PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire performance in later versions



Wildnoob
08-31-2008, 08:59 AM
folks, with the Bf-109 I can perfectly feel the lost of turning ratios in later models, altougth I don't feel it in the Spitfire, but real pilot's complain about it.

this is not a conspiration against Oleg, but do you feel that the later versions where more heavier ?

Wildnoob
08-31-2008, 08:59 AM
folks, with the Bf-109 I can perfectly feel the lost of turning ratios in later models, altougth I don't feel it in the Spitfire, but real pilot's complain about it.

this is not a conspiration against Oleg, but do you feel that the later versions where more heavier ?

Manu-6S
08-31-2008, 09:18 AM
Not at all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

stalkervision
08-31-2008, 10:00 AM
The 109's except the E possibley or k seem all porked to me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

The early original il-2 109's seemed a whole lot better.

ali19891989
08-31-2008, 10:41 AM
No.

One of the many flaws

No41Sqn_Banks
08-31-2008, 10:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
folks, with the Bf-109 I can perfectly feel the lost of turning ratios in later models, altougth I don't feel it in the Spitfire, but real pilot's complain about it.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's propably because we don't have the "later models" in the game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

thefruitbat
08-31-2008, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
folks, with the Bf-109 I can perfectly feel the lost of turning ratios in later models, altougth I don't feel it in the Spitfire, but real pilot's complain about it.

this is not a conspiration against Oleg, but do you feel that the later versions where more heavier ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We don't have any late model spits in the game.

The Mk IX is the latest version of spit we have in game, only by merit of a change from a 'c' wing to a 'e' wing in '44. This is because the Mk VIII actually entererd service later than the Mk IX, with No. 64 squadron at Hornchurch the first to get the Mk IX in july 1942.

Oh, i nearly forgot, the Mk IX is effectivly (and in some case literally) a Mk Vc re-engined with a merlin 61. Mk Vc's first entered service in oct 1941 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

The spit 25lbs hotrod we have in game, is essentailly a 1941 spit airframe, running at higher boost, and with differnt grade fuel, and with one of the many different engines used in the spit Mk IX, ie the Merlin 60, 61, 66 and 70 series depending to some degree depending on if they were an F, LF, or HF.

I'm not sure what engine we have in the Mk IX 25lbs we have, but it is either a 66 or 61 series engine, i think its the '61, first intoduced in 42, not sure when.

We don't have any of the late war Griffon engined spits such as the mk 21 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif, or indeed any Griffon spits. These are the planes that, sometimes the 'real pilot's complain about it' to quote you.

Fruitbat

Aaron_GT
08-31-2008, 02:20 PM
In many ways the nicest to fly was probably the Mk. V (essentially a Mk. I airframe but metal ailerons, and elevator bob weights sorting out some of the control issues at high speed*, but with weight creep) and the Mk. IX is essentially the V with a more powerful engine and some more weight creep**.

The flying qualities weren't seriously impacted until the XIV (totally different airframe to the I-II-V-IX-XVI series), engine, but same wings) and the Mk. 21 (different airframe again, engine, and totally new wing structure). The nearest to the last two we have in the game is the VIII (same airframe and wings as the XIV but different engine and much lighter).

The thing with Spitfires is it is really three different planes that look similar: I-II-V-IX-XVI - same airframe and wing design, VIII-XVI-XVIII - new fuselage but same wing design, and Mk. 21-22-24 - new fuselage and wings***. The XII is an oddity as it changed airframe from the I- series to VIII series in production. It's a similar story with the P51-D and -H - they look the same but are very different internally.

* Except IX and XVI with full rear tanks which caused the CofG to too far aft near the CofL, which is not ideal. Similar with the P-51 and a similar solution - use the rear tank first.

** Weight creep got quite serious in IX and XVI with the rear tanks full. Plus there are myriad of version of the IX and XVI.

*** Stiff wing which stopped flex and aileron reversal and put the high speed roll up at the level of the P-51, Tempest V and P-47.

Aaron_GT
08-31-2008, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The spit 25lbs hotrod we have in game, is essentailly a 1941 spit airframe </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even worse! In terms of design it's a 1938 (Spit I) airframe, which is basically the 1936 airframe with fixes and production compromises built in. All airframes got incremental fixes, though, but the RAF didn't use a sensible system of block numbers like the USAAF. If you were comparing it to the 109 it would be like flying with the same airframe as the 109A-E series into 1945, with the F-K being the equivalent to the VIII-XIV generation, and the 209 being the Mk. 21 or Spiteful equivalent.

Redesign for the VIII to have modern features and ultimatelt the Griffon started in (from memory) 1939, but the emphasis was on getting stuff in the air for the antcipated war in 1940 (started a year earlier than expected). The redesign for the 21 began in 1942, but again the emphasis was on getting stuff in the air. From memory the 4th generation Spitfire design (Spiteful) began in 1943.

The late Spits (21 onwards and Spiteful) missed the war entirely.

TinyTim
08-31-2008, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
folks, with the Bf-109 I can perfectly feel the lost of turning ratios in later models, altougth I don't feel it in the Spitfire, but real pilot's complain about it.

this is not a conspiration against Oleg, but do you feel that the later versions where more heavier ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We don't have any late model spits in the game.

The Mk IX is the latest version of spit we have in game, only by merit of a change from a 'c' wing to a 'e' wing in '44. This is because the Mk VIII actually entererd service later than the Mk IX, with No. 64 squadron at Hornchurch the first to get the Mk IX in july 1942.

Oh, i nearly forgot, the Mk IX is effectivly (and in some case literally) a Mk Vc re-engined with a merlin 61. Mk Vc's first entered service in oct 1941 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

The spit 25lbs hotrod we have in game, is essentailly a 1941 spit airframe, running at higher boost, and with differnt grade fuel, and with one of the many different engines used in the spit Mk IX, ie the Merlin 60, 61, 66 and 70 series depending to some degree depending on if they were an F, LF, or HF.

I'm not sure what engine we have in the Mk IX 25lbs we have, but it is either a 66 or 61 series engine, i think its the '61, first intoduced in 42, not sure when.

We don't have any of the late war Griffon engined spits such as the mk 21 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif, or indeed any Griffon spits. These are the planes that, sometimes the 'real pilot's complain about it' to quote you.

Fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't MkIXc in IL2 modelled with a Merlin66? If that's the case, wouldn't that make it more or less a '44 plane?

Wildnoob
08-31-2008, 02:55 PM
guys sorry, I really forgot the Grifon versions. altougth I never imagine that the versions we have in the sim are early models.

I was complain about the lack of the MKVII gyro gunsigth in the Spits on IL2, altougth I think I understand why we don't have it.

I gonna read more about the Spitfire and it's many versions.

luftluuver
08-31-2008, 03:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
Isn't MkIXc in IL2 modelled with a Merlin66? If that's the case, wouldn't that make it more or less a '44 plane? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The LF IX used a Merlin 66 but it is still a Mk V airframe.

Aaron_GT
08-31-2008, 03:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I was complain about the lack of the MKVII gyro gunsigth in the Spits on IL2, altougth I think I understand why we don't have it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be nice to have, and was fitted to some Tempest V too. I don't understand why we don't have the option, except it would lead to an even greater range of Spitfires on offer in the game.

A XIV would be nice. The likes of the XII and VII were fairly uncommon, so no problem with those not being included. Wasn't the Seafire XV based on the XII? Or am I completely off base there? I wouldn't be surprised if there were more Seafire XVs built than Spitfire XIIs.

thefruitbat
08-31-2008, 03:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
Isn't MkIXc in IL2 modelled with a Merlin66? If that's the case, wouldn't that make it more or less a '44 plane? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think, but am not sure, that the clipped versions of the spits we have in game, use the 66, and the LF's (non clipped) have the 61, with the HF's having the 70 At least according to hardballs, and il2 compare, which also lists the 25lb as an LF. They are the best references that i have, as to what the game uses, but happy to be corrected

if so, that would make it '41 airframe, with a '42 engine though...

fruitbat

thefruitbat
08-31-2008, 03:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

I wouldn't be surprised if there were more Seafire XVs built than Spitfire XIIs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think, that there were 100 Mk XII's built, using between them the Griffon II/III/IV engines.

I know an order for 384 Seafire XVs was placed, but since the first unit, didn't receive then until may '45, have no idea how many were made, since the war was ending, but as the Seafires were for the PTO???

fruitbat

luftluuver
08-31-2008, 03:41 PM
Aaron why don't you get 'Spitfire: The History'?

Aaron_GT
08-31-2008, 03:53 PM
The problems not lack of books, it's that I've lent 75% of my aircraft books to my father, so I am down to trying to remember stuff! The Spitfire one is a big format one's about half an inch thick, but I am damned if I can remember the author without it in front of me. The Spitfire on the front is flying to the left - that much I remember.

Aaron_GT
08-31-2008, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think, that there were 100 Mk XII's built, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From memory that sounds right. My eyes tend to glaze over a bit when reading about Seafires as messing around on boats doesn't interest me so much for some reason. I might be remembering the order numbers rather than builds.

Aaron_GT
08-31-2008, 04:17 PM
As a P.S. sometimes the whole system of British naming and marks seems somewhat arbitrary. There are planes (and tanks) with big changes retaining the same name and even mark number, and then at other times very similar planes getting different names entirely. Examples would be the P-40, or the Centaur/Cromwell tanks (Cromwells being essentially Centaurs with different engine, by which logic the Spitfire XII or XIV wouldn't be Spitfires at all...)

M_Gunz
08-31-2008, 10:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
folks, with the Bf-109 I can perfectly feel the lost of turning ratios in later models, altougth I don't feel it in the Spitfire, but real pilot's complain about it.

this is not a conspiration against Oleg, but do you feel that the later versions where more heavier ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If we had those late versions, Spit XIV and later, then we might see what those pilots say.

Oh dang... well, that doesn't make all our Spits early versions by any means!
What the pilot quoted means by "Late Model", you have to see if he names any I guess.

Additional:

The Aircraft Guide from disk 2 of the 1946 set does name the engines used as 1 x model #.

Spit Vb, Vb CW, LF and LF CW as well as the Vc Spits list as 45.
Spit VIII and VIII CW list as 66.
Spit IXc and IXc CW list as 61.
Spit IXe, IXe HF and IXe LF list as 70.
Spit 25lb has no page with that info.
Seafires both list as 55.

That's what I see in the Official Aircraft Guide.
Just remember that the Spit VB we have is mid-42 while in-game label says 1941, nothing is
perfect and if we had to wait for perfect then we'd have nothing!

M_Gunz
08-31-2008, 11:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
As a P.S. sometimes the whole system of British naming and marks seems somewhat arbitrary. There are planes (and tanks) with big changes retaining the same name and even mark number, and then at other times very similar planes getting different names entirely. Examples would be the P-40, or the Centaur/Cromwell tanks (Cromwells being essentially Centaurs with different engine, by which logic the Spitfire XII or XIV wouldn't be Spitfires at all...) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Misinformation to throw the enemy off?

WTE_Galway
08-31-2008, 11:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

I wouldn't be surprised if there were more Seafire XVs built than Spitfire XIIs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think, that there were 100 Mk XII's built, using between them the Griffon II/III/IV engines.

I know an order for 384 Seafire XVs was placed, but since the first unit, didn't receive then until may '45, have no idea how many were made, since the war was ending, but as the Seafires were for the PTO???

fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you go:

250 Supermarine Seafire XV ordered 12.2.44 under cont no ctts/acft/2777/C.23 ( c) from Cunliffe-Owen Aircraft ltd, Eastleigh and numbered SP136-SP461. 50 completed as mk III up to SP197. SP198 –SP322 cancelled, SP323-SP355 completed post-war as F.XVII. SP356 onwards cancelled.

First 3.45 SP136



140 Supermarine Seafire F.XV ordered 2.44 under Cont no b.124305/40 and ctts/acft/2605/C.23 ( c) from Westland Aircraft Ltd, Yeovil
Serial Numbers: SR446-SR645

First SR446 9.44
Total 140 deld by 8.45



500 Supermarine Seafire F.XV and F.XVIII ordered 3.4.44 under Cont no b.124305/40 and acft/3853/C.23 ( c) from Westland Aircraft Ltd, Yeovil.
Serial Numbers: SW781-SX546.

Completed as F.XV to SW921.
Cancelled between SW922-SW985.
Completed as F.XVII between SW986-SX389,

*****

I think that adds up to 280 delivered as Seafire XV, 50 became mkIII's and 403 more turned into Seafire XVII's post war and the rest were cancelled ??? Someone should check my math http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


From this website:
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/aircraft/Seafire.htm

Xiolablu3
09-01-2008, 04:31 AM
The late Mark IX LF's of 1944 arent REALLY early Spitfire airframes.

Many of the improvements made for the MkVIII were added slowly to the MkIX's as time went on, so as not to disrupt supply by changing all the jigs.

The MkVIII was the 'true' new airframe, which carried more fuel and gave the Spit a combat range of 650miles without drop tanks, over 1000miles with.

However it was seen as more important to get the MkIX into service because of the troubles with the FW190 in 1942. The MkIX had basically the same performance as the MkVIII, but with lower range and less advanced, and less strong airframe.

The MkVIII had these changes from the early MkIX's..

The internal structure was strengthened and revised.
The ailerons were reduced in span by 8.5 inches (220 mm) outboard of the outer hinges. There had been some instances of earlier models breaking up in the air in steep high speed dives, it was thought, because of aileron flutter.[b]
14 gallon (64 l) fuel tanks were fitted in each wing leading edge between the wingroots and the inner gun-bays.
An "Aero-Vee" filter was added to the carburettor air intake under the nose, identifiable by the long, streamlined fairing. This was also seen on mid to late Mk IX, and most P.R Mk X, P.R Mk XI and Mk XVI.
The main undercarriage legs, for the first time in the Spitfire's life, were fitted with forward facing torque links. In addition, the leg doors were slightly concave, allowing the undercarriage to sit lower in the wheel wells when retracted: this meant the upper wing skinning was free of the small bulge which had hitherto been necessary to clear the wheels. The wheels themselves were a reinforced "four spoke" pattern, replacing the "five spoke" pattern used since the first Mk Is. This revised undercarriage was also fitted on some mid to late Mk IXs and all Mk XVIs.
A retractable tailwheel was fitted, covered by small doors when in flight.
The more effective and streamlined 'pointed rudder' was fitted.



According to Supermarine's Chief Test Pilot Jeffrey Quill:

"When I am asked which mark of Spitfire I consider the best from the flying point of view, I usually reply 'The Mark VIII with standard wingtips.'


He also loved the Griffon MkXII.

Good read, if you think something is wrong please add a comment in the 'discussion' tab...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_(late...in_powered_variants) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_(late_Merlin_powered_variants ))

Kettenhunde
09-01-2008, 05:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Good read, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is wikpedia...

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

Kettenhunde
09-01-2008, 05:14 AM
Adding weight without changing the stabiity and control points will cause an increase in the stick force per G.

Changing the arm will also affect handling.

The weight of the Mk XII is the same as the MkIX AFAIK.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kurfurst__
09-01-2008, 05:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
If you were comparing it to the 109 it would be like flying with the same airframe as the 109A-E series into 1945, with the F-K being the equivalent to the VIII-XIV generation, and the 209 being the Mk. 21 or Spiteful equivalent.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would say the F-K, as far as development stages go, fell somewhere between the Mk. 21 and the Spiteful. Ie. the with the F series the 109 as a design saw a completely new wing and aileron design, some streamlining of fuselage, and a completely new radiator system. The Mk 21 in comparison introduced some streamlining (wheel well covers), with some added drag gained in the meantime (cannon and Griffon bulges), whereas the Spiteful finally redesigned that awfully old-fashioned radiator scheme of the wartime Spits.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The MkVIII was the 'true' new airframe, which carried more fuel and gave the Spit a combat range of 650miles without drop tanks, over 1000miles with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really imho... compared to the early Spitfires the 'new' Mk VII/VIII/XIV airframe was only marginally different.. retractable tailwheel... different span ailerons.. flush riveting on the fuselage.. other minor stuff and that's it.

None of the major aerodynamic components, ie. wing shape or profile actually changed. None of the type's bigger design flaws were (instability in pitch, wing flexing, shielding of Frise ailerons from washout) were fixed. That had to wait until the Mark 20 series, which is IMHO where you can justifiably actually talk about a 'new' airframe.

Xiolablu3
09-01-2008, 06:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Good read, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is wikpedia...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you think something is wrong please add a discussion here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Supermarine_Spitfire_...in_powered_variants) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Supermarine_Spitfire_(late_Merlin_powered_var iants))

The only way to get it more accurate is to chew out the facts on the discussion page for each article.

Xiolablu3
09-01-2008, 06:39 AM
The thing is that apparantly the SPitfire was already aerodynamically very good, at least the Germans noted this in their review of the captured MkIX.

They noted the aerodynamics were 'excellent'.

However it never had as extensive update as the Bf109F IMO. The Bf109F and on was a more modern aircraft. You only have to compare the designs close up to see how old fashioned the Spit and Merlin look in comparison to a Bf109G for example.
Yes the MkVIII airframe was a considerable redesign, but not as extensive as the move from the Emil to the Freidrich.

I think maybe IMO the new Griffon engine PLUS the new MkVIII airframe in the MkXIV counts as a similar 'amount' of redesign as the move from the 109E to the 109F.

As noted, they could maybe have redesigned the Radiators to something less draggy.

ali19891989
09-01-2008, 07:33 AM
I did here a somewhere (might be slightly out due to my memory) the Spitfire gained 25% speed and 75% in weight?

Xiolablu3
09-01-2008, 02:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ali19891989:
I did here a somewhere (might be slightly out due to my memory) the Spitfire gained 25% speed and 75% in weight? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very possible, sounds like an average figure for WW2 fighters of the time.

350mph to 440mph is around 25%.

Extra armour, bigger engine, heavier armament, extra fuel, stronger airframe, it all adds weight.

The big wings and very low wing loading allowed it to retain its good handling characteristics somewhat better than other designs. The % weight gain would not have as much effect on the handling as with a similar sized plane with a high wing loading which gained the same amount of weight.

Hoenire
09-01-2008, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
folks, with the Bf-109 I can perfectly feel the lost of turning ratios in later models, altougth I don't feel it in the Spitfire, but real pilot's complain about it.

this is not a conspiration against Oleg, but do you feel that the later versions where more heavier ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I do. The Spit Vb or c "feel" a lot quicker to turn either as an immediate turn or as a sustained turn around a tight radius. The later Spits, eg all MkIXs definitely "feel" heavier, the acceleration doesn't feel so quick and their energy retention falls away a lot.

The real difference is that if you fly a '43 planeset you're usually up against FW190s and Bf109G6s onwards, and the Spit will comfortably out-fly them in a horizontal turn fight. This means that it'll feel the same as, say, a Vb against a G2, but you'll be flying faster and the manouevres you are doing will cover more area of sky.

The MkVIII is simply a joy, being somewhere between the Vc and IX in "feel", until you see any Bf109G6A/S or FW190A6 (or later versions) zooming past and dwindling away into the distance. And then as you watch that one another one takes off your wing.

Kettenhunde
09-01-2008, 04:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If you think something is wrong please add a discussion here...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not about to get involved in that junk, Xio. I hope you understand.

When you see statements like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> However pilots found it difficult to exploit this advantage in combat as German pilots were reluctant to be drawn into dogfights with Spitfires of any type below 20,000 feet (6,100 m). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This statement is just patent baloney written by some fan. I have no desire to get involved that discussion. It is not based in reality and you are probably not going to convince them otherwise.

This is what you are up against discussing the Spitfire on the internet:

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/4059/englishschoolbattleofbrxc3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/englishschoolbattleofbrxc3.jpg/1/w676.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img46/englishschoolbattleofbrxc3.jpg/1/)

The Spitfire is viewed as a cultural icon whose performance literally saved the English system.

It truly takes on mythical properties in the minds of individuals.

A great description of the Mk XII and its performance that is grounded in reality already exists already in "Spitfire: The History".

Thanks for the invite, but no thanks. I will let you guys hash this one out.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
09-01-2008, 04:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The big wings and very low wing loading allowed it to retain its good handling characteristics somewhat better than other designs. The % weight gain would not have as much effect on the handling as with a similar sized plane with a high wing loading which gained the same amount of weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That is exactly what I am talking about, Xio.

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

You understand it is relative. The Spitfire was designed with certain design points occurring at specific conditions.

The design growth is dictated by these conditions with the most common limiting factor being the CG limits.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
09-01-2008, 05:14 PM
Did they ballast up and stick the bob weights in the back countering the extra engine weight
to some degree for balance? Not that I know the numbers, just that weight went into both ends
at different distances from CG.

I wonder do things like this get studied in AE schools down to detail as kinds of projects?
I'm sure that that way he nitty would meet the gritty with less speculation, more information,
and it'd be convenient for the Spit and 109 grogs. Or would that be beneath such training?

LOL!

Buzzsaw-
09-02-2008, 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 Xiolablu3:
The thing is that apparantly the SPitfire was already aerodynamically very good, at least the Germans noted this in their review of the captured MkIX.

They noted the aerodynamics were 'excellent'.

However it never had as extensive update as the Bf109F IMO. The Bf109F and on was a more modern aircraft. You only have to compare the designs close up to see how old fashioned the Spit and Merlin look in comparison to a Bf109G for example. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Complete nonsense.

While the 109F was a significant step forward from the very poor 109E, it was not by any means a clean design.

And the 109G's and later versions were a complete mess as far as aerodyamics are concerned.

The proof is in the speeds they attained on the engine horsepower they had available, when compared to the size of the aircraft, and its small wingspan and wingarea. With its size and wingspan, and a decently designed airframe, the 109 should have seen huge advantages in speed over other contemporary aircraft. Which was far from being the case.

From the 'buboes', to the bumps on the wings, to the near vertical front cockpit glass, to the position of the air intake, to the radiators, to the slats, to the open wheelwells, the later 109 was a compendium of addons and adhocs which added enormously to the overall drag acting on the aircraft.

An engineer who had a large part in the design and production of the aircraft wrote an article in the 1960's where he discussed the problems.

Not at home at the moment, but will try to find a link on the internet.

The Spitfire was not a clean design either, it had significant issues with its radiator placement and design, but when you take into account its very large wingspan and wingarea, (overall wingspan is the most important factor relating to airframe drag) it did very well.

Aaron_GT
09-02-2008, 02:58 PM
One interesting side note to Spitfire performance is that mounting ramjets on it was considered in 1940. In this configuration the ramjets would have been mounted under the fuselage in essentially the same position as the P-51 radiator. In the end the experiments were delayed and carried out using a Mustang I with the ramjets placed in the radiator exhaust and the emphasis had changed to using ramjets for surfsce to air missiles after a solid rocket start (essentially the same system is used to this day).

Aaron_GT
09-02-2008, 03:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This statement is just patent baloney written by some fan. I have no desire to get involved that discussion. It is not based in reality and you are probably not going to convince them otherwise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does seem odd considering that when 109s were tied to close escort they were already below 20,000 ft.

Buzzsaw-
09-02-2008, 03:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoenire:
The MkVIII is simply a joy, being somewhere between the Vc and IX in "feel", until you see any Bf109G6A/S or FW190A6 (or later versions) zooming past and dwindling away into the distance. And then as you watch that one another one takes off your wing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too bad that there were basically no 109G6AS models in service in '43, and very few in '44. The 109G6 Early was the standard in '43, and the G6 Late was the standard right up to the end of June '44. In July '44 the G14 started to replace it.

M_Gunz
09-02-2008, 03:32 PM
The 109E that in 1940 was one of if not the most advanced fighter in the world is very poor?
And the 109G was a -complete- aerodynamic mess?

Yah, not a little bias there by any means. More like a shipload.

Buzzsaw-
09-02-2008, 04:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The 109E that in 1940 was one of if not the most advanced fighter in the world is very poor?
And the 109G was a -complete- aerodynamic mess?

Yah, not a little bias there by any means. More like a shipload. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Salute

If it was so advanced, why the near 50% redesign with the F model?

New wings, new fuselage structures, etc?

Why, with 1150 hp, is the 109E no faster, (in fact slower at some alts) than the 1030 hp Spitfire? That with the 109E being quite a bit smaller in wingspan and wingarea.

The fact is, the 109E was outclassed by the Spitfire II, being inferior in turnrate, speed, etc.

The F redesign cleaned up the aircraft considerably, as evidenced by the big gains in speed, while using the similar generation DB-601 engine.

And your accusations of bias, maybe you want to actually look at the facts. &gt;&gt;&gt; Why isn't the 109G6 much faster then the Spit IXF? Both have similar top speeds on similar horsepower engines, (approx. 1500) but the Spitfire has a bigger airframe, which should theoretically create much more drag. Yet the smaller G6 can't outpace it. Why is that?

Kettenhunde
09-02-2008, 05:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Both have similar top speeds on similar horsepower engines, (approx. 1500) but the Spitfire has a bigger airframe, which should theoretically create much more drag. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The lighter weight creates less drag due to lift but the larger area creates more drag due to form.

There is a reason why they do have similar performance for a similar amount of power.

Think about it.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
09-02-2008, 05:27 PM
I didn't say the Spitfire wasn't advanced, at least to the aerodynamics.

You can hold up selected comparisons all day but trying to characterize a plane on such a basis
in the loaded terms you do, it's like the old days here.

EmKen
09-02-2008, 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 Aaron_GT:
The problems not lack of books, it's that I've lent 75% of my aircraft books to my father, so I am down to trying to remember stuff! The Spitfire one is a big format one's about half an inch thick, but I am damned if I can remember the author without it in front of me. The Spitfire on the front is flying to the left - that much I remember. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Swanborough and Green did a classic study, as did Alfred Price -maybe either of those?

Altamov_Steppes
09-02-2008, 08:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The 109E that in 1940 was one of if not the most advanced fighter in the world is very poor?
And the 109G was a -complete- aerodynamic mess?

Yah, not a little bias there by any means. More like a shipload. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Salute

If it was so advanced, why the near 50% redesign with the F model?

New wings, new fuselage structures, etc?

Why, with 1150 hp, is the 109E no faster, (in fact slower at some alts) than the 1030 hp Spitfire? That with the 109E being quite a bit smaller in wingspan and wingarea.

The fact is, the 109E was outclassed by the Spitfire II, being inferior in turnrate, speed, etc.

The F redesign cleaned up the aircraft considerably, as evidenced by the big gains in speed, while using the similar generation DB-601 engine.

And your accusations of bias, maybe you want to actually look at the facts. &gt;&gt;&gt; Why isn't the 109G6 much faster then the Spit IXF? Both have similar top speeds on similar horsepower engines, (approx. 1500) but the Spitfire has a bigger airframe, which should theoretically create much more drag. Yet the smaller G6 can't outpace it. Why is that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It could be the case that the later DB engines and even in the 109F were taking the original 109 airframe to its limits. The 109F had tailplane struts removed without strengthening the tailplane. Consequently, the tailplane became affected by the DB engine resonance at certain frequencies thus affecting flight characteristics. The 109F tailplane was subsequently and quickly strengthened.

Perhaps a process of concessions made during the 109 airframe developments could no longer achieve Willy Messerchnitt's simple original aim of matching the most powerful engine available with the lightest airframe available.

By contrast, a lot of trust was put in the Spitfire airframe.

Willy seems to have had a tempestuous independence streak that often accompanies genius - even to the point of putting his business partner and the German Air Ministry offside now and then.

The 109G did not have the manouvreability of the F or E and it was much heavier. Just a few of the differences. The F was considered the best looking aircraft of the 109 family and was no slouch.

luftluuver
09-02-2008, 09:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The problems not lack of books, it's that I've lent 75% of my aircraft books to my father, so I am down to trying to remember stuff! The Spitfire one is a big format one's about half an inch thick, but I am damned if I can remember the author without it in front of me. The Spitfire on the front is flying to the left - that much I remember. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aaron an online source.
http://www.spitfires.ukf.net/home.htm

Buzzsaw-
09-02-2008, 11:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

The lighter weight creates less drag due to lift but the larger area creates more drag due to form.

There is a reason why they do have similar performance for a similar amount of power.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gross oversimplification.

1) There is not a 1-1 ratio between increased wingspan/wingarea and additional lift

2) Design structures which add drag will also increase/reduce lift depending on circumstance. For example the slats on a 109 increase both drag and lift at low speed, (drag increased due to increased frontal wing area, lift increased due to changed aerofoil) or reduce lift, at high speeds. (due to turbulent airflow from the slat gaps)

The factors which bear on the 109's inability to generate high top speeds comparative to its available horsepower and size are many and varied, but one of the largest is its poor aerodynamics.

Altamov_Steppes
09-02-2008, 11:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
In many ways the nicest to fly was probably the Mk. V (essentially a Mk. I airframe but metal ailerons, and elevator bob weights sorting out some of the control issues at high speed*, but with weight creep) and the Mk. IX is essentially the V with a more powerful engine and some more weight creep**.

The flying qualities weren't seriously impacted until the XIV (totally different airframe to the I-II-V-IX-XVI series), engine, but same wings) and the Mk. 21 (different airframe again, engine, and totally new wing structure). The nearest to the last two we have in the game is the VIII (same airframe and wings as the XIV but different engine and much lighter).

The thing with Spitfires is it is really three different planes that look similar: I-II-V-IX-XVI - same airframe and wing design, VIII-XVI-XVIII - new fuselage but same wing design, and Mk. 21-22-24 - new fuselage and wings***. The XII is an oddity as it changed airframe from the I- series to VIII series in production. It's a similar story with the P51-D and -H - they look the same but are very different internally.

* Except IX and XVI with full rear tanks which caused the CofG to too far aft near the CofL, which is not ideal. Similar with the P-51 and a similar solution - use the rear tank first.

** Weight creep got quite serious in IX and XVI with the rear tanks full. Plus there are myriad of version of the IX and XVI.

*** Stiff wing which stopped flex and aileron reversal and put the high speed roll up at the level of the P-51, Tempest V and P-47. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Mk1 had radio IFF fitted and CSUs were becoming available. The MkV airframe was not substantially different from Mks I and II.

Apart from the MkIV the MkX11 was the first to use the 2-stage Griffon engine resulting in a longer nose (complete with bumps to accomodate the cylinder blocks).
Complete with 'clipped wings' it was known as being hastily contrived as a low level interceptor to catch low level FW raiders and could reach near 350 mph at sea level (the MkVI preceding it was developed as the first high altitude intercepter by using an intercooler between the 2-stage series turbocharger).

The powerful Griffin engine allowed more weight to be factored into design development. When the Griffon was equiped with 2-stage supercharger (65-series) it was more than twice as powerful as the original Merlin at all heights.

The MkIX was simply a MkV airframe with the new Merlin 61 etc. engine and was basically a contingency invention rushed into action against the FW. Yet it was the most produced of the Marks.

The MkVIII was a different airframe and was asserted to be a much better aircraft; even called the 'definitive Spitfire'in the view of probably a majority of pilots. yet probaly most of the comparatively few that were produced found their way overseas; even in a tropicalised version.
Some MkVIII had a broader rudder with pointed top which was later standard on all Merlin 60 Spits.

Some MkIX airframes were fitted with a Packard engine and became the MkXVI.

The elliptical wing gradually disappeared in the development process being replaced by the laminar profile found on the Spiteful. Some test pilots wanted the old elliptical wing on their new test jets rather than the new wing. The elliptical wing profile made possible mach 0.9 and actually dived to mach 0.92, much faster than the early German jets.

After the war the Mks 45 onwards brought the final weight of the series to near 6 000kg in round terms.

Xiolablu3
09-03-2008, 03:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The thing is that apparantly the SPitfire was already aerodynamically very good, at least the Germans noted this in their review of the captured MkIX.

They noted the aerodynamics were 'excellent'.

However it never had as extensive update as the Bf109F IMO. The Bf109F and on was a more modern aircraft. You only have to compare the designs close up to see how old fashioned the Spit and Merlin look in comparison to a Bf109G for example. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Complete nonsense.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said ANYTHING about 'cleaness', I said 'More modern'.

You need to watch real vintage WW2 fighter engineers talking about the Bf109 compared to the Spit here....skip to 5minutes on the video and listen to Tony Biancci, Spitfire owner and engineer examining a Bf109G.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgvfklVzYZo

I am not talking about the cockpit part of the video, which we know is small. I'm talking about the airframe and engine....it was produced in a 3rd of the time of a SPitfire.

You had better tell these guys in the video that even tho they have worked on Spitfires for years, that they are actually wrong..

Kettenhunde
09-03-2008, 03:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Gross oversimplification.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly. It represents all the time I am willing to waste explaining it to you.

You make my earlier point quite nicely.

All the best,

Crumpp

Aaron_GT
09-03-2008, 03:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Alfred Price </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the chap!