PDA

View Full Version : Russian spitfires



XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 02:32 AM
This is copyed from Alfred Price's "The Spitfire Story" I found it interesting and felt like sharing /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



Page 1

Until now little information has appeared in the west on how the Soviet Air Force used the Spitfire VBs it received at the beginning of 1943. The account which follows is based on the memoirs of the fighter pilot Senior Lieutenant (later Colonel) Anatoli Ivanov; some of his phrases might ring a little strangely in western ears, but are included to give the flavour of what he wrote. Ivanov's unit, the 36th Fighter Aviation Regiment, had been in action on the Caucasian front with Polikarpov I-16 fighters until near the end of 1942 when it was pulled back to an airfield near Baku on the Caspian Sea to reform and re-equip. In February 1943 the Regiment received its first Spitfires:

We studied the new aircraft carefully, but because there were no manuals we could not find out what it would be like in the air. Neither our instructors nor the technicians had any figures on its performance. We knew that at the time the English had a better fighter, the Spitfire IX, and the word was that it was good. The aircraft our allies had presented to us, however, were of a much older version. Ours had fought against the Germans over the Channel during 1941 and 1942, and these Spitfires had taken some knocks before they were repaired and transferred to us.

The comments on the condition of the Spitfire VBs passed to the Soviet Air Force are justified. Most were elderly machines which had previously seen action with the RAF, some had served with several different squadrons and undergone major repairs before their transfer.Ivanov tried out the British fighter and the remarks he penned were hardly flattering. In reading them, however, it should be borne in mind that they are in keeping with the general trend of reporting in the Soviet open press, that foreign items should never be shown to be significantly better than the home-built product:

Its speed was not much greater than that of the I-16. Its ceiling was not greater than 9,000 metres [29,500 feet] and it was armed with 2 cannon and 4 machine guns .... The Spitfire was simple to fly and tolerant of mistakes, but it wasn't anything special. The I-16 had been much more demanding. Still the Spitfire did have a radio, albeit a poor one.* The Soviet fighters designed by Lavochkin and Yakovlev had a significantly better performance. The sole advantage of the Spitfire was the fact that it was very light and, with its powerful engine, it climbed well; this would give us the advantage of height. Its worst feature was that the guns were mounted in the wings; the distance between the cannon was nearly 4 metres, so when attacking the enemy from close range the concentration of fire power was low.

Ivanov described the Spitfire as 'a kaftan for someone else's shoulders', ie 'someone else's jacket', but acknowledged that the Soviet Air Force was short of fighters and had to make use of anything it could get.

Near Baku the 36th Fighter Aviation Regiment, and a sister unit nearby, received their complement of Spitfires and the task of conversion training proceeded. During February the 36th was honoured with the award of Guards status and redesignated the 57th Guards Fighter Regiment. By the third week in April the unit was ready again for operations, and began moving to the Kuban area on the southern front to join the heavy fighting around the German bridgehead based on the port of Novorossiysk on the Black Sea. Ivanov's Regiment arrived at its base, a forward airfield situated near the village of Popovicheskoy, to find that the airwar had changed a great deal since it had left the front. Both sides now regularly put up forces of over a hundred aircraft, and when these clashed large scale battles would ensue with losses on both sides. During these actions the main German fighter opposition came from the Messerschmitt 109s of Jagdgeschwader 52, though from time to time FW 190s were also seen in the area.

Initially the Spitfires were not used properly on the Kuban front, and suffered accordingly. As Ivanov explained:

Usually we were given a specific area, bounded by three or four points on the ground, over which we were to provide cover for our ground forces. Specific altitudes and times for these patrols were laid down. But because the points defining the patrol areas were close together, we had to decrease speed to remain in the area and so found ourselves at a disadvantage compared with the enemy.

*Before delivery to the Soviet Air Force the Spitfire VBs had had their VHF sets removed and TR 9 high frequency sets installed.


-----------------------------------------------------------
Page 2

If we tried to comb the area at high speed, we risked running short of fuel and could not cover it for the required period. The enemy fighters quickly took the measure of these poorly thought-out tactics and made attacks which cost us dearly. During our first encounter with escorted Fascist bombers, on 28 April, the Spitfires paid not a small price. Patrolling a designated area at low speed and being tied to points on the ground, the force of Spitfires was unable to manoeuvre freely and co-ordinate the action of its pairs and fours. The enemy fighters, using their altitude advantage, attacked us without hindrance.

Another problem the Soviet Spitfire pilots soon discovered was that their aircraft looked quite unlike Russian-built fighters and were often taken for those of the enemy by ground gunners and the pilots of other units. Several times Spitfires came under attack from 'friendly' forces and some were shot down or damaged, including Ivanov's:

I was attacking a Fascist Junkers 87 bomber and, having got myself into an advantageous position, would probably, have shot him down. But then our Yaks appeared. 'Yaks!' I shouted over the radio, 'Yaks, don't hinder my attack. Give me cover-I'm on your side!' But one of the pilots obviously did not understand, he swung round on to my tail and opened up with everything. My wings were holed and glycol vapour
started to trail from the engine cowling. I wanted to bale out but by then I was too low. I reduced speed and somehow managed to level out the Spitfire, I barely made it home.

Following this and other incidents, the Spitfires made demonstration flights over gun sites in the area and paid visits to neighbouring fighter units to familiarise everyone with the lines of the British fighter. Initiallythe Spitfires carried the Regiment's emblem, a large yellow arrow painted across the fuselage. But it was felt that it confused rather than aided identification and the design was hastily removed.

Ivanov's Regiment quickly established itself at the front and developed effective tactics. The pace of action was severe:

Over the Kuban large numbers of aircraft took part in the combats. Things started at dawn. As soon as our reporting posts detected that the Fascist air force was up, Soviet fighters took off to engage. Then it would begin.
Fighters of all types gathered in the sky at all altitudes, from ground level to 8 or even 10 thousand metres. The battle was joined. Enemy aircraft burned, ours too. Damaged ones strove to regain their own territory, trailing smoke or glycol vapour. Everywhere, parachutes descended. A multicoloured canopy, that would be a Fascist; a white canopy, a Soviet pilot.


----------------------------------------------------------
Page 3

Each day we had to fly five or even seven missions. It demanded considerable effort to maintain this pace of combat and not go under physically. We were tired as Hell, but morally we felt superior. April ended and then the real heat began. That really hit people, they just did not want to eat. Each dusk you went to bed and fell asleep immediately. And at 4 o'clock the next morning we had to be up again for the next mission ....

