PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire IX HF ??



HeinzBar
11-23-2004, 11:20 PM
S!,
Can anyone provide some data concerning this aircraft. I'll be the first to admit that I know next to nothing about this particular model. I'd like to know more about this plane before I make a judgement for or against it.

As of now, I constantly hear about the HF's ability to outclimb and outperform any AC in this sim above 7km while flying online. I must say that I witnessed some very impressive performance tonight by the Spit IX HF. The HF consistantly out performed some good pilots in their Ta152 w/o any apparent trouble. It was my thought that the Ta152 should start out performing all AC above 8km. What I'm also hearing is the return of the hight alt UFO in the form of the spit IX HF.

Honestly, this isn't meant as a troll, I'd just like to see some figures about the HF. I suspect that the HF and XIV share alot of performance figures. I've got data of the Spit XIV vs the dora and the two are compatible w/ the edge going to the XIV. As I see it now, above 6km in this sim, the HF has few equals.

TIA,
HB

sikira_SG
11-24-2004, 10:25 AM
Bump!

Cheers

JV44Sikira

MEGILE
11-24-2004, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As I see it now, above 6km in this sim, the HF has few equals.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hehe yeah I bet some Jug pilots would like to argue that point.

I don't know any figures off the top of my head, but I do believe that the Spit XIV greatly outperforms the IX. Whether this applies to the HF version also, I'm not sure.

No doubt someone will be along soon with real data http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stathem
11-24-2004, 12:52 PM
C.f the following two sites

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html
(H.F. data near the bottom)
and
http://www.nzetc.org/etexts/WH2-2RAF/b4.html

Interestingly the New Zealand site has the XIV slower to 20,000 feet, and a slightly lower ceiling. I also have a link to a compilicated explanation of the Griffon engine which seems to indicate it wasn't proportionally better, if at all, then the Merlin70 at altitude (larger capacity meant lower boost pressures)

Obv. we don't know which configuration of reduction gear and prop. it's modelled with here
As i recall the HF designation refers to the wing type.

Can you post the Ta152H specs? (bearing in mind there were only 10 flown) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Slantaye
11-24-2004, 01:41 PM
the spit H.F. has been slightly detuned after this last patch. its not as good now.

same with corsair. it was detuned also.

both are still excellent above 8k high.

btw the TA152 has been suped up. its faster now and climbs faster and is better up high in energy retention after this last patch.

which means the jug and TA and spit and corsair are now all very close in ability at 10k high.

MEGILE
11-24-2004, 01:51 PM
No, the HF designation refers to the engine I believe. I think that HF Spits had their superchargers set to kick up a stage at a higher altitude.

Spitfire IX (HF)- 416 m.p.h. @ 27,500 feet, Service ceiling 44,000 feet, 6.4 minutes to 20,000 feet

Spitfire XIV - 448 m.p.h. @ 26,000 feet, Serice ceiling 43,500 feet, 7 minutes to 20,000 feet

The_Great_Stonk
11-24-2004, 01:52 PM
the hog shouldnt be good up high at all...

the only stats i have about the spit IX HF we have in game is that it does 530 kmh at sea level with 25% fuel and a default gun load.

stathem
11-24-2004, 03:06 PM
Further to the above, the mainstay of the PRU was the Merlin engined XI (a stripped out IX) - which indicates

a) the Merlin version was as good, if not better than the Griffon versions at extreme altitudes (in fact, the Ta152H's would have been built to catch the PR Spits and Mossies, so evidently they (the XI's) had perfectly adequate high altitude performance)

or

b) The Griffon couldn't be sorted out to run as well as the Merlin70 at v.high altitude in time. A Griffon engined PR.XIX was eventually built, but used mainly after the war.

VW-IceFire
11-24-2004, 03:58 PM
I don't know the performance figures for the HF too much but a few items.

HF was refering to engine, not wing.

The Spitfire HF IX that we have uses an "e" type wing which is rare to totally uncommon in HF Spitfire's but thats what it is.

The HF engine, a Merlin 70, was tuned for high altitude performance. The supercharger kicks in around 26,000 feet as I remember. The LF (Merlin 66) kicks in around 22,000 and the and the F is somewhere in between.

The Spitfire was built as a high altitude plane. It was an excellent plane up there, best speeds are reached at high altitude...so I'm not surprised the Ta-152 is having trouble dealing with it. What about Bf-109's at high alt. They should be quite close in comparison.

MEGILE
11-24-2004, 04:17 PM
What type did the HF usualy have then? a C wing?

LStarosta
11-24-2004, 04:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
What type did the HF usualy have then? a C wing? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL I wish we had a real C-wing Spit...

p1ngu666
11-24-2004, 07:11 PM
yeah the supercharger stages and stuff are tweaked for high alt.

btw, a late mossie pr type had a max full throttle height of 37,000ft http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

max speed and range at that height too irrec. they could outdo anything that high (after war) metor's etc. only pr spits got close http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

me163 was bulit to intercept pr spits and mossies btw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

WUAF_Badsight
11-24-2004, 08:50 PM
the Ta has good level speed but suck climbing ability up at high Alt

it can do a good turn too but has nasty stall characteristics

TX-Bomblast
11-25-2004, 06:45 AM
The H.F. Spit is so way over modeled it's crazy. I've seen H.F. Spits outclimb and catch 109K's at 25,000 Ft. and above. To me this is rediculous, if the dam plane was so good why then did they even build the P-51?? I can see the MkXIV doing this but not the MkIX.

Black 4

The_Great_Stonk
11-25-2004, 06:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Bomblast:
The H.F. Spit is so way over modeled it's crazy. I've seen H.F. Spits outclimb and catch 109K's at 25,000 Ft. and above. To me this is rediculous, if the dam plane was so good why then did they even build the P-51?? I can see the MkXIV doing this but not the MkIX.

Black 4 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

quit your whining/trolling...

the HF is the spit specifically designed for high altitude, so i wouldnt be surprised if it outperformed some late war aircraft up high. and as for why they built the p51 ? it probably had somthing to do with the fact that the spit is a short range air superiority fighter, and that the mustang is a long range escort fighter, they fill completly different rolls. pull your head out your rear end and learn somthing about what your talking about instead of throwing out your biassed uninformed opinions.

have a nice day http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
11-25-2004, 07:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
What type did the HF usualy have then? a C wing? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL I wish we had a real C-wing Spit... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually we do have a real C-wing Spitfire. If you are refering to the infamous 4 cannon Spitfires there was one major instance of these Spitfires ever having been deployed.

They were Mark Vc Tropicals deployed to Malta. On deployment they were stripped of two of the cannons and flew around with only 2 20mm cannons (no machine guns). The performance impact was too high for the power of the engine on the Mark V had. After that, all Spitfire's with C type armament had 2 cannons and 4 .303 machine guns. To have a 4 cannon C model would be an absolute rare model of Spitfire to see...IMHO, not one that was well liked by pilots. The first standard, serial produced Spitfire with 4 cannons was the Mark 21.

All HF Spitfires I've seen with extended and standard wings had C type armament. Not to say that you couldn't toss a Merlin 70 into any Spitfire and give it E type armament. Its a minor anomaly, but my experience tells me that there are just as many documented as undocumented cases and HF Spitfires were rarer birds anyways.

TX-Bomblast
11-25-2004, 08:06 AM
The_Great_Stonk...........

I didn't come here to insult you or get insulted. It's my observations, too bad if the truth hurts.I stll stand by my beliefs, it's not trolling. The MkIX's NEVER performed in R/L the way they do in this game. Sorry if you can't take it. Now, if these Spits were MkXIV's then it would be acceptable.

Black4

hop2002
11-25-2004, 09:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The H.F. Spit is so way over modeled it's crazy. I've seen H.F. Spits outclimb and catch 109K's at 25,000 Ft. and above. To me this is rediculous, if the dam plane was so good why then did they even build the P-51?? I can see the MkXIV doing this but not the MkIX. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Climb rate of the K4 at 25,000 ft was 2,620 - 2,680 ft/min, according to the doc I have seen (lower figure) and Isegrim (higher figure), who has the original docs on the K4.

I know of 3 tests of Spitfire HF IXs, at 25,000 ft the climb rates were: 3,240 ft/min, 3,030 ft/min and 3,000 ft/min

If you go higher, to say 28,000 ft, the figures are 2,540 ft/min, 2,595 ft/min and 2,920 ft/min for the Spit HF IXs tested, 2,165 ft/min and 2,200 ft/min for the 109 K4s.

The Spitfire LF IX matches the K4 climb rate closely at high altitude, the Spit HF IX has a considerably better climb rate than the K4 at high altitude.

MEGILE
11-25-2004, 09:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The H.F. Spit is so way over modeled it's crazy. I've seen H.F. Spits outclimb and catch 109K's at 25,000 Ft. and above. To me this is rediculous, if the dam plane was so good why then did they even build the P-51?? I can see the MkXIV doing this but not the MkIX. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Climb rate of the K4 at 25,000 ft was 2,620 - 2,680 ft/min, according to the doc I have seen (lower figure) and Isegrim (higher figure), who has the original docs on the K4.

I know of 3 tests of Spitfire HF IXs, at 25,000 ft the climb rates were: 3,240 ft/min, 3,030 ft/min and 3,000 ft/min

If you go higher, to say 28,000 ft, the figures are 2,540 ft/min, 2,595 ft/min and 2,920 ft/min for the Spit HF IXs tested, 2,165 ft/min and 2,200 ft/min for the 109 K4s.

The Spitfire LF IX matches the K4 climb rate closely at high altitude, the Spit HF IX has a considerably better climb rate than the K4 at high altitude. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And another gets informed...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
11-25-2004, 10:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The H.F. Spit is so way over modeled it's crazy. I've seen H.F. Spits outclimb and catch 109K's at 25,000 Ft. and above. To me this is rediculous, if the dam plane was so good why then did they even build the P-51?? I can see the MkXIV doing this but not the MkIX. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Climb rate of the K4 at 25,000 ft was 2,620 - 2,680 ft/min, according to the doc I have seen (lower figure) and Isegrim (higher figure), who has the original docs on the K4.

I know of 3 tests of Spitfire HF IXs, at 25,000 ft the climb rates were: 3,240 ft/min, 3,030 ft/min and 3,000 ft/min

If you go higher, to say 28,000 ft, the figures are 2,540 ft/min, 2,595 ft/min and 2,920 ft/min for the Spit HF IXs tested, 2,165 ft/min and 2,200 ft/min for the 109 K4s.

The Spitfire LF IX matches the K4 climb rate closely at high altitude, the Spit HF IX has a considerably better climb rate than the K4 at high altitude. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And another gets informed...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

/waits kurfy to turn up

Atomic_Marten
11-25-2004, 12:52 PM
Good luck flying vs. Spits online in Bf109s. I know that you must have some masohistic 'line' in your character to do this repedeatly.

Difference is so big that I doubt that even Spit drivers find it amusing..

stathem
11-25-2004, 01:21 PM
Regarding the many complainants about Spitfire (lack of) overheating, this from
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9tactical.html

Climb

19......... Comparitive climbs were carried out and it was found that the Spitfire IX was superior to the Spitfire VC and Typhoon I at all heights. This superiority becomes even more marked as height increases. The Spitfire IX was climbed under maximum continuous climbing conditions, to an indicated height of 39,500 feet where the rate of climb was about 700 feet per minute. <span class="ev_code_RED">It was particularly noticed that the oil and glycol temperatures were normal throughout.</span> The operational ceiling is considered to be about 38,000 feet where the rate of climb is 1,000 feet per minute. This height can be reached by a single aircraft in 18 1/2 minutes.

And that from a prototype evaluation...

Slantaye
11-25-2004, 05:20 PM
TX Bomblast you are Completely in error thinking the 109K4 climbs better than the spit 9 H.F.

above 25,000ft the spit H.F. will eat K4s alive. in turn climb and turn rate. the K4 in this game and possibly in real life should be kept around 20000ft or less against a spit H.F. or the k4 WILL be outclassed.

dont even bring up the spit 14. THAT plane will decimate a K4 in every aspect at every altitude. thats why the spit14 hasnt been modelled yet. it will be TRULY uber duber. it would unbalance the game and walk all over ki84Cs .

Nubarus
11-25-2004, 07:43 PM
Many of the people who constantly whine about the Spitfires don't know that the Spitfire was actually designed for high altitude in the first place.

They also think that their favorate German plane can outclimb them with ease.

To me it looks like they spend too much time reading about the Hurricane and then blocked out the word "Hurricane" and replaced it with the word "Spitfire".

TX-Bomblast
11-25-2004, 08:03 PM
Ok......sure.....whatever.....uh huh...

Nubarus
11-25-2004, 08:18 PM
Looks like Bomblast doesn't have any real retort anymore but in his uncontrollable urge to reply all that came out was "Ok......sure.....whatever.....uh huh..."

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

HeinzBar
11-25-2004, 11:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stathem:
C.f the following two sites

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html
(H.F. data near the bottom)
and
http://www.nzetc.org/etexts/WH2-2RAF/b4.html

Interestingly the New Zealand site has the XIV slower to 20,000 feet, and a slightly lower ceiling. I also have a link to a compilicated explanation of the Griffon engine which seems to indicate it wasn't proportionally better, if at all, then the Merlin70 at altitude (larger capacity meant lower boost pressures)

Obv. we don't know which configuration of reduction gear and prop. it's modelled with here
As i recall the HF designation refers to the wing type.

Can you post the Ta152H specs? (bearing in mind there were only 10 flown) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

S!,
Unfortunately, I do not have any original testing documents on the Ta152H-0. I do have some charts concerning how the H-0 compares to other FW models. At lower levels, the late model doras(11,12,& 13) out perform the Ta H-0. I need to get a scanner. Anyhow, all the data can be found in the book Focke Wulf Ta 152 by Dietmar Harmann, ISBN:0764308602 and Focke Wulf 190 Long Nose by Dietmar Harmann, ISBN:0764318764.

What I will post is a comparison table of the d9 vs Spit XIV. The spit XIV is superior to the Dora. However, according to this chart vs some of the posted figures found in this thread, the D-9 seems superior to the HF in some aspects. Once at higher altitudes, the Ta outperforms the Dora, and according to the numbers here, out perform the HF.


FW-190D9 ;Spitfire Mk XIV
Purpose Fighter/Fighter-bomber; Fighter
Empty Weight 349 ;2994kg
Gross Weight 4250kg ;3856kg
Wing span 10.50m ;11.23m
Length 10.20m ;9.96m
Height 3.36m ;3.87m
Wing area 18.30m^2 ;22.38m^2
Wing Loading 225kg/m^2 ;310 kg/m^2
Power plant Junker Jumo 213A ;Rolls-Royce Griffon 65

Take off power 1750 HP ;2050 HP
Fuel B4/87 Octane;100 Octane
Fuel Capacity 525 l ;510 l
Range 980km ;740km
Range drop tanks 1450km ;1368km
Speed at low level 572 km/h 612 km/h* ;584km/h
Maximum Speed 685 km/h 702 km/h* ;717km/h
at Boost altitude 6.6km 5.7km* ;7.742km
Landing speed 170km/h ;120km/h
Low alt.climb rate 16.8m/s 22.0m/s* ;23.1 m/s
time to climb to 2km 2.3min ;1.75 min (2438m)
time to climb to 4km 4.9min ;3.40 min(4267m)
time to climb to 6km 7.7min ;5.10 min(6096)
Service ceiling 10.8km ;13.1km
Armament 2 x mg151/20 ;2 x20mm Hispano MK
2 x mg131 ;2 x12.7mm Browning MG
Bomb load max 500kg ;max 454kg

*mw50


I tried pasting in the chart. I guess It didn't align properly. Please note that the semi-colon seperates the D9 vs the XIV. Please keep in mind I'm just trying to learn about the HF. Prior to this sim, I knew nothing of the HF's existance. It just seems like the XIV was uncalled for by the data presented here.

HB

stathem
11-26-2004, 01:54 AM
AFAIK the XIV pre-dates the Dora, and had been in development since 1941. They flew top cover over the beaches at D-Day, shot down the first Me262 to be lost in combat, and caught(along with the Tempest) many V-1s.

The IX HF was a specialised High altitude fighter with an optimised engine and extended wings, much like the Ta152. As I understand it, the Dora was no sparkling high altitude fighter, which is why it was developed to the 152H. I was just trying to illustrate that the XIV wasn't a long way superior to the IX HF at altitude. It was however, much faster at medium altitude, which is where the FW's and Bf series had at an advantage.

I ran some tests of AI IX HF vs AI Ta152(at all AI levels), and although the 152 outpaced the Spit and couldn't be caught, likewise it couldn't gain firing position. A good match I would say : but try running the same thing with P-47's and P-51's.

hop2002
11-26-2004, 03:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Prior to this sim, I knew nothing of the HF's existance. It just seems like the XIV was uncalled for by the data presented here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire XIV was 30 mph faster than the Spitfire HF IX at almost all altitudes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ok......sure.....whatever.....uh huh... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well reasoned argument.

The Spitfire IX was one of the best climbing prop planes of the war. The LF IX had a climb rate close to the 109K4 at all altitudes (slightly better at some, worse at others). The Spitfire HF IX had a slightly worse climb rate at lower altitudes, but a substantially better climb rate at high altitudes.

I'm sorry if you don't believe that, but that's what all the original data I have seen says. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What I will post is a comparison table of the d9 vs Spit XIV. The spit XIV is superior to the Dora. However, according to this chart vs some of the posted figures found in this thread, the D-9 seems superior to the HF in some aspects. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Dora will certainly be much faster than the Spit HF IX at most altitudes, possibly not very high up. At low altitudes, the climb rate should be similar, at high altitudes the Spit HF IX would have a huge climb advantage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Once at higher altitudes, the Ta outperforms the Dora, and according to the numbers here, out perform the HF.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It will certainly be much faster, and the climb rate at very high altitude will be superior as well.

I don't think anyone is suggesting the HF IX is the best performing plane of the war, but it had a high altitude climb rate that would beat any prop plane other than possibly the Ta 152.

k5054
11-26-2004, 05:05 AM
There was little or no combat above 40,000ft. If there had been the advantage in wing loading of the Spit HF models, of which Mk7 was the choice, over all other a/c capable of that altitude, might have tranlated into a turn advantage which could not be overcome. In the event by 1944 even Mk 7s were being used for ground attack in the absence of any combat up high. Except to combat photo planes there was no reason to be there. And of course in real life nothing intercepted photo planes higher than the Spit 9 special. If the Ta152 had by some chance shown a true advantage at height, there was a Spit 7 version with NO injection to even things up, avaliable but not put into service.

The german obsession with high alt in the late war is slightly puzzling, they were working on not only Ta152, but 109L and BV155. What for? Did they believe that B-29s over 40,000ft were a threat? Good score for US propaganda if so.

Kurfurst__
11-26-2004, 06:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
Climb rate of the K4 at 25,000 ft was 2,620 - 2,680 ft/min, according to the doc I have seen (lower figure) and Isegrim (higher figure), who has the original docs on the K4.

I know of 3 tests of Spitfire HF IXs, at 25,000 ft the climb rates were: 3,240 ft/min, 3,030 ft/min and 3,000 ft/min

If you go higher, to say 28,000 ft, the figures are 2,540 ft/min, 2,595 ft/min and 2,920 ft/min for the Spit HF IXs tested, 2,165 ft/min and 2,200 ft/min for the 109 K4s.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 2920 ft/min value for the IX HF in one test was due to a mis-configured fuel mixture regulator, subsequent tests note that fact in regards of another Spit tested with the very same engine. It was noted this irregularity increased the ROC at some altitudes (more rich fuel charge), but at more higher altitudes it lead to power loss and a considerable drop in maximum ceiling.

Actually it`s about 2750 fpm for the K-4 at 25k, but that`s a marginal error. It`s noted in the doc though, that for reasons of simplifing the measurement, the climb rates of the 109K are understated in the doc above ca20k feet, compared to what is to be expected in real life. This is because in real life, the radiators would already automatically shut themselves to minimal drag positon at the altitudes we are speaking of, and cause far less drag, but in the graps it was hypothesize they would gradually close above 20k ft, and would only reach fully closed state at the ceiling.



This referring to the K-4 w. single stage superchargers. It is however appears to be confirmed that from about Jan 1945, K-4s with two stage superchargers were also produced. This variant could do 2900 fpm at 28k ft altitude.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
The Spitfire LF IX matches the K4 climb rate closely at high altitude, the Spit HF IX has a considerably better climb rate than the K4 at high altitude. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, that`s one of Hop`s favourite stories to tell, but in fact the way he arrived it is more than dubious... there`s no doubt about the HF Spit, which had an excellent supercharger, but with the LF, hmm, he played a lot with incomparable radiator settings, using minimal drag opening for the Spitfires and medium drag variations for the 109s etc. All the comparable IXLF climb tests I had show the IXLF being inferior to the 109K especially at altitude, and on a _very_ narrow altitude margin, just as good at low altitudes. Expect of course Hop`s favourite test done on the proto IXLF half year before it`s service introduction, which probably didn`t even had it`s engine finalized, and certainly was using a metal bladed prop that never went into production.. in fact if you plot the results of this machine, it manages to outclimb even HF Spitfires... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but that`s another matter. Physically, I can hardly imagine how the IXLF could climb with a 109K at the high altitude, ie. the engine of the 109K was much more powerful at altitude - producing ca. 950PS vs. 860 HP of the MkIXLF`s Merlin66.. I am sure Hop will find that - factual side of the story - hardly acceptable. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


And now the bottom line... first, these are the real life specs.. the reason for the outrage with Spits was(and possibly still is, i didn`t test their speed yet) was that IN THE GAME, the IXLFs performed speed-wise and HF Spits, easily reaching ca670 km/h vs. their historical 640-650km/h, and at a far higher altitude they should have.. the IXHFs followed the same road, in fact the IXHF`s IN GAME specs were not far from that of the MkXIV`s, ie. they managed to do over 700 km/h vs. the ca. 670 they could manage in real life.. I dont know if this still stands true.


And why didn`t so many hear yet of the HF Spits if they were so dangerous... the answer lays in how rare historically it was, even rarer than the Mk XIVs, which in fact were no more common than Me 262s... I know about ~850 XIVs were produced during the war, but this was only enough to equip about 6 Squadrons of fighters with them, that meant a maximum of 120 of them in service at one time, but that`s already including the reserves of the units! Now in comparison, some 400 H.F. MkIXs were built.. So most likely they never seen more service than a few dozen in operations at one time. In performance, and in rarity, their counterparts were the GM-1 equipped fighters of the 109G series, produced in somewhat higher numbers though. With GM-1, I have absolutely no doubt the 109s would leave the HF IXs waaaaay behind in level speed flights at altitude, being only marginally slower than them WITHOUT GM-1, but that, according to the German specs, boosted the level speeds by no less than 120 km/h at altitude, giving an extra 300 HP immidiately.. didn`t see climb specs for them 109Gs, but, such power boost would yield even more dramatical increase in ROC. Actually such GM-1 planes having a good deal MORE horsepower than the K-4 at altitude, in a LIGHTER airframe. A German doc states an increase of minimum of 1200 feet/min(!!) for the 109K w. GM-1...

k5054
11-26-2004, 06:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Actually it`s about 2750 fpm for the K-4 at 25k, but that`s a marginal error. It`s noted in the doc though, that for reasons of simplifing the measurement, the climb rates of the 109K are understated in the doc above ca20k feet, compared to what is to be expected in real life. This is because in real life, the radiators would already automatically shut themselves to minimal drag positon at the altitudes we are speaking of, and cause far less drag, but in the graps it was hypothesize they would gradually close above 20k ft, and would only reach fully closed state at the ceiling.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's get this right, you are criticizing Hop's quotes for having non-representative a/c, Fine. But the things you quote are not, by your admission, real life tests.

More HF spits (you need to include all 7s, 8s and 9s with the high-alt engine) would have been built if there had been a demand. No such demand existed. The RAF had provision for high-alt planes, the HF spits, the Mosquito XV and the not very good Welkin. None were needed. Likewise GM-1 seems to have been not much used later on. As I said, the RAF had the equivalent of GM-1, it did fly in the Mosquito operationally, and was tested in the Spit 7, but not needed.

I'd really like to see evidence of two-stage db605s in service. What did it look like? Any external signs? Pesumably the big supe got changed, and there was some sign of an intercooler/aftercooler? Were any found and reported on by allied recovery teams after the war? Were any photographed in LW service. No?
Did the 109K employ the four blade prop it need for high-alt ops, or keep the low-aspect-ratio three blader which lost efficiency up there?

Kurfurst__
11-26-2004, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Let's get this right, you are criticizing Hop's quotes for having non-representative a/c, Fine. But the things you quote are not, by your admission, real life tests. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The report I - and Hop, indirectly - qouting from that the results "are to be surely reached with well built serially produced a/c", and that "no extra, such as polishing etc" is included in the numbers. Quite different imho from planes wrongly set up, or from ones that never went into production.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
More HF spits (you need to include all 7s, 8s and 9s with the high-alt engine) would have been built if there had been a demand. No such demand existed. The RAF had provision for high-alt planes, the HF spits, the Mosquito XV and the not very good Welkin. None were needed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, the high alt flight regime wasn`t the main concern in any airforce, that`s why so few specialized high-alt aircraft were built. That`s why the most common Spit type (IX LF) was optimezed for below 5000m altitude. That`s why high alt 109 types with GM-1 were only produced in small numbers. No real danger coming from the other side.. A few high alt planes the enemy had doesn`t really make you scream.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Likewise GM-1 seems to have been not much used later on. As I said, the RAF had the equivalent of GM-1, it did fly in the Mosquito operationally, and was tested in the Spit 7, but not needed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Brits had no equivalent of GM-1, sorry. They had a type of NO2 injection in the Mosquito, but that only improved LOW level output of the engine, it was no use at high altitude, it was more like an MW50 equivalent. The Germans didn`t use GM-1 much from 1944 onwards, there were many large compressor 109s around, much simplier to service and use.. and already superior to most things the enemy had at altitude. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I'd really like to see evidence of two-stage db605s in service. What did it look like? Any external signs? Pesumably the big supe got changed, and there was some sign of an intercooler/aftercooler? Were any found and reported on by allied recovery teams after the war? Were any photographed in LW service. No? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Appearantly the two staged DB 605s looked the same as the 605Ds, presumably being Ds modified with a Doppellader, which had distinctive green coating, and of course, two smaller compressors following each other. No intercooler was used, MW 50 was utilized for that purpose after the first stage iirc at the two highest power levels. I suppose they looked very much like the DB 605 L they were produced instead, and most likely specs were the same (the 605L was already described as a variant of the 605D), ie. rated altitude was 9600m. There`s written evidence that the two stage version was entirely compatible with the engine mounting and cowling of the single stage model with the larger compressor, a larger air intake was probably neccesary. There is written evidence of the type being put into serial production instead of the K-14 from March 1945, PLUS there`s anecdotal evidence from engine mechanics who had seen such powerplants coming into the factory from Jan 1945 onwards, and literally flowing into the factory from the frontlines from _March 1945_ onwards. So externally the only difference you would see is probably a larger intake, which is hard to make out, otherwise it`s exactly the same as the normal K-4. So for photographs, who knows. Allied reports, evaluation? Not that I know of. I don`t know any for the K-4 either, and none of the more serious researchers produced any so far. I guess that wouldn`t mean the K series never existed.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Did the 109K employ the four blade prop it need for high-alt ops, or keep the low-aspect-ratio three blader which lost efficiency up there? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, the three bladed prop of the K-4 was DESIGNED for high alt work, m8. The four bladed one made ca. +10km/h faster at altitude, but nothing else. Otherwise I think the 4bladed prop was not used, for whatever reason. Guess more development was needed, or just didn`t worth it for 10 kph extra. The ROC was not considered to be seriously effected at all.

hop2002
11-26-2004, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Mood of the topic. posted 26-11-04, 13:27

quote:Originally posted by hop2002:
Climb rate of the K4 at 25,000 ft was 2,620 - 2,680 ft/min, according to the doc I have seen (lower figure) and Isegrim (higher figure), who has the original docs on the K4.

I know of 3 tests of Spitfire HF IXs, at 25,000 ft the climb rates were: 3,240 ft/min, 3,030 ft/min and 3,000 ft/min

If you go higher, to say 28,000 ft, the figures are 2,540 ft/min, 2,595 ft/min and 2,920 ft/min for the Spit HF IXs tested, 2,165 ft/min and 2,200 ft/min for the 109 K4s.



The 2920 ft/min value for the IX HF in one test was due to a mis-configured fuel mixture regulator, subsequent tests note that fact in regards of another Spit tested with the very same engine. It was noted this irregularity increased the ROC at some altitudes (more rich fuel charge), but at more higher altitudes it lead to power loss and a considerable drop in maximum ceiling.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possibly, I haven't checked, but of course all 3 Spit HF IX tests show a superior climb rate at high altitude, which was the point of the reply.

Somebody claimed a Spit HF IX outclimbed their K4 at high altitude, and that's as it should be.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It`s noted in the doc though, that for reasons of simplifing the measurement, the climb rates of the 109K are understated in the doc above ca20k feet, compared to what is to be expected in real life. This is because in real life, the radiators would already automatically shut themselves to minimal drag positon at the altitudes we are speaking of, and cause far less drag, but in the graps it was hypothesize they would gradually close above 20k ft, and would only reach fully closed state at the ceiling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That affects the Spitfire too. The Spit's radiators on all the tests I quoted were fully open at all altitudes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Brits had no equivalent of GM-1, sorry. They had a type of NO2 injection in the Mosquito, but that only improved LOW level output of the engine, it was no use at high altitude, it was more like an MW50 equivalent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it was useful at all altitudes.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1101490115_mossien2o.jpg

Kurfurst__
11-26-2004, 10:50 AM
Hop I checked that document above and it says NO2 power boost was only used between 2000 ft and 6000 ft. The doc was made some time when 150 grade was introduced, so I guess NO2 appeared only in 1944 for Mossies, at least in a testing phase. GM-1 on the other hand was contiously used by some types from 1940 or 1941 onwards...

I absolutely CANT find any source that would point to a similiar use of NO2 as a high altitude booster by the British as with GM-1 with Luftwaffe, certainly not in operations with Spitfires, but I find nothing that would point to it being ever considered by them for fighters.

hop2002
11-26-2004, 11:11 AM
Isegrim, have you read what is says along the top?

"However, nitrous oxide has been used very successfully on night-fighter Mosquito aircraft to give an extra 30 m.p.h. speed above 18,000 ft. altitude"

The doc is one of those dealing with improving aircraft to deal with the V-1, hence the info on the 2 - 5,000 ft height band, and the reason for it's date in 1944.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>certainly not in operations with Spitfires, but I find nothing that would point to it being ever considered by them for fighters.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, fitting that heavy and bulky equipment to a single engined fighter is a silly idea, which is why the RAF and USAAF didn't do it, and the Luftwaffe only sparingly and for a limited period.

k5054
11-26-2004, 12:19 PM
Sorry, the NOX wasn't in Spits, I was thinking of the LOX experiments on Mk7s, intended apparently as a measure to allow closure with a Ju86. It would not have been suitable for anywhere the other side would shoot back. I don't think the RAF was much concerned about high-alt performance, they had solutions ready if needed. But nobody went up there any more, reversing the trend of 1940-42 when combat went higher and higher in a sterile kind of fighter-vs-fighter duel, like the Korean war.
I still don't know why this motivated the LW to develop high-alt aircraft up to the end of the war. Were they worried about the B-29?

k5054
11-26-2004, 12:21 PM
I just re-read that chart. 377mph on the deck (or almost) in a NF mosquito without nox? What boost?

HeinzBar
11-26-2004, 12:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What I will post is a comparison table of the d9 vs Spit XIV. The spit XIV is superior to the Dora. However, according to this chart vs some of the posted figures found in this thread, the D-9 seems superior to the HF in some aspects. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Dora will certainly be much faster than the Spit HF IX at most altitudes, possibly not very high up. At low altitudes, the climb rate should be similar, at high altitudes the Spit HF IX would have a huge climb advantage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Once at higher altitudes, the Ta outperforms the Dora, and according to the numbers here, out perform the HF.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It will certainly be much faster, and the climb rate at very high altitude will be superior as well.

I don't think anyone is suggesting the HF IX is the best performing plane of the war, but it had a high altitude climb rate that would beat any prop plane other than possibly the Ta 152. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

S!,
Thanks for the information. Do you have any docs and reference that I may look up? I'd like to gain some more insight on the performance of the IX HF. I have to try to figure out a way to out perform the IX HF as it's currently modeled. Please note I'm not saying I don't believe you, I'd just like to have some charts to look at to make a greater comparison since I have no official Spit IX HF documents.

I think the problem the Luftwaffe is seeing in the IX HF is that it will out perform the Ta152 in the game. This also applies to the Dora w/ the exception of altitudes below 3000m. Simmers are stating the no over heat is back for the Spit up high or the Ta 152 overheats too quickly...either or, it allows the IX HF to outperform the Ta152 and Dora w/ ease.

The main threat used to come from the p51. Now, the main ride for the Allies seems to be the IX HF. I'm now forced to re-rank the threat level of western allied planes; Spit IX HF, p47d27, then p51d. Just a reminder, I'm not whining. I'm just surprised about a plane I never really heard about being more dangerous up high than the historical high alt fighters like the p47 & p51.

TIA,
HB

hop2002
11-26-2004, 02:49 PM
There are 3 seperate HF IX test reports at:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bs543.html
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/en524.html
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bs310.html

It's worth noting that they modified the carb between the first test and the two others, which gave lower performance below 37,000 ft, higher performance above that, which gives some indication of the altitude range they were interested in with the Spit HF IX.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think the problem the Luftwaffe is seeing in the IX HF is that it will out perform the Ta152 in the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you mean it's faster, then it shouldn't be.

The Ta 152 also loses out somewhat with the 10,000m "ceiling" in IL2. It should have an increasing advantage above that height, that the atmospheric modelling doesn't allow.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This also applies to the Dora w/ the exception of altitudes below 3000m. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit HF IX should outclimb the Dora at most higher altitudes, but only be faster at very high alts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Simmers are stating the no over heat is back for the Spit up high or the Ta 152 overheats too quickly...either or, it allows the IX HF to outperform the Ta152 and Dora w/ ease. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know anything about the Dora/152 cooling, but the Spit shouldn't overheat easily at high altitude. In level flight it would have more than adequate cooling for long periods at full throttle, only if you keep the power up and the speed down would you start to get overheating problems.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The main threat used to come from the p51. Now, the main ride for the Allies seems to be the IX HF. I'm now forced to re-rank the threat level of western allied planes; Spit IX HF, p47d27, then p51d. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're talking about very high altitudes, that's probably right.

At high alt, the wingloading differences are magnified. That's one of the things that made the Spit such a good high alt fighter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm just surprised about a plane I never really heard about being more dangerous up high than the historical high alt fighters like the p47 & p51. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit F and HF IX had higher service ceiling than the P-47 or P-51, much lower wingloading, and should certainly be more manoueverable and climb better than either at high alt.

hop2002
11-26-2004, 02:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I just re-read that chart. 377mph on the deck (or almost) in a NF mosquito without nox? What boost? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I should think that's at 25 lbs.

p1ngu666
11-26-2004, 03:29 PM
itll be 25lbs or 18lbs, i dont have any test data, thats hops and kurfys area. i just have more general info. and a book of pilot reports, more or less http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

hop2002
11-26-2004, 03:46 PM
I've just looked it up, it's definately 25 lbs.

