PDA

View Full Version : Spit Mk IX Lf e ... how does it comparte to?



Bull_dog_
01-08-2004, 09:15 PM
A Yak 3 for example....

I was looking at some of the specifications and reading up a bit...the Spit had similar speed, good roll rate with clipped wings and it could out turn just about all allied and axis aircraft at medium to low speeds...kinda sounded like the Yak 3...except more firepower.

For those that have the numbers what do ya think?

Bull_dog_
01-08-2004, 09:15 PM
A Yak 3 for example....

I was looking at some of the specifications and reading up a bit...the Spit had similar speed, good roll rate with clipped wings and it could out turn just about all allied and axis aircraft at medium to low speeds...kinda sounded like the Yak 3...except more firepower.

For those that have the numbers what do ya think?

VW-IceFire
01-08-2004, 09:30 PM
Interesting question. If the Spitfire IXe LF has similar characteristics to the Yak-3...the XIV will surely cause much consternation online. Although the XIV is probably less of a turner than the IX and the V is.

We won't know for sure for another few months it seems.

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

biggs222
01-08-2004, 10:27 PM
thats a good question...well i dont know about comparing it to the Yak3, but it SHOULD out turn the 109 and really outturn the 190...should reach its top speed of 410mph at 18000ft have a better roll then the 109 and the clipped wing version should be just under the 190s. the turn rates for the mkIX and mkXIV are the same as well as there roll. the 109G should out climb the mkIX but the mkXIV should outclimb the 109G after 16000 ft and will out zoom climb the 109G easily. i think the tests were run against the G-2 or the G-6....of of course there will be those that will argue these test to no end. but if u look up this ull see that what ive said is fact.

ElfunkoI
01-08-2004, 10:32 PM
I thought the mk.VIII (lf?) was supposed to be the best low alt Spit.

Really doubt it'll have a smaller turn circle than the Yak3, but it might be better in verticle, still able to "outturn" the yak. Might even be faster (the Mk.VIII that is.)

pourshot
01-09-2004, 03:03 AM
I think the only down side would be the wing mounted weapons in the spitfire.Apart from that it would be a good match.

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

Vipez-
01-09-2004, 04:31 AM
Then again G-10 and K-4 should outclimb the Mk. XIV (by quite a small marginal though) ,and 109 should dive slighly better (slightly better acceleration in dives)..


__________________________


http://www.leosk.org/tiedostot/sig-pieni.jpg

blabla0001
01-09-2004, 04:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
109 should dive slighly better (slightly better acceleration in dives)..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Extract from MKXIV test trails:

COMBAT TRIAL AGAINST Me. 109G

Maximum speed
44. The Spitfire XIV is 40 m.p.h. faster at all heights except 16,000 ft. where it is only 10 mph faster.

Maximum Climb
45. Same results. At 16,000 ft. indentical, otherwise the Spitfire XIV out-climbs the Me.109G. The zoom climb is practically identical when the climb is made without opening throttle. Climbing at full throttle, the Spitfire XIV draws away from the Me.109G quite easily.

Dive
46. During the initial part of the dive, the Me.109G pulls away slightly, but when a speed of 380 m.p.h. is reached, the Spitfire XIV begins to gain on the Me.109G.

Turning Circle
47. The Spitfire XIV easily out-turns the Me.109G in either direction.

Rate of Roll
48. The Spitfire XIV rolls much more quickly.

Conclusion
49. The Spitfire XIV is superior to the Me.109G in every respect.

------------------------------------

This is possibly a G6 but since it doesn't say it's just a guess.
But since you only said 109 I assume you mean all middle and late war 109's.

Vipez-
01-09-2004, 04:56 AM
Spit probably will catch a G-6, but you are comparing a 1942 vs 1944 bird. G-10 and K-4 should outdive Spit 14 without worrying Spit beeing able to catch them on dives. Not to mention the FW-190s.. and this was the test with G-6 with gunpods, i believe?


__________________________


http://www.leosk.org/tiedostot/sig-pieni.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
01-09-2004, 05:14 AM
the Spit XIV nearly had all the accell & speed & climb of the same year Bf-109s .... but with a big advantage in turn fighting ability

Spit IX vrs Yak-3 should be interesting

Yak-3 is Definantly slower in Accelleration & slower in climb in patch 1.21 over patch 1.11

well have to see how the Spitfire is moddeled but its probably (like always) going to come down to which pilot knows his plane the best

& which pilot makes the least mistakes

lots of DFs are lost remember , rather than won

nixon-fiend.
01-09-2004, 05:46 AM
mmmm spitfire..

blabla0001
01-09-2004, 05:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
Spit probably will catch a G-6, but you are comparing a 1942 vs 1944 bird. G-10 and K-4 should outdive Spit 14 without worrying Spit beeing able to catch them on dives. Not to mention the FW-190s.. and this was the test with G-6 with gunpods, i believe?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since when is a G6 a '42 plane?
The G6 and it's sub variant's are '43/'44 planes.
The G2 is a '42 plane.
I am not sure if it had gunpods.

p1ngu666
01-09-2004, 05:57 AM
itll be like a 109, roughly, tho slightly better http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
sometimes
cant wait for it tbh http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MiloMorai
01-09-2004, 06:05 AM
It depends on what boost and fuel Oleg uses to model the MkIX's FM.

If 150PN and 25lb, it had a RoC @ 500ft of 25.8m/s(5080f/m), rad flaps open, which is very simular to the K-4's RoC.

rad flaps shut:
R-R, &gt; 5740f/m(29.1m/s)
Vickers &gt; 5580f/m(28.3m/s)

blabla0001
01-09-2004, 07:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Although the XIV is probably less of a turner than the IX and the V is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Turn rate for the IX and XIV was the same, not sure about the V though.

-----------------------------------

TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE IX
13. The tactical differences are caused chiefly by the fact that the Spitfire XIV has an engine of greater capacity and is the heavier aircraft (weighing 8,400 lbs. against 7,480 lbs. of Spitfire IX).

Range & Endurance
14. The Spitfire XIV, without a long-range tank, carries 110 gallons of fuel and 9 gallons of oil. When handled similarily, the Spitfire XIV uses fuel at about 1 1/4 times the rate of the Spitfire IX. Its endurance is therefore slightly less. Owing to its higher speed for corresponding engine settings, its range is about equal. For the same reasons, extra fuel carried in a long-range tank keeps its range about equal to that of the Spitfire IX, its endurance being slightly less.

Speeds
15. At all heights the Spitfire XIV is 30-35 mph faster in level flight. The best performance heights are similar, being just below 15,000 and between 25,000 and 32,000 ft.

Climb
16. The Spitfire XIV has a slightly better maximum climb than the Spitfire IX, having the best maximum rate of climb yet seen at this Unit. In the zoom climb the Spitfire XIV gains slightly all the way, especially if full throttle is used in the climb.

Dive
17. The Spitfire XIV will pull away from the Spitfire IX in a dive.

Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.

Rate of Roll
19. Rate of roll is very much the same.

Search View and Rear View
20. The search view from the pilot's cockpit is good; the longer nose of the aircraft interferes with the all-round visibility, which remains the same as that of the Spitfire IX. Rear View is similar.

Sighting View and Fire Power
21. The sighting view is slightly better being 4 deg (140 m.p.h.) as against 3 1/3 deg. The two bulges at the side cause little restriction. The firepower is identical with the Spitfire IX.

Armour
22. As for the Spitfire IX

Conclusions
23. The all-round performance of the Spitfire XIV is better than the Spitfire IX at all heights. In level flight it is 25-35 m.p.h. faster and has a correspondingly greater rate of climb. Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Spitfire IX. It is easy to fly but should be handled with care when taxying and taking off.

blabla0001
01-09-2004, 07:19 AM
So basicly the MK XIV is the same as the MKIX, it just climbs, dives and fly faster.

VW-IceFire
01-09-2004, 07:25 AM
Interesting...I had read somewhere (perhaps this board) that the XIV was likely a slower turner and that turn radius had increased as the various versions came along. I guess its possible that this is not a factor between the IX and the XIV. It was certainly a good turner but also a fast fighter. Thanks for clearing it up however...along with the Tempest the Spitfire is really something special to me.

I don't see any problem with wing mounted weaponry. I prefer wing mounted guns actually. So thats not a problem persay...a style thing yes. The 2x Hispano and 4x .303 may be a bit weak in places (although the Hispano hitting power is quite good) but the 2x Hispano and 2x .50 cal will do quite nicely! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

MiloMorai
01-09-2004, 07:36 AM
Sould the Spitfire's wing weapons be any worse than of the 'gunboat' 109s or the 190s 20mm cannon? Or than that of the Ki84s or Zeros?

jeanba2
01-09-2004, 07:52 AM
The French made comparison between Normandie Niemen's Yak3 and Spitfire MK IX, after WWII.
Although the results must be taken with care because of the age of the aircraft, it was often said that the Yak3 was superior to the Spitfire.
Actually, the pilots who made the mock dogfights said that the results were more or less equal.

horseback
01-09-2004, 09:03 AM
Spit MK IX was basically a MK V with a bigger engine; the more refined MK VIII was about a year later. However, the MK IX arrived in early / mid 1942, and the RAF considered it to confer parity with the 190s/109s on the other side of the Channel. It was able to maintain this parity through minor upgrades throughout its production. Not very many MK IX drivers considered their aircraft outclassed, and to the end of the war, the cry "Achtung! Spitire!" was guaranteed to tighten the German sphincter like nothing else.

The MK XIV was a much more capable aircraft. MK IX drivers transitioning had to be firmly cautioned that the torque was not only greater, but it swung in the opposite direction. More than one MK XIV was seen wildly spinning around in circles on the tarmack when some benighted soul forgot this. I can't imagine anybody forgetting twice.

The Griffon was an enormously powerful (2,000 + hp?) engine mounted on a very light fuselage, just as the 109 was, but by all accounts, the airframe accepted the greater weight and power MUCH better. Range limitations and the scarcity of LW aircraft kept the MK XIV units from running up big scores, but they never seem to have been overmatched when they made contact.

If correctly modelled they should match up well with the 190A-9s, Doras and 109K models.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

JG26Red
01-09-2004, 09:09 AM
Edit: Spam warning. The thread is a discussion of comparative performance. Either make a comparison or stay out.

[This message was edited by Tully__ on Fri January 09 2004 at 06:33 PM.]

VW-IceFire
01-09-2004, 09:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Sould the Spitfire's wing weapons be any worse than of the 'gunboat' 109s or the 190s 20mm cannon? Or than that of the Ki84s or Zeros?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't understand the question entirely and in terms of the historical performance of Spitfire weaponry the Spitfire should largely be superior to the Zero and Ki-84 and probably closer to parity with the Bf 109 but not quite evenly matched.

The problem with early versions of the Mk 2 Hispano was gun jamming. This caused quite a few problems and I've even read that at least one pilot had his crew chief install 6 .50 cal machine guns for a while before Fighter Command ordered the original armament to be re-installed. Thats why you see the red fabric cover over cannons and that was to protect them from dirt because unlike the Soviet aircraft guns the Hispano's were much more sensitive to dirt and thus jammed more often. But by late in the war most of these problems were overcome. Overall I'd put the late model Spitfire (the E wing armament) as having more firepower than the 109 despite gun positioning. Its certainly not of the same calibre as the FW190 but keep in mind that the Hispano's, although packing less explosive, did more kinetic damage on a hit.

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

horseback
01-09-2004, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
TA 152 TA 152 TA 152 TA 152 TA 152 TA 152

ooops, sorry...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's okay, Red, as long as you stop after the 14th time...

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

p1ngu666
01-09-2004, 09:56 AM
they should make it never have fuel for 3/4ths of the time XD
i kinda hope the ta 152 will be dire just for u red http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
soz :P

MiloMorai
01-09-2004, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Sould the Spitfire's wing weapons be any worse than of the 'gunboat' 109s or the 190s 20mm cannon? Or than that of the Ki84s or Zeros?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't understand the question entirely and in terms of the historical performance of Spitfire weaponry the Spitfire should largely be superior to the Zero and Ki-84 and probably closer to parity with the Bf 109 but not quite evenly matched.

The problem with early versions of the Mk 2 Hispano was gun jamming. This caused quite a few problems and I've even read that at least one pilot had his crew chief install 6 .50 cal machine guns for a while before Fighter Command ordered the original armament to be re-installed. Thats why you see the red fabric cover over cannons and that was to protect them from dirt because unlike the Soviet aircraft guns the Hispano's were much more sensitive to dirt and thus jammed more often. But by late in the war most of these problems were overcome. Overall I'd put the late model Spitfire (the E wing armament) as having more firepower than the 109 despite gun positioning. Its certainly not of the same calibre as the FW190 but keep in mind that the Hispano's, although packing less explosive, did more kinetic damage on a hit.

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ise, on another forum just recently, made a reference to hard aiming if one cannon quit working as well as pourshots post here who commented on the wing guns.

I think you will find it was the MkI that caused problems since it was based on the French drawings.

One sees the open end of the barrels covered, it does not matter if it is a H-S 404 or a mg.

...........

Cappadocian_317, since Ise doesn't want to fill you in, that 109G6(W.Nr.412951) was not a very good representative a/c for a good comparison trials.

Hristo_
01-09-2004, 02:12 PM
Based on experience in two other sims with rather accurate FMs, here's my take on this:


Spit IX vs Bf 109G-2 - both 1942 versions
--------------------
Level speeds - Bf is faster, with the difference more pronounced at lower altitudes
Dive - Bf dives better
Climb - Bf climbs better, up to high alt where Spit takes the lead
Acceleration - Bf is better, Spit is close
Zoom - little to chose between the two
Sustained turn - Spit is better, but Bf is close
Guns - Spit is much better


Spit IX vs Fw 190A-4
--------------------
Level speeds - Fw is faster, again the difference is more pronounced at lower altitudes; at very high alt Spit gets the advantage
Dive - Fw dives much better
Climb - Spit climbs better
Acceleration - Spit is better
Zoom - Fw zooms better
Sustained turn - Spit is much better
Guns - Fw is better

Now, I don't know about Spit LF, but I understand it will be closer to Fw 190 in performance down low. Roll is even better at very low speeds than of 190, while it gets worse with higher speed. At combat speeds Fw still rolls considerably better. Acceleration will be better at low alts for the Spit. It will surely lose its high alt abilities, so it might find the BF 109 challenging up there.


Spit XIV vs Me 109G-10 and G-6/AS
---------------------------------
Level speeds - Me is faster, again the difference is more pronounced at lower altitudes
Dive - Me dives better, but Spit is close
Climb - Me is better down low, Spit is better up high
Acceleration - Me is better, but Spit is close
Zoom - Me is marginally better
Sustained turn - Spit is better
Guns - Spit is better


Spit XIV vs Fw 190A-8
---------------------
Level speeds - Spit is faster except on the deck, where speeds are very close
Dive - Fw dives better, Spit is rather close
Climb - Spit is much better
Acceleration - Spit is much better
Zoom - Spit is better
Sustained turn - Spit is much better
Guns - Fw is better

Spit XIV vs Fw 190D-9
---------------------
Level speeds - Fw is better, much better down low, but at high alt Spit is faster
Dive - Fw dives much better
Climb - Spit is better
Acceleration - Spit is better
Zoom - Fw is better, but Spit is close
Sustained turn - Spit is much better
Guns - Spit is marginally better

Now the XIV LF, that is something to worry about.

Disclaimer: these are my personal observations based on few years of online simming.

horseback
01-09-2004, 02:27 PM
Hristo-
Don't know which sims you refer to, but they are very much in conflict with the real things. By any measure, the Spit Mk XIV was a monster, the ultimate Allied (in the West anyway) dogfighter. It will be quite competitive with contemporary LW types at all altitudes, if modelled as accurately as most a/c in the Il-2 / FB inventory. Given that there are still a number of them still flying, it seems likely that it will.

The MK IXc and e should be similarly competitive with 42/43 types at the least, and probably the later 'e' winged type should be able to stay with FW-190A-8 and the 109G-6AS models, as they did in RL.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

biggs222
01-09-2004, 02:27 PM
Cappadocian_317, ur Spit specs are identical to mine..u wouldnt happen to have the Osprey book Late Marque Spit Aces 1942 1945 would u? great book.
If the spits are modeled correctly there is no need to really worry about any LW plane its just the skill of the driver that will matter in a Spit vs FW/Me/Ta fight. the mkIX should have no problem with the Fw190As and the Bf109Gs, and the mkXIV should be capable of handling the FW190Ds and Bf109Ks.
its a shame that we have to wait till a patch comes for the addon before we can fly the spits...oh well im used to waiting by now, another 2-3 months will be a breeze.

FW190fan
01-09-2004, 02:29 PM
With all of these new Spitfires coming on board what we really need is a map of the Kanalfront.

I would pay cash for one great big Channel map!

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

blabla0001
01-09-2004, 02:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
Cappadocian_317, ur Spit specs are identical to mine..u wouldnt happen to have the Osprey book Late Marque Spit Aces 1942 1945 would u? great book.
If the spits are modeled correctly there is no need to really worry about any LW plane its just the skill of the driver that will matter in a Spit vs FW/Me/Ta fight. the mkIX should have no problem with the Fw190As and the Bf109Gs, and the mkXIV should be capable of handling the FW190Ds and Bf109Ks.
its a shame that we have to wait till a patch comes for the addon before we can fly the spits...oh well im used to waiting by now, another 2-3 months will be a breeze.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's my Squad mates who got all the books, one of them lives close by and I borrow the good stuff from him.
The Squadron I am a member off was formed during WWII with escaped pilots and ground crew from the European mainland to England and still exists today.
Recently we have been accepted into the official public relations team of the Squadron and we appear on flight shows and squadron events as a historic flight team, presenting historical missions flown by the Squadron and talk about the background to those interested.

I have also met several Squadron Veterans during these events, especially at the 60 year aniversery.
These guys had some stories to tell.

VW-IceFire
01-09-2004, 03:06 PM
The IX that Gibbage modeled is the one with the uprated engine, redesigned tail, and a few other modifications. It may be a 1943 or 44 plane even. In any case it will be on the same level no doubt as the G-6 and G-14 or the FW190A8.

I can see the clipped wing being popular as dogfight servers tend to favour low altitude dogfighting and thats where the clipped wing models really shine.

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

pourshot
01-09-2004, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Sould the Spitfire's wing weapons be any worse than of the 'gunboat' 109s or the 190s 20mm cannon? Or than that of the Ki84s or Zeros?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only for the same reasons that all wing mounted guns suffer "convergance" this was what the russians disliked most about it's spitfires,fireing from to close or to far will dilute your fire power.

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

Hristo_
01-09-2004, 04:29 PM
Guys, you might be comparing apples and oranges here. Spit and 190 are much different planes, designed to fight different styles of fight.

It is just so that historically BnZ in any of its forms was considered more successfull. Spitfire might be an average BnZer, but 190 is the BnZ incarnate.

What do I want to say ? IMHO, by far the most important characteristics of a air combat plane (not a dueling ride, but your usual workhorse) are speed and guns package.

Check level speeds for Spit XIV and Fw 190D-9, especially on the deck. Check dive speeds. Those huge wings of the Spitfire don't help it in dives for sure.

Roughly, D-9 isabout 20mph faster than the Spit XIV onthe deck. That is a lot, and don't forget D-9 dives better too.

On the deck, the XIV is marginally faster than A-8, while it stil loses it in the dive.

Note that I am not talking about 150 octane fuel XIV, something that wasn't all that common.

If you are looking for a late war RAF uber ride, Spit XIV isn't your best bet. It is the tempest. With that beast around, LW will only be safe in a 262 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

The sims I base my experience on are Warbirds and Aces High.

pourshot
01-09-2004, 06:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
Guys, you might be comparing apples and oranges here. Spit and 190 are much different planes, designed to fight different styles of fight.

It is just so that historically BnZ in any of its forms was considered more successfull. Spitfire might be an average BnZer, but 190 is the BnZ incarnate.

What do I want to say ? IMHO, by far the most important characteristics of a air combat plane (not a dueling ride, but your usual workhorse) are speed and guns package.

Check level speeds for Spit XIV and Fw 190D-9, especially on the deck. Check dive speeds. Those huge wings of the Spitfire don't help it in dives for sure.

Roughly, D-9 isabout 20mph faster than the Spit XIV onthe deck. That is a lot, and don't forget D-9 dives better too.

On the deck, the XIV is marginally faster than A-8, while it stil loses it in the dive.

Note that I am not talking about 150 octane fuel XIV, something that wasn't all that common.

If you are looking for a late war RAF uber ride, Spit XIV isn't your best bet. It is the tempest. With that beast around, LW will only be safe in a 262 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

The sims I base my experience on are Warbirds and Aces High.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would agree with most of that but I would like to add that dives are not well modeled in FB so I dont think acceleration in a dive will matter to much.What does matter is roll, turn climb and speed,and once a furball starts top speed is unimportant.So on the whole I think the Spity will be a good match for any plane in FB

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

horseback
01-09-2004, 07:08 PM
Hristo,

how often do you get to top speed on the deck or anywhere else? The key here is accelleration, and the MK XIV has it in spades, while the Dora had a tendency to dither, probably due to using an engine intended for bombers.

It's like the difference between the '62 Caddillac I learned to drive in compared to my '73 Capri. The Caddy had a significantly higher top end (I'm not saying how high I took it; I don't know what Arizona's statute of limitations is on moving violations), but the Capri got to 100mph a heck of a lot sooner. The Caddy weighed a lot more, and the power steering, automatic tranny, and A/C all took a toll on that big engine, while the Capri had a six banger and a stick, with power windshield wipers (it did have an AM/FM radio, which was cutting edge at the time). It could take off like a scalded cat, while the Caddy took a while to get up to speed.

So it was with the Spit XIV and the Dora. And the Spit could corner like the Capri compared to the Caddy. Tempests were very good medium level fighters, but the Spit XIV was pretty effective from 30,000+ ft all the way down to the deck.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

p1ngu666
01-09-2004, 08:22 PM
spit wings have a high mach number, so getting into compressablitity area u got a advantage
plus u can fly a spit how u want i think, bnz or tnb
in a 190 your limited to vertical really, unless scissors
best of all is the engine sound http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
which we probably wont have in fb :'(
im no spit expert
i think spits where a bit faster than same era 109's? mildly better areodynamics http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
was true with the E anyways

Tazzers
01-09-2004, 08:36 PM
Lets be realistic, we have been screaming out for a Spit ever since IL2 Sturmovik was released and just as they bring out LOMAC 1C are finally giving us one to play with?

I will withold judgement but I am very worried that I will be dissapointed with what we get. I was expecting the FW190 to fly like a scolded cat with wings but I could never get on with it and always went back to the 109. Like I say I am worried that it will not be modelled 100% correctly. I just don't think Oleg likes the Spit and he has resisted putting one in now for how long? 2 years? No disrespect meant but I am not holding my breath on this one.

Hristo_
01-10-2004, 03:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Hristo,

how often do you get to top speed on the deck or anywhere else? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anytime I am in bad situation. This is a life saver for me, as it has beem many many many times. And especially against Spits.

Trust me, Spitfire is my favourite target when I am in Fw 190.

BnZ is the way to go against them when in 190. And they can't do anything that to go on the defensive and wait for your mistake. And in case of a mistake, they are nasty.

However, a smart 190 pilot will frustrate the hell out of Spit jocks.

To back it up some, here are current stats from Aces High:

Fw 190A-5 has 79 Kills of Spitfire V
Spitfire V has 37 Kills of Fw 190A-5

Fw 190A-5 has 132 Kills of Spitfire Mk IX
Spitfire Mk IX has 90 Kills of Fw 190A-5

Fw 190A-8 has 83 Kills of Spitfire V
Spitfire V has 60 Kills of Fw 190A-8

Fw 190A-8 has 161 Kills of Spitfire Mk IX
Spitfire Mk IX has 135 Kills of Fw 190A-8

Fw 190A-8 has 2 Kills of Spitfire Mk XIV
Spitfire Mk XIV has 3 Kills of Fw 190A-8

Fw 190D-9 has 6 Kills of Spitfire Mk XIV
Spitfire Mk XIV has 5 Kills of Fw 190D-9

My take on this is that it will be reflected closely in FB.

My personal best was 212 kils in Fw 190A-8, vs 16 deaths. Of these, 77 kills were Spit IX, while they shot me down 8 times.

[This message was edited by Hristo_ on Sat January 10 2004 at 02:41 AM.]

HellToupee
01-10-2004, 04:28 AM
Tell me how are you going to BnZ a spitfire if it is above you, it will outclimb you equlivant 190, so if both parties take off at same time you will find its above you able to park it self on your tail with only your role rate to help you which all but vanishes at low speed, top speed wont save you if they are in guns range a few hits to the wing anda 190 slows to a crawl, very frustrating as it is the bird of choice for me, but i dont see how a 190 can beat a spit when flown to the strengths.

Reguarding the aces high figuresm i highly doubt a 190a8 is going to fair up against a XIV, it will be like a p47 vs k4/d9.

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

Hristo_
01-10-2004, 04:47 AM
Too many "if"s in your scenario, HellToupee. IF you take off at the same time, if you both climb before the merge, if you go for a duel, if it stays 1 vs 1.

I'll counter you with my "if". "IF" it happens like you described, I'll run away http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Being able to run away is great luxury in air combat. Something a Spitfire very rarely enjoys.

HellToupee, you should know better than that. If I find a Spit above me, it is no fight. It is nose down and dive - goodbye Spitty.

All it can do then is to eat dust.

190 can beat a contemporary Spitfire. But you should remember, in air combat, not in a duel. Spit is by far better dueling plane, but in air combat 190 surpasses it.

Remember Robert Johnson's mock duel vs a Spit ? Same thing can be done here in many planes, like 190, P47, P51 or La-5/7, to name a few.

Remember the frustrated Spitfire pilot saying "turning doesn't win air battles" ?

This Spit enthusiasts comments here somehow remind me of Japanese philosophy of using Zeros vs Hellcats and Corsairs. Ot 109s vs P51s, for that matter. It just doesn't work against good opposition.

Spit is no doubt a good plane, perhaps better than 109. But to think it is a 190 eliminator, no way. More like other way around.

Vipez-
01-10-2004, 05:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
Spit probably will catch a G-6, but you are comparing a 1942 vs 1944 bird. G-10 and K-4 should outdive Spit 14 without worrying Spit beeing able to catch them on dives. Not to mention the FW-190s.. and this was the test with G-6 with gunpods, i believe?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since when is a G6 a '42 plane?
The G6 and it's sub variant's are '43/'44 planes.
The G2 is a '42 plane.
I am not sure if it had gunpods.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

as far as i know G-6 early-production began november 1942 and first ones were delivered to frontline units by december 1942 (although in small numbers). So since Yak-1B (production begun december 1942) is also considered as 1942 plane (when it actually saw first time combat mid-early 1943) i wouldn't mind using G-6early as 1942 plane http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .. and there are other birds too carrying 1942 (wrong) instead of 1943 (correct)..


__________________________


http://www.leosk.org/tiedostot/sig-pieni.jpg

blabla0001
01-10-2004, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
Spit probably will catch a G-6, but you are comparing a 1942 vs 1944 bird. G-10 and K-4 should outdive Spit 14 without worrying Spit beeing able to catch them on dives. Not to mention the FW-190s.. and this was the test with G-6 with gunpods, i believe?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since when is a G6 a '42 plane?
The G6 and it's sub variant's are '43/'44 planes.
The G2 is a '42 plane.
I am not sure if it had gunpods.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

as far as i know G-6 early-production began november 1942 and first ones were delivered to frontline units by december 1942 (although in small numbers). So since Yak-1B (production begun december 1942) is also considered as 1942 plane (when it actually saw first time combat mid-early 1943) i wouldn't mind using G-6early as 1942 plane http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .. and there are other birds too carrying 1942 (wrong) instead of 1943 (correct).. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it doesn't realy matter if the early G6 planes where 42 planes because in this game there are only the '43/'44 models.
So to say that the G6 is a '42 plane compared to the later models Spitfires and that it's unfair to measure against each other is rather far fetched.

HellToupee
01-10-2004, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
Too many "if"s in your scenario, HellToupee. IF you take off at the same time, if you both climb before the merge, if you go for a duel, if it stays 1 vs 1.