Ivanov had a most successful day on 3 May 1943, during a couple of interception missions near the German bridgehead:

Chernetsov noticed nine Heinkel 111s and nine Junkers 88s heading for the front, covered by a dozen Messerschmitts or Focke-Wulfs. He attacked one of the Heinkels and immediately a pair of Messerschmitts from the covering force latched on to him Vitya! There's one on your tail!', I shouted over the radio. Chernetsov turned steeply and the Messerschmitt's wing man ended up right in front of me. I lined him up in my sight, opened fire, and the Fascist fighter hurtled towards the ground spewing flames.

That evening, led by the regimental commander, we again flew cover for our ground troops. It was dusk as we approached the front. 'Attention Spitfires', came the voice of our ground controller, '18 Heinkels followed by 10 Messerschmitts coming in from the west, the sea.'

'Shikalov, Ivanov, attack the bombers, I'm going after the fighters!', commanded Osipov [MajorAlexander Osipov, the Regimental commander]. We increased speed and headed west, Osipov with his two fours climbing to engage the Messerschmitts. The Fascist bombers were flying tight three-aircraft flights. 'Volodya I'm attacking the leader. You take the second lot!', I shouted to Shikalov. At the same time I noticed a couple of Messerschmitts coming down almost vertically on me. I ordered my second pair to attack the next flight of bombers, then I began a steep climb; but the Messerschmitts continued on down. By this time the leader of Mironenko's second pair had set one of the Heinkels on fire. The Fascist bomber, going down steeply, tried to regain its own territory.

Now I had plenty of altitude, the leader of the Heinkels seemed to have seen neither my aircraft nor that of my wing man, and the covering Messerschmitts were battling with Osipov's force. With my wing man I went down steeply and sneaked in behind the leading Heinkel. 'Cover me, I'm going in to attack!', I commanded Ragozin my wing man. 'OK!' came the reply. The nose of my Spitfire was pointing at the belly of the Fascist. I opened fire, turned away just in time and saw an explosion. The Heinkel began to tilt and two parachutes fell clear. I felt great, I had knocked down my second enemy aircraft that day. I turned and slowed down, so that Mironenko's approaching pair could close in to bring our four together again. 'How did you get on?' Osipov asked. 'OK'.

'Let's get some height, they can bounce us down here!' We increased speed to maximum, peeled off to the side and then tried to gain altitude as quickly as possible so that we could have a go at the Messerschmitts. We glanced over at the Heinkels. Our Yaks were tearing into them and they, having dropped their bombs on their own forces, headed west in disorder.

The battle over the Kuban continued through May and into June 1943, with the Spitfires flying bomber escort as well as interception missions. Then, at the end of June, the 57th Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment began a withdrawal to reequip with Russian-built fighters.


No1RAAF_Pourshot

XO No1RAAF

http://www.froggy.com.au/edinkulelija/no1raaf/image/crest.gif


some are the hunters the rest are the hunted

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 02:32 AM
This is copyed from Alfred Price's "The Spitfire Story" I found it interesting and felt like sharing /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



Page 1

Until now little information has appeared in the west on how the Soviet Air Force used the Spitfire VBs it received at the beginning of 1943. The account which follows is based on the memoirs of the fighter pilot Senior Lieutenant (later Colonel) Anatoli Ivanov; some of his phrases might ring a little strangely in western ears, but are included to give the flavour of what he wrote. Ivanov's unit, the 36th Fighter Aviation Regiment, had been in action on the Caucasian front with Polikarpov I-16 fighters until near the end of 1942 when it was pulled back to an airfield near Baku on the Caspian Sea to reform and re-equip. In February 1943 the Regiment received its first Spitfires:

We studied the new aircraft carefully, but because there were no manuals we could not find out what it would be like in the air. Neither our instructors nor the technicians had any figures on its performance. We knew that at the time the English had a better fighter, the Spitfire IX, and the word was that it was good. The aircraft our allies had presented to us, however, were of a much older version. Ours had fought against the Germans over the Channel during 1941 and 1942, and these Spitfires had taken some knocks before they were repaired and transferred to us.

The comments on the condition of the Spitfire VBs passed to the Soviet Air Force are justified. Most were elderly machines which had previously seen action with the RAF, some had served with several different squadrons and undergone major repairs before their transfer.Ivanov tried out the British fighter and the remarks he penned were hardly flattering. In reading them, however, it should be borne in mind that they are in keeping with the general trend of reporting in the Soviet open press, that foreign items should never be shown to be significantly better than the home-built product:

Its speed was not much greater than that of the I-16. Its ceiling was not greater than 9,000 metres [29,500 feet] and it was armed with 2 cannon and 4 machine guns .... The Spitfire was simple to fly and tolerant of mistakes, but it wasn't anything special. The I-16 had been much more demanding. Still the Spitfire did have a radio, albeit a poor one.* The Soviet fighters designed by Lavochkin and Yakovlev had a significantly better performance. The sole advantage of the Spitfire was the fact that it was very light and, with its powerful engine, it climbed well; this would give us the advantage of height. Its worst feature was that the guns were mounted in the wings; the distance between the cannon was nearly 4 metres, so when attacking the enemy from close range the concentration of fire power was low.

Ivanov described the Spitfire as 'a kaftan for someone else's shoulders', ie 'someone else's jacket', but acknowledged that the Soviet Air Force was short of fighters and had to make use of anything it could get.

Near Baku the 36th Fighter Aviation Regiment, and a sister unit nearby, received their complement of Spitfires and the task of conversion training proceeded. During February the 36th was honoured with the award of Guards status and redesignated the 57th Guards Fighter Regiment. By the third week in April the unit was ready again for operations, and began moving to the Kuban area on the southern front to join the heavy fighting around the German bridgehead based on the port of Novorossiysk on the Black Sea. Ivanov's Regiment arrived at its base, a forward airfield situated near the village of Popovicheskoy, to find that the airwar had changed a great deal since it had left the front. Both sides now regularly put up forces of over a hundred aircraft, and when these clashed large scale battles would ensue with losses on both sides. During these actions the main German fighter opposition came from the Messerschmitt 109s of Jagdgeschwader 52, though from time to time FW 190s were also seen in the area.

Initially the Spitfires were not used properly on the Kuban front, and suffered accordingly. As Ivanov explained:

Usually we were given a specific area, bounded by three or four points on the ground, over which we were to provide cover for our ground forces. Specific altitudes and times for these patrols were laid down. But because the points defining the patrol areas were close together, we had to decrease speed to remain in the area and so found ourselves at a disadvantage compared with the enemy.

