PDA

View Full Version : Spitfires in AEP



Flt-Lt-Styles
06-01-2004, 06:55 AM
I don't know if anyone has already mentioned these points, but...
1) Spitfires post MkII (i think, but not certain) had two identical rectangular radiators under the fuselage/wing section, not the tube and box of the Mk I as shown on the Mk Vb etc.
2) In negative G, the engine would cut out as fuel was still gravity-fed by carburettors (not fuel injection like Bf.109), thus the Rolls-Royce Merlin would 'stutter' when the stick was pushed forwards (hence why RAF pilots always had to half-roll in order to dive). This should also be true of the Hurricane.

I am new to the site, so these points may already be redundant...

Anyway...Tally Ho!

Flt-Lt-Styles
06-01-2004, 06:55 AM
I don't know if anyone has already mentioned these points, but...
1) Spitfires post MkII (i think, but not certain) had two identical rectangular radiators under the fuselage/wing section, not the tube and box of the Mk I as shown on the Mk Vb etc.
2) In negative G, the engine would cut out as fuel was still gravity-fed by carburettors (not fuel injection like Bf.109), thus the Rolls-Royce Merlin would 'stutter' when the stick was pushed forwards (hence why RAF pilots always had to half-roll in order to dive). This should also be true of the Hurricane.

I am new to the site, so these points may already be redundant...

Anyway...Tally Ho!

LEXX_Luthor
06-01-2004, 07:05 AM
Yes, Hurricane cuts out.

Wellcome to Forgotten Board

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

JG53Frankyboy
06-01-2004, 07:06 AM
both are wrong, and there fore in the game correct modelled http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

1. Spit V had still the two different "things below the wings

http://futurshox.net/viewer.php3?id=432

2. they solved the neg G effect with a carburettor modification. otherwise ALL other piston engines than BMW801,DB601,DB605,Jumo211,Jumo213 ,M-82FN (hope i forgott none http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )should have stutteres in game.

Flt-Lt-Styles
06-01-2004, 07:24 AM
Thanks for that guys! I can now fly the Spit in peace!
Knowing how good the game is I thought it would have been a bit odd if they'd have got those things wrong. Instead, the fault is all mine - as for the radiators, i must've got confused with the Mk IX.

Thanks for your time

VW-IceFire
06-01-2004, 02:36 PM
Mark IX was the first model to have symmetrical radiators as the new engine required a redesign of some of the radiator and oil cooling.

The easiest way for an opposing pilot to identify the V from the IX was by the radiator design.

Radiator cut out was solved with the Mark V to the best extent (neg g for extended time periods is bad for any of these engines) and the Mark I/II had a stopgap solution (devised by a WAAF apparently) that was implemented later.

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

Montgomery Python
06-01-2004, 08:37 PM
I haven't actually tried it yet ( the rather overdone redout puts me off ) but does flying inverted for a length of time kill any of these engines from oil starvation? that always seemed a strange problem for an aero engine to have.

Flt-Lt-Styles
06-02-2004, 10:46 AM
IceFire - surely you mean engine cut-out? And Montgomery - I don't think oil starvation was ever a problem (merlins had an intricate system of lubrification running throughout the engines) but fuel starvation was - due to carburettors as mentioned earlier.
All of what I'm saying is just pendantry however and I'm sure I'm liable to be proved wrong at some point. A small amount of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
Thanks for your time guys, it is apreciated.
Olly

jeroen_R90S
06-02-2004, 12:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Montgomery Python:
I haven't actually tried it yet ( the rather overdone redout puts me off ) but does flying inverted for a length of time kill any of these engines from oil starvation? that always seemed a strange problem for an aero engine to have.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK they had dry-sump lubrication, so I don't think that's really a problem unless your oily tank is shot to bits.
That does not mean the engine really likes it, in the long term it will be more noticable. I'm sure someone can fill in how many hours the avg aero engine ran before overhaul/replacement but I strongly suspect that moment will come sooner than the moment of noting the extra wear.

&lt;OT&gt; BMW motorcycle engines cylinders DO wear out unequal both left/right and up/under due to to crankshafts rotation (IIRC from my own bike the right side wears faster) and the better lubrication on the bottom of the cylinder then at the top side...
But it's only noticable after ~50.000kms on older (R50/60/69 and /5 /6 types), the newer bikes &gt;1977 or so) have improved cylinder coatings which wear much less... OK, enough BMW bikes for now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
&lt;/OT&gt;

Jeroen (who, as you could have guessed, rides a 1974 BMW R90S ~ one of the first standard production bikes to reach 200km/h, and boy does it wobble at that speed!)

Montgomery Python
06-03-2004, 05:03 PM
Pretty sure I was reading a P-47 manual which gave a limit of a moderately low number of seconds of inverted flight until the engine was oil starved, I'll try and find it again ( it was some time ago ). Always seemed a strange failing. Anyway, until then....