I'll counter you with my "if". "IF" it happens like you described, I'll run away http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Being able to run away is great luxury in air combat. Something a Spitfire very rarely enjoys.

HellToupee, you should know better than that. If I find a Spit above me, it is no fight. It is nose down and dive - goodbye Spitty.

All it can do then is to eat dust.

190 can beat a contemporary Spitfire. But you should remember, in air combat, not in a duel. Spit is by far better dueling plane, but in air combat 190 surpasses it.

Remember Robert Johnson's mock duel vs a Spit ? Same thing can be done here in many planes, like 190, P47, P51 or La-5/7, to name a few.

Remember the frustrated Spitfire pilot saying "turning doesn't win air battles" ?

This Spit enthusiasts comments here somehow remind me of Japanese philosophy of using Zeros vs Hellcats and Corsairs. Ot 109s vs P51s, for that matter. It just doesn't work against good opposition.

Spit is no doubt a good plane, perhaps better than 109. But to think it is a 190 eliminator, no way. More like other way around.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was refering to a fair fight, as in both take off at same time etc, a 1v1, in a group fight the 190 is a safer ride as its stronger. You can run away but what if you are not going full speed, you try and run and the spit will be upon you, you forget climb can be used to run away as well so if you are in a 190 that is outclimbed the spit can climb away as you could run, he would eventually develope an alt advantage if the 190 stuck around. To think of the 190 as a spit elimiator thats advantage is to run away well you run ill climb. You choose to return to the fight after you flee then you lose you fleeing advantage of fleeing because a diving plane usually will go faster.

As for robert jonhsons mock duel lets see him out turn bader http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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

Hristo_
01-10-2004, 07:07 AM
There's no such thing as a fair fight, except in artificial sterile dueling environment. And if you go there, expect the opponent to be flying the exact same plane as you do, same fuel and weapon loadout.

What you describe didn't even exist in WW1, much less in WW2. Even in WW1 top aces used their E to and bounce to shoot down opponents. Even von Richthoffen.

You say if I keep running you'll keep climbing ? Fine. How much time do you have ? I believe 190 has more gas in its tanks and I might make it very long fight indeed,until the Spitty runs out of gas. Just a little example.

Climb advantage is probably the hardest to exploit. All it takes is an unseen intruder coming with more E and it goes down the toilet. And if you fight more than one, you can't be maneuvering and outclimbing one while other opponents are grabbing alt to jump you.

Dive and speed is probably the easiest to exploit. No matter how many chase you, as long as you are faster, you are safe.

Turn advantage is by far the most elusive. Sure you can otuturn one, but what if he was closer to corner speed ? How about disangaging ? How about intruders entering the fight ? Youbetter be good and quick and have luck above all.

I have no doubts Spit will be successfullplane in FB. There will always be pour souls devoid of their E with Spit jumping them. But expect the really good 190 types to stay untouchable to you.

Just my opinion http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

VW-IceFire
01-10-2004, 08:19 AM
Hristo...you are definately right about the best RAF ride likely being the Tempest in terms of sheer competitiveness against the Luftwaffe. Despite the fact that I'm a Tempest and then Spitfire fan thats probably a good summation of the two planes however there are some drabacks of the Tempest too which I'd say puts the two on virtually the same level (Spitfire XIV and Tempest V).

The Tempest is generally faster at low and medium altitude but its performance will still drop off at the highest altitudes where the Spitfire will do better.

The Tempest roll rate is comperable (Tempest rolls better at high speed, worse at low speed) to the Spitfire.

Tempest turn radius is not as impressive as the Spitfire's and is generally more along the lines of the FW190 (apparently what I'm reading suggests its a FW190C but it should be similar to the D in turn) but the Tempest is slightly better.

The Tempest wins hands down in firepower. The Hispano Mk V is superior in fire rate and overall damage to target.

Thats the biggies...I can see the RAF/Commonwealth pilots online having some great choices in late war birds between the Tempest and Spitfire XIV. Depending on the situation both planes will be important performers and both should be quite a good match for the best Luftwaffe fighters. We should see some good matches like I have already between P-51D and FW190D9 in various conflicts. Of course for this to happen we'll be waiting some months yet.

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

Tazzers
01-10-2004, 11:26 AM
Lads there is no point arguing; these people have flown a few flight simulators and all of a sudden thing they are war veterans who really know what they are talking about. This argument will not go away, even when the Spitfires become available. There will always be one or two pr!cks like Hristo who think that insulting a design will really defeat it. He probably wears full flying gear when he goes 'for a spin'.

VW-IceFire
01-10-2004, 12:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tazzers:
Lads there is no point arguing; these people have flown a few flight simulators and all of a sudden thing they are war veterans who really know what they are talking about. This argument will not go away, even when the Spitfires become available. There will always be one or two pr!cks like Hristo who think that insulting a design will really defeat it. He probably wears full flying gear when he goes 'for a spin'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Is see a debate going on...not an argument. The posts are well constructed and make points and refute other points. So its not an argument at all. I haven't seen Hristo insulting a design either...he has said that he thinks the FW190 is still better than any of the Spits (in comparitive models) but he said that was his opinion only. He's allowed to keep that. I disgree but whatever http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nobody here I am aware of is a veteran and nobody said that they were or were trying to be. So I see no need to take it off track...

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

Hristo_
01-10-2004, 12:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tazzers:
There will always be one or two pr!cks like Hristo who think that insulting a design will really defeat it. He probably wears full flying gear when he goes 'for a spin'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, thanks ! Was this personal attack really necessary ? I mean, I am in this thread to add to the discussion, not to insult poeple or designs. You, however, seem to have a different policy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Anyway, if I offended someone, I apologize - it was never my intention. It was my personal experience from (imagine!!) flight sims. Being 29 y.o. your low income Eastern European dude, I have no other way of experiencing WW2 warbirds except from flight sims and books.

But I stand behind this- when I fly Fw 190 in a flight sim, I am most happy when all my opponents fly Spits.

Bremspropeller
01-10-2004, 12:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HellToupee:
To think of the 190 as a spit elimiator thats advantage is to run away well you run ill climb. You choose to return to the fight after you flee then you lose you fleeing advantage of fleeing because a diving plane usually will go faster.

As for robert jonhsons mock duel lets see him out turn bader http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, you would catch him if there wasn't something we call drag. Drag provides you from getting on his six in fireing range again. Even if you would climb above him (which makes you much slower than him, whom actually is faster in level flight than your spit) you could not gain on him. Simple physics http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BUT: the late Spits are pretty good B&Z fighters (still not as good as the Tempest) but nearly even to the Kurf├╝rst which makes them dangerous for the 109 divers at all altitudes (excepf for the LF which looses against the 109 in medium to high alts)and for the 190D drivers at high alts (&gt; 7000m). Ô┬┤

As for the 150 octane Spits: how many XIVs with the 150 octane fuel actually met LW fighters ? I'd assume pretty few did. Those Spits would be a good match for the late Doras (D-11 to D-13) while the F.21 and F.22 are good competitors for the Ta152H-1.

But in conclusion we can say that the XIV ist slightly superriorto the K-4 and even to the Dora-9.



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

Bull_dog_
01-10-2004, 01:55 PM
I don't have charts showing speed at different altitudes, but most of the books I have show the Fw A's being comperable in speed to the spits...around 405-415mph...with the Dora coming in around 428-440 depending on the source. Again this is without speed x altitude charts.

Now FB doesn't seem to model speed real accurate imho...at least according to my books.

Altitude not withstanding the speed demon of the bunch is:
109K 440+ Then
P-51B 440
P-51D 437
Fw 190D 428+ depending
P-47 428
Tempest 428
Spit Mk XIV 428
Corsair 425
109 G's 410-425 depending on source and model
Fw 190 A5-8 & Spit mk IX 405-415 depending
P-38J 414
P-38L 408-410
LA -7 408-415
Yak 3 408
Ki-84 396
Spit Mk V 378
Hellcat 37something

Bear with me because I am doing this off memory and altitude makes a huge difference in some cases...Note I didn't include the Ta-152, P-47M, P-51K etc...

I don't believe speed matters as much when the difference is less than 15mph...I think one of the reasons Mustangs enjoyed such an advantage because they had a good 25+ mph advantage on contemporary aircraft when it first arrived on the scene...later the luftwaffe caught up but pilots and fuel were a big problem by then as the allies had air superiority.

Now back to the post...spit vs. yak...I'm thinking that they were very comperable in FM's myself...

My opinion of FB's flight modelling seems to waver back and forth from good to bad...I am currently not likeing it much again...but who knows that may change again with the new patch http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As Oleg has it modelled today, the speed demons seem to be Fw's followed by La's and 109's then Ki's and P-51's and followed up by Yak's and P-47's....so who knows.

Good debate

Hristo_
01-10-2004, 02:08 PM
maybe you are looking for this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/spit5speed.gif

http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/spit9speed.gif

http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/190d9speed.gif

http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/190a8speed.gif

http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/190a5speed.gif

http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/tempestspeed.gif

http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/spit14speed.gif

pourshot
01-10-2004, 02:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tazzers:
Lads there is no point arguing; these people have flown a few flight simulators and all of a sudden thing they are war veterans who really know what they are talking about. This argument will not go away, even when the Spitfires become available. There will always be one or two pr!cks like Hristo who think that insulting a design will really defeat it. He probably wears full flying gear when he goes 'for a spin'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was not called for,unless you have something worth adding to this topic stay away.Your comments are not welcome and make you look like a child.

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

MiloMorai
01-10-2004, 03:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:

Bear with me because I am doing this off memory and altitude makes a huge difference in some cases...Note I didn't include the Ta-152, P-47M, P-51K etc...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-51K was the designation of the P-51D manufactured in NAA's Dallas plant.

horseback
01-10-2004, 04:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:

Bear with me because I am doing this off memory and altitude makes a huge difference in some cases...Note I didn't include the Ta-152, P-47M, P-51K etc...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-51K was the designation of the P-51D manufactured in NAA's Dallas plant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite, Milo, the K-NT was so designated because shortages of the Hamilton Standard led to the installation of the uncuffed Aeroproducts propeller on some production runs. They were all produced at Dallas, but so were several blocks of D-NT models(NT was the designater for Dallas, as FA was for the Farmingdale production runs of the P-47).

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

MiloMorai
01-10-2004, 06:29 PM
Well if you want to get thay picky.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The K also had a slightly different shaped canopy.

Inglewood-built P-51Ds

44-13253/14052 North American P-51D-5-NA Mustang
c/n 109-26886/27685. 800 aircraft
44-14053/14852 North American P-51D-10-NA Mustang
c/n 109-27686/28485. 800 aircraft.
44-14853/15752 North American P-51D-15-NA Mustang
c/n 109-28486/28885, 35536/36035. 900 aircraft
44-63160/64159 North American P-51D-20-NA Mustang
c/n 122-30806/31885. 1000 aircraft
44-72027/72626 North American P-51D-20-NA Mustang
c/n 122-31886/31985,38586/39085. 600 aircraft.
44-72627/74226 North American P-51D-25-NA Mustang
c/n 122-39086/40085,40167/40766. 1600 aicrcraft
44-74227/75026 North American P-51D-30-NA Mustang
c/n 122-40767/41566. 800 aircraft.

Dallas-built P-51Ds

44-11153/11352 North American P-51D-5-NT Mustang
c/n 111-29286/29485. 200 aircraft
44-12853/13252 North American P-51D-20-NT Mustang
c/n 111-36136/36535. 400 aircraft
44-84390/84989 North American P-51D-25-NT Mustang
c/n 124-44246/44845. 600 aircraft.
45-11343/11542 North American P-51D-25-NT Mustang
c/n 124-48096/48295. 200 aircraft.
45-11543/11742 North American P-51D-30-NT Mustang
c/n 124-48296/48495. 200 aircraft.

total of 8100 P-51Ds/

Serials of the P-51K:

44-11353/11552 North American P-51K-1-NT Mustang
c/n 111-29486/29685. 200 aircraft
44-11553/11952 North American P-51K-5-NT Mustang
c/n 111-29686/30085. 400 aircraft
44-11953/12552 North American P-51K-10-NT Mustang
c/n 111-30086/30685. 600 aircraft
44-12553/12852 North American P-51K-15-NT Mustang
c/n 111-30686/30885, 111-36036/36135. 300 aircraft

total of 1500 P-51Ks.

[This message was edited by MiloMorai on Sat January 10 2004 at 05:37 PM.]

Bull_dog_
01-10-2004, 07:57 PM
Wow Hristo those graph tell all! If I was a flight simulater software designer, I would use those type of graphs and tables to model as many aspects of an aircraft's flight characteristics as possible. They only account for a two dimensional look at performance, but I believe many things like dive speed, climb speed, speed in general, turning ability, rate of roll etc ....could be accurately modeled with tables like that...with added variables like drag, weight, angle of incidence etc...

Wonder if Oleg uses that sort of thing? I've heard talk of a physics model, but I'm not sure what is the programming logic behind fm's. Seems like equations would be aweful hard to utilize given the diverse aircraft and the capturing of all the variables that affect performance.

Where is a good source to get flight statistics in a graphical format?

Hristo_
01-11-2004, 01:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
Where is a good source to get flight statistics in a graphical format?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These graphs are for planes modeled in another sim. They also exist for FB, as a user made project called Il2 Compare.

Now, the info in Il2 Compare may not be 100% accurate (according to Oleg), but it gives a good insight of relative plane performance.

you can download (http://il2.amvi.it/index.php?idx=exec_download&file=http://www.vitaf.it/AMVI/file/IL2/documenti/il2c_v22.rar&id=9) it here

hop2002
01-11-2004, 08:36 AM
Hristo, you say your experience is with AH and WB. Bear in mind both model only the (1942) Merlin 61 engined Spitfire F IX, not the Merlin 66 engined LF IX that FB is getting. The LF IX will be 15 - 25 mph faster than the F IX in WB or AH.

FB models both the Dora and 109K in their 1945 configurations, so I'd expect the same for the Spitfire IX and XIV. From summer 44 British based Spitfire units used 100/150 fuel, and from Jan 45 2nd TAF Spitfires based on the continent used it as well.

On that fuel, the Spitfire LF IX should have a sea level speed of around 360 mph, the Spitfire XIV at least 370 - 375.

Hristo_
01-11-2004, 02:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
Hristo, you say your experience is with AH and WB. Bear in mind both model only the (1942) Merlin 61 engined Spitfire F IX, not the Merlin 66 engined LF IX that FB is getting. The LF IX will be 15 - 25 mph faster than the F IX in WB or AH.

FB models both the Dora and 109K in their 1945 configurations, so I'd expect the same for the Spitfire IX and XIV. From summer 44 British based Spitfire units used 100/150 fuel, and from Jan 45 2nd TAF Spitfires based on the continent used it as well.

On that fuel, the Spitfire LF IX should have a sea level speed of around 360 mph, the Spitfire XIV at least 370 - 375.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

deck speeds:
Spit IX from 1942 is slower than Fw 190A-4 (1942).
Spit IX (1944) should be compared to Fw 190A-8, which is again faster.
Spit XIV (1944) should also be compared to Fw 190A-8, as the XIV appeared rather early in the year. However, this should be checked, as how many squadrons really flew the XIV in combat before autumn. XIV is faster, except on the deck where speeds are nearly equal.
As for XIV (1945), it should be compared to the Dora (again, faster). XIV with 150 octane ? Somehow I doubt it really flew all that much combat, but what do I know.

As I said, only a contemporary LF 150 octane fuel Spit would pose a problem to a Fw 190. IMO http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HellToupee
01-11-2004, 05:54 PM
yes "deck" speeds, the worst heights for a spitfire a fight a fw190 at were below 900meters and some where around 6000meters in all other heights spitfire had a speed advantage.

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

VW-IceFire
01-11-2004, 08:52 PM
Most Spitfires were designed for medium and higher altitude fighting and not fighting on the deck. Conversely the FW190 was always an excellent on the deck kind of fighter with high speed. One of the reasons that the Typhoon was deemed to have some kind of redeeming interceptor qualities (after its high altitude performance was found to be poor) was that its low altitude performance was exceptional and the Typhoon was quite capable of catching the FW190A's on the deck. And against the Dora the Tempest V which was the Typhoon replacement would be the better comparison. Spitfire was much better at alt and thats when the Spitfire's performance eeks it out over the FW190's and Bf 109's in some attributes.

Deck speeds isn't everything.

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

horseback
01-12-2004, 09:29 AM
Now I'm confused...it is my understanding that the MK XIV was the first "purpose-built" Griffon engined Spitfire, after the successful application of the Spitfire MK XII, which was built by slapping a Griffon onto MK VIII and IX airframes in early 1943, keeping a four bladed prop.

The MK XII was a great performer at low levels, and was supposedly able to occasionally 'sucker' Kanalfront LW units into coming down to engage, thinking they were dealing with MK Vs or IXs, and finding out that THESE Spits could catch them on the deck, even after giving them a diving head start.

The MK XIV had a later Griffon engine with a better supercharger setup and an airframe & prop optimised for all that extra power. It should have retained the low-level performance of the MK XII and still been able to perform at the higher altitudes. A couple of Mk XIV squadrons were operational in late spring of 1944, first used as anti V-1 units over southern England, and then on the Continent for air superiority by late summer of that year as more examples became available.

It's being reserved for chasing V-1s should be taken as a strong indication that its speed & accelleration on the deck was at least comparable to the Tempest, which was also initially held back from air combat to deal with this threat. The Tempest simply didn't perform as well at higher altitudes, where the Spit MK XIV really shined, so it was reserved for medium level and below, where the former Typhoon pilots who made up the majority of its squadrons could continue to employ their ground attack skills.

While the Tempest had speed and firepower to burn, it was no great aerobatic performer, and when caught low and slow, it had the same problems a Mustang or P-47 would have had. Out turning a Tempest at low speeds in most LW fighters should not have been that difficult, particularly if the LW fighter in question had better wing loading (like say, the Ta-152). To confer automatic superiority on a plane simply because of its top speed at a given altitude strikes me as -dare I say it- unEuropean?

As I have earlier contended, top speed is not as important in air combat as accelleration or instant change of direction. I doubt that any model of the FW-190 (including the Ta-152) compared well to the MK XIV in these areas. Throw in the better firepower of the 'e' wing (compared to earlier Spits), and I think it should be one of the top two or three fighters in the game, especially if it comes with the 'teardrop' canopy.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Bremspropeller
01-12-2004, 09:56 AM
Again: the Dora 11, 12 and 13 had the Jumo213E/F engine which delivers about 2300HP. Those a/c could attain 740kph.

The D-12 and D-13 are just as heavy as the Dora nine (slightly lighter).
So they are accelerating much quicker and climbing much faster than the Dora nine which is nearly even in those aspects to the Spit XIV. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

horseback
01-12-2004, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Again: the Dora 11, 12 and 13 had the Jumo213E/F engine which delivers about 2300HP. Those a/c could attain 740kph.

The D-12 and D-13 are just as heavy as the Dora nine (slightly lighter).
So they are accelerating much quicker and climbing much faster than the Dora nine which is nearly even in those aspects to the Spit XIV. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and the numbers of these models in operational use were less than the number of fingers on your hands, handmade preproduction models given to combat units on their last legs. An artificial comparison, based on charts, engineering proposals (which are essentially sales brochures; selling a product to a potential customer, the Government) and opinion.

An awful lot of late war LW performance figures are hard to confirm in RL; too often we are limited to what Hans von Wingenflutter says about a plane he spent three hours in combat with when he was seventeen, after a total of 50 flight hours in training, mostly in clapped out 109Gs. Herr von Wingenflutter's impressions are based on what his more experienced flight leader told him to convince him to go up in the damned thing on the mission they were both shot down on.

Again, I have to assert that power to weight ratios don't tell the whole story, that an individual engine type with high horsepower may take some time more to 'spool up' than another, which was the major complaint about the engine used in the Dora 9. Gross speed is not the final word in air combat, particularly at low altitudes. Or did I miss the part where the MiG-25 was acclaimed the greatest fighter ever?

Throw in the relative drag, who can make best use their torque and ability to change direction, and controllability at low alts (a great maneauver at 3000m can kill you at 1500m), and the Spitfire MK XIVe becomes a much more attractive mount. A mount that actually saw combat service in whole wings, not in dribs and drabs in the Woulda', Coulda', Shoulda' Air Force.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Bremspropeller
01-12-2004, 11:18 AM
The MiG-25 doesn't have a good power/ weight ratio at all, so your argumentation is off.

Just tell me a number of Spitfire Mk. XIV that were operational in the 2nd TAF and were serviced with 150 octane fuel AND met opponents.

I think you can't mention more than one "hand" either.

Don't forget the post-war tests the RAF made with the Dora-13 against the Tempest Mk V.



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

FU_Zebo
01-12-2004, 11:19 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by horseback:
Hristo,

how often do you get to top speed on the deck or anywhere else? The key here is accelleration, and the MK XIV has it in spades, while the Dora had a tendency to dither, probably due to using an engine intended for bombers.

It's like the difference between the '62 Caddillac I learned to drive in compared to my '73 Capri. The Caddy had a significantly higher top end (I'm not saying how high I took it; I don't know what Arizona's statute of limitations is on moving violations), but the Capri got to 100mph a heck of a lot sooner. The Caddy weighed a lot more, and the power steering, automatic tranny, and A/C all took a toll on that big engine, while the Capri had a six banger and a stick, with power windshield wipers (it did have an AM/FM radio, which was cutting edge at the time). It could take off like a scalded cat, while the Caddy took a while to get up to speed.

So it was with the Spit XIV and the Dora. And the Spit could corner like the Capri compared to the Caddy. Tempests were very good medium level fighters, but the Spit XIV was pretty effective from 30,000+ ft all the way down to the deck.

Cheers

horseback



thing you've all forgotten is the spit looks better, period. that's my bit, heh, what i'm worried about is after flying a yak3 for 18months, how will it compare to that?

VW-IceFire
01-12-2004, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Don't forget the post-war tests the RAF made with the Dora-13 against the Tempest Mk V.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just out of curiosity, what did the tests conclude? This is probably the same one I read but the Tempest doesn't roll as fast, turns better, in some cases has speed advantage in other cases not...etc.?

In regards to another post...I wouldn't quite say that the P-47 is like the Tempest and Typhoon in the low and slow area because (although I don't have the charts) I can only assume that the Tempest and Typhoon have superior acceleration being several thousand pounds lighter and with an extra 210 horsepower and probably slightly better aerodynamics (although I guess its an even guess since the radial engine VS the large radiator intake) and likely better responsiveness. But the idea is obviously bang on for any plane really...low and slow is deadly against an opponent with altitude and therefore diving speed.

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

horseback
01-12-2004, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The MiG-25 doesn't have a good power/ weight ratio at all, so your argumentation is off.

Just tell me a number of Spitfire Mk. XIV that were operational in the 2nd TAF and were serviced with 150 octane fuel AND met opponents.

I think you can't mention more than one "hand" either.

Don't forget the post-war tests the RAF made with the Dora-13 against the Tempest Mk V.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I used the MiG-25 because it was the fastest operational fighter type in anyone's inventory because of the constant emphasis on top speed. I've seen few posts about anything but top speeds.

Making my posts during breaks from work, about five hours from my own time and references. However, the MK XIVe was the RAF's frontline fighter from fall 1945 on, relegating the MK IX to ground support. 'Johnny' Johnson assumed command of a MK XIV equipped wing in Belgium (I think) in October/November of 1944. As the standard production fighter in use at the time, it never appeared to have been outperformed by anything but jets.

Octane types are a bit esoteric, like the D-13. The unusual types encountered got disproportionate attention from Allied intelligence, but they were paid attention because of their rarity.

The fact that such models, which never reached production, were made available to operational units was an indicator that the Germans had reached the end of their rope. It was seen as a sign of desperation, much as if the original XP-47 appearing on the Kanal or Russian Fronts in the summer of 1941 would have been taken by the Germans.

These aircraft should have been exceptional. They were hand built by expert craftsmen to a MUCH higher standard than the production models would have been, and mostly handed to outstanding pilots or units who were much better equipped than the norm to exploit the aircrafts' capabilities, and meet their maintenance requirements. As such, they are probably not representative of what the production version a/c would have been.

As for the Tempest MK V vs D-13 tests, the MK V turned out to be somewhat less capable than the MK II (radial engine version), which might have been a fairer test; experimental aircraft vs experimental aircraft.

I'll have some sources and specifics by about 5PM my time.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

MiloMorai
01-12-2004, 03:50 PM
Yes the Ta152Hs had their problems with manufacturing QA.

FW190fan
01-12-2004, 05:39 PM
Yeah, Germany was suffering under a 'round the clock bombing campaign, had lower quality gas, and limited/no access high temp/high strength alloys at the end.

Imagine what they would have built if they had the same resources and materials Britain and the US enjoyed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

As it is, they didn't do too bad all things considered.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

MiloMorai
01-12-2004, 07:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:

Imagine what they would have built if they had the same resources and materials Britain and the US enjoyed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just imagine starting a war and not have your industry geared up to a war footing. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif That did not start til mid-war. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

horseback
01-12-2004, 08:37 PM
I'm getting jerked around by a message that claimes that the body of my prepared cut&paste message has to have a value entered for it. I have a life outside these forums, so I've sh!t away enough of my time on this. Suffice it to say that the Spit MK XIV was in combat in the ETO by September 1944 with 130 Squadron, and eight more MK XIV squadrons were on the continent by the New Years. All my sources show that the MK XIV was over 1000lbs lighter than the Dora in all its flavors, and it had at least similar performance and horsepower. Neither aircraft was a quantum leap in combustion engine or aerodynamic technology, and in my opinion, the deciding factor was who saw who first, which was what decided most air combat in WWII.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

VW-IceFire
01-12-2004, 08:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
As for the Tempest MK V vs D-13 tests, the MK V turned out to be somewhat less capable than the MK II (radial engine version), which might have been a fairer test; experimental aircraft vs experimental aircraft.

I'll have some sources and specifics by about 5PM my time.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Although in the Tempest II's case it did get past experimental and into full production. Most of that was post war. It actually was meant to spearhead operations in the Pacific with the invasion of Japan and many were even painted for the operation but the war ended before they were sent. The performance difference weren't huge between the two models in terms of manuverability and firepower...just the engine was changed along with the radiator making it faster and giving it the cleanest lines of probably any radial engine aircraft (it also took quite a few notes from captured FW190's).

I'd still love to see how the D-13 and the Tempest V compair...I know to expect a good performer in the Tempest V when we finally get to fly it but the Dora is a close match and I want to know what to expect http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

Bremspropeller
01-13-2004, 04:08 AM
The lateSpits and the late Doras were even, that's sure, but consequently you can't put up your thery of the Spit beeing that superrior to the Dora. The Spit is surely suprrior in certain altitudes (justlike the Dora is in others http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

As IceFire already said, the Tempest II was more than just an experimaltal a/c and went into service a short time after the war was over.


As for the MiG-25 and the top-speed debate:
It's a difference if you're cruising at M2.8 with you hungry afterburners boilin up the air or if you're just running at ~740kph (D-13) in order to avoid the Spits kicking your azz.

The "running away"-tactic was pretty frequently in that time used if you were bouced by a superrior force.

Kurt Tank himself saved his lfe by simply pushing the thrust lever forward and watching those dots behind him becoming smaller and smaller. A friend of mine knows a guy who was bounced by Spitfires while flyingthe Ta (he was a friend of Prof. Tank) and said "Go and play alone"...


The Spitfire is in myeyes the best allied tactical fighter of the war, but you can't say it woud be the best of it's time. There ars other factors like basic handling (which actually wasn't bad for the Spit and for the 190 either).



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

horseback
01-13-2004, 12:25 PM
I think the arguement I made was that the assumption that speed was the only factor for superiority, particularly in the air over Western Europe during the Fall/Winter of 1944, is not entirely valid. Allied fighters based on the Continent appear to have entered combat at medium and low altitudes more than at high altitudes (escort country). The tendency of air combat to move closer to the ground makes controllability and turn radius more critical, and takes away the "dive out of trouble" option favored by LW & USAAF pilots.

