. The vast majority were employed in the defense of the Reich itself.

Maybe the 350 to 600 rise the USAAF suggests is actually just for the Reich defence? There seem to be a series of figures that have been quoted or can be found from various sources and they seem to vary. Plus then there is the difference between numbers of fighters and servicable fighters... LW servicability rates were not great.

Aaron_GT
11-26-2005, 02:50 PM
Edit: BTW, I think these represent all fighter types.

I should have a break down of LW NF strengths somewhere, but it's a while since I looked at it so I am not sure how useful it is or if I will need to summarise it to find actual NF strengths. I'm pretty sure it doesn't exceed around 100, though. NF strength was more limited by the GCI, NF cell system, radar defence in depth, etc. than availability of aircraft, though. They were knocking down a good few per cent of RAF raids even with just a few aircraft.

SkyChimp
11-26-2005, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No. The USAAF figured on January 1, 1943 there were 670 fighters on the whole western front, increasing to 1,660 by November 1, 1943. The vast majority were employed in the defense of the Reich itself.

Maybe the 350 to 600 rise the USAAF suggests is actually just for the Reich defence? There seem to be a series of figures that have been quoted or can be found from various sources and they seem to vary. Plus then there is the difference between numbers of fighters and servicable fighters... LW servicability rates were not great. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does non-servicable equal non-operational? The figure I quoted above is operational fighters. Non-operational fighters as as of November 1, 1943 was 110. The differing terminology sometimes is hard to crack.