*Before delivery to the Soviet Air Force the Spitfire VBs had had their VHF sets removed and TR 9 high frequency sets installed.


-----------------------------------------------------------
Page 2

If we tried to comb the area at high speed, we risked running short of fuel and could not cover it for the required period. The enemy fighters quickly took the measure of these poorly thought-out tactics and made attacks which cost us dearly. During our first encounter with escorted Fascist bombers, on 28 April, the Spitfires paid not a small price. Patrolling a designated area at low speed and being tied to points on the ground, the force of Spitfires was unable to manoeuvre freely and co-ordinate the action of its pairs and fours. The enemy fighters, using their altitude advantage, attacked us without hindrance.

Another problem the Soviet Spitfire pilots soon discovered was that their aircraft looked quite unlike Russian-built fighters and were often taken for those of the enemy by ground gunners and the pilots of other units. Several times Spitfires came under attack from 'friendly' forces and some were shot down or damaged, including Ivanov's:

I was attacking a Fascist Junkers 87 bomber and, having got myself into an advantageous position, would probably, have shot him down. But then our Yaks appeared. 'Yaks!' I shouted over the radio, 'Yaks, don't hinder my attack. Give me cover-I'm on your side!' But one of the pilots obviously did not understand, he swung round on to my tail and opened up with everything. My wings were holed and glycol vapour
started to trail from the engine cowling. I wanted to bale out but by then I was too low. I reduced speed and somehow managed to level out the Spitfire, I barely made it home.

Following this and other incidents, the Spitfires made demonstration flights over gun sites in the area and paid visits to neighbouring fighter units to familiarise everyone with the lines of the British fighter. Initiallythe Spitfires carried the Regiment's emblem, a large yellow arrow painted across the fuselage. But it was felt that it confused rather than aided identification and the design was hastily removed.

Ivanov's Regiment quickly established itself at the front and developed effective tactics. The pace of action was severe:

Over the Kuban large numbers of aircraft took part in the combats. Things started at dawn. As soon as our reporting posts detected that the Fascist air force was up, Soviet fighters took off to engage. Then it would begin.
Fighters of all types gathered in the sky at all altitudes, from ground level to 8 or even 10 thousand metres. The battle was joined. Enemy aircraft burned, ours too. Damaged ones strove to regain their own territory, trailing smoke or glycol vapour. Everywhere, parachutes descended. A multicoloured canopy, that would be a Fascist; a white canopy, a Soviet pilot.


----------------------------------------------------------
Page 3

Each day we had to fly five or even seven missions. It demanded considerable effort to maintain this pace of combat and not go under physically. We were tired as Hell, but morally we felt superior. April ended and then the real heat began. That really hit people, they just did not want to eat. Each dusk you went to bed and fell asleep immediately. And at 4 o'clock the next morning we had to be up again for the next mission ....

Ivanov had a most successful day on 3 May 1943, during a couple of interception missions near the German bridgehead:

Chernetsov noticed nine Heinkel 111s and nine Junkers 88s heading for the front, covered by a dozen Messerschmitts or Focke-Wulfs. He attacked one of the Heinkels and immediately a pair of Messerschmitts from the covering force latched on to him Vitya! There's one on your tail!', I shouted over the radio. Chernetsov turned steeply and the Messerschmitt's wing man ended up right in front of me. I lined him up in my sight, opened fire, and the Fascist fighter hurtled towards the ground spewing flames.

That evening, led by the regimental commander, we again flew cover for our ground troops. It was dusk as we approached the front. 'Attention Spitfires', came the voice of our ground controller, '18 Heinkels followed by 10 Messerschmitts coming in from the west, the sea.'

'Shikalov, Ivanov, attack the bombers, I'm going after the fighters!', commanded Osipov [MajorAlexander Osipov, the Regimental commander]. We increased speed and headed west, Osipov with his two fours climbing to engage the Messerschmitts. The Fascist bombers were flying tight three-aircraft flights. 'Volodya I'm attacking the leader. You take the second lot!', I shouted to Shikalov. At the same time I noticed a couple of Messerschmitts coming down almost vertically on me. I ordered my second pair to attack the next flight of bombers, then I began a steep climb; but the Messerschmitts continued on down. By this time the leader of Mironenko's second pair had set one of the Heinkels on fire. The Fascist bomber, going down steeply, tried to regain its own territory.

Now I had plenty of altitude, the leader of the Heinkels seemed to have seen neither my aircraft nor that of my wing man, and the covering Messerschmitts were battling with Osipov's force. With my wing man I went down steeply and sneaked in behind the leading Heinkel. 'Cover me, I'm going in to attack!', I commanded Ragozin my wing man. 'OK!' came the reply. The nose of my Spitfire was pointing at the belly of the Fascist. I opened fire, turned away just in time and saw an explosion. The Heinkel began to tilt and two parachutes fell clear. I felt great, I had knocked down my second enemy aircraft that day. I turned and slowed down, so that Mironenko's approaching pair could close in to bring our four together again. 'How did you get on?' Osipov asked. 'OK'.

'Let's get some height, they can bounce us down here!' We increased speed to maximum, peeled off to the side and then tried to gain altitude as quickly as possible so that we could have a go at the Messerschmitts. We glanced over at the Heinkels. Our Yaks were tearing into them and they, having dropped their bombs on their own forces, headed west in disorder.

The battle over the Kuban continued through May and into June 1943, with the Spitfires flying bomber escort as well as interception missions. Then, at the end of June, the 57th Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment began a withdrawal to reequip with Russian-built fighters.


No1RAAF_Pourshot

XO No1RAAF

http://www.froggy.com.au/edinkulelija/no1raaf/image/crest.gif


some are the hunters the rest are the hunted

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 02:43 AM
great post, thanks

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 03:30 AM
Good stuff. Thanks! If Oleg thinks the anticipation for the P51 was daunting - imagine the stir involving the coming Spits. Not to mention that there has already been alot of post concerning the topic. The problem when talking about the Spits are: That were so many good to great versions produced. Personally - I'm very much looking for the arrival of the Spits. This plane has become Myth and when reading about it's history and what the pilots say about flying it, one is hard pressed to find anything very negative about it anywhere.

Rick

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 03:54 AM
And dont forget the ones in this story are VB's and very worn ones at that.I'am not sure but I think they also got MkIX's and this was maybe the best of them all.

