PDA

View Full Version : The Spitfire was a pretty good plane



Megile_
04-24-2006, 02:53 PM
I figure the spitfire was a pretty good plane..

it was a pretty good fighter, it had a pretty good climb rate, it was pretty fast, it had a pretty high service ceiling, it was pretty maneuverable, it had pretty good fire power, and it had pretty good visibilty.

All in all, it was a pretty good plane.

Kuna_
04-24-2006, 02:55 PM
You should try I-153P and Bf-109G2. Nice ones too!

Bremspropeller
04-24-2006, 03:00 PM
IBTL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

ploughman
04-24-2006, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Megile_:
I figure the spitfire was a pretty good plane..

it was a pretty good fighter, it had a pretty good climb rate, it was pretty fast, it had a pretty high service ceiling, it was pretty maneuverable, it had pretty good fire power, and it had pretty good visibilty.

All in all, it was a pretty good plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Low_Flyer_MkVb
04-24-2006, 03:07 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Treetop64
04-24-2006, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Kuna_:
You should try I-153P and Bf-109G2. Nice ones too!

Curious about the 153. IRL the 153 was considered something of a dangerous aircraft to fly; somewhat reluctant to get into a spin, but once there it was very difficult to get out of it. Whereas it's replacement, the I-16s, were almost too easy to get into stalls and spins - especially with any abrupt maneuvers - but was so easy to recover that all the pilot had to do was actually release the controls, and she would come back to you. Albeit pointed straight down...

I agree with you, though, that in-game the 153 is a delight to fly. Kinda hard to see out of for an open-cockpit plane, but fun to fly.

Fun to look at, too!

faustnik
04-24-2006, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Megile_:
I figure the spitfire was a pretty good plane..

it was a pretty good fighter, it had a pretty good climb rate, it was pretty fast, it had a pretty high service ceiling, it was pretty maneuverable, it had pretty good fire power, and it had pretty good visibilty.

All in all, it was a pretty good plane.

On top of that it was a rather pretty airplane.

Jatro13th
04-24-2006, 03:23 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif Faustnik beat me to it!!!!

danjama
04-24-2006, 03:26 PM
Jatro and Faustnik beat me to it! It was literally a pretty plane.

I dont know why people think its overmodelled, its probably one of the more correct. Its just too many planes are undermodelled.

GBrutus
04-24-2006, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by danjama:

I dont know why people think its overmodelled, its probably one of the more correct. Its just too many planes are undermodelled.

Agree 150%. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

La7_brook
04-24-2006, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by GBrutus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:

I dont know why people think its overmodelled, its probably one of the more correct. Its just too many planes are undermodelled.

Agree 150%. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> how many loops can a spit do??

danjama
04-24-2006, 03:51 PM
Oh wow Brook just identified the universal Uber test http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Still flying the La7 btw....

I rest my case.

Just to add to my point, which some might not understand, you can do loops continuous with most planes as long as you keep your energy up. Same for Spitfire, and La7 for that matter.

GR142_Astro
04-24-2006, 04:06 PM
This is a pretty good thread.

La7_brook
04-24-2006, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
Oh wow Brook just identified the universal Uber test http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Still flying the La7 btw....

I rest my case.

Just to add to my point, which some might not understand, you can do loops continuous with most planes as long as you keep your energy up. Same for Spitfire, and La7 for that matter. never flew la7 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LStarosta
04-24-2006, 04:10 PM
Megile is a pretty good guy.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Eagle_493rdLN
04-24-2006, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by danjama:

I dont know why people think its overmodelled, its probably one of the more correct. Its just too many planes are undermodelled.

Keep telling yourself that.... just because you say your mantra enough doesn't make it true..

bwuhah.. and they say 150 octane was used.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
trying posting some EVIDENCE like Kurfurst

GBrutus
04-24-2006, 04:33 PM
Keep telling yourself that.... just because you say your mantra enough doesn't make it true..

bwuhah.. and they say 150 octane was used.. Hammer
trying posting some EVIDENCE like Kurfurst

Oh Lord, here we go... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

GR142_Astro
04-24-2006, 04:33 PM
IL2:Sturmovik/Forgotten Battles/Aces Expansion/Pacific Fighters/Pe2 Add-on is a pretty good game.

MLudner
04-24-2006, 04:37 PM
Yes, it was. It is one of the greatest prop fighters ever built. And even though it looks like a dog, it is a good looking plane.

LStarosta
04-24-2006, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Eagle_493rdLN:


Keep telling yourself that.... just because you say your mantra enough doesn't make it true..



Sure it does. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Eagle_493rdLN
04-24-2006, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:


Sure it does. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

That's all you got? no proof! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Kurfurst__
04-24-2006, 04:54 PM
All wrong. Be warned, I've got charts to prove it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

danjama
04-24-2006, 04:54 PM
No proofs needed in Ubizoo, fact.

Wanna know why?

Proof doesnt change a damn thing around here.

Whats even better is Spitfire pilot dont need proof to change anything, were xtremely happy with our plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

BTW i have more time in FW190/BF109 than Spitfire, just something to think about.

Kurfurst__
04-24-2006, 04:55 PM
Source please. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

PBNA-Boosher
04-24-2006, 04:57 PM
Y=13x+24 and it's right angles make a good plane as well.

+1

Eagle_493rdLN
04-24-2006, 04:57 PM
Spitfire... outclassed by the 109, then the 190, and then the 262

MLudner
04-24-2006, 05:17 PM
Even though the 109 is my favorite propfighter;

Not entirely. The Spit and 109 were always well matched in every category. There is always something the other can do better than the other.

DmdSeeker
04-24-2006, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by Eagle_493rdLN:
Spitfire... outclassed by the 109, then the 190, and then the 262

Any one know the actual score?

AVG_WarHawk
04-24-2006, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Treetop64:
Curious about the 153. IRL the 153 was considered something of a dangerous aircraft to fly; somewhat reluctant to get into a spin, but once there it was very difficult to get out of it. Whereas it's replacement, the I-16s, were almost too easy to get into stalls and spins - especially with any abrupt maneuvers - but was so easy to recover that all the pilot had to do was actually release the controls, and she would come back to you. Albeit pointed straight down...
I agree with you, though, that in-game the 153 is a delight to fly. Kinda hard to see out of for an open-cockpit plane, but fun to fly.
Fun to look at, too!

The I-16 was not a replacement for the I-153. In fact the I-153 was a more recent design and it's only disadvantage with the I-16 was speed.

Viper2005_
04-24-2006, 05:46 PM
The Spitfire has almost certainly killed more threads around here than any other fighter, one way or another.

Food for thought...

pourshot
04-24-2006, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by Eagle_493rdLN:
Spitfire... outclassed the 109, then the 190, and then the 262

Agree 100% http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

WarWolfe_1
04-24-2006, 06:52 PM
Its all about the Mustang http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif.

Admit your all closet mustang lovers! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

RCAF_Irish_403
04-24-2006, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The Spitfire has almost certainly killed more threads around here than any other fighter, one way or another.

Food for thought...

No doubt.

as long as things fit within the paradigm, i don't see what all the fuss is about

GBrutus
04-24-2006, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:

Its all about the Mustang Metal.

Admit your all closet mustang lovers! Winky

Mustang was pretty good too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif. Out of the closet on this one, unashamedly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

EiZ0N
04-24-2006, 08:04 PM
The spitfire WAS pretty good.

You're all pretty decent chaps, with the exception of Eagle_493rdLN, who seems pretty stupid, and has pretty much no knowledge of history.

Other than that, I want to say that you're all pretty much invited to my private airfield where you can fly pretty good mustangs and spitfires for pretty much an entire month. All of you are invited, except Eagle_493rdLN.

Pretty good thread, by the way.

HotelBushranger
04-25-2006, 12:25 AM
I dont know why people think its overmodelled, its probably one of the more correct. Its just too many planes are undermodelled.

No, it was just that the Spitfire was literally a better place.

Not saying I like it though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

alert_1
04-25-2006, 12:42 AM
Yes, Spit was good planse, but Oelg said clearly that the most succesful fighter of WWII was Me109... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

stathem
04-25-2006, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Source please. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kurfurst's in a pretty good mood...

HotelBushranger
04-25-2006, 01:46 AM
Stathem made 1001 posts! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

stathem
04-25-2006, 01:53 AM
Thanks! <bows>

Made 1k yesterday http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

panzerd18
04-25-2006, 01:57 AM
I like the FW190 but thats just me.

WOLFMondo
04-25-2006, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eagle_493rdLN:
Spitfire... outclassed by the 109, then the 190, and then the 262

Any one know the actual score? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two world wars and one world cup?...bah, nevermind.

ploughman
04-25-2006, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by MLudner:
Yes, it was. It is one of the greatest prop fighters ever built. And even though it looks like a dog, it is a good looking plane.

My dog.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/Firsthaircut1.jpg

A Spitfire.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/Spitfire.jpg

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

Kurfurst__
04-25-2006, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

Two world wars and one world cup?...bah, nevermind.


The Queen is German, too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WTE_Ibis
04-25-2006, 03:38 AM
No she's not.
Yes she is.
No she's not.
Yes she is.
Don't mention the war.
I did, but I think I got away with it.

Minister for silly walks.

.

WOLFMondo
04-25-2006, 03:49 AM
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 WOLFMondo:

Two world wars and one world cup?...bah, nevermind.


The Queen is German, too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't blame her for wanting to be British.

Kurfurst__
04-25-2006, 04:16 AM
Well Britain has long tradition with the monarchy, so I guess it's fits her. No shame in that.

Rollce Royce, Rover, Jaguar appears wanting to be German, Japanese, American, same reasons I guess. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Low_Flyer_MkVb
04-25-2006, 04:37 AM
Einstein was German too.

Now lets talk great contributions to civilisation like the Biro and the Gabor twins, shall we?

ploughman
04-25-2006, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
Now lets talk great contributions to civilisation like...the Gabor twins, shall we?

Eek! You mean there's two of them?

WOLFMondo
04-25-2006, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Well Britain has long tradition with the monarchy, so I guess it's fits her. No shame in that.

Rollce Royce, Rover, Jaguar appears wanting to be German, Japanese, American, same reasons I guess. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Fortunately its only the car building plants for RR that are German now. The Aero industry part of RR is still thankfully British.

Its a shame about the British car industry. The only truly British manufacturers left with any real sign of going anywhere now is TVR. Even Aston Martin I belive is now partly owned by a German car manufacturer, although no German car manufacturer has a brand as famous as Rolls Royce or Aston Martin.

ploughman
04-25-2006, 04:54 AM
Wolf, TVR is going places, abroad apparrently. The Blackpool factory is to close in six months.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
04-25-2006, 04:54 AM
Eek! You mean there's two of them?

It is my sad duty to confirm that.

HotelBushranger
04-25-2006, 05:05 AM
Blackadder Goes Fourth quote:

(Blackadder interogating Captain Darling to see if he is a spy)

Darling:"For Gods sake I'm as British as Queen Victoria!"

Blackadder:"You mean your father's German, you're half german and you married a German?"

Darling:"No! No! For God's sake, I'm not a German spy!!!!"

<Blackadder now completely casual>
Blackadder:"Good, thanks very much. Send in the next man would you?"

<Nurse Mary bursts in>
Mary:"What is all this noise about? Don't you realise this is a hospital!"

Darling:"You'll regret this, Blackadder! You'd better find the real spy or I'll make it very hard for you."

Blackadder:"Please Darling - there are ladies present."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Ah, good times.

Tully__
04-25-2006, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
Thanks! <bows>

Made 1k yesterday http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hehehe.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif ..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

stathem
04-25-2006, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by Tully__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Thanks! <bows>

Made 1k yesterday http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hehehe.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif ..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

I wanted to celebrate it in your 10K thread, but couldn't think of anything sensible to say over the weekend. Or some would say, ever...

WOLFMondo
04-25-2006, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Wolf, TVR is going places, abroad apparrently. The Blackpool factory is to close in six months.

Yeah, I saw that. All they said though was they were looking for a smaller site at the moment. Don't know what went wrong with them, they've been selling allot of cars over the last few years.

Kurfurst__
04-25-2006, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Fortunately its only the car building plants for RR that are German now. The Aero industry part of RR is still thankfully British.

Its a shame about the British car industry. The only truly British manufacturers left with any real sign of going anywhere now is TVR. Even Aston Martin I belive is now partly owned by a German car manufacturer, although no German car manufacturer has a brand as famous as Rolls Royce or Aston Martin.

I am ashamed but that's the first time I hear of TVR, maybe I've seen it in a car mag before. Hand-built small-series sports cars, appearantly. Guess it's the same thing as with Maybachs, few even know they exists, so premium they are.I'd argue with your last sentence though, even if I am a Honda-man. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif It owned Rover for a a while before they dumped it to BMW, but even BMW (which ma0de net profit in every fiscal year so far) could not make anything out of it... I wonder what's wrong with British carmakers, the Jags' and AMs are pretty cool, fine lines and interior, but I have throw up when I see those butt-ugly, boxy, victorian-style orthodox trash Bentley and RR made.

What about Land Rover, sold as well?

JG53Frankyboy
04-25-2006, 07:27 AM
Land Rover was sold from BMW to american hands, i think Ford , but it can also be GM - cant remember exactly.

the only thing BMW still owns from the Rover "Fiasko" is the Mini..........

Aston Martin as Ford now btw.

ploughman
04-25-2006, 07:37 AM
Don't really have much time for RR cars neither Kurfy but a Bentley Continental GT, now that's another matter entirely.

danjama
04-25-2006, 08:00 AM
Go Spitfire Go!!

<span class="ev_code_RED">spi</span> <span class="ev_code_WHITE">tf</span> <span class="ev_code_BLUE">ire</span> won the war.

p1ngu666
04-25-2006, 08:06 AM
the new rolls look really chunky, i saw one in the flesh on saturday. its a hmmmm im not sure if i like it or not thing.

last i heard TVR was now owned by a russian, so maybe moving to russia to produce cars?

the last lot of rover/MG's they produced looked really good imo.

the maybach is a really good car, but it lacks that magic
www.econ.kuleuven.be (http://www.econ.kuleuven.be) - /public/ndbaf47/Wallpapers/Maybach/

the exelero looks damn cool tho http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

the spit outclasses the 109, 190 and 262, its in the looks, the sound, theres just something about it

EiZ0N
04-25-2006, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I am ashamed but that's the first time I hear of TVR, maybe I've seen it in a car mag before. Hand-built small-series sports cars, appearantly. Guess it's the same thing as with Maybachs, few even know they exists, so premium they are.
Actually I'd wager that most people know about TVR.

WWMaxGunz
04-25-2006, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by danjama:
Oh wow Brook just identified the universal Uber test http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


I haven't found a link to it but back a ways at SimHQ someone pointed out the world record
for consecutive loops ran on for like 38 minutes. No, I don't know what plane but it does
point out that loops alone are no measure of uber especially if you fly em right.

I've seen film of Werner Voss in IIRC 1921 do two loops right over ground in front of the
grandstands and then stopped the engine and completed a third before landing by crabbing
over sideways.

There is one link for MSFS about flying a loop properly as opposed to pulling the stick
back and holding it there.

luftluuver
04-25-2006, 10:50 AM
TVR has been around for decades though I did know that it was from 1947.

TVR was founded in 1947 by Trevor Wilkinson, under the name of Trevcar Motors. In 1954, Wilkinson changed the name of the company by taking three consonants of his first name for the company name. The first car was built in 1949. In 1953 the concept of glass-reinforced plastic bodywork over a tubular steel backbone chassis was born, which is continued to this day. Many of the early cars were sold in kit form to avoid a British tax on assembled cars but in the 1970s this option was phased out and only complete cars sold as that loophole was closed.

In the late 1950s, TVRs were powered by Coventry Climax engines, MGA 4-Cylinder or 4-cylinder Ford Engines (with performance models having Shorrock superchargers). As with many other British sports cars, engine size remained beneath 2 litres, and all produced less than 100bhp. Most TVRs were sold in the domestic (British) market, although small quantities were exported overseas.

In the 1960s, American motor dealer Jack Griffith decided to transplant a 4.7 litre V8 from an AC Cobra he owned into a TVR Grantura, much in the same way that V8s were first transplanted to AC Cobras (It is in honour of Jack Griffith that the TVR Griffith was named).

Towards the end of the 1960s, TVR returned to Ford for a 2994cc V6 Zodiac engine for the new Tuscan racer. This produced 128bhp, giving a 0-60 time of 8.3 seconds, which was represented very acceptable performance for a 1960s car.

The 1970s saw a number of engines used in TVRs (particularly the 'M Series', and Tasmin), these were mainly Triumph 2500s, and Ford Essex and Pinto V6s.

In the 1980s under the ownership of Peter Wheeler, TVR moved away from naturally aspirated and turbocharged V6s back to large V8s, namely the Rover V8 (to which Rover bought the intellectual property rights from Buick). Capacity grew from 3.5 to 4.5 litres.

In the 1990s, TVR Power (the powertrain producing arm of TVR) had produced a number of modified Rover V8s, but TVR decided to move towards an in-house engine design. The AJP8 engine was develiped by Engineering Consultant Al Melling and was a lightweight alloy V8 - an noteable achievement for such a small company. It was originally destined for the Griffith and Chimaera but development took longer than expected and it finally hit the road in the Cerbera and the Tuscan race cars.

It has been said that TVR's chairman, Peter Wheeler has a passion for traditional straight six powered British sportscars. Based on this, TVR set about designing a straight six derivative of the AJP8, but engineered to be cheaper to produce and maintain. This engine became known as the Speed 6 and was designed by TVR's head of engineering, John Ravenscroft (a protegee of Al Melling). This engine now powers most current TVRs.

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

danjama
04-25-2006, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
Oh wow Brook just identified the universal Uber test http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


I haven't found a link to it but back a ways at SimHQ someone pointed out the world record
for consecutive loops ran on for like 38 minutes. No, I don't know what plane but it does
point out that loops alone are no measure of uber especially if you fly em right.

I've seen film of Werner Voss in IIRC 1921 do two loops right over ground in front of the
grandstands and then stopped the engine and completed a third before landing by crabbing
over sideways.

There is one link for MSFS about flying a loop properly as opposed to pulling the stick
back and holding it there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats exactly wht i was gettin at, i was being sarcastic....most planes can fly loops endless if you perform them right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG5_UnKle
04-25-2006, 01:08 PM
Pffft Loops! Loops!

This guy makes test pilots look like n00bs

Be Sure (http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-3-11_bob_hoover.avi)

Holtzauge
04-25-2006, 01:47 PM
The Spitfire certainly was a pretty good plane but I sometimes think the fervent almost religious esteem it is held in in certain circles is somewhat exaggerated and clouds the issue of the designs actual capabilities and shortcomings. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

When the relative preformance between a/c is discussed sometimes it would appear that the performance as the war progressed was a direct result of the a/c design in itself and early design considerations done by Willy or Reginald. However, remember that a substantial part of the high end performance in allied engines can be explained by the superior grade fuel that became available as the war progressed and which was not part of the equation when the a/c and engines were conceived. How would would a Spitfire run on 87 octane fuel do against the axis competition? Or how much would a Fw190 or Me109 gain in detonation free power output with 130/150 grade fuel?

So if we eliminate other variables from the equation and look just on the design in itself the basic Spifire design actually contains some conservative and "old school" design features the most prominent of which being the low wing loading. This is actually one of, if not the primary issue for determining the performance characteristics when juggling, top speed, climb, ceiling etc in the performance equation. Some fervently point to this low wing loading on the Spitfire as some kind of major advantage since it allowed tighter turns, helping to win the battle of Britain. But if tighter turns are the way to win battles why did the wing area of the Spitfire not increase at the same rate as the weight went up later in the war? The Spitfire initially had a wing loading of about 24 lb/ft**2 and ended up at about 42 lb/ft**2 (Seafire 47). And all the time there is a lobby yapping about the high wing loading on axis designs as some kind of design deficiency (e.g early Me109 at 32 lb/ft***2). Fact: the Brits allowed the weight of the Spitfire to double while retaining the 244 ft**2 wing area. Conclusion: high wing loading is/was the way to go. The Yanks and the Krauts figured this out first. It took the Brits some time but eventually they saw the light.

Finally, the nail in the coffin: if low wing loading is the way to go, why, when they had the chance and did redesign the whole wing for the Spifire and renamed it the Spiteful, did they end up with a smaller wing at 210 ft**2 and at a wing loading of 43 lb/ft**2? Hmmmmm?????

Megile_
04-25-2006, 02:15 PM
I think the Spitfire was a pretty good plane.

ploughman
04-25-2006, 02:27 PM
Well, I thought it was untill I read Holtzauge's post and now I'm all confused. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Like the ROFL copter Megile, what's the schwing loading on that baby?

Megile_
04-25-2006, 03:11 PM
2 LOL per square foot

LStarosta
04-25-2006, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
Go Spitfire Go!!

<span class="ev_code_RED">spi</span> <span class="ev_code_WHITE">tf</span> <span class="ev_code_BLUE">ire</span> won the war.

+3
(one for each colour)

and +1 for me for using a u

John_Wayne_
04-25-2006, 03:51 PM
Pretty good plane in my book.

Megile_
04-25-2006, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by John_Wayne_:
Pretty good plane in my book.

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

WTE_Galway
04-25-2006, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
Land Rover was sold from BMW to american hands, i think Ford , but it can also be GM - cant remember exactly.

the only thing BMW still owns from the Rover "Fiasko" is the Mini..........

Aston Martin as Ford now btw.


Aston Martin have been American owned since the mid 1970's . Ford simply acquired the company from the original US consortium that had bought it back around 1976, it was already in US hands.

From 1947 until they were sold to the yank's they were owned by David Brown, the tractor company. Hence the derogative "fastest tractor in Europe" label common in the 50's and 60's for the brand.

EPP_Gibbs
04-25-2006, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by Holtzauge:
Finally, the nail in the coffin: if low wing loading is the way to go, why, when they had the chance and did redesign the whole wing for the Spifire and renamed it the Spiteful, did they end up with a smaller wing at 210 ft**2 and at a wing loading of 43 lb/ft**2? Hmmmmm?????

The Spiteful wing was designed to exploit the supposed advantages of laminar flow. When they had done that and tested it against the normal Spitfire Wing they found that

(1) It didn't perform as well as they expected it would.
(2)The Spitfire wing performed better than they thought it would.
(3) That the advantages of laminar flow were marginal at best, and probably negated under combat conditions as a result dents, debris, and other imperfections on the wings spoiling the effect alltogether.

I've not read anywhere that the Spiteful wing was designed to specifically to increase wing loading, or that high wingloading was a desirable effect. The weight of the Spitfire increased (and also that of the 109) because of the upward spiral of increasing engine power and weight, structural strengthening, increased armament, tankage, armour, etc, in the constant race to increase combat capability. I've never seen anything to suggest they upped the weight but kept the wing the same in order to increase wingloading because they thought that that was a 'good thing'. In fact the handling penalties of increased wingloading were lamented, but accepted, as a trade off for more speed, climb, and hitting power; qualities that are not obtained as a result of increasing the wingloading specifically. They kept the wing the same because (1) it was a bloody good wing anyway( 2) In a war situation they wouldn't be as stupid as to unnecesarily delay production of much needed aircraft by undertaking a major redesign/re-tool that wasn't absolutely necessary.

The reason that the 190A2/A4 was faster and out climbed/out dived the Spit V was not because it had higher wingloading, but because it had about 400hp more power in the engine.

I conclude that your argument is flawed.

Tazzers1968
04-25-2006, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eagle_493rdLN:
Spitfire... outclassed by the 109, then the 190, and then the 262

Any one know the actual score? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyone know how many 109s were flying in June 1945? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Von_Rat
04-25-2006, 07:25 PM
didnt some countrys use 109s till late 40s.

i beleive spain, israel, and maybe the swiss and finns used 109s long after june 1945.

Tazzers1968
04-25-2006, 07:27 PM
Not Germany.

Von_Rat
04-25-2006, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by Tazzers1968:
Not Germany.

didnt notice anything about germany in other post, just how many 109s flying after june 45.

i don't have hard numbers, but they were flying.

WTE_Galway
04-25-2006, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
didnt some countrys use 109s till late 40s.

i beleive spain, israel, and maybe the swiss and finns used 109s long after june 1945.

not DB powered ones ....

the 109's in Battle of Britain movie are 'hispano' spanish air force ones that were still flying in the 60's but the engines are merlins

the give away is the nose shape especially the vent under the prop and the fact that the merlin is a V with the exhaust high on the cowl like a spit whereas the DB engines are inverted V with the exhaust low on the cowl

HellToupee
04-25-2006, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by Holtzauge:
Finally, the nail in the coffin: if low wing loading is the way to go, why, when they had the chance and did redesign the whole wing for the Spifire and renamed it the Spiteful, did they end up with a smaller wing at 210 ft**2 and at a wing loading of 43 lb/ft**2? Hmmmmm?????

The wing was to test laminar flow, and they found the advantages in speed gain were not worth the loss of handling.

stathem
04-26-2006, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by Holtzauge:
The Spitfire certainly was a pretty good plane but I sometimes think the fervent almost religious esteem it is held in in certain circles is somewhat exaggerated and clouds the issue of the designs actual capabilities and shortcomings. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



Same rules apply:


The FW190 certainly was a very good plane but I sometimes think the fervent almost religious esteem it is held in in certain circles is somewhat exaggerated and clouds the issue of the designs actual capabilities and shortcomings. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and, didn't the H-series Ta152 have a larger wing area? So it could compete at high altitudes ie, where the Spitfire had never had a problem?

Kurfurst__
04-26-2006, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
didnt some countrys use 109s till late 40s.

i beleive spain, israel, and maybe the swiss and finns used 109s long after june 1945.

not DB powered ones .... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Finns flew their original Daimler-Benz 109s until 1957 I believe, the Swiss continued to do so with their own. Yugoslav air force also flew the 109G after the war - the latter is pretty funny case, since they were flying Yak3, SpitIX and P-47 at the same time. And I am just going to visit those birds on Monday. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kurfurst__
04-26-2006, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
and, didn't the H-series Ta152 have a larger wing area? So it could compete at high altitudes ie, where the Spitfire had never had a problem?

The TA 152 had a high aspect ratio wing, which is adventagous at high altitudes not low wingloading. Thnk of a glider.

The Spitfires good handling at high altitude has to do with it's great altitude engines combined with low wingloading. OTOH the low wingloading meant high drag and low top speed compared to the engine's power output. Sounds like they couldn't leave the biplane concenpt behind, and in that Holtzauge is fully correct.

IMHO there were two problems with the Spitfire. The first being the airframe's aerodynamic properties were not developed in any meaningful way through the war, in fact the first ones were very clean machines only to be ruined by increasing sized radiators (with the boxy shape being no 1 development failure), and the various bumps and bulges appearing everywhere, but unlike the 109, the Spit never got a much-needed facelift.
The second being the narrow-minded development of it's powerplants, RR practically ignoring everything related to powerplant effiency, ending up with fuel hogs with the auxilarry systems of the powerplant eating up much of the extra power - radiators, intercooler drag and weight, extra fuel needed to carried to make up for increasing consumption.

p1ngu666
04-26-2006, 02:22 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 Holtzauge:
The Spitfire certainly was a pretty good plane but I sometimes think the fervent almost religious esteem it is held in in certain circles is somewhat exaggerated and clouds the issue of the designs actual capabilities and shortcomings. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



Same rules apply:


The FW190 certainly was a very good plane but I sometimes think the fervent almost religious esteem it is held in in certain circles is somewhat exaggerated and clouds the issue of the designs actual capabilities and shortcomings. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and, didn't the H-series Ta152 have a larger wing area? So it could compete at high altitudes ie, where the Spitfire had never had a problem? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yep, i think the C series had a slightly larger wing. actully the original 190 had its wing enlarged too, the orignal had smaller wings, too small http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

high wing loading isnt desireable from most areas, but with bigger engines and guns the weight went up.

the spitfire is always amoung the top fighters, from any given time, and *very* good interceptor, its spit or a 109, the 109E was probably a better interceptor cos of the cannons, but vb vs F is 50/50, but IX vs g6 is just a thrashing for the 109.

spit was also the best PR plane (single engine type) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

stathem
04-26-2006, 03:43 AM
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 stathem:
and, didn't the H-series Ta152 have a larger wing area? So it could compete at high altitudes ie, where the Spitfire had never had a problem?

The TA 152 had a high aspect ratio wing, which is adventagous at high altitudes not low wingloading. Thnk of a glider. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did the H-series Ta have a larger wing area than the Antons, Yes or No?


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The Spitfires good handling at high altitude has to do with it's great altitude engines combined with low wingloading. OTOH the low wingloading meant high drag and low top speed compared to the engine's power output. Sounds like they couldn't leave the biplane concenpt behind, and in that Holtzauge is fully correct.

IMHO there were two problems with the Spitfire. The first being the airframe's aerodynamic properties were not developed in any meaningful way through the war, in fact the first ones were very clean machines only to be ruined by increasing sized radiators (with the boxy shape being no 1 development failure), and the various bumps and bulges appearing everywhere, but unlike the 109, the Spit never got a much-needed facelift.
The second being the narrow-minded development of it's powerplants, RR practically ignoring everything related to powerplant effiency, ending up with fuel hogs with the auxilarry systems of the powerplant eating up much of the extra power - radiators, intercooler drag and weight, extra fuel needed to carried to make up for increasing consumption.

Yeah, 'k whatever. In your opinon yes. We all know your opinion of the Spitfire and your crusade.

IMO results matter.

ploughman
04-26-2006, 03:54 AM
"The outstanding aerodynamic performance of the British Spitfire of World War II is partially attributable to its elliptic shaped wing which gave the aircraft a very low amount of induced drag."

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/induced.html

Discuss.

HellToupee
04-26-2006, 04:28 AM
clipped wing spitfires were slower than full wing spitfires with the same engine at high alts, the loss in wing area resulted in more drag at those heights

WOLFMondo
04-26-2006, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

IMHO there were two problems with the Spitfire. The first being the airframe's aerodynamic properties were not developed in any meaningful way through the war, in fact the first ones were very clean machines only to be ruined by increasing sized radiators (with the boxy shape being no 1 development failure), and the various bumps and bulges appearing everywhere, but unlike the 109, the Spit never got a much-needed facelift.

I disagree. The VII and VIII were a facelift, the wing barely changed but internally the changes were made to improve structural strength and aerodynamics, the XIV's wing was changed a little and the Mk21 had a completely new wing. I don't see anywhere near the bumps and bulges to the extent the 109 had, which were gastly like the wheel wells which ruined the wings and the bulges for the nose MG's.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

The second being the narrow-minded development of it's powerplants, RR practically ignoring everything related to powerplant effiency, ending up with fuel hogs with the auxilarry systems of the powerplant eating up much of the extra power - radiators, intercooler drag and weight, extra fuel needed to carried to make up for increasing consumption.

How could you say the Merlin wasn't efficient? It was a 26 ltr engine doing what the Germans could only get out of a 35.7 ltr engine.

The-Pizza-Man
04-26-2006, 05:14 AM
They also had the MkIII and MkIV. The improvements they made were gradually introduced into the full production models.

luftluuver
04-26-2006, 05:18 AM
I see only one person being narrow-minded Kurfurst. Take a real good look at your beloved 109. The 109, be sure, did not have a butt as smooth as a baby's, more like someone that has been around for 80 years.

How much weight and complexity did the aux boost systems add to the 109 Kurfurst? After the fluids ran out it was just so much useless dead weight.

p1ngu666, the 152C's wing span was 36ft.

Kurfurst__
04-26-2006, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I disagree. The VII and VIII were a facelift, the wing barely changed but internally the changes were made to improve structural strength and aerodynamics, the XIV's wing was changed a little and the Mk21 had a completely new wing.

How exactly internal changes improve aerodynamics..? Basically what you described was the complete lack of aerodynamical development - forget the Mk21, which barely made a few patrols at the end of the war. And, apart from introducing a pair of new bulges for the cannon over the wing, it finally managed to introduce wheel well doors - last of every major fighter. The only other aerodynamic improvement was the retractable tailwheel, but this was limited to Mk VIII and derivaties, altogether a very small percantage of the Spitfire production. The weight of the fight was carried by the MkI-MkV-MkIX line through the war, basically the same airframe with later ones having more drag added to them.



I don't see anywhere near the bumps and bulges to the extent the 109 had, which were gastly like the wheel wells which ruined the wings and the bulges for the nose MG's.

If you are looking with eyes closed, then it's no wonder.. I can certainly see a 'few' :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/SPITXIV1HQ.jpg

Let me summarize :

- Bulges over the wing already seen on the first Spitfires in 1939-40
- Bulges over the wing cannon magazines from 1940 onwards
- Two very large bulges over the cowling with all Griffon variants
- Cannon stubs ruining the leading edge, four of them
- An extra radiator attached, even if bad enough with it's box-shape, and it only got fatter with the Griffon ones.
I am not even look into stuff like how long it took to make the windshield internal (6 mph loss alone), the Vokes filter. All of these problems would not be bad if they would have been temporary solution to speed up production and correct later. Problem is, they never even attempted to correct those, the MkI Spitfire is cleanest of all Marks, all the others suffer from the extra drag Supermarine lazily lumped onto it. At least Messerscmitt constantly did major facelifts to the design, with the 109F and 109K.



How could you say the Merlin wasn't efficient? It was a 26 ltr engine doing what the Germans could only get out of a 35.7 ltr engine.

Volume is not a meter of effiency. Fuel consumption, the powerplant's power to weight ratio, frontal area etc. is. The Merlin was as big and heavy as other's 35 liter engines, produced as much power, and consumed a lot more because they had to boost the hell out of it to make up for the small displacement. They did a wonderful job getting huge powers from a small displacement, problem is the whole concept did not make sense.

The Spit I had ca 50% more range with 50% less fuel than the MkXIV - what does that tell you about the effiency ?

Low_Flyer_MkVb
04-26-2006, 10:52 AM
Lawyer, or merchant banker? You decide.

ploughman
04-26-2006, 10:56 AM
Lawyer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

HellToupee
04-26-2006, 11:02 AM
The Merlin was as big and heavy as other's 35 liter engines

im sorry but thats just stupid, you do know 27litres is a measure of volume right, and 27 litres of volume is not as much volume as 35 litres no matter how much drugs your on.


produced as much power, and consumed a lot more because they had to boost the hell out of it to make up for the small displacement.

no it produced more, the 35 litre DB couldnt get close without using mw50 boosting.



- An extra radiator attached, even if bad enough with it's box-shape, and it only got fatter with the Griffon ones.

Wasnt the 109s rads also a box shape? the spit rads also took advantage of the merdith effect and never closed more than half way.

But also the bumps added sexyness to the spitfire where as the 109 got a total and complete beating with the ugly stick.



The Spit I had ca 50% more range with 50% less fuel than the MkXIV - what does that tell you about the effiency ?

Spit I did not have 50% more range, what dose that tell you about the quality of any facts you present.

ploughman
04-26-2006, 11:30 AM
Gents, check this article out. (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/breed.html)

It's a by a Col. "Kit" Carson from Air Power magazine about the relative strengths and weaknesses of various WWII aircraft. It's old (1976) and I dare say some of the info has been 'revised' but it's got enough oil to keep this fire going for a while.

Here are a few choice quotes to keep things ticking along.

"But another household wor[d], the highly propagandized Me 109G, was obsolete when it was built and was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. It was a hopeless collection of lumps, bumps, stiff controls, and placed its pilot in a cramped, squarish cockpit with poor visibility."

Vis the 109G..."in the process of "designing" in the additonal engine and structural weight, the engineers screwed up the center of gravity, and 60 pounds of permanent ballast had to be added to the rear of the fuselage to get the C.G. back. As a pilot and an engineer I can only be sympathetic with 109 pilots."

"I'll never understand why the fuel capacity designed in Luftwaffe fighters was so limited. It was a major design deficiency that contributed to the loss of the air war, but even more puzzling is the fact that it could have been quickly changed anytime after 1940 onward, but it wasn't."

"Messerschmitt practically ignored the subject of low-drag aerodynamics and one can tell that by an inspection of the 109E or G. The fact is evident even in close-up photographs. It was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. That's a puzzling thing when one realizes that much of the original work on high speed drag and turbulent surface friction was done in Germany in the '20s and '30s. Messerschmitt was surrounded by it. Further, the work in England and the U.S. in this field was in the open literature, at least until 1938.
I also suspect, again from the record of history, that Willy Messerschmitt was too busy becoming a Direktor of Messerschmitt A.G. to concentrate on improving his status as an ingenieur."

Col. Carson, bless him, also thinks the development cycle of the Merlin engine represents perhaps the greatest single engineering acheivement of the first half of the Twentieth Century.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

luftluuver
04-26-2006, 11:32 AM
Let me summarize <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">(109)</span>:

- Bulges over the wing already seen on the first Spitfires in 1939-40

- Bulges over the wing cannon magazines from 1940 onwards

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">bulges for wing cannon from the E on</span>

- Two very large bulges over the cowling with all Griffon variants

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">nothing compare to the mg bulges the G got http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif</span>

- Cannon stubs ruining the leading edge, four of them

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">- adding gondola mounted cannon</span>

- An extra radiator attached, even if bad enough with it's box-shape, and it only got fatter with the Griffon ones

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">oil cooler rad size incresed, still did not help very much</span>


Should add lots of little scoops, bulges and openings. Kurfurst forgetting that even the E and F had external armour windscreens. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Don't you ever get tired swinging that manure shovel Kurfurst?

OD_79
04-26-2006, 11:38 AM
I'm sorry to get involved in this but that picture of the Spit posted by Kurfust shows a VERY clean airframe, yes it had bulges but compare that to a 109! Bumps, bits sticking out, alsorts of stuff. That looks very clean, even better with the bubble canopy...but then I think from having read your posts before AND seeing what other people have put in response to you that you really have got a warped view of things...eyes closed? Maybe you should open yours a bit more, maybe you would see the light.

OD.

luftluuver
04-26-2006, 11:46 AM
Yup OD79, Kurfurst thinks the 109 was as smooth as a baby's butt. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

luftluuver
04-26-2006, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Gents, check this article out. (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/breed.html)

Check out this thread, http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=97075

Beware, Kurfurst and the one called Huck are posters.

faustnik
04-26-2006, 12:01 PM
Wouldn't induced drag be an increasing problem as speeds increase? How do the Spitfire and Bf109 compare in that department? Wouldn't the 109s high lift coefficient limit its top speed?

p1ngu666
04-26-2006, 12:12 PM
yeah the spit got bulges, so did all planes, and still today, u seem them. specialy those drop tanks...

the main difference is the spitfire has a puratiy of lines, it looks right. my favourite mark is the VIII, a redesigned spitfire, but still the same... just abit sexier http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

the buldges on the spit where normaly more effective. or "better" in some way...

eg cannon/gun barrels/bulges. on the spit u got them for the cannons, 20mm hispano, on the 109? two mediocure 50cal machine guns.

and u got that bubble canopy, giving much better view than a "razorback", and the "power buldges" for the griffon. 109s tended to have a fair few little intakes for cooling air in certain places.

the 109E was abit messy, so there was plenty of room for improvement, hence the F series. i wouldnt say the K series was a major facelift, mostly it was incorporating numourous improvements from the G into 1 type.

the clipped wings where faster at low alt, but slower at high alt. the spits wing is a great high alt wing

stathem
04-26-2006, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/SPITXIV1HQ.jpg



Damn that's gorgeous, thanks Kurfy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

faustnik
04-26-2006, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by stathem:


Damn that's gorgeous, thanks Kurfy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Bleh, that's an ugly Spit! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Merlin and full wings look soooo much better!

WOLFMondo
04-26-2006, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Let me summarize <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">(109)</span>:

- Bulges over the wing already seen on the first Spitfires in 1939-40

- Bulges over the wing cannon magazines from 1940 onwards

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">bulges for wing cannon from the E on</span>

- Two very large bulges over the cowling with all Griffon variants

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">nothing compare to the mg bulges the G got http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif</span>

- Cannon stubs ruining the leading edge, four of them

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">- adding gondola mounted cannon</span>

- An extra radiator attached, even if bad enough with it's box-shape, and it only got fatter with the Griffon ones

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">oil cooler rad size incresed, still did not help very much</span>


Should add lots of little scoops, bulges and openings. Kurfurst forgetting that even the E and F had external armour windscreens. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Don't you ever get tired swinging that manure shovel Kurfurst? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forgot the design was so out of date it couldn't accomodate a retracting tail wheel and the DB couldn't get anywhere near the power of the Merlin without MW50. Imagine if the Griffon with its 36 ltr capacity had the same amount of development time spent on it as the DB's did...

Its also worth mentioning during the production run of the IX alone there were 1200 design changes.

ploughman
04-26-2006, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Wouldn't induced drag be an increasing problem as speeds increase? How do the Spitfire and Bf109 compare in that department? Wouldn't the 109s high lift coefficient limit its top speed?

The Spit's elliptical wings helped greatly with induced drag. I'm no aeronautical engineer but thes guys (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/induced.html) are. Apparrently, clipped Spits had a slightly reduced top speed as a result of increased induced drag.

The early Spitfire had a drag co-efficient of .021 at cruise, the 109 of .036.

Check this (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/breed.html) out. It's an article by a WWII pilot with 18.5 kills to his credit who retired from the US Air Force in 1974 after a career as a combat pilot and engineer.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
04-26-2006, 01:23 PM
An expert speaks (http://members.aol.com/geobat66/galland/galland.wav)

ploughman
04-26-2006, 01:25 PM
Galland actually said that! I thought it was a myth. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Low_Flyer_MkVb
04-26-2006, 01:27 PM
Oh no, we don't do myths... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

faustnik
04-26-2006, 01:28 PM
Thanks Ploughman. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Carson doesn't pull any punches in his discussion of the Bf109.

"It was a most worthy opponent in 1939, but it was outclassed by 1942 and by 1944 was manifestly obsolete."

Viper2005_
04-26-2006, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The TA 152 had a high aspect ratio wing, which is adventagous at high altitudes not low wingloading. Thnk of a glider.

The Spitfires good handling at high altitude has to do with it's great altitude engines combined with low wingloading. OTOH the low wingloading meant high drag and low top speed compared to the engine's power output. Sounds like they couldn't leave the biplane concenpt behind, and in that Holtzauge is fully correct.

IMHO there were two problems with the Spitfire. The first being the airframe's aerodynamic properties were not developed in any meaningful way through the war, in fact the first ones were very clean machines only to be ruined by increasing sized radiators (with the boxy shape being no 1 development failure), and the various bumps and bulges appearing everywhere, but unlike the 109, the Spit never got a much-needed facelift.
The second being the narrow-minded development of it's powerplants, RR practically ignoring everything related to powerplant effiency, ending up with fuel hogs with the auxilarry systems of the powerplant eating up much of the extra power - radiators, intercooler drag and weight, extra fuel needed to carried to make up for increasing consumption.

I'm sorry but I must take issue with this.

Firstly, high altitude Spitfires gained high aspect ratio wings quite early in the war, achieved without major production interruption, by fitting pointed wingtips.

Secondly, the Spitfire was progressively cleaned up during the war from the Battle of Britain onwards. Mirror designs were refined. Armoured glass was moved from outside to inside the cockpit. A curved windscreen was trialled, and evetually adopted post war.

Thirdly, contrary to popular belief, there was nothing "wrong" with the Spitfire's radiators. Great efforts were made to optimise their design within the capabilities available at the time. F.W. Meredith published his report in June 1934. On September the 11th 1935, he met with various Supermarine personnel to discuss the design of the radiator for the F37/34 aeroplane which would go on to become the Spitfire. Extensive windtunnel testing was carried out at the RAE using a quarter scale model; I've got drawing in front of me for 7 designs which were considered. It was estimated by Mr E.J. Davis of the RAE and his collegues that the thrust produced by the hot air leaving the radiator balanced its drag.

Source: Spitfire The History by Eric B. Morgan and Edward Shacklady
Published by Key Books Ltd.
Fifth Impression (revised) 2000
ISBN 0-946219-48-6

Fourthly, the Merlin and Griffon were far from being inefficient. Great efforts were made during the war to increase their thermal efficiency via the application of the Scientific Method. I have in front of me a classic text from the period on this subject:

THE PERFORMANCE OF A SUPERCHARGED AERO ENGINE
by Stanley ******, Harry Reed and Alan Yarker
Published in 1997 by the Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust
ISBN 1-872992-11-2
Copyright 1941 Rolls-Royce plc

I suggest that you might consider reading it:


It will be seen that at high powers the Merlin engine reaches an overall thermal efficiency of 32%, which gives the high figure of approximately 36% for the actual thermal efficiency.

Now let's consider the claim that power increases were eating up the extra power.

The Merlin spent most of its life rated at 3000 rpm. From the reference cited above we have it that:


Figure (21) shows the full throttle B.H.P., ejector H.P., and momentum drag plotted against observed boost pressure. It will be seen that the points lie very close to straight lines through the origin, indicating that up to 35,000 ft. a simple approximation can be taken will all three powers directly proportional to absolute boost pressure. (Typographical error reproduced from my copy, which itself is a facsimile of the type-written 1941 original.)

So, if we assume that power varies in direct proportion to boost pressure, it's possible to take some figures.

1940 - Merlin XII ~ 1140 bhp at +9 psi gauge = 23.7 psi absolute (14,750 feet)
1943/44 - Merlin 76 ~ 1595 bhp at +18 psi gauge = 32.7 psi absolute (16,000 feet)

(Source http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-IX.html )

The boost pressures are in the ratio 1.38:1. If the Merlin's efficiency had remained constant throughout the war, it follows that the Merlin 66 would have only been capable of 38% more power than the Merlin XII, or 1573 bhp, and that some 1250 feet lower than was actually the case.

I don't see the "auxilarry systems of the powerplant eating up much of the extra power" here at all. In fact I see quite the reverse.

As for intercooler drag, see the points made above about radiator design. Specific fuel consumption did increase during the course of the war, from about 0.45-0.50 lb/hp/hr to about 0.60 lb/hp/hr for the Merlin 66. This may be accounted for by two main factors:

i) Increased mechanical complexity - two supercharger stages instead of one, a more complicated cooling system, and associated higher capacity coolant pumps, a bigger fuel pump to supply the extra power.

ii) Richer mixture in order to stave-off detonation.

Given that the Luftwaffe used both extra fuel injection at high power in some cases, and MW50 in others, their engines would have doubtless seen similar if not greater sfc increases.

I could go on, but life's too short!

WOLFMondo
04-26-2006, 01:42 PM
Viper, please go on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I wish Kurfurst went on about the FW190 like he does the BF109, then he'd have a plane to actually brag about. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

ploughman
04-26-2006, 01:46 PM
Personally I think he just does this for sport, you know, to see if he can get a Spit thread to combust or make it to 15 pages or something.

Not that I mind, Kurfy bashing's an entertaining sport too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

True enough about the 190 though, wish we'd thought of it first. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

faustnik
04-26-2006, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Viper, please go on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I wish Kurfurst went on about the FW190 like he does the BF109, then he'd have a plane to actually brag about. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

No thank you.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
04-26-2006, 01:48 PM
Alas! Poor Kurfy! Even the Lufties have rejected him... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Megile_
04-26-2006, 01:53 PM
Kurfurst has convinced me.

The Spitfire sucks.

GR142_Astro
04-26-2006, 01:58 PM
And there you have it.

Well, we've had some laughs and in the end a pretty good time was had by all.

Holtzauge
04-26-2006, 03:57 PM
As is well known from the theory of economics, a good product will attract more customers.

And from history we know this fact:

No of Me 109 built > No Spitfire built

From this relationship we conclude that the Me 109 must have been a superior product since it attracted more customers than the Spitfire.

This would also support that the Me 109 makes it into the higher "outstanding plane" class as compared to the Spitfire which as Megile concludes only makes it into the "pretty good plane" class.

So glad we agree on something Megile! You may still see the light. Just keep your hands on the stick and avoid fingering that gold member.

Abschuss!

ploughman
04-26-2006, 04:02 PM
Mmmmm.........K.

RegRag1977
04-26-2006, 04:10 PM
I think that the Spitfire success comes from it's über beautiful lines... What a superb aircraft!!!

But not only it's beautiful, it has very good performance and qualities. I remember beeing so happy when it came in IL2 series...

I know it will sound weird, because of its turner reputation, but i learnt how to e fight with Spitfire. I learnt so many thing with it!
When i mastered it, it helped me much in the Focke Wulf understanding (Focke wulf also one of my favourites). Right after Spit i turned to FW190A wich is till now my favorite ride (shame on me i'm not the faithful guy, but don't tell my wife)!

For me, the Spitfire is mostly a SCHOOL fighter: you can use it like you want: all styles are welcome with it: if you're noob in e fighting you can have confidence in the turning capacities of it, what is really important for the moral (you don't have to change everything too fast, you can learn progressively).

When i mastered the Lady Spitfire, i could avo¯d many more bad situations easily, so because i like the challenge, i switch to the Anton which is now my regular ride...

Spitfire is beautiful, but too easy for me, i can't imagine flying it now, with all (not so great) my experience. I feel it's like flying the La7, but a beautiful Lady LA7...
I really don't understand why there's not such 'Noob' prejudices with the Spit, for me it's just the very next step after the LA7...
I don't understand why it seems to be a shame to fly La fighters and not when flying the Spit who is also a fighter for Noobs?
Maybe a Spit XIV would have make me change my mind, and come back to my first love,

p1ngu666
04-26-2006, 04:24 PM
viper, u should czech out how much that book is on amazon, a rather tidy sum when i stumbled across it.

btw ****** improved the supercharger on the merlin by no small margin http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

helped alot with the first lot of jets too, very good with the whole air thing with engines.

regrag sums it up well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


we conclude that the Me 109 must have been a superior product since it attracted more bullets than the Spitfire.

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

Holtzauge
04-26-2006, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:

i) Increased mechanical complexity - two supercharger stages instead of one, a more complicated cooling system, and associated higher capacity coolant pumps, a bigger fuel pump to supply the extra power.

ii) Richer mixture in order to stave-off detonation.

Given that the Luftwaffe used both extra fuel injection at high power in some cases, and MW50 in others, their engines would have doubtless seen similar if not greater sfc increases.

I could go on, but life's too short!

That was some interesting info you posted about the Spitfire development Viper.

However, on the issue of fuel consumption on GAF engines I think this needs to be further clarified:

AFAIK fuel injection to begin with is more fuel efficient than a carburettor engine because you can meter exactly the amount of fuel needed for each cylinder. This means that each cylinder gets the amount of fuel, TEL and other additives as was meant. On the other hand, in a carburettor engine you need to meter enough fuel in total through the carburettor so that the cylinder experiencing the leanest mixture gets enough fuel and additives (to avoid detonation) which essentially means that the others have a too rich mixture thereby incresing the total fuel consumption of the engine.

Finaly, if I remember correctly, paradoxically the fuel consumption actually goes down when engaging MW50 because it allows a leaning out of the fuel mixture without detonation occuring thereby essentially lowering the specific fuel consumption.

Regarding the Merlin I think this is one fine piece of machinery and I do not believe there is any other massproduced aero engine that can match the power/weight ratio of the Merlin, especially at the higher boost pressures. However, the Merlin employs the rich mixture method to avoid detonation and in this sense I would expect it to show a higher specific fuel consumption as opposed to a German type engine using fuel injection which is more fuel efficient in itself, not to mention the lessening of the fuel consumption due to the MW50.

On the other hand the extra fuel needed to avoid detonation at high power can be used for cruising in a Merlin engined plane where as the MW50 carried is essentially dead weight until you need WEP.

Ratsack
04-27-2006, 01:11 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

I am not even look into stuff like how long it took to make the windshield internal (6 mph loss alone), the Vokes filter...QUOTE]

Let's not get carried away now. The armoured glass was introduced on the Spit I, and you're correct, it wasn't made internal until late 1941 on the Mk V, but have a look at the Bf 109. The poor old Jagdflieger didn't even get an armoured windscreen until the F-4 subvariant in June 1941, and the armour wasn't made internal until the G series. Pot calling the kettle grimy ar$e, methinks.

The Vokes filter was improved, too. There is an integral filter fitted to the Mk VIII and its derivatives, and it's also on the Mk IXs from about early 1944. It's also on all of the MkXVIs (Mk IX with American-built Merlin 66: aka Merlin 266).

In contrast, Messerschmitt never developed a decent dust filter at all. The one on the Bf 109 was Italian-designed, and it got no development at all.

In any case, it's all a question of production priorities, so this discussion is moot. In its LF Mk IX form (or Mk IXB), the Brits had a Spitfire that matched or out-performed the Fw190A and Bf190G in most circumstances. It could not only out run the both the Fw190 and Bf109 at most altitudes, it could out climb the Gustav as well.

All of this was in a machine that was easier to fight in, and more forgiving for the novice than either of the German types. A novice under pressure in combat could always bank and pull back on the stick and know:

a.) they could turn tighter and faster than either of their German adversaries; and
b.) the Bf109 would not have a hope of following them at high speeds.

This is not a move that will kill your opponent, but it has a pretty good chance of saving your miserable carcass during those first few contacts with the enemy: those contacts where you are most likely to be killed.

So, given adequate performance, improved versions in the pipeline (Mk XIV), other superior types in the line (Tempest), and the fact that the Spitfire was never the Air Ministry's favourite, why on Earth would they spend resources and cause delays making detail changes?

Remember, it wasn't the fact that Allied planes were a couple of miles an hour faster that allowed them to secure air superiority over the beaches on 6 June 1944. It was the fact that the Allied tactical air forces flew 22,000 sorties that day, and the Luftwaffe managed about 300. The production programs of both sides had a lot to do with these figures.

cheers,
Ratsack

pourshot
04-27-2006, 01:55 AM
One downside to the DB€s fuel injection was it added nothing to the charge cooling and when you want lots of boost you get lots of heat.

So even when the Griffin got fuel injection they shot it into the blower to help cool the charge as this reduces the need for extra ADI buy no small measure.

WOLFMondo
04-27-2006, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:

Remember, it wasn't the fact that Allied planes were a couple of miles an hour faster that allowed them to secure air superiority over the beaches on 6 June 1944. It was the fact that the Allied tactical air forces flew 22,000 sorties that day, and the Luftwaffe managed about 300. The production programs of both sides had a lot to do with these figures.


Admittedly, the Germans only had about 160 day fighters (many A6's which IMHO is a superior A/C to all the planes the western allies had, apart from the Tempest, at the altitudes the tactical airforces operated) to face off against the 1700 aircraft of the TAF, then there is the 9thAF numbers. Just to put this in perspective, on June 6th 1944, Germany had over 220 divisions in the east and just over 50 in the west. There airpower was similarly more dedicated in the east.

luftluuver
04-27-2006, 03:40 AM
Sorry Ratsack but lets not be a Kurfurst.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


The poor old Jagdflieger didn't even get an armoured windscreen until the F-4 subvariant in June 1941, and the armour wasn't made internal until the G series. There was external windscreen armour on E-4s during BoB.

Kurfurst__
04-27-2006, 04:20 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Let's not get carried away now. The armoured glass was introduced on the Spit I, and you're correct, it wasn't made internal until late 1941 on the Mk V, but have a look at the Bf 109. The poor old Jagdflieger didn't even get an armoured windscreen until the F-4 subvariant in June 1941, and the armour wasn't made internal until the G series. Pot calling the kettle grimy ar$e, methinks.

AFAIK the internal armor glass was not introduced until early 1942 on the SpitV, but whatever, it can be said this went rather parallel on both sides. As for the poor 109 goes, your information seems to be incorrect since the armored glass was already present and retrofitted on the E series, there are lots of pictures on that (check Balkans campaign for example). Simply it was not needed to be fitted, RAF bombers were somewhat shy in the daylight, and enemy fighters could not fire back from the tail. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And while we are at armor protection, the Spitfire didn't have ANY armor protection until after the Battlle of France. Self sealing tanks were only introduced later in the production, and even then only the lower tank was self sealing, as opposed to the 109 that was armored already in 1939, with protected tanks. The pilot was protected by a mere 6mm of armor on the Spit, whereas in the 109 he enjoyed 8-10mm, and later and additional 8mm worth in form of armor to the fuel tank. The radiators could be shut off individually to save the plane after a coolant line hit, and it seems (can't say for sure) that after the 109G, the rads themselves were armored. In brief the armor gave the pilot reliable production even against even .50 caliber hits, whereas in the case of the Spitfire that 6mm, vertical plate is questionable to stop even all RCMG hits.



The Vokes filter was improved, too. There is an integral filter fitted to the Mk VIII and its derivatives, and it's also on the Mk IXs from about early 1944. It's also on all of the MkXVIs (Mk IX with American-built Merlin 66: aka Merlin 266).
In contrast, Messerschmitt never developed a decent dust filter at all. The one on the Bf 109 was Italian-designed, and it got no development at all.

I am curious why the Mtt tropical filter wasn't decent, by all accounts it worked fine - perhaps you have different accounts to share? why improve something very simple that works well, creates only 5mph worth of drag (rather similiar value to the 'superior' internal filter fitted 3 years later on most Spits), and can be installed/removed in 15 minutes on the field? (as opposed to the Vokes that did cause about 20mph worth of drag and was complex to install). Why fix something that ain't broke and satisfactory, especially as after 1943 it was no longer needed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



In any case, it's all a question of production priorities, so this discussion is moot. In its LF Mk IX form (or Mk IXB), the Brits had a Spitfire that matched or out-performed the Fw190A and Bf190G in most circumstances. It could not only out run the both the Fw190 and Bf109 at most altitudes, it could out climb the Gustav as well.

Da Spitfire Supreme that does everything better than the 'much vaunted' LW counterparts, sorry that's just the usual rubbish and doesn't needs to be commented. Each type had certain advantages over the other, the 190A was definietely faster in roll and at low altitudes, 109G was very closely matched, unless you take the most rotten down 109G with gunpods and pit it's performance against IXLF prototypes as some do. The following shows Bf 109G-4 (note, ETC 503 bombrack is attached, -8mph) and MkIXLF speed test results : http://www.pbase.com/isegrim/image/5250139 . It's seems pretty dang close.

Sure the IXLF was a great fighter, probably the best of all Spitfires in balance (at 'least' acc. to JJ), and certainly very rare until the end of 1943, now that you mentioned production. The MkV was absolutely the dominant type until late 1943, and in the desert the LW would still see Hurriances and P-40, and I am quite sure no FW 190A or Bf 109G driver (practically the only frontline fighter types the LW operated by the IXB appeared) in would be much concerned about flying against a Spit V that was some 30-40mph slower. Wheter the match MkIXLF that they met on rare occasions until 1944 was a problem or not is an interesting, but academic question. Tony Wood has a OOB for the FC in midst 1943, it shows 2 (two) IXB squadrons around. Hmm.



All of this was in a machine that was easier to fight in, and more forgiving for the novice than either of the German types.

Yeah, sure.


So, given adequate performance, improved versions in the pipeline (Mk XIV), other superior types in the line (Tempest), and the fact that the Spitfire was never the Air Ministry's favourite, why on Earth would they spend resources and cause delays making detail changes?

Given that the production of the latest Marks of Spitfire was always tediously slow to wound up, I guess you have a point - why cause further delays?



Remember, it wasn't the fact that Allied planes were a couple of miles an hour faster that allowed them to secure air superiority over the beaches on 6 June 1944. It was the fact that the Allied tactical air forces flew 22,000 sorties that day, and the Luftwaffe managed about 300. The production programs of both sides had a lot to do with these figures.

cheers,
Ratsack

God Bless America and those Russkies isn't it...? I agree with all that, true, true, true, but what's the point?

WOLFMondo
04-27-2006, 04:38 AM
Didn't you loose an argument a few weeks back on IX availability in 1943? I think you did.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
04-27-2006, 04:40 AM
One of life's losers, be sure.

luftluuver
04-27-2006, 04:52 AM
And while we are at armor protection, the Spitfire didn't have ANY armor protection until after the Battlle of France. Self sealing tanks were only introduced later in the production, and even then only the lower tank was self sealing, as opposed to the 109 that was armored already in 1939, with protected tanks. Put the shovel away Kurfurst. The 109s did not have pilot armour during the BoF. Between BoF and BoB some a/c were fitted but not all. There are lots of pics of BoP, BoF and BoB 109s with no pilot armour.

Da 109 Supreme that does everything better than the 'much vaunted' RAF counterparts, sorry that's just the usual rubbish and doesn't needs to be commented. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kurfurst__
04-27-2006, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Secondly, the Spitfire was progressively cleaned up during the war from the Battle of Britain onwards. Mirror designs were refined. Armoured glass was moved from outside to inside the cockpit. A curved windscreen was trialled, and evetually adopted post war.

That's grand and all, but I have a RAE report right in front of myself, which compares exactly that, changes in the airframe of production Spitfires, and the effect of these changes. It concludes, that, had the power output of the two-staged Merlins of the IX would be directly applied to the Spitfire I production plane, it would reach around 440 mph. The actual airframe, with the added drag, did reach around 400mph.

The 35-40mph loss in speed of the actual MkIX as opposed to the available power are a result of this so-called 'progressive clean up' you referred two : doubling and increasing the size of the radiators, cannon installement in the wings and protounding cannon barrels and so on.




Thirdly, contrary to popular belief, there was nothing "wrong" with the Spitfire's radiators. Great efforts were made to optimise their design within the capabilities available at the time. F.W. Meredith published his report in June 1934. On September the 11th 1935, he met with various Supermarine personnel to discuss the design of the radiator for the F37/34 aeroplane which would go on to become the Spitfire. Extensive windtunnel testing was carried out at the RAE using a quarter scale model; I've got drawing in front of me for 7 designs which were considered. It was estimated by Mr E.J. Davis of the RAE and his collegues that the thrust produced by the hot air leaving the radiator balanced its drag.

That's fine and all, but it doesn't change the fact there was nothing special about it, the Meredith effect was used on all liquid cooled fighters of WW2, and the implementation on the Spitfire (and the 109E, which was essentially the same layout) was one of the early ones. Well, in fact Junkers used the effect a decade before. And, contrary to your beliefs, VSAERO fluid dynamics simulations show the actual implementation of the Spitfire radiator housing have excessive turbulance and breaking up of the boundary layer just before the radiator grid, reducing it's effiency - Mr E.J. Davis had no access to such base at the time to do his estimations. Difference is, Messerchmitt already reworked the whole thing in 1939 for the 109F, Supermarine never did (unless you count the experimental Spiteful, that tried something very similair as on the Me 109).




Fourthly, the Merlin and Griffon were far from being inefficient. Great efforts were made during the war to increase their thermal efficiency via the application of the Scientific Method. I have in front of me a classic text from the period on this subject:

Nice and well supported post, and thanks for the refernce as well, but I am afraid you misunderstood my point : I am not talking about internal, or thermal effiency. I am talking about the effiency of the powerplant as whole.

Oxford says :
efficient
€ adjective working productively with minimum wasted effort or expense.

The wastage here is the increasing weight of powerplant, the neccesity to increase fuel load and it's weight, the added weight and drag of extra radiators and intercoolers required.

Just a refresher of increasing weight : single staged Merlins ca. 610kg, two staged ones 749kg, ss. Griffon 820kg, tst. Griffons 898kg.. and to that increased cooling requirements and the intercooler, which alone added some 300lbs worth of weight to the MkIX compared to the IX. 40 imp. gallon of fuel, ie. ca another 300 lbs of fuel on the MkXIV had to be added to keep the range the same, against the worsening milage of the aircraft. Then there's drag. All this considerable weight had to be made up from the extra power generated, and extra power had to be spent on the increasing supercharging needs, ie. running the supercharger. It means hundreds of the actually produced horsepower losts.

Of course the final balance still shows surplus, the point what I am making that because of these effects, out of 100 units of power increase, in the end only a partition, say 60 is useful, the rest is spent on allowing that 100 units of power developed. Creating an engine that doesnt waste so many units, even it produced 80 units of power, is more efficient and better long term prospect.



I don't see the "auxilarry systems of the powerplant eating up much of the extra power" here at all. In fact I see quite the reverse. As for intercooler drag, see the points made above about radiator design.

Well RAE sees a different way. Or do you suggest the weight of the extra installation (ie. compare SpitV and IX weight) did not have to be made up? How much is the actual amount of power increase that can be put to good use, ie. increasing the performance of the aircraft, and not making up for the drag and weight from the new installations? Again, as per RAE, some 40mph worth of power was spent to make up for it.



Specific fuel consumption did increase during the course of the war, from about 0.45-0.50 lb/hp/hr to about 0.60 lb/hp/hr for the Merlin 66. This may be accounted for by two main factors:

i) Increased mechanical complexity - two supercharger stages instead of one, a more complicated cooling system, and associated higher capacity coolant pumps, a bigger fuel pump to supply the extra power.

ii) Richer mixture in order to stave-off detonation.

[QUOTE]Given that the Luftwaffe used both extra fuel injection at high power in some cases, and MW50 in others, their engines would have doubtless seen similar if not greater sfc increases.

This ignores a couple of things..

a, total volume was increased in many cases
b, compression ratio was increased
c, MW50, like the above two, has a positive effect on sfc

And last but not least, the actual consumption figures show that, for example, the DB 605 could produce 1550 PS on a very small increase of actual fuel consumed than the DB 601A required for 1175.

Kurfurst__
04-27-2006, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
One of life's losers, be sure.

Pleased to meet you. I am Kurfürst. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kurfurst__
04-27-2006, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
The 109s did not have pilot armour during the BoF. Between BoF and BoB some a/c were fitted but not all. There are lots of pics of BoP, BoF and BoB 109s with no pilot armour.


Well that's news, where does it come from? Curious, since Emil manuals already from 1939 mention armor. Plus, I am not sure how photos would should the armor being present or not behind the pilot seat on a 109, or a Spitfire for that matter.

luftluuver
04-27-2006, 06:32 AM
Head armor Kurfurst. Very easy to see that in photos.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Mod 140 for the Spitfire I: fit rear armour, 19-11-39

Now when was the BoF? So much for your claim of the lack of armour.

Xiolablu3
04-27-2006, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All of this was in a machine that was easier to fight in, and more forgiving for the novice than either of the German types.

Yeah, sure.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I cannot belive that you are even arguing against this point, this shows pefrectly that you will argue against anything anyone posts whether its true or not. Lots of Spitfires in the world today proves this point and hardly any 109's. (they always seem to crash) Even Mark Hanna was killed in a 109, showing they can be dangerous even when flown by an expert. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

ANYONE who flew the 109 tells how demanding a plane it is. ANYONE who flew a Spifire tells how simple, forgiving and easy it is. Even the Germans flying captured Spit MkV (arguably the worst contemporary Spit vs German planes) loved it.

http://www.unrealaircraft.com/hybrid/spitfire.php


'After a couple of weeks, and with a new yellow-painted nose, the Spitfire returne to Echterdingen. Ellenreider was the first to try the aircraft. He was stunned that the aircraft had much better visibility and handling on the ground than the Bf.109. It took off before he realised it and had an impressive climb rate, around 70 ft. (21 m.) per second. Much of the Spitfire's better handling could be attributed to its lower wing loading.

The Spitfire's wing area was about 54 sq. ft. (5m²) greater than that of the Bf.109. The Messerschmitt was faster at low altitude, but at 11,000 ft. (3350 m) the speeds evened out. The DB 605A engine gave better performance, according to the test group, than the Merlin, which was rated 150 hp below the German engine. It gave the Spitfire a ceiling of 41,666 ft. (12700 m.), about 3,280 ft. (1000 m.) more than a Bf.109G with the same engine and 5,166 ft. (1475 m.) more than that of a Spitfire Mk.V.'

Germans loved the Spitfire too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Viper2005_
04-27-2006, 07:26 AM
The suggestion that MW50 improves sfc is based upon somewhat dodgy accounting.

If you want to show MW50 off as being magic, you define sfc as "mass of petrol consumed per unit of brake power output per unit time".

Unfortunately, MW50 has mass too, and to realise a useful power increase you're throwing quite considerable quantities of it at the engine. When Rolls-Royce used water injection to boost the power of the RM17SM Merlin, they defined the fuel as " RDE/F/290 plus water as a bi-fuel" whic is a much more reasonable method of accounting.

Since I happen to have the test figures in front of me, let's do some sums.

Taking data from the runs carried out with the RM17SM engine, 12/12/44:

Without water injection, the engine was run at 3000 rpm/95.46"Hg absolute.

Corrected power output was 2385 bhp. Fuel flow was 1575 pints per hour.

With water injection, the engine was run at 3150 rpm/101.46"Hg absolute.

Corrected power output was 2620 bhp. Fuel flow was 1880 pints per hour. Water flow was 300 pints per hour.

Because the data is volumetric, it makes sense to figure sfc in terms of pints/hp/hr.

SFC (petrol only) = 0.660 without water injection, 0.718 with water.

SFC (petrol + water) = 0.832

In this case, however you do your sums, adding water doesn't help sfc. If you're being realistic, it actually increases sfc by about 26%.

Source: THE MERLIN 100 SERIES - the ultimate military development
by Alec Harvey Bailey and Dave Piggot, Published in 1993 by the Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust
ISBN 1-872922-04-X

Kurfurst__
04-27-2006, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Head armor Kurfurst. Very easy to see that in photos.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Mod 140 for the Spitfire I: fit rear armour, 19-11-39
Now when was the BoF? So much for your claim of the lack of armour.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/hsarmour1.jpg

Kurfurst__
04-27-2006, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The suggestion that MW50 improves sfc is based upon somewhat dodgy accounting.

If you want to show MW50 off as being magic, you define sfc as "mass of petrol consumed per unit of brake power output per unit time".

Well what's dodgy is a matter of POV. I would say that claiming the SFC, ie. 'specific FUEL consumption' is something diffent that, well, fuel consumption... or do you insist MW50/ADI is fuel after all? If so, what was the Merlin's output on ADI alone and no petrol?

Of course MW50/ADI (it's water injection, however you refer to it) is just a charge cooling method (ie. does the same thing as an intercooler), which also happens to aid burning through emulsion. It does not effect the aircraft's range negatively, while increase FUEL consumption does.

In example, the 605D consumed 615 liter/h to develop 1800 PS w/o MW50, when MW 50 was used, it developed 1850 PS and consumed only 610 liter/h.

When developing 2000PS w. MW50, it only required 650lit/hour petrol.


The beuty of MW 50/ADI, that even if just injected at constant boost, it yields ca. 4% power increased due to it's charge cooling properties and it doesn't require an additional radiator, which would eat up many more horsepower.



Unfortunately, MW50 has mass too, and to realise a useful power increase you're throwing quite considerable quantities of it at the engine.

Expect:

a, MW50/ADI is only required at max power.
b, the amount of MW50/ADI consumed in no way effects the aircraft's range. Fuel consumption does.



In this case, however you do your sums, adding water doesn't help sfc. If you're being realistic, it actually increases sfc by about 26%.

On that specific RR engine I might add. It appears that the lack of direct fuel injection leads to increasing fuel hunger as outputs increase.

Ratsack
04-27-2006, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Sorry Ratsack but lets not be a Kurfurst.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The poor old Jagdflieger didn't even get an armoured windscreen until the F-4 subvariant in June 1941, and the armour wasn't made internal until the G series. There was external windscreen armour on E-4s during BoB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never seen a photograph of a BoB era 109 with the armoured glass. I've seen plenty of pics of E-3s, 4s, and 7s retrofitted with it, but the earliest of these are Barbarossa shots. I'm going by what I've seen, and I'm quite happy to change my view if there's evidence.

cheers,
Ratsack

Viper2005_
04-27-2006, 08:20 AM
It does not effect the aircraft's range negatively, while increase FUEL consumption does.

Unfortunately this is not the case.

Firstly, tankage used to carry MW50 cannot be used to carry petrol. As you so eloquantly point out, MW50 alone cannot sustain the operation of the engine.

Secondly, you've got to carry another set of pumps and injectors around to make your MW50 system work. This extra kit has mass and volume which adversely affects performance in all respects, including range.

For a simple explanation of this, see:

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/BreguetNotes.pdf

MW50 adversely affects overall range, whether you use it or not. This doesn't really matter if you're more worried about other performance criteria, which is why it was a popular solution in the German aircraft Industry, especially later in the War.

As for your explanation for the Merlin's increased sfc with water injection, I think it rather more likely that the main culprits for increased petrol consumption were:

i) Increased blow-by

ii) Increased frictional losses (due largely to the increased rpm), but certainly not helped by the increased loads placed upon the bearings

iii) Increased exhaust energy

In flight, the increased exhaust energy would have provided increased thrust, which would have been worth perhaps another 200-250 equivalent horsepower in high speed flight. This is not recorded by the dynomometer, which measures brake sfc, not overall thrust sfc.

This exhaust thrust was measured by ******, Reed and Yarker in 1941, and contributed to the decision not to turbocharge the Merlin, despite the fact that (as proven by Crecy development) the company was well able to do so. At high speed, jet thrust is far more useful than extra horsepower.

Xiolablu3
04-27-2006, 08:21 AM
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 luftluuver:
Head armor Kurfurst. Very easy to see that in photos.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Mod 140 for the Spitfire I: fit rear armour, 19-11-39
Now when was the BoF? So much for your claim of the lack of armour.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/hsarmour1.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Where does he dig this stuff out from?

To say he is always slating the Spitfire, he has a lot of docs about it!

Where did you obtain this booklet Kurfurst? If only you were not so biased, you could be a great source of info. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

WOLFMondo
04-27-2006, 08:24 AM
If your gonna discredit something you need documents to cherry pick from to make it look like you know what your talking about...

Xiolablu3
04-27-2006, 08:29 AM
The doc above probably refers to one wing of Spitfires or a new batch arrived from the factory. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sorry to be cynical Kurfy, but with what we have seen in the past, and the cunning tricks you use, we have to be absolutely sure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

At this moment I am asking my self do I really care if the Spit had head armour in the Battle of France.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

ploughman
04-27-2006, 08:30 AM
Must be Kurfy's obsession. Spitfire=The plane he loves to hate, that one day he realises he hates to love. He baths constantly trying to get the dirt off, the dirt only he can see. Perhaps one of our finer character actors could play him in the stage production of this tale of twisted all consuming passion, of verbotten love. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I love these threads though, I learn more about Spits, 109s, 190s etc from Kurfy and Hop and the rest of us duking it out than I ever did from reading books. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I think Kurfy just scored a point by the way. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Low_Flyer_MkVb
04-27-2006, 08:32 AM
I still reckon merchant banker.

ploughman
04-27-2006, 08:37 AM
Lawyer. Deft use of selective evidence. Client guilt an irrelevence. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Nice what you said to Breeze there LF. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Ratsack
04-27-2006, 08:49 AM
Kurfurst,

Firstly, armour was first fitted to Spit MkIs before the German invasion of France. I don't know where you get the idea they had no armour before the fall of France. [EDIT: I see Luftluver has answered you already on that.]

Regarding the efficacy of the armour, there's a lot of nonsense going around about the AP performance of all machine guns. I have read accounts of pilots - allied and Axis - surviving 20 mm hits to their seat protection. There is simply too much cr@p in the rear fuselage of a WWII fighter for any weapon to achieve its maximum rated AP performance. Crump has posted quite a bit of stuff to this effect in relation to the FW 190, and I tend to agree with him. I'm a little surprised to see you suggest the seat armour of any fighter would have trouble with rifle caliber bullets. Has the 0.50 cal lobby finally got to you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You also said:

"Da Spitfire Supreme that does everything better than the 'much vaunted' LW counterparts, sorry that's just the usual rubbish and doesn't needs to be commented. Each type had certain advantages over the other, the 190A was definietely faster in roll and at low altitudes, 109G was very closely matched, unless you take the most rotten down 109G with gunpods and pit it's performance against IXLF prototypes as some do. The following shows Bf 109G-4 (note, ETC 503 bombrack is attached, -8mph) and MkIXLF speed test results : http://www.pbase.com/isegrim/image/5250139 . It's seems pretty dang close.

Sure the IXLF was a great fighter, probably the best of all Spitfires in balance (at 'least' acc. to JJ), and certainly very rare until the end of 1943, now that you mentioned production. The MkV was absolutely the dominant type until late 1943, and in the desert the LW would still see Hurriances and P-40, and I am quite sure no FW 190A or Bf 109G driver (practically the only frontline fighter types the LW operated by the IXB appeared) in would be much concerned about flying against a Spit V that was some 30-40mph slower. Wheter the match MkIXLF that they met on rare occasions until 1944 was a problem or not is an interesting, but academic question. Tony Wood has a OOB for the FC in midst 1943, it shows 2 (two) IXB squadrons around. Hmm."

I did not say "Da Spitfire Supreme that does everything better". That's just your straw man.

Regarding roll and the FW 190, I've got no argument with your point. Regarding speed at low altitude, you are incorrect. The LF MkIX was faster than the Fw 190 A at all altitudes up to 20,000 feet. The margins were generally small, but there it is.

Regarding production of LF MkIXs, it began in late 1942. It is the most common of all the Mk IXs. There were only about 300 F MkIXs with the Merlin 61 built. The HF Mk IX with the 70s series Merlins is an even rarer bird.

I'm frankly not much convinced by an old ordbat that only counts a couple of squadrons, for three reasons. Firstly, because the designations 'LF' and 'F' were retrospective, and the designation 'MkIXB' was unofficial, and used primarily by squadron personnel so they could distinguish between different planes on strength. The absence of any designation in an ordbat does not mean the types were not there. This leads me to the second reason, which is that MkIXBs were not deployed soley to units operating only that type, so again the absence of any designation in an ordbat doesn't mean they weren't there. The third reason is that RAF documentation on Spits tends to be vague anyway. Consider the pilots notes for the Spit IX from 1946. These don't even mention the Mk IXC at all, but nobody in their right mind would argue there were no MkIXCs or that there weren't any left in 1946.

If you want to discuss production, we'd all be on safer ground with factory delivery figures. While I don't have any at my finger tips, I recall that figures for Castle Bromich are fairly complete. It should be possible correlate serial blocks with types. In fact, it may already have been done. Anybody have any information on this?

On the dust filter for the Bf109, it was an Italian design, adapted by Messershmitt. Messerschmitt never designed one.

Regarding the performance cost of the original Vokes filter:

'The additional drag caused by this fairing, and the reduction in ram pressure to the carburettor, combined to cause a reduction in the maximum speed by about 8 mph and reduced the rate of climb by about 550 feet per minute lower down'. This is from Alfred Price, The Spitfire Story, (Cassel, Leicester, 1995), p. 129. Your 20 mph figure is...a little high.

Regarding ease of handling, it's a well known fact that the stall characteristics of the Spitfire were relatively benign. This is in stark contrast to the FW190. It is also well known that it could out turn either of the German types. I hope you're not seriously disputing either of these facts.

Given the natural tendency of novices to turn when they're in trouble, a novice pilot would be safer in a Spit IX than a contemporary German fighter. This is the point I made earlier, to which you responded with 'yeah sure'.

So in summary, it was an adequate design. It was in production in numbers. It could be handled easily by a novice (to the extent this can be said to be true of ANY WWII fighter), and there were more advanced types coming. In addition, there was bad blood between Vickers and the Air Ministry from the initial production delays on the Mk I. Vickers / Supermarine never really regained the confidence of the Air Ministry after that, and this added to the strong preference for Hawkers designs. When all of this is viewed together, it's not surprising there was no impetus to do an urgent radical overhall of the Spit. It was good enough for the time being, and for the future, there were better types on the way.

In the meantime, it was just the thing for the tactical air war that finally began to grind the Jagdwaffe out of life from June 1944.

cheers,
Ratsack

WWMaxGunz
04-27-2006, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Wouldn't induced drag be an increasing problem as speeds increase? How do the Spitfire and Bf109 compare in that department? Wouldn't the 109s high lift coefficient limit its top speed?

No. Sorry. Not induced lift at high speed. There is still some as the plane must be held up
but compared to the other drag it gets smaller with speed not worse.

Induced drag increases with AOA. Lift is by the coefficient, AOA and speed, in general.
The lower your speed, the more AOA and induced drag. Higher speed, less induced drag for
the same total lift.

IMO from good bit of reading the 109 wings are better for highspeed flying straight.

Watch out here because too many people can't tell the difference of speed and alt effects,
they post performance in one area and say the plane is better like it is everywhere so.

K says Spitfire was never fixed and I disagree. It started out good and changed as needed
with changing conditions. It was not always what was needed to match the surprises handed
out but it was changed in the general trend of faster than it was. What was changed was what
was fixed and you don't fix what ain't broke unless you are an OCD tinkerer.

It is not like 109's did not have minus places that never got 'fixed'. Same as the Spitfire
it was to keep certain plusses and change where need was seen. Is 109K more or less different
from 109B than Spit XIV is to Spit I? The changes were calls made by the designers. Who here
is superior to either team of those regardless of historical retrospect?

BTW, is Luftluuver Milo?

luftluuver
04-27-2006, 09:05 AM
Who is this Milo?

Kurfurst__
04-27-2006, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Firstly, tankage used to carry MW50 cannot be used to carry petrol. As you so eloquantly point out, MW50 alone cannot sustain the operation of the engine.

Well if your consumption is OK to start with, there's no need to carry more fuel. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Besides - MW tanks could be used as rear tanks, and could be filled up with 115 liter of fuel instead of MW50.


Secondly, you've got to carry another set of pumps and injectors around to make your MW50 system work.

Hmm, in the GAF planes it simply worked by using compressed air driven from the supercharger excess pressure to force MW50 from the tank to the engine, via some light alloy tubes. Same method for droptanks, no pumps, injectors at all, just pressure and valves of given capacity, constantly refilling the main tank. Simple, light, and reliable, no pumps. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The overall extra weight the MW system meant in practice was probably in the order of 70 kg, practically the weight of the methanol-water tankage.


This extra kit has mass and volume which adversely affects performance in all respects, including range.

For a simple explanation of this, see:

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/BreguetNotes.pdf

MW50 adversely affects overall range, whether you use it or not. This doesn't really matter if you're more worried about other performance criteria, which is why it was a popular solution in the German aircraft Industry, especially later in the War.[/QUOTE]

Sorry I can't review the PDF right now, however I don't see how MW50 adversely effects overall range. It doesn't creates drag, and it doesn't change the engine sfc unless when injected at high power (and then, at least according the DB docs, it has a positive effect). The only way it could effect range would be due to increased weight (which constantly lessened as the boost liquid is used up) leading to higher incidence, but the weight increase itself is so small that this effect can be seen as negligable.

In brief, the whole system has similiar effects as an intercooler, the weight requirements are similiar, and on the plus side, it provides internal cooling and wateremulsion effects. The greatest plus - no drag from intercooler radiator at all.



This exhaust thrust was measured by ******, Reed and Yarker in 1941, and contributed to the decision not to turbocharge the Merlin, despite the fact that (as proven by Crecy development) the company was well able to do so. At high speed, jet thrust is far more useful than extra horsepower.

Appearantly in that question there was perfect agreement between British and German (ie. turbos only considered for bombers) engine designers. Great alternate explanation for the sfc increase btw. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
04-27-2006, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
Alas! Poor Kurfy! Even the Lufties have rejected him... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Faustnik is not a true Luftie. He is much too fair.

Ratsack
04-27-2006, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
The changes were calls made by the designers. Who here
is superior to either team of those regardless of historical retrospect?



Good point, Max.

Ratsack

Kurfurst__
04-27-2006, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
BTW, is Luftluuver Milo?

No. dadada1, luftluuver, kidsmoke1959, nodevotion are. Funny to watch 'them' replying to 'their' own posts. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
04-27-2006, 09:13 AM
id agree with viper, that mw50 should be counted towards the fuel/mass effiecnency http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

its requred to reach teh high boost pressures after all

danjama
04-27-2006, 09:24 AM
This thread should of died two pages ago, its so boring!!! The best bit was the picture of the Spitfire and it wasnt even a Merlin engined one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Kurfurst__
04-27-2006, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Where does he dig this stuff out from?

To say he is always slating the Spitfire, he has a lot of docs about it!

Where did you obtain this booklet Kurfurst? If only you were not so biased, you could be a great source of info. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif


Credit goes to Ring, he's got this stuff up for a year or so...

http://prodocs.netfirms.com/

From what I've seen, even in August the air mininstry burocrats were still scratchin their esses.

WOLFMondo
04-27-2006, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

The overall extra weight the MW system meant in practice was probably in the order of 70 kg, practically the weight of the methanol-water tankage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This extra kit has mass and volume which adversely affects performance in all respects, including range.

I don't see how MW50 adversely effects overall range. The only way it could effect range would be due to increased weight (which constantly lessened as the boost liquid is used up) leading to higher incidence, but the weight increase itself is so small that this effect can be seen as negligable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the extra equipment weighed 70kg and the tank weighed 70kg? Even 70kg is the weight of a slender person. 140kg is over 300lbs, its like carring 2 extra people or one very fat one. I seem to rememeber a thread a while back where you mentioned 200lbs extra ballast weight on a Spitfire being allot of extra weight. isn't 300lbs isn't allot of extra weight?

Given MW50 also had limited duration use then its not all going to be used up is it? Unless the engines run at full power until all the liquid is used up?

Viper2005_
04-27-2006, 09:29 AM
It's the mass which hurts range.

Here's an alternative link:

http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/performance/cruise.html

In the case of a flight using water injection you've got to split the flight into segments and use the overall sfc (fuel+water) for the appropriate segment.

What happens is that if you don't use the water then you've got an extra dead weight, which can take quite a bite out of your fuel mass fraction.

If you use the water then your overall fuel consumption goes up (the equations don't care that it's water+fuel rather than just fuel).

The extra power isn't used very efficiently since you end up flying faster and having a lower L/D.

Xiolablu3
04-27-2006, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Wouldn't induced drag be an increasing problem as speeds increase? How do the Spitfire and Bf109 compare in that department? Wouldn't the 109s high lift coefficient limit its top speed?


The link I posted before about the captured, Daimler Benz engined Spitfire MkV is interesting reading on the 109 vs Spitfire drag debate.

109G engine with 150 more HP than the Spitfire MkVb engine was placed into a Spitfire MkVb airframe. Remember that the contemporary Spitfire for the 109G, would be the Spitfire MkVIII or MkIX not the MkVb which was well out of date by 1944 when this test was done. (Even tho there were MkVs still in use these were boosted low level 'clipped clapped and cropped' versions not Vb's)


http://www.unrealaircraft.com/hybrid/spitfire.php

Just a little quote from the page

'The Spitfire's wing area was about 54 sq. ft. (5m²) greater than that of the Bf.109. The Messerschmitt was faster at low altitude, but at 11,000 ft. (3350 m) the speeds evened out. The DB 605A engine gave better performance, according to the test group, than the Merlin, which was rated 150 hp below the German engine. It gave the Spitfire a ceiling of 41,666 ft. (12700 m.), about 3,280 ft. (1000 m.) more than a Bf.109G with the same engine and 5,166 ft. (1475 m.) more than that of a Spitfire Mk.V.'

Suggests the Me109 is the better design for low level speed and the Spit airframe for hi alt speed. SOmewhere in the middle they meet. The Spitfire Airframe has a higher ceiling than the Me109G frame.

Kurfurst__
04-27-2006, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
So the extra equipment weighed 70kg and the tank weighed 70kg? Even 70kg is the weight of a slender person. 140kg is over 300lbs, its like carring 2 extra people or one very fat one. I seem to rememeber a thread a while back where you mentioned 200lbs extra ballast weight on a Spitfire being allot of extra weight. isn't 300lbs isn't allot of extra weight?

No, I meant that a fully filled MW 50 system with all the gimnicks added around 70kg to the airframe's takeoff weight. Most of that came from the fluid, the weight of the tank was balanced out by the fact that it was built into the place of the rear light alloy armor (32kg), which was removed. The bullets had to go through two layers of aluminium and water between (ie. the MW tank) now.


Given MW50 also had limited duration use then its not all going to be used up is it? Unless the engines run at full power until all the liquid is used up?

Correct, 70-85 liter was enough for 26 minutes use (safety margin inc. I guess), which translates to 2x10min of continous use of max... very rare scenario I'd guess.

I guess more than enough was provided to prevent accidents and to maintain relative CoG.

ploughman
04-27-2006, 09:39 AM
Ta' for that link Kurf. What a mine of information.

Kurfurst__
04-27-2006, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The link I posted before about the captured, Daimler Benz engined Spitfire MkV is interesting reading on the 109 vs Spitfire drag debate.

I have this test, unfurtunetely nothing is known about the conditions, but the 109G (G-6/trop?) is one of the worst performancers I ever seen, doing a mere 620 kph at altitude. The Spit seems to be in quite good shape looking on the original Merlin-curves, but the results overall are somewhat scr*wed by the underperforming Gustav and the fact that appearantly the Spit was missing all armament and was several hundred lbs lighter. Nevertheless the results are interesting between the Spit with two engines.

The 109F-4/G-2s Cd was 0.023 btw, the Spit, around 0.022. Since these are coefficients, these have to be multiplied with wing area, which means appx. the same difference in drag as in wing area.

WWMaxGunz
04-27-2006, 09:52 AM
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 WWMaxGunz:
BTW, is Luftluuver Milo?

No. dadada1, luftluuver, kidsmoke1959, nodevotion are. Funny to watch 'them' replying to 'their' own posts. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By your use of language it looks like his reply to me is supposed to be me replying to me
so I tell you now:
If you are implying that I have ever had other than this one login at UBI as WWMaxGunz
then you are wrong. Same one as I started with in 2001 and the only one I've ever had.
Straight up, no tricks and no evasions.

Now if you mean any of those other names, I can't say. I'm trying to figure sometimes
from style and other parts who is the new name for one here or there who had to get a
new name. Kind of like how the name Isegrim was here is now Kurfurst.

Xiolablu3
04-27-2006, 09:52 AM
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 Xiolablu3:
Where does he dig this stuff out from?

To say he is always slating the Spitfire, he has a lot of docs about it!

Where did you obtain this booklet Kurfurst? If only you were not so biased, you could be a great source of info. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif


Credit goes to Ring, he's got this stuff up for a year or so...

http://prodocs.netfirms.com/

From what I've seen, even in August the air mininstry burocrats were still scratchin their esses. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some excellent stuff on that site. Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Has Oleg seen this stuff? He should do.

http://marinergraphics.com:16080/ww2/images/pro_109_turn_2.jpg

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

Xiolablu3
04-27-2006, 09:56 AM
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 Xiolablu3:
The link I posted before about the captured, Daimler Benz engined Spitfire MkV is interesting reading on the 109 vs Spitfire drag debate.

I have this test, unfurtunetely nothing is known about the conditions, but the 109G (G-6/trop?) is one of the worst performancers I ever seen, doing a mere 620 kph at altitude. The Spit seems to be in quite good shape looking on the original Merlin-curves, but the results overall are somewhat scr*wed by the underperforming Gustav and the fact that appearantly the Spit was missing all armament and was several hundred lbs lighter. Nevertheless the results are interesting between the Spit with two engines.

The 109F-4/G-2s Cd was 0.023 btw, the Spit, around 0.022. Since these are coefficients, these have to be multiplied with wing area, which means appx. the same difference in drag as in wing area. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aww come on Kurfy, drop the chirade for once.

What you just wrote reeks so bad of bias, its unreal. I almost guessed your response exactly.

The Spit was OBVIOUSLY in pretty poor condition having crashed. Do you really think they would have tested it against a unusually poor 109 specimen? If so why go to all that trouble? And it really was a LOT of trouble, that was the 2nd attempt. They had to modify the engine block. How much did you say the Trop filter took off? around 4mph earlier? HArdly a 'badly performing Gustav'

If it was the other way around (Brits putting a Merlin in the 109 to test) you would be talking about how the 109 was obviously in poor condition and the Spitfire in perfect!

The fact that the Spitfire is lighter with the DB engine makes no difference, in fact it makes the test MORE vaild as its the two different airframes with the same engine! (and we are talking about airframes here) Only the armament was gone, and who knows if they took the shells/bullets out of the 109? I would think they would to make the test more valid.

Dont argue, I really dont care. The test is interesting, thats all. Draw your own conclusions, but please dont start with the BS.

EDIT: Ooops, lost it a bit there. Seeing Kurfy come back with exactly what I imagined him too really got to me. Will calm down now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ploughman
04-27-2006, 10:05 AM
Interesting, I'd heard the Spit's coefficient at cruise was .021 and 109s .036. Great that the Luftwaffle got it down to .022.

Source (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/breed.html)

Kurfurst__
04-27-2006, 10:08 AM
Dear Xiolablu3,

I just mentioned some facts.

Such as that this '109G' was doing 620kph, which is on the lower mark compared to it's specs (630-660, as it is not even clear what subtype it is, it is said to weight 3070-3100kg, which doesn't matches any 109G type listed weight), but that's within the usual variance in performance. My guess is that DB did some testing with the captured Spit, and then draw the curves of a previous test they done with some 109G for comparison.

The MkV did 600kph with the Merlin in the tests, I believe this perfectly matches the official max speed of the MkV.
Finally, I've seen the paper, and it notes the MkV's weight - it's hundreds of kilograms below the British loading data for a fully equipped plane.

Make what you want of that.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
04-27-2006, 10:10 AM
You know that, technically, a reciept from MacDonald's is a legal document...

WWMaxGunz
04-27-2006, 10:11 AM
Spitfire is a good fighter.
IN GENERAL:
* Fast, not the fastest.
* Good turning, not the best.
* Good climb, not the best.
* Decent firepower.
* Decent range if a little short.
* Easy to fly.

In WWI there was a similar fighter.
It had all the same points in general.
It is also recognized as the best overall fighter of WWI although not universally so.
Many were faster, many others turned better, some of both of those and others still
climbed better. Few had more firepower but some did. None as easy to fly could begin
to match in speed or climb or IIRC firepower (they had one gun).
That plane was the Fokker DVII and singled out by the Allies to be taken from Germany,
it was that effective.

For the Brits, the Spitfire is IMO the WWII analog of the DVII as a balanced performer
with overall good stats, easy to fly and fight in.

What did Germany have that filled that? FW I think most of all and IMO really the better
basic overall design.

Xiolablu3
04-27-2006, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Dear Xiolablu3,

I just mentioned some facts.

Such as that this '109G' was doing 620kph, which is on the lower mark compared to it's specs (630-660, as it is not even clear what subtype it is, it is said to weight 3070-3100kg, which doesn't matches any 109G type listed weight), but that's within the usual variance in performance. My guess is that DB did some testing with the captured Spit, and then draw the curves of a previous test they done with some 109G for comparison.

The MkV did 600kph with the Merlin in the tests, I believe this perfectly matches the official max speed of the MkV.
Finally, I've seen the paper, and it notes the MkV's weight - it's hundreds of kilograms below the British loading data for a fully equipped plane.

Make what you want of that.

Yep I edited with an apology. Sorry for getting mardy, been up all night.

I make of the fact that the Spitfire MkV is lighter that the test is more valid. The DB engine is much lighter and is the same engine used in the 109, and so it is a pretty valid test between just the two airframes.

Anyway lets just agree its an interesting test.

But please, if you come back with a response to the link I posted above about British tests in turn time between the Hurricane/Spitfire/Me109E are flawed because the Me109E was obviously in 'poor condition' or something like that I will scream. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kurfurst__
04-27-2006, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
But please, if you come back with a response to the link I posted above about British tests in turn time between the Hurricane/Spitfire/Me109E are flawed because the Me109E was obviously in 'poor condition' or something like that I will scream. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Apologies accepted. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well the 109 was in poor condition (SCREEEEEEEAAAM, SCREEEAAM!) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, having seen the rest of the documents on it, the engine having troubles (not sure if they replaced it). Are you really surprised about that for a plane captured in automn 1939, gone through the French and operated for two years without proper spares and knownladge of how to fly it? It's quite a typical case for captured planes, there are exceptions of course..

But, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif they are about right, the turn comments agree with German as well as Soviet comments - the emil was nothing special, the sustained turn time was ca24 secs, the subsequent F-2 did it in 18, the F-4 and G-2 in ca20sec.

Sidenote, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif these refer to sustained turns, the more gentle ones, and it's quite natural the Emil with the higher wingloading, not using the slats yet (which it would in higher Gs) get outturned. Hard turns may be different, since every plane pulling the same Gs at the same speed turns exactly the same. Under the latter conditions the margin is I'd believe less or non existent, the factors being more of the Emils favour (slats providing lift even at high AoA, power to weight ratio, easier to resist G-loads due to seat position), which is probably why one get contradicting accounts from both RAF and LW pilots outturning the other - the latter ones seem to concentrate on hard turns though..

Xiolablu3
04-27-2006, 11:09 AM
I agree that Slats will offer an initially quick turn, definitely good enought to get a leading shot (as I understand they work anyway, please put me right if I am wrong)

In a sustained turn they will create more drag, however, and the non slat but better turner will be at an advantage being able to keep up more speed in the turn and possibly turn faster.

I actually think this is modelled pretty well in the game as it is now.

Spitfire 9 vs 109G2 demonstrates this very well for a 4-5 year old game engine. 109G2 can gain a leading shot but soon loses energy, then the Spitfire starts to gain the advantage.

HellToupee
04-27-2006, 11:16 AM
raf pilots comment in turns when LW tried to turn with them tehy stalled out and lost control some even crashed.

faustnik
04-27-2006, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Spitfire is a good fighter.
IN GENERAL:
* Fast, not the fastest.
* Good turning, not the best.
* Good climb, not the best.
* Decent firepower.
* Decent range if a little short.
* Easy to fly.


That looks good to me, except rate the Spit as exceptional in turning maneuvers.

As for the Fw190, it was evidently easy to control, but, also easy to overcontrol.

luftluuver
04-27-2006, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 WWMaxGunz:
BTW, is Luftluuver Milo?

No. dadada1, luftluuver, kidsmoke1959, nodevotion are. Funny to watch 'them' replying to 'their' own posts. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
By your use of language it looks like his reply to me is supposed to be me replying to me
so I tell you now:
If you are implying that I have ever had other than this one login at UBI as WWMaxGunz
then you are wrong. Same one as I started with in 2001 and the only one I've ever had.
Straight up, no tricks and no evasions.

Now if you mean any of those other names, I can't say. I'm trying to figure sometimes
from style and other parts who is the new name for one here or there who had to get a
new name. Kind of like how the name Isegrim was here is now Kurfurst. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">WWMaxGunz</span>, Kurfurst is a paranoid schizophrenic. I did not join this board until shortly after buying Forgotten Battles and ONLY have ONE account. Ivan has told him to lay off the accusation.

Paranoid Schizophrenia (SKITS-oh-FREEN-ee-uh)---one of the most damaging of all mental disorders---causes its victims to lose touch with reality. They often begin to hear, see, or feel things that aren't really there (hallucinations) or become convinced of things that simply aren't true (delusions). In the paranoid form of this disorder, they develop delusions of persecution or personal grandeur. The first signs of paranoid schizophrenia usually surface between the ages of 15 and 34. There is no cure, but the disorder can be controlled with medications. Severe attacks may require hospitalization.

Signs/Symptoms
Schizophrenia usually develops gradually, although onset can be sudden. Friends and family often notice the first changes before the victim does. Among the signs are:

Confusion
Inability to make decisions
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Hallucinations</span>
Changes in eating or sleeping habits, energy level, or weight
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Delusions</span>
Nervousness
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Strange statements or behavior </span>
Withdrawal from friends, work, or school
Neglect of personal hygiene
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Anger</span>
Indifference to the opinions of others
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">A tendency to argue </span><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">A conviction that you are better than others, or that people are out to get you</span>

Interesting that he had an old name here, Isegrim. Went on a search and found that it was Barbarossa Isegrim. Some called him Barbi.

Texan...
04-27-2006, 01:48 PM
Poor Barbi, obviously going senile on us. I wonder, has anyone told him the 109 lost its airbattles of WW2?


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

p1ngu666
04-27-2006, 04:35 PM
id suggest we dont mention too much about kurfy's mental health, or lack of, or anyone elses tbh.

he can certainly go abit funny at times, he has a wide range of attirbutes infact. he can be a rather nice chap when he wants too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

its fair to say we all have mental issues, especialy me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

back on topic, id agree with helltoupee, read similer numous times. turn *is* a nice advantage to have.

the spit is exceptional in turning once the hurri fades away on the western front. from then on the spit is the best turner on the western front.

IJA/IJN fighters could run rings around spits ofcourse, and i bet the cr42 could aswell...

its all relative ofcourse. 190 and p47 are aprently not turny planes, but ppl still turn fight with them against each other. just bigger circles http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

CrazyIvanov
04-27-2006, 04:48 PM
Thanks alot for the great spitfire information. Is there any feature we can ignore kurfursts posts and not see them?

WTE_Galway
04-27-2006, 06:26 PM
hehe ... pet plane discussions in this forum remind me of opposing football supporters in the same pub

there is no hope in hell anyone is ever going to change sides but they still try and bash "sense" into the opposition regardless

WWMaxGunz
04-27-2006, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Spitfire is a good fighter.
IN GENERAL:
* Fast, not the fastest.
* Good turning, not the best.
* Good climb, not the best.
* Decent firepower.
* Decent range if a little short.
* Easy to fly.


That looks good to me, except rate the Spit as exceptional in turning maneuvers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't say for the sim but in real the thrust makes better sustained turns. The 25lb
Spit has monster power to weight, the weight being multiplied by the G's -- speed in the
turn, turn radius -- how to get it through devicelink? I think there's also historic
turn data for at least some of these Spits at certain engine ratings? It's checkable.

I can apply that to the 109 with slats just as well. Slats do make more drag per speed
but somewhere there is a balance between slowing down and extra AOA for powering through
slow small radius turns.


As for the Fw190, it was evidently easy to control, but, also easy to overcontrol.

Nothing is perfect. I say FW's as I compare them to other LW fighters and reputation.
Some FW's are more specialized too but the original line and basic design... I like.
If you keep the speed up or don't run high torque at lower (DF) speeds then less trouble.
The other overcontrol I get is the roll, I have to cut the stick sensitivity for FW's.

Is it as bad on overcontrol as the P-51's? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

WWMaxGunz
04-27-2006, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Interesting that he had an old name here, Isegrim. Went on a search and found that it was Barbarossa Isegrim. Some called him Barbi.

Oh. Sorry if I cast you as someone else, I had just thought maybe but I think really he was
different in some ways. And I did ASK.

Yeah, you see a little of K. I've been here since October 2001 and seen more.

The diagnosis you made is I think a bit much. It takes a doctor doesn't it? Not that at
times some of us wonder just what he's about, go see him in action elsewhere as Isegrim.
There's at least one forum where his particular reality is treated seriously as right, it's
a shared belief. So are all religions and cultures, I won't make judgements there unless
they bump up against me and push.

Skychimp and some others (including Milo) used to call him Barbi and I never knew the
reference so for today that is something new.

He does have good data and lots of it. You just won't see the full picture given easily,
only the parts that make the desired picture. He is not the only such one to practice
that kind of debate, others do too.

WWMaxGunz
04-27-2006, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the spit is exceptional in turning once the hurri fades away on the western front. from then on the spit is the best turner on the western front.

Are you real sure about that?


its all relative ofcourse. 190 and p47 are aprently not turny planes, but ppl still turn fight with them against each other. just bigger circles http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Both of those could change direction very well and quickly in the vertical, 180 degrees in
a few seconds. It's an old trick.

p1ngu666
04-28-2006, 03:09 AM
can u suggest a better turner on the western front? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

maybe stirlings and lysnanders, storch's and other oddballs

Tazzers1968
04-28-2006, 06:13 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 WWMaxGunz:
BTW, is Luftluuver Milo?

No. dadada1, luftluuver, kidsmoke1959, nodevotion are. Funny to watch 'them' replying to 'their' own posts. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
By your use of language it looks like his reply to me is supposed to be me replying to me
so I tell you now:
If you are implying that I have ever had other than this one login at UBI as WWMaxGunz
then you are wrong. Same one as I started with in 2001 and the only one I've ever had.
Straight up, no tricks and no evasions.

Now if you mean any of those other names, I can't say. I'm trying to figure sometimes
from style and other parts who is the new name for one here or there who had to get a
new name. Kind of like how the name Isegrim was here is now Kurfurst. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">WWMaxGunz</span>, Kurfurst is a paranoid schizophrenic. I did not join this board until shortly after buying Forgotten Battles and ONLY have ONE account. Ivan has told him to lay off the accusation.

Paranoid Schizophrenia (SKITS-oh-FREEN-ee-uh)---one of the most damaging of all mental disorders---causes its victims to lose touch with reality. They often begin to hear, see, or feel things that aren't really there (hallucinations) or become convinced of things that simply aren't true (delusions). In the paranoid form of this disorder, they develop delusions of persecution or personal grandeur. The first signs of paranoid schizophrenia usually surface between the ages of 15 and 34. There is no cure, but the disorder can be controlled with medications. Severe attacks may require hospitalization.

Signs/Symptoms
Schizophrenia usually develops gradually, although onset can be sudden. Friends and family often notice the first changes before the victim does. Among the signs are:

Confusion
Inability to make decisions
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Hallucinations</span>
Changes in eating or sleeping habits, energy level, or weight
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Delusions</span>
Nervousness
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Strange statements or behavior </span>
Withdrawal from friends, work, or school
Neglect of personal hygiene
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Anger</span>
Indifference to the opinions of others
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">A tendency to argue </span><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">A conviction that you are better than others, or that people are out to get you</span>

Interesting that he had an old name here, Isegrim. Went on a search and found that it was Barbarossa Isegrim. Some called him Barbi. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah mate. He's just a lawyer. Somebody please remind me though never to hire his services. He'd get shot to peices in a court room.

Phil http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Megile_
04-28-2006, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by Tazzers1968:

Nah mate. He's just a lawyer. Somebody please remind me though never to hire his services. He'd get shot to peices in a court room.

Phil http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kurfurst - Your honor.... if my client is guilty then the 1.98 ATA k4 is a fantasy.

MrMojok
04-28-2006, 08:51 AM
Kurfurst, you asked a couple of pages and a few days back about the Hartmann quote from the Mike Spick book. I know I'm a bit late with this. All apologies. The english text says:

"He flew only the Bf 109G, of which he said:

It was very manoeuverable, and it was easy to handle. It speeded up very fast, if you dived a little. And in the acrobatics manoeuver, you could spin with the 109, and go very easy out of the spin. The only problems occurred during take-off. It had a strong engine, and a small, narrow-tread undercarriage. If you took off too fast it would turn [roll] ninety degrees away. We lost a lot of pilots in take-offs. "

Kwiatos
04-28-2006, 09:26 AM
Has someone information about critical angle of attack for Bf 109 and Spitfrie? I need it for BoB2 VOW stall and spin testing?

Slickun
04-28-2006, 03:24 PM
For a discussion on the Eastern vs Western front losses etc, alluded to a few pages back, go to:
http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

(Some of us may not like the conclusion).

Another reason that the LW flew so few sorties on D-Day was the fact they were forced to move back from the coast by the Bombing campaign.

The removal of the LW from the D-Day figuring was one of, if not THE, main goals of Operation Argument. It was successful.

Xiolablu3
04-28-2006, 04:45 PM
Interesting link that Slickun, thanks.

Almost 10,000 planes destoyed on the Western front in 1944.

Someone posted a few days ago that the USAAF fighters put claims in for 4000 enemy fighters and the RAF for 2000.

Now, assuming these figures are correct for 1944, that leaves about 4000:-

A few would be shot down by the bombers,(although the claims are wildly high, this is not the gunners fault. (20 gunners often put in a claim for the same destoyed aircraft, believing absolutely faithfully that they shot that plane down, therefore claims were very very inaccurate) Lets say 500-600 destroyed by bombers.

Were RCAF, RAAF, RNZAF, Free French and so on counted in with the RAF kills or were these seperate?

I was wondering if the remaining third were destroyed by Flak, accidents, unconfirmed kills (probables), damaged write offs on landing and so on or other air forces.

luftluuver
04-28-2006, 05:09 PM
X, if they fought with RAF squadron numbers they would counted as RAF.

WWMaxGunz
04-28-2006, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Almost 10,000 planes destoyed on the Western front in 1944.


10,000 German planes or all sides planes?

luftluuver
04-28-2006, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Almost 10,000 planes destoyed on the Western front in 1944.


10,000 German planes or all sides planes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Read the link posted by Slickun.

Western Front: 9,785
Reich: 12,807
Italy/Balkans: 4,468

What other nationality was on the Western Front?

Xiolablu3
04-28-2006, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
X, if they fought with RAF squadron numbers they would counted as RAF.


Thanks for that LL. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I always wondered if they were all flying togther.

I guess its accidents, flak, Resistance/SAS sabateurs and stuff like that.

Unless anyone else has any ideas?

Were there any other significant air forces on the Western front apart from RAF (inc RCAF/RAAF/RNZAF,Polish,Free French etc) and USAAF? Did the French/Dutch/Norway get a Air Force of their own up and running straight after D-Day June 1944 or would they continue to fly with the RAF?

Low_Flyer_MkVb
04-28-2006, 05:59 PM
The French had units flying in their own colours after the liberation of Paris, under the auspices of the USAAF. Foriegn squadrons in RAF service retained RAF markings, although some national device or colours were common.

Don't forget the Fleet Air Arm or the Swiss.

WWMaxGunz
04-28-2006, 06:06 PM
I'd really not like to read that right now, not for one simple question.

You say 'planes' downed and I do have this idea that there were USAAF planes and RAF planes
destroyed over the West Front in 1944. So I asked if the 10,000 was just German planes.

Had you written 'German planes' then I could go with your accounting.

So now I go follow another trail.

EDIT:ADD
Very good, it was shorter than I expected. LW losses only then.

I expect that Kurfurst will have a spree with that page, btw.

Xiolablu3
04-28-2006, 06:09 PM
Roger than Lowflyer.

Did the RAF and USAAF heavy bombers ever attack airfields from high level do you know?

Would this be a serious loss scenario do you think?

I know its all very sketchy, we have no way of knowing if the USAAF and RAF fighters claims are anywhere near correct for a start, but I just find it interesting speculating on where the rest of the Gemrnas planes were lost.

10,000 German planes lost in 1944
- 4000 USAAF fighter claims
- 2000 RAF fighter claims (apparantly including RCAF,RAAF,RNZAF,Polish, Free French etc)

= 4000 left.

Anyone any ideas where these last 4000 were lost apart from the things we have already mentioned - Flak, Accidents, Bomber Gunner Kills, Bomber Bomb kills, Sabatage.

WWMaxGunz
04-28-2006, 06:13 PM
How many old, obsolete and replaced or just overly damaged planes that made it back but
never to fly again is part of that 10,000?

No, I am not taking sides except with the side of reason.

Xiolablu3
04-28-2006, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
How many old, obsolete and replaced or just overly damaged planes that made it back but
never to fly again is part of that 10,000?

.


Good point MaxGunZ, that is possibly another source of the 'losses'.

Can you think of any more reasons?

ImpStarDuece
04-28-2006, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Interesting link that Slickun, thanks.

Almost 10,000 planes destoyed on the Western front in 1944.

Someone posted a few days ago that the USAAF fighters put claims in for 4000 enemy fighters and the RAF for 2000.

Now, assuming these figures are correct for 1944, that leaves about 4000:-

A few would be shot down by the bombers,(although the claims are wildly high, this is not the gunners fault. (20 gunners often put in a claim for the same destoyed aircraft, believing absolutely faithfully that they shot that plane down, therefore claims were very very inaccurate) Lets say 500-600 destroyed by bombers.

Were RCAF, RAAF, RNZAF, Free French and so on counted in with the RAF kills or were these seperate?

I was wondering if the remaining third were destroyed by Flak, accidents, unconfirmed kills (probables), damaged write offs on landing and so on or other air forces.

That was me, but the figures were for July 1944 to May 1945 and are for aerial kills only.

The USAAF fighters claimed 7,977 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air and on the ground in 1944 in the ETO. USAAF bombers claimed 2,458 enemy fighters destroyed, for a grand total of 10435 claimed enemy destroyed in 1944.

The RAF doesn't seem to have an equavilent break down of figures (at least not on line) that I can find. I have John Foreman's excellent 'Fighter Command War Diaries, July 1944 to May 1945' which lists all confirmed, probables and damgaed claims by Fighter Command for mid 1944- VE day, which is where I got the RAF figures from. I'll have to buy the earlier books in the serise. June 1943-June 1944 is my next purchase, but they are EX*****VE ($70-80 Aussie) and difficult to track down.

Xiolablu3
04-28-2006, 06:42 PM
Ahh OK, you are always posting great reading, thanks mate.

I guess that makes my question redundant.

Thanks for clarifying things mate.

I think everyone concedes that the bomber figures are wildly inflated, although its not the fault of the gunners, its an obvious mistake that just happens and cant be helped. (lots and lots of gunners claiming the same planewithout realising it. You have 40 gunners shooting at the same plane, in total madness of combat - its going to happen a lot.) 20 Gunners will claim, in absolute good faith, that they downed an enemy fighter, and it will turn out that they were all aiming at the same one when it went down, leading to massive overclaiming.

What servers do you fly on? I would like to fly with you sometime, if you would like to? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I fly under -=Xiola=- mostly on Ukdedicated2 and Winds Of War. The odd time on Warclouds too. I would be willing to try another tho, if you fly on a different server. I havent really tried that many to be honest as I havent been flying as long as some of you guys (a little over 6 months online I think)

EiZ0N
04-28-2006, 06:46 PM
Damn revisionist historians, trying to rewrite ww2 aviation history.

A disgrace.

Xiolablu3
04-28-2006, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by EiZ0N:
Damn revisionist historians, trying to rewrite ww2 aviation history.

A disgrace.

Which figures are you are are wrong, Eizon?

WWMaxGunz
04-28-2006, 07:19 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 WWMaxGunz:
How many old, obsolete and replaced or just overly damaged planes that made it back but
never to fly again is part of that 10,000?

.


Good point MaxGunZ, that is possibly another source of the 'losses'.

Can you think of any more reasons? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are pretty much standard categories every AF uses to account for its own planes.

Training losses and Accidentals: takeoffs, landings, bad weather, engines that quit, the
few P-51's that had the wing break due to gear opening kind of things.

Actually I expect that scrapped planes, training losses and accidents might account for
more planes built that were destroyed than the shot downs at least overall in the war.

For US planes there were many lost all in boxes and disassembled on ships sank by subs
or mines. I dunno how many soldiers died that way too, and tanks lost, etc.

This is why I'm a bit leery of total produced type accounting, it must be thorough.
US produced a whole s__tload of planes to count 20:1 of LW perhaps but very many of
those never left the US at all and I dunno how many went to the PTO or elsewhere.

ImpStarDuece
04-28-2006, 07:35 PM
The RAF used a figure of 900%-1000% inflation from bomber gunner claims when assesing the results of USAAF unescorted bombing. Mostly this was arrived at becuase of Ultra intercepts of German losses. Believe it or not, but the 8th AF actually bestowed 'ace' status on more bomber gunners than fighter jocks.

This may of been a little uncharitable, and it certainly ruffled a few feathers in USAAF command, but it was fairly accurate for a 'worst case' scenario. As a general rule, it seems that US gunner claims were out by an order of 6-10, depending on the mission and time frame.

In 1943 and early 1944 you have gunners claiming upwards of 150+ German fighters in a single mission. As 1944 progress, bomber gunner claims dropped, most particularly sharply after D-Day. From March 1943 to May 1944, USAAF bomber gunners claimed greater than 100 kills every month, peaking in October 1943 with 791 credited kills. After June 1944, there wasn't a single month with more than 100 kills credited, and most months there were less than 50.

In the first 5 months of 1944, USAAF bombers claimed 2068 kills, or an average of just over 400 a month. In the next 7 months of 1944, bomber gunners claimed just 330 kills, or less than 50 a month. It just shows the MASSIVE impact that properly escorted raids had, and the real effect of the P-51 on the European airwar. USAAF fighters claimed more than 400 kills a month all the way from March 1944 through to October. As the fighter claims go up, bomber gunner claims go down and losses decrease in greater than proportional numbers.

horseback
04-28-2006, 07:36 PM
As regards aircraft lost while being shipped due to submarine attacks, bear in mind that these losses dropped off precipitously around May-June 1943; by that point the RN and USN had gotten a pretty good handle on the ASW game, and were able to cover the mid-Atlantic stretches with escort and light carrier aircraft.

Losses to subs after spring of 1943 were not a big factor.

As regards German aircraft losses, I seem to recall that a great many airframes were 'remanufactured' more than once; and that these were often done with airframes that had suffered combat damage (I recall one author's claim that they found one Dora that had started its career as an A-5 & done at least one other stint in the East as an F-8 before its final incarnation as a D-9). There was some debate about whether they ever included these aircraft in the 'lost' column if any fraction of it could be re-used.

To be fair, the Brits were also said to be guilty of this to some degree early in the war.

cheers

horseback

Xiolablu3
04-28-2006, 07:48 PM
Impstardeuce what servers do you play on?

I would like to fly with you sometime if its OK?

ImpStarDuece
04-28-2006, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Impstardeuce what servers do you play on?

I would like to fly with you sometime if its OK?

Check your PMs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Xiolablu3
04-28-2006, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Impstardeuce what servers do you play on?

I would like to fly with you sometime if its OK?

Check your PMs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Imp, I have replied.

Must get some sleep now its nearly 4am http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
04-28-2006, 08:38 PM
i imagine alot where lost in acciendents, and alot may have been written off due lack of spares, or to make spares for other aircraft.

alot of supplies got lost in the system aswell. stuff would be shunted off the railway lines just to get them open again. i suspect some german engines ive seen in museum storage where yoinked from something like that...

the figures may also include nightfighter losses.

and yes there where airfield attacks by bombers.

lw strength vs production is eyeopening in 44

Kurfurst__
04-29-2006, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by MrMojok:
Kurfurst, you asked a couple of pages and a few days back about the Hartmann quote from the Mike Spick book. I know I'm a bit late with this. All apologies. The english text says:

"He flew only the Bf 109G, of which he said:

It was very manoeuverable, and it was easy to handle. It speeded up very fast, if you dived a little. And in the acrobatics manoeuver, you could spin with the 109, and go very easy out of the spin. The only problems occurred during take-off. It had a strong engine, and a small, narrow-tread undercarriage. If you took off too fast it would turn [roll] ninety degrees away. We lost a lot of pilots in take-offs. "

Yes, that's the one, thanks a lot, some moron translated the "And in the acrobatics manoeuver, you could spin with the 109," as 'spin was easy, and easy to come out'. It didn't make sense, until now!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Slickun
04-29-2006, 08:03 AM
Interesting link that Slickun, thanks

Most welcome, X. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The main point of the link is that, in one study at least, the Western Front was where most of the fighting and dying was going on, at least in the later stages of the air war.

BTW. Caldwell's "JG-26, Top Guns of the Luftwaffe" is required reading for the folks on these boards.

BaldieJr
04-29-2006, 09:39 AM
The great thing about the wing of the spitfire is that it was designed to be large enough that no one could possibly fit into thier !@#, yet the ends are rounded as if the designers were saying "go ahead, stuff it up there any way, you wont get hung on a sharp edge".

panther3485
04-29-2006, 09:57 AM
And then somebody spoiled it all, by putting those cannon on the leading edge so it'd only go half way!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


panther3485

CUJO_1970
04-29-2006, 12:39 PM
Actual LW losses for the most part - most accurate probably being LW quartermaster reports - mostly survived the war.

They can be compared directly to allied claims both on a day to day basis as well as overall.

Some may not like the results, other than the fact that the LW lost http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif