PDA

View Full Version : 1944 Spitfire IX's?



RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-19-2004, 03:20 PM
Hello Oleg

Wondering when we might get the 1944 version of the Spitfire IX?

This aircraft had the boost allowances revised upwards starting in April 1944, with the plentiful availability of 150 grade fuel.

All Spitfire IX Squadrons in Great Britain under AIR DEFENCE GREAT BRITAIN were converted in the spring of 1944 to 150 grade fuel and +25 boost.

2nd TACTICAL AIR FORCE Spitfire IX's continued to use +18 boost due to the problems of shipping fuel to the continent.

After the Allies opened up enough ports to handle fuel supplies more easily, the 2nd TACTICAL AIRFORCE Spitfires were converted. Starting in November 1944, Squadrons changed to +25 boost and all were useing this by January 1945.

There were over 20 Squadrons, and more than 1000 Spitfire IX's operating an any one time on +25 boost.

Spitfire IX LF's were sent from the factory starting in December 1944 with the supercharger and engine set up for +25 boost.

Looking forward to seeing the 1944 Spitfire IX in an upcoming patch. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Thankyou

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-19-2004, 03:20 PM
Hello Oleg

Wondering when we might get the 1944 version of the Spitfire IX?

This aircraft had the boost allowances revised upwards starting in April 1944, with the plentiful availability of 150 grade fuel.

All Spitfire IX Squadrons in Great Britain under AIR DEFENCE GREAT BRITAIN were converted in the spring of 1944 to 150 grade fuel and +25 boost.

2nd TACTICAL AIR FORCE Spitfire IX's continued to use +18 boost due to the problems of shipping fuel to the continent.

After the Allies opened up enough ports to handle fuel supplies more easily, the 2nd TACTICAL AIRFORCE Spitfires were converted. Starting in November 1944, Squadrons changed to +25 boost and all were useing this by January 1945.

There were over 20 Squadrons, and more than 1000 Spitfire IX's operating an any one time on +25 boost.

Spitfire IX LF's were sent from the factory starting in December 1944 with the supercharger and engine set up for +25 boost.

Looking forward to seeing the 1944 Spitfire IX in an upcoming patch. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Thankyou

Kurfurst__
05-20-2004, 09:53 AM
As for an 1944 version, you already have it as the IXe, which first saw action only in late spring 1944, incorrectly stated as an 43 airplane.

As for the +25lbs boost, Olegs policy is to model 'standard boost, with standard fuel'.

As for the 1000 Spitfires claim, 20 Squadrons (each made up by 20 planes when fully reinforced, 8 of those being replacement planes).

20 x 20 is 400 planes (under most ideal conditions).

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

lrrp22
05-20-2004, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
As for the +25lbs boost, Olegs policy is to model 'standard boost, with standard fuel'.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then he should have no problem implementing 150 grade/+25 lb boost since by 1945 it *was* the standard fuel and the standard boost for all ETO Spit IX's and Mustang III's.

Kurfurst__
05-20-2004, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Then he should have no problem implementing 150 grade/+25 lb boost since by 1945 it *was* the standard fuel and the standard boost for all ETO Spit IX's and Mustang III's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, you hit it on the nail, "by 1945". For an 1945 plane, a MkIX at +25lbs seems to be a good choice (I wunder if you would be as fond seeing 1945 K-4s at 1.98ata, too..?)

As for the Mustangs, I guess you refer to RAF Mustangs in Britain, not the US ones that run at reduced boost. Spit XVIs also run at reduced boost. It should be mentioned, that none of the many hundred Spit IXs and Mustangs stationed in Italy and in the med received the higher boost. Not really 'standard fuel', but fairly widespread in use by that time.

But as I said, a +25lbs Spit IX seems to be a good choice for 1945.

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

PzKpfw
05-20-2004, 11:22 AM
So what is the problem with RAF Spitfires & Mustangs useing 100/150 grade fuel? as we have seen from the Data Neal Stirling posted from Deputy Commanding General ASC USSTAF
Director of Supply 23/11/44 report on 150 grade fuel supply & demand, the UK was domesticly produceing 100/150 for both the USAAF & RAF Ie, as of 23.11.44 production was 23,000 tons per month distributed as follows*:

USAAF 8th Fighter Command 20,000 tons.
RAF Fighter Command 2,000tons*
Engine Manufactures 1,000tons


* As of July 1944 the RAF was using 12,000 tons per month.

In January 1945 production of 100/150 was slated to increase to 32,000 tons per month due to an increase in RAF requirement for 100/150 grade from 2,000 tons per month to 10,000 tons per month.

And this doesnt include the 100/150 reqirements for 2nd TAF, which was expected to increase RAF demand to 15,000 tons per month. & 1945 monthly production was to increase from 32,000 tons to 47,000 tons a month.

So as we see 100/150 grade fuel was the common fuel for RAF & 8th AF fighters based in England & 2nd TAF on the continent, & domesticly produced in the UK. Not to mention US fighters in the ETO/Med & PTO also had access US produced 115/145 grade fuel etc.

Only question that remains is what was the 'common' boost pressure http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif as to USAAF P-51s at reduced boost I have no idea what your refering to P-51D/K Boost was:

Normal Power 46"hg
Military Power 61"hg
Combat Power 67"hg

As to seeing Bf 109K-4 with 1.98ata, if 1.98ata was reached in operational Bf 109K-4s, then it should be in game.

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.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Thu May 20 2004 at 10:45 AM.]

Kurfurst__
05-20-2004, 11:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
So what is the problem with RAF Spitfires & Mustangs useing 100/150 grade fuel? as we have seen from the Data Neal Stirling posted from Deputy Commanding General ASC USSTAF
Director of Supply 23/11/44 report on 150 grade fuel supply & demand, the UK was domesticly produceing 100/150 for both the USAAF & RAF Ie, as of 23.11.44 production was 23,000 tons per month distributed as follows*:

USAAF 8th Fighter Command 20,000 tons.
RAF Fighter Command 2,000tons*
Engine Manufactures 1,000tons

* As of July 1944 the RAF was using 12,000 tons per month.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John, nobody says theres a problem with it. It was only pointed out it wasnt exactly as common as some posters believed.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So as we see 100/150 grade fuel was the common fuel for RAF & 8th AF fighters based in England & 2nd TAF on the continent, & domesticly produced in the UK..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure John, but dont mix things.

Basically in 1944 the 8th AF Mustangs used it at reduced boost, and abot 200-400 Spits in England, the latter in rather small quantities, appearantly vs. V-1s buzz bombs, as evidenced by the sudden drop of consumption to only one-sixth when the mass V-1 raids stopped in automn.

The 2nd TAF only converted to it in January 1945, no sooner than that, basically the Spitfire squadrons of it received the high grade fuel. Until then, ie. in all 1944, they relied on 100 grade fuel, and +18 lbs boost.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Not to mention US fighters in the ETO/Med & PTO also had access US produced 115/145 grade fuel etc. .]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right John, 9th AF, and the 15AAF should not be mentioned at all, since they didnt use 150 or 115/145 grade at any time of the war. As for PTO, there are only rumors, but that does not effect the Spitfires.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Only question that remains is what was the 'common' boost pressure http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. As to seeing Bf 109K-4 with 1.98ata, if it actualy could do it, then it should be in game.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good to hear that John. I think we can agree in that if higher boosts are modelled for one side, so should they be for the other as well.

As for the reduced boosts, the P-51D w. V-1650-7 could manage 67" maximum with use of 100 grade fuel.

With 150 grade, the British allowed up to 75" and 81" (for -7 engines), the USAAF had more problems with spark plugs, and was probalby more conservetive considering the mission profile they flew etc., so they used only 71.5" which would yield a modest performance increase compared to 67". So I meant reduced boost with 150 grade compared to British prescriptions.



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

Kurfurst__
05-20-2004, 12:24 PM
Jesus Christ... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Just tell me one thing, Buzz, is this your usual real-life self, or just your forum ego ?

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

JethroT
05-20-2004, 12:30 PM
&gt;You have provided false information to Oleg re. the Spitfire IX and +25 boost as well as its turnrate. This is clear.

Perhaps he didn't know the 11th commandment in Britain:

Thou shalt not bear false witness against the Spitfire.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-20-2004, 12:50 PM
Isegrim/Kurfurst

The basis for open and fair discussion is intellectual honesty.

faustnik
05-20-2004, 01:04 PM
Kurfurst,

Buzzsaw asked for a variation of the Spit IX which did see service. He has plenty of data to back up his request. Why are you busting his balls over it? Don't blame him for getting a little annoyed at your reply. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Yes, we should get increased boost versions of the 109s also, if you can provide data for them.

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)

Willey
05-20-2004, 01:36 PM
I want the A-4 with 1,42ata - 1min then http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. And real 1,58ata on A-5 and A-6.

PzKpfw
05-20-2004, 01:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Sure John, but dont mix things.

Basically in 1944 the 8th AF Mustangs used it at reduced boost, and abot 200-400 Spits in England, the latter in rather small quantities, appearantly vs. V-1s buzz bombs, as evidenced by the sudden drop of consumption to only one-sixth when the mass V-1 raids stopped in automn.

The 2nd TAF only converted to it in January 1945, no sooner than that, basically the Spitfire squadrons of it received the high grade fuel. Until then, ie. in all 1944, they relied on 100 grade fuel, and +18 lbs boost.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isegrem I'm not mixing anything up, i'm discussing the commonality of 100/150 grade fuel and as of Sept 1944 the USAAF 8th Fighter command alone was recieving 20,000tons of 100/150 a month from UK refineries. BTW the slash designates the lean/rich mixture of the octane.

Also after further reading, on British HO AV fuel production in WW2 & E-mails from a friend it shows that British production of *100/150 from Febuary 1944 - March 1945 ammounted to 369,385 tons.

100/130 production over the same time period was 293,963 tons. Combined 100/130 & 100/150 production from Feb 44 thru March 45 was 663,348 tons of which 55.7% was 100/150.

The lowest production output of 100/150 was April 1944 @ 4,928 tons, and May 1944 @ 8,033 tons Peak production was in September 1944 @ 35,640 tons.

*See: POWE 33/1363 Report of actual production 100/130 and 100/150 gasolines and componets.

Also I see repeated refrences to Spitfire and RAF Mustang squadrons based in the UK mentioned here, as relevance to 100/150 use but what about the Typhoon & Tempest squadrons?. In fact Diver missions kept the Tempest in the UK after D-day etc.


Concerning boost P-51D/K boost was officialy:

Normal Power 46"hg
Military Power 61"hg
Combat Power 67"hg

Anecdotaly we can see 72"hg was used in the ETO as well, but thats for another discussion. 67"hg was adeqate for ETO fighter vs fighter operations anyway, except vs Jet AC.

As to availability of US 115/145 grade it was available in the ETO prior to June 6 1944, & I find it hard to believe the Med or PTO did not recieve any, as the US, as of Jan 1944 was produceing over 500,000 barrels of AV fuel a day.


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.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Thu May 20 2004 at 07:00 PM.]

p1ngu666
05-20-2004, 06:49 PM
i imagine the number of aircraft with highgrade fuel was similer to the number of german aircraft with fuel, with pilots, with no aborts due to woeful bulid quality in late war.
at minium http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
also remmber this is mainly a eto sim, we have a desert and a pacific map or 2/3 but there multiplayer.

personaly id like to see raf stangs with higher boosts http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
u could always have xplane "late" with 150fuel and xplane "early" with 100 or whatever

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

bazzaah2
05-21-2004, 05:34 AM
nice to see Isegrim back again http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Wondered where he'd gotten to, hahahaa.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_05.gif

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

HamishUK
05-21-2004, 07:04 AM
<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 lrrp22:
Then he should have no problem implementing 150 grade/+25 lb boost since by 1945 it *was* the standard fuel and the standard boost for all ETO Spit IX's and Mustang III's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, you hit it on the nail, "by 1945". For an 1945 plane, a MkIX at +25lbs seems to be a good choice (I wunder if you would be as fond seeing 1945 K-4s at 1.98ata, too..?)

As for the Mustangs, I guess you refer to RAF Mustangs in Britain, not the US ones that run at reduced boost. Spit XVIs also run at reduced boost. It should be mentioned, that none of the many hundred Spit IXs and Mustangs stationed in Italy and in the med received the higher boost. Not really 'standard fuel', but fairly widespread in use by that time.

But as I said, a +25lbs Spit IX seems to be a good choice for 1945.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually +25lbs boost was in use by squadrons in the Spring of 1944! The following Orders Group was sent on the 1-05-44. Spitfires were already using the Merlin 66 with 25Lbs boost prior to this letter.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/adgbs29867g.gif

The approval was signed on 10-03-44.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/25lbs_approval.jpg

150 Grade fuel was in use by 30 Spitfire Squadrons.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/2taf150_112044.gif

Read Boscombes downs reports on the subject of the Spitfire Marks. I think you will find it interesting technical reading.

http://www.blitzpigs.com/images/Ham-SigPic.jpg

P-51_Mustang
05-21-2004, 06:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Jesus Christ... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Just tell me one thing, Buzz, is this your usual real-life self, or just your forum ego ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why drag Jesus Christ into your ego driven comments, Isegrim?