PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire IX in patch, wrong facts



Valathar
05-24-2004, 11:05 AM
HF wings was designed for high altittude, so not only the aircraft had more wingspan than normal Spitfires, also the wing tips where pointed. It should be called Spitfire IXe but not with HF prefix.
The designation Spitfire IXc to the current one is wrong, because C was the armament consisted of 4 20mm Hispano cannons, the B designation is for 2xHispano + 4xMGs, so it should be called Spitfire IXb, also the airplane was available in 1942, not 1943.

The other error is the cockpit placement, it is to low and the nose of the plane apear A LOT in the front of canopy. Check the current Spitfire V in game, the cockpit is correct in place. The same error is shared by the CR.42. Both planes have the cockpit buried to much in the fuselage, very unrealistic. If you translate this to the external model the Spitfire IX will look with a bubble on top of the nose or with the nose pointed up.

Valathar
05-24-2004, 11:05 AM
HF wings was designed for high altittude, so not only the aircraft had more wingspan than normal Spitfires, also the wing tips where pointed. It should be called Spitfire IXe but not with HF prefix.
The designation Spitfire IXc to the current one is wrong, because C was the armament consisted of 4 20mm Hispano cannons, the B designation is for 2xHispano + 4xMGs, so it should be called Spitfire IXb, also the airplane was available in 1942, not 1943.

The other error is the cockpit placement, it is to low and the nose of the plane apear A LOT in the front of canopy. Check the current Spitfire V in game, the cockpit is correct in place. The same error is shared by the CR.42. Both planes have the cockpit buried to much in the fuselage, very unrealistic. If you translate this to the external model the Spitfire IX will look with a bubble on top of the nose or with the nose pointed up.

Kurfurst__
05-24-2004, 11:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Valathar:
HF wings was designed for high altittude, so not only the aircraft had more wingspan than normal Spitfires, also the wing tips where pointed. It should be called Spitfire IXe but not with HF prefix. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HF prefix stands for high altitude Merlin 70 engine, it has nothing to do with the wing types - any wing, extended, normal, and clipped could be mounted.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The designation Spitfire IXc to the current one is wrong, because C was the armament consisted of 4 20mm Hispano cannons, the B designation is for 2xHispano + 4xMGs, so it should be called Spitfire IXb, also the airplane was available in 1942, not 1943.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

C wing could carry 4x20mm, or 2x20+4x7,7mm. It appears that 99,9% of Mk IXs had the latter config.

Also the LF Mk IX we have did not appear until March 1943. The aerlier version you speak of, F. Mk IX was in 1942 already, and it was some 30mph slower and climbed 1000 fpm worser with it weaker engine.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The other error is the cockpit placement, it is to low and the nose of the plane apear A LOT in the front of canopy. Check the current Spitfire V in game, the cockpit is correct in place. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This may have something to do with the historical fact that the two-staged Merlin 6x Mk IXs had a considerably longer nose than previous, single stage supercharger Marks... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Be sure to be correct yourself before 'correcting' others... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.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

Valathar
05-24-2004, 11:23 AM
Yes, so the nose also go in an angle of 10 degree to up due of that (sarcasm)

It wasnÔ┬┤t too long for that, EVEN if long it wonÔ┬┤t showed in that way in front of canopy.

Valathar
05-24-2004, 11:47 AM
Spitfire V:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/~jjuvonen/duxford2001/_spit5_bm597_1.jpg

Spifire IX:
http://www.edenforge.co.uk/photo/riat98/98-244a.jpg

The IX nose is so long that need an aditional landing gear http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

VW-IceFire
05-24-2004, 04:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Valathar:
HF wings was designed for high altittude, so not only the aircraft had more wingspan than normal Spitfires, also the wing tips where pointed. It should be called Spitfire IXe but not with HF prefix.
The designation Spitfire IXc to the current one is wrong, because C was the armament consisted of 4 20mm Hispano cannons, the B designation is for 2xHispano + 4xMGs, so it should be called Spitfire IXb, also the airplane was available in 1942, not 1943.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not going to touch the cockpit bit but the rest here is so very wrong.

The only Spitfire's equipped with the long pointed high altitude wings were the VII and the VIII (there may have been a few others here and there). NO Mk IX model was ever fitted with long wing tips and during development and deployment of the VII test pilots fought vociferously against the high altitude wings which spoiled performance and provided no real advantage. LF, F, and HF refer to engine types and their altitude advantages. In order to combat the Luftwaffe with the Spitfire they used several versions of which some were tuned for high altitude performance, some for low altitude performance, and some for medium (or "standard" if you will) altitude performance. Clipped wings were usually used most by LF models but the actual LF desgination has nothing to do with the clipping or non-clipped wings. Please check your sources...official documents and well credited sources will provide this detail indepth.

With regards to armament you are only partially correct and mostly incorrect.

The C type armament was initially designed as a "universal" wing. It could carry 4x20mm cannon which was based on the RAF's feeling that cannon armament would be the future. They were right but the 4 cannons was too much of a performance loss and the kickback from the cannons further hindered high altitude performance (one pilot actually stalled his plane out at high alt just by firing his guns at a passing bomber). The only (to my knowledge) combat deployed C type armament with 4 cannons was the Mark Vc's which were shipped by carrier to Malta. On their arrival, the cannons were removed and these Spitfires flew with cannons only.

Smartly, provisions for the C type wing also retained the outboard .303's. Thus...99% of all Spitfire types with C wings had 2x20mm Hispano MK II cannons and 4x Browning .303 machine guns. Now you say...why the B and C type designations? The B was a sort of stop gap change in armament and there was provisions only for a 60 round drum of cannons. The C type had full provisions for 120 rounds per gun on the cannons and the actual design of the wing is different with regards to cannons (there is a hollow spot on the outboard where the cannon was meant to go and where they eventually put the .50cal in the E type).

Not until the Spitfire Mark 21 did the 4 cannon armament become a serial standard.

Also to point out that the IX that we have in the game is not a 1942 model IX...it has the features of a later model late 1943 or early 1944 IX (pointed chord rudder for instance).

The engine mounting on the IX is certainly longer than the Mark V and that is the likely reason why we see more of the engine from the cockpit.

I suggest several books including the Squadron Signal Publications Spitfire In Action book which is a nice overall reference. There are also plent of sites with correct information online.

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

ImpStarDuece
05-24-2004, 09:18 PM
Valathar..

Suggest you get a good book on the Spity, sit down and really absorb it.

There is so much to this A/C that you need a degree on it just to dent the surface. Try the soverign serise of books. Stuart Wilson put out a really good study on the Spit about 3 years ago. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

hotspace
05-25-2004, 03:01 AM
Maybe the "Pointed Wingtip" IX that we saw before the Patch could be released as a VII http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You never know http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hot Space

http://img11.photobucket.com/albums/v33/Hot_Space/HSshot3_copy.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=Hot+Space&historicalidfilter=all&searchkey=&action=list&ts=1084560274)

Festung Europa Spitfire Campaign (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-14.html)

Valathar
05-25-2004, 11:46 AM
Ok VW-IceFire, thanks for the additional info.

However I still considere that the nose apearing in front of the canopy is excesive.

Gunner_361st
05-25-2004, 10:54 PM
"The C type had full provisions for 120 rounds per gun on the cannons and the actual design of the wing is different with regards to cannons (there is a hollow spot on the outboard where the cannon was meant to go and where they eventually put the .50cal in the E type)." -Icefire

I was testing out how much cannon ammo certain planes had in FB 2.01. I used the stat command... Shift+Tab, then typing "user 361st_Gunner STAT" and looking at how many rounds were fired.

According to what you claim, Ice, and other things I have read which agree with it, the Spitfire IX had 120 rounds of 20mm ammo in each wing, totaling 240 rounds. I tested in FB, and the Hispanos fired 280 rounds total. This was done online.

I then tested the 109 F4/G2/G6, the single MG-151/20 cannon in the nose. These variants expended 200 rounds. Its my understanding that 109's were not loaded with more than 150 rounds of this cannon ammo due to jamming problems when loading the maximum capacity.

Now I'm not saying either of these two things are genuine fact and are 100% correct... But its what I've read from books and the internet have come to understand. If someone could verify or inform me on this, I'd much appreciat e it.

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1087.jpg

MG15120
05-26-2004, 12:10 AM
Hey valathar,
IF you can stand it, TRY the view over the 190's nose.
WHICH was reported in BRITISH testing of the 190 to be better than the Spit.

MAYBE thatll allow you to be happy.

Nub_322Sqn
05-26-2004, 03:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunner_361st:
"The C type had full provisions for 120 rounds per gun on the cannons and the actual design of the wing is different with regards to cannons (there is a hollow spot on the outboard where the cannon was meant to go and where they eventually put the .50cal in the E type)." -Icefire

I was testing out how much cannon ammo certain planes had in FB 2.01. I used the stat command... Shift+Tab, then typing "user 361st_Gunner STAT" and looking at how many rounds were fired.

According to what you claim, Ice, and other things I have read which agree with it, the Spitfire IX had 120 rounds of 20mm ammo in each wing, totaling 240 rounds. I tested in FB, and the Hispanos fired 280 rounds total. This was done online.

I then tested the 109 F4/G2/G6, the single MG-151/20 cannon in the nose. These variants expended 200 rounds. Its my understanding that 109's were not loaded with more than 150 rounds of this cannon ammo due to jamming problems when loading the maximum capacity.

Now I'm not saying either of these two things are genuine fact and are 100% correct... But its what I've read from books and the internet have come to understand. If someone could verify or inform me on this, I'd much appreciat e it.

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The IXe had 140 rounds per gun and the IXc 120 rounds per gun.

The German 20mm total ammo has been changed to 200.

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

Itto_Okami
05-26-2004, 05:03 AM
@VW-IceFire

Oleg, via Ivan, stated taha he have a blueprint that show the HF.IXe and stated that VVS had three of them for testing. I hope that Oleg will post somewhere this blueprint because, as a modeller and a Spitfire fan I'm very interested about it

S!

Itto

VW-IceFire
05-26-2004, 07:25 AM
But was it a HF IXe with extended wingtips? That'd be a VERY rare beast. I wonder if they were converted from another Spitfire type, given the engines typically used in the IX and called an IX.

One thing about Spitfires is that you can never be 100% certain.

I didn't know that the IXe had an extra bunch of cannon rounds...although I may have read that somewhere before.

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

NegativeGee
05-26-2004, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Valathar:
However I still considere that the nose apearing in front of the canopy is excesive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The upright configuration of the Merlin did obstruct forward view on the Spitfire.

I read an account by Hans-Werner Lerche, a Luftwaffe Test Pilot, who evaluated a captured Spitfire IIA at Rechlin. He described it thus:

"The first thing I noticed was that, when taxing, the field of vision was not as good in the Bf-109 because of the "wide shoulders" of the 12-cylinder upright V-12 engine."

Seems we have something approximating to that in the current spitfire cockpit view IMO.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - G├╝nther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

nixon-fiend.
05-26-2004, 10:33 AM
^ Yeah but.. that's whilst taxiing...

If FB replicated that properly we wouldn't be able to see anything in front of us in a mk.IX.

As with the FW, in flight the nose 'dropped' so you'd see much more.

That's the problem with the game engine, it can't replicate both cockpit view in flight and on the ground so it compromises.

Not that it bothers me... I love my mk.IX and i thought the view was going to be MUCH worse than it is. I'm happy.

NegativeGee
05-26-2004, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nixon-fiend.:
^ Yeah but.. that's whilst taxiing...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but the fact he noticed it at all is what is significant.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - G├╝nther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!