It also makes the Dora driver's life a lot more hazardous; every postwar evaluation by Allied pilots refers to the arrival of a vicious (their word, not mine) stall without warning. The Spitfire's stall was easily detected by comparison, removing one more worry from the pilot's board. Throw in the trimming advantages given the Allied pilot, whatever his fighter, and low level gets even more stressfull for the Dora driver, who has no aileron or rudder trim, and is required to make "constant stabilizer adjustments."

In order for you to run away, you have to start at near the same speed and altitude and see your opponent before he gets close enough to damage you. This becomes much harder in the winter sky between the heavy overcast and mist on the ground. Certainly the Ta (but not the Dora-9; Focke-Wulf specs quoted in Monogram Close-Up 10 show a top speed in mph of 426 to the MK XIV's 450 and the P-51D's 436) had the speed advantage over most Ponies (and certainly, any Spitfire) at high altitude; that's not in dispute, unless the Ta is way up there and tries to dive away once the Pony gets close. I think the American dive advantage holds even against the mighty Ta.

However, down low, the Ta driver has to see before being seen, just like everyone else. If he sees the enemy first, he can get out of Dodge if it's a bad tactical situation, or he can maneauver for the kill. If not, then it becomes a bit dicier. Can he climb away into the cloud cover in time to avoid the enemy's fire or turn the tables with a quick horizontal move?

We know that a Ta can out-turn a Tempest; much has been made of that. But we also know that a Spitfire XIV can out-turn a Tempest as well, and easily gets inside a Dora. Where does that put the Ta? Does he have an immediate accelleration advantage over the MK XIV? The Ta is much heavier than the Spit, and hp is similar.

That's where the rubber meets the road, and that's where the MK XIV has the likely advantages over the LW's entire inventory, which was the whole basis for my preference for it over the Tempest. In the winter skies over Northern Europe, the emphasis had to be on turn fighting to get kills in a meeting engagement, that is, where both sides choose to engage. The arena was defined by a low ceiling and fair to poor visibility. This negated most of the advantages the Dora would have at low to medium levels. It is forced to fight the Spitfire on the Spit's terms.

In clear skies, at medium to high alts, it's a much more even fight, and the Dora can dive out of trouble from the Spit, which has a dive speed limit of less than 500mph. If both sides accept combat, then it becomes, as usual, a matter of pilot skill. A D-12/-13 (same airframe & powerplant, different armament, according to my sources) gets better the higher the fight takes place, but again, these were a few preproduction aircraft, and to my knowledge, rarely got into high altitude combat.

In fact, it looks as though the Dora and the Ta got limited opportunities to get up high after the Dora was introduced to combat in September of 1944, due to the weather that winter. Since as I noted earlier, fighters stationed in forward bases in France or Belgium rarely entered combat above medium levels, it is most likely that that is where the Spit MK XIV and the Dora met, and the conditions would have been more favorable to the Spit, even over the faster & more heavily armed Tempest.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Tazzers
01-13-2004, 03:35 PM
If you are interested in top speed the large wing of the Spitfire did not hamper it, because it was so thin. Unless I am completely wrong you can make a wing small in area and thick in cord or you can do it the other way around. The big 'plus' for the Spit was not the shape of its wing. In fact the eliptical planform was a) not unique and b) made it no faster than a Spit with clipped wings. Well it was by about 1 mph (1.62kph) at optimum altitude. No the big 'hoo har' about the Spitfire wing was because it was so thin. Coupled with a large area this made the Spit both fast and extremely agile. The icing on the cake is a powerful armament (2x20mm cannon and 2 0.5 inch MGs or 2x20mm cannon and 4 0.303 MGs. Also it had no vices, by all accounts it was simply a superb aircraft to fly and out of the MkIX and the MkXIV it is alleged that although the Mk14 was a better performer in almost all areas it simply wasn't as nice to fly because it was heavier on the controls.

Hristo_
01-13-2004, 04:01 PM
Did yo* *ly on Greatergreen ? That one server which (more or less) promotes realism ?

There, icons are very limited and combat is *s*ally low level. The same scenario where some posters above mentioned t*rning is all important. And yet, I can't remember when I needed to *se t*rn advantage to beat an opponent. Most likely never.

*s*ally it was very simple - stalk the enemy, and shoot it down *nseen, pre*erably when he is engaged. Don't lose speed, never t*rn, as there may be someone else stalking yo*. And when there was, I simply dove away *or home.

SA, speed & g*ns is all that matters *or me on Greatergreen. Not some *ancy 25000 *t speed, b*t yo*r plain de** speed.

I believe I was shot down by enemy planes 2 times alltogether on Greatergreen, both times when I never saw my atta**er. And my score was do*ble *ig*res. I never t*rned http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hristo_
01-13-2004, 04:05 PM
now, i* someone wo*ld only explain why my "*"s and "*"s were t*rned into "*"s ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

faustnik
01-13-2004, 04:43 PM
I found a British Fighter Command comparison of the the 190A3 and the Spitfire MkIX in "Focke Wulf 190 in Combat" p.49.

Speed:

2000ft. 190A3 is 11-13 kph faster
8000ft. SpitIX is 13 kph faster
18000ft 190A3 is 3 mph faster
- so they are almost identical in speed

Climb -
"Little difference was found between the two aircraft although the Spitfire IX was slightly better."

Manoeverability-
"The Fw 190 is more maneuverable than the Spitfire IX except in turning circle, when it is out-turned without difficulty."

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

HellToupee
01-14-2004, 01:37 AM
and i got a 3. sumthing kd ratio turn fighting in a fw190d9 histro so whats yr point. Your speed might help you when your byyour self but what if you have things to protect like escorting a bomber so that he can win your side the game, or have to give up all your speed to take oneout as quickly as possible else you lose the game, had a single tb3 win the game before most people had fired a shot cause i couldnt get it down quick enough, only had a g2 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif.

With the spitfire XIV i have a mount that is fast and yet should outturn most axis aircraft, climb like h*ll and accelerate very well, the IX should be similar with its comtemporays.

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

SpinSpinSugar
01-14-2004, 04:22 AM
Whilst on the subject of that wing, I gather (someone with more reference material than I can jump in, I'm sure) that the thin eliptical wing of the Spit had the highest critical mach number (i.e. less drag at high speeds) of any Allied aircraft in the war. This included the laminar flow wing of the Mustang.

Late in the war, when the then-fashionable laminar flow wings were bolted to later Mark Spits, high speed performance actually decreased.

Anyone verify?

Cheers,

SSS

MiloMorai
01-14-2004, 05:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
Whilst on the subject of that wing, I gather (someone with more reference material than I can jump in, I'm sure) that the thin eliptical wing of the Spit had the highest critical mach number (i.e. less drag at high speeds) of any Allied aircraft in the war. This included the laminar flow wing of the Mustang.

Late in the war, when the then-fashionable laminar flow wings were bolted to later Mark Spits, high speed performance actually decreased.

Anyone verify?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes there is the much debated (at least here at Ubi) M 0.89 number for a Spit.

How someone can claim the Spit had a weak wing and still achieve that speed, oh well......

The Spit IX would need a strong wing to dive with a 1000lb (1-500, 2-250) load at 60 degrees.

This person also claims the Spit IX had weak u/c (the reason only 2 H-S 20mm cannon were used) but it took off at a heavier gross weight than with the 1000 pounds of bombs.

Bremspropeller
01-14-2004, 05:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
I think the arguement I made was that the assumption that speed was the only factor for superiority, particularly in the air over Western Europe during the Fall/Winter of 1944, is not entirely valid. Allied fighters based on the Continent appear to have entered combat at medium and low altitudes more than at high altitudes (escort country). The tendency of air combat to move closer to the ground makes controllability and turn radius more critical, and takes away the "dive out of trouble" option favored by LW & USAAF pilots.

It also makes the Dora driver's life a lot more hazardous; every postwar evaluation by Allied pilots refers to the arrival of a vicious (their word, not mine) stall without warning. The Spitfire's stall was easily detected by comparison, removing one more worry from the pilot's board. Throw in the trimming advantages given the Allied pilot, whatever his fighter, and low level gets even more stressfull for the Dora driver, who has no aileron or rudder trim, and is required to make "constant stabilizer adjustments."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Constant stabilizer inputs" ??

Bull**** ! :

1.) the 190 hat da trimmable stabilizer
2.) the 190 didn't have to be trimmed at all (said by pilots)

"Vicious Stalls"...lol. Who said the 190 was a turn fighter ? The Corsair either had a vicious stall. Who cared ? They flew B&Z with it...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We know that a Ta can out-turn a Tempest; much has been made of that. But we also know that a Spitfire XIV can out-turn a Tempest as well, and easily gets inside a Dora. Where does that put the Ta? Does he have an immediate accelleration advantage over the MK XIV? The Ta is much heavier than the Spit, and hp is similar. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Ta has 2300HP and the "Sondernotleistung" consisting of MW-50 and GM-1 for higher alts.
With that boost, the Spitfires will only see his backlights.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> That's where the rubber meets the road, and that's where the MK XIV has the likely advantages over the LW's entire inventory, which was the whole basis for my preference for it over the Tempest. In the winter skies over Northern Europe, the emphasis had to be on turn fighting to get kills in a meeting engagement, that is, where both sides choose to engage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

German LW pilots (read "First in combat with the Dora nine" by Axel Urbanke) tell different stories. Yes, the weather was f.u. some time, but if the weather was bad they either didn't fly at all or just practiced in the paatern.
As for combat: the Dora-drivers preferred to fly B&Z.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A D-12/-13 (same airframe & powerplant, different armament, according to my sources) gets better the higher the fight takes place, but again, these were a few preproduction aircraft, and to my knowledge, rarely got into high altitude combat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So your sources are wrong:

the Dora-9 hast the Junkers Jumo 213-A with 1750HP for climb and cruise and 1950HO for t/o and combat.
Later, they installed the MW-50 device which boosetd the HPs up to 2250.

The Dora-11/12 and 13 used the Junkers Jumo 213-E/F engines which delivered 2300HP in combat config and used the wider VS-9 airscrew (Dora-9 hat the more narrow VS-111).

The 213-E/F contains a better supercharger and is the engine-type of the Ta152H.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In fact, it looks as though the Dora and the Ta got limited opportunities to get up high after the Dora was introduced to combat in September of 1944, due to the weather that winter. Since as I noted earlier, fighters stationed in forward bases in France or Belgium rarely entered combat above medium levels, it is most likely that that is where the Spit MK XIV and the Dora met, and the conditions would have been more favorable to the Spit, even over the faster & more heavily armed Tempest.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They flew that low because thy had a job to do down there. They had to strafe anything they got in sight. You can hardly see a truck/ lorry from 30,000ft. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

Hristo_
01-14-2004, 05:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HellToupee:
and i got a 3. sumthing kd ratio turn fighting in a fw190d9 histro so whats yr point. Your speed might help you when your byyour self but what if you have things to protect like escorting a bomber so that he can win your side the game, or have to give up all your speed to take oneout as quickly as possible else you lose the game, had a single tb3 win the game before most people had fired a shot cause i couldnt get it down quick enough, only had a g2 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif.

With the spitfire XIV i have a mount that is fast and yet should outturn most axis aircraft, climb like h*ll and accelerate very well, the IX should be similar with its comtemporays.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point is would you survive an encounter with 5 co-E Doras in your Spit XIV ?

I know I would survive an encounter with 5 Spit XIVs in my D-9. And quite simpletoo - nose down and dive away. Heatlhy for K/D, don't you think ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

nixon-fiend.
01-14-2004, 11:33 AM
Re: a point made earlier.. no spitires were given laminar wings per se.

It was a different plane, a spit-inspired.. 'spiteful' ... also a naval version the seafang.

Little improvement was noted and low speed characteristics were sh*t.

Oh and RE: the quoted 0.89 mach number.. That's not quite right either..

A spit mk.IX attained a dive speed of 0.92 at RAE Farnborough in 1944(?)

The FASTEST speed attained by ANY prop plane.

horseback
01-14-2004, 01:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
I think the arguement I made was that the assumption that speed was the only factor for superiority, particularly in the air over Western Europe during the Fall/Winter of 1944, is not entirely valid. Allied fighters based on the Continent appear to have entered combat at medium and low altitudes more than at high altitudes (escort country). The tendency of air combat to move closer to the ground makes controllability and turn radius more critical, and takes away the "dive out of trouble" option favored by LW & USAAF pilots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How can I make this clearer? Spitfires based in England lacked the range to reach Europe. European based Spits were 'point-defense' fighters, rarely tasked with supplementing high altitude bomber escorts. The majority of their 'trade' was encountered at medium to low altitudes, protecting ground units under attack by LW 'Jabos' or Allied 'Jabos' under attack by LW fighters. These were the circumstances most likely to find Spitfires (particularly the MK XIV) in contact with Dora equipped units. Since this was Fall/Winter, this meant cloudy/misty conditions with a low cloud ceiling more often than not as the year wore on, and as more of both types became available on the front lines.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It also makes the Dora driver's life a lot more hazardous; every postwar evaluation by Allied pilots refers to the arrival of a vicious (their word, not mine) stall without warning. The Spitfire's stall was easily detected by comparison, removing one more worry from the pilot's board. Throw in the trimming advantages given the Allied pilot, whatever his fighter, and low level gets even more stressfull for the Dora driver, who has no aileron or rudder trim, and is required to make "constant stabilizer adjustments."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Constant stabilizer inputs" ??

Bull**** ! :

1.) the 190 hat da trimmable stabilizer
2.) the 190 didn't have to be trimmed at all (said by pilots)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was quoting US postwar tests. "Stabilizer inputs" can refer to both trim and stick elevator adjustments in the context I quoted. This may be a cultural thing; US-built aircraft tended to have a differently balanced elevator and aileron pull on the stick from European a/c. The Spitfire had a similar elevator sensitivity noted by American pilots. That is, it required less force/distance pulled on the stick front to back compared to the force/distance side to side. In a tight turn, you had to be a lot more careful than in a standard US setup, especially if you were conditioned to expect the US type control inputs. An American pilot might see all that aggravation as an unnecessary addition to his workload.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"Vicious Stalls"...lol. Who said the 190 was a turn fighter ? The Corsair either had a vicious stall. Who cared ? They flew B&Z with it...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stall was responsible for a number of FW losses throughout the war. LW pilots were aware of this, and very wary of engaging in sharp turns at low levels, because they had no way to detect the onset of a stall.

In the situations where Spits and Doras were MOST LIKELY to meet in late 1944, in a low-ceiling, low visibility fight, stall does come into play. The Spitfire had a clear warning before a stall, and the stall was relatively gentle (less alt to recover) compared to that of the FW, and it took some of the FW pilot's options off the board when he was afraid to try ANY kind of turn in combat. At low altitude, he is therefore more likely to climb, where the Spit on his tail is waiting for him to go. As soon as his opponent makes the predictable move, the Spit pilot can pull the trigger. Boom, just like that, any pretense of the Dora's speed advantage goes away.

Again, I'm assuming they are already engaged. Boom & Zoom tactics call for good visibility, but military necessity often called for engaging even in less than ideal conditions. To say that units flying Doras refused to fly in less than ideal conditions makes them at the least poor soldiers, and that's not consistant with German military tradition.

The Corsair's stall problems were encountered in carrier landings, a unique situation not encountered in combat as a rule (and never by a FW product). Corsairs' primary opponents were much slower and more maneauverable; B&Z was dictated by that circumstance. Bringing up the Corsair is a classic non sequiter for the sake of distraction. I expect better of you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We know that a Ta can out-turn a Tempest; much has been made of that. But we also know that a Spitfire XIV can out-turn a Tempest as well, and easily gets inside a Dora. Where does that put the Ta? Does he have an immediate accelleration advantage over the MK XIV? The Ta is much heavier than the Spit, and hp is similar. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Ta has 2300HP and the "Sondernotleistung" consisting of MW-50 and GM-1 for higher alts.
With that boost, the Spitfires will only see his backlights.[/QUOTE]

I assume you mean "rear lights", not "backup lights."

Again, the Spit XIV boasts 2,050 horses without WEP, and is much lighter (more than 10% lighter than any Dora, and the Ta is heavier still) with a smoother shape and thinner wing. If both have similar E entering the turn, I favor the Spit IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES MOST LIKELY IN RL.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> That's where the rubber meets the road, and that's where the MK XIV has the likely advantages over the LW's entire inventory, which was the whole basis for my preference for it over the Tempest. In the winter skies over Northern Europe, the emphasis had to be on turn fighting to get kills in a meeting engagement, that is, where both sides choose to engage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

German LW pilots (read "First in combat with the Dora nine" by Axel Urbanke) tell different stories. Yes, the weather was f.u. some time, but if the weather was bad they either didn't fly at all or just practiced in the paatern.
As for combat: the Dora-drivers preferred to fly B&Z.[/QUOTE]

Back to military necessity. You're saying they wouldn't show up if the weather wasn't just right, even if the Allies' fighter bombers were flying? If you're tasked with protecting a sector from enemy attack in wartime, if he's up, you're up. If not, you better have a damned good reason or someone's rounding up a firing squad in the military tradition I was trained in.

A preference for a certain tactic may be preempted by conditions out of your control. My preferred tactic is to get up at 9 AM and get to work by 12 noon. However, conditions require me to get up at 5 AM and get to work at 7 AM.

If you can't see enemy aircraft before you're within a couple of km from them, it is much harder to set up for your shot and still have enough E to zoom away. The situation calls for different tactics, and the military requirements preclude waiting for the weather to clear and coming back tomorrow. So you have to stay and fight in a restricted airspace, a box defined by the ground, the cloud ceiling , and the area being defended. These were similar to Eastern Front conditions, and Soviet pilots weren't too enamored of the FW's accelleration, classing it with the P-40. While the Doras were 'better' in this regard, it's clear that it wasn't better by that much. (check the thread on Golodnikov's interview; it's fascinating, not least because of his assumptions about Western air forces)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A D-12/-13 (same airframe & powerplant, different armament, according to my sources) gets better the higher the fight takes place, but again, these were a few preproduction aircraft, and to my knowledge, rarely got into high altitude combat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So your sources are wrong:

the Dora-9 hast the Junkers Jumo 213-A with 1750HP for climb and cruise and 1950HO for t/o and combat.
Later, they installed the MW-50 device which boosetd the HPs up to 2250.

The Dora-11/12 and 13 used the Junkers Jumo 213-E/F engines which delivered 2300HP in combat config and used the wider VS-9 airscrew (Dora-9 hat the more narrow VS-111).

The 213-E/F contains a better supercharger and is the engine-type of the Ta152H.[/QUOTE]

You misunderstood my statement about the D-11/12. I should have made it clearer that I was referring to the differences between the D-11 and the D-12, not these two models and the D-9. I meant only that the D-11 and D-12 differed from each other in armament. I regret the ambiguity.

As I stated the D-11/12 got better at higher alts, reaching max speed at 9150m, 3000m higher than the D-9. This still does not necessarily translate into superiority at low to medium altitudes, where the 1000lb lighter Spitfire XIV has almost 200 more hp unboosted (2050 to 1870, according to contemporary Rolls-Royce and Focke-Wulf factory specs). My sources do not give me a WEP hp for the Spitfire XIV, but I suspect it's similar to the GM-1 boosted horsepower of the D-9, at least. Lighter weight, smoother shape and thinner wing gives the Spit the edge in my opinion. There might be some advantages conferred by prop type, as well, although I couldn't tell you if the wider & longer three bladed prop or the shorter five bladed prop is better.

In any case, once the GM-1 is gone, it's gone, and if you haven't already got clear of your enemy, your chances of running away drop way down.

And you still haven't addressed the numbers issue. There just weren't very many of the D-11/12, period. Therefore, not very many of them were engaged in high altitude combat. My arguement stands.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In fact, it looks as though the Dora and the Ta got limited opportunities to get up high after the Dora was introduced to combat in September of 1944, due to the weather that winter. Since as I noted earlier, fighters stationed in forward bases in France or Belgium rarely entered combat above medium levels, it is most likely that that is where the Spit MK XIV and the Dora met, and the conditions would have been more favorable to the Spit, even over the faster & more heavily armed Tempest.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They flew that low because thy had a job to do down there. They had to strafe anything they got in sight. You can hardly see a truck/ lorry from 30,000ft. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/QUOTE]

And down low is where the Spit's relative strengths were most applicable, AND where they were most likely to meet the Dora variants, which is what I've been saying all along. Dealing with Jerry's fighters is what they were there for, and that's what they did.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

[This message was edited by horseback on Wed January 14 2004 at 12:46 PM.]

HellToupee
01-14-2004, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HellToupee:
and i got a 3. sumthing kd ratio turn fighting in a fw190d9 histro so whats yr point. Your speed might help you when your byyour self but what if you have things to protect like escorting a bomber so that he can win your side the game, or have to give up all your speed to take oneout as quickly as possible else you lose the game, had a single tb3 win the game before most people had fired a shot cause i couldnt get it down quick enough, only had a g2 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif.

With the spitfire XIV i have a mount that is fast and yet should outturn most axis aircraft, climb like h*ll and accelerate very well, the IX should be similar with its comtemporays.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point is would you survive an encounter with 5 co-E Doras in your Spit XIV ?

I know I would survive an encounter with 5 Spit XIVs in my D-9. And quite simpletoo - nose down and dive away. Heatlhy for K/D, don't you think ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

not if you never get any kills :P, if you dive and stay down there chances are my plane will be faster than yours at sealevel, i can just follow at my height then dive on you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

I fly the d9 mostly, i had a p39 catch me when i dived from around 200meters with mw40, as soon as i took a few hits to the wing speed dropped to 440, so in il2 dive never seems to help, atleast not ones so low.

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

Tazzers
01-15-2004, 08:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now I'm confused...it is my understanding that the MK XIV was the first "purpose-built" Griffon engined Spitfire, after the successful application of the Spitfire MK XII, which was built by slapping a Griffon onto MK VIII and IX airframes in early 1943, keeping a four bladed prop. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the first purpose built Griffon Spitfire was the MkXII converted from MkVs (fixed tail wheel) and MkVIIIs (retractable tailwheel). Oh hang on. Yes I see what you mean now. Sorry. I stick by the MkV and MkVIII thingy though.

robban75
01-15-2004, 08:50 AM
From sealevel up 6000m the D-9 had a good speed advantage over the MkXIV. Even though the XIV could outturn the D-9 it was not so pronounced in a left hand turn. The XIV is a better climber, but by a small margin. The D-9 rolled faster. And in a highspeed fight the XIV could not compete. The D-9 could outdive the XIV without effort. The Fw 190 has always been more manouverable than the Spifire. Needless to say the D-9 pilots had good respect for the XIV because of its speed and climb. The late war LW pilots were poorly trained and their flight hours was not even 1/3 that of allied pilots. Due to shortage of fuel and planes they were mostly limited to take offs and landings. With the more experienced pilots the stall of the Fw 190 wasn't a problem as it could be detected if one knew the plane.
As for the later D's. The D-11, D-12, D-13 and even the D-15 were used in combat or were at least flown by active units. The D-12 had all the speed benefits of the D-9 at low altitude and at 12500m its topspeed was 760km/h. Would be interesting to see what their performance would be with 150 octane fuel.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Bremspropeller
01-15-2004, 08:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I was quoting US postwar tests. "Stabilizer inputs" can refer to both trim and stick elevator adjustments in the context I quoted. This may be a cultural thing; US-built aircraft tended to have a differently balanced elevator and aileron pull on the stick from European a/c. The Spitfire had a similar elevator sensitivity noted by American pilots. That is, it required less force/distance pulled on the stick front to back compared to the force/distance side to side. In a tight turn, you had to be a lot more careful than in a standard US setup, especially if you were conditioned to expect the US type control inputs. An American pilot might see all that aggravation as an unnecessary addition to his workload.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So your point is senseless, sorry http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Stall was responsible for a number of FW losses throughout the war <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just like for many other planes. No point at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>LW pilots were aware of this, and very wary of engaging in sharp turns at low levels, because they had no way to detect the onset of a stall.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Fw pilots refused to turn their a/c sharply at all alts. But turning sharply doesn't give you any advantage. The 190 was a high speed dogfighter, or, rather a B&Z plane.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In the situations where Spits and Doras were MOST LIKELY to meet in late 1944, in a low-ceiling, low visibility fight, stall does come into play. The Spitfire had a clear warning before a stall, and the stall was relatively gentle (less alt to recover) compared to that of the FW, and it took some of the FW pilot's options off the board when he was afraid to try ANY kind of turn in combat. At low altitude, he is therefore more likely to climb, where the Spit on his tail is waiting for him to go. As soon as his opponent makes the predictable move, the Spit pilot can pull the trigger. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a zoom climb, a heavier plane will get higher than the lighter one, even with slightly worse aerodynamical issues (they're pretty similar in this aspect).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Again, I'm assuming they are already engaged. Boom & Zoom tactics call for good visibility, but military necessity often called for engaging even in less than ideal conditions. To say that units flying Doras refused to fly in less than ideal conditions makes them at the least poor soldiers, and that's not consistant with German military tradition.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those are no facts. You're just assuming something which isn't true for 90% of the time the Dora had the opportunity to meet Spits.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The Corsair's stall problems were encountered in carrier landings, a unique situation not encountered in combat as a rule (and never by a FW product) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same ploblem occured in high speed turs.
Stalls don't only appear from a cetin speed on, nope..they apper from a certain AoA...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Again, the Spit XIV boasts 2,050 horses without WEP, and is much lighter (more than 10% lighter than any Dora, and the Ta is heavier still) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My source sais 4850kg for a fully loaded Spit XIVe. In comparison, the Dora with its max. weight of 4580kg nearly 10% lighter http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I wonder where you get your facts from..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>with a smoother shape and thinner wing <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The shape is not much smoother. Next thing you say is that the Spit has a highly superrior shape to the Thunderbolt http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BTW: it's not the thickness of the wing which is important for the speed, it's the profile in general http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Back to military necessity. You're saying they wouldn't show up if the weather wasn't just right, even if the Allies' fighter bombers were flying? If you're tasked with protecting a sector from enemy attack in wartime, if he's up, you're up. If not, you better have a damned good reason or someone's rounding up a firing squad in the military tradition I was trained in.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the book.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> These were similar to Eastern Front conditions, and Soviet pilots weren't too enamored of the FW's accelleration, classing it with the P-40. While the Doras were 'better' in this regard, it's clear that it wasn't better by that much. (check the thread on Golodnikov's interview; it's fascinating, not least because of his assumptions about Western air forces)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LW pilots tell different stories about the Fw's acceleration, so do allied http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> This still does not necessarily translate into superiority at low to medium altitudes, where the 1000lb lighter Spitfire XIV has almost 200 more hp unboosted (2050 to 1870, according to contemporary Rolls-Royce and Focke-Wulf factory specs) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lighter ? Read above.
1950 for the 190D-9 early. 100HP for nearly 300kg.
Well, not the very best rate.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> My sources do not give me a WEP hp for the Spitfire XIV, but I suspect it's similar to the GM-1 boosted horsepower of the D-9, at least <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were no GM-1 boosted Doras. They used MW-50.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Lighter weight, smoother shape and thinner wing gives the Spit the edge in my opinion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read above...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> There might be some advantages conferred by prop type, as well, although I couldn't tell you if the wider & longer three bladed prop or the shorter five bladed prop is better.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The less bladed prop may be better, cause any blade distirbes the following one's airstream.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In any case, once the GM-1 is gone, it's gone, and if you haven't already got clear of your enemy, your chances of running away drop way down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A 20 minute boost doesn't get empy that fast http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> And you still haven't addressed the numbers issue. There just weren't very many of the D-11/12, period. Therefore, not very many of them were engaged in high altitude combat. My arguement stands.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were about 20-30 D-11s and about 10 D-12s.
Giving exact numbers is impossible.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And down low is where the Spit's relative strengths were most applicable, AND where they were most likely to meet the Dora variants, which is what I've been saying all along. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think so - Dora pilots regarded their ship as equal to any allied prop-fighter.



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

MiloMorai
01-15-2004, 09:18 AM
Fw190D-9

Jumo 213A-1

Weights(kg):

empty (*1) &gt; 3249
fuel (*2) &gt; 467
oil &gt; 50
crew &gt; 80
load (*3) &gt; 424
TO &gt; 4270

permisable load &gt; 1021

*1
fuselage &gt; 276
armour &gt; 60
l/g &gt; 257
empenage &gt; 141
control system 28
wings &gt; 443
engine &gt; 1834
FuG 16Z + FuG 25 &gt; 210
total &gt; 3249

*2
232L forward tank
293L aft tank
110L MW50
total 634L = 467kg

*3
2-MG131 &gt; 40
2x250 rds &gt; 44
2-MG151/20 &gt; 84
2x100 rds &gt; 18
weapon fittings &gt; 35
MW50 system &gt; 50
other &gt; 153
total &gt; 424

MiloMorai
01-15-2004, 09:20 AM
Brem can you explain further this statement by you

"The less bladed prop may be better, cause any blade distirbes the following one's airstream."

Bremspropeller
01-15-2004, 09:39 AM
Well Milo, you know about wake turbulence, for example ?

Since a prop is shaped like a wing-profile in order to create forward "lift" =&gt; thrust, it suffers the same problems like the wing.

A special point on the wing (differences made by the profile and the quality of the material) the airflow turns from laminar to turbulent and creates vortexes. Those vortexes disturb the clean airflow around the prop-blade which is following in the rotation.

Consequently, the less blades your prop has, the better the efficiency of the airscrew - of course the blades themselves have to be efficient as well, which means that they should provide the most lift (=&gt; thrust) possible at the best RPR rate.

There were experiments with props which only had one blade an a piece of counterweight at the other side of the prop. The test prooved that a single bladed airsrew was possible and provided good performance datas.

AFAIK, those tests lead to the development of one or more motorgliders that used this technique.

I hope I could help you Milo http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

hop2002
01-15-2004, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>My source sais 4850kg for a fully loaded Spit XIVe. In comparison, the Dora with its max. weight of 4580kg nearly 10% lighter
I wonder where you get your facts from..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Takeoff weight (full internal fuel and ammo, no external stores) for the Spitfire XIV was 3850 kg. According to Milo's figures, that makes the Dora 420 kg heavier.

nixon-fiend.
01-15-2004, 10:35 AM
My plane is better than your plane *yawn*

MiloMorai
01-15-2004, 11:12 AM
Well Brem considering the a/c and consquently the prop is moving forward the prop is always "grabing" cleaner air. Only if the a/c is not moving is the prop in "dirty" air. Now 'downstream' there is more disturbance for each prop blade.

Bremspropeller
01-15-2004, 11:27 AM
Nope, the problem also appers when moving forward.

You're right, the WHOLE prop doesn't suffer of that, but a part suffers of this phenomene when going through the airstream of the "leading" blade and taking the "lead" itself.



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

horseback
01-15-2004, 08:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Stall was responsible for a number of FW losses throughout the war <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just like for many other planes. No point at all.

The FW stall has been noted as particularly vicious in every authoritative reference on the type I've read in over thirty years' interest in WWII air combat. Allied pilots had been made aware of it through the original tests of the A-3 that mistakenly landed in England, made the sharp right turn an important part of their repertoire, hoping that when that FW Driver got their tails, he'd blow on past the turn, or better yet, try to follow them through the turn and stall out of control. Even German sources admit that a number of experienced FW pilots were lost in this manner. After all, you only had to forget it once for it to kill youat low level.
-hb

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>LW pilots were aware of this, and very wary of engaging in sharp turns at low levels, because they had no way to detect the onset of a stall.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Fw pilots refused to turn their a/c sharply at all alts. But turning sharply doesn't give you any advantage. The 190 was a high speed dogfighter, or, rather a B&Z plane.

You're speaking in absolutes. 'Always' and 'never' are concepts best confined to theology. But in your case, this may be theology. My argument is and has always been that a successful fighter pilot forces his opponent to fight according to HIS rules. My case in point was medium to low-level in Northern and Western Europe during the notably harsh late fall/early winter of 1944/45, where the Spitfire MK XIV, due to its basing and role as primary point defense fighter, was most likely to meet long-nosed Focke-Wulfs.

HIgh altitude and clear skies would tend to favor the Focke-Wulf, which can more easily disengage by diving from the Spit, which was limited to a max speed of only 480MPH in a dive. Low altitude and relatively limited visibility (even scattered low clouds) would, I think, favor the MK XIV.
-hb
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In the situations where Spits and Doras were MOST LIKELY to meet in late 1944, in a low-ceiling, low visibility fight, stall does come into play. The Spitfire had a clear warning before a stall, and the stall was relatively gentle (less alt to recover) compared to that of the FW, and it took some of the FW pilot's options off the board when he was afraid to try ANY kind of turn in combat. At low altitude, he is therefore more likely to climb, where the Spit on his tail is waiting for him to go. As soon as his opponent makes the predictable move, the Spit pilot can pull the trigger. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a zoom climb, a heavier plane will get higher than the lighter one, even with slightly worse aerodynamical issues (they're pretty similar in this aspect).

Zoom climb with a Spitfire close on your tail when he's waiting for it without you having a significant E advantage can get you an armor-piercing enema. It still takes time to achieve sufficient separation to outrange his cannon and heavy MGs.
-hb
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Again, I'm assuming they are already engaged. Boom & Zoom tactics call for good visibility, but military necessity often called for engaging even in less than ideal conditions. To say that units flying Doras refused to fly in less than ideal conditions makes them at the least poor soldiers, and that's not consistant with German military tradition.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those are no facts. You're just assuming something which isn't true for 90% of the time the Dora had the opportunity to meet Spits.

You're assuming that I haven't read a lot of pilots' memoirs. When an Englishman notes that it was cloudy, it's significant. For example, when I was about ten, an RAF NCO who was an acquaintance of my Dad's (an NCO in the USAF) remarked that he'd rather liked his 2 years stationed in Germany because it was so sunny. As former residents of Arizona, who had been in the area he mentioned just that summer, we all thought he was being sarcastic. We laughed, and the poor fellow's distress was alleviated only after partaking of one of my mother's famous Mexican dinners (and about three pints of ******ss).

With the exception of the MK VII and the PR Marks, The Spitfire was as limited in range as the 109. With few exceptions, the record is that European-based Spits rarely made contact with German fighters above medium altitudes. Their job was to defend TAF medium bombers, fighter-bombers, and Allied ground units and positions from air attack. FW fighters and Jabos were their primary opposition, due to that "lorries from 3000m" problem you cited.
-hb
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The Corsair's stall problems were encountered in carrier landings, a unique situation not encountered in combat as a rule (and never by a FW product) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same ploblem occured in high speed turs.
Stalls don't only appear from a cetin speed on, nope..they apper from a certain AoA...

The Corsair's problems were strictly involved with carrier landings, where a stall warning and predictable stall are critical. Coupled with its bouncing problems, it delayed USN carrier use of the type for 18 months. Landing on a carrier doing 30 kts, while you are (almost) flying at under 90 kts with everything hanging out is somewhat different from turning a bit too sharply at combat speeds. In combat, the Corsair had nothing like the stall issues suffered by the FW described earlier. Again, you engage in "straw man" tactics to distract from the real issue. The Corsair was force fed to me by my maternal grandfather, who worked on FG-1A/D models built at Goodyear. Try something more obscure next time.
-hb
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Again, the Spit XIV boasts 2,050 horses without WEP, and is much lighter (more than 10% lighter than any Dora, and the Ta is heavier still) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My source sais 4850kg for a fully loaded Spit XIVe. In comparison, the Dora with its max. weight of 4580kg nearly 10% lighter http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I wonder where you get your facts from..

Motorbooks International Warbirds History -"Spitfire" by Jeffrey Ethell and Steve Pace, 1997, cites the MK XIV having a normal loaded weight of 8375 lbs, or approx. 3,808 kg. The weight you cite is 400 lbs higher than the maximum allowable takeoff (ferry) weight of 10,280 lbs, with a maximum permissible landing weight of 8750lbs cited in Squadron/Signal's "Sptfire in Action" by Jerry Scutts (1980). You need to read the whole chart, not just the parts you like...
-hb
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>with a smoother shape and thinner wing <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The shape is not much smoother. Next thing you say is that the Spit has a highly superrior shape to the Thunderbolt http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

It IS prettier, but I like the brute force approach. I'm a Yank, remember?
-hb
BTW: it's not the thickness of the wing which is important for the speed, it's the profile in general http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In general, the Spitfire's wing was a brilliant compromise for maximum strength, lift, and due to its thinness, speed. For an immediate 'jump' in speed, it offered little resistance.
-hb

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Back to military necessity. You're saying they wouldn't show up if the weather wasn't just right, even if the Allies' fighter bombers were flying? If you're tasked with protecting a sector from enemy attack in wartime, if he's up, you're up. If not, you better have a damned good reason or someone's rounding up a firing squad in the military tradition I was trained in.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the book.

The book you cite but won't quote runs higher than my biweekly grocery bill when it can be found in its English language, hardback only version. I've read lots of other books written examining the view from both sides, and none of them say that the LW didn't respond to Allied air attacks or try to mount its own when it had the fuel and the reach. Weather was not the primary impediment, and to suggest it was impugns the honor of the men who served there and then. Caqldwell's books on JG 26, the Osprey Aces & Elite series, Toliver and Constable's adulatory books on the LW aces, Mike Spick ,and Chrisopher Shores' works, Galland's "the First and the Last," "Wing Commander," "Stuka Pilot," and "Last Days of the Luftwaffe" are all on my shelves (somewhere-there's a lot of other stuff there too).

Books that rely heavily on the memories of men are going to lean more to their successes and happy memories rather than to those that sadden or embarrass them. This is particularly true when the writer is required to interview primary sources who are aged and infirm to get his information. Thse that remain to us from that time are fragile, and connot decently be sharply questioned and challenged. The best balance calls for figures, personal letter or journals and contemporary combat reports from the period covered to juxtapose to men's self-correcting memories. You have to get a gestalt of the information to obtain a reasonably true picture.

Even though German pilots were confident in their planes, it is also true that the Allied pilots were at least as confident in their own. The losers can say "if only" or "we were outnumbered," choosing to ignore the fact that they didn't finish the fight when they held the numerical and/or gross technological advantages. In my Navy days, the appropriate answer to this sort of thing was to pinch one's nose and say "Waah!"
-hb
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> These were similar to Eastern Front conditions, and Soviet pilots weren't too enamored of the FW's accelleration, classing it with the P-40. While the Doras were 'better' in this regard, it's clear that it wasn't better by that much. (check the thread on Golodnikov's interview; it's fascinating, not least because of his assumptions about Western air forces)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LW pilots tell different stories about the Fw's acceleration, so do allied http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Late war accounts are not as laudatory about the Doras encountered. A smart pilot on an aircraft with poor accelleration stayed fast all the time if he could. Fuel available to the LW was progressively more questionable in quality as the winter came on, and not always conducive to sudden bursts of speed. The MK XIV was described as an order of magnitude faster to accellerate than the MK IX, and the MK IX was close enough to the 190A to be competitive. If the Dora was better than the Anton in accelleration, its real life margin over the Griffon Spitfires, if any, was negligible.
-hb
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> This still does not necessarily translate into superiority at low to medium altitudes, where the 1000lb lighter Spitfire XIV has almost 200 more hp unboosted (2050 to 1870, according to contemporary Rolls-Royce and Focke-Wulf factory specs) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lighter ? Read above.
1950 for the 190D-9 early. 100HP for nearly 300kg.
Well, not the very best rate.

Lighter. "Monogram Close-Up 10, FW 190D" (1986) shows the Focke Wulf factory specifications rating the early D-9's Jumo 213A-1 as having 1770 hp takeoff power, and the D-12's Jumo 213E-1 as having 1,870 hp takeoff power. I won't further belabor you with the Spit's actual loaded weight or hp, which I've already cited.
-hb

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> My sources do not give me a WEP hp for the Spitfire XIV, but I suspect it's similar to the GM-1 boosted horsepower of the D-9, at least <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were no GM-1 boosted Doras. They used MW-50.

Whatever. Boost is boost. -hb

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Lighter weight, smoother shape and thinner wing gives the Spit the edge in my opinion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read above...

Yeah, do that.-hb

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> There might be some advantages conferred by prop type, as well, although I couldn't tell you if the wider & longer three bladed prop or the shorter five bladed prop is better.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The less bladed prop may be better, cause any blade distirbes the following one's airstream.

Or the longer blades might put more disturbed air over more of the wing area. Would the intermittant interruptions in propwash be better or worse than a more constant propwash over the wingroots and fuselage?
-hb
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In any case, once the GM-1 is gone, it's gone, and if you haven't already got clear of your enemy, your chances of running away drop way down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A 20 minute boost doesn't get empy that fast http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Granted. But doesn't it burn up an engine if it's used for too long a period?
-hb
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> And you still haven't addressed the numbers issue. There just weren't very many of the D-11/12, period. Therefore, not very many of them were engaged in high altitude combat. My arguement stands.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were about 20-30 D-11s and about 10 D-12s.
Giving exact numbers is impossible.

So let's be generous and call it fifty total out of over a thousand 190D models issued to active units from late summer of 1944 to April, 1945. That's what? --well under 5% of the total single engined fighters operating in the LW during the last few months of the war, even if the bulk of them were FWs.
-hb
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And down low is where the Spit's relative strengths were most applicable, AND where they were most likely to meet the Dora variants, which is what I've been saying all along. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think so - Dora pilots regarded their ship as equal to any allied prop-fighter.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We've covered that ground before. What one thinks and what actually is are often distressingly different things, particularly in a highly propagandized totalitarian state. The Dora was better than the Anton, but the MK XIV was better than its immediate predecessor too.

If the Dora was only the equal of any Allied prop-fighter, the advantage goes to the Allies, who had greater numbers and better training by the time the Dora began operations. I can only assume that the Dora pilots were ignorant of the Tempest II, the P-51H, the F8F, and the Corsair F4U-4 models en route if Germany didn't fall soon enough.

Maybe it was kinder that way.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

[This message was edited by horseback on Thu January 15 2004 at 07:23 PM.]

robban75
01-15-2004, 11:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The FW stall has been noted as particularly vicious in every authoritative reference on the type I've read in over thirty years' interest in WWII air combat. Allied pilots had been made aware of it through the original tests of the A-3 that mistakenly landed in England, made the sharp right turn an important part of their repertoire, hoping that when that FW Driver got their tails, he'd blow on past the turn, or better yet, try to follow them through the turn and stall out of control. Even German sources admit that a number of experienced FW pilots were lost in this manner. After all, you only had to forget it once for it to kill youat low level.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The vicious stall would cause problems for the poorly trained LW pilots for sure, but experienced pilots learned to use it to an advantage as an evasive manouver shaking a persuer, and being very successful.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Zoom climb with a Spitfire close on your tail when he's waiting for it without you having a significant E advantage can get you an armor-piercing enema. It still takes time to achieve sufficient separation to outrange his cannon and heavy MGs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nevertheless, when having an advantage a better zoom climb can come very much in hand. Unfortunatelly the German pilots seldom(or never) had an altitude advantage when fighting allied planes, be it Spits or Mustangs. And if that wasn't enough, being outnumbered was common practice.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Lighter. "Monogram Close-Up 10, FW 190D" (1986) shows the Focke Wulf factory specifications rating the early D-9's Jumo 213A-1 as having 1770 hp takeoff power, and the D-12's Jumo 213E-1 as having 1,870 hp takeoff power. I won't further belabor you with the Spit's actual loaded weight or hp, which I've already cited.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Jumo 213A was quickly equipped with a rustzats offering 1900hp, and in December '44 MW50 was avaliable increasing output to 2240PS even for T/O.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A 20 minute boost doesn't get empy that fast

Granted. But doesn't it burn up an engine if it's used for too long a period?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Dora had MW50 for 40 minutes, and it could be used for 10 minutes at a time. And seeing how dogfights never lasted that long it was more than enough. Even without the MW50 the D-9 was a good performer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There were about 20-30 D-11s and about 10 D-12s.
Giving exact numbers is impossible.

So let's be generous and call it fifty total out of over a thousand 190D models issued to active units from late summer of 1944 to April, 1945. That's what? --well under 5% of the total single engined fighters operating in the LW during the last few months of the war, even if the bulk of them were FWs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were also at least 30 D-13's and between 67 and 167 Ta 152's

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If the Dora was only the equal of any Allied prop-fighter, the advantage goes to the Allies, who had greater numbers and better training by the time the Dora began operations. I can only assume that the Dora pilots were ignorant of the Tempest II, the P-51H, the F8F, and the Corsair F4U-4 models en route if Germany didn't fall soon enough.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seeing how the D-9 pilots were totally outnumbered, I think the appreciation and confidence in their fighter was just.

"Lt Karl Heinz Ossenkop of JG 26 about his aircraft compared to his opponents.

Spitfire: the D-9 was better in level flight, climb and dive. It was slightly inferior in turns.

Tempest: almost equal in level flight, a lengthy pursuit was usually fruitless. The D-9 climbed and turned better, but was inferior in a dive.

Mustang: the two aircraft were about equal in normal combat manouvers. The Mustang was rather faster in a dive.

Thunderbolt: with the Dora-9 we had advantages in level flight, climb and turn. we were hopelessly inferior in a dive. (Never try to dive away from a Thunderbolt)

In closing, I can only say that we pilots of JG 26 were very satisfied with the new machine. Although some doubts were expressed in the beginning, we found that we were equal and in some cases superior to outr opponents. We were unable to turn the tide but we flew to the bitter end."


As for the TempestII, P-51H and so on, the D-12 and Ta 152H was absolutely fast and powerful enough to fight these planes. With the Jumo 213EB engine the D-12 could achieve over 770km/h, and more power engines were being developed aswell.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

horseback
01-16-2004, 09:12 AM
I'm not familiar with Ossenkop's record(haven't reread Caldwell for over a year), but he may not have run into MK XIVs. There were still a lot more MK IXs around. Other types' descriptions sound like the bulk of his experience was late-war against the Tactical Air Force, i.e., ground attack specialists caught in the act. That means low and slow, often having to dump ordnance before they could maneuver to fight. Ideal for an attacker, but not for an accurate appraisal of the type. And yes, Mustangs were used for ground attack and Photo Recon during the winter period.

As for the numbers of Ta-152s, it was been my impression that only one Staffel of JG 301 was equipped on the type. Individual examples of the Ta and the D-13 MAY have made their way to some units in twos and threes, but as I noted in an earlier post, they got more attention than warranted because they were different, rather than their effect on the air combat picture. Most of the new types built never made it to the Jagdewaffe, because of transportation and fuel shortages.

As for the new types, the Ta-152 might have a comparable top speed, but that would not be the speeds it fought at (read the Golodnikov interview-it's linked in a thread on this forum-he has some very cogent observations about top speed vs combat speed), and there is far more to air combat than speed and accelleration. Without records of actual combat between the types, this degenerates into a 'woulda, coulda, shoulda' shouting match, and I'm not into that "Luft '46" kind of fantasy. I am confident, however, that at least one of the US/British types in the pipeline would have been a very good match for the Ta-152 (in fact, I forgot the P-47N, a high altitude type which was quite effective in the Pacific).

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

robban75
01-16-2004, 10:14 AM
Lt Ossenkop of JG 26 was the technical officer of that unit's 2.Staffel. He was shot down by Spitfires on april 17 1945 but he survived the war. If you read the book, "JG 26 first in combat with the Dora-9" you'd see that when they were attacked by Spitfires(IX's and XIV's)they were always at an altitude disadvantage and outnumbered, which means to me that it wasn't ground attack Spits they encountered.

The Ta 152 was very much comparable in topspeed to the late war(even post war) allied
fighters. But it wasn't just fast, it was very manouverable, and it was a stellar turner. It was designed to destroy B-29's and Mosquitos, but it was never used for that. Instead it did most of its fighting at low altitudes, and excelled even there.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

hop2002
01-16-2004, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Ta 152 was very much comparable in topspeed to the late war(even post war) allied
fighters. But it wasn't just fast, it was very manouverable, and it was a stellar turner.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The TA152 was a good turner compared to the 190s, which were very poor turners. In comparison to other aircraft, they were average at best.

robban75
01-16-2004, 10:53 AM
Not according to pilot reports.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Bremspropeller
01-16-2004, 11:05 AM
Eric Brown regarded the Ta as even to the Spitfire in this aspect.



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

MiloMorai
01-16-2004, 11:08 AM
Considering the Ta152H had wings like a glider/soarer and the glider/soarer has no trouble staying thermals, I cannot see why the Ta152H should not turn well.

FW190fan
01-16-2004, 11:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

The TA152 was a good turner compared to the 190s, which were very poor turners. In comparison to other aircraft, they were average at best.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oleg has said the Ta-152 has basically the same turn radius as the La-7, hardly "average at best" I'd say. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The Ta-152H wing and prop design would have made it the most maneuverable piston-engined fighter in the world at extreme altitudes.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

hop2002
01-16-2004, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Eric Brown regarded the Ta as even to the Spitfire in this aspect.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eric Brown said:

"the Spitfire was certainly the better of the two below 30,000ft" and went on to say they were about equal between 30 and 35,000ft, and the Ta152 had a "decided edge" above 35,000ft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Considering the Ta152H had wings like a glider/soarer and the glider/soarer has no trouble staying thermals, I cannot see why the Ta152H should not turn well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The wing loading is fairly high (although it depends what you're judging it against). Power to weight is not that good at low altitudes either.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Oleg has said the Ta-152 has basically the same turn radius as the La-7, hardly "average at best" I'd say.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It depends what you're comparing against. The Spitfires and 109s should still turn better, the La 7 wasn't exactly an exceptional turner.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Ta-152H wing and prop design would have made it the most maneuverable piston-engined fighter in the world at extreme altitudes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly. The Ta152 can operate at altitudes where few other prop fighters can go, and has a far better power/weight ratio than any other prop fighter at very high altitudes. That's not much use in FB though, is it?

At low altitudes, the Ta 152 is fairly slow by late war standards (a Spitfire IX on 100/150 fuel, as almost all were by 1945, is faster than the Ta152 on the deck, has a far better climb rate, far better powerloading, far lower wingloading).

The Ta152 is a high altitude fighter. By late war standards, it's mediocre at lower altitudes. The Dora is a far better bet at low altitudes.

horseback
01-16-2004, 01:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

The TA152 was a good turner compared to the 190s, which were very poor turners. In comparison to other aircraft, they were average at best.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's that expression "would have" again! Coupled with incomplete quotes, that is a Class 2 felony...you should be force-fed brussels sprouts with NO parmesan--oh, wait, that's the other thread, sorry.

Cheers

horseback


Oleg has said the Ta-152 has basically the same turn radius as the La-7, hardly "average at best" I'd say. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The Ta-152H wing and prop design would have made it the most maneuverable piston-engined fighter in the world at extreme altitudes.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

robban75
01-16-2004, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
Eric Brown said:

"the Spitfire was certainly the better of the two below 30,000ft" and went on to say they were about equal between 30 and 35,000ft, and the Ta152 had a "decided edge" above 35,000ft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He never flew the Ta 152 using MW50 or GM-1. Even without it the Ta 152 had a cruising speed of 700km/h.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The wing loading is fairly high (although it depends what you're judging it against). Power to weight is not that good at low altitudes either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wingloading isn't everything. A high aspect ratio, and a highly efficient paddle blade prop cetanly adds to the turning ability.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It depends what you're comparing against. The Spitfires and 109s should still turn better, the La 7 wasn't exactly an exceptional turner.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh it wasn't? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Could have fooled me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>At low altitudes, the Ta 152 is fairly slow by late war standards (a Spitfire IX on 100/150 fuel, as almost all were by 1945, is faster than the Ta152 on the deck, has a far better climb rate, far better powerloading, far lower wingloading).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It could still manage 600km/h down low. Not very fast, but then again it wasn't designed for low alt battle was it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Ta152 is a high altitude fighter. By late war standards, it's mediocre at lower altitudes. The Dora is a far better bet at low altitudes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it was faster? A Ta 152 caught low could defend itself better than a D-9.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

MiloMorai
01-16-2004, 03:04 PM
"He never flew the Ta 152 using MW50 or GM-1. Even without it the Ta 152 had a cruising speed of 700km/h."

Sorry don't believe you. A 435mph cruise speed?? Sound more like the top speed without the using the 'boost juice'.

robban75
01-16-2004, 03:10 PM
He mentioned it in his VERY short testflight of the Ta 152. The plane wasn't equipped with MW50 or GM-1. And it wasn't really a test flight, he was merely transporting it. It's the only avaliable allied "test" report of the Ta, and it wasn't very thorough.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

hop2002
01-16-2004, 03:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>He mentioned it in his VERY short testflight of the Ta 152. The plane wasn't equipped with MW50 or GM-1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Milo is questioning the 700 km/h "cruise" speed, not the fact that it didn't have mw50 and GM-1.

700 km/h was the maximum speed without using MW50/GM-1, not the cruise speed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>He never flew the Ta 152 using MW50 or GM-1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know he didn't. I was merely responding to Bremspropeller who claimed Eric Brown said the Ta152 was better. He didn't.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Wingloading isn't everything. A high aspect ratio, and a highly efficient paddle blade prop cetanly adds to the turning ability.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aspect ratio helps, wing shape helps, thrust helps. Wingloading and thrust/weight are still the most important factors.

Whatever it's prop, the Ta152 simply didn't have a very good power/weight ratio at lower altitudes. Again, it wasn't poor, but it wasn't that good either.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It could still manage 600km/h down low. Not very fast, but then again it wasn't designed for low alt battle was it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that's the whole point. FB wasn't designed for high altitude battles. The Ta152 should be the best prop fighter at high altitudes, over 35,000ft or so. But in FB it's going to be used at lower altitudes, which it wasn't designed for, and wasn't particularly good at.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Because it was faster? A Ta 152 caught low could defend itself better than a D-9.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not really. At low alt, the Dora is much faster, accelerates better at high speed, rolls much better. The only clear advantage for the Ta is turning.

robban75
01-16-2004, 04:17 PM
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it could cruise at 700km/h, but I could be wrong, I'm at work and I can't look it up right now.
The pilots that flew it were amazed with its outstanding performance and climbing ability. At one time they managed to escape from a bunch of Bf 109G-10's by climbing. So it can't be all that bad. It wasn't as fast as the D-9 down low. 598km/h vs 612km/h. That's not much faster, but it certainly gives the D-9 a little edge. The Ta 152's turning ability will save it more than the D-9 is saved by its topspeed though. Acceleration should favour the Ta 152 with its more powerful engine and more efficient propeller. Willie Reschke was very impressed by the Ta's acceleration, he'd never experienced being pushed into the seat like that during take offs.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Oso2323
01-16-2004, 10:07 PM
I found an interesting quote from one of the Spit modellers at aircraftresourcecenter.com:

On a personal note, during military enlistments (1964- 1971) this writer worked with several WW-2 veterans who flew and/or serviced the Supermarine Spitfire in World War Two. One common thread of off duty conversation was that all the Spitfire variants with Merlin engines were more manueverable than those with Griffon engines. A statement frequently heard was: "The Griffon Spitfires began to handle and feel more like the North American P-51 (B, C & D) Mustangs!"

My comment, "So that was bad?" always got a laugh!

Aaron_GT
01-17-2004, 03:21 AM
The Griffon spitfires came later in the war,
though, when speed was considered to be more
important than turning, and the planes were
getting heavier all round. So I don't think
that the Griffon Spits were less maneouverable
because of the engine - I think it's just a
coincidence and the point of the war that they
were at.

The AFDU reports of the prototype XIV versus
the IX, though, reports pretty much identical
turn radii. However, this may not have been
true of production XIVs. AFAIK the production
XIV was a bit heavier than the prototype.

I did have a set of links to some extensive
XIV test data on my old handheld, but that
died unexpectedly before I'd backed those up,
but they are out there someone on the web.

Bremspropeller
01-17-2004, 09:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I know he didn't. I was merely responding to Bremspropeller who claimed Eric Brown said the Ta152 was better. He didn't.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LoL..try reading before replying http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I said E.B. regarded the TA as equal, not as superrior in turning aspects.

And as some here use to forget, the turning ability of the Spit was very good, but got less impressive the higher the speed was at which the Spit was entered into a turn. The Ta was good at all speeds - not the best at the lower end of the envelope, but pretty good.



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu