PDA

View Full Version : Mighty Spitfire



Takamaka
02-27-2007, 06:10 PM
Here is one funny ride to take your favorite crate on.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

In QMB select your plane, make sure that complex engine management is on, and that you are flying on the Crimee map, then do the following. <UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>If your plane has cowl flaps make sure those cowl flaps are closed.
<LI>If you have WEP, make sure WEP is on.
<LI>If you have manual propeller pitch management, make sure the pitch is set at 100%.
<LI>If any of the previous task can be handled automatically by your plane, please keep it on automatic.
<LI>Because you will fly low during that ride, make sure the supercharger for your engine is set properly.
<LI>Make sure that you take 100% of fuel, but do not take any tanks it should be enough.
<LI>At NO TIME during your flight you should move the throttle back or open cowl flaps or turn off the WEP or change the propeller pitch.[/list]

Now trim your plane to fly level, your mission today is to time how much time it takes for your engine to break down from the time you have the message "Engine Overheating".

My measurement are not accurate but to give you an idea, a Yak with VK-107 will be able to handle this rough handling for around 6.5 minutes... same thing for a D9, a poor P-51D will handle this around 2.8 minutes...

But so far no plane is beating up the Spit IX+25 (I did not have the patience to fly any other spit now). This amazing piece of engineering ran out of fuel before suffering any breakdown (the chronometer was giving 23 minutes of torture of the engine). Amazingly enough, the Spit IX+25 was the only plane I tested that saw it's coolant or oil temperature running cooler as the engine was roughly handled. I discovered it by mistake, while multitasking I was checking the manual of '46 on another PC, when I saw that my triming was off for the Spitfire I changed from one computer to another and at that time the plane was slowing down a bit getting some altitude the message "engine overheating" disappeared.

Yanking the stick a bit to reduce the foward speed and have the message disappearing did work for my test so far only on the spitfire (where simply a change in the attitude can have that annoying message disappearing).

No I come with an innocent question... is it a normal behavior mechanically speaking?

Takamaka
02-27-2007, 06:10 PM
Here is one funny ride to take your favorite crate on.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

In QMB select your plane, make sure that complex engine management is on, and that you are flying on the Crimee map, then do the following. <UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>If your plane has cowl flaps make sure those cowl flaps are closed.
<LI>If you have WEP, make sure WEP is on.
<LI>If you have manual propeller pitch management, make sure the pitch is set at 100%.
<LI>If any of the previous task can be handled automatically by your plane, please keep it on automatic.
<LI>Because you will fly low during that ride, make sure the supercharger for your engine is set properly.
<LI>Make sure that you take 100% of fuel, but do not take any tanks it should be enough.
<LI>At NO TIME during your flight you should move the throttle back or open cowl flaps or turn off the WEP or change the propeller pitch.[/list]

Now trim your plane to fly level, your mission today is to time how much time it takes for your engine to break down from the time you have the message "Engine Overheating".

My measurement are not accurate but to give you an idea, a Yak with VK-107 will be able to handle this rough handling for around 6.5 minutes... same thing for a D9, a poor P-51D will handle this around 2.8 minutes...

But so far no plane is beating up the Spit IX+25 (I did not have the patience to fly any other spit now). This amazing piece of engineering ran out of fuel before suffering any breakdown (the chronometer was giving 23 minutes of torture of the engine). Amazingly enough, the Spit IX+25 was the only plane I tested that saw it's coolant or oil temperature running cooler as the engine was roughly handled. I discovered it by mistake, while multitasking I was checking the manual of '46 on another PC, when I saw that my triming was off for the Spitfire I changed from one computer to another and at that time the plane was slowing down a bit getting some altitude the message "engine overheating" disappeared.

Yanking the stick a bit to reduce the foward speed and have the message disappearing did work for my test so far only on the spitfire (where simply a change in the attitude can have that annoying message disappearing).

No I come with an innocent question... is it a normal behavior mechanically speaking?

HellToupee
02-27-2007, 08:58 PM
try it at 6k meters

VW-IceFire
02-27-2007, 10:04 PM
Sounds odd...but the Spitfire's overheat has always been odd. When we got our first Spitfire in the game, the Mark V, you couldn't run for more than a few minutes above 70%. It was a huge challenge to do anything with it. Then it was fixed and never had an overheat. Then we got the IX and the problems happened again.

Something in the modeling is a wee bit mixed up...it seems to from extreme to extreme. Also height is huge...as HellToupee points out, try it at 6000m or 7000m. Once the second stage kicks in the overheat is quite a bit more significant.

Stefan-R
02-28-2007, 03:13 AM
This test doens't make any sense.

As the Spitfire IX has an automatic radiator, the radiator will open and coolant and oil temperature will be reduced. On the other planes (Yak, P51) the radiator will stay closed and the engine will take faster damage. So you compare apples with pears.

Now the think with disapearing "Overheat"-Message in the climb: In the climb your planes got slower, allowing the radiator to be open more.

Brain32
02-28-2007, 04:43 AM
Ahh the first apologists are already here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

P51 also has automatic rads.

stathem
02-28-2007, 05:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Takamaka:
No I come with an innocent question... is it a normal behavior mechanically speaking? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I used to have a BMW 2002Tii. I decided I wanted to go racing so I tuned the snot out of the engine, fitted a bigger blower, up the boost pressure, fitted an intercooler but ran the intercooler water through the standard radiator. Well, what-do-ya know, one summer's day out racing the temperature gauge kept rising but I kept ignoring it until eventually a big cloud of steam came out, shortly followed by bits of my engine.

Well that was obviously rubbish, so I got rid of it and bought a Triumph Spitfire. I also tuned the nads out of this one, blueprinting it, lightened and balanced, high lift cam and some huge valves. Big pair of downdraft Webers. But this time I fitted a much larger radiator from a Stag. I dry-sumped it and fitted a big-assed oil cooler.

It wasn't as quick as the Beamer but at least I used to finish races.

hop2002
02-28-2007, 05:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">P51 also has automatic rads. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mustang has both automatic and manual positions. The Spitfire only has automatic, with no manual override.

There's another point about the Spitfire radiators, though. They cannot close. The Spitfire has two radiator positions, which are fully open and half open. Even at their half open setting, the Spitfire gets a lot of cooling.

I actually have the Spitfire cooling test results, which I have posted here in the past, although people seem to prefer their preconceptions rather than an actual test.

Put simply, with radiators half open, at 25 lbs boost, in tropical summer conditions, after 5 minutes at maximum power in level flight, the engine is still way below the temperature at which the radiators would open, let alone the temperature at which the engine would begin to overheat.

Open the radiators, and I don't think the engine would ever overheat in level flight.

Still, those are only test results, and therefore a lot less valid than people's expectations.

Irish_Rogues
02-28-2007, 07:06 AM
It's a legend, be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Takamaka
02-28-2007, 07:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This test doens't make any sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That maybe why you should do the test. With the tests in hand you will reach your own conclusion I am sure.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I actually have the Spitfire cooling test results, which I have posted here in the past, although people seem to prefer their preconceptions rather than an actual test. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Excellent do you mind posting those reference on that thread again?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Open the radiators, and I don't think the engine would ever overheat in level flight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is actually a preconception not a result of a test right?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Still, those are only test results, and therefore a lot less valid than people's expectations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please, if possible publish it here again. Thank you in advance.


On the other hand, I may have been wrong to assume that by moving the same volume of air around my engine (roughly maintening speed), and asking my engine to produce the same amount of thrust, it would overtime have a tendency to heat more than a surprising tendancy to see the temperature of the oil and the coolant going down.
Now if my cooling system is super efficient I should probably not even overheat in the first place. If I overheat, this is generally the sign that I am pushing my engine beyond its normal envelope, I assume that at one point in time it will lead to engine breakdown, otherwise it is a moot point and there are no overheating problem. Which incidentally maybe what is happening on the Spitfire.
Again those are my expectations, so let's hope that hop2002 will be able to produce his tests results.

stathem
02-28-2007, 08:08 AM
Why don't you :

1) Grab a cup of coffee and a twenty-deck

2) Do a forum search (here and in GD) for:-

Posts by hop2002&gt;containing "overheat"

then come back next week when you've read them all.

hop2002
02-28-2007, 08:33 AM
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1090694499_climbcropped.jpg

The figures you need for the equation:

suitability = (agreed coolant temperature - summer standard temperature) / (observed coolant temp - actual air temp) are

Agreed coolant temp - 125c (the actual maximum coolant temp was 135c, but they used a lower maximum on the test (always best to err on the safe side)

Appropriate standard summer temp = 27c temperate, 41c tropical. These are sea level temperatures, air temperature drops on average 2c per 1000ft.

The Crimea map is supposed to be standard atmosphere. The current international standard atmosphere has a temperature of 15c at sea level, Crimea should be close to that.

I think that's all you need, but if you've got questions, fire away. I've got tired of working out the resulting temperatures myself, though, especially as no one seems to care about the tested results, they just want Oleg to meet their preconceptions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is actually a preconception not a result of a test right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, call it an educated guess, based on the test results, rather than a preconception. Unfortunately, they didn't try radiators open speed runs, because radiators closed worked well enough, even in tropical summer conditions. But the radiator area roughly doubled when the radiators were fully open, and that's going to provide a lot more cooling.

Brain32
02-28-2007, 08:33 AM
Point one: Spitfire has unlimited WEP time
Point two: Real Spitfire did not have unlimited WEP time
Conclusion: Fill it up for yourself.
Over and out.

XyZspineZyX
02-28-2007, 09:58 AM
So what if the "Engine overheat" message comes on? Is the plane actually overheating?

Takamaka
02-28-2007, 10:12 AM
Thanks a lot Hop2002 for those data, that saves me a search. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Point one: Spitfire has unlimited WEP time
Point two: Real Spitfire did not have unlimited WEP time
Conclusion: Fill it up for yourself.
Over and out.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The WEP "simulation" is far from being the best point of this game, and if what you say may be partially valid for the Spitfire, it is also true of almost every planes with WEP.

Again, what seems odd to me (but I am guessing), is that I have an engine overheating and that all things equally considered, by changing the attitude of my aircraft, it stops overheating.
Now it may be that the spitfire does not and did not overheat, but then if it does not why bother having a "overheating" message (again I guess that simulation wise, which may differ from real life, there is overheating for the engine). Also please take in consideration that I never said that this was giving any advantage to the spitfire compared to any plane, as one will notice the engine may be taking is toll at the end of that rough handling... it does not however breakdown. Is it normal, it may very well be, is it surprising, well it did surprise me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

JG14_Josf
02-28-2007, 10:51 AM
Overheating due to insufficient cooling can occur when an engine is running at idle.

An engine running at power settings that are above the physical limits of the engine cannot be prevented from damage by any amount of cooling. The engine will make metal' and that is why mechanics cut open oil filters.

There is a reason why a wire was placed in the throttle gate on the Spitfire no?

Imagine a pilot trying to fool the mechanics by replacing the wire as if it was never broken.

Takamaka
02-28-2007, 12:27 PM
Hop2002, in regard to my silly tests and your documentation, can you try to explain to me what max cruise and all out in term of settings mean?
Remember I do my silly tests with WEP on, and throttle all the way up, so I assume that it is by stressing the engine way more than using Max. Cruise speed settings. However, I do not know what all-out means, does it actually means maximum power settings and does it actually mean use of the WEP altogether?

Also, on my flight, the maximum temperature reach by the coolant was 127C which stay well below the 135C that the actual coolant temperature. While the oil temperature at the exit of the engine never go above 98.52C.
The actual graph of the temperature would be in synchronisation however with the fact that when the overheating starts, the radiator are kept shut, until the coolant reach 125C (which takes a long time). At that point the radiator are probably open and the oil temperature start going down by 5-7 degree, while the coolant keep getting higher reaching the 127... At 127 another stage is probably reached and more cooling is added "sic" which has the immediate result to drop steadily and abruptly the coolant temperature by a mere 15C and the Oil temperature by another 3-5C.
This would be fit with 3 levels for the radiators, closed, half opened, and then fully opened. In the mean time the intake oil temperature does not change noticeably, staying around 60C.
Also one has to bear in mind that during all my fly, the rpm are kept steady around 3000 @ 25lb.
Of course I should try to see if I can correlate the drop in temperature with increase of the drag, then I would have a winner.

hop2002
02-28-2007, 01:06 PM
Firstly, I've got to apologise for being a bit snippy. I didn't mean to imply your tests were silly. It's just that this subject has been raised before, and evidence doesn't seem to matter. Looking at your registered date, you probably weren't even here last time it was discussed.

Maximum cruise, for this test at least, was 2650 rpm, 7 lbs boost.

"All out" is frequent British usage for WEP. Combat power is also used, but that conflicts with German usage where combat power is not maximum power.

Anyway, "all out" for this test was 3000 rpm, 25 lbs boost. That's maximum possible power.

The procedure for the test was to run for 10 minutes at cruise power, then 5 minutes all out. The oil temperatures and radiator suitability for cruising were stabilised values, which means they had ceased to go up. The figures for all out level were the values reached at the end of 5 minutes.

If you work out the temperatures at cruise, and then at the end of the all out run, you will get the increase after 5 minutes at maximum power. You can then extrapolate how long to reach overheat. However, the rate of increase is not linear, as the hotter the coolant and oil get, the more heat they transfer to the air, so the rate of increase slows down. Eventually, they too will stabilise, but I have no idea at what temperature that would be.

As to the game, there should only be 2 radiator settings, open and closed. Early Spitfire IXs had a thermostat that prevented coolant flowing to the radiators until it reached a certain temperature, to prevent over cooling, but they deleted it in later aircraft.

The radiators should also open at 115c.

As to the coolant temperature continuing to rise slightly after the oil temperature starts to drop, the coolant temperature in the test is measured at the outlet from the engine. The oil temperature is at the inlet to the engine. I think that means coolant is measured before the radiator, oil afterwards, so I would expect there to be some difference in how quickly they respond to the radiator opening.

EctoGamma
02-28-2007, 01:21 PM
I turn off over heat! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

ploughman
02-28-2007, 02:12 PM
I did a run in the Spit IX 25 lbs on the Crimea map, 0-20m (after a wee while settling in), balls to the wall.

It took about 12 minutes before the engine started losing power and I dropped from 569 kph to 554 kph. After about 15 minutes the engine really crapped out and the speed began visibly dropping off at about 1kph/s.

I got track if you can be bothered.

jermin122
02-28-2007, 11:36 PM
How long can the WEP on Spit last in RL, then?

HellToupee
03-01-2007, 03:53 AM
could probly go quite a while on wep so coukd most planes engines run far longer than 5minutes on wep, i think bench tested merlins could go for many hours at max power. Mosquito lancasters etc often ran all out full for long periods.

While spit didnt have overheat problems the overheat model in game is to force people to realistic engine limitations.

tigertalon
03-01-2007, 05:47 AM
When I was testing various planes for overheat, I did a slight modification of your test.

Planes get more cooling the faster they go. So, to reduce cooling but keep the rads open and engine on max while flying at 0 alt, I jammed landing flaps and performed a straight run at sea level. Be sure that you start slow and high, deploy full landing flaps and then jam them by diving, otherwise they might jam before they fully extend.

Second test was done during a full power sustained climb from 0 on, climbing at approx 200kph.

JG14_Josf
03-01-2007, 06:11 AM
Headquarters, FIGHTER COMMAND (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/dowding1.jpg)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">HANDLING of MERLIN in HURRICANE, SPITFIRE and DEFIANT AIRCRAFT

A resent increase in the number of engine failures, due to the failure of bearings, is an indication that some pilots are over-stepping the engine limitations laid down in the Pilot's handbook.

2. The use of the automatic boost cut out control enables the pilot to get an emergency boost of + 12 lbs. per sq. in. from the engine for 5 minutes when circumstance demand it. Some pilots "pull the plug" with little excuse on every occasion.

3. The introduction of Constant Speed Airscrews permits an increase in the rate of climb. This has led some pilots to climb their aircraft at too steep an angle, with the result that there is a considerably diminished forward speed and the engine does not receive the cooling which it...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Merlin II and III (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/ap1590b.jpg)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">11. The use, in an emergency, of this high boost pressure is a definite overload condition on this engine and therefore all occasions on which it is essential to make use of the + 12 lb/sq.in. must be reported by the pilot and recorded in the engine log book so that the engineer officer may be able to asses the reduction of life between overhauls and the need for special inspections. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The time it takes for a bearing (under extreme overload) to go from being cool enough to work and then heating up to being burnt can be small, perhaps seconds, and then the bearing fails. The heat accelerates the rate of damage which accelerates the heat. Failure can be nearly instantaneous.

An engineer can estimate the hour at which the engine will fail from overload.
A mechanic can estimate the hour at which the engine will fail by cutting open an oil filter and measuring the weight of the metal trapped in the filter. Chances are that there will also be metal throughout the lubrication system, in sumps, pans, pumps, galleys, heads, screens, and such.

When the heat starts due to over-load there isn't a whole lot of time left before the required rebuild - certainly less time than required to fly back from France.

If the maximum time under over-load power settings is absolutely constant for all engines, then, those engines are made under very strict (impossible) tolerances. One engine may last forever under the power settings that another engine (of the same type) will not last more than 20 minutes.

One engine type at constant power' settings will run forever (theoretically) so long as none of the parts are below tolerance.
One engine of the type' may be a lemon that was made on Tuesday after a three day weekend.

BBB_Hyperion
03-01-2007, 06:31 AM
Do you have the same info for 190 hop2002 ?

The cooling system there i compared data from ta152 cooling values with in game values. Result was that ingame colling is worse than rl . But this seems to go for all planes. The cooling system is most likely simplyfied.

ploughman
03-01-2007, 07:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
When I was testing various planes for overheat, I did a slight modification of your test.

Planes get more cooling the faster they go. So, to reduce cooling but keep the rads open and engine on max while flying at 0 alt, I jammed landing flaps and performed a straight run at sea level. Be sure that you start slow and high, deploy full landing flaps and then jam them by diving, otherwise they might jam before they fully extend.

Second test was done during a full power sustained climb from 0 on, climbing at approx 200kph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By placing the spit on the deck of a stationary CV (chocks in), engine running at full tilt, engine broke at 9 minutes which is 5 minutes faster than in flight.

Not sure what that demonstrates, except the rads work.

Brain32
03-01-2007, 09:10 AM
I just did a run with Spit25 in Crimea map at 6000m, I ran it at max power for as long as it had fuel(100%) without engine damage!
It has the good ol' "feature" where overheat message goes away for a milisecond and then it returns back.

*track available in *.ntrk format http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

ploughman
03-01-2007, 10:10 AM
Well, of course, up there a Merlin could go all day. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Viper2005_
03-01-2007, 03:59 PM
IRL most Merlins could be run at WEP for as long as fuel remained in the tanks (some used water injection, NOX or even LOX & therefore couldn't, but they were very much in the minority). However, doing so would greatly increase the chances of engine failure.

Somewhere in my archives I have data on the torture testing of a Merlin 66 at +18 psi/3000 rpm during its development. Some runs they managed 100 hours + between failures, yet on others failure happened very quickly indeed.

The key point is that engine failures aren't necessarily easily predictable via direct "cause and effect" type logic. That is to say that you cannot take an engine off the production line and say with confidence that it will run for x minutes under certain conditions before failing.

The purpose of the 5 minute limit is to say that, in the worst case scenario, when the engine is old and tired, approaching the end of its overhaul life, the risk of failure associated with running it at +18/3000 for 5 minutes is acceptable.

The chances are that a newer engine would tolerate more abuse.

Perhaps the best analogy is to consider people.

Let's say that the life expectancy within the population is 75. People tend to either die young (infant mortality) or else live to old age.

Now, with that life expectancy of 75, an actury might work out that people have a 90% chance of living to 45 if they make it to 5. If we consider 10% to be an acceptable failure rate, then we may set 40 as the "safe life". This doesn't mean that some people won't die between the ages of 5 and 40. All it means is that the risk associated with that interval is "acceptable".

Push the upper bound to 50 and the survival rate might fall to 85%. If you consider that acceptable, fine...

Some lucky blighter might well get into a Spitfire, and firewall the throttle until the fuel tanks run dry without ill effects. But the next day he might fly another a/c and suffer an engine failure on takeoff (at a mere +12) with fatal consequences...

If the game doled out engine failures on a probabilistic basis, dependent upon previous engine usage habbits*, people might be induced be more gentle with their left hands.

* ie assuming that your aircraft comes from squadron manned by clones of the player.

HellToupee
03-01-2007, 08:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
I just did a run with Spit25 in Crimea map at 6000m, I ran it at max power for as long as it had fuel(100%) without engine damage!
It has the good ol' "feature" where overheat message goes away for a milisecond and then it returns back.

*track available in *.ntrk format http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

watch the radiators when its doing that, ull notice they are moving.

Brain32
03-02-2007, 05:24 AM
And your point is??? You know there are planes in which I can deliberatly fully open my radiators and they will still both, overheat sooner and their engine will die quite soon, looooooong before they run out of fuel...

DKoor
03-02-2007, 09:56 AM
Point is that there's no point in wrong modeling. If that is true.
I don't really know if there is a machine in this world that can go on 100% power all the way as long as you provide fuel.

The funniest part of this whole story is not really modeling in this game, but the fact that some people who, faced with notorious truth, will say notorious lie and try to cover it up with something. Sinking deeper and deeper. All that in the name of...?

There is no point.

Classic UBi forum "feature".

There's also this thread in General's Discussion (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) which gave me a good laugh too. Check it out, fun guaranteed.
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/9731067735

ploughman
03-02-2007, 12:58 PM
Now that is funny. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/%3CFA%3EJaws/dvownedcopy.jpg

WWMaxGunz
03-03-2007, 02:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
And your point is??? You know there are planes in which I can deliberatly fully open my radiators and they will still both, overheat sooner and their engine will die quite soon, looooooong before they run out of fuel... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously IRL they were all made to the same standards of allowable power usage and cooling
capacity. You are soooo right to complain that they do not behave the same in IL2.

And if you can believe that one, I have some stock options for sale.....

Kurfurst__
03-03-2007, 04:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
I actually have the Spitfire cooling test results, which I have posted here in the past, although people seem to prefer their preconceptions rather than an actual test.

Put simply, with radiators half open, at 25 lbs boost, in tropical summer conditions, after 5 minutes at maximum power in level flight, the engine is still way below the temperature at which the radiators would open, let alone the temperature at which the engine would begin to overheat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When Hop says 'tropical summer' conditions, he actually refers to the +5 Celsius or so external temperature during the time of the test (around October 1943)

I really wonder where on Earth 5 Celsius above freeze point is considered Tropical summer. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kurfurst__
03-03-2007, 04:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
How long can the WEP on Spit last in RL, then? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

5 minutes was the specified limit for 'Combat' rating (that`s WEP in British terms). Pretty typical for the aircraft of the era for WEP btw, USAAF planes and early-mid war LW fighter had similiar limits, late war LW fighters with MW-50 injection had 10 minute, late La-5/7 as well. In fact, most Soviet fighter engines had no time limit at all (given their modest outputs), except that oil and lubricant temperatures should stay within the limit.

Of course these limits weren`t carved in stone, but using the WEP for above the designated periods did have a negative effect on engine life.

Brain32
03-03-2007, 06:05 AM
<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 Brain32:
And your point is??? You know there are planes in which I can deliberatly fully open my radiators and they will still both, overheat sooner and their engine will die quite soon, looooooong before they run out of fuel... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously IRL they were all made to the same standards of allowable power usage and cooling
capacity. You are soooo right to complain that they do not behave the same in IL2.

And if you can believe that one, I have some stock options for sale..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look MaxPIA obviously IRL all planes had some kind of stinkin WEP time limitation, obviously in the game most planes DO have some kind of WEP limitation, obviously I have a feckin Spitfire manual, for Spitfires running at standard 18lbs boost that states 5 feckin minutes of WEP limitation, now how does THAT compare to you with FOR AS LONG AS I HAD FUEL!!!
But OK I know I'm on "best Allied performance concievable in SF literature forum" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

JG14_Josf
03-03-2007, 10:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Of course these limits weren`t carved in stone, but using the WEP for above the designated periods did have a negative effect on engine life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The mechanics almost had a heart attack when they saw the manifolds of my D-9, which, glowing red, were hanging down. They had to force the engine cowling open. Reason - I had forgotten to switch off the emergency boost after ten minutes and thus had severely overheated the engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The text before the quote above starts out with a bounce upon Spitfires by 30 D-9s of III./JG 54 at 9:40 am.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Spitfires pursued the Rotte of Fw. Ungar and Ofw. Zech toward the northeast at low level. Not until just short of Hanover did Ungar and Zech suddenly find themselves alone. The Spitfires, probably running low on fuel, had turned back. At 10:00 am the two Focke-Wulfs landed at Hanover-Langenhagen. Fritz Ungar wrote of the landing: (quoted above) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIJG69_Kartofe
03-03-2007, 12:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__I really wonder where on Earth 5 Celsius above freeze point is considered Tropical summer. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Test made by Inuits ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

WWMaxGunz
03-03-2007, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
I have a feckin Spitfire manual, for Spitfires running at standard 18lbs boost that states 5 feckin minutes of WEP limitation, now how does THAT compare to you with FOR AS LONG AS I HAD FUEL!!!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

THAT is perfectly fine except I NEVER SAID JACK ABOUT HOW LONG SPITS SHOULD RUN WEP.

Comparing to other planes real or modeled is not taking the point anywhere.

Does that manual cover all Spitfires -or- all conditions?

WWMaxGunz
03-03-2007, 06:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IIJG69_Kartofe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__I really wonder where on Earth 5 Celsius above freeze point is considered Tropical summer. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Test made by Inuits ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Summer in Alaska is warmer that that ON THE GROUND.

It depends entirely on the altitude doesn't it? Stand on seal level and talk summer is not
the same as nearby mountaintop in the same second. I've been chill on Hawaii at 6500ft
while higher up on the volcano people were snow skiing. Same month I was swimming in warm
water over coral off the old Kona airport.

So if you don't say what altitude then it's an unspecified condition, an unqualified argument.

Kurfurst__
03-04-2007, 04:01 AM
At the start of the trial, outside temperature +4 Celsius measured at 2000 feet or 609 meters. Engine temperature was 78 Celsius. By the time they reached the engine`s rated altitude in climb (16 000 feet, but +25 would only be maintained up to 10 000 feet IIRC), it took 2 min 50 secs, and engine temperature went up to 100 degrees, outside temperature down to -21 degrees (non-linear decrease). Ironically, the conditions are just the same beyond my window here, and I don`t quite feel the Carribbean spirit if I go outside. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The talk about the '+25' lbs Spitfire cooling test is quite misleading, it suggest that even with closed radiators, using the '2000HP' boost, and even that way there was no way it would overheat. That`s false.

They did it with +25 lbs, but that boost couldn`t be maintained for too high altitude, it begun to decrease above 10k feet, and with it, engine output and heat production as well. And since they were climbing with closed radiators, a meager 10k feet altitutude could be reached awfully fast, 2k ft to 10k ft it took just 1 min 34 secs, though the coolant went up to 90 degrees Celsius during that time. In other words, only 1.5 min was spent on +25 lbs in this '+25 lbs cooling test'.

There was simply no time to overheat, they simply run out of rated altitude before that would happen, and they did it on a cold day, with a cool engine to start with. Doing it in a climb obviously helps control engine temp, because as you climb, the outside temperature is decreasing fast - at 32k feet they had -52 Celsius, though engine temp was still increasing above rated altitude, but more slowly, being 106 Celsius at 32k feet.

hop2002
03-04-2007, 06:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When Hop says 'tropical summer' conditions, he actually refers to the +5 Celsius or so external temperature during the time of the test </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, "tropical summer" refers to the test results ADJUSTED FOR A SEA LEVEL TEMPERATURE OF 41C.

The "radiator suitability" results are thus given for temperate summer, 27C, and tropical summer, 41C.

Clear now?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And since they were climbing with closed radiators, a meager 10k feet altitutude could be reached awfully fast, 2k ft to 10k ft it took just 1 min 34 secs, though the coolant went up to 90 degrees Celsius during that time. In other words, only 1.5 min was spent on +25 lbs in this '+25 lbs cooling test'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

More lies Isegrim? The test clearly states 5 minutes at 25 lbs boost in each of the level speed runs. 5 minutes is longer that 1.5 minutes, isn't it?

WWMaxGunz
03-04-2007, 04:01 PM
How do you adjust and what-all was adjusted please?

hop2002
03-04-2007, 05:12 PM
What they did was run the tests in the weather that existed at the time, and correct them to the temperatures that would be reached if it was a tropical summer day (41c) or temperate summer day (27c).

To give an example on the climb at 2,000ft:

Actual outside air temperature was 4c.
Maximum allowed coolant temperature was 125c (for the test only, in real life it was 135c)
Observed coolant temperature was 78c.


The formula they used for adjusting the temps was:
(Maximum allowed coolant temperature - Standard summer air temperature) / (observed coolant temperature - actual air temperature)

The oil temperatures were corrected by applying 70% of the temperature difference. So on the climb at 2,000ft, with outside air temperature of 4c (equivalent to 8c at sea level), whilst actual oil temperature was 56c, they gave figures of 69c for temperate summer, and 79c for tropical summer.

So in the level speed run at 3,000ft, assuming outside air temp was 2c at that altitude:

1.36 = (125c - 21c) / (coolant temp - 2c)
Coolant temp = 78c

So at a sea level temperature of 8c, at 3000ft the coolant temperature would rise to 78c after 10 minutes cruising, 5 minutes maximum power (with radiators shut)

Now, if the test had actually been run on a temperate summer's day, with a sea level temperature of 27c, the results would be:

1.36 = (125c - 21c) / (coolant temp - 21c)
Coolant temp = 97c

And if run on a tropical summer's day, with a sea level temperature of 41c:

1.36 = (125 - 21c) / (coolant temp - 35c)
Coolant temp = 111c

And finally, if run on the Crimea map:

1.36 = (125 - 21) / (coolant temp - 9c)
Coolant temp = 85c (radiators open at 115c, the maximum permissible coolant temp was 135c, so it will take a loooong time to overheat on the Crimea map)

Browning50cal
03-05-2007, 03:37 AM
I see a thread like this and think...

Why don't you just play the game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

B50

Mission Builder forum rules. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

WWMaxGunz
03-05-2007, 05:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
What they did was run the tests in the weather that existed at the time, and correct them to the temperatures that would be reached if it was a tropical summer day (41c) or temperate summer day (27c).

To give an example on the climb at 2,000ft:

Actual outside air temperature was 4c.
Maximum allowed coolant temperature was 125c (for the test only, in real life it was 135c)
Observed coolant temperature was 78c.


The formula they used for adjusting the temps was:
(Maximum allowed coolant temperature - Standard summer air temperature) / (observed coolant temperature - actual air temperature)

The oil temperatures were corrected by applying 70% of the temperature difference. So on the climb at 2,000ft, with outside air temperature of 4c (equivalent to 8c at sea level), whilst actual oil temperature was 56c, they gave figures of 69c for temperate summer, and 79c for tropical summer.

So in the level speed run at 3,000ft, assuming outside air temp was 2c at that altitude:

1.36 = (125c - 21c) / (coolant temp - 2c)
Coolant temp = 78c

So at a sea level temperature of 8c, at 3000ft the coolant temperature would rise to 78c after 10 minutes cruising, 5 minutes maximum power (with radiators shut)

Now, if the test had actually been run on a temperate summer's day, with a sea level temperature of 27c, the results would be:

1.36 = (125c - 21c) / (coolant temp - 21c)
Coolant temp = 97c

And if run on a tropical summer's day, with a sea level temperature of 41c:

1.36 = (125 - 21c) / (coolant temp - 35c)
Coolant temp = 111c

And finally, if run on the Crimea map:

1.36 = (125 - 21) / (coolant temp - 9c)
Coolant temp = 85c (radiators open at 115c, the maximum permissible coolant temp was 135c, so it will take a loooong time to overheat on the Crimea map) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you, I think posts like this should cut down on speculation.

Am I right in understanding that radiators shut means shutter positions are as closed as
they can get which still leaves the scoop or entry halfway open?

ImpStarDuece
03-05-2007, 05:57 AM
Can we get a Mk XII (Griffon III, IV and VI variants please) and a Mk XIV now, please? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

hop2002
03-05-2007, 06:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Am I right in understanding that radiators shut means shutter positions are as closed as
they can get which still leaves the scoop or entry halfway open? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The entry doesn't change, but the exit does. And yes "shut" means the exit is half open.

The report gives the area of the exit ducts as:

port 1.47 sq ft open, 0.83 sq ft closed
starboard 1.67 sq ft open, 0.83 sq ft closed

DKoor
03-05-2007, 07:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Browning50cal:
I see a thread like this and think...

Why don't you just play the game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

B50

Mission Builder forum rules. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This *is* the game for our ORR dept. guys http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
But one cannot say they don't know how to play, now, can he? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

WWMaxGunz
03-05-2007, 08:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Browning50cal:
I see a thread like this and think...

Why don't you just play the game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

B50

Mission Builder forum rules. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This *is* the game for our ORR dept. guys http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
But one cannot say they don't know how to play, now, can he? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Part of playing the game is knowing about the planes and flying.
Some of us also share as others had with us and we are grateful for it.

DKoor
03-05-2007, 08:55 AM
He he I don't mind seeing useful data here, I just find it funny to see (grown up) people calling themselves names... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So like one wise guy noticed eons ago, in most threads you have to dig deep thru sheite to find something actually useful. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Kurfurst__
03-05-2007, 08:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When Hop says 'tropical summer' conditions, he actually refers to the +5 Celsius or so external temperature during the time of the test </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, "tropical summer" refers to the test results ADJUSTED FOR A SEA LEVEL TEMPERATURE OF 41C.

The "radiator suitability" results are thus given for temperate summer, 27C, and tropical summer, 41C.

Clear now? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it's just more stinking theories, with made up outside temperature that are mentioned no-where in the report itself.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And since they were climbing with closed radiators, a meager 10k feet altitutude could be reached awfully fast, 2k ft to 10k ft it took just 1 min 34 secs, though the coolant went up to 90 degrees Celsius during that time. In other words, only 1.5 min was spent on +25 lbs in this '+25 lbs cooling test'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

More lies Isegrim? The test clearly states 5 minutes at 25 lbs boost in each of the level speed runs. 5 minutes is longer that 1.5 minutes, isn't it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>[/QUOTE]

Well you posted more, so I guess it`s more lies indeed, but is it any surprise from a stinking nationalist, who's either too stupid to understand what 'climb' means (=not level runs) or just dishonest enough to switch the subject to level runs at high speed when temperatures in climb are being discussed? I think it`s the latter. Of course it`s not a surprise from someone who claims the Spitfire is the best aircraft in everything, or from one who claims that Boer civillian population went into disease and hunger infected concentration camps in the Boer war on their own will.

Now, if you wish to speculate and manipulate, be our guest. This the figures actually obtained by the British - the temperature is clearly rising within a few minutes, and the outside temperature is for a cold day. The +25 lbs boost is only maintained for 1.5 minutes, up to 10 000 feet.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Merlin206620cooling205.jpg

Now as for why some argue about these +4 celcius tropical tests is clear.

Since the game engine 'overheating' is not to simulate how coolant temperatures change in real aircraft, but the time limitations imposed on prolonged use of WEP in figher aircraft, some wish to prove that the Spitfire should be for some odd reason, able to use WEP indefinietely as opposed to all other fighter aircraft, because the Spitfire 'does not overheat'.
In reality the Spitfire`s coolant system was not particularly different from other aircraft in it`s capability to maintain proper coolant temperatures, nor in it`s maximum allowed WEP time of 5 minutes for maximum power.

But such agenda should not come as a surprise from someone who even argues now on other boards that the Spitfire has better fuel effiency than the Mustang, that the Merlin 66's fuel effiecny was 50% better than the Merlin 61, or that in 1943 the FW 190 had a hard time against the Spitfire. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

hop2002
03-05-2007, 10:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Actually it's just more stinking theories, with made up outside temperature that are mentioned no-where in the report itself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isegrim, the outside temperature is given in the page you have posted below.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well you posted more, so I guess it`s more lies indeed, but is it any surprise from a stinking nationalist, who's either too stupid to understand what 'climb' means (=not level runs) or just dishonest enough to switch the subject to level runs at high speed when temperatures in climb are being discussed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isegrim, why do you accuse others when the fault is yours?

The first post in this thread:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Now trim your plane to fly level, your mission today is to time how much time it takes for your engine to break down from the time you have the message "Engine Overheating". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This thread was about overheating in level flight. YOU chose to introduce comments about climb, then get offensive because you have misunderstood, yet again.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now, if you wish to speculate and manipulate, be our guest. This the figures actually obtained by the British - the temperature is clearly rising within a few minutes, and the outside temperature is for a cold day. The +25 lbs boost is only maintained for 1.5 minutes, up to 10 000 feet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No speculation or manipulation necessary, Isegrim. The report gives the equation, you only have to plug numbers into it.

Note that on this sample climb, the engine reached a maximum temperature of 106c, the radiators open at 115c.

The corrections for higher temperatures all result in higher coolant temperatures, not lower.

I am surprised you are so happy to advertise the fact you cannot understand even so basic an equation as contained in this report. The fact that you demonstrate your ignorance in such an offensive manner only underlines it.

Kurfurst__
03-05-2007, 11:05 AM
*Snip the usual garbage*

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
Note that on this sample climb, the engine reached a maximum temperature of 106c, the radiators open at 115c. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I note that in 7 minutes, on a chilly day, with half-open radiators the temperature rose from 78 degrees to 106 degrees Celsius, despite the fact the final outside temperature was minus 50-55 Celsius. The radiators open at 105 Celsius anyway.

The real life tests simple hardly show the Spitfire to be anything special for cooling capacity, unlike in the simulation.

hop2002
03-05-2007, 11:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The radiators open at 105 Celsius anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Beware of Isegrim's "facts". He is one of those people who makes them up as he goes along.

From the Spitfire IX manual:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On all aircraft the radiator flaps are fully automatic and arc designed to open at a coolant temperature of 115?C. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfurst__
03-05-2007, 01:32 PM
Eskimo summer!

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/SIMG8336.jpg

III-JG27_DV8
03-05-2007, 04:38 PM
Kurfurst__

I salute you for knowing what you speak of. This whole thing about the Spit's UFO like characteristics is a very beaten horse. Just do what I do; swat the UFO down and be done with it.

As it is, most novices take the spit and when beaten either say nothing or pretend they're the greatest and that you got lucky.

A good FS pilot can fly ANY plane to the extreme causing onlookers to say "wow, you're good". That right there is good enough for me.

S!

luftluuver
03-05-2007, 06:17 PM
Hop, have you ever seen an electric actuator that was progressive? I have not. Solinoids are 'in' or 'out' last time I checked.

I would believe the manual before some anonimous book.

Viper2005_
03-05-2007, 06:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
*Snip the usual garbage*

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
Note that on this sample climb, the engine reached a maximum temperature of 106c, the radiators open at 115c. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I note that in 7 minutes, on a chilly day, with half-open radiators the temperature rose from 78 degrees to 106 degrees Celsius, despite the fact the final outside temperature was minus 50-55 Celsius. The radiators open at 105 Celsius anyway.

The real life tests simple hardly show the Spitfire to be anything special for cooling capacity, unlike in the simulation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If we use a standard atmosphere, sea level = 288 K.

Lapse rate ~ 2 K/thousand feet (yes, I know that's an overstatement, but what's 0.02 K between friends in this context?).

Thus on a standard day it should be about 284 K at 2000 feet. So call it 11ºC. The test gives us 4º, therefore the test was performed under roughly ISA - 7 K conditions.

That's not really all that cold. A deviation from the standard temperature of only about 2.5%.

To be quite honest, given period manufacturing tolerances, 2.5% isn't really all that much at all...

Given that +25 was limited to 5 minutes IIRC, the Spitfire's cooling performance looks pretty respectable to me. Fly it by the book and the chances are that it would be fine, with a fair bit of margin for error.

I doubt that it could be run at +25 in a steep climb for more than about 10 minutes without things starting to go wrong. However, I think that overheating would be the least of your worries under such circumstances. I'd be much more worried about mechanical failure of either the reduction gear or the con-rods myself, not to mention the exhaust manifold...

If you need +25 in a Spitfire for longer than 5 minutes however, the engine probably isn't going to run again anyway, so who cares?

Viper2005_
03-05-2007, 06:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Hop, have you ever seen an electric actuator that was progressive? I have not. Solinoids are 'in' or 'out' last time I checked.

I would believe the manual before some anominous book. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It could be a servo motor driving a Jackscrew of some sort. Rather like a modern flap actuator. Simple enough technology really, with resolutely classical origins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servo_motor
http://www.servovalve.com/technical/newtb_141.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackscrew

Note that 115ºC is slap in the middle of the 105-125ºC range quoted. Remember that tolerances were nice and wide in the bad old days.

luftluuver
03-05-2007, 06:39 PM
Look at the drawing Viper. That ain't no electric motor driven device.

hop2002
03-05-2007, 06:58 PM
Isegrim, are you claiming that's a diagramme of a Spitfire radiator?

Because the manual quote I posted was about the Spitfire IX, the subject under discussion. You have posted something that certainly doesn't look like it fits in a Spitfire wing, and contradicts what the Spitfire manual says.

Viper2005_
03-05-2007, 07:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Look at the drawing Viper. That ain't no electric motor driven device. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny it calls them electric actuators then...

Last time I checked, electric actuators involved electric motors. See below for a rather general explanation.

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

The motor doesn't need to be big - it's driving a rather fine pitch screw, so it doesn't need a lot of torque.

Postwar most control systems moved to hydraulic actuators (same idea, but using an hydraulic motor rather than an electric motor) because this offered weight (and less importantly in the good old days of "cost plus", cost) savings over electric actuators (mainly because electric motors weren't much good in those days).

However, now that we're in the age of the "more electric" aircraft, electronic actuators are finding their way into the primary flight control systems of all sorts of new designs because the wheel has come full circle, and electrics now offers a weight and cost saving over hydraulics.

Takamaka
03-05-2007, 11:15 PM
Mommy!!! Look what I have done http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

M_Gunz
03-06-2007, 03:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Hop, have you ever seen an electric actuator that was progressive? I have not. Solinoids are 'in' or 'out' last time I checked.

I would believe the manual before some anonimous book. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You feed current to a solenoid, it pushes with force. More current, more force.
If the flap pushes back then you have a fully adjustable electro-mechanism.

They could have easily used bimetal springs, IMO, but perhaps the weight would have been
greater and response only controlled by temperature.

M_Gunz
03-06-2007, 04:05 AM
Standard temp is 15C, 4C is about 39F. Not freezing but will keep raw meat fresh.
It certainly should be correctable and 106F output to rads does leave a margin.

I note that the MAP does drop in the climb data but then climb speed is low so not as much
air flows through the rads so it's not exactly an argument against level speed operation
even at sea level.

stathem
03-08-2007, 01:06 PM
I find it funny - although not neccessairily in a ha-ha way - that when the subject of Spitfire drag is mentioned, Kurfurst shouts from the rooftops about 'the big draggy radiators' on Spits.

And then when cooling is discussed, he denies they work well.

Maybe he'd like to make his mind up.

Skoshi Tiger
03-11-2007, 06:49 AM
Hopefully this issue will be resolved in BOB and we'll have our Mk1+2's overheating at idle when we're waiting at the ready on sunny English September's day.

In Australian use (well the top end at least!) it was recomended that the Spitfires get towed when ever posible to avoid overheating on the ground!

Vike
03-11-2007, 07:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:

In Australian use (well the top end at least!) it was recomended that the Spitfires get towed when ever posible to avoid overheating on the ground! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

VW-IceFire
03-11-2007, 08:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
I find it funny - although not neccessairily in a ha-ha way - that when the subject of Spitfire drag is mentioned, Kurfurst shouts from the rooftops about 'the big draggy radiators' on Spits.

And then when cooling is discussed, he denies they work well.

Maybe he'd like to make his mind up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Years of experience tell me that if Kurfurst is saying it...then its likely that the Spitfire sucks and the 109 is amazing. Just the way of things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bellator_1
03-14-2007, 08:14 AM
Stathem,

You might find it funny but Kurfurst is infact right. The Spitfire has big and draggy radiators alright, the design is to blame, it suffers from the effects of boundary layer seperation, causing turbulant airflow at the radiator-face which is less effective for cooling. The 109 doesn't have this problem.

WOLFMondo
03-14-2007, 09:04 AM
If they were so draggy why were they used on the spiteful?

Bellator_1
03-14-2007, 09:26 AM
The Spiteful's raditors are different WOLFMondo.

joeap
03-14-2007, 09:54 AM
What's a Spiteful? What's a raditor?

SUPERAEREO
03-14-2007, 09:59 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif Big and draggy!!!

WOLFMondo
03-14-2007, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
The Spiteful's raditors are different WOLFMondo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please explain. The ones on the prototype Spiteful look exactly the same as the XIV's to me.

Bellator_1
03-14-2007, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Please explain. The ones on the prototype Spiteful look exactly the same as the XIV's to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoa ! You need glasses m8 !

Not only the positioning but also the design is very different. IIRC design features of 109's radiators were incoperated into the Spiteful's radiators, things such as a boundary layer duct which prevented seperation at the radiator face.

BerkshireHunt
03-15-2007, 07:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Please explain. The ones on the prototype Spiteful look exactly the same as the XIV's to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoa ! You need glasses m8 !

Not only the positioning but also the design is very different. IIRC design features of 109's radiators were incoperated into the Spiteful's radiators, things such as a boundary layer duct which prevented seperation at the radiator face. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spiteful was not a successful design, so I'd be wary of using it as a reference to prove a point.

For the record: the Spitfire's rads were designed from the outset to take full advantage of the Meredith effect (see original Supermarine drawings reproduced in Morgan and Shacklady). The internal shape of the ducts was refined, by Meredith himself, to ensure that the hot efflux would, under certain conditions, augment thrust to offset drag. Not completely, but significantly.
That's why semi-recessed wing mounted radiators (with all the complications they entail in terms of designing the wing structure around the radiator cores and incorporating trailing edge radiator split flaps) were never used on the Spit. It just wasn't necessary and would have added structural weight.
We have it from Willi Messerschmitt himself that the Germans were not aware of the Meredith effect and so could not understand why the Mustang was so fast - another design that used the same principle. Nevertheless, as good engineers they developed another approach to reduce radiator drag - the high aspect ratio, semi recessed radiator, first used on the 109F. Messerschmitt's design had some advantages, but also some disadvantages, in that airflow over the wingroots was disturbed from the optimum whenever the radiator flaps were fully open. In fact, any opening of the broad-span radiator flaps would lead to a trim change as they were, in effect, part of the wing aerofoil. There were drag implications too.
The important point to absorb is that neither of these solutions was ideal - engineers just try to achieve the best they can, with what they have.

A general observation regarding heat loss and control: the belief that every liquid cooled engine must overheat at some point is quaint and incorrect. If the radiator and coolant pump are sufficiently large/efficient (if the volumetric throughflow of coolant is great enough and the radiator core is efficient enough at dissipating heat) then an engine need never overheat, even at maximum power, because the rate of heat loss will always at least equal the rate at which heat is generated. Put it this way: if you made a radiator as big as a tower block, with a suitably large pump, and attached it to a Merlin the engine would never overheat. The heat given off by the engine (as part of its thermal inefficiency) would not be sufficient to boil such an enormous volume of coolant even at maximum power. It would fail mechanically long before it boiled the coolant. The reason liquid cooled aero-engines had a tendency to overheat during WW2 is that - in most cases - their radiators were intentionally designed to be too small under static conditions. Aircraft designers don't like radiators - they're big and bulky and heavy. So they tried to make them as small as possible, sometimes even making them too small to dissipate the heat generated by the engine under maximum powerload. They did this because they knew they could rely on other factors coming into play at certain points in the performance envelope - one such being the Meredith effect, but also general venturi effect, altitude cooling and the propellor slipstream (the engine becomes its own fan). The use of a glycol/water mix under pressure also allowed a further reduction in radiator size.
So if the late mark Spit's radiators are somewhat larger than one might like to see aesthetically, it may be that they are somewhat closer to the optimum than others.

JG14_Josf
03-15-2007, 12:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BerkshireHunt </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please list and quote sources.

Like this:

WWII Fighter Aerodynamics (http://us.share.geocities.com/hlangebro/J22/EAAjanuary1999.pdf)

David Lednicer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Supermarine is often regarded as being one of the first companies to make use of the breakthroughs made by Meredith at RAE Farnborough in the design of ducts for cooling systems (Ref. 7). In fact, the Spitfire's radiator ducts were designed using these guidelines. However, the VSAERO calculation indicates the boundary layer on the lower surface of the wing is ingested by the cooling system inlet. Running into the severe adverse (increasing) pressure gradient ahead of the radiator, the boundary layer separates shortly after entering the duct, resulting in a large drag penalty (Fig.9). Experimentally, it was determined that the Spitfire cooling system drag, expressed as the ratio of equivalent cooling-drag power to total engine power, was considerably higher than that of the other aircraft tested by the RAE. This was attributed to "the presence of a boundary layer ahead of the duct tends to precipitate separation and makes the ducting problem more difficult" (Ref. 8). Similar problems are present on the early model Messerschmitt Bf109, up through the E model. A complete redesign of the cooling system, during development of the Bf 109F, resulted in the use of a boundary layer bypass duct, which significantly improved the pressure recovery at the radiator face (Ref. 9). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BerkshireHunt:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We have it from Willi Messerschmitt himself that the Germans were not aware of the Meredith effect and so could not understand why the Mustang was so fast - another design that used the same principle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sounds like Willi Messerschmitt was stupid. Is it just me getting that message? Sources and quotes would be nice to back up the claim.

David Lednicer's claims are backed up in his article.

BerkshireHunt:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The important point to absorb is that neither of these solutions was ideal - engineers just try to achieve the best they can, with what they have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire design didn't work out so well.

The Messerschmitt (dumb luck?) design added lift while reducing drag at the high lift producing wing root?

David Lednicer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There are many conflicting claims as to the equivalent flat plate drag area (f) of these fighter aircraft. Based upon my research, what I believe are the most accurate values shown in Table 1.
The wetted areas of the aircraft are calculated by VSAERO, and exclude the ducts for cooling systems.
Notable is that the Mustang has the largest wetted area of this group of aircraft, but has the lowest drag. Evidence of this is that with the same version of the Rolls-Royce Merlin and propeller installed, the Mustang X was measured to be 23 mph faster than the Spitfire IX (Ref. 16). The Mustang X was an Allison powered Mustang reengined by Rolls-Royce with a Merlin 65. The P-51B, with an improved cooling system configuration is even faster than the Spitfire IX. The difference in performance between the Mustang and the Spitfire is attributed to several factors. These include the superior configuration of the Mustang's cooling system and the Spitfire's relatively high level of excrescence drag, generated by open wheel wells, a nonretractable tail wheel and other design details (Ref. 17-19). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Aircraft----------f (ft^2)------Wetted Area (ft2)-----CDswet
Spit IX------------5.40------------831.2-----------------.0065
P-51B-------------4.61------------874.0-----------------.0053
P-51D-------------4.65------------882.2-----------------.0053
190A-8-----------5.22-------------735.0-----------------.0071
190D-9-----------4.77-------------761.6-----------------.0063
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There are many conflicting claims as to the equivalent flat plate drag area (f) of these fighter aircraft. Based upon my research, what I believe are the most accurate values shown in Table 1.
The wetted areas of the aircraft are calculated by VSAERO, and exclude the ducts for cooling systems.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There are many conflicting claims as to the equivalent flat plate drag area (f) of these fighter aircraft. Based upon my research, what I believe are the most accurate values shown in Table 1.
The wetted areas of the aircraft are calculated by VSAERO, and exclude the ducts for cooling systems.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The wetted areas of the aircraft are calculated by VSAERO, and exclude the ducts for cooling systems.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In fact, the Spitfire's radiator ducts were designed using these guidelines. However, the VSAERO calculation indicates the boundary layer on the lower surface of the wing is ingested by the cooling system inlet. Running into the severe adverse (increasing) pressure gradient ahead of the radiator, the boundary layer separates shortly after entering the duct, resulting in a large drag penalty (Fig.9). Experimentally, it was determined that the Spitfire cooling system drag, expressed as the ratio of equivalent cooling-drag power to total engine power, was considerably higher than that of the other aircraft tested by the RAE. This was attributed to "the presence of a boundary layer ahead of the duct tends to precipitate separation and makes the ducting problem more difficult" (Ref. 8). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The wetted areas of the aircraft are calculated by VSAERO, and exclude the ducts for cooling systems.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Aircraft----------f (ft^2)------Wetted Area (ft2)-----CDswet
Spit IX------------5.40------------831.2-----------------.0065
P-51B-------------4.61------------874.0-----------------.0053
P-51D-------------4.65------------882.2-----------------.0053
190A-8-----------5.22-------------735.0-----------------.0071
190D-9-----------4.77-------------761.6-----------------.0063
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Notable is that the Mustang has the largest wetted area of this group of aircraft, but has the lowest drag. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The wetted areas of the aircraft are calculated by VSAERO, and exclude the ducts for cooling systems.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wishing away the cooling duct drag does not reduce the cooling duct drag.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Similar problems are present on the early model Messerschmitt Bf109, up through the E model. A complete redesign of the cooling system, during development of the Bf 109F, resulted in the use of a boundary layer bypass duct, which significantly improved the pressure recovery at the radiator face (Ref. 9). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BerkshireHunt:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We have it from Willi Messerschmitt himself that the Germans were not aware of the Meredith effect and so could not understand why the Mustang was so fast - another design that used the same principle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The design that works will work. The design that does not work will not work.

On to engine overheat?

[IMG]http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/dowding1.jpg &lt;-file no longer available?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">HANDLING of MERLIN in HURRICANE, SPITFIRE and DEFIANT AIRCRAFT

A resent increase in the number of engine failures, due to the failure of bearings, is an indication that some pilots are over-stepping the engine limitations laid down in the Pilot's handbook.

2. The use of the automatic boost cut out control enables the pilot to get an emergency boost of + 12 lbs. per sq. in. from the engine for 5 minutes when circumstance demand it. Some pilots "pull the plug" with little excuse on every occasion.

3. The introduction of Constant Speed Airscrews permits an increase in the rate of climb. This has led some pilots to climb their aircraft at too steep an angle, with the result that there is a considerably diminished forward speed and the engine does not receive the cooling which it... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/ap1590b.jpg &lt;---file not found

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">11. The use, in an emergency, of this high boost pressure is a definite overload condition on this engine and therefore all occasions on which it is essential to make use of the + 12 lb/sq.in. must be reported by the pilot and recorded in the engine log book so that the engineer officer may be able to asses the reduction of life between overhauls and the need for special inspections. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No amount of cooling will be sufficient to deter damage to an engine running at an overloaded condition.

The over-loaded power setting destroys the motor. The motor makes metal. The motor is destroying its own bearings.

The problem at high speed and over-load power settings is not insufficient cooling; the problem is over-loading the engine. At slow speed there may be a problem such as a climb at a very steep angle.

The game regulates the automatic radiator flaps on the 109 to full open even at high speed and even at continuous power settings; that is ridiculous no? At high speed the air volume through the radiator even if the split flaps are open slightly will be high and therefore the transfer of heat through the heat exchanger will be high as the radiator fins are continuously exposed to high volumes of cold air.

BerkshireHunt
03-15-2007, 01:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Please explain. The ones on the prototype Spiteful look exactly the same as the XIV's to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoa ! You need glasses m8 !

Not only the positioning but also the design is very different. IIRC design features of 109's radiators were incoperated into the Spiteful's radiators, things such as a boundary layer duct which prevented seperation at the radiator face. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incidentally, the Westland Whirlwind (designed in 1936) had its radiators fully enclosed within the wing, the leading edge inlets having slats that worked in conjunction with the trailing edge split flap outlets to regulate airflow through the cores. A somewhat more advanced system than Messerschmitt's radiator effort, which copied the trailing edge split flap idea but didn't use the leading edge intake because the 109's undercarriage legs got in the way...

stathem
03-16-2007, 05:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Stathem,

You might find it funny but Kurfurst is infact right. The Spitfire has big and draggy radiators alright, the design is to blame, it suffers from the effects of boundary layer seperation, causing turbulant airflow at the radiator-face which is less effective for cooling. The 109 doesn't have this problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I take it you get your information from the same place as Josf does, later.

Unless you have a degree in Fluid dynamics and Heat Transfer processes.

YOu note that what Josf posted:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Supermarine is often regarded as being one of the first companies to make use of the breakthroughs made by Meredith at RAE Farnborough in the design of ducts for cooling systems (Ref. 7). In fact, the Spitfire's radiator ducts were designed using these guidelines. However, the VSAERO calculation indicates the boundary layer on the lower surface of the wing is ingested by the cooling system inlet. Running into the severe adverse (increasing) pressure gradient ahead of the radiator, the boundary layer separates shortly after entering the duct, resulting in a large drag penalty (Fig.9). Experimentally, it was determined that the Spitfire cooling system drag, expressed as the ratio of equivalent cooling-drag power to total engine power, was considerably higher than that of the other aircraft tested by the RAE. This was attributed to "the presence of a boundary layer ahead of the duct tends to precipitate separation and makes the ducting problem more difficult" (Ref. 8). Similar problems are present on the early model Messerschmitt Bf109, up through the E model. A complete redesign of the cooling system, during development of the Bf 109F, resulted in the use of a boundary layer bypass duct, which significantly improved the pressure recovery at the radiator face (Ref. 9). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

says nothing what-so-ever about the effectiveness or otherwise of the cooling system of the Spitfire, only about it's drag.

It's your conjecture alone that states the a) the boundary layer separtion causes turbulant flow and b) that turbulent flow is less effective for cooling purposes.

Now that is a tricky subject, and still not fully elucidated.

Empirically from personal experience, I would expect turbulent flow to improve cooling. A google search (http://www.hydraulicspneumatics.com/200/FPE/Hydraulics/Article/True/6451/Hydraulics) confirms this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fluid can flow in laminar, transitional, and turbulent modes. When flow is laminar and at low velocities in a tube, there is little or no fluid movement immediately next to the tube wall. This layer of stagnant fluid hinders heat transfer and acts as insulation. Faster, turbulent flow has no smooth velocity gradient. The jumbled, tumbled flow pattern can disrupt much of the stationary fluid film. Built-in obstructions to flow, called turbulators, disrupt laminar flow, thereby improving heat transfer. Although these obstructions to flow increase pressure drop through the heat exchanger, the improvement in heat transfer more than compensates for the higher pressure drop. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Stagnant air around tube exteriors presents a problem in the effort to increase heat transfer. Still air is a poor conductor and has a high thermal resistance that limits heat transfer. As might be supposed, increasing air flow over the tubes helps decrease this thermal resistance. The amount of decrease again depends on whether the air flow is laminar or turbulent. In either case, the air still inhibits heat transfer because it is not as good a conductor of heat as water or oil. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now there is a school of thought that a laminar flow up to radiators is superior; however I would suggest that that is because of the trade off between the drag of turbulent air vs laminar flow air. As speed increases, cooling provided by laminar flow will increase; but so will cooling provided by turbulent flow. However the, drag penalty will be less and less worth paying. because at high speed the laminar flow will provide enough cooling.

What can be said is that the radiators with the turbulent flow will be much more effective at lower speeds. Can we think of a point in the flight envelope where very effective cooling is neccessary.

Full power climbs or turns for example?

Bellator_1
03-16-2007, 10:11 AM
BerkshireHunt,

Firstly no, the split flap radiator did not change trim at all when fully open. Why ? Well thats the whole point of the split flap design, you see the lower radiator flap compensates for the slight rise of the upper radiator flap by at the same time being lowered and thereby increasing wing camber - in effect acting as a very effective split flap system as used on other aircraft, only in this case its also used for cooling.

Secondly no, Willi Messerschmidt was NOT unaware of the meredith effect, he was completely aware of it, and as a matter of fact actually had the 109F and the later versions take full advantage of this effect. It's radiators featuring a continously adjustable intake and a continously adjustable outlet that was automatically regulated to create thrust. - just like the P-51.

From the Wright Field evaluation of Bf 109 F:
"Each flap is divided in two sections : the outer section is a modified split arrangement serving the additional purpose of controlling the airflow through the internally mounted wing radiators. At the front edge of the radiator is a hinged plate, linked with the trailing edge flaps to open with them. This plate picks up the boundary layer on the underside of the wing, and discharges it on the trailing edge. This form of boundary layer control causes smoother flow through the radiator, thereby reducing the area for proper cooling".

The exact same principle as with the P-51's radiator. Note also that the oil cooler on the 109 worked the same way and actually cooled one third of the engine heat, acting like an extra engine cooler. After the re-design of the early radiators of the Emeil the Bf-109 fully employed the Meredith effect.

The Meredith effect was infact first discovered in Germany. The effect first pointed out by Hugo Junkers in 1915 when he acquired a patent for the "Dsenkhler" ('jet radiator'). And he actually included the effect in the very first aircraft he ever built. And by the end of 1935 the Meredith effect was well known to aerodynamicists world wide.

AKA_TAGERT
03-16-2007, 10:26 AM
Pooooor Nancy

Bellator_1
03-16-2007, 05:06 PM
TAGERT,

Why don't you just quit the childish comments and atleast try to contribute with something ? Would be nice for a change...

AKA_TAGERT
03-16-2007, 05:11 PM
Looks like someone skipped nap time?

Bellator_1
03-16-2007, 05:24 PM
I see you didn't take that to heart..

AKA_TAGERT
03-16-2007, 07:40 PM
Pooor Nancy

Vipez-
03-18-2007, 11:10 AM
So who's Nancy? Where can I meet her

IIJG69Kartofe
03-20-2007, 12:31 PM
Nancy Reagan?

Nancy in France?

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy

OOOOrrrr ... Hmmmm Nancyyyy!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

http://www.poster.net/sin-city/sin-city-nancy-jessica-alba-5001221.jpg

Petey78
03-20-2007, 05:20 PM
Another interesting discussion dragged mindlessly off-topic.... Someone give him a pat on his empty little head and say "well done". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

M_Gunz
03-20-2007, 07:42 PM
Nurse Nancy!

I'm not mean to her. She http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif likes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif it that way!

Xiolablu3
04-21-2007, 10:48 PM
DOesnt the fact that most planes can 'over rev' the engine to 110% as WELL as use WEP but the Spitfire can not go over 100% make a lot of difference?

I can run a Bf109 at MW50 and 100% without over heating too.

Its when I push it over 100% that it overheats.

Xiolablu3
04-21-2007, 10:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
I find it funny - although not neccessairily in a ha-ha way - that when the subject of Spitfire drag is mentioned, Kurfurst shouts from the rooftops about 'the big draggy radiators' on Spits.

And then when cooling is discussed, he denies they work well.

Maybe he'd like to make his mind up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Brain32
04-22-2007, 03:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
DOesnt the fact that most planes can 'over rev' the engine to 110% as WELL as use WEP but the Spitfire can not go over 100% make a lot of difference?

I can run a Bf109 at MW50 and 100% without over heating too.

Its when I push it over 100% that it overheats. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You Spitfire funboys are really an awsome group http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Just any reason will be tried in defense reagrdless of it's stupidity http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

joeap
04-22-2007, 05:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
DOesnt the fact that most planes can 'over rev' the engine to 110% as WELL as use WEP but the Spitfire can not go over 100% make a lot of difference?

I can run a Bf109 at MW50 and 100% without over heating too.

Its when I push it over 100% that it overheats. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You Spitfire funboys are really an awsome group http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Just any reason will be tried in defense reagrdless of it's stupidity http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same with the "anti-Spit" haters. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

P.S. Xiolablu3 has a FW in his sig. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Brain32
04-22-2007, 05:29 AM
So what, I can put a Spitfire in my sig, it will not mean I forgot to think.
Running 109 at 100% you are not using WEP AT ALL, not until you reach 110+MW50 will you equal Spits 100%+WEP. Is it a bit clearer now? I'm pretty sure it's not, and will never be. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

M_Gunz
04-22-2007, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
So what, I can put a Spitfire in my sig, it will not mean I forgot to think.
Running 109 at 100% you are not using WEP AT ALL, not until you reach 110+MW50 will you equal Spits 100%+WEP. Is it a bit clearer now? I'm pretty sure it's not, and will never be. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those two settings in those two planes mean the same thing about engine heat in both?

If one plane has ability to make 110% power in game and another only makes 100% then that must
be arbitrary and not different meanings? Surely engines are engines, really all the same.....

Brain32
04-22-2007, 09:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Those two settings in those two planes mean the same thing about engine heat in both? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
100% with WEP in a Spitfire is max power
100% with MW50 engaged is not max power in a 109 because MW50 is not used until you go over 100%

Yes ofcourse the real Spitfire would overheat, then hold that temperature for a few moments, and then it would suddenly drop, then raise again, then drop, then raise again then drop, so our brave Spitfire pilots just flew at full power always and forever.
Heck, and people say todays Spitfires are flown conservatively, I do not understand why since the holy material Merlin engine was made simply makes it indestructable http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

joeap
04-22-2007, 12:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Those two settings in those two planes mean the same thing about engine heat in both? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
100% with WEP in a Spitfire is max power
100% with MW50 engaged is not max power in a 109 because MW50 is not used until you go over 100%

Yes ofcourse the real Spitfire would overheat, then hold that temperature for a few moments, and then it would suddenly drop, then raise again, then drop, then raise again then drop, so our brave Spitfire pilots just flew at full power always and forever.
Heck, and people say todays Spitfires are flown conservatively, I do not understand why since the holy material Merlin engine was made simply makes it indestructable http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said that is right bud (it's not I agree), and don't usually fly the Spit, at least not the later versions. Just a little over-reacting on my part anyway.

MEGILE
04-22-2007, 03:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:


Yes ofcourse the real Spitfire would overheat, then hold that temperature for a few moments, and then it would suddenly drop, then raise again, then drop, then raise again then drop, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Endemic to the entire sim.

M_Gunz
04-22-2007, 04:02 PM
And that would have NOTHING to do with modeling of automatic radiator flap control.
Was there really a manual setting? I don't trust the HUD labels IL2 uses since they have been
wrong on some planes before.

MB80
04-22-2007, 04:15 PM
I have a simple question, why does the spit have a rev counter (with a red dot) in Il2? If you fly the prop pitch in auto mode, you don't need this, and in manual mode even with the fastest speed and 100% pp the rev counter is stuck one point behind the red dot without any effect for the engine.

M_Gunz
04-22-2007, 10:46 PM
It *should* go past redline in a power dive. Question is what planes got the model data when
that was supposed to be implemented. Some did.

Xiolablu3
04-23-2007, 04:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
DOesnt the fact that most planes can 'over rev' the engine to 110% as WELL as use WEP but the Spitfire can not go over 100% make a lot of difference?

I can run a Bf109 at MW50 and 100% without over heating too.

Its when I push it over 100% that it overheats. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You Spitfire funboys are really an awsome group http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Just any reason will be tried in defense reagrdless of it's stupidity http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


My post you quoted was a question - not a statement if you read it properly. (if you can)

I am not a Spitfire Fanboy, I am a WW2 plane fanboy.
I will defend the Bf109 or any plane if someone is saying unrealistic things or ****ging it off unecersarily. I will also defend the Spitfire if someone is saying ridiculous things. (And I seem to spend a lot of time defending the Spitfire from biased blue fanboys these days) I prefer to fly the FW190 because I love the plane and its the best plane in the game, anyone with any sense would fly the plane he is best in, yes??

Its not me thats a Spitfire fanboy - its you Brain who has some severe grudge against the plane and is always on some immature crusade to bring it down. Its funny that you call me stupid, yet your posts these days are as brainless and biased as the average Hayateace contribution. I am thinking you must be very young, like 14/15 if so then I guess I can forgive you, if not then try and open your mind and see the big picture instead of all this immature red vs blue cr*p.

The only reason for this that I can think of for all this Spitfire hating is National jealousy?!? Maybe you can explain the reason?

Or maybe YOU can explain why this constant prebubesant crusade against the plane and people who fly it? (Even tho 50% of the time I have seen you flying you have been flying a Spitfire and I have even asking for one when you are on the Blue side)

Pilots from all countries who have flown WW2 warbirds almost ALWAYS state that the Spitfire is the nicest handling WW2 warbird and a dream to fly. Is it really so strange that the SPitfire in the game also handles so well and is good in a novices hands? Perhaps you have flown one and actually know better than Mark Hanna etc? I am sure you must have seen the video when he is talking about MH434 and compares it to other Warbirds? Perhaps you think at the end of the video he turned off camera and said 'Actually I was only joking...'? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG4_Helofly
04-23-2007, 04:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Pilots from all countries who have flown WW2 warbirds almost ALWAYS state that the Spitfire is the nicest handling WW2 warbird and a dream to fly. Is it really so strange that the SPitfire in the game also handles so well and is good in a novices hands? Perhaps you have flown one and actually know better than Mark Hanna etc? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem here is that we don't know what these pilots had to compare with.
I have no doubt that the spit handeled very good at speed which it was designed for: low speed.

The most interesting pilot storys always come from test pilots like Eric Brown who could compare to many other similar aircrafts.

If we claim somthing we must be carefull and be more precise. That's probalbly also a source of misunderstanding which leads to personal attacks and insults.
So try to be precise.

Brain32
04-23-2007, 05:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> My post you quoted was a question - not a statement if you read it properly. (if you can) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes a question trying to grab to just any straw to show BS performance might be realistic, ROFLMAO.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I will also defend the Spitfire if someone is saying ridiculous things. (And I seem to spend a lot of time defending the Spitfire from biased blue fanboys these days) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Defend the Spitfire? Defend the Spitfire if someone is saying ridiculous, RIDICULOUS things???
So, me and some others discovered that Spitfire can always run at maximum power, and you are "defending" it by saying that is realistic, and you think YOU are defending poor Spitfire from biased people. But WTH, if it happened with the P47's BS overheat model, I'm not suprised to see the same with the Spitfire which has 10 times bigger fanbase http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Its not me thats a Spitfire fanboy - its you Brain who has some severe grudge against the plane and is always on some immature crusade to bring it down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes implying an obvious error on the model of the mighty Spitfire is very immature http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
For FU*K'S sake the God d@amn thing has no WEP limitations, do you need it in capital letters: NO WEP LIMITATION, but hey, it's an allied plane so it's like everything else related to those on theese forums - OK
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I am thinking you must be very young, like 14/15 if so then I guess I can forgive you, if not then please try and see the big picture instead of all this immature red vs blue cr*p.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unfortunetly my friend, many people here fail to see the big picture...or at the very least do not want to see it.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The only reason for this that I can think of for all this Spitfire hating is National jealousy?!? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do not understand it, if you think I'm impressed with the real Spitfire you are very wrong, Tempest is my favourite british plane and one of my favourite planes overall, ofcourse in game as with most allied planes they made a turnfighter out of it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Even tho 50% of the time I have seen you flying you have been flying a Spitfire </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And we flew together like what? 5? 6 times?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Pilots from all countries who have flown WW2 warbirds almost ALWAYS state that the Spitfire is the nicest handling WW2 warbird and a dream to fly </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did they also state Spitfires engine can not be worn out, did you see a pilots manual, that has no "Engine limitations" chapter?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Brain32
04-23-2007, 05:07 AM
BTW this thread was long dead(it's not like the 190 or 109 can't be destroyed by overheat http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif), you could had just leave it alone, but no you had to try to apologize your little Spitty http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

And btw I did not call you stupid, I called your argument stupid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

faustnik
04-23-2007, 04:18 PM
I do think it is funny how there are so many "P-51 won the war" posts poking fun at US nationalism, when clearly the Spitfire is nothing short of a religious icon to many.

stathem
04-24-2007, 02:17 AM
And I find it funny that so many people think it's a Zero.

(not you Faust, natch)

DKoor
04-24-2007, 05:13 AM
On UK dedicated they had this small Pacific map (four bases) that I liked to fly on .... some of them used to call me a cheater because sometimes I just outturned A6M2/3 with Seafire usually on higher speed and quickly pump some cannon love into their fragile structures. Gotta love when these noobs see the black screen after 10sec of engagement.

"F****** Cheateeeerrrrrrrz0rz..."

Owned. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It's actually vastly, vastly superior aircraft than Zero. Zero can only outtun it on medium to low speed while Spitfire does literally everything else better.

stathem
04-24-2007, 06:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
On UK dedicated they had this small Pacific map (four bases) that I liked to fly on .... some of them used to call me a cheater because sometimes I just outturned A6M2/3 with Seafire usually on higher speed and quickly pump some cannon love into their fragile structures. Gotta love when these noobs see the black screen after 10sec of engagement.

"F****** Cheateeeerrrrrrrz0rz..."

Owned. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It's actually vastly, vastly superior aircraft than Zero. Zero can only outtun it on medium to low speed while Spitfire does literally everything else better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Actually, my somewhat cryptic reference to the Zero was a response to the somewhat misguided theory doing the rounds that the Spitfire was designed as the ultimate lightweight stallfighting turner...

as opposed to the high speed fast climbing bomber interceptor it actually was designed as..in 1936. When it was designed, there was probably only one contemperary fighter it turned better than...maybe. Depending on speed. And altitude. and..stuff. And only one it was slower than. maybe, etc, ditto.

DKoor
04-24-2007, 10:13 AM
I must agree on that.
Zero's only good when it's up against heavy US naval fighters on more or less equal speeds.... once when Seafire kicks in, we can see only one way beating.

Daiichidoku
04-24-2007, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
I do think it is funny how there are so many "P-51 won the war" posts poking fun at US nationalism, when clearly the Spitfire is nothing short of a religious icon to many. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the difference here is, that the spitfire was a true superlative, it has much more substance to ITS legend than the 51, which rides a hollow base of fame, mopping up errr, i mean destroying the LW...by base camping over Berlin with its 3-1/2 week endurance


same thing for the B17, though to a lesser extent

the b17 is in myriad images depicting wwII scenes etc....it did achieve a lot...but lets face facts, the Lanc was better, but (at least in USA) gets rather short shrift (not to mention the ignoring of so many other lesser types...that still contributed as much or even more than some "famous" types...those that come to mind are vengeance dive bombers, hudson/electra bombers, baltimores n marylands

doubt many ppl know philipines had its own air force, and fought zeros with P 26 peashooters

joeap
04-24-2007, 12:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
I do think it is funny how there are so many "P-51 won the war" posts poking fun at US nationalism, when clearly the Spitfire is nothing short of a religious icon to many. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the difference here is, that the spitfire was a true superlative, it has much more substance to ITS legend than the 51, which rides a hollow base of fame, mopping up errr, i mean destroying the LW...by base camping over Berlin with its 3-1/2 week endurance


same thing for the B17, though to a lesser extent

the b17 is in myriad images depicting wwII scenes etc....it did achieve a lot...but lets face facts, the Lanc was better, but (at least in USA) gets rather short shrift (not to mention the ignoring of so many other lesser types...that still contributed as much or even more than some "famous" types...those that come to mind are vengeance dive bombers, hudson/electra bombers, baltimores n marylands

doubt many ppl know philipines had its own air force, and fought zeros with P 26 peashooters </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif I knew the P-26s served in the Phillipines. Amazing.

faustnik
04-24-2007, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:

the difference here is, that the spitfire was a true superlative, it has much more substance to ITS legend than the 51 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Based on what? You're opinion?

Sounds like Spit worship in full effect to me.

WOLFMondo
04-24-2007, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
I do think it is funny how there are so many "P-51 won the war" posts poking fun at US nationalism, when clearly the Spitfire is nothing short of a religious icon to many. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It all stems from the red vs blue online bollocks and some sort of national pride **** that means you cannot be objective if that means not being a patriot to your nation of birth, although that applies less so to spitfans. I've still no idea why some non Germans fight there corner like they do with equal lack of objectivity...must be that red vs blue ****.

faustnik
04-24-2007, 01:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
although that applies less so to spitfans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apprently not. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WOLFMondo
04-24-2007, 01:16 PM
How many threads are there here about the P51 pwzorising all and sundry and winning the war compared to Spit ones? Its not even a competition when it comes to that.

Be all and end all its another daft ubizoo thread, the sort which probably doesn't exactly encourage OM to come here and post news or otherwise.

faustnik
04-24-2007, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
How many threads are there here about the P51 pwzorising all and sundry and winning the war compared to Spit ones? Its not even a competition when it comes to that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I have to agree, The Church of Spitfire is more conservative.

Daiichidoku
04-24-2007, 03:23 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 Daiichidoku:

the difference here is, that the spitfire was a true superlative, it has much more substance to ITS legend than the 51 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Based on what? You're opinion?

Sounds like Spit worship in full effect to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the facts.

given its all-round performance


sure, i love the spit...the REAL spit...and really, every other warbird...but in-game spits?
believe me, if you think i like spits, you should hear me on comms when im near one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

it performed the fighter role so well it was kept in production...not to diminish the other reasons why...with drawbacks in the design (eg: range) acceptable enough to RAF

lets put it this way; pilot comfort aside, given a face off vs a LW in optimal condition, if the spitfire had identical range to the 51, which would you choose? (also assuming the mission is not very low level, and the 51s are allison powered http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

faustnik
04-24-2007, 03:53 PM
Daii,

I wasn't talking in-sim, just RL.

The P-51 had expectional perfromance as well range, and it's high speed maneuverability and dive acceleration was top notch. Another advantage of the P-51 was great all around visibility. I'd prefer the P-51 on escort missions.

HellToupee
04-25-2007, 01:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
The problem here is that we don't know what these pilots had to compare with.
I have no doubt that the spit handeled very good at speed which it was designed for: low speed.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

uhh it wasnt designed for "low" speed, it was designed as an interceptor aka for maxium performance.

HellToupee
04-25-2007, 01:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
The P-51 had expectional perfromance as well range, and it's high speed maneuverability and dive acceleration was top notch. Another advantage of the P-51 was great all around visibility. I'd prefer the P-51 on escort missions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


IM guessing u mean exceptional performance, if i were to compare to the spitfire tho, climb very unexceptional and speed equaled by the XIV plus the bubble canopy. XIV entered service around same time as the 51.

Sim real life, the game is pretty close, it does have its high speed manoverability, spitfire with full wing will roll very slow at speed in comparison, it does have the all round visability, while the spits is not bad it did have malcom canopy while later ones had bubble canopys like 51.

tragentsmith
04-25-2007, 02:55 AM
HAHA ! The Spit : The only plane in the game who can turn like the bicycles in TRON. Without loosing energy

96th_Nightshifter
04-28-2007, 06:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tragentsmith:
HAHA ! The Spit : The only plane in the game who can turn like the bicycles in TRON. Without loosing energy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Said the man who was shot down by a Spit in his 109 during a turn fight and cried.

Ratsack
04-28-2007, 08:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
Hopefully this issue will be resolved in BOB and we'll have our Mk1+2's overheating at idle when we're waiting at the ready on sunny English September's day.

In Australian use (well the top end at least!) it was recomended that the Spitfires get towed when ever posible to avoid overheating on the ground! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't read about the towing recommendation before. I know that the Spit MkVc trops that were received in Darwin (the first Spits in Australia and in the Pacific) had a range of problems. These included propeller failures and chronic overheating.

There have been constant rumours and accusations that the Brits sent second hand Spits to Australia. These accusations were fueled by the fact that the Spits weren't in great condition when they reached Darwin. They were indeed second hand. However, the usage of the machines was in the training units in Victoria and NSW. These kind folk collected the new machines being shipped in and sent the knackered ones north to do the fighting.

The problem with the props was that for some reason the Aussie MkVs were fitted with the less reliable De Havilland CSPs instead of the better Rotol model. Go figure. Prop failures were probably responsible for the loss of several Spits early on in the piece.

The overheating was particularly bad in Darwin, but it was no worse than that experienced in North Africa. The problem was exclusively on the ground, idling or taxiing. It was certainly no worse than the Bf 109 G in this respect.

cheers,
Ratsack

faustnik
04-29-2007, 01:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
IM guessing u mean exceptional performance, if i were to compare to the spitfire tho, climb very unexceptional and speed equaled by the XIV plus the bubble canopy. XIV entered service around same time as the 51. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many XIVs were flying escort missions over Europe? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Ratsack
04-29-2007, 01:33 AM
I think, Faust, that the reason the Spitfire holds such a special place in the iconography of the war is that it was the only Allied type that could meet the Germans on anything approaching equal terms until well into 1943. Sure, the MkV was outclassed by the Fw 190A, but so was everything else, the 109 included! If you consider the fighters available to the Allies in numbers in 1942, they were:

* P-40B/C/E;
* P-39;
* Hurricane II;
* Mustang I
* Spitfire V; and


...and that's it. The first P-38s saw service only at the very end of the year, and the P-47 was yet to enter the fray.

The Spit V is faster at its rated altitude than all of the above, including the Allison powered Mustang. It can out climb the lot, too. It also out turns them all, with the possible exception of the Hurri bus at low speeds, and its rate of roll is as good as or better than all except the Mustang. It's also carrying cannon, and a bomb load of 1,000 lb. Even more importantly, above 12,000 ft it was the only one of the bunch that was even in the same class as the 109 or the 190, however outclassed it may have been by the 190.

The appearance of the MkIX really leveled fighter field in many respects, particularly with the MkIXB (i.e., LF MkIX with the Merlin 66). That meant that there was nothing in the Allied arsenal that could really complete with the Spitfire as a pure fighter until the appearance of the Merlin Mustang in Dec 1943. The P-47 was a good plane, and had a speed advantage at high alt, but was not the scrapper that the Spitfire (or the Mustang or 190) was, the oft-quoted Robert Johnson anecdote notwithstanding. I know I'll be drummed out of the Thunderbolt fan club for saying that, but too bad.

That long record as the best Allied fighter available is what makes it so special as a symbol of Allied resistance, in my view. It doesn't hurt that the MkIX and subsequent versions kept it very competitive, so it never had to suffer the stigma of being a death trap.

cheers,
Ratsack

Brain32
04-29-2007, 03:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> That long record as the best Allied fighter available is what makes it so special as a symbol of Allied resistance, in my view. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And I agree, but don't understand why so many people insist that it was utterly and completely superiour to anything the opposition had, now that is just funnay.

HellToupee
04-29-2007, 04:22 AM
<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 HellToupee:
IM guessing u mean exceptional performance, if i were to compare to the spitfire tho, climb very unexceptional and speed equaled by the XIV plus the bubble canopy. XIV entered service around same time as the 51. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many XIVs were flying escort missions over Europe? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"In September, 41, 130, 350, and 610 squadrons, led by Wing Commander Colin Gray, made up the Spitfire XIV wing based at Lympne, Kent, their primary role being escorting bombers to Germany"

well those ones were atleast, colin gray New Zealands top scoring ace with 28kills.

faustnik
04-29-2007, 02:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:

well those ones were atleast, colin gray New Zealands top scoring ace with 28kills. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is really interesting! It's very much after the fact though. By September '44 the 8th AF had already assumined air superiority over Europe.

No doubt the XIV was a fantastic fighter though, at all altitudes!

faustnik
04-29-2007, 02:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
I think, Faust, that the reason the Spitfire holds such a special place in the iconography of the war is that it was the only Allied type that could meet the Germans on anything approaching equal terms until well into 1943. Sure, the MkV was outclassed by the Fw 190A, but so was everything else, the 109 included! If you consider the fighters available to the Allies in numbers in 1942, they were:

* P-40B/C/E;
* P-39;
* Hurricane II;
* Mustang I
* Spitfire V; and


...and that's it. The first P-38s saw service only at the very end of the year, and the P-47 was yet to enter the fray.

The Spit V is faster at its rated altitude than all of the above, including the Allison powered Mustang. It can out climb the lot, too. It also out turns them all, with the possible exception of the Hurri bus at low speeds, and its rate of roll is as good as or better than all except the Mustang. It's also carrying cannon, and a bomb load of 1,000 lb. Even more importantly, above 12,000 ft it was the only one of the bunch that was even in the same class as the 109 or the 190, however outclassed it may have been by the 190.

The appearance of the MkIX really leveled fighter field in many respects, particularly with the MkIXB (i.e., LF MkIX with the Merlin 66). That meant that there was nothing in the Allied arsenal that could really complete with the Spitfire as a pure fighter until the appearance of the Merlin Mustang in Dec 1943. The P-47 was a good plane, and had a speed advantage at high alt, but was not the scrapper that the Spitfire (or the Mustang or 190) was, the oft-quoted Robert Johnson anecdote notwithstanding. I know I'll be drummed out of the Thunderbolt fan club for saying that, but too bad.

That long record as the best Allied fighter available is what makes it so special as a symbol of Allied resistance, in my view. It doesn't hurt that the MkIX and subsequent versions kept it very competitive, so it never had to suffer the stigma of being a death trap.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That makes a lot of sense Ratsack!

DKoor
04-29-2007, 05:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
I think, Faust, that the reason the Spitfire holds such a special place in the iconography of the war is that it was the only Allied type that could meet the Germans on anything approaching equal terms until well into 1943. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Quoted for truth.

Pollack2006
05-09-2007, 02:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
And I find it funny that so many people think it's a Zero.

(not you Faust, natch) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Natch!"

Sounds like an old Speccy user to me.

tragentsmith
05-09-2007, 03:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 96th_Nightshifter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tragentsmith:
HAHA ! The Spit : The only plane in the game who can turn like the bicycles in TRON. Without loosing energy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Said the man who was shot down by a Spit in his 109 during a turn fight and cried. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I only fly the 110 on Warclouds and allready get 300 victories. Most of them Spitfires that I shoot down when they are turning like that. Otherwise, they would outrun me, right?

http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=TARGET&theat...erstats&pilotid=5689 (http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=TARGET&theatre=WF&op=playerstats&pilotid=5689)

S! Guy, I´m invincible against spits. My problems are called Tempests.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-10-2007, 05:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<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 HellToupee:
IM guessing u mean exceptional performance, if i were to compare to the spitfire tho, climb very unexceptional and speed equaled by the XIV plus the bubble canopy. XIV entered service around same time as the 51. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many XIVs were flying escort missions over Europe? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"In September, 41, 130, 350, and 610 squadrons, led by Wing Commander Colin Gray, made up the Spitfire XIV wing based at Lympne, Kent, their primary role being escorting bombers to Germany"

well those ones were atleast, colin gray New Zealands top scoring ace with 28kills. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Escorting them over Europe, not just over the British Channel to attack troops in occupied France. (the 610 Squadron at least escorted Typhoons and other fighterbombers
http://www.610squadron.com/about.php?cmd=about (http://www.610squadron.com/about.php?cmd=about)) )

faustnik
05-10-2007, 10:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Escorting them over Europe, not just over the British Channel to attack troops in occupied France. (the 610 Squadron at least escorted Typhoons and other fighterbombers
http://www.610squadron.com/about.php?cmd=about (http://www.610squadron.com/about.php?cmd=about)) ) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice link! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

I guess my USAAF nationalistic pride is showing when I assume "escort" equals high altitude with the heavies over long range.

WOLFMondo
05-11-2007, 01:15 AM
Check out terms such as Ramrod and rodeo. The RAF seemed to always use a code word when it talks about specific sorts of mission types, like escorts. Allot of Spitfires spent there time, prior to D-day, escorting medium bombers at 12,000ft or so over France.

tomtheyak
05-12-2007, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Check out terms such as Ramrod and rodeo. The RAF seemed to always use a code word when it talks about specific sorts of mission types, like escorts. Allot of Spitfires spent there time, prior to D-day, escorting medium bombers at 12,000ft or so over France. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BINGO!

IIRC the B-26 Marauder units are quoted as attributing their low rate of losses to the quality of their Spitfire escorts, or at least in part.

bearek
05-19-2007, 09:06 PM
Don't forget that without the Spit and Hurri in 1940 there would have been no airbases in the UK for the 8th AF to operate out of. The spit deserves a special place in history for allowing the UK to stay free and become the floating assault ship moored off of Europe from which all the bombing and eventually D Day could be launched from. Without that no P51 would ever have got to Berlin.

PS before you shout 'spit fanboy' I actually prefer the FW190 and fly 'blue' - but I have to admit the spit allowed the hurri's to hit the bombers - and that stopped Sealion, and therefore paved the way for everything else that followed in defeating Fascism - so it deserves respect and our thanks.

luftluuver
05-20-2007, 04:06 AM
faust, Spitfires did the first leg escorting and picked up the returning bombers for the last leg.

This left USAAF escorts free to do the escorting for the longer ranges.