PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire Specifications



402Cdn.Valkyrie
04-23-2004, 10:11 AM
Hello and goodday to all...

I'm a Spitfire fan and would like to know why the spitfire Mk Vb does not have the full engine power and amount of ammo that it should have???

In IL-2 AEP it says that it have "1185 HP vs Real life where it had 1450" and "60 20mm ammo in AEP vs 120 in real life". i have talked to some people ingame that says that the spit is "over modelled"...!! how can this be if the engine lags power and its short on ammmo?

402Cdn.Valkyrie
04-23-2004, 10:11 AM
Hello and goodday to all...

I'm a Spitfire fan and would like to know why the spitfire Mk Vb does not have the full engine power and amount of ammo that it should have???

In IL-2 AEP it says that it have "1185 HP vs Real life where it had 1450" and "60 20mm ammo in AEP vs 120 in real life". i have talked to some people ingame that says that the spit is "over modelled"...!! how can this be if the engine lags power and its short on ammmo?

VW-IceFire
04-23-2004, 11:10 AM
Double check the horsepower rating and which version you are comparing it to. There are multiple versions of the Mark V with multiple engine types and horsepower ratings.

The ammo load is infact correct. The Mark Vb, which is the model we have, has a 'b' type wing which was the first to mount the 20mm Mark II Hispano cannon. This model had 60 rounds per gun.

Later the war there was the refitted Mark Vc which uses a 'c' type wing (or the so called universal wing) which has provisions for 120 rounds of 20mm cannon ammo. This model is not represented in AEP. However, the Mark IX we're getting has both 'c' and 'e' type armaments (both with 120 rounds of 20mm per gun) so I think that will be just fine.

You'll need to provide sources and comparison and which version of the engine your talking about on the horsepower issue. By far, the Spitfire V does perform as expected and in realistic co-ops that I've played, its performance is spot on in comparison to the FW190A-5 that we were fighting against. They are faster and climb better while the Spit V can only essentially turn quicker. The IX goes a very long way to redressing that...I can see people complaining about it again (notice how people complain about aircraft with manuverability and never about the ones with speed).

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

biggs222
04-23-2004, 01:43 PM
what id really REALLY like to know is what kind of Boost are we gettgin with the LFmkIX(merlin66), +18lb boost? +25lb Boost?

Hey ivan maybe PM me with the answer??? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

PzKpfw
04-23-2004, 07:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fallen_Phoenix:
Hello and goodday to all...

I'm a Spitfire fan and would like to know why the spitfire Mk Vb does not have the full engine power and amount of ammo that it should have???

In IL-2 AEP it says that it have "1185 HP vs Real life where it had 1450" and "60 20mm ammo in AEP vs 120 in real life". i have talked to some people ingame that says that the spit is "over modelled"...!! how can this be if the engine lags power and its short on ammmo?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well from data I have on Spitfire VB *W3134 tested in May 1941, the performance with the Merlin 45 was 1185bhp take-off, Emergency combat power. 1515bhp @ 11000ft @ +16lbs boost.

On armament I thought that was dependant on wing used Ie, B, C. The VB had 60rpg, and the VC had 120rpg.

*See: Price Alfred Dr. Spitfire Mark V Aces 1941 - 1945. p.87


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Sat April 24 2004 at 06:51 AM.]

WhiskeyRiver
04-23-2004, 07:31 PM
Oh no, the return of the Dweebfire. Th mkIX will become the uber noob plane of choice.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

402Cdn.Valkyrie
04-24-2004, 09:06 AM
Ok maybe i can accept that it only have 60 20mm but i'm sure that it had, and i have checked this alot, 1470HP with a RR Merlin 45.

lrrp22
04-24-2004, 10:22 AM
+18 lb, be sure!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
what id really REALLY like to know is what kind of Boost are we gettgin with the LFmkIX(merlin66), +18lb boost? +25lb Boost?

Hey ivan maybe PM me with the answer??? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

VMF513_Sandman
04-24-2004, 01:21 PM
yes the spit does have low ammo. so, if u want to do well in it with the ammo that u have, extreme ammo conservation is manditory. unless the gomer fills the gunsite, consider urself out of range. to fire before that time, u stand a very good chance of going winchester went u need it the most.

Itto_Okami
04-24-2004, 02:33 PM
1470 were "panic bost" HP avaible with the Merlin 45. BTW... I was reading of special Merlin 66 engines with boost at +25lb, limited time life and 150 octane fuel used to intercept V-1s

S!

Itto

Kurfurst__
04-24-2004, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
what id really REALLY like to know is what kind of Boost are we gettgin with the LFmkIX(merlin66), +18lb boost? +25lb Boost?

Hey ivan maybe PM me with the answer??? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Biggs, to me it seems you are encouraging members who are not authorized to tell you this to refuse obeying their obligaitions, aren`t you ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

As for +25 lbs, most IXs didn`t use it until 1945, altough it was used by some squadrons tasked with defending UK airspace in mid-1944.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

biggs222
04-24-2004, 02:55 PM
well Kurfurst u ALREADY talked about the Patch in that other thread, breaking your NDA, but thats neither here nor there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

ok so i guess we do get +18lb boost outta the LFmkIX then. I can live with that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Aaron_GT
04-24-2004, 03:06 PM
WhiskeyRiver:
"Oh no, the return of the Dweebfire. Th mkIX will become the uber noob plane of choice."

If it is accurately modelled, then if it is
easy to fly and effective, then surely this
would be a tribute to its designer, not a
reason for insults?

hop2002
04-24-2004, 04:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>ok so i guess we do get +18lb boost outta the LFmkIX then. I can live with that<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If we're lucky. Isegrim has been going round trying to convince anyone who'll listen that JL 165, a Spit IX that performed far below others on test, is the standard that the Spit should meet.

Here's a graph showing various Spit VIIIs and IXs with the Merlin 66 on test:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1082729993_spitixspeeds4.gif

Jl 165 is the red line.

Isegrim's double standards (worst figures for Allied planes, best figures for German palnes) doesn't worry me, but the fact that he says he's been talking to Oleg about the new patch....


Mike Williams' Spit test site has got the following tests for Merlin 66 engined Spits:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit8.html

Spit VIII. Speed should be practically the same (the VIII had a retracting tail wheel, which the IX didn't, but in tests the RAF found no real difference in speed below 30,000ft between the VIII and IX)

The Spit VIII weighed 370 lbs more than the IX, so climb rate for the IX should be a bit higher.

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

This has the main type tests of the Spit LF and HF IX. Note the HF IX, with an engine optimised for high alt work, performs much better even at low altitude than the figures Isegrim is trying to define as a standard Spit IX.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html

This is the plane Isegrim wants to use. Note that when RR tested the same aircraft earlier, it performed better, but still not up to normal Spit IX standards.

Note that the maximum speed of JL 165 was 388 mph, about 15 - 20 mph slower than other Spit IXs, and the only Spit IX I've ever seen that wouldn't exceed 400 mph.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/ma648.html
This Spit IX had a form of fuel injection instead of a carb, but the report notes it's only about 3 mph faster than a standard Spit IX.

The speed graph on this test is informative, as it too shows how anomalous Jl 165 was:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/ma648speed.gif

Kurfurst__
04-24-2004, 04:41 PM
Rather desperate attempts to sell planes like the experimental BS 543, or the experimental MA 648 as serial planes, ain`t it Hop? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Scared, huh ? What exactly you expect of that Mk IX - dominate everything, LOL? Let me tell you a secret: in real life, it failed in that. It was a good plane, but nothing of the super-duper-hpyer-uber god-like Dominator you think it was.

As for 'double standards', I am laughing my azz out when it`s you who speak about them. YOU?!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif It`s not me who makes up and manipulates qoutes from people on a regular basis, it`s you, Hop. At least stick to the facts.

But, don`t wet your pants, I am not as rotten as some, I`d never suggest to Oleg to model the Spit IX as per JL 165, or the funny prototype BS 543, just to try to make it worser.. perhaps you are using your own mindset as a model for others.. Of course you would use single prototypes which never saw any service at all, propagate them as standard to force it through to enjoy laughably inflated figures for the just-wannabe ultimate fighter. Luckily Oleg is far from being a fool to be tricked by such sillyness.

As for the facts, we have yet to see an actual Spitfire IXLF that could actually go over 400 mph, like the pet experimental ones of Hop. Sadly nobody seen such a Spit, ie. in test performed by NII VVS, the Spit IXLF could attain 529 km/h at SL, and about 641 km/h at 6100m. Far from the figures reached by those obtained with experimental propellers, or experimental, never-to-be-used injection pumps, ie. the speed curves on Hop`s graph.

But there`s nothing to argue about, Hop knows nothing of the performance of the Mk IXLF in AEP, so he can complain about nothing. And I doubt any reasonable man should do, though I doubt Hop fells into that category, given the ranting he just posted. He is so scared the Spit will not fullfill and suppress the expectations he made up himself, that he is forced to post this silly paranoia.

Just so that you would understand better why he is so freaking scared, here are the historical speed specs for Mk IXLF vs. 109 K-4. Note that these are just the historical specs, not from AEP or the beta!

Speeds, in km/h at Sl and rated altitude (in meters), at maximum WEP (10 mins for K-4, 5 mins for the Spit):

K-4 / IXLF

SL : 607 / 541
at 6000m : 715 / 643 (rated altitude of both planes)
At 8200m : 705 / 631

OK, so just for the fun part, the K-4 could actually cruise w/o time limit at 645 km/h at 8200m. I.e the K-4 can leave the Mk IX in the dust w/o taking a sweat.

Given the above, it`s understanble, why Hop gets more and more scared with each day that brings us closer to patch release... He has been sharing his claims about how indomitable the Spit will be for months. That`s why the prototypes being thrown in, that`s why the foul accusations.

Well, don`t make promises you can`t keep!


As for the Mike William`s guy and his site, one just has to look at the Spitfire I section, where he selectively qoutes only the bad parts from 109E comparisions, and cut off the part of the roll rate chart which shows the Spit has TWICE the aileron forces an HALF the roll rate as the 109E. So much for that site, Hop`s favourite source.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

[This message was edited by Kurfurst__ on Sat April 24 2004 at 04:01 PM.]

biggs222
04-24-2004, 05:29 PM
as long as i can reach 408-10 mph at around 21,000 22,000 ft and around 335mph at sea level i wont have any problems.

LFmkIX should reach about 657kph at aprox 6500m

[This message was edited by biggs222 on Sat April 24 2004 at 04:43 PM.]

VW-IceFire
04-24-2004, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
as long as i can reach 408-10 mph at around 21,000 22,000 ft and around 335mph at sea level i wont have any problems.

LFmkIX should reach about 657kph at aprox 6500m

[This message was edited by biggs222 on Sat April 24 2004 at 04:43 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think were in agreement on that. As long as its fairly close then I'll be happy. Most of the planes if people will notice that are complained about are the ones with good turn circles. The Spitfire, the Yak, the La, the Zero...

I'm ready for an onslaught of people complaining about the IX. It was close to the FW190 in most realms of performance and it certainly was the answer and even more to the point is that the IX we're getting is a later model and not the one issued in mid 1942. So it should climb better than the Vb, have a higher top speed (i.e. about 410 mph at optimum alt), have roughly the same handling, and have a far superior set of armament options. So its a really good all around fighter...it lacked range and it wasn't a really tough plane (although I don't think it was ever complained about that it lacked protection - not past the Mark V anyways) but otherwise very effective.

I can't wait for a XIV too...then I'm sure there will be flamewars.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

biggs222
04-24-2004, 06:22 PM
yeah im not all about arguing over performance, the MKIX wasnt as good as the K4 as far as speed goes, the mkIX dealt with the G-6s so the whole MKiX verses K4 thing is silly.
mkXIV vs K4, now that somethign completely different http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif

655-657 kph on my dial and im all smiles

Kurfurst__
04-24-2004, 06:36 PM
As for speed, 410+ at 22ft is awfully optimistic for the IXLF. Only experimental planes got that fast at such altitudes, any other serial plane you will see best speed developed at 19.5k feet, at about 400-405 mph. Ie. RAF tests, Soviet tests... not surprising, the Merlin 66 had a lower rated altitude, 17k ft.

The Mk IX - K-4 comparision isn`t silly. There were hundreds of K-4s, or very similiar performomg G-14/AS, G-6/AS or G-10s in service in 1944/45. They made up about half the 109 force, the rest were G-14s.

If you look at the RAF side, even in mid-43, about half of the Spitfires are old MkVs, the MkIXs still being rare - the LW by that time almost completely changed to 109Gs, primary G-4s in mid-43, and an increasing number of G-6s.

The Mk IX didn`t really become the backbone of the Spit-force until 1944, the newer Marks saw service in only minimal numbers - for example, the 2nd TAF had 30 Spitfire IX/XVI fighter squadrons, but only 5 with Mk XIVs. Worser, the 2nd TAF actually possesed the vast majority of those new XIVs of the entire RAF! So basically, a K-4 would typically fight IXs 7 out of 8 engagments, while a Mk IX would face a K-4, or the mentioned similiar models in 5 out of 8 engagements, and even in the remaining 4, it would face the standard mid-altitude G-14s.

As for the MkXIV, I think most people will like the IX better. The XIV is really only faster, but MUCH heavier. Even Johnson liked the IX better than the XIV, despite the fact he commanded almost all XIVs in the RAF at one time.

But, as I said, I don`t think there`s any reason to worry about the IX`s FM, it`s really nice.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

biggs222
04-24-2004, 06:55 PM
calling 408-10 mph awfully optimistic is just ur opinion. 408mph is the top speed for the F and Lf mkIX posted on every book ive ever read, from plane stats to pilot reports. chopping 10 mph off it would see to be extrememly pesimistic, and from the countless reports, wrong.

BTW the mkIX was a '42 plane, the LFs came around in early '43. mkXIVs were around in '44.
'45 we got the mk21 and right before the war ended the mk22 flew.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
04-24-2004, 09:44 PM
Salute

As usual Issy is not providing all the facts, and excluding others.

Although he is correct in some aspects, most notably speed at rated altitude.

The IX LF was not a particularly fast plane at high altitudes, in fact some models were tuned so they topped out at 389 mph (622 kph) This would be the JL 165 model

However, at sea level the speed for the JL 165 is very different from Issy's claims.

All of the Spitfire IX Squadrons were approved for running at +25 boost on 150 octane fuel by the summer of 1944, and the sea level speed of these aircraft was approximately 350 mph, (560kph) not the 330mph he is claiming. At 2000 ft it was 360 mph.

Issy can have it one way or another. Either the AEP Spit IX LF is tuned for sea level speed or it is tuned for higher alt. But it should not be tuned for the worst of both.

Personally I would be happy with JL165, with the sea level speed of 350mph and max. alt speed of 389mph. If nessesary, one can take an HF model for the high alt work. It topped out at 413 mph and was still doing 408mph at 30,000 ft.

For a complete rundown on the performance of these aircraft see this page:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html

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

I am currently doing a documentary on a Spitfire Ace who ended the war commanding a Wing (4 Squadrons) of Spitfires. As commanding officer he was responsible for approving the use of 150 octane fuel and +25 boost in his aircrft. He flew all models of the Spitfire. He is clear that +25 boost was the standard, as was the use of 150 octane fuel.

Issy's comments about the Spitfire IX being in the minority of all Spitfires in 1943 is also incorrect.

Only in the Desert and Italy were Spitfire V's in the majority. For Squadrons based in Britain, Spitfire V's were clearly in the minority from the summer onwards.

By the way, if you look at the Luftwaffe OOB for 1943, you will see that some Squadrons in the Mediterranean were still using 109F4's.

[This message was edited by RAF74BuzzsawXO on Sat April 24 2004 at 08:58 PM.]

biggs222
04-24-2004, 10:00 PM
ok this is confusing.

So what then do u say to all those reports of the merlin 66 reaching a top speed of 408mph at 21000 feet? instead of at 25000 like the FmkIX(merlin 61 63 63a).

was that spit that topped out at 389 faster at that particular alt (13k) then the LF mkIX that could reach 408 at 21k?

Hunde_3.JG51
04-24-2004, 11:37 PM
Just my thoughts.

Spitfire F.IX as I understand it had a top speed of 408mph at around 25,000 feet and the Spitfire LF.IX had a top speed of 404mph at around 21,000 feet. But then I have seen many sources say the FW-190A-4's top speed was 418mph which is certainly not what we have in FB so....(and I have never seen any source say that the Bf-109 was faster than the FW-190 in 1942 which is what we have in FB).

My only concern is the LF.'s speed at sea level. I would assume that around 335mph would be about right but I am interested to see what people have on the issue. What I will say though is that many books state that the Typhoon (the reason the program was not cancelled) and the Spitfire XII were developed because the Spitifre IX simply could not catch the cross-channel FW-190 raiders at low altitude, and this includes the LF.IX. I just hope we don't have the Spitfire IX out-running FW-190's at low altitude. Now the Spitfire Mk.XIV is a different story, when that thing appears I am going to hang a white flag out of my 190 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

http://www.chesterfieldarmament.com/trudgian/ardennesoffensive/ardennes.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

RAF74_Buzzsaw
04-25-2004, 01:26 AM
Salute

The Typhoon was in development long before the FW190 appeared operationally. So it was not a response to the 190. (although it was used in 1942 and 1943 as an interceptor versus the 190 fighterbomber raids across the channel)

The LF models of both the Mk V and Mk IX Spitfire were specifically developed to combat the FW190 at low alts. The addition of +25 boost and the use of 150 octane fuel was initially as a response to the appearance of the V1 rocket bomb.

The V1 had a top speed of around 380 mph at 5,000 ft, so the aim of the LF Mk IX was to be able to match that speed at that altitude. If you look at the test of the JL 165 Spitfire, ie. the one which has been modified to +25 boost, you will see that it manages 364mph at 5,000 ft. Which means that if the Spit IX has some alt, it can catch the V1.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html

As events proved however, the most successful aircraft versus the V1 was the newly arrived Tempest, which had a top speed of 392mph at sea level, and over 400 at 5,000 ft.

So the Mk IX's were pulled off the V1 interception task and assigned back to air superiority. However, they continued to use the higher boost in their engines in ordinary patrolling.

The Rolls Royce built Merlins in the Mk IX's had no real problem with the +25 boost, however, the Packard Merlins, which equipped the Mk XVI Spits did not have the same level of quality, and they did have reliability problems, to the point that they were reduced back to +18 boost in April of '45.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
04-25-2004, 01:39 AM
Salute

Another aircraft modified to be able to catch the V1's was the RAF Mustang III. (the P-51C)

The Mustang Mk. III equipped No's 64, 65, 66, 93, 94, 112, 118, 122, 126, 129, 165, 234, 237, 241 249, 250, 260, 268, 306, 309, 315, 316, 345, 430, 441, 442, and 516 Squadrons and No. 541 Squadron of RAF Coastal Command. These units included four Polish squadrons (306, 309, 315, 316), three RCAF, and one Free French.

This aircraft saw a huge performance gain when it was modified for maximum speed at low alt.

If you look at this chart, you will see the speeds it attained were quite remarkable at low alt, in some cases better than the Tempest. It did sacrifice some high level speed.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14+25lbs.jpg

The RAF converted 3 Squadrons of Mustang III's to +25 boost with performance modified to low alt.

We should have this modified aircraft in AEP. It was used in large numbers and was definitely a part of the war, more so than a lot of the other rare aircraft we have seen.

WWMaxGunz
04-25-2004, 02:55 AM
Oleg uses ideal German data for German planes but should use worst British data for Spitfire IXs....

Maybe the best thing is to use reasonable data for ALL planes and get ALL planes within those curves. Too many are reported as better than which bad flying cannot explain in all cases. Tests of FB should use the original means though, if climb was checked at 100% then WEP & 110% is wrong to test in the sim. We have IL2compare so far, this latest is supposed to have been checked at least in places.


Neal

Kurfurst__
04-25-2004, 03:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
All of the Spitfire IX Squadrons were approved for running at +25 boost on 150 octane fuel by the summer of 1944, and the sea level speed of these aircraft was approximately 350 mph, (560kph) not the 330mph he is claiming. At 2000 ft it was 360 mph.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, it`s was rather far from "all" Mk IX Squadrons being cleared in summer 1944. In mid 1944, only 20 Squadrons of the British Isles, a maximum of 400 planes were modified to such standards, and used the high boost mostly on defensive operations, as evidenced by the sudden decrease of fuel consumption right after the V-1 campaign decreased.

The supply of 150 grade fuel, absolutely neccesary to run at higher boost, was indaquate, and more Squadrons cannot be supported with it. All the other Sqauds, ie. all in the Medit, all in the far east, all of that in the 2nd TAF, that did most of the fighting against the LW, did not use 150 grade or +25lbs at all - their specs still being as per 1943, even in the end of 1944.. Of all these, only the 2nd TAF converted to +25lbs and 150 grade fuel in the early days of 1945, most likely the pilot you mentioned refers to that date, ie. the 2nd TAF had plenty of Canuck squadrons. Not even there all Merlin 66 Spits could use +25, as a considerable number were equipped with Mk XVI, who`s license Merlin 266 wasn`t cleared for more than +21 lbs because of troubles (iirc ignititon related). The rest of the Spits, ie. in the med, far east or the Spits of the Soviet airforce didn` use +25lbs at all during the war. As for the latter, it hardly would mean anything, as the Soviets found the Spit unsuited for the poor conditions of the EF, and used them only in well-built airfields behind the front, in defense of large Soviet cities as bomber interceptors, for which they were ideally suited with their high altitude performance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Issy's comments about the Spitfire IX being in the minority of all Spitfires in 1943 is also incorrect.

Only in the Desert and Italy were Spitfire V's in the majority. For Squadrons based in Britain, Spitfire V's were clearly in the minority from the summer onwards. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, let`s see your facts, too.

For example, Object Viewer also notes that:

"The Mark IX did not replace the Mark V for a long time, though a big, 36 Squadron operation still contained 18 Squadrons with Mk Vs. Still it was clear the Mk V was no longer a top dog. The remaining Squadrons gradully replaced their engines with the low altitude variants, several Squadrons retaining the Mk V well after D-Day."

Ie. in JG 26 war diary one can read examples of engagements with Canadian Spit Squadrons, still using the Mk V even in the end of 1943.

But, I am always open for new information, post here the details on which Squadrons were equipped w Mk Vs in August 1943 and which were with Mk IXs. It looks that at least half of them were still using old machines even later in 1943. By then, 109s were being equipped with Methanol, the Erla canopy, and the MK 108.. the Mk V was an anachronism by that time, expect for low alt work.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
By the way, if you look at the Luftwaffe OOB for 1943, you will see that some Squadrons in the Mediterranean were still using 109F4's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which LW "Squadrons"? The LW OOB was based on Gruppes, roughly equivalents to RAF Wings. But if so, it`s rather bad luck for the British, considering the fact that the 109F-4 was even faster and manouverable than the 109G series, ie. F-4 reached 660 km/h at 6km by that time, with increased boost vs 640 km/h of the G-6..

WWMaxGluz, I agree with you, it`s really sad Hop2002 wants to model the RAF according to the worst performance specs available. His agenda is too clear.



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

[This message was edited by Kurfurst__ on Sun April 25 2004 at 03:18 AM.]

hop2002
04-25-2004, 06:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The IX LF was not a particularly fast plane at high altitudes, in fact some models were tuned so they topped out at 389 mph (622 kph) This would be the JL 165 model

However, at sea level the speed for the JL 165 is very different from Issy's claims.

All of the Spitfire IX Squadrons were approved for running at +25 boost on 150 octane fuel by the summer of 1944, and the sea level speed of these aircraft was approximately 350 mph, (560kph) not the 330mph he is claiming. At 2000 ft it was 360 mph.

Issy can have it one way or another. Either the AEP Spit IX LF is tuned for sea level speed or it is tuned for higher alt. But it should not be tuned for the worst of both.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Buzz, there was no difference in maximum speed when using 150 octane fuel.

Jl 165 had problems right across the board, as can be seen from the graph.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit8.html

That's the performance of a Spit LF VIII, which should be pretty much the same as a Spit LF IX.

The modifications for the use of 150 octane fuel didn't involve any major engine or supercharger changes, they simply allowed the use of higher boost at low levels, which didn't change boost at higher altitudes.

Kurfurst__
04-25-2004, 07:06 AM
I wonder if the JL 165 "had problems", then why don`t the report notes it at all? There`s no mentioning in the JL 165 report that the plane has any problem encountered, being bad quality or such.

All other Spitfire reports note if the plane was in bad condition, ie. Mk 21 report notes the wing paint was chipped etc.

There`s no such comment in the JL 165 report, however. Only that it`s a "standard" aircraft. It`s fairly simple to believe that this a/c, being of 1944 version, had extra equipment that was added to the basic IX design over time, which added more drag naturally. In example, adding armored windscreen to Spits decreased speed by 9 mph alone.

It`s also interesting that Mk VIII factory test shows lot lower values (405mph/20.2k ft) than any of the experimental planes Hop2002 would like to see as a basis of the model. Funny, the Mk VIII was a lot clearer than the Mk IX, it had fully retractable tailwheel etc. If the speed increase was anby similair to 109s w. and w/o retractable tailwheel, it would mean that alone would mean the Mk VIII is 8-12 mph faster than the Mk IX. That would give 393 mph for the mk IX. Fairly close to the JL 165 tests.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

biggs222
04-25-2004, 09:32 AM
u must understand that the mkVIII weighed more then the mkIX approx 400lbs more so the streamlineing of just the tail wheel did not increase the top spped at all, in fact most reports have them both achieving the same top speed.

HERE is boscombe down NOvember 1942 Merlin 66 (BS543) page 326 of "Spitfire The history"

Max speed @S/L (mph)----336
Full throttle hight----384
MS gear--------------(no stat)
FS gear--------------407@22,000
Level speed at 30,000----395

so THAT is what i expect.
407 @ 22,000 ft or roughly 6700m

Hunde_3.JG51
04-25-2004, 10:00 AM
Buzzsaw, if you notice I didn't say the Typhoon was created as a response to the FW-190, I said the development was not cancelled because of it. The Typhoon was designed as an interceptor but failed in this role due to high altitude performance and the project was in jeapordy, but the appearance of FW-190 low altitude raiders and the Typhoons good performance down low helped keep the project going. The Spitfire XII was developed as a response to the FW-190 because the Spitfire IX was incapable of catching the FW-190 at low altitude. Only 100 XII's were made and all were assigned to home defense. And this was in '43 when the LF.V and LF.IX were both available. Things may have changed in '44 but the Spitfire IX should not out-run the FW-190 in '42 or '43 at low altitude.

http://www.chesterfieldarmament.com/trudgian/ardennesoffensive/ardennes.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

VW-IceFire
04-25-2004, 10:38 AM
The first FW190 squadron and the first Typhoon squadron were equipped at approximately the same time. A couple of books I have mention that it was within a couple of weeks of each other. The FW190's were employed far more during this period than the Typhoon with the Typhoon and its engines having a large number of serious issues. These weren't fixed for almost an entire year...but yeah the Typhoon was kept on because they could catch virtually anything at low altitude and because it was proven that equipped with bombs and using its firepower it could be successfully used as a ground attack fighter.

Kurfurst...I think I will like the XIV. I realize that the IX or the VIII were sort of regarded as the best of the Spitfire lineup for ease of handeling...the XIV being noted (along with other griffon models) as being bad for ground looping and lacking some lateral stability (thus the larger tail section)...but the speed is quite a bit better and very much worth it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

BerkshireHunt
04-25-2004, 11:05 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
the Soviets found the Spit unsuited for the poor conditions of the EF, and used them only in well-built airfields behind the front, in defense of large Soviet cities as bomber interceptors, for which they were ideally suited with their high altitude performance.
---------
I think it's more correct to say that the Merlin did not run well on poor quality Russian av gas- which Klimov engines were designed to run on. Not only was Russian av gas of low octane rating it was also low in aromatic content. British engines were designed to use 100 octane with 20 percent aromatics, the so- called 'Borneo' fuel mixture supplied by Shell, which gave the required 'rich' response for supercharged engines. Even the 100 octane fuel purchased from America by Britain had to be specially blended for RR Merlins because, as originally produced, it had only 2 percent aromatics (suitable for American aircraft which used a lot of rubber hoses where the British used metal tubes- aromatics eat rubber). So it is hardly surprising that the Russians encountered some difficulty operating Merlins- that is why they reverted to the Yak 3/La5FN when they became available.
I doubt if they would have been able to operate Daimler Benz engines properly for the same reason- so it's just as well they didn't have 109s. (I wonder if they would have been able to supply methanol to the front line in order to operate MW50 equipment?).
However, the Spitfire Vb was widely used all over the Kuban (see Rall's account) and Crimea operating from small airfields in the foothills of the Caucasus. Transporting high- grade fuel (if any was available) to these far flung outposts was no doubt the reason the Soviets ultimately decided to operate the Spit from centres of population wherever possible- major railheads/supply points enabled it to be used to its full potential. It must have been quite annoying for the Russians to have to try to find a particular sort of fuel for these 'foreign' aircraft (Hurris and Spits). We know that very often they didn't bother because Merlins in Soviet use were reported to 'run rough' ie suffered from pre- detonation (and attendant power- loss) due to low octane fuel being used. Soviet ground crews seem not to have understood that the fuel was the problem- but then why would they, when Soviet engines, designed from the outset to use Russian av gas did not suffer from detonation?
Interestingly, if Soviet engines had been run on a Merlin mixture of 100 octane, 20 percent aromatics, in 1943, they would probably have suffered mechanical failure after just a few minutes of operating at the higher boost pressures and power settings this would have allowed. Component strength is all- important and the Merlin 45/50 series was stressed for it.
Incidentally, note that the Spitfire was always assigned to Guards units- they always got the best equipment.
As a matter of interest, I read recently that FKG 50, flying He177A3s from Zaporozhye, were attacked by Spitfires (22nd january 1943) during the Stalingrad supply drops.. "two crews reported the first sightings of Soviet- flown Spitfires, some of which had not yet been repainted and still bore RAF roundels" (Manfred Griehl). Given that they cannot have been operating from Stalingrad itself, nor from Pitomnik airfield at the time, they were most likely based in the Caucasus ie grass airfields well to the south.

tomwilliams007
04-25-2004, 11:18 AM
Kurfurst, your statment that the Spitfire MkIX was about 10mph slower than the reports is very negative. I have spoken to Nigel Lamb who is one of the leading Spitfire display pilots who has flown several Spitfire MK9 ans he says that its maximum speed was 408 mph depending on whether the spitfire you were flying was a good example. Nigel mentioned that no two spitfires are the same including the merlin engines, the speeds of the aicraft often vary. This can be due to maintance on the engine (replacing parts), this is also applyable to handiling qualities beacuse if you had to replace a wing that had got damadged you may have had to fit it with a wing from a different factory where the wing has been produced slightly differnetly with a slightly different weight, and this did affect handiling considerebly.

tomwilliams007
04-25-2004, 11:27 AM
Kurfurst, the Spitfire V was still in service simply because we had vast reserves of them to call on. The Spitfire V was not used as an air superioty fighter in 1943 but as a fighter-bomber and ground support aicraft. The Mk1X had taken over from the air superioity role. We had large reserves of MKV so we could give them to canadian squadrons. After D-Day the several squadrons that retained MKV were used in the fighter-bomber role, (were these squadrons even british or were they canadian squadrons that we had given old MKvs to).

biggs222
04-25-2004, 01:50 PM
yeah tom i honestly dont think we need to worry about it. its so painfully obvious that the Merlin66's top speed was 407mph that being worried that its not going to be, would be an insult to oleg himself.

faustnik
04-26-2004, 09:45 AM
From Spitfire: The History p.313 (probably the most complete book on the Spitfire I've ever read) "As a result of the experience with the SPitfire MkVIII, which had a limited production run, RAE Farnburough fomulated the factors affecting the design of a high altitude fighte, these being weight, wing plan form, propeller efficiency and supercharged heright at ceiling, the most promosing stated as increasing supercharged height and wing span. Increasing solidity of the SPitfire proeller also increased overall efficienty about 8% at heights above the supercharge dheights. After allowances for increased weight, maximum rate of climb was increased by about 20% and absolute ceiling by 1300ft. A larger diameter propeller provided about 25% increase in rate of climb at 30,000ft and a ceiling increase of 600ft. Weight was the major factor and the point made was that a twelve gun fighter is useless if it cannot operate at a ceiling at which four gun aircraft could. An increase in span produced a decrease in drag power over the whole range, but the weight factor had to be watched and the propellor match to the aircraft became important."



From "Spifire", Stewart Wilson p.38 -

"Production (MkIX): 4,101LF.IX, 1,255 F.IX and 400 HF.IX.

(Performance)
HF.IX - max speed 416 mph at 27,500ft., 369mph at 15,000ft; max climb 4,470ft/min; time to 30,000ft 8.3min; service ceiling 45,000ft."

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

[This message was edited by faustnik on Mon April 26 2004 at 08:53 AM.]

faustnik
04-26-2004, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Oleg uses ideal German data for German planes
Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not a true statement Neal. Oleg uses what he thinks is the BEST data for German a/c as he does for all others.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

PzKpfw
04-26-2004, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:

That's not a true statement Neal. Oleg uses what he thinks is the BEST data for German a/c as he does for all others.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC Oleg stated he used ideal 'factory' data for every plane model in the game, except VVS, who were modeled on actual test data, instead of factory data, because if he used the FAC data the VVS planes would be to good.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski.
-----


"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

faustnik
04-26-2004, 12:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
IIRC Oleg stated he used ideal 'factory' data for every plane model in the game, except VVS, who were modeled on actual test data, instead of factory data, because if he used the FAC data the VVS planes would be to good.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have sent him LW factory data that showed better numbers than in-sim but, was told that was not the best data available. I don't disagree with Oleg's choice, but, the blanket statement above is not true.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

biggs222
04-26-2004, 09:18 PM
hey buzz i looked at the data again from that boscombe down report of the merlin 66 (BS543)
and the part where it said " Max speed @Full throttle height-384mph" that is the speed achieved with MS gear. but when the FS gear kicks in it then gets up to 407mph.

man the mkIX is gonna be one fine bird http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

PzKpfw
04-26-2004, 10:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:

I have sent him LW factory data that showed better numbers than in-sim but, was told that was not the best data available. I don't disagree with Oleg's choice, but, the blanket statement above is not true.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no clue what you sent Oleg Faust. The above has been, what has been stated on thses boards, in the past. As he has said 'ideal' data.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski.
-----


"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

CountFloyd__
04-27-2004, 12:14 AM
Gee whiz, I thought the Spits that had a tall and pointy kinda tails had tall and pointy kinda tails to counter-act the thrust vector of the prop wash from the FAR MORE POWERFUL Rolls Royce Gryphon series of aero-motors that some versions of the aeroplane were equipped with. Uhmm... some of the pointier Spits being later models
How stupid can I be?
FYI: http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/meandgr.htm

Please don't confuse Rolls Royce built Merlins with Merlins fabricated by Packard. http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/engines/eng33.htm
Packard Merlins were more robust and could produce more power, because England had only one drop hammer in the country. Since Packard had an abundance of these devices, they were able to forge more of the engine parts, than the crankshaft alone. I also expect it was easier to control quality production when you don't have folks dropping bombs on you.

But I digress...

All of these are all inferior to the Soviet M-105PF aero-engines. Constructed entirely of wood, nails and coal mine tailings, this engine ran on a fuel blend of Mongolian mare urine and mink excrement. Producing more than 11,000 HP at sea level (16,000 HP at 68,000 M), the M-105PF could propell Yakolev fighter planes at over 800 KPH, vertically.
Many of these engines were field fitted with WEP, where the pilot could shovel muskeg into the boiler. This resulted in an increase in power of 1,000 HP per scoop, but was extreemly dangerous. The excessive use of muskeg often resulted in conditions where it could take up to eight hours for the motor to slow enough that a novice pilot was able to land the plane.
Upon landing, these AWOL pilots were shot and replaced.
More experienced Soviet aces would simple fly inverted over the runway at 2000 KPH and throw out an anchor. However, only pilots with ten or twelve hours of logged flight time were able to perform this type of landing.
With utter disregard to truth and realism, the developers of this game have reduced the performance of the Yak fighters in order to provide improved game balance.

biggs222
04-27-2004, 12:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
hey buzz i looked at the data again from that boscombe down report of the merlin 66 (BS543)
and the part where it said " Max speed @Full throttle height-384mph" that is the speed achieved with MS gear. but when the FS gear kicks in it _then_ gets up to 407mph.

man the mkIX is gonna be one fine bird http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would also like to add that it turns out that this test was done with the use of 100 octane fuel. i matched the speeds and climb rates with others and found that with 100 octane fuel, the merlin66 reached 336 mph @S/L and with 150 octane reached 351mph @S/L.

Blutarski2004
04-27-2004, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CountFloyd__:
All of these are all inferior to the Soviet M-105PF aero-engines. Constructed entirely of wood, nails and coal mine tailings, this engine ran on a fuel blend of Mongolian mare urine and mink excrement. Producing more than 11,000 HP at sea level (16,000 HP at 68,000 M), the M-105PF could propell Yakolev fighter planes at over 800 KPH, vertically.
Many of these engines were field fitted with WEP, where the pilot could shovel muskeg into the boiler. This resulted in an increase in power of 1,000 HP per scoop, but was extreemly dangerous. The excessive use of muskeg often resulted in conditions where it could take up to eight hours for the motor to slow enough that a novice pilot was able to land the plane.
Upon landing, these AWOL pilots were shot and replaced.
More experienced Soviet aces would simple fly inverted over the runway at 2000 KPH and throw out an anchor. However, only pilots with ten or twelve hours of logged flight time were able to perform this type of landing.
With utter disregard to truth and realism, the developers of this game have reduced the performance of the Yak fighters in order to provide improved game balance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... You are of course completely wrong. The M-105PF was a post-war engine based upon captured secret German late-war erzatz technology developed to power the Bf109K-99. All the Soviets did was modify the original schnapps based WEP system to employ vodka. It was, of course, inferior to the original German version.

BLUTARSKI

hop2002
04-27-2004, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I would also like to add that it turns out that this test was done with the use of 100 octane fuel. i matched the speeds and climb rates with others and found that with 100 octane fuel, the merlin66 reached 336 mph @S/L and with 150 octane reached 351mph @S/L.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jl 165 reached 351 mph at sea level on 150 octane, but Jl 165 was running much clower than other Spit IXs.

The typical speed for a Spit LF IX on 150 octane at sea level would be more like 360 mph.

biggs222
04-27-2004, 12:31 PM
yeah ur right.

THe LFmkIXe that we are gettign should actually be more like a '44 plane since it has teh later rudder modification.

so that LFmkIXe should definately have 150 octane and +25lb boost in AEP.
but we will prbably get 100 octane and +18lb boost.

either way 4620 ft/min climb is gonna be great

VW-IceFire
04-27-2004, 09:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
yeah ur right.

THe LFmkIXe that we are gettign should actually be more like a '44 plane since it has teh later rudder modification.

so that LFmkIXe should definately have 150 octane and +25lb boost in AEP.
but we will prbably get 100 octane and +18lb boost.

either way 4620 ft/min climb is gonna be great<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not to mention better firepower...it'll be good fun flying about in that bird. I'm looking forward to it. Even at 100 octane and +18lb boost it should be competitive in the 1944 arena...since IX's were still equipping most squadrons at that point and the versions we have are later models anyways. So that should make us Spitwhiners fairly happy...at least till they bring a XIV into tantalizing reach http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Fehler
04-28-2004, 02:59 AM
Yeah, they are going to be a lot of fun to shoot down in my D-9. I cant wait.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

Kurfurst__
04-28-2004, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Not to mention better firepower...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if you mean the increased magazine sized you are right, its really a must-be improvement over the MkVs only60 rounds. But still 120 rounds per gun is kinda "Yakthreeish" on the MkIX as well, you have to pick your shots well if you dont want to see heavily damaged 109s/190s limping back the base all the time with your guns already empty.. trigger time is rather short, and the .303s are useless alone (and have equally small magazine)

Plus of course theres a nasty surprise which you will notice immidiately when you HOP http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif into the MkIX and do some close-in fighting, compared to the MkV, but you will see it soon enough.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

Erbriac
04-28-2004, 01:47 PM
If you mean both the lot worse turning ability and forward view compared to Mk.V, well I already had a chance to test it and thought it's an ommited bug in the early beta. If not, then we must adapt. But if it's modelled according to real life Spitfire, then I am happy.

****************************
312_Wraith
312. (Czechoslovak) Fighter Sq. RAF
****************************

biggs222
04-28-2004, 01:56 PM
the mkIX was a very good turn fighter it shouldnt be too far off from the mkV , i know the mkV was a bit more acrobatic, but the mkIX could still turn inside 109s with ease

PzKpfw
04-28-2004, 02:14 PM
Basicly you dont need any more then a few 20mm hits to kill a 109 or 190 a few 20mm hits should bring both down. 109s are as suceptible to damage as any other LQ engine in the game. I have killed both with just the .303s Get a good squirt on either and their goin down, long before tey can RTB.

If your turn fighting a Spitfire in a 109 in the first place, your already doing something wrong. 109F tactics vs the Vb on the channel were to make a diveing pass from altitude and run for home, useing the 109s advantages Ie, ROC, & dive speed, wheras if your turn fighting with a Spitfire your playing into his advantages Ie, manouverability.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Wed April 28 2004 at 02:21 PM.]

biggs222
04-28-2004, 02:29 PM
but 109s wont be able to just climb away from mkIXs like they could mkVs.

the mkIX has great turning as well as a better climb rate approx 4600 ft/min.

and why would i df a mkV in a mkIX anyway? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

Erbriac
04-28-2004, 02:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
...and why would i df a mkV in a mkIX anyway? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfurst's said compared to Mk.V, not fighting against it. But he is right, I was very surprised too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Forget about pulling the stick into your balls and allways win, as they say.

****************************
312_Wraith
312. (Czechoslovak) Fighter Sq. RAF
****************************

biggs222
04-28-2004, 03:57 PM
well in mkV i can pull hard all the way back at 400kph anthing lower and i need landing flaps.

so i guess it will be like 430-50 for the mkIX?

HellToupee
04-28-2004, 04:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Not to mention better firepower...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if you mean the increased magazine sized you are right, its really a must-be improvement over the MkVs only60 rounds. But still 120 rounds per gun is kinda "Yakthreeish" on the MkIX as well, you have to pick your shots well if you dont want to see heavily damaged 109s/190s limping back the base all the time with your guns already empty.. trigger time is rather short, and the .303s are useless alone (and have equally small magazine)

Plus of course theres a nasty surprise which you will notice immidiately when you HOP http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif into the MkIX and do some close-in fighting, compared to the MkV, but you will see it soon enough.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

12 seconds of 20mm cannon is heaps, the yak3 only has a single 20mm, since 109s on and offline arnt limping home with my 6 seconds of 20mm i fail to see how having double the ammo load is going to make things differnt.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

Nub_322Sqn
04-28-2004, 04:28 PM
Besides IceFire was talking about the dual 20mm cannons with twice the ammo and the dual 12.7mm instead of the quad 7.7mm.

Even a 12 year old could spot that from a mile away.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

Kurfurst__
04-29-2004, 06:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
Basicly you dont need any more then a few 20mm hits to kill a 109 or 190 a few 20mm hits should bring both down. 109s are as suceptible to damage as any other LQ engine in the game. I have killed both with just the .303s Get a good squirt on either and their goin down, long before tey can RTB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont say they cant be killed, of course they can be, but still the fact is that one has to conserve ammo if wants to be sure. The MkVs spreadoing with 20ms is considerable, its hard to get concentrated hits with both guns, also because the need to find convergence. Try it against someone who not just flies straigt, but does constant e/manouvers...As I mentioned, the Spit 9 has a long nose, its hard to make deflection shots unless you want to aim blind by instinct (no problem on NCP servers of course). And 120 rounds is still just 120 rounds, ie. the very same amount the Yak-3 has for its 20mm cannon, and much less than any other fighter in the game, - save the MK 108 carriers, but that a special case as the cannon is utterly destructive - and the low ROF of the Hispano, hence longer time needed to fire the same amount of rounds doesnt makes it any better.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If your turn fighting a Spitfire in a 109 in the first place, your already doing something wrong. 109F tactics vs the Vb on the channel were to make a diveing pass from altitude and run for home, useing the 109s advantages Ie, ROC, & dive speed, wheras if your turn fighting with a Spitfire your playing into his advantages Ie, manouverability.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Turnfighting, no, dogfighting yes. The Spits only advantage is the slightly better turn rate, and its really the pilot who makes the difference here. But in general manouveribilty, I doubt the Spit can do some manouvers the 109 can, ie. I bet the favourite 109 evasive manouver will be a high speed barrel roll, which all Spits will find hard to follow, ie. roll rate and esp. rudder characteristics being worser at speed and the nose making hard get an aim. Standard tactics will be boom and zoom of course, just like vs. anybody else, all I am saying a 109 has nothing really to fear of a Spit in close combat either. He has some advantages, but those could be easily neutralized by a well though out fighting style.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
but 109s wont be able to just climb away from mkIXs like they could mkVs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Currently the Mk V is ridiculusly overmodelled in its high altitude climb rate, in fact it climbs like the Mk IX did in real life. So there wont be much of a change. Climb rates are close enough, true, but the 109s climb at a faster speed, so they can extend in climbs, especially if doing climbs at 300 IAS, which doesnt hurts climb rate too much. At some altitudes, where the 109s hydrualic coupling gives full power and the Merlins fell off, the 109s will easily outclimb the MK IXs though. But they are close enough not to allow any of them escape by climbing - that means the MkIXs cant extend either from a 109 behind, either.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

ASM 1
04-29-2004, 06:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CountFloyd__:
All of these are all inferior to the Soviet M-105PF aero-engines. Constructed entirely of wood, nails and coal mine tailings, this engine ran on a fuel blend of Mongolian mare urine and mink excrement. Producing more than 11,000 HP at sea level (16,000 HP at 68,000 M), the M-105PF could propell Yakolev fighter planes at over 800 KPH, vertically.
Many of these engines were field fitted with WEP, where the pilot could shovel muskeg into the boiler. This resulted in an increase in power of 1,000 HP per scoop, but was extreemly dangerous. The excessive use of muskeg often resulted in conditions where it could take up to eight hours for the motor to slow enough that a novice pilot was able to land the plane.
Upon landing, these AWOL pilots were shot and replaced.
More experienced Soviet aces would simple fly inverted over the runway at 2000 KPH and throw out an anchor. However, only pilots with ten or twelve hours of logged flight time were able to perform this type of landing.
With utter disregard to truth and realism, the developers of this game have reduced the performance of the Yak fighters in order to provide improved game balance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... You are of course completely wrong. The M-105PF was a post-war engine based upon captured secret German late-war erzatz technology developed to power the Bf109K-99. All the Soviets did was modify the original schnapps based WEP system to employ vodka. It was, of course, inferior to the original German version.

BLUTARSKI

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guys

Sorry about this, I know its http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif but:

ROFLMFAO http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

S!

&lt;still P!ssing myself&gt; http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Andrew

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/ta152Hns-2.jpg

ASM 1
04-29-2004, 07:40 AM
Ok now for my serious and on topic contribution:

According to my copy of "Spitfire" by Chaz Bowyer - in the appendices he lists as follows

IX - 408mph @ 25000ft
XIV - 448 @ 26000ft
and XIX 446 @ 26000ft

Sorry, dont have SL figures, and he does state in the text that these are "official" figures and should not be regarded as a finite statement of actual performance. At an individual level, aircraft often met or fell short of these performance figures

He then goes on to detail the various possibl refinements made on each marque and states that polishing and waxing could improve the performance by 10mph! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

All refinements done, the perfoemance figures could be increased by about 40mph http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

can we get a polished spit? (no jokes about spit & polish! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I guess it just depends oh how they are moddeled in the game....

Am waiting with (not so) bated breath!

S!

Andrew

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/ta152Hns-2.jpg

PzKpfw
04-29-2004, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


I dont say they cant be killed, of course they can be, but still the fact is that one has to conserve ammo if wants to be sure. The MkVs spreadoing with 20ms is considerable, its hard to get concentrated hits with both guns, also because the need to find convergence. Try it against someone who not just flies straigt, but does constant e/manouvers...As I mentioned, the Spit 9 has a long nose, its hard to make deflection shots unless you want to aim blind by instinct (no problem on NCP servers of course). And 120 rounds is still just 120 rounds, ie. the very same amount the Yak-3 has for its 20mm cannon, and much less than any other fighter in the game, - save the MK 108 carriers, but that a special case as the cannon is utterly destructive - and the low ROF of the Hispano, hence longer time needed to fire the same amount of rounds doesnt makes it any better.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not finding it hard to hit with the V's 20mm, in fact dispersion seems good as the MG 151 anyway.

Deflection shots are not that easy in any, of the modeled planes (least not for me) some have better sight's that make it easier to make deflections, Ie, P-47, P-51, Spit V etc, compared to the Fw 190 sight, (or lack of) anyway.

The Hispano Mk II ROF was 600 - 650rpm MV was 2850fps (868.7m/s). The Hispano stacked up very well, compared to the Spit V's main advesary over the Kannel front which was the Fw 190A2/3. The Fw 190s outer wing MGFF ROF was 520rpm with a MV of 570 m/s &, the inner wing synchronized MG 151 ROF was 550 - 750rpm with an MV of 710 m/s (800 m/s w/92g).

The Hispano compares well to the MG FF & MG 151 in ROF & has the advantage of an higher MV then either, the MGFF or MG.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Turnfighting, no, dogfighting yes. The Spits only advantage is the slightly better turn rate, and its really the pilot who makes the difference here. But in general manouveribilty, I doubt the Spit can do some manouvers the 109 can, ie. I bet the favourite 109 evasive manouver will be a high speed barrel roll, which all Spits will find hard to follow, ie. roll rate and esp. rudder characteristics being worser at speed and the nose making hard get an aim. Standard tactics will be boom and zoom of course, just like vs. anybody else, all I am saying a 109 has nothing really to fear of a Spit in close combat either. He has some advantages, but those could be easily neutralized by a well though out fighting style.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you read accounts from the Channel you quickly get 2 impressions 1),The Spitfire V pilots were not ever as worried about the Bf 109F, as they were about the Fw 190. Concerning the F they felt both were well matched, but felt they had the 'measure' of the 109F.

2) Lw Pilots felt the Spifire was dangerous to dogfight, as it played to the Spitfires strengths. But they also felt they had the 'measure' of the V, as the F had a better ROC, and better dive speed etc. Either way it's apperent both were aware of the other advantages & disadvanteges.


For the short time the F was a factor on the Kannel, German tactics were bounces, quick fireing dives outa the sun, and RTB, SOP was they did not dogfight Spitfires, etc. They used the same hit & run tactics here, that allowed them to inflict damage when numericly inferior for lil loss in return over the Kannell, they would later use despite orders to the contrary vs the 8th AF bombers.


Its quite evident later when Fw 190s actualy stayed & fought how shocked British pilots were, from AA reports, bios etc, which all basicly state shock that the German fighters stayed to mix it up etc, because they had never seen it before, the 109s always dove away etc.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Thu April 29 2004 at 11:13 AM.]

biggs222
04-29-2004, 06:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by asm016:
Ok now for my serious and on topic contribution:

According to my copy of "Spitfire" by Chaz Bowyer - in the appendices he lists as follows

IX - 408mph @ 25000ft
XIV - 448 @ 26000ft
and XIX 446 @ 26000ft

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the mkIX we are getting is the LF version that spec u have there is of the "F"mkIX (merlin 61,63,63a). the LF (merlin 66)'s second stage supercharger allowed the mmkIX to reach 407mph @ roughly 21,000 ft about 4k lowwer then the Merlin 61-63's

the mkXIV spec is correct AFAIK since there was only one type of Griffon engine used.

and ISSY does the mkV in AEP really have a climb rate of 4,620 ft/min?
and BTW u are absolutely right when it comes to DFing, it will always come down to the pilot.

THe G-6A/S vs mkIXe will be a great fight. i cant wait.......to shot that G-6 down http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurfurst__
04-30-2004, 07:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
The Hispano Mk II ROF was 600 - 650rpm MV was 2850fps (868.7m/s). The Hispano stacked up very well, compared to the Spit V's main advesary over the Kannel front which was the Fw 190A2/3. The Fw 190s outer wing MGFF ROF was 520rpm with a MV of 570 m/s &, the inner wing synchronized MG 151 ROF was 550 - 750rpm with an MV of 710 m/s (800 m/s w/92g).

The Hispano compares well to the MG FF & MG 151 in ROF & has the advantage of an higher MV then either, the MGFF or MG. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



The only Hispano that compares well with the MG 151 in ROF was the Hispano Mk V, that saw service on the later Tempest V series, but not on Spitfires (which is rather surprising, considering the heavy kickback effected the Spitfire more).

The Hispano Mk IIs official ROF was 600 rpm. The MG 151/20`s is given as 750 to 800 rpm, unsyncronized. Since the gun in syncronized installations (ie. inner pair on the FW 190) used electrical syncronization mechanism, the ROF fire was reduced only by 5-10% (ie. still above 700min). Bf 109`s MG 151s were never syncronized.

ROF fire of the Hispano was a good deal inferior to the common German/Soviet 20mm cannon. Ammunition was also inferior to M-Geschoss. High MV was an two edged weapon, it allowed for short flight time, but it meant heavy kickback (esp a problem with wing mounted guns, as can be observed in AEP`s MkV as well, it throws the aim sideways and even makes the nose point down during firing) and increased inaccuracy because of greater flexibility of long barrel during automatic bursts. The Hispano was originally developed as a single, engine mounted weapon, adopting it for wing use was because there was nothing else available.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Its quite evident later when Fw 190s actualy stayed & fought how shocked British pilots were, from AA reports, bios etc, which all basicly state shock that the German fighters stayed to mix it up etc, because they had never seen it before, the 109s always dove away etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont see the point, FW 190s and Bf 109s used different tactics that would suit the strenght of their planes. High roll rate could be utilized vs. British fighters by 190s, the Bf 109 was not much different from them in this regard. Of course the 109s pilots choosed to employ their greater strenght, ie. fighing the vertical, instead of using what they were also good in, ie. manouvering dogfights. My point was being the 109 can dogfight the Spitfire without much to fear, as manouveribility is rather close to each other, compared to the FW 190, which is clearly outclassed by the Spitfire in turning and handling by a great margin, roll rate being its only - great - advantage.

Ie. Mark Hanna`s opinion: "The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. "


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

VW-IceFire
04-30-2004, 08:43 AM
On the Hispano Mark V front...I suspect the reason they were installed on the Tempest V (and only about 100 were installed with older Mark II Hispanos early on) during the war instead of Spitfires was because the Hispano V could be fit all the way inside the Tempest wing while the Spitfire wing wasn't wide enough to be installed without some kind of protrusion out the front.

So I think they probably decided the Tempest V would benefit more (aerodynaically) from having the cannon entirely concealed and they wouldn't make any changes to the current Spitfire design. Just a guess...

Certainly the ROF and the weight thrown around by Hispano V's is something to be feared.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

FbusterMk3
04-30-2004, 11:30 AM
A fascinating and informative thread! I always learn a lot from these claim and counter-claim discussions. I can't help but smile when I read how our inferior and primitive technology beat the **** out of the Germans.
I can't help but get the impression that Oleg is afraid of the Spitfire - Gasp! - yes, he reluctantly includes it in his eastern front sim which after all is supposed to showcase Russian aviation, now we read the ubiquitous Mk IX is to be an unusual long wing version, (that should slow down the roll rate) take it easy Ivan I know your as keen as mustard, ( BTW I asked Ivan 18 months ago if he was trying to get a job with UBI and he quote "LOL" - shame on you.

PzKpfw
04-30-2004, 12:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

[QUOTE]

The Hispano Mk IIs official ROF was 600 rpm. The MG 151/20`s is given as 750 to 800 rpm, unsyncronized. Since the gun in syncronized installations (ie. inner pair on the FW 190) used electrical syncronization mechanism, the ROF fire was reduced only by 5-10% (ie. still above 700min). Bf 109`s MG 151s were never syncronized.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The data I have lists the MK II ROF @ *600 - 650rpm & the inner MG 151 synchronized @ **550 - 750. Tony Williams @ also lists Mk II ROF @ 600rpm, and the MG 151 unsynchronized @ 700-750rpm, and states***:

Where the rate of fire for the synchronised installation is not known, a reduction of 25% of the unsynchronised rate of fire has been assumed. An exception was made for the MG 131 and MG 151/20 with their electrical priming systems (10%) and the big Browning .50 M2, Ho-103, and Ho-5 (40%), as these weapons reportedly suffered badly when synchronised.


but does not give synchronized examples, nor state the 10% was confirmed as accurate. And I never said the Bf 109Fs MG 151 was synchronized, no idea where that came from.

*See: Sweetman Bill. Spitfire.

**See Lowe Malcolm V/ Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Production Line to Frontline. p.99

***See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

ROF fire of the Hispano was a good deal inferior to the common German/Soviet 20mm cannon. Ammunition was also inferior to M-Geschoss. High MV was an two edged weapon, it allowed for short flight time, but it meant heavy kickback (esp a problem with wing mounted guns, as can be observed in AEP`s MkV as well, it throws the aim sideways and even makes the nose point down during firing) and increased inaccuracy because of greater flexibility of long barrel during automatic bursts. The Hispano was originally developed as a single, engine mounted weapon, adopting it for wing use was because there was nothing else available.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont understand, MV is critical to fighters especialy in fighter to fighter combat, MV provides a flatter trajectory, and a shorter flight time to target, which is benificial vs fast moveing targets, unlike say the Mk 108 who's MV was more suited to bombers.

As to your kickback remarks no British account I have read even mentions it, infact the MK II on the V was praised by Stanford Tuck etc, for its accuracy out to 900yrds and its hitting power. What it was adopted feom is moot as it was very successful as a wing mount.

The problem with the early British 20mm HE was it exploded more often then not on impact, on the AC skin, instead of after penetration, this was why the Mk II 20mm AP was more effective then HE vs German fighters initialy. Ie, Tony Williams, states concerning the Hispano*:

Later on, the Hispano would be fully debugged and became arguably the best fighter gun of the war.

*See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm

Ie, the US Hispano 20mm round traveled 500yrds in .75sec vs the .62sec of the .50 round. Interesting you are about the only person I have seen try to penalize the MK II because of its MV. I have never read any comments on kickback etc from British pilots.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

I dont see the point, FW 190s and Bf 109s used different tactics that would suit the strenght of their planes. High roll rate could be utilized vs. British fighters by 190s, the Bf 109 was not much different from them in this regard. Of course the 109s pilots choosed to employ their greater strenght, ie. fighing the vertical, instead of using what they were also good in, ie. manouvering dogfights. My point was being the 109 can dogfight the Spitfire without much to fear, as manouveribility is rather close to each other, compared to the FW 190, which is clearly outclassed by the Spitfire in turning and handling by a great margin, roll rate being its only - great - advantage.

Ie. Mark Hanna`s opinion: "The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factore <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I understand that you don't, see my point, as it keep's going back to this 1 vs 1 dogfight issue, when historicly 109 tactics over the Kannel front did not involve dogfighting, as that played into the Spitfire's advantages, Ie, the Spitfire was always regarded as a better escort fighter then the 109. & exactly why Galland made his now imfamous request for Spitfires, during BOB because Spitfires were more manouverable & escorting bombers as 109s were forced to do in BOB negated the 109s advantages over the Spitfire which was in slashing attacks & dive away ability.

SOP over the Kannel was the same, as the successful freie jagd tactics used during BOB, Ie, the bounce, high from the sun, one slashing pass, & dive away. And yes pilot ability was key, but one can not ignore tactics used by the actual units either.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Fri April 30 2004 at 03:20 PM.]

BerkshireHunt
04-30-2004, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BerkshireHunt:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The only Hispano that compares well with the MG 151 in ROF was the Hispano Mk V, that saw service on the later Tempest V series, but not on Spitfires (which is rather surprising, considering the heavy kickback effected the Spitfire more).
/QUOTE]

If you dig out your Morgan and Shacklady, Isegrim, you will find that the Hispano MKV was indeed fitted to the Spitfire. It was introduced around February '44 as the MKII was phased out. A lot of 'C' wing IXs had them and most 'E' wing Spits- which means a lot of IXs (including the HFIXE we are to get), nearly all XVIs (the Packard Merlin IX) and of course, the somewhat later XIVC and XIVE. Even late, pressurised VIIs and their unpressurised sister, the VIII, got MKV cannon fitted to their 'C' wings. Basically, any Spit built in 1944 could have had them.
It would be odd, wouldn't it, to produce an improved cannon and not fit it to your premier fighter?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

biggs222
04-30-2004, 05:56 PM
well why does the Spit Mk22 in that very book say that it used the hispano mkII?

and the mkIXes used the mkIIs as well.... what page is your finding on?

BerkshireHunt
05-01-2004, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
well why does the Spit Mk22 in that very book say that it used the hispano mkII?

and the mkIXes used the mkIIs as well.... what page is your finding on?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
----------------------
Have a look at these:
Page 275: Hispano Vs fitted to Spitfire VIIs
(These would have been the 10th Order- built between July '43/March '44).

Page 283: Hispano Vs fitted to Spitfire VIIIs
(See Table 3, 'Additional and Alternative Items of Removeable Military Load')

Pages 289/290: Modification 1265- Hispano Vs fitted to Spitfire VIIIs in lieu of MkII guns in inboard position, 11th February 1944.
(The unpressurised VIII only differed from the IX in having a slightly stronger fuselage structure so there would have been no difficulty carrying out this mod to IXs on the production line.

Page 411 Supermarine Specification 472 (the production order for the MKXIV), issued 18th May 1943: (wings to incorporate) "provision for MKV cannon if available". Well, we know they were available because they were fitted to Spitfire VIIIs in February 1944. We also know that they were fitted to Tempest Vs (the second production order Series 2) built in Jan- Apr 1944 and delivered to the RAF in May 1944. So they were clearly in production, probably alongside the older MKII as it would have been idiotic to suddenly drop the older design for two reasons: a)the V had yet to be proven in service and b)thousands of older aircraft fitted with MKIIs still required spares and replacements. I cannot prove this but it is probable that the MkII was still being made at the end of the war and, yes, it may even have been fitted to new production aircraft.
I have never seen a definitive text re the Hispano V being fitted to the Spitfire; when it was introduced or how many were made. But some things are certain:
1)it was available from Feb '44 onwards for use in Spitfires.
2)it was fitted to the Spitfire VII, VIII and the TempestV, in 1944. Spitfire VIIs and VIIIs were built side- by- side with Spitfire IXs, XIIs and XIVs on the same production line (see the production orders for Spit VIIIs covering the 1944/45 period).
3)Spitfire XIV wings were designed (in late 1943) to accommodate it 'if available' (in 1944). We know that it was available from February 1944.

Unfortunately, if you look at the production listings in the same book (for production orders placed after Feb '44) they do not state which mark of cannon was to be fitted, they invariably just say 'aircraft to be supplied with 20mm cannon, 0.5" machine guns' or some such phrase. But I would take some convincing that the new cannon was not in widespread use from that date. Given that four were fitted to each of 700 Tempests and an unquantifiable number fitted to Spifires Hispano MkV production must have been large- scale (thousands).

The Spit F22 was developed alongside the F21 which first flew on 4th October 1942 ie with Hispano MKIIs fitted, Vs not being available. The Spec you refer to may be an early one relating to this time.

biggs222
05-01-2004, 12:38 PM
oh ok on Page 290 its says (6 paragraphs down) "Some a/c with mkV Hispano cannon."
this is in regards to the mkVIII

Kurfurst__
05-01-2004, 01:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:

[QUOTE]
The data I have lists the MK II ROF @ *600 - 650rpm & the inner MG 151 _synchronized_ @ **550 - 750. Tony Williams @ also lists Mk II ROF @ 600rpm, and the MG 151 unsynchronized @ 700-750rpm, and states***: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And in the end, whatever data we use, the only logical endconclusion is that the Hispano had much inferior in ROF. Debating it is pointless.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I dont understand, MV is critical to fighters especialy in fighter to fighter combat, MV provides a flatter trajectory, and a shorter flight time to target, which is benificial vs fast moveing targets, unlike say the Mk 108 who's MV was more suited to bombers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MV is just one aspect of f vs. f combat gunnery. The hit percantage is more effected by the cumulative results of accuracy, spread, ORF installation and the airframe characteristcs. The effect of the hits is effected by belt order, and the quality of shells. You wish to ignore every single aspect, and just concentrate on MV.

High MV gives certain advantages, and certain disadvantages. The reason why you don`t understand it, is because you lack the very basics of ballistics, and how automatic cannons behave, what is the result of having a long barrel with a high MV or a shorter barrel with lower MV. You require further reading on this subject.

Example... MG FF/M, Mg 151/20, MK 108, Mk 103.

Which will produce the greatest spread, which will produce the least, how much will the best differ from the worst one?

What is your answer to be confronted with the actual results?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As to your kickback remarks no British account I have read even mentions it, infact the MK II on the V was praised by Stanford Tuck etc, for its accuracy out to 900yrds and its hitting power. What it was adopted feom is moot as it was very successful as a wing mount. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason for that is probably the lack of reading, ie. if you hardly read anything on the subject you can hardly remember of any source mentioning the troubles that emerged from installing a non-suitable gun on a non-suitable aircraft. (ie. a large and powerful engine cannon in a lightweight fighter`s wings)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The problem with the early British 20mm HE was it exploded more often then not on impact, on the AC skin, instead of after penetration, this was why the Mk II 20mm AP was more effective then HE vs German fighters initialy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That`s wrong, early Hispano rounds suffered from the exact opposite, ie. API round doesn`t going off at all, just passing through the target, or breaking up too early, large proportion of HE rounds exploding right after leaving the barrel and damaging the very craft that fired them. etc.

It`s been told in numerous documents dealing with firing trials...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ie, Tony Williams, states concerning the Hispano*:

_ Later on, the Hispano would be fully debugged and became arguably the best fighter gun of the war_.

*See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Tony would be very alone with this opinion when confronted with opinion of Soviet or German gun experts. Factually, Hispanos were rather heavy and bulky, had inferior ROF and poorer ammunition than Soviet/German cannon designs, and hence it was inpractical. Even the French, who originally developed it, produced the Mauser MG 151/20 for themselves after the war instead (South Africans still produce it), the British went on copying the Mauser 213/30 and M-Geschoss technology etc, Soviets replaced it with domestic Shvaks on L-L aircraft and complained about it`s tendency to jam, while the USN rejected it because it was found to be unacceptadly unreliable..

So the keyword is "arguably".


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Ie, the US Hispano 20mm round traveled 500yrds in .75sec vs the .62sec of the .50 round. Interesting you are about the only person I have seen try to penalize the MK II because of its MV. I have never read any comments on kickback etc from British pilots.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Like :

"Placed into service in July 1940, the Spitfire IBs soon acquired an unenviable reputation for high rates of cannon stoppages. The heavy recoil force of the opposite cannon made the aircraft virtually uncontrollable, and useless as a gun platform, and the Squadron chosen for the trials insisted of being re-equipped with Mk IAs."

See The Great Book of WW2 airplanes, Spitfire section by Bill Sweetman, page 285.


Also, if you have ever read about British attempts of modified MkVs attempting to intercept high-flying Ju-86P recons. One such Spit, mounting only a pair of cannons, fired at Ju86, but one gun jammed immidiately, and the kickback of the other was enough to stall the plane which fell into a flat spin and lost a great deal of altitude in recovering, effectively ending the interception, and illustrating the heavy recoil of the gun.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I understand that you don't, see my point, as it keep's going back to this 1 vs 1 dogfight issue, when historicly 109 tactics over the Kannel front did not involve dogfighting, as that played into the Spitfire's advantages, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure I don`t understand your point, as you have none, really, you have been going round and round and round repeating the same. You claim 109s never entered manouvering fights with Spits, which is not only arguable but outright wrong, ie. Marseille is well know for his taste and success with manouvering fights, which included quite a few Spitfires as his victims. It appears the 109G had no real problem beating the Spit in manouvering fights, it just wasn`t preferred for it`s obvious disadvantages.

This was also acknowladged by RAF pilots, i.e. Johnson told his pilots to avoid manouvering fights in Spitfires vs German planes, as this put them into disadvantage: they would slow down, and become a target for other German fighters in the aera. Soviets, with their highly manouverable fighters thinked the same. Yet it still doesn`t mean the Spitfire was inferior in manouvering fight, just that manouvering fights were GENERALLY observed as being inpractical BY ALL sides. Funny to mention that, even the Japanese design team of the Zero did some tradeoff in the design, ie. they chosed to develop a faster, less manouverable Zero because pilots can make up for less manouveribility, but they can`t for slower speed.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Ie, the Spitfire was always regarded as a better escort fighter then the 109. & exactly why Galland made his now imfamous request for Spitfires, during BOB because Spitfires were more manouverable & escorting bombers as 109s were forced to do in BOB negated the 109s advantages over the Spitfire which was in slashing attacks & dive away ability. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire had inferior range compared to the Bf 109s, which is essential for an escort fighter. It was hardly regarded by anyone, or "always" as a better escort, expect for John Waters.

I note that you seem to be unfamiliar with the background of the quote from Galland, as it was merely aimed to p/o Goring, who made derogratory comments about German fighter pilots, as Galland made it clear in his autobiograpy etc.; but the quote taken out of it`s context is a favourite tool for manipulation ever since.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
SOP over the Kannel was the same, as the successful _freie jagd_ tactics used during BOB, Ie, the bounce, high from the sun, one slashing pass, & dive away. And yes pilot ability was key, but one can not ignore tactics used by the actual units either. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The tactic was used as well by the British, as this was simply more effective, and less risky than turnfighting - they learned that in the hard way. Yet, I cannot see how would the endless repeating of your picture of fighter tactics over the _Kanal_ would disprove Mark Hanna`s opinion that the 109 and Spitfire were rather closely matched in their close combat abilities, just like in many other areas.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

tazzers01
05-01-2004, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And in the end, whatever data we use, the only logical endconclusion is that the Hispano had much inferior in ROF. Debating it is pointless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is getting very 'Borgish'. Does 'debating it is pointless' the same as 'resistance is futile'? Kurfurst are you psycologically incapable of taking any balanced line at all? It is pointless debating this with you because you obviously can't come to terms with the fact that the Spitfire could compete with its German oponents. And if it did not then the British pilots must have had an edge because according to you they were flying inferior aircraft, yet in combat they compared well against their German counterparts. Of course you won't agree with that. I have not read anybody here say that the Spitfire was an uber fighter. You simply claim thats what people say. Before now only you have mentioned it by implying 'thats what all the Spitfire fans say' when quite clearly they do not. You do, time and again.

Still never mind. I'll play the underdog for as long as you like.

Kurfurst__
05-01-2004, 03:06 PM
LOL, all that ranting just because I mentioned the Hispano had relatively low ROF? Seems like I hit a nerve or something.

It`s rather funny to compare tazzer`s text with my text :

Tazzers : "you obviously can't come to terms with the fact that the Spitfire could compete with its German oponents. "

Me, just above : "the 109 and Spitfire were rather closely matched in their close combat abilities, just like in many other areas"


Tazzers: "I have not read anybody here say that the Spitfire was an uber fighter. You simply claim thats what people say. Before now only you have mentioned it by implying 'thats what all the Spitfire fans say' when quite clearly they do not. You do, time and again."

Yes Tazzers, at least in your own reality, where you don`t even need to read my posts at all to form an opinion of them, and then fight your own imagination, like Don Quijote.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

S77th-brooks
05-01-2004, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by asm016:
Ok now for my serious and on topic contribution:

According to my copy of "Spitfire" by Chaz Bowyer - in the appendices he lists as follows

IX - 408mph @ 25000ft
XIV - 448 @ 26000ft
and XIX 446 @ 26000ft

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the mkIX we are getting is the LF version that spec u have there is of the "F"mkIX (merlin 61,63,63a). the LF (merlin 66)'s second stage supercharger allowed the mmkIX to reach 407mph @ roughly 21,000 ft about 4k lowwer then the Merlin 61-63's

the mkXIV spec is correct AFAIK since there was only one type of Griffon engine used.

and ISSY does the mkV in AEP really have a climb rate of 4,620 ft/min?
and BTW u are absolutely right when it comes to DFing, it will always come down to the pilot.

THe G-6A/S vs mkIXe will be a great fight. i cant wait.......to shot that G-6 down http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>yes looking forward to shooting that spit down http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif but we did work well on same team athere nite with these yaks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

PzKpfw
05-01-2004, 04:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


The data I have lists the MK II ROF @ *600 - 650rpm & the inner MG 151 _synchronized_ @ **550 - 750. Tony Williams @ also lists Mk II ROF @ 600rpm, and the MG 151 unsynchronized @ 700-750rpm, and states***:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And in the end, whatever data we use, the only logical endconclusion is that the Hispano had much inferior in ROF. Debating it is pointless.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Much inferior? :

Mk II ROF = 600 - 650rpm
MG FF ROF = 520rpm
MG 151 ROF = 700 - 750rpm (unsync)
MG 151 ROF = 550 - 750rpm (sync)

Mk II rof is not that far behind behind the unsynchronizes ROF of the MG 151, and better then the MG FF ROF.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>


MV is just one aspect of f vs. f combat gunnery. The hit percantage is more effected by the cumulative results of accuracy, spread, ORF installation and the airframe characteristcs. The effect of the hits is effected by belt order, and the quality of shells. You wish to ignore every single aspect, and just concentrate on MV.

High MV gives certain advantages, and certain disadvantages. The reason why you don`t understand it, is because you lack the very basics of ballistics, and how automatic cannons behave, what is the result of having a long barrel with a high MV or a shorter barrel with lower MV. You require further reading on this subject.

Example... MG FF/M, Mg 151/20, MK 108, Mk 103.

Which will produce the greatest spread, which will produce the least, how much will the best differ from the worst one?

What is your answer to be confronted with the actual results?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isegrem I realy enjoy these lil digs you like to toss around, so keep them comeing they only illustrate my point about you to others who may not know you, well the real you yet.

We have never discussed accuracy, spread, ORF installation, airframe characteristcs, effect of the hits, belt order, or quality of shells, in this thread except minor comments on shells Ie, you stated Geschoss was superior, & I stated Mk II AP was more effective vs German fighters initialy then HE. As to belt loading Ie, standard RAF Mk II loading from 1942 on was SAPI followed by 2 HEI. Nor have we discussed shell design effects on ballistics, concerning MG 151 ammunition, the design of the shells decreased their ballistic performance, & reduced their hit probability.


As to kickback Ie, recoil the British initialy had problems with the 20mm in the Spitfire 1B service trial experiments* conducted in July 1940. Ie, the Spitfire 1B was armed with 4 x .303, & 2 x 20mm, but trials showed excessive recoil advsersly effected gunnery & frequent stoppages made the 20mm unsatisfactory, and the experimnents were canceled. By the 2nd half of 1940 the Hispano was developed to an acceptable level of reliability & cleared for service.

Yes the Mk II was not realy suited to an wing mounting, & this initialy caused installation problems, due to weight & barrel length. But the ROF was more then adequate & its ammunition had an high MV, & it was very powerful.


*See: Sweetman Bill. Spitfire p.285

It's evident you can quite casualy dismiss MV as an critical factor in fighter to fighter combat & integral to accuracy vs fast moveing targets, MV was critical to deflection shooting, as well as defineing maximising effective range.

Now anyway why dont you share your vast knowledge with us, & explain to us all about how automatic cannons behave, the effects on MV with short barrel vs long barrel etc, cons pros etc. I'm sure we can all benifit from your vast knowledge etc, etc, etc, . what exactly is the benifit of having a long barrel with a high MV vs a shorter barrel with lower MV in your opinion?, Ie, what was the advantages in this match up: 7.5cm L/24 vs 7.5cm L/48, which gun is inherently more accuarate and in your opinion why?.

What were the ballistic effects on say MG 151 vs Mk II ammunition in flight factors?, Ie, the negative effects on MG 151 ammunition ballistics caused by the original gun being designed in 15x96mm caliber, & useing an 20x82 cartridge etc.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The reason for that is probably the lack of reading, ie. if you hardly read anything on the subject you can hardly remember of any source mentioning the troubles that emerged from installing a non-suitable gun on a non-suitable aircraft. (ie. a large and powerful engine cannon in a lightweight fighter`s wings)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Realy see above.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

That`s wrong, early Hispano rounds suffered from the exact opposite, ie. API round doesn`t going off at all, just passing through the target, or breaking up too early, large proportion of HE rounds exploding right after leaving the barrel and damaging the very craft that fired them. etc.

It`s been told in numerous documents dealing with firing trials...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to my reading, the 20mm AP was initialy considered more effective then HE vs German fighters. Care to share these documents with us?.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

I think Tony would be very alone with this opinion when confronted with opinion of Soviet or German gun experts. Factually, Hispanos were rather heavy and bulky, had inferior ROF and poorer ammunition than Soviet/German cannon designs, and hence it was inpractical. Even the French, who originally developed it, produced the Mauser MG 151/20 for themselves after the war instead (South Africans still produce it), the British went on copying the Mauser 213/30 and M-Geschoss technology etc, Soviets replaced it with domestic Shvaks on L-L aircraft and complained about it`s tendency to jam, while the USN rejected it because it was found to be unacceptadly unreliable..

So the keyword is "arguably".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Isegrem arguably is a key word, the difrence is Tony Williams is an recognized author & expert on aircraft armanent.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Ie, the US Hispano 20mm round traveled 500yrds in .75sec vs the .62sec of the .50 round. Interesting you are about the only person I have seen try to penalize the MK II because of its MV. I have never read any comments on kickback etc from British pilots.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Like :

"Placed into service in July 1940, the Spitfire IBs soon acquired an unenviable reputation for high rates of cannon stoppages. The heavy recoil force of the opposite cannon made the aircraft virtually uncontrollable, and useless as a gun platform, and the Squadron chosen for the trials insisted of being re-equipped with Mk IAs."

See The Great Book of WW2 airplanes, Spitfire section by Bill Sweetman, page 285.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See above.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>


Also, if you have ever read about British attempts of modified MkVs attempting to intercept high-flying Ju-86P recons. One such Spit, mounting only a pair of cannons, fired at Ju86, but one gun jammed immidiately, and the kickback of the other was enough to stall the plane which fell into a flat spin and lost a great deal of altitude in recovering, effectively ending the interception, and illustrating the heavy recoil of the gun.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No I have not all my reading on JU 86P interceptions concerns the use of Mk V's useing only a pair of .50s.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure I don`t understand your point, as you have none, really, you have been going round and round and round repeating the same. You claim 109s never entered manouvering fights with Spits, which is not only arguable but outright wrong, ie. Marseille is well know for his taste and success with manouvering fights, which included quite a few Spitfires as his victims. It appears the 109G had no real problem beating the Spit in manouvering fights, it just wasn`t preferred for it`s obvious disadvantages.[/quote]


Marseille, occasionaly did dogfight, so did Phillip etc, yet German tactics dont follow this line Ie, *:

The core around which German fighter tactics were built was speed. Dive, shoot, zoom away and avoid a dogfight were maxims that rarely needed to be varied. They were adopted wherever the Jagdwaffe flew, and were extremely effective over the desert.

*See: Scutts Jerry. Bf 109 Aces of North Afrika and the Mediterranean p.11/


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

The Spitfire had inferior range compared to the Bf 109s, which is essential for an escort fighter. It was hardly regarded by anyone, or "always" as a better escort, expect for John Waters.

I note that you seem to be unfamiliar with the background of the quote from Galland, as it was merely aimed to p/o Goring, who made derogratory comments about German fighter pilots, as Galland made it clear in his autobiograpy etc.; but the quote taken out of it`s context is a favourite tool for manipulation ever since.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Realy Isegrem: Ie, *:

Sir, the Spitfire is an excellent defensive fighter, because it is more maneuverable then our Me-109, even if a little slower especially in acceleration. Such a fighter is much better suited to close escort then our Me-109 which is handicapped in that role.

*See: Toliver Raymond E, Constable Trevor J. Fighter General p.112

The manipulation you refer to is from an lack of knowledge of the context of the quote (much like your manipulation of Pattons quote from my sig), Galland was emphasizeing the disadvantages of useing the 109 in tactics better suited to the Spitfire in escort missions.


Regards, John waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Kurfurst__
05-01-2004, 05:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
Much inferior? :

Mk II ROF = 600 - 650rpm
MG FF ROF = 520rpm
MG 151 ROF = 700 - 750rpm (unsync)
MG 151 ROF = 550 - 750rpm (sync)

Mk II rof is not that far behind behind the unsynchronizes ROF of the MG 151, and better then the MG FF ROF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Johnny, even a 6 year old child can tell that 600 is much less than 750.

What the MG FF is doing in a discussion is about Bf 109 vs. Spitfire manouveribility is a mystery to me, I guess it was just brought up in desperation. Also, the question arises, WTF John Waters wants to prove posting the same data 6 times in a row, what purpose does it serves... perhaps if repeated it becomes more true, convincing ?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Well maybe John you should just accept the Hispano had lower ROF.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
MV is just one aspect of f vs. f combat gunnery. The hit percantage is more effected by the cumulative results of accuracy, spread, ORF installation and the airframe characteristcs. The effect of the hits is effected by belt order, and the quality of shells. You wish to ignore every single aspect, and just concentrate on MV.

High MV gives certain advantages, and certain disadvantages. The reason why you don`t understand it, is because you lack the very basics of ballistics, and how automatic cannons behave, what is the result of having a long barrel with a high MV or a shorter barrel with lower MV. You require further reading on this subject.

Example... MG FF/M, Mg 151/20, MK 108, Mk 103.

Which will produce the greatest spread, which will produce the least, how much will the best differ from the worst one?

What is your answer to be confronted with the actual results?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Isegrem I realy enjoy these lil digs you like to toss around, so keep them comeing they only illustrate my point about you to others who may not know you, well the real you yet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So do I, Johnny. It`s perfect example of FAILING TO GIVE A STRAIGHT ANSWER EVERY TIME TO A SIMPLE QUESTION.

Again, MG FF/M, Mg 151/20, MK 108, Mk 103.

Which will produce the greatest spread, which will produce the least, how much will the best differ from the worst one?

What is your answer to be confronted with the actual results?

You are too much afraid to give the answer, as you feel in your bones your claims won`t stand up vs. the reality. Nicely demonstrated, John.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> As to belt loading Ie, standard RAF Mk II loading from 1942 on was SAPI followed by 2 HEI. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The expert you referred to, T. Williams, seems to believe it was 1 SAPI, 1 HEI, but that`s not very relevant at the moment.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Nor have we discussed shell design effects on ballistics, concerning MG 151 ammunition, the design of the shells decreased their ballistic performance, & reduced their hit probability. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John, just as I said. You first evade to give a straight answer to the question,ie.


"High MV gives certain advantages, and certain disadvantages. The reason why you don`t understand it, is because you lack the very basics of ballistics, and how automatic cannons behave, what is the result of having a long barrel with a high MV or a shorter barrel with lower MV. You require further reading on this subject.

Example... MG FF/M, Mg 151/20, MK 108, Mk 103.

Which will produce the greatest spread, which will produce the least, how much will the best differ from the worst one? What is your answer to be confronted with the actual results?"



.... and now the fun part, John claims the M-Geschoss`s design decreased it`s ballistic performance, and reduced hit probabilty; despite the fact the M-Geschoss had higher MV than the usual API or HEI of the MG 151/20. Yet John at the same time claims high MV is, at least in his read, the only arbiter of good ballistic performance, ie. his partisan arguements about anything else is unimportant save MV.

Now John, which version is it? High MV good for Hispano, but bad for Mauser? You have two standards applied perhaps?



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As to kickback Ie, recoil the British initialy had problems with the 20mm in the Spitfire 1B service trial experiments* conducted in July 1940. Ie, the Spitfire 1B was armed with 4 x .303, & 2 x 20mm, but trials showed excessive recoil advsersly effected gunnery & frequent stoppages made the 20mm unsatisfactory, and the experimnents were canceled. By the 2nd half of 1940 the Hispano was developed to an acceptable level of reliability & cleared for service.

*See: Sweetman Bill. _Spitfire_ p.285<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Someone must have kidnapped John`s nickname, ie. he stated before he never heard of the excessive recoil would be a problem on the Spitfire..

So we agree that high recoil (=direct result of gas operation, high MV/proj.mass) is bad for accuracy. Great.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It's evident you can quite casualy dismiss MV as an critical factor in fighter to fighter combat & integral to accuracy vs fast moveing targets, MV was critical to deflection shooting, as well as defineing maximising effective range. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why is MV "the" critical factor of F vs F combat? As you have been told before, high MV decreases accuracy of the gun, the spread increases, and the airframe is rocked more, ruining aim, plus other neat things..

As for "effective range", was there such in aerial combat vs. manouvering targets? All the highest scoring pilots, and aces in general, much preferred short range shooting and believed long range gunnery is just wasting ammo vs. fighters doing evasive manouvers at 400mph, ie. Gabrieski or Hartmann as examples. They consider 100meters/yards the maximum, or even less, 300meter was generally expected as maximum range. At such ranges, difference between travel time are minimum.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Now anyway why dont you share your vast knowledge with us, & explain to us all about how automatic cannons behave, the effects on MV with short barrel vs long barrel etc, cons pros etc. I'm sure we can all benifit from your vast knowledge etc, etc, etc, . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will educate you with joy, John, but perhaps you should answer the question I asked you. Ie.

"Example... MG FF/M, Mg 151/20, MK 108, Mk 103.

Which will produce the greatest spread, which will produce the least, how much will the best differ from the worst one?

What is your answer to be confronted with the actual results?"



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
what exactly is the benifit of having a long barrel with a high MV vs a shorter barrel with lower MV in your opinion?, Ie, what was the advantages in this match up: 7.5cm L/24 vs 7.5cm L/48, which gun is inherently more accuarate and in your opinion why?. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, for starter, John Waters again didn`t understand the question itself, ie. effect of high MV/long barrel on the accuracy of _AUTOMATIC_ weapons, but let`s bypass John`s problems and give him a good example how to concenrate on the subject. Johny, the answer to your question is that the L/24 gun has less spreading, as it is fired at a lower velocity, which translates (all things being equal) to less rotational forces and less sideways dispersion with range as a result to compensate for. Ever though why the 8.8cm L/56 was considered more accurate than the L/71...? When you quote WaPruf data for this, Johnny, which is obviously your intend, please don`t forget to familiarise yourself first with basic ballistic terms, ie. difference between accuracy, hit percantage, spreading etc.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
What were the ballistic effects on say MG 151 vs Mk II ammunition in flight factors?, Ie, the negative effects on MG 151 ammunition ballistics caused by the original gun being designed in 15x96mm caliber, & useing an 20x82 cartridge etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please show us evidence of the sillyness you claim, negative effects and the rest - ie. MG 151/15 and /20 had completely different barrel and breach, designed for the particular ammunition. Did you really believed a 15mm barrel could fire a 20mm round, John ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif



[/QUOTE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>According to my reading, the 20mm AP was initialy considered more effective then HE vs German fighters. Care to share these documents with us?. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is your reading based on, John? As for my source, you can refer to AVIA 6/13417, 'Firing trials with HS ammunition'.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Yes Isegrem arguably is a key word, the difrence is Tony Williams is an recognized author & expert on aircraft armanent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I know him Johhny, I helped him a bit with his book with research, you know... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
It`s rather funny to see how people like you twist and turn his words to their own liking, very much unlike Tony`s style, who is always open minded and convincable.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Marseille, occasionaly did dogfight, so did Phillip etc, yet German tactics dont follow this line Ie, *:

_ The core around which German fighter tactics were built was speed. Dive, shoot, zoom away and avoid a dogfight were maxims that rarely needed to be varied. They were adopted wherever the Jagdwaffe flew, and were extremely effective over the desert_.

*See: Scutts Jerry. _Bf 109 Aces of North Afrika and the Mediterranean_ p.11 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John, just about everybody recognize what were German fighter tactics built around during WW2. Germans usually weren`t thought to depart from these tactics, Hungarian pilots in general however did have a taste for close combat, and were rather successfull in it vs. nimble Soviet fighters as the tally shows. It points toward the 109G possessing good manouveribility along its vertical performance, so I still can`t see how did you prove your claim that the Bf109G wasn`t very competitive to the Spitfire in close combat as well, since Spitfires just as well tried to avoid turnfights whenever better tactics were possible.

As for Jerry Scutts, in his 109 book he isn`t capable of telling a 109G apart from a 109K... No comment. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Realy Isegrem: Ie, *:

_ Sir, the Spitfire is an excellent defensive fighter, because it is more maneuverable then our Me-109, even if a little slower especially in acceleration. Such a fighter is much better suited to close escort then our Me-109 which is handicapped in that role. _

*See: Toliver Raymond E, Constable Trevor J. _Fighter General_ p.112
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John, everyone who knows T+C`s books that they arent really a super accurate source, rather just storytelling with much freedom taken by the authors to make up dialogs that never happened IRL; one can just hardly expect an experienced pilot like Galland come up with such sillyness, just food for a though, how would Galland know about what was the Spit`s acceleration compared to the 109s, when for most of the time they didn`t even recognise the plane type they shot down, ie. the claiemd a lot more Spitfires than Hurricanes during BoB. etc.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The manipulation you refer to is from an lack of knowledge of the context of the quote (much like your manipulation of Pattons quote from my sig),<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pray, John, how can a quote be manipulated during a copy-paste process? It`s just an example of Patton`s connection with the real world happenings, or the lack of it. I can`t help that there are some people also with similiar attitude, ie. funny claims can be heard now and then about 4000 ghost T-34s in reserve alone in the Hungarian theatre of operations etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Galland was emphasizeing the disadvantages of useing the 109 in tactics better suited to the Spitfire in escort missions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John, this 'quote' is made up by the authors themselves to make to story more enjoyable. I have read Galland himself telling the background of famous story, and he told he only meant to p/o Goering who behaved in an arrogant manner. Otherwise why wouldn`t Moelders ask for Spitfires, too, and not for 109Fs?

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

tazzers01
05-01-2004, 05:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
LOL, all that ranting just because I mentioned the Hispano had relatively low ROF? Seems like I hit a nerve or something.

It`s rather funny to compare tazzer`s text with my text :

Tazzers : "you obviously can't come to terms with the fact that the Spitfire could compete with its German oponents. "

Me, just above : "the 109 and Spitfire were rather closely matched in their close combat abilities, just like in many other areas"


Tazzers: "I have not read anybody here say that the Spitfire was an uber fighter. You simply claim thats what people say. Before now only you have mentioned it by implying 'thats what all the Spitfire fans say' when quite clearly they do not. You do, time and again."

Yes Tazzers, at least in your own reality, where you don`t even need to read my posts at all to form an opinion of them, and then fight your own imagination, like Don Quijote.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The opinion can be formed quite easily wether I read it word for word or not. It is wholeley one sided and your general attitude is to dismiss the Spitfire out of hand. What makes me wonder is why you think that your attitude is going to bring others around to your way of thinking? Especially considering that there is enough evidence to debunk your opinion. The one thing you have to remember is that your opinion and mine are just that. Opinion and not fact. When you do finally get shot down by a Spitfire, if of course you have'nt already, will you put it down to the pilot, the aircraft or just plain bad luck? German WW2 veterans respected the Spitfire at least as much as any other allied aircraft. Werner Molders reckoned (after testing a captured Spitfire MkV) that the Me109F was superior. Meanwhile in Britain Adolf 'Sailor' Malan, the celebrated South African was testing a captured Me109 against a Spitfire MkV and he reckoned that the Spitfire was the superior type. Which one you choose to believe will come down to basic politics and little you say is based on anything but.........

Kurfurst__
05-01-2004, 06:02 PM
If you want facts, not opinions :

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/images/spit_m.jpg

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/spit.html

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

Nub_322Sqn
05-01-2004, 06:14 PM
The famous Barbi chest pounding in progress.

You can always count on him to turn a thread into a slander fest.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

biggs222
05-01-2004, 06:40 PM
HEY brooks Yeah i had alot of fun that night, but when the patch comes it will be my mkIX shooting down everyone not my mkV http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

PzKpfw
05-02-2004, 03:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


Johnny, even a 6 year old child can tell that 600 is much less than 750.

What the MG FF is doing in a discussion is about Bf 109 vs. Spitfire manouveribility is a mystery to me, I guess it was just brought up in desperation. Also, the question arises, WTF John Waters wants to prove posting the same data 6 times in a row, what purpose does it serves... perhaps if repeated it becomes more true, convincing ?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Wow realy, Isegrem. Dunno i guess it just depends on your definition of 'much' inferior Ie, to me 'much' inferior would be oh say, 300 - 400rpm.

As to the MG FF being brought up if you actualy read some of the things you respond to, before getting out your Deutchland is uber guide, you would remeber, that in my original post, you objected to, that I compared the Mk ii, to both the MG FF & MG151.

Seems kind of pointless to discuss the Spitfire vs 109F, as the F played a minor role, in the Kannel battles before being replaced by the MGFF/MG 151 armed Fw 190.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Well maybe John you should just accept the Hispano had lower ROF.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And where exactly have I said the Hispano didn't have a lower ROF?.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>


So do I, Johnny. It`s perfect example of FAILING TO GIVE A STRAIGHT ANSWER EVERY TIME TO A SIMPLE QUESTION.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow that sounds familiar, lets see theirs this guy on the board who does it all the time, lets his name is, OH YEA It's you!!!, remarkable, the pot's calling the kettle black.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
What is your answer to be confronted with the actual results?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I havent been confronted by any acual results to date by you Issy, only opinions, & generalizations never supported by any refrence citations, wheras I have supported mine clearly.

And lastly I dont have to answer any of your questions as, I can pull a page from your play book, & just ignore the questions to.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

You are too much afraid to give the answer, as you feel in your bones your claims won`t stand up vs. the reality. Nicely demonstrated, John.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow and what exactly was I afraid of?, I believe, I asked you to post your refrence matereial, & to date not one refrence has been given.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

The expert you referred to, T. Williams, seems to believe it was 1 SAPI, 1 HEI, but that`s not very relevant at the moment.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He may have, my data is from his replys off his forums. In factm why dont you drop on over to his site, and tell him how wrong he is etc.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

John, just as I said. You first evade to give a straight answer to the question,ie.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow your realy getting upset over this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>


.... and now the fun part, John claims the M-Geschoss`s design decreased it`s ballistic performance, and reduced hit probabilty; despite the fact the M-Geschoss had higher MV than the usual API or HEI of the MG 151/20. Yet John at the same time claims high MV is, at least in his read, the only arbiter of good ballistic performance, ie. his partisan arguements about anything else is unimportant save MV.

Now John, which version is it? High MV good for Hispano, but bad for Mauser? You have two standards applied perhaps?


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well their realy is no double standard, other then your typical attempts to make one up, Ie, since your such a proffesed expert on Ballistics, you should already understand what part MV plays, as well as what negative effects on flight an ballisticly inferior shell design has.


The Mk II SAPI & HEI were ballisticly superior shell designs, compared to German API or HEI. I never mentioned M-Geschoss. Ie, the standard shells were slow, while the faster ones were light which affected their ballistic performance, and reduced hit probability.

It realy seems you actualy believe that MV is not important in fighter vs combat.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>


Someone must have kidnapped John`s nickname, ie. he stated before he never heard of the excessive recoil would be a problem on the Spitfire..

So we agree that high recoil (=direct result of gas operation, high MV/proj.mass) is bad for accuracy. Great.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No I said I never read of any 'kickback' only later did I realise you were actualy poorly attempting, to refer to recoil. If you speak of the early IIb tests then yes. But if your trying use the initial trials to try and taint the whole gun no we don't agree.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>


Why is MV "the" critical factor of F vs F combat? As you have been told before, high MV decreases accuracy of the gun, the spread increases, and the airframe is rocked more, ruining aim, plus other neat things..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[/QUOTE]

High MV does not decrease aim Isegrem, nor does it increase dispersion (spread) etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

As for "effective range", was there such in aerial combat vs. manouvering targets? All the highest scoring pilots, and aces in general, much preferred short range shooting and believed long range gunnery is just wasting ammo vs. fighters doing evasive manouvers at 400mph, ie. Gabrieski or Hartmann as examples. They consider 100meters/yards the maximum, or even less, 300meter was generally expected as maximum range. At such ranges, difference between travel time are minimum.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats the whole point Isegrem, when you only have seconds to fire you want the fastest shells you can have. & if your theory was correct, Iegrem the Germans could have stuck with the MG FF, their realy was no need for the MG 151 by that line of thinking, nor was their any need for any German pilot to have any deflection shooting skills either, maybe thats why the Germans stopped teaching deflection shooting.

The problems cited by LW pilots on the MGFF was its MV was to low & it was not ballisticly compatible with the MG 17, which pilots used to sight with before fireing the MG FF.

Pilots reported steady hits from dead 6 with MG 17s, and when fired the the MG FF the tracer curved below the target, even though the MG 17 tracer was gooing into the airframe. The MG 151 was ballisticly comparable to both the MG 17 & MG 131 .

On the other hand Allied pilot AA reports are full of accounts of deflection shooting kills, but then again Allied fighters targets were fast moveing fighters, well German targets were slow moveing 4 engined bombers.

As I guessed your point here is apprently to try to show that MV is NOT a factor in fighter vs fighter combat.

Had the MG 151 had the higher MV, we would not even be discussing this, because it was a German used weapon.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

I will educate you with joy, John, but perhaps you should answer the question I asked you. Ie.

"Example... MG FF/M, Mg 151/20, MK 108, Mk 103.

Which will produce the greatest spread, which will produce the least, how much will the best differ from the worst one?

What is your answer to be confronted with the actual results?"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just pick one and go Issy were all anxiuosly awaiting your treastise on the automatic cannonn's etc.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>



Well, for starter, John Waters again didn`t understand the question itself, ie. effect of high MV/long barrel on the accuracy of _AUTOMATIC_ weapons, but let`s bypass John`s problems and give him a good example how to concenrate on the subject. Johny, the answer to your question is that the L/24 gun has less spreading, as it is fired at a lower velocity, which translates (all things being equal) to less rotational forces and less sideways dispersion with range as a result to compensate for. Ever though why the 8.8cm L/56 was considered more accurate than the L/71...? When you quote WaPruf data for this, Johnny, which is obviously your intend, please don`t forget to familiarise yourself first with basic ballistic terms, ie. difference between accuracy, hit percantage, spreading etc.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see you agree that shell design is a factor in accuracy . MV is inherent to accuracy, as well as shell design. Ie, the L/24 was inferior to the L/48 because of MV, which meant longer flight time to target, with less penetration.

Though if you insist on useing 'basic ballistic terms' we realy must get you to use the correct term of dispersion instead of 'spreading' which causes confusion.


Now is it your contention that an ballisticly superior shell design combined with an high MV and flat trajectory does not contribute to accuracy?.

As to useing Wa Preuf data I have no intention of it, I wanted you to adress ballistic effects http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Please show us evidence of the sillyness you claim, negative effects and the rest - ie. MG 151/15 and /20 had completely different barrel and breach, designed for the particular ammunition. Did you really believed a 15mm barrel could fire a 20mm round, John ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did I say i 'believed a 15mm barrel could fire a 20mm round' Ise?.

The The MG 151's original design was 15x96mm caliber, The 15x96mm cartridge was then modified, by haveing it shortened, then necked out to 20x82mm, keeping the overall cartridge length the same, to accept FF/M shells. The MG 151/15 only needed a new barrel to change to the 151/20.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>


What is your reading based on, John? As for my source, you can refer to AVIA 6/13417, 'Firing trials with HS ammunition'.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Based omn many FH accounts Issy. Well then post
the text of AVIA 6/13417 for all to see, or post a link.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Yes, I know him Johhny, I helped him a bit with his book with research, you know... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
It`s rather funny to see how people like you twist and turn his words to their own liking, very much unlike Tony`s style, who is always open minded and convincable.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err where have i twisted his words Isegrem? please post exactly where I twisted his words. Problem is I'm not like you, Ie, your style of debate is basicly this: If the facts dont fit the theory, change the facts. Your whole posting theme on the forums has always been, Deutschland ├╝ber Alles.....

And if you helped him, why are you always dismissing his work here, only where it disagrees with your posts content?. Perhaphs we should invite him here to respond.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

John, just about everybody recognize what were German fighter tactics built around during WW2. Germans usually weren`t thought to depart from these tactics, Hungarian pilots in general however did have a taste for close combat, and were rather successfull in it vs. nimble Soviet fighters as the tally shows. It points toward the 109G possessing good manouveribility along its vertical performance, so I still can`t see how did you prove your claim that the Bf109G wasn`t very competitive to the Spitfire in close combat as well, since Spitfires just as well tried to avoid turnfights whenever better tactics were possible.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never commented on Bf 109G manouverability vs Spitfire, their realy is no need to as Galland etc, have all stated the Spitfire was more manouverable then the Bf 109E & F. I have merely pointed out, clearly supported by refrence material, quotes & citations that German tactics were not to dogfight Spitfires. And when did Hungarian Bf 109G's engage Spitfires?.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

As for Jerry Scutts, in his 109 book he isn`t capable of telling a 109G apart from a 109K... No comment. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I dont know why you insist on attacking noted authors etc, Isegrem, over trivial issues, plenty of authors make mistakes Ie, Glantz once stsated Panthers had 88mm guns, did thsat detract from the overall text no. Ie, someone here recently claimed G10/AS were built, do we see ppl attacking his credibility over that.

You can continue to try and dissmiss refrence material all you want, as all ppl see is an uknown person on an internet site makeing unsubstantiated alleggations vs an noted author.

Thir is a proper way to debate these issues Ie, supporting material from other refrence materials that support your allegations. Other then that your mereley slandering an authour or authors.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

John, everyone who knows T+C`s books that they arent really a super accurate source, rather just storytelling with much freedom taken by the authors to make up dialogs that never happened IRL; one can just hardly expect an experienced pilot like Galland come up with such sillyness, just food for a though, how would Galland know about what was the Spit`s acceleration compared to the 109s, when for most of the time they didn`t even recognise the plane type they shot down, ie. the claiemd a lot more Spitfires than Hurricanes during BoB. etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again you prove my point, seeing how the quote I gave is a direct quote from Adolf Galland himself, that you refuse to accept it, and try to belittle Galland by is even more puzzleing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Pray, John, how can a quote be manipulated during a copy-paste process? It`s just an example of Patton`s connection with the real world happenings, or the lack of it. I can`t help that there are some people also with similiar attitude, ie. funny claims can be heard now and then about 4000 ghost T-34s in reserve alone in the Hungarian theatre of operations etc.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I explained to you before that quote was made in response to an US article written in 1944 that US tanks were inferior to German tanks. No commander in Germany, Britiaqn, or the US was going to publicly admit anything was inferior to anything the enemy had, for morale reasons etc.

Who claimed their were 4000 ghost T-34s in the HTO?. If your refering to your remarks in other threads about 509, then you need to re read those posts, as my point was any tank losses inflicted by the Germans, were irrelevant as the Soviets just like the Westren Allies could easily replace material losses, unlike the Germans.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Galland was emphasizeing the disadvantages of useing the 109 in tactics better suited to the Spitfire in escort missions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
John, this 'quote' is made up by the authors themselves to make to story more enjoyable. I have read Galland himself telling the background of famous story, and he told he only meant to p/o Goering who behaved in an arrogant manner. Otherwise why wouldn`t Moelders ask for Spitfires, too, and not for 109Fs?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Isegrem as I already stated above, the quote is an direct quote from Galland, fro his extensive interviews with the authors. He chose them to write his biography, and he supplied all ythe material. as is the misreprensentaion explanation, straight from Galland.

The authors made nothing up. To insinuate they did, ore claim Galland himself told you he made it up to P/O Georing, means Galland lied period, as he gave T&C the quote, & read the entire book before it was published, as he had to approve it, before it could be published.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Mon May 03 2004 at 02:51 PM.]