PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire LF Vb Climb Rate



Richardsen
02-10-2007, 08:37 AM
Whats is your best time from 0-10000feet with an LF VB? 100% fuel, Weapon Default, Radiators fully open

Richardsen
02-10-2007, 08:37 AM
Whats is your best time from 0-10000feet with an LF VB? 100% fuel, Weapon Default, Radiators fully open

MEGILE
02-10-2007, 08:39 AM
half an hour

Richardsen
02-10-2007, 08:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
half an hour </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Almost!

I just tested it now, i did 2min50sec

Xiolablu3
02-10-2007, 12:17 PM
The standard Spitfire Vb has a too good climb rate (so do all the Me109's tho) but its too slow.

Not sure about the SPitfire Vb LF, do you mean 1942 or 1943?

The Spitfire Vb feels badly underpowered to me, for a fighting airplane, God knows what it would feel like with the correct climb rate. Compare it to the 109F4 for example and its totally outclassed.

OMK_Hand
02-10-2007, 12:56 PM
Hi Richardsen.

2 min 38 sec using full boost.
The same in the 109 F4. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
02-10-2007, 01:34 PM
Is that the 1942 model you are testing Hand/Richardsen?

OMK_Hand
02-10-2007, 02:49 PM
Hi Xiolablu3.

I took Richardsen to mean the Spitfire L.F. Mk. Vb, 1942.
Not a formal 'test' as such for me, I was just curious is all. Fun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Richardsen
02-10-2007, 05:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Is that the 1942 model you are testing Hand/Richardsen? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes the 1942 Spit.
Use 100% fuel, Default weapon, radiators fully open.

Richardsen
02-10-2007, 05:53 PM
Link to RL tests

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/w3228.html

Spit V: 0-10000feet 2.25min (merlin 50m)
Spit IX: 0-10000feet 3.1 min (merlin 61)
Spit IX: 0-10000feet 2.15min (merlin 66)

IRL it has almost the same climb rate as LF IX with Merlin 66

JG53Frankyboy
02-10-2007, 06:09 PM
forget the game dates .

there is a Spitfire F.Mk.Vb in game, with a "normal" Merlin 46.
and than there is a LF.Mk.Vb, with the low altitude rated Merlin 50 .

from both there are CW versions available.
that the F.Mk.Vb (CW) is rated later than a LF.MkVb , well............... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Richardsen
02-11-2007, 05:25 AM
Looks like climb performance are not moddeld correct for the LF VB, but i should not be complaning abaut this great sim http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
02-11-2007, 06:38 AM
the entire spitfire V line is pants in this, the seafires (alsho basicaly V's) suck horrorificaly too.

irl the V wasnt a flying bag of horse manure, and was http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif certainly in the same ballpark as the 109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

SirPapps
02-11-2007, 02:15 PM
According to Hardball's a/c viewer, the Spitfire LF V/LF V CW in the game both are fitted with a Merlin 50, not a 50M. In game, this seems true as they don't seem to pass + 12 lb boost.

From those facts, these are not the 'true' LF Vb's, as the offcial LF Vb's were fitted with engines that could cough out + 18 lbs of boost. Such engines were the Merlins with 'M' suffixes, i.e. Merlin 50M which proved to make 1,500 + hp, as seen in our L Mk.III Seafire.

If our LF V's were really fitted with these low-alt 'M' Merlins, they would, according to www.spitfireperformance.com (http://www.spitfireperformance.com) , be able to climb in excess of 4,400 fpm w/ WEP. Additionally, they would hit almost the same speed as the Mk.VIII @ SL and accelerate equally as fast, if not, better.

Also, the Mk.VIII CW we have in the game is fitted with a Merlin 66, qualifying it as an LF Mk.VIII. Its performance however seems just like that of our F Mk.VIII, 1943 (Merlin 63). One of the two a/c are kinda screwy.

Let's hope they fix that in the next patch, or give us an LF Mk.Vc with an Aboukir filter instead of that nasty old Volkes one =D

Xiolablu3
02-11-2007, 06:41 PM
Although people say that the filters make no difference in game, the Spitfire Vc4 is very very slow.

It feels almost like a Hurricane to me.

COmpare it to a 109F4 and its totally outclassed.

SirPapps
02-11-2007, 07:05 PM
Indeed - the 109 ouclasses the Spitfire V's in practically everyway... the good pilots can even outturn SpitV's. Just looking at the Spitfire Vc in the game made me gag so i didn't bother flying it. It's odd how the filters dont affect performance b/c in WWII, it destroyed the ram-air effect and the engine got very little supercharged air. Additionally, its draggy and hideous.

Meh, i guess it's not taht important, i fly the Mk.VIII after all - which i believe can outclimb 109F's and cant be outturned by 109G2/6's provided both pilots are both top notch.

PFflyer
02-11-2007, 07:29 PM
IF someone is out-turning a SpitV in any 109, it is not because of the aircraft, it is because the Spit pilot suks.

The SpitV will out turn any 109, the later spits do not turn as well, but they turn just as well as any 109.

If a 109 has any advantage over a spit, it is in some straight line performance, either speed, climb or acceleration, and that will be the only advantage it has.

In any plane matchup you can dream of in this sim, or in real life, there will be some difference in the two planes in some way, you should be thankful for this, you could have a flight sim that uses the same FM for every plane!

The ability to use the strengths, and know the weaknesses of your aircraft of choice, and to use that knowledge to defeat your opponent, is what separates a good pilot, from the masses of whiners who fly this sim.

I shoot down 109s when I fly spits, and I shoot down spits when I fly 109s, because I am a GOOD and smart virtual pilot.

SirPapps
02-11-2007, 08:13 PM
LOL calm down buddy! I was just stating what i thought! I love 109s and spitfires of all sorts, but i just really dont like Volkes filters b/c they're ugly! I never said 'we HAVE to get this' or 'this is soo terribly wrong' i simply said what was fact b/c i like talking about planes.

You dont need to go crazy or be so arrogant, dude... before i read your last sentence, i agreed with everything you said. I simply displayed my thoughts, and that's that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Xiolablu3
02-11-2007, 10:25 PM
Lmao, I think PFflyers on his period today. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Richardsen
02-11-2007, 11:37 PM
Yep. The LF V in game is far from correct.
IRL LF Vs outperformed IX at low altitudes.

JG53Frankyboy
02-12-2007, 12:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SirPapps:
.............
Also, the Mk.VIII CW we have in the game is fitted with a Merlin 66, qualifying it as an LF Mk.VIII. Its performance however seems just like that of our F Mk.VIII, 1943 (Merlin 63). One of the two a/c are kinda screwy.

............ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

why do you think the two VIII in game have a different engine ?
all so far here have the impression that they are the same, both are LF.Mk.VIII with Merlin66.

BBB_Hyperion
02-12-2007, 01:07 AM
PFflyer conclusions are incomplete and incorrect. There are situations where the spit is beaten in turns by a 109 (mostly early F to G model depending on spittype). Of course that are no sustained turns neither 2D turns more like high yoyo using full slat effects in il2 at least. The historical description is elliptical using full advantage of slats at stallpoint using a combined acceleration and pull sequence. In the low speed margins spitfires turn ability is lacking as well the climb falls off and that of the 109 can keep up. Il2 Compare delivers only constant sustained turndata.

@Xiola how you come to the conclusions BFs or Spit climbrates are too high ? You figured that most plane manual climbtimes are given for climb and combat power not wep + 100 % etc ? Of course planes in il2 not only fly factory fresh but without dust etc on the surfaces .

SirPapps
02-12-2007, 04:34 PM
Just wondering if that means something like a Spitfire LF V can't turn with a 109F-2/4. I believe that the LF V has a better powerloading and wingloading. This makes the LF V turn better MOST of the time, right?

At low speed, i'm assuming that those 109 slats help it turn tighter, but the 'real' LF V with the Merlin 50M has better acceleration (1,500 hp with a t/o weight of 2981 lbs. vs the 109's 1350 hp with 2920 t/o weight). Though the Spit would have less of a chance during a turn fight when the 109F uses flaps, the LF V's better accel (especially during the 'slat' and flap phase of the 109) could theoretically help it climb away - and the LF V seems much heavier ... can't it dive away?

Brain32
02-12-2007, 04:43 PM
Sry guys but no 109 not F2 not F4 not G2 and most certanly not any of the later versions EVER turned into my Spit at same speed be it a MkV, MkIX or MkVIII, this is how it IMO should be and this is how it is.
The other day I even sucessfully denied angle to a 109G2 which bounced me and shot of my rudder controls(SpitMkVc), he simply could not hold my turn and eased of and disengaged...
If you are getting outturned by 109's in Spits you are doing something very wrong and if they are turnfighting you then they are doing "something" wrong too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
02-12-2007, 04:59 PM
Hyperion - I have been told by JTD and others that the Spitfire Vb in game has the climb of a 12lbs boost Spitfire Vb, but the top speed of a 9lbs boost. (I think it was 9lbs, maybe 8lbs, cant remember)


Therefore if it was corrected to a 9lbs Spitfire Vb, the climb rate would be even worse, and I already find it an underpowered plane to fight in.

The 109F4 however feels beautifully balanced in game. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I love that plane.

Its historical, because the 109F4 was the better overall plane and the Spitfire Vb was the weakest Spitfire in the series compared to contemporary planes. (It was a close match but the 109F4 definitely had the edge, as it does in the game)

The Spitfire Vb can hold its own against the 109F4, but if I had to pick one of them to fight in, I would go for the 109F4 every time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Still it makes for a pretty balanced fight online. If BOB:SOW has this type of matchup then its going to be a great game.

SirPapps
02-12-2007, 05:11 PM
Ah yes, Brain... lemme get this straight ... turn fighting at the same speed. Now that i remember that, that means that a 109 could instantaneously turn with a real LF V (+18 lb boost; Merlin 50M) due to flaps but after constant and sustained turning has started, those flaps do slow it down. Technically the Spit is turning a little worse, if not, equal, but its doing so faster and would circle behind, correct?

Correct me if im mistaken but i believe that Spitfire V's with Merlin 50's NOT 50M's were still Spitfire F. Mk. V's. Therefore, our game LF V is underpowered and classified incorrectly. It was said somewhere else, but the LF V had just as much hp as a Spitfire F.Mk.IX but in a MUCH lighter shell. It should be quite good, but feels a little ugly in the game. In fact, according to 'Spitfire V Aces' from Alfred Price, LF Mk.V's, the 'M' suffix meant that the supercharger blower cropped from 10.85" diameter to 9.5". This compressed air even more which gave the engine the +18 lb. boost figure giving yet more hp vs the 1470 of the regular Merlin 45/46/50/55.

Just saying the facts - no one piss off at me for stating what i think now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Xiolablu3
02-12-2007, 05:17 PM
SIr Papps, it depends what year you are talking about.

There are many different versions of the Spitfire MkV.

There were still a large number of Spitfire mkV's around in 1943, they would be facing 109G2's/109G6's and FW190A5's.

The SPitfire MkV got boosted up from 1941-1943, so if you are picking a 1943 model to compare with the 109, then you must pick a 1943 bf109 too.

BBB_Hyperion
02-12-2007, 05:40 PM
What Spitfire versions were used in the VVS and what boost level and engine they used ?

Xiolablu3
02-12-2007, 05:45 PM
I am not sure Hyp.

I am sure JTD could tell us, if he sees this thread.

VW-IceFire
02-12-2007, 05:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
What Spitfire versions were used in the VVS and what boost level and engine they used ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats probably the key thing here. The Spitfire V's we have (and IX's) are meant to be Russian versions. I wonder if they ran their engines on less boost because of all the problems they had with Merlin engines.

Xiolablu3
02-12-2007, 05:49 PM
Was that because of the temperature?


I have heard conflicting reports about the Russians and Spitfires. Every pilot interview I have read by the Russians state that they really liked the Spitfire, although it was obviously out of date for them being older models. They recieved old battered MkV's in 1943, so they already had planes of their own which outclasesed the old MkV.

But people on this forum have said that they really didnt rate the Spit.

Can anyone clarify? I guess there are differing opinions form different pilots. Some liked it some didnt.

SirPapps
02-12-2007, 05:57 PM
In Alfred Price's SpitV book, the VVS used the regular, Merlin 45-powered Spitfire F.Mk.Vb. Later on in the war, the got LF. Mk.IX's. All i can really say about the boost figures on VVS spit v's was that they had the same boost, but temperature could affect this. ice-guards, for example, actually caused quite a bit of drag. you couldnt have them removed in the cold temps of Russia.

Xiolabu, the 109G6 is a 1942 and a/c. LF V's were first in service near the end of '42. The G6 outperformed the Spitfire LF V at higher altitudes and even outclimbed it and outran it slightly at many altitudes, but the LF V's greater maneuverability and better power loading were very much better than the 109's. Additionally, the LF V would have extra boost over the F V at a given throttle setting and not just in WEP as in the Mk. IX +25 lb. boost due to the V's different physical supercharger qualities.

Taking on an LF V in any 109 below 6,000'? Not too smart, though the LF V is severly outclassed at high alts. But hey, all planes have some sort of achilles' heel at a certain alt. vs the contemporary anyway and many fights end up on the deck.

Xiolablu3
02-12-2007, 06:00 PM
I am sure the 109G6 is a 1943 plane mate.

I could be wrong tho.

I thought the Germans were using 109F4/109G1/G2/G3/G4 through 1942?

PFflyer
02-12-2007, 06:15 PM
Brain32 is right on the money. In this sim, if you cannot turn with, or out-turn your spitfires contemporary 109 counterpart, then you simply are not as good a Spitfire pilot as you could be.

I can hold a spitV in a flat constant radius turn that NO 109 can hold, E,F, or G. And I can hold a Spit VIII or IX in a flat constant radius turn that no 109G can maintain, and I do not even spend any more time in spits than I have to to even up the sides on the odd server here and there.

I know from five+ years of flying this sim, and flying against spits in 109s since they appeared in this sim, that there are many, many Spit pilots, apparently much better than SirPapps and others in this thread, who can do what I can do in a spit, and then much, much more too. A Spit pilot in this sim who knows what he is doing, will NEVER be shot down by a 109 unless he is surprised on a server with hard settings, or intentionally puts himself in harm's way in a calculated risk.

So if you are having trouble flying against 109s in a Spit, believe me it is not the plane, it is YOU.

SirPapps
02-12-2007, 06:24 PM
lol once again, i am NOT saying that the 109 is outturning the spit 100% of the time. In fact, i havent flown online yet. Im more of an amateur aerodynamics physicist in training.

Im just trying to figure out IF the 109 can outturn contemporary spits. With all these factors (wingloading, powerloading, drag etc.) the Spitfire will almost 100% of the time circle behind the 109. Im trying to learn here, not whine.

Xiolablu3
02-12-2007, 06:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PFflyer:
Brain32 is right on the money. In this sim, if you cannot turn with, or out-turn your spitfires contemporary 109 counterpart, then you simply are not as good a Spitfire pilot as you could be.

I can hold a spitV in a flat constant radius turn that NO 109 can hold, E,F, or G. And I can hold a Spit VIII or IX in a flat constant radius turn that no 109G can maintain, and I do not even spend any more time in spits than I have to to even up the sides on the odd server here and there.

I know from five+ years of flying this sim, and flying against spits in 109s since they appeared in this sim, that there are many, many Spit pilots, apparently much better than SirPapps and others in this thread, who can do what I can do in a spit, and then much, much more too. A Spit pilot in this sim who knows what he is doing, will NEVER be shot down by a 109 unless he is surprised on a server with hard settings, or intentionally puts himself in harm's way in a calculated risk.

So if you are having trouble flying against 109s in a Spit, believe me it is not the plane, it is YOU. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



You dont know what the hell you are talking about.

I will take you on tomorrow night in a 109F4 with you in a Spitfire Vb. OK?

You can show me how easy it is in 1941, to down my 109F4 in your 'super' Spitfire Vb.


Why do people always have to ruin a nice discussion , turning everything into a pissing contest. I never usually do duels, but you need to know just how much BS you are talking here.

I will meet you on Hyperlobby tommorow night, you tell me the time. We fly towards each other at 1000m, merge and then the fight begins, OK?

PFflyer
02-12-2007, 07:06 PM
Ok Xiolablu3, if you, in your f4, were able to meet yourself, or a pilot equal to your abilities flying a SpitV, how many out of ten matches would you win?

If you say ten out of ten, then you are saying that all your kills are because of your plane and your talent has nothing to do with it? If you flew the SpitV and your opponent was a 109f4 you would lose every time?

I don't think so.

If I meet you online, and I am as good a pilot as you are, you will lose around half the duels we have right? ANd that will not prove anything about the SpitV, or the 109f4.

When you beat a spitV in your 109f4, it is because you are doing something besides turning that f4, you are using it's advantage, it's speed and acceleration, to do the job.

If a Spit pilot loses half the battles he has against 109f4s flown by equally talented virtual pilots, then he is NOT having any trouble with them, that is simply what is expected statistically.

If I would have said "So if you are having trouble flying against SpitVs in a 109, believe me it is not the plane, it is YOU", this statement would be equally true!

A good pilot, can take a 109E, and shoot down 9 out of ten La-7s, he meets online, no kidding. He will even shoot down half the jets he flies that 109E against.

THat is why your challenge is silly Xio, you will not prove anything about the planes, unless you can fly against yourself, you will only prove something about the pilots.

Sure, If you see me online, give me a shout, and if you beat me up in my spitV, it will not disprove anything I have said at all.

SirPapps
02-12-2007, 07:22 PM
The point here, flyer is not necesserily about the planes... its now about respect and respect. He simply is annoyed by you due to your slight show of arrogance and hatred towards those who express their opnions that just happen to conflict with the facts of the game.

Richardsen
02-13-2007, 04:26 AM
The LF Vb is an awsome aeroplane.
It was not used very much as a fighter because it was useless above 15000ft, below that it kicked ***.

http://futurshox.net/stamp/planes13/rh-spitfire-ab910-2.jpg

Awsome looking aeroplane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

HellToupee
02-13-2007, 05:16 AM
the whole V series needs a bit of love, hell it cant even take bombs which it started carrying alot of when the mkIX arrived on the scene. Hell the hurricane IIC could do with its rockets.

Weirdest thing with mk5s is the dates, a clipped wing with the same boost as the slow as 1941 model being 1943?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Its historical, because the 109F4 was the better overall plane and the Spitfire Vb was the weakest Spitfire in the series compared to contemporary planes. (It was a close match but the 109F4 definitely had the edge, as it does in the game) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

f4 had the edge at low altitudes however the f.mk5 matched the performance of the f4 at medium to high. Top speeds were similar, in game it reaches 350, 25mph too slow.

HellToupee
02-13-2007, 05:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PFflyer:
I can hold a spitV in a flat constant radius turn that NO 109 can hold, E,F, or G. And I can hold a Spit VIII or IX in a flat constant radius turn that no 109G can maintain, and I do not even spend any more time in spits than I have to to even up the sides on the odd server here and there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i can sustain sustained turns in a viii and an ix no 109, well g2 excluded can maintain, but then i also can jump in a 109 and pull huge aoa lead shots that a spit would snap out trying to pull. Especially with a bit of those combat flaps.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I know from five+ years of flying this sim, and flying against spits in 109s since they appeared in this sim, that there are many, many Spit pilots, apparently much better than SirPapps and others in this thread, who can do what I can do in a spit, and then much, much more too. A Spit pilot in this sim who knows what he is doing, will NEVER be shot down by a 109 unless he is surprised on a server with hard settings, or intentionally puts himself in harm's way in a calculated risk. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

NEVER sounds pretty dam far fetched to me, 109s 190s, 47s vs ki43s zeros, me262 vs gladiator all are capable of getting an angle on a spit even when its turning to its fullest.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So if you are having trouble flying against 109s in a Spit, believe me it is not the plane, it is YOU. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and vise versa for 109 pilots http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
02-13-2007, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
the whole V series needs a bit of love, hell it cant even take bombs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit Vc was an important fighter bomber. It's a shame that it wasn't modeled with a full range of air-to-ground weapons.

**********************

I think people give the Bf109s too much credit in PF, even the G2 is no uberplane. I would agree that 1 on 1, the G2 is the best fighter in 1942, but, only in that exceptional situation. After flying 1942 Soviet a/c against G2s and F4s for the past month and a half, I can really see the G2's limitations. The High speed elevator of the 109 is not good, and structure is weak. The wing guns of the P-39s and Spit Vbs are much easier for me to use. So, in a high speed furball with mutliple a/c the 109s lose their edge. I'm very confortable in the P-39D2, La5 and Yak1b against the 109s in a COOP environment. We have a couple guys that flew Spit Vbs for a couple weeks (this is a Kuban SE campaign) and they did well.

109s get too much credit in PF, Spitfires do too.

ImpStarDuece
02-13-2007, 02:41 PM
I've been desperate to try and get bombs for the Spit Vb/c for ages.

I had a lovely idea for a Normandy/Bulge campaign: start in late 1943 with bombed up Spit Vs doing invasion preparation, graduate to Mk IXs a month or two before the invasion and then move onto the Tempest V over the winter skies doing low level air superiority.

Best solution now is to use the Seafire L III as a Mk V knock off, but even then its about 10 mph down on low level speed to properly represent the type (not to mention the fishtail exhausts and four bladed prop...). Still, at least it can haul a bombload.

Xiolablu3
02-13-2007, 03:38 PM
I dont agree that the 109F4 gets too much credit, its the best fighter in 1941 IMO.

The 109G2 is a very competetive plane in 1942 too. But I dont like hte later 109's. Like History (Galland/Carson/Rall/Brown/Jonson) says, they lose their manouvrability and get too heavy. SOme people can still fly the plane well depite these short comings and all kudos too them for their skill. I am useless in these later 109's but love the early models.

I agree that the Spitfire MkV gets too much credit, I think its quite a poor plane in the game. The later Spitfires are good, but not uber. I flew against SPitfire 25lbs just yesterday in a Dora and had no troubles really. I crashed because I blacked out once, but never got hit by one and shot a couple down. They could never get into range to land any hits on me, the plane is just too slow in 1945.

Next map had Me262's and Ar234's vs SPitfire 25lbs and P51's. Obviously it was no uber plane on this map either.

PFFlyer - I cannot get Hyperlobby working thanks to my ISPs traffic management http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif. However I agree my initial response to your post was lame. A dual wouldnt prove anything, but I promise you that you are mistaken if you think that all contemporary SPitfires are superior to all Bf109's in the game. 1941/42 the Bf109 is superior in all but turning circle, and its not even far off in turning circle.

I am encouraged by your reply, and look forward to flying with you one day. I can show you how to be pretty much untouchable by Spitfire V's in a Bf109F4/G2. (1941-42)

faustnik
02-13-2007, 04:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I dont agree that the 109F4 gets too much credit, its the best fighter in 1941 IMO.

I agree that the Spitfire MkV gets too much credit, I think its quite a poor plane in the game.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit Vb a poor plane? That certainly hasn't been our experience. Our Spitfire pilots have done very well against F4s and G2s. If a Bf109 is "untouchable" it is only in a very unrealistic situation. I'd rate the Spit Vb and Bf109F4 very close to equal in practical terms.

HellToupee
02-13-2007, 09:59 PM
well in performance turns they are not close, 60kmh slower at sealevel, effectivly its like a 190d9 vs spit9 fight.

In practical terms, its sigificantly faster at all alts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I think people give the Bf109s too much credit in PF, even the G2 is no uberplane. I would agree that 1 on 1, the G2 is the best fighter in 1942, but, only in that exceptional situation. After flying 1942 Soviet a/c against G2s and F4s for the past month and a half, I can really see the G2's limitations. The High speed elevator of the 109 is not good, and structure is weak. The wing guns of the P-39s and Spit Vbs are much easier for me to use. So, in a high speed furball with mutliple a/c the 109s lose their edge. I'm very confortable in the P-39D2, La5 and Yak1b against the 109s in a COOP environment. We have a couple guys that flew Spit Vbs for a couple weeks (this is a Kuban SE campaign) and they did well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i find vbs harder to use overall, i like wing guns but not the 6 seconds of ammo, 109s not the strongest structure but spits modeled quite alot weaker IMO especially the wings.

Imo only the lf.vb can hope to challange the f4

mynameisroland
02-14-2007, 03:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
Yep. The LF V in game is far from correct.
IRL LF Vs outperformed IX at low altitudes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Richardson, dont want to halt your Cursade to unpork the Vb L.F but I think you want to check your IL2 and RL figures. The IL2 LF Vb comfortably outperforms the Spitfire IX Merlin 61 it does not beat the IX LF Merlin 66 the one we have in game. If you look at the sea level speed figures the L.F Vb reaches a tad over 520 km/h at sea level this compares very favourably to the IX LF which reaches around 538 km/h, and the Fw 190 A4 which reaches 540 km/h.

Its low altitude climb rate is fantastic for a 'undermodelled' aircraft being around 21m/s. This outclasses the Fw 190 A4/5/6/8 and Bf 109 F2/4/G6/G6 Late. While of course possessing a turn performance that would embarress an I-16.

The Vb L.F is a great below 10,000ft fighter. It is superior to the initial Spitfire IXs below 10,000ft and only just superseded by the later Spitfire IX L.Fs. I dont see what is wrong with it? It was a stop gap solution, it was a great fighter in its element but it still couldnt catch faster opponents in real life. It took the advent of the Typhoon for the RAF to have an AC fast enough to catch low altitude Jabos over England, even the LF IX couldnt catch a Fw 190 at sea level so why should an older, slower, interim aircraft like the VB LF be able to ?

I certainly kick arse when I fly the LF Vb online, dont see anything wrong with it against even later types like the G2 and A5.

JG52Karaya-X
02-14-2007, 03:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
Yep. The LF V in game is far from correct.
IRL LF Vs outperformed IX at low altitudes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Richardson, dont want to halt your Cursade to unpork the Vb L.F but I think you want to check your IL2 and RL figures. The IL2 LF Vb comfortably outperforms the Spitfire IX Merlin 61 it does not beat the IX LF Merlin 66 the one we have in game. If you look at the sea level speed figures the L.F Vb reaches a tad over 520 km/h at sea level this compares very favourably to the IX LF which reaches around 538 km/h, and the Fw 190 A4 which reaches 540 km/h.

Its low altitude climb rate is fantastic for a 42 labled aircraft being around 21m/s. This outclasses the Fw 190 A4/5/6/8 and Bf 109 F2/4/G6/G6 Late. While of course possessing a turn performance that would embarress an I-16.

The Vb L.F is a great below 10,000ft fighter. It is superior to the initial Spitfire IXs below 10,000ft and only just superseded by the later Spitfire IX L.Fs. I dont see what is wrong with it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Exactly, you would have to compare the L.F. MkVb to the Merlin 61 SpitIX which we of course do not have ingame, our L.F. MkIX is quite a different beast and overall better than these two.

HellToupee
02-14-2007, 04:07 AM
its the F.vb 1941 thats porked, bob i hope gives us all the differnt MkVs there were.

JG53Frankyboy
02-14-2007, 04:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
Yep. The LF V in game is far from correct.
IRL LF Vs outperformed IX at low altitudes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html

LF.Vb (W.3228), Merlin 50M at 18lb/sq.in. boost:
at 2000ft = 334mph
at 5900ft = 350mph (FTH)

F.IXc (B.F.274), Merlin 61 at 15lb/sq.in. boost:
at 6000ft = 338mph
at 10000ft = 356mph

LF.IXc (B.S.543), Merlin 66 at 18lb/sq.in. boost:
at SL = 336mph
at 2000ft = 345mph
at 6000ft = 363mph
at 10000ft = 380mph

JG53Frankyboy
02-14-2007, 04:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
its the F.vb 1941 thats porked, bob i hope gives us all the differnt MkVs there were. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

indeed ! it would be nice if there will be further "channel Adons" for , lets say 1941-43 , to have the different Mk.Vs.......

as example how it changed even for a "normal" F. Mark:
F.Vb, Merlin 45 with 9lb/sq.in. boost:
10000ft 331mph
13000ft 343mph
18000ft 363mph
20100ft 371mph (FTH)

F.Vc, Merlin 45 with 16lb/sq.in. boost:
10000ft 357mph
13000ft 369mph (FTH)
18000ft 362mph

Xiolablu3
02-15-2007, 03:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Xiolablu3:
I dont agree that the 109F4 gets too much credit, its the best fighter in 1941 IMO.

I agree that the Spitfire MkV gets too much credit, I think its quite a poor plane in the game.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit Vb a poor plane? That certainly hasn't been our experience. Our Spitfire pilots have done very well against F4s and G2s. If a Bf109 is "untouchable" it is only in a very unrealistic situation. I'd rate the Spit Vb and Bf109F4 very close to equal in practical terms. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WHat I mean is that the 109f4 has a far better climb and top speed than the Spitfire Vb.

It can turn almost as well and has ammo for a much longer stay in combat.

In my opinion, the 109F4 is far far FAR http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. superior to the Spitfire Vb in the game. Are you sure you are not using the Spitfire Vb LF 1942 or 1943?

WHat I meant by untouchable is that anytime a Spitfire gets close he can simply nose down and zoom away.

faustnik
02-15-2007, 03:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

In my opinion, the 109F4 is far far FAR http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. superior to the Spitfire Vb in the game. Are you sure you are not using the Spitfire Vb LF 1942 or 1943?

WHat I meant by untouchable is that anytime a Spitfire gets close he can simply nose down and zoom away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I'm very sure that it's plain old Vbs. The F4s are fast, but, the Spits climb just as well and turn better. At least, that's what our guys flying Spit Vbs have said. Our Cobras seem to able to catch the F4s, so, the plane mix might contribute to our impression. Of course, simply running away doesn't help the LW much in the campaign. They are either attacking our bombers or protecting theirs.

Xiolablu3
02-15-2007, 03:44 PM
Maybe its just my opinion then, but I really hate the Spitfire Vb 1941 in the game. I find it really underpowered whereas the 109F4 feels great.

If a SPitfire Vb gets even slightly close, I can nose down and leave him in the dust. I then extend, he gives up the chase (he has no choice, he can not catch me) , and I climb and attack again.

I am SURE the 109F4 has a better climb than the Spitfire Vb 1941. Could be wrong tho.

I remember 3 of us in 109F4's taking on 6 SPitfire Vb's and winning. We kept above them at all times, anytime one got close we dragged them and shot them off each others tail with no real danger to each other (they were always out of guns range)

I collided with the very last one as I B&Zed it, but essentially we got all 6 and should have had no loses. Just my stupidity meant that I died. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I know this means nothing in the grand scheme of things, but its just an example http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
02-15-2007, 04:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Maybe its just my opinion then, but I really hate the Spitfire Vb 1941 in the game. I find it really underpowered whereas the 109F4 feels great. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, your opinion is certainly valid and may be determined by the environment that you are flying in. I just don't think the 109s are uber as many people seem to. Certainly the F4 and G2 are very great fighters for their time period, but, they are far from unbeatable.

As far as the Spit Vb, if you gave me the choice between the Vb and the Cobra, I'm taking the Cobra. Of course, that matches up perfectly with the historical opinion of the Soviet pilots in the Kuban. So, Oleg has recreated the planes the the environment very well! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

As far as choosing a F4 or G2, I'll do it if there is absolutely no chance of getting any version of Fw190 instead, and I have to fly blue. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
02-15-2007, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I remember 3 of us in 109F4's taking on 6 SPitfire Vb's and winning. We kept above them at all times, anytime one got close we dragged them and shot them off each others tail with no real danger to each other (they were always out of guns range) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The difference between charts and war stories are circumstances and tactics.
You done put tactics to use there. It is very unfair to those that play at statistics.
You bad, bad person, you! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG53Frankyboy
02-15-2007, 04:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
.......... Our Cobras seem to able to catch the F4s, so, the plane mix might contribute to our impression. Of course, simply running away doesn't help the LW much in the campaign. They are either attacking our bombers or protecting theirs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

which Cobra version ?

Xiolablu3
02-15-2007, 04:15 PM
Hehe, the point i was trying to make is that rather than try and dogfight with the SPitfires, we used our straight line speed and power to beat them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Its the same tactics we use in the FW190 really.

[BFs]Firelok made a great map called 'Hastings' for Ukded2 which has 109F4/109E4 Jabos/Stukas attacking a harbour in Hastings defended by SPitfire V's, Hurricanes, and P400's. Thats great fun and like Faust says, many prefer the P400 (P39) to the SPitfire Vb as its capable of keeping up with the Bf109F4's in top speed.

faustnik
02-15-2007, 04:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:

which Cobra version ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are flying D1s and D2s now. They are very good fighters if you use historical Kuban tactics. There is no way that the 109 guys are getting any free pass. Spit Vbs, P-39s, La5s, Lagg-3s, Yak-1 and Yak-7s are all very capable.

WWMaxGunz
02-15-2007, 05:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Hehe, the point i was trying to make is that rather than try and dogfight with the SPitfires, we used our straight line speed and power to beat them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Its the same tactics we use in the FW190 really. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you know very well how you can match the stories with the models as they are?
IE, success of plane X in a story don't prove a need to 'crank up the plane X turn rate!'.

Richardsen
02-16-2007, 11:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
Yep. The LF V in game is far from correct.
IRL LF Vs outperformed IX at low altitudes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Richardson, dont want to halt your Cursade to unpork the Vb L.F but I think you want to check your IL2 and RL figures. The IL2 LF Vb comfortably outperforms the Spitfire IX Merlin 61 it does not beat the IX LF Merlin 66 the one we have in game. If you look at the sea level speed figures the L.F Vb reaches a tad over 520 km/h at sea level this compares very favourably to the IX LF which reaches around 538 km/h, and the Fw 190 A4 which reaches 540 km/h.

Its low altitude climb rate is fantastic for a 'undermodelled' aircraft being around 21m/s. This outclasses the Fw 190 A4/5/6/8 and Bf 109 F2/4/G6/G6 Late. While of course possessing a turn performance that would embarress an I-16.

The Vb L.F is a great below 10,000ft fighter. It is superior to the initial Spitfire IXs below 10,000ft and only just superseded by the later Spitfire IX L.Fs. I dont see what is wrong with it? It was a stop gap solution, it was a great fighter in its element but it still couldnt catch faster opponents in real life. It took the advent of the Typhoon for the RAF to have an AC fast enough to catch low altitude Jabos over England, even the LF IX couldnt catch a Fw 190 at sea level so why should an older, slower, interim aircraft like the VB LF be able to ?

I certainly kick arse when I fly the LF Vb online, dont see anything wrong with it against even later types like the G2 and A5. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The LF Vs is superior to LF IX at low altitudes. The V is more manouverable, it accelerates faster, same or better climb rate.

There is one thing that make the LF IX a superior aircraft , better performance at mid-high altitude

Xiolablu3
02-16-2007, 11:52 AM
Its the lack of cannon ammo in the mkVb's I hate, one combat with my average &lt;gunstat and I am rtb for more cannon ammo.

I prefer the one cannon but more firing time of the 109F4 which is totally adequate for 1941 armour in the game.

I agree one 20mm is lacking in 1943-45, but I will always be flying a FW190 at this time if I am flying blue so its not an issue for me.

faustnik
02-16-2007, 11:57 AM
Xio,

After our discussion here, I got shot down by a G2 in one of last night's missions. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Xiolablu3
02-16-2007, 12:25 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I apologise, I reckon I put all sorts of doubts in your mind about the Spit Vb now. If I had not said anything, you would have owned all night http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Was it a 1941 Spitfire Vb? If it was then I am not surprised, and you do well if you can normally take on good human 109G2 pilots in that plane.

faustnik
02-16-2007, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Was it a 1941 Spitfire Vb? If it was then I am not surprised, and you do well if you can normally take on good human 109G2 pilots in that plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I was flying an La5 (first series), we don't have any Spitfires available at this time. We have a mix of Yak1Bs, Yak-7Bs, La5s, P-39Ds, Lagg-3s and I-16s. The LW has a mix of F2s, F4s, G2s and A4s. The matchup is very good, as I said, the Bf109 pilots don't get a free pass.

Getting shot down was purely my fault, I pressed too hard trying to save a comrade and got bounced. So, we lost two planes instead of one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Fortunately, I got my licks in first, so, it was still a good night.

JG53Frankyboy
02-16-2007, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:

The LF Vs is superior to LF IX at low altitudes. The V is more manouverable, it accelerates faster, same or better climb rate.

There is one thing that make the LF IX a superior aircraft , better performance at mid-high altitude </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and speed is not important ?

just in case you missed it:
LF.Vb (W.3228), Merlin 50M at 18lb/sq.in. boost:
at 2000ft = 334mph
at 5900ft = 350mph (FTH)

F.IXc (B.F.274), Merlin 61 at 15lb/sq.in. boost:
at 6000ft = 338mph
at 10000ft = 356mph

LF.IXc (B.S.543), Merlin 66 at 18lb/sq.in. boost:
at SL = 336mph
at 2000ft = 345mph
at 6000ft = 363mph
at 10000ft = 380mph

WWMaxGunz
02-16-2007, 04:35 PM
Aren't the LF's optimized for lower alts?
Don't they have smaller radius compressor fans and lower critical alts?
Don't those superchargers run at less load to the engine?

From what I've read, many (not all) superchargers put a certain % load on the engine in any
one gear compressing air going into the manifold. And there, a plate controlled by the
throttle allows a certain amount of air to flow into the engine. At low altitudes the
plate may not open all the way because that would overboost the engine and without some
kind of variable speed control you have to do that in order to have full boost at some
higher altitude so until you get that high you are wasting engine power compressing excess
air against the plate. With a lower critical alt you get away with less waste, you need
make less compression of air to have full compression at the lower critical and therefore
save a load of engine power. The same power engine thus has more power for the prop...
which makes engine-only power comparisons a kind of joke.

Richardsen
02-18-2007, 06:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:

The LF Vs is superior to LF IX at low altitudes. The V is more manouverable, it accelerates faster, same or better climb rate.

There is one thing that make the LF IX a superior aircraft , better performance at mid-high altitude </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and speed is not important ?

just in case you missed it:
LF.Vb (W.3228), Merlin 50M at 18lb/sq.in. boost:
at 2000ft = 334mph
at 5900ft = 350mph (FTH)

F.IXc (B.F.274), Merlin 61 at 15lb/sq.in. boost:
at 6000ft = 338mph
at 10000ft = 356mph

LF.IXc (B.S.543), Merlin 66 at 18lb/sq.in. boost:
at SL = 336mph
at 2000ft = 345mph
at 6000ft = 363mph
at 10000ft = 380mph </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That LF Vb has a merlin 50m engine, later the LFs where fitted with Merlin 55m engine and that gave an increased performance.

Less draggier airframe, same power, and weights 1000 pounds less.

Top speed: Identical at sea level, but higher it goes, IX will have the advantage.

Climb: LF V will leave the LF IX at initial stages, but problably it will catch up at around 10-15000 feet

Dive: IX wins

Manoeuvrability: The LF V 1000 pounds lighter, the answer would be obvious.


Speed is important, but the IX has only a slight advantage in spedd

Kettenhunde
02-18-2007, 10:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and speed is not important ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That little bit of speed gain will be almost unnoticeable in the air.

Aircraft accelerate very rapidly out of the low speed realm but on the other side of L/D max acceleration slows down dramatically in power producing aircraft in the high speed realm.

All the best,

Crumpp

VW-IceFire
02-18-2007, 10:34 AM
Tiny bits of speed gain can come in handy when you're involved in one of those high speed chases from 10,000 feet down onto the deck. You want to hold onto as much speed as possible in those situations and having the extra power I find is important. It can make all the difference sometimes. But not in the usual close in dogfights.

Xiolablu3
02-18-2007, 10:35 AM
Surely the increased power of the IX would help it very much in things like climb rate and sustained turn?

In the game for example, when the numbers for each are keyed into the IL2 engine, the difference between the VbLF and the IX is quite noticable IMO.
The IX feels much more powerful. Then again I really dont fly the LFV 1943 very much.

COuld you answer me a question Richardsen? (or anyone else who would be so kind..')

Could you write me a quick comparison of the difference between the Seafire III LF 1943, Spitfire VbLF 1942, Spitfire VbLF 1943?

There is a 1943 map on a server I playon which has this collection of SPits. I always take the Seafire III because of the increase in cannon ammo, and I can also take a bomb if I want to take out the AAA. I am interested to know how much performance I am losing to the other Spits.

Richardsen
02-18-2007, 12:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Surely the increased power of the IX would help it very much in things like climb rate and sustained turn?

In the game for example, when the numbers for each are keyed into the IL2 engine, the difference between the VbLF and the IX is quite noticable IMO.
The IX feels much more powerful. Then again I really dont fly the LFV 1943 very much.

COuld you answer me a question Richardsen? (or anyone else who would be so kind..')

Could you write me a quick comparison of the difference between the Seafire III LF 1943, Spitfire VbLF 1942, Spitfire VbLF 1943?

There is a 1943 map on a server I playon which has this collection of SPits. I always take the Seafire III because of the increase in cannon ammo, and I can also take a bomb if I want to take out the AAA. I am interested to know how much performance I am losing to the other Spits. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The LF V IRL is a better turner because it weights 1000 pounds less with same power.
It also climbs better at low altitudes than the IX.

The 1943 LF is the same aircraft as the 1941 just with clipped wings, the 1942 LF is a version boosted for low altitude use.



The Seafire III has the same engine as LF V but weights more, tail hook, attachments for catapult use and folding wings made the aircraft heavier.

Kettenhunde
02-18-2007, 01:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Tiny bits of speed gain can come in handy when you're involved in one of those high speed chases from 10,000 feet down onto the deck. You want to hold onto as much speed as possible in those situations and having the extra power I find is important. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Icefire,

You are correct for the situations you describe. I don't know how things are in your game.

However I was speaking about real power producer's in general.

In a power producing aircraft it takes much longer to accelerate in the high speed realm of flight. Thrust producer's are much better at accelerating in this region of flight. Remember it is thrust not power which moves the aircraft.

It takes you average WWII fighter several minutes to acelerate to top speed. Acelerating from the stall to L/Dmax takes a matter of seconds. The thrust producing propeller is much better at converting power to thrust at low velocity and the drag resistance is diminishing with each gain in forward velocity. It is getting beyond L/Dmax to the drag wall that takes the majority of the time. Here the propeller produces significantly less thrust and our drag resistance builds with each gain in velocity.

Remember in a power producer, Maximum range cruise occurs at L/Dmax. We can see by examining the maximum range cruise speeds of the Spitfire Mk IX and V series that definitively the MkIX was the better aircraft.

The Spitfire Mk V series maximum range cruise occurs between 150mph IAS to 170 mph IAS depending on load out and altitude. The Spitfire Mk IX series maximum range cruise occurs at 170mph IAS to 200mph IAS depending on altitude and load out.

In a matter of seconds the Mk IX series would be 20-30 mph faster than the Spitfire Mk V series. It would maintain this lead throughout the flight envelope. Another way to look at it would be the very best of the Mk V series was equal to the worst of the Mk IX series.

Hope that helps some!

All the best,

Crumpp

Richardsen
02-18-2007, 03:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Tiny bits of speed gain can come in handy when you're involved in one of those high speed chases from 10,000 feet down onto the deck. You want to hold onto as much speed as possible in those situations and having the extra power I find is important. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Icefire,

You are correct for the situations you describe. I don't know how things are in your game.

However I was speaking about real power producer's in general.

In a power producing aircraft it takes much longer to accelerate in the high speed realm of flight. Thrust producer's are much better at accelerating in this region of flight. Remember it is thrust not power which moves the aircraft.

It takes you average WWII fighter several minutes to acelerate to top speed. Acelerating from the stall to L/Dmax takes a matter of seconds. The thrust producing propeller is much better at converting power to thrust at low velocity and the drag resistance is diminishing with each gain in forward velocity. It is getting beyond L/Dmax to the drag wall that takes the majority of the time. Here the propeller produces significantly less thrust and our drag resistance builds with each gain in velocity.

Remember in a power producer, Maximum range cruise occurs at L/Dmax. We can see by examining the maximum range cruise speeds of the Spitfire Mk IX and V series that definitively the MkIX was the better aircraft.

The Spitfire Mk V series maximum range cruise occurs between 150mph IAS to 170 mph IAS depending on load out and altitude. The Spitfire Mk IX series maximum range cruise occurs at 170mph IAS to 200mph IAS depending on altitude and load out.

In a matter of seconds the Mk IX series would be 20-30 mph faster than the Spitfire Mk V series. It would maintain this lead throughout the flight envelope. Another way to look at it would be the very best of the Mk V series was equal to the worst of the Mk IX series.

Hope that helps some!

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The mark IX did outperform the LF Vs at mid-high altitudes, but not below 10000ft.

I read an article once with Alex Henshaw, he said that the late LF Vs where superb at low altitude.

Kettenhunde
02-18-2007, 03:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The mark IX did outperform the LF Vs at mid-high altitudes, but not below 10000ft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hi Richardson,

Remember, top Speeds and climb rates have a very inflated importance to gamers. The reality is you need some very large gaps in these parameters to be noticeable in the air.

I am sure some MkV variants were excellent at low altitudes and very much loved by their pilots.

The fact that the MkIX's L/Dmax occurs at a higher velocity does not change. The very best Mk V's were equal to the worst Mk IX variants.

In any kind of maneuvering fight, the Spitfire Mk IX will be superior. I did not say a level turning fight, so please do not get confused. Level turns are not very useful in fighter combat unless the other pilot decides to play that game too. The Mk IX pays less of a penalty at a higher velocity and has more power available to maneuver than the Mk V series. If the Mk IX flies his numbers he will beat the Mk V pilot all things being equal. The MkIX is the better plane hands down.

That is why it replaced the Mk V series! The engineers who designed the Mk IX very much knew what they were doing!

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
02-18-2007, 04:32 PM
In a very general comparison, I have gathered the opinion from reading very many historical accounts from pilots and historians.

Almost every comparison I have ever read says basically how the Spitfire mkV and Me109F were close in terms of performance, but with the 109F being slightly superior in terms of a combat aeroplane. They usually speak of the SPitfire mkV being able to 'hold its own' vs the Bf109F, but the 109 was the superior plane.

Also I have gathered that the MkIX is generally superior as a fighting aeroplane to the contemporary 1943 Bf109G6's.

This is a very poor piece of writing with regard to actually how good each plane was, obviously some were better than others in certain areas. BUT - alomost all sources agree that the MkIX SPitfire was a large step forward in terms of performance. With the MkV being just able to hold its own vs the Bf109F, but totally outclassed by the FW190A3/A4. And the Spitfire MkIX being comparable to the contemporary Fw190's, and the question of which is the better fighting aeroplane completely coming down to exactly what type of fight is occuring and the tactics used.

This is the first time I have heard someone talk down the MkIX and talk up the MkV Spitfires, really. I understand that there were many different versions of the MkV, but I would tend ot agree with Kettenhund and WMaxGuns in the fact that the Spitfire mkIX was a much bigger improvement in terms of a 'fighting aeroplane' than just the top speed numbers suggest.

Yes I just wrote a load of b*ll*cks in terms of a scientific report, but I think it sums up the sources I have read and the opinon I have formed, in the time I have been raeading about WW2 planes (about 10 years)

Richardsen
02-18-2007, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The mark IX did outperform the LF Vs at mid-high altitudes, but not below 10000ft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hi Richardson,

Remember, top Speeds and climb rates have a very inflated importance to gamers. The reality is you need some very large gaps in these parameters to be noticeable in the air.

I am sure some MkV variants were excellent at low altitudes and very much loved by their pilots.

The fact that the MkIX's L/Dmax occurs at a higher velocity does not change. The very best Mk V's were equal to the worst Mk IX variants.

In any kind of maneuvering fight, the Spitfire Mk IX will be superior. I did not say a level turning fight, so please do not get confused. Level turns are not very useful in fighter combat unless the other pilot decides to play that game too. The Mk IX pays less of a penalty at a higher velocity and has more power available to maneuver than the Mk V series. If the Mk IX flies his numbers he will beat the Mk V pilot all things being equal. The MkIX is the better plane hands down.

That is why it replaced the Mk V series! The engineers who designed the Mk IX very much knew what they were doing!

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't get it. The IX is the same aircraft with a slightly longer nose because of the two stage SC.
The are equaly power wise, but the IX weights more.
The Vs where also slightly less draggier.

What i have been told and read, the late Vs where superior at low altitude