PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire V Facts



RAF74_Buzzsaw
02-06-2004, 12:17 PM
Salute

There has been quite a bit of incorrect information and speculation about the Spitfire V on the boards, so I thought I'd post some details. Here is a link:

http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=007088;p=


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

RAF74_Buzzsaw
02-06-2004, 12:17 PM
Salute

There has been quite a bit of incorrect information and speculation about the Spitfire V on the boards, so I thought I'd post some details. Here is a link:

http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=007088;p=


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

MiloMorai
02-06-2004, 03:18 PM
Some of your info is incorrect.

The Spit Vc were issued to units with 4 cannons installed.

Anyways you might find this thread interesting, especially the comments by your old friend.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=105441



Long live the Horse Clans.

gkll
02-06-2004, 10:48 PM
Always nice to get an informative post - sign of a bit of a more in-depth approach to stuff for sure.

I tried to get an opinion on what 1c would do with the clipped low-level V's but no real thoughts surfaced. I guess that generally it will be like a 5N in overall capability but what I was curious was how 1c will deal with the turn circle and instantaneous sustained etc cornering parameters at low level. There was somewhere a pilots report that said "There is no difference in turn circle..." but the physics of the FM will not like that.... so we get to see how 1c might consider and weight the evidence, and balance a (relatively) simple FM (suggesting a larger turn circle) against empirical observation (saying they are the same).....

?

pourshot
02-07-2004, 12:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Some of your info is incorrect.

The Spit Vc were issued to units with 4 cannons installed.

Anyways you might find this thread interesting, especially the comments by your old friend.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=105441



Long live the Horse Clans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That thread is a real stinker aint it,I have some pictures of 4 cannon Vc's with slipper tanks taking of from aircraft carriers and headed for malta if you want them.One of these "over wieght' beast even made a landing after a fuel switch failure(not bad for a land based fighter).

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

RAF74_Buzzsaw
02-07-2004, 12:32 AM
Salute Milo

Funny to see Isegrim arguing for a 4 cannon Spit... although he was wrong in that argument too.

You are correct in that the Spits which took off from carriers in the Med and which landed at Malta were 4 cannon varieties and the 4 cannons were onboard... However...

If you read Canadian Ace George "Buzz" Beurlings autobiography MALTA SPITFIRE, you will notice he mentions the ground crews removed the extra 20mm on each wing as soon as they arrived. Long experience in the intense combat over Malta had taught the RAF pilots that the extra weight of the extra cannon affected maneuverability more than the value of the weapons. And as Beurling quite clearly showed, the Spitfires did not need the extra punch to knock down the 109's and Macchi's, or even the Ju's, Cant's and SM-79's.

Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

MiloMorai
02-07-2004, 12:35 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Yup sure is. I really like the comment that the 20mm was removed because the tires and l/g could not take the weight.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif But then you have to remember who made the comment.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ps. One only has to look at the 109 and Itie fighters. They had less gun power than even the 2 20mm armed Spits. 4 cannon Spits would have been 'helpful' during BoB in dispatching german bombers.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Long live the Horse Clans.

[This message was edited by MiloMorai on Fri February 06 2004 at 11:47 PM.]

pourshot
02-07-2004, 04:45 AM
I must agree 2 20mm hispano would give plenty of punch,if I remember correctly the move towards 4 cannons in late model spits was motivated by the fact that it was getting harder all the time to get more than a fleeting shot at the enemy so the more lead you could put on that fast moving target the better as you may not get a second chance.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

Willey
02-07-2004, 05:08 AM
Interesting stuff http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. But:

Speed:

2,000 ft: 333.5 mph (534 kph)

5,900 ft: 350.5 mph (561 kph)

8,000 ft: 348.5 mph (558 kph)

12,000ft: 345.5 mph (553 kph)

18,000 ft: 339.5 mph (543 kph) (maximum speed)

24,000 ft: 327.5 mph (524 kph)

FYI http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Double check this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. It's the LF speeds. I'd say 561kph @5900 ft is vmax http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Willey
02-07-2004, 05:47 AM
I'm wondering quite a bit about those performance differences for F to LF.

1185 hp at Sea Level at +12 boost
1470 hp at 9700 ft at +16 boost

Speed:

Sea Level: 288 mph (460 kph)
5,000 ft: 309 mph (494 kph)
10,000 ft: 331 mph (530 kph)
15,000ft: 351mph (562 kph)
20,100 ft: 371mph (594 kph) (maximum speed)
25,000 ft: 359 mph (574 kph)

Climbrate:

Initial Climb at Sea Level: 3250 ft/min
2,000 ft: 3240 ft/min
5,000 ft: 3240 ft/min
10,000 ft: 3250 ft/min
15,000 ft: 3250 ft/min
20,000 ft: 2440 ft/min
25,000 ft: 1750 ft/min
30,000 ft: 1170 ft/min


vs.


Takeoff: 1230 hp at +12 boost
Max. hp: 1585 hp at +18 boost at 3,800 ft

Speed:

2,000 ft: 333.5 mph (534 kph)
5,900 ft: 350.5 mph (561 kph)
8,000 ft: 348.5 mph (558 kph)
12,000ft: 345.5 mph (553 kph)
18,000 ft: 339.5 mph (543 kph) (maximum speed)
24,000 ft: 327.5 mph (524 kph)

Climbrate at:

2,000 ft: 4720 ft/min
8,000 ft: 4100 ft/min
12,000 ft: 3500 ft/min
18,000 ft: 2610 ft/min
24,000 ft: 1740 ft/min



Sea level. 1185hp vs 1230hp. 45hp difference. 460kph vs 520-530kph (estimated). How can 45hp make 60-70kph difference? Also the climb... somehow the relations don't fit here.

hop2002
02-07-2004, 09:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>1185 hp at Sea Level at +12 boost
1470 hp at 9700 ft at +16 boost

Speed:

Sea Level: 288 mph (460 kph)
5,000 ft: 309 mph (494 kph)
10,000 ft: 331 mph (530 kph)
15,000ft: 351mph (562 kph)
20,100 ft: 371mph (594 kph) (maximum speed)
25,000 ft: 359 mph (574 kph)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These figures are at 9 lbs boost.
See http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html which gives speed, climb rate and boost levels.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Takeoff: 1230 hp at +12 boost
Max. hp: 1585 hp at +18 boost at 3,800 ft

Speed:

2,000 ft: 333.5 mph (534 kph)
5,900 ft: 350.5 mph (561 kph)
8,000 ft: 348.5 mph (558 kph)
12,000ft: 345.5 mph (553 kph)
18,000 ft: 339.5 mph (543 kph) (maximum speed)
24,000 ft: 327.5 mph (524 kph)

Climbrate at:

2,000 ft: 4720 ft/min
8,000 ft: 4100 ft/min
12,000 ft: 3500 ft/min
18,000 ft: 2610 ft/min
24,000 ft: 1740 ft/min
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These figures are taken at 18 lbs boost. See http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3228.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Sea level. 1185hp vs 1230hp. 45hp difference. 460kph vs 520-530kph (estimated). How can 45hp make 60-70kph difference? Also the climb... somehow the relations don't fit here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The difference between the two aircraft are 9lbs boost for the first set, 18 lbs boost for the second set. Off hand I can't remember the HP differences, but they are going to be considerable.