A test of a Mosquito Fb VI, same engines, gave 354 mph at 2,000 ft with ducted saxophone exhausts (reduced speed by 15 mph or more) and drop tanks fitted.

HellToupee
11-26-2004, 04:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HeinzBar:
The main threat used to come from the p51. Now, the main ride for the Allies seems to be the IX HF. I'm now forced to re-rank the threat level of western allied planes; Spit IX HF, p47d27, then p51d. Just a reminder, I'm not whining. I'm just surprised about a plane I never really heard about being more dangerous up high than the historical high alt fighters like the p47 & p51.

TIA,
HB <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfire was a historical high alt fighter, it held advantages over the 109/190s usually always though each mark in climb.

p1ngu666
11-26-2004, 04:21 PM
il2compair says dora does 610 kph = 379.036427 mph at 600metres, (roughly)

354 mph = 569.707776 kph

190a4 cant catch up to a decked out mossie, rest of fw can, g10/14 can just about not much in it
g6/as and k4 are faster, rest of 109s slower

pulling a guesstimated figure for no exhaust covers and no drop tanks out of the hat...
377 mph = 606.722688 kph

smidge faster than bfs, and a smidge slower than dora.

hop, if it isnt too much trouble could u send me mossie test data to pingu666@gmail.com or link me to some ?
thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Kurfurst__
11-27-2004, 05:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
Isegrim, have you read what is says along the top?

"However, nitrous oxide has been used very successfully on night-fighter Mosquito aircraft to give an extra 30 m.p.h. speed above 18,000 ft. altitude"

The doc is one of those dealing with improving aircraft to deal with the V-1, hence the info on the 2 - 5,000 ft height band, and the reason for it's date in 1944. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, from what date and to what extent was this NO2 boosting used on Mosquitos? 1944 onwards?



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
No, fitting that heavy and bulky equipment to a single engined fighter is a silly idea, which is why the RAF and USAAF didn't do it, and the Luftwaffe only sparingly and for a limited period. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find this a quite strange reasoning. Ie., the RAF/USAAF thought that fitting a 200 lbs heavier engines, plus apprx. another 200 lbs worth of of intercoolers, radiators etc. onto a Spitfire IX, or essentially building a 6 ton monster plane effectively around a giant turbocharger ducting had worth it, when it was still resulting in inferior high altitude performance to a fighter rather simply modified to carry GM-1, which was neither bulky or heavy? Ie. the total weight of the system was only 46kg on the F-4/Z and only needed to be mounted when operational need called for it, whereas the MkIXs Spitfires suffered from the bulk of the supercharger, intercooler etc. even if their mission profile never required operating those systems in a given case. Plus I doubt there was anything on the Allied side that could match the effects of GM-1. Certainly not in 1941, 1942 or 1943, and perhaps not even in 1944.

p1ngu666
11-27-2004, 09:48 AM
coudlnt gm1 only be used for a limited amount of time? like mw50?

also theres the added advantage a turbo or supercharger would give, decent ata for cruising, (on lanc, high-medium boost, and low rpm was what was desired for max fuel economy at cruise)

k5054
11-27-2004, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Mood of the topic. posted Sat November 27 2004 04:32

quote:Originally posted by hop2002:
Isegrim, have you read what is says along the top?

"However, nitrous oxide has been used very successfully on night-fighter Mosquito aircraft to give an extra 30 m.p.h. speed above 18,000 ft. altitude"

The doc is one of those dealing with improving aircraft to deal with the V-1, hence the info on the 2 - 5,000 ft height band, and the reason for it's date in 1944.



Hmm, from what date and to what extent was this NO2 boosting used on Mosquitos? 1944 onwards?



quote:
No, fitting that heavy and bulky equipment to a single engined fighter is a silly idea, which is why the RAF and USAAF didn't do it, and the Luftwaffe only sparingly and for a limited period.



I find this a quite strange reasoning. Ie., the RAF/USAAF thought that fitting a 200 lbs heavier engines, plus apprx. another 200 lbs worth of of intercoolers, radiators etc. onto a Spitfire IX, or essentially building a 6 ton monster plane effectively around a giant turbocharger ducting had worth it, when it was still resulting in inferior high altitude performance to a fighter rather simply modified to carry GM-1, which was neither bulky or heavy? Ie. the total weight of the system was only 46kg on the F-4/Z and only needed to be mounted when operational need called for it, whereas the MkIXs Spitfires suffered from the bulk of the supercharger, intercooler etc. even if their mission profile never required operating those systems in a given case. Plus I doubt there was anything on the Allied side that could match the effects of GM-1. Certainly not in 1941, 1942 or 1943, and perhaps not even in 1944. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, your previous post, the GM-1 was replaced by a larger supercharger. A great big ugly bolt on thing. And later still the 605 got a two-stage supe. Which needed MW for intercooling, substituting a little extra rad for a tank full of water, where the merlin could still use water in the 1650-9 version to pull 3 ata, and 2218hp. Where I am not a fan of turbos in fighters any more than you, that fat 47 eventually had a longer range than any other single, and a higher speed too, so Republic were maybe not so stupid.

And you know very well that the two-stage merlin supercharger was a benefit to Spitfires well beyond a little high-alt performance. And Mustangs and Mosquitos.