No1RAAF_Pourshot

XO No1RAAF

http://www.froggy.com.au/edinkulelija/no1raaf/image/crest.gif


some are the hunters the rest are the hunted

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 03:58 AM
Yes, indeed. Does anyone know the progess of the spit over at il2center.com that site got hacked and has been inactive for months

<img src=http://www.geocities.com/aceholefb/acehole.txt>

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 04:02 AM
STOP!

---"Each day we had to fly five or even seven missions. It
---demanded considerable effort to maintain this pace of
---combat and not go under physically."

Just had stop and Reply to this point, cos when I post about re~arming and re~fueling (at a vulnerable time cost) in the ORR, I could use the support.

Now, back to the story.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 04:07 AM
Yes, thanks for that story. Kuban had some massive air battles. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 04:47 AM
Great info on the spits in russia. i am a bit surprised upon reading that the spitfire wasnt really well received by the VVF, but they tend to say that about other planes that are lent to them, ie: the Hurricane. but they turned out fine in FB.

I have a question though, did any of the russian Spits get field Mods done to them, like using russian cannons and MGs, instead of the Hispanos and Brownings? kinda like the Hurricane mkIIe field mod in FB.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 05:18 AM
I do know of a 2 seat training version that the russians built ( 40 in total I think) but it was not the first time this was done

No1RAAF_Pourshot

XO No1RAAF

http://www.froggy.com.au/edinkulelija/no1raaf/image/crest.gif


some are the hunters the rest are the hunted

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 05:41 AM
We call a Russian Spitfire having too much vodka and burritos.

<center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)"> Warning: My intense sense of humor may tug at the stick crammed in your shaded spot.</center><center>
If you treasure your lack of humor please refrain from reading my posts as they may cause laughter. </table style></center>


<center>http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/bp_geminiCombined.gif

<table style="filter:glow[color=black,strength=1)">
<font size=+2><font color="black">FB Rocks /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Still loving my P-39</font></font> </table style>

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

<table style="filter:glow[color=green,strength=4)"> www.blitzpigs.com</center> (http://www.blitzpigs.com</center>) </table style>

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 07:10 AM
I remember reading somewhere (i'll post it when I find it) that the Russians later received Spit 9s and used them extensively as high altitude recon. There were some squads that flew Spit 9s in combat and there were Russian Aces in Spits, as well. I think there was maybe a Brit squad, or two that flew some missions in Russia also.

Rick

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 09:05 AM
Salute Pourshot

Nice post.

These must have been incredibly knackered Spitfires Vb's if they performad as the pilot suggests. Unless he is exaggerating for political reasons.

Here are some British tests of a production Spitfire Vb:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html

Notice the top speed: 371mph. (594 kph) A good 50 mph faster than an I-16. And the ceiling the Soviet pilot mentions, 29,000 ft is way below the British tests which show 37,000 ft.

The Spitfire Vb was essentially very similar in speed and climb to a 109F2. An F4 would be 20mph faster and have a better climb.

As far as the armament, the Soviet pilot complains about the fact it is wing mounted. That being the case, the aircraft still packed much more firepower than a Yak, in the 2 20mm and 4 .303's. I'd take that over a single 20mm and 1 LMG.

Sounds to me like the Soviets were practicing incredibly bad tactics, which the Germans were happy to take advantage of. British manuals for pilots flying the Spitfire Vb versus the 109F and 190A4 emphasis the importance of flying at a high cruise speed, and have enough altitude.


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw





Message Edited on 06/21/0308:07AM by RAF74Buzzsaw_XO

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 10:38 AM
Hello,

All in all, 1337 MkVb and MkIX were delivered to Soviet Union starting in 1943.

Geust/Petrov's Red Stars Vol4 mentions that 130 were lost in operation by 1.05.1945.

Cheers,
=38=IndiaOscar



http://www.russianaviationarchive.com



http://www.russianaviationarchive.com/images/raa_header.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 11:21 AM
'1337'?

I didn't know they spoke like that on those days /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 12:03 PM
Hello Mosquito,

Wats up with 1337? I don't get the irony of this, maybe cos I'm not a native English speaker /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
=38=IndiaOscar



http://www.russianaviationarchive.com



http://www.russianaviationarchive.com/images/raa_header.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 12:14 PM
IndiaOscar_38 wrote:
- Hello Mosquito,
-
- Wats up with 1337? I don't get the irony of this,
- maybe cos I'm not a native English speaker /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- Cheers,
- =38=IndiaOscar
-
-
-
Well, I am a native English speaker, being doing it all my life, and I don't get what's up with 1337 either. Oh well.
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Cheers!



If I had one my sig would be here.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 12:21 PM
You guys don't play counter-strike then /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

_____________
Ian Boys
=38=Tatarenko
Kapitan - 38. OIAE
<img src=http://www.sturmovik.com/38-sig.gif>

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://www.sturmovik.com/=38=Av-Tat.jpg'; var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>
&lt;script>color="#600D1E";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor=color;</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 12:28 PM
ianboys wrote:
- You guys don't play counter-strike then /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-

Aha. So that's it. Nope, only FB for me.


Cheers!



If I had one my sig would be here.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 12:33 PM
Biggs22 wrote:
- Great info on the spits in russia. i am a bit
- surprised upon reading that the spitfire wasnt
- really well received by the VVF, but they tend to
- say that about other planes that are lent to them,
- ie: the Hurricane. but they turned out fine in FB.
-

Russians didn`t like Spits very much, they needed good frontline fighters, and the Spits were poor in that for many reasons. Their engine was prone to failures because the low mounted carb. intake took in all the dust that can be found in the steppes, ; the extremely narrow (some 1.6m wide only) landing gear wasn`t well suited for the rough airfields of the steppes, the propellor clearance was very small from the ground and often plowed into the field, wrecking the propellor and the engine out of commission; thus servicibility was low.
Due to the very long nose of the Spit the taxi and takeoff view was bad, and there were complaints about the bad rearward visibility (the armored headres, coupled with the narrow cocpit blocked the rear view entirelly, and pilot had to rely on the small mirror only. Soviet fighters at that time had transparent rear armor glass). The stall characteristics were excellent, but the plane needed a very gentle handed pilot as the control harmony was extremely poor with heavy ailerons but increadibly light and touchy elevators forces (pulling a more than a mere 3/4 inch on the stick was enough to stall the plane). And once entered a spin, it was often fatal with the Spitfire... Something not really advantageous if you have pilots with only very short trainings! There were critics on the Hispanos: they had poor relibility already wintessed on L-L Hurricanes, with a small ammo load of 120 rounds/gun (this was no worser than on Yaks though), they were too widely spaced which ruined the concentration of firepower, and their shells had very insensitive fuzes, which, more often than not, simply didn`t exploded, just past through the plane. Compared to Soviet cannons, they had rather humble rate of fire as well, and good ballistics could only partly make up for that, as shooting happens mostly at close ranges.

Probably these experiences in the Kuban told the Soviet leadership to not use the later received Spitfire LF IXs on the frontline, to which they were unsuited, but well behind the front, in the air defense of Soviet cities with PVO. There Spit LF IXs saw some limited service with 2 units, IIRC even having a single kill.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 01:06 PM
Isegrim it makes me wonder why the british like them just fine?

And I have never read anyware that the spit was prone to stalling becuase the pilot moved the stick 3/4 of a inch,Sounds fishy to me ,

And by the way I'am preety sure all the LF mkIXE's sent to russia had tropical filters so dust should not be a problem at least no more than any other plane in use at the front

No1RAAF_Pourshot

XO No1RAAF

http://www.froggy.com.au/edinkulelija/no1raaf/image/crest.gif


some are the hunters the rest are the hunted

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 01:20 PM
pourshot wrote:
-
- Isegrim it makes me wonder why the british like them
- just fine?
-

They operated them from well maintained airfields, with well trained pilots. But on the carriers, the Seafires were true nightmares to land.

Russians needed good FRONTLINE fighters, which could operate under harsh conditions, bad airfield, poor pilots. Yaks, Laggs were such. Spitfires were not.


- And I have never read anyware that the spit was
- prone to stalling becuase the pilot moved the stick
- 3/4 of a inch,Sounds fishy to me.

Read NACA report on Spit VA`s flying charachteristics. It`s all there. Report mentions this feature failed to meet NACA`s requirements of IIRC 4 inches. The heavier VBs, IXs, VIIs must have been even worser.


-
- And by the way I'am preety sure all the LF mkIXE's
- sent to russia had tropical filters so dust should
- not be a problem at least no more than any other
- plane in use at the front
-

You could be pretty sure, but I have a picture of them, lined up, and NONE of them had a tropical filter on them.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 01:38 PM
Isegrim; the Spitfire is a holy cow, even more so than the Mustang.
How DARE you to criticize it???
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 01:46 PM
nice story

<a href= target="_blank"

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_01.jpg

&lt;script>d="doc";var doc = window[d+"ument"];color="#336600";a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor=color;color="#FFFFFF"; a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-3].bgColor=color;var YourPicName='http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/fis.gif';var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>
http://fighting-irish.org
http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_02.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 02:02 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

You could be pretty sure, but I have a picture of
- them, lined up, and NONE of them had a tropical
- filter on them.



Is this not the tropical variant?



http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/Scan10009.BMP



http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/Scan10010.BMP


No1RAAF_Pourshot

XO No1RAAF

http://www.froggy.com.au/edinkulelija/no1raaf/image/crest.gif


some are the hunters the rest are the hunted

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 02:36 PM
hahaha, IndiaOscar, don't worry about it and simply ignore anyone who uses words like 1773 (leet, i.e. superb/awsome), they are just newb(!) (ex)Counter-Strike players. Skilled players never use such lame *** expressions.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 03:39 PM
pourshot wrote:
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- You could be pretty sure, but I have a picture of
-- them, lined up, and NONE of them had a tropical
-- filter on them.
-
- Is this not the tropical variant?
-

Sure it`s a late tropical Spit IX, the only problem with it I can see nowhere Red Star on it, and the other photos shows nothing about the air intake.


Spit V with Tropical filter for you (yeah I know there are 2 variants for SpitV).

http://204.50.25.179/features00/images/images_6/spitfireir_2.jpg


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim


Message Edited on 06/21/0304:41PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 03:42 PM
I could scan the picture better to show the red star if I like but I cant be botherd.You can take my word for it the star is there

No1RAAF_Pourshot

XO No1RAAF

http://www.froggy.com.au/edinkulelija/no1raaf/image/crest.gif


some are the hunters the rest are the hunted

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 03:50 PM
pourshot wrote:
- I could scan the picture better to show the red star
- if I like but I cant be botherd.You can take my word
- for it the star is there
-
- No1RAAF_Pourshot
-
- XO No1RAAF


That will do for me, Sir. Alas, the other pic I saw showed the Spits without the filter - maybe some had them, some had not. But I don`t know where`s that photo is, maybe deep in my pic archieves.


Anyway, bring the spits into FB - my fingers are itching to pull the trigger. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim


Message Edited on 06/21/0304:52PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 04:00 PM
here we go I did'nt have to re-scan it after all

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/star.jpg


No1RAAF_Pourshot

XO No1RAAF

http://www.froggy.com.au/edinkulelija/no1raaf/image/crest.gif


some are the hunters the rest are the hunted

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 05:29 PM
I hope we don't get the clipped wing spitfire it turns a beaut into a spit I dont care for

<img src=http://www.geocities.com/aceholefb/acehole.txt>

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 08:01 PM
Salute Isengrim

Once again I have to correct an example of your total lack of objectivity.

You have obviously not read any books on the Spitfire, or any accounts of pilots who flew it. Or any serious tests.

Any pilot who flew the Spitfire has reported on the delightful flying characteristics of this aircraft, its light responsive controls, and low propensity to stall or spin.

Here's one example:

http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/9378/spit-fly.html

Other accounts might include test pilot Capt. Eric Brown's test reports. Or Wing Commander "Johnnie" Johnston, the leading RAF Ace's biography, or Flight Lt George "Screwball" Beurling, or any number of the hundreds of other pilot accounts.

The fact is, and I say this without reservation, a correctly modelled Spitfire IXF, VIII or XIV would rip one of those pathetic K4's a new one in about 5 seconds.

The whining would reach a creshendo. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 08:22 PM
Salute

And now to deal with the Spitfire's ACTUAL weak points:

1) It had, as mentioned on the web page, a narrow undercarriage, so it was difficult to taxi in, especially in crosswinds. Additionally, the undercarriage was not on the robust side, and that became a problem when the aircraft was adapted for Carrier operations as the Seafire. For example, during "Operation Avalanche", when Carrier bourne Seafire III's were the only air cover the beach head had, nearly 35% of the Seafires on the Carriers were out of action by three days with damaged undercarriages as a result of rough deck landings.\

2) The aircraft was relatively fragile. (not as fragile as a 109 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ) The cooling radiators on the underside of the wings could be hit easily by ground fire, and as mentioned in the article, when the coolant ran out, the engine quickly overheated.

3) The early Hispano cannons were prone to jamming and freezing up at high altitudes. However, this was correctly in later models of the weapon.

4) The engine, like the Daimler Benz's in the 109's, needed proper air filtration, to prevent dust from getting into the cylinders and wearing the bores. The standard air filters were not adequate in high dust enviroments. (again like the 109's) For this reason, "Tropical" filters had to be fitted for operations in the Desert or in Italy. This reduced the aircraft's top speed.


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 08:47 PM
The article said they sent over olde Spits, some left over from BoB.

But don't feel bad, my MiG~3 couldn't handle low altitude Eastern Front frontline work either and it too was put to pasture in PVO air defence. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 09:53 PM
Need to clear up a few misconceptions:

1. While the Spitfire was indeed a fine and effective fighter in the ETO & the Med, it was not a robust aircraft in the sense of the YaKs and LaGGs that the Soviet airforces were used to. It required a great deal more maintenance and care, although it was operated successfully from grass airfields in the UK, they were probably much better cared for than those in the USSR. The Mk Vb models that were sent to the Soviets during the earlier parts of the war were probably of the variety referred to to as "clipped, cropped, and clapped out," a reference to the mid-war practice of taking older build MK V Spits, clipping the wings to improve roll, and cropping the supercharger to improve medium to low altitude performance. On some examples, the improvement was entirely theoretical, since you can only squeeze so much blood from a turnip.

2. TROPICAL FILTERS- On the Mk V, there were a variety of tropical filters, ranging from the monstrous Vokes (sp?) undernose filter used in earlier parts of the Desert War on Spits and Hurris,pictured earlier in this thread, and the various field mods like the Aboukir filter on the later and much better performing types. On the later ('43 on) Mk VIII & IX, a 'universal' filter was used on all types that was outwardly indistinguishable from the ETO to the Pacific theaters. The difference was internal.

3. Easy to fly? You have to remember that the Spitfire is pretty close to religion in the UK, far more so than the Mustang for the uneducated masses here in the US of A. Except for the immediate demands of the BoB, Western pilots had a great deal more training than their Soviet trained counterparts, and reputation had a great deal to do with how the aircraft were accepted. For instance, in the early parts of its career, the Hurricane had a reputation as a killer in the RAF. It was approached with trepidation by many young pilots, and possibly because of their fear, they made mistakes and panicked, and died. The Spit had a rep for being responsive, and skilled pilots could make it do marvelous things in the air; every early war pilot's memoir seems to include stories of Tuck or Bader doing aerobatic shows over the base on a near daily basis. A pilot approached it as a challenge, and any difficulties he had were treated as his own faults, not the aircraft's. It demanded a light touch, something inconsistent with the Russian nature as I understand it.

4. Firepower. The Hispano cannon in the wings provided the desired killing power, but wing mounted guns have to be harmonized to a specific range, which means that if your target is too close or too far away, you can't hit him with the same punch, if at all. The .303 Brownings were strictly for aiming purposes; when you saw the the bullets hitting your target, THEN you let fly with the cannon. Those of us flying aircraft with nose mounted guns find it hard to make the transition to wing mounted guns (it was much harder to take down I-16s in the Emil than it was in the F-4, for instance). Plus, the Soviet cannon and MGs had an appreciably better range and rate of fire, so Russian pilots, already suspicious of anything from outside their borders, only had their prejudices reinforced there.

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

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 10:32 PM
RAF74Buzzsaw_XO wrote:
- Salute Isengrim
-

Salute Buzzspawn.

-
- Once again I have to correct an example of your
- total lack of objectivity.
-

Once again you jumped on shadows.


- You have obviously not read any books on the
- Spitfire, or any accounts of pilots who flew it. Or
- any serious tests.

You have obviosuly did not read anything that can be considred serious flight test on the Spitfire. Like this one:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Spitchar1.jpg


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Spitchar2.jpg

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Spitchar3.jpg


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Spitchar4.jpg

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Spitchar5.jpg



Nice elevator, you just touch it and STALL STALL STALL.
Nice ailrons, too. You really need some muscles to use them.

<== reffered to as "extremely poor control harmony". Touchy elevator, excessively heavy ailrons.



Now, can you show me a similiar one, you master of all Spitfire tests? Or you just have a little big mouth, hmm? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



-
- Any pilot who flew the Spitfire has reported on the
- delightful flying characteristics of this aircraft,
- its light responsive controls, and low propensity to
- stall or spin.
-

Qute them. Who reported well harmonised controls or light ailrons? Certainly not at NACA.


- The fact is, and I say this without reservation, a
- correctly modelled Spitfire IXF, VIII or XIV would
- rip one of those pathetic K4's a new one in about 5
- seconds.

Well good luck for that. You will need it.

Speeds at SL:

SpitIXF: 314mph = 505 kph
VII: 338 mph = 544 kph
XIV: 358mph = 576 kph

K-4: 377mph = 607kph

Climb:

K-4: 24.5 m/s
Spit XIV: 23.9 m/sec
Spit VII: 23.4 m/sec
Spit F IX: 18.7 m/sec

All from the fourthfigthergroup site. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

-
- The whining would reach a creshendo.
-

But on which side? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

Message Edited on 06/22/0312:14AM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 10:40 PM
Jeff Ethell on Spit controls:


"The elevator is very light while the rudder is stiff and the ailerons even more so. Every Spitfire I've flown takes a bit more muscle to roll than most fighters.

As speed increases both rudder and ailerons get heavier, resulting in a curious mismatch at high speed...one has to handle the almost oversensitive elevators with a light fingertip touch while arm-wrestling the stiff ailerons.

Pilots had to keep this in mind during combat, particularly when going against the FW 190 which had a sterling rate of roll and exceptionally well harmonised controls.

That being said, the aircraft is very well balanced and delightful to manoeuvre. Whipping a Spit around the clouds ranks right up there at the top of aviation's great experiences."

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 10:53 PM
Kuban from a German perspective (see fine print several pages down)

---> http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/grislawski/grislawski.htm

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 12:47 AM
the first spit we get in FB is teh XIV, now one pilot describes the XIVs alerons as delightfully light so that sounds good to me. Some also say the VIII had the best handling of the lot.

Early spits had fabric covered alerons so at high speed they would ballon and become very hard to move.

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

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 03:03 AM
I'm pretty sure that the top photo is of a Mk XIV (albeit with clipped wings), which had a big oil cooler in-take to go with the bigger Griffon engine. This is supported by the deep and symetrical underwing radiators.
I don't think that it is a tropical air filter.

Martin

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 03:36 AM
The intake under the nose is the opening for the air intake for the induction system. The wing radiators were for both glycol and oil.

The Mk XIV had a 5 bladed prop. The small fairing under the exhaust stubs also says Mk IX. The Mk XIV had a whip antenna, while the MK IX had a mast. Late Mk IXs had a pointed rudder as seen in the photo.


EmKen wrote:
- I'm pretty sure that the top photo is of a Mk XIV
- (albeit with clipped wings), which had a big oil
- cooler in-take to go with the bigger Griffon engine.
- This is supported by the deep and symetrical
- underwing radiators.
-




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg


Message Edited on 06/21/0310:50PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 09:46 AM
Salute Isengrim

Let's see all the documents and ALL the details.

You love to snip out little excerpts which prove your point, without presenting the whole and putting the test in context as to its rationale.

What model Spitfire are you talking about?

When was the test done?

etc. etc.

You say this test came from NACA? Why was it then that in 1942 the USAAF quickly bought up all the Spitfires it could from the British, when they realized the P-39 and P-40 were insufficient to the task and that the P-38 could'nt dogfight with the 109. And equipped all the Squadrons they could with them in Italy and Great Britain. Have you looked at the facts of how many Spitfire V Squadrons there were in the USAAF??? Or are you still immersed in your uber 109 fantasy?

Now take a look at this chart, also produced by NACA

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/42.gif


Check on the rollrate of the Clipped wing Spitfire. That's right 150 degrees per second. So much for the heavy ailerons.

Now find me a chart, ANY chart which shows the 109 rolling comparably to that. You won't because max. roll rate of the 109 was no better than 90 degrees per second. In fact produce any chart on the 109's roll rate... I'd really like you to.

But I don't think you will, since any chart will also show the 109's rollrate going south after 300 mph IAS and into the garbage can at speeds over 350 IAS.

In regards to your CLAIMED results from the 4th Fighter Group site, you are once again showing your inability to present all the facts.

You present the figures for speed and climb for the Spitfire IX. Which IX... Ohhh... Isengrim says IXF.

WRONG.

Did I say IX F?????? No. I said IXLF. Big difference. The first was built in 1942, the second in 1943, and further, the LF in 1944 began to use 150 octane fuel and +25 boost.

You give the climb rate for the K4 as 24,7 meters per second which is approx. 4862 ft per min.

Let's look at the real climb figure for the IX LF, seen here:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html

And what is it? 5080 ft/min, leaves the K4 in the dust.

Speed? Charts show 360 mph at 2,000 ft. Not as fast as the K4, but when you can outclimb, outroll and outturn it, no big deal. Of course, the K4 can always run away. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The Spitfire VIII had similar performance with +25 boost.

As far as the Spitfire XIV is concerned, lets have a look at its figures.

You claim 358 mph. Once again, you are quoting figure for an early model, in fact the prototype.

Have a look at this document which relates to a developed model running 150 octane and +25 boost:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14speedns.jpg


My oh my... looks like your poor little 377mph K4 is gonna get eaten alive by the big big shark doing 389 mph

And how about climb?

Here's another chart:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jf319climb.gif


Yep, that's right, 5100 ft per minute, kinda leaves your K4 sucking wind doesn't it.

And of course, the Spit XIV will also roll and turn circles round the K4.

I know who's gonna be laughing. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

If they are modelled correctly.

RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 09:58 AM
Salute Horseback

You make some valid points although your comments regarding the fact the Spitfire required a delicate touch exagerates the reality.

You are also wrong on your suggestion that the Soviet Cannon is better.

Have a look at this article, co-authored by Tony Williams one of, if not THE leading expert on aircraft carried weaponry:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

I think you will see that while it weighed more than the Soviet weapons, the Hispano 20mm was more accurate and more destructive.

Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 10:16 AM
Buzz, the rate of climb you have listed when using +25lbs boost is with radiator flaps open.

Avia 18/682

Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment Boscombe Down. 31st Part of report no. A.& A.E.E./692m Feb 20 1944.

Spitfire F. Mk.IX JL.165 Merlin 66
Cooling trials at combat rating of +25lbs boost.

5. Conclusions.

5.1 The cooling of this installation is within limitations under all conditions of flight with the normal flap settings at tropical conditions.

5.2 It is also just on the limitations for climb with radiator flaps closed in temperate conditions.

Neil.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 11:38 AM
I have given tip on this book several times because i think it gives lots of info of fin/russo war and planes.

Ilmari Juutilainen " Double fighter knight" (versions in fin and eng) the second half of the book he flies 109g2
and g6. and encounter most russian and allied planes featured in FB.
-spitfire mk v(5)
-hurricane
-Tomahawk (p40)
-p-51b
-P-38
-Lagg
-La5
-yaks
-mig
-the polikarpovs to name some.....


-s-

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 12:15 PM
Plus of course the 109K4 in service couldn't really do 377 on the deck, or climb at 24 m/s.

Those figures were obtained with C3 fuel and MW-50, for a power output of 2000ps. In reality, the Germans were short of fuel, and the C3 went to the FW190A units, which needed it. The 109Ks used B4 and MW50, for a power output of 1800 - 1850ps, which put the max climb rate down to around 22m/s.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 12:35 PM
all climtest in rechlin was too make with radiator open

but 109 with mw50 can too climb with close radiator long time,because water injection has much more cooling performance as open radiator

spit can use 5min wep at level fly,

but by climb certain shorter,because less air steam speed for the radiator

so less cooling performance


Message Edited on 06/22/0305:33PM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 12:47 PM
Message Edited on 06/23/0302:21AM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 12:49 PM
Buzzsaw that's a very well reserched and presented arguement. I can only comment on what I have read in only a handfull of books and thay all say the only german plane that gave spitfire pilots fit's were the fw190's and only becuase of it great acceleration and roll.

I'am very much looking forward to the spitfire mkIX LF being in FB I really think it well suited to the kind of fight's we see online.

Oh and even if it's a dog I will still fly it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

No1RAAF_Pourshot

XO No1RAAF

http://www.froggy.com.au/edinkulelija/no1raaf/image/crest.gif


some are the hunters the rest are the hunted

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 12:52 PM
RAF74Buzzsaw_XO wrote:
- Salute Isengrim
-
- Let's see all the documents and ALL the details.
-

Go and find them for yourself Buzzspawn. You have produced nothing on your own here. Nothing that wasn`t already known to me.

-
- You love to snip out little excerpts which prove
- your point, without presenting the whole and putting
- the test in context as to its rationale.

That`s a lie. There are no snipplets, but complete parts regarding a certain area from a 50 or so pages long report.

-
- What model Spitfire are you talking about?
-

Spit VA, no. W3119, which means it`s roll rate is not further reduced by the installations of Hispanos. Oh, and METAL ailrons.

-
- When was the test done?
-

Between Dec 30 1941 - Jan 29 1942. Pleased?

-
- You say this test came from NACA?
-

Yes, it was done by NACA. Is it so hard to get a grip on that?


- Why was it then
- that in 1942 the USAAF quickly bought up all the
- Spitfires it could from the British, when they
- realized the P-39 and P-40 were insufficient to the
- task and that the P-38 could'nt dogfight with the
- 109.
- And equipped all the Squadrons they could with
- them in Italy and Great Britain.


That`s your rather colourful version of it, to put it mildly. I bet Skychimp will have some comment on how inferior US fighters were to Spitfires...


- Have you looked at
- the facts of how many Spitfire V Squadrons there
- were in the USAAF??? Or are you still immersed in
- your uber 109 fantasy?


Frankly, buzzsaw, do I care that you have this constant inferiority complex when it comes the 109s? What can I do, they were so much better than those Spits, especially the crappy Spit V, which was butchered by 109F and 190A...



-
- Now take a look at this chart, also produced by NACA
-
<img
- src="http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-r
- eport-868/42.gif">
-
-
- Check on the rollrate of the Clipped wing Spitfire.
- That's right 150 degrees per second. So much for
- the heavy ailerons.
-


Interesting, it`s done with a stick force of 50 lbs, whereas no Spitfire pilot could make more than 40lbs - it`s all there in the report.

"The pilot was able to exert a max. of about 40 pounds on the stick. With this force, full deflection can only be attained up to 130 miles per hour. Only one-half of the deflection could be reached at 300 miles per hour."

Obviously this is a calculeted figures, that does not take wing torsion and pilot limitations into account.



And this is still for an early Spitfire VA, later variants were even worser, according the factory pilots in Spitfire plants. They state that the MkIX rolled only at half the speed than Spit I or Spit V, and "later variants were even worser".


-
- Now find me a chart, ANY chart which shows the 109
- rolling comparably to that.
-

Why would I need to present you that?


- You won't because max.
- roll rate of the 109 was no better than 90 degrees
- per second.

Can you prove this? No, of course not, it`s just another of series of blanket, unfounded stupid little statements of Buzzspawn, who got hysterical because he now saw a REAL test of a Spitfire for the first time of his life, showing it`s real merits and limits, and not the usual hype about it.


-
- In fact produce any chart on the 109's
- roll rate... I'd really like you to.
-

If you searched these boards, you can easily find documents on 109 roll rate. Good luck in that. I am not doing your homework.


- But I don't think you will, since any chart will
- also show the 109's rollrate going south after 300
- mph IAS and into the garbage can at speeds over 350
- IAS.


Well as we can see the Spit`s roll rate "goes garbage" over speeds of 130 mph, which is frankly the poorest I have seen for any premier WW2 fighter.


-
- In regards to your CLAIMED results from the 4th
- Fighter Group site, you are once again showing your
- inability to present all the facts.

What a stupid load of garbege, typical of Buzzshaw... what`s up my little thing? You got angry? Why? because you started to play the smartass here as usual, and you were spanked, and humilated.

I have told you many times, try to mess with your own weight class. But you don`t learn that. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



- You present the figures for speed and climb for the
- Spitfire IX. Which IX... Ohhh... Isengrim says
- IXF.
-
- WRONG.
-
- Did I say IX F?????? No. I said IXLF. Big
- difference.


Frankly, how could we except you to now anything about aircraft, if you don`t even know what you said:

"The fact is, and I say this without reservation, a correctly modelled Spitfire IXF, VIII or XIV would rip one of those pathetic K4's a new one in about 5 seconds."


You said Spitfire IXF.



- The first was built in 1942, the second
- in 1943, and further, the LF in 1944 began to use
- 150 octane fuel and +25 boost.

150 octane was used on limited scale, and not at all in Russia. Not to mention how much the IX LF sucks at altitude compared to 109s: it`s even more suicadal to engage them there.

-
- You give the climb rate for the K4 as 24,7 meters
- per second which is approx. 4862 ft per min.
-
- Let's look at the real climb figure for the IX LF,
- seen here:
-
- And what is it? 5080 ft/min, leaves the K4 in the
- dust.

All up to... well... 152 meters above the ground.

That`s 7 seconds for a K-4. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

More below.

- Speed? Charts show 360 mph at 2,000 ft. Not as
- fast as the K4, but when you can outclimb, outroll
- and outturn it, no big deal.

Outclimb? Hardly. I can climb on full power for 10 minutes. Any pesky Spitfire cannot do that for longer than 5 minutes. And they run out of fuel much earlier when doing this. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


At the same time, whereas he can do a mere 579 km/h at 2000ft, where I can do 621 kph already. That`s a serious 50 km/h speed advantage, which means I engage where I want, when I want, always on my own terms, and all he can do is to fly target for me.


-
- The Spitfire VIII had similar performance with +25
- boost.
-

In your dreams, it climbed and turned quite a bit worser with all that 400 lbs extra ballast.


-
- As far as the Spitfire XIV is concerned, lets have a
- look at its figures.
- You claim 358 mph. Once again, you are quoting
- figure for an early model, in fact the prototype.

Again you have no idea on what you are talking as usual. It`s not a prototype, poor, poor Buzzshaw. It`s a serial Spit XIV from July 1946 tests. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


-
- Have a look at this document which relates to a
- developed model running 150 octane and +25 boost:
-
<img
- src="http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit
- 14speedns.jpg">
-
-
- My oh my... looks like your poor little 377mph K4
- is gonna get eaten alive by the big big shark doing
- 389 mph

"Big, big shark?" LOL... Spitfire XIVs engine wasn`t cleared for +25lbs during the war, and as a matter of fact, they didn`t have access to 150 octane on the front for most of the time, not until early 1945. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

As clearly seen, no Griffon 65 could run on +25 lbs, due to bearing problems:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Griffon%20limits%20of%2021lbs.jpg



No Spit XIVs on squadron service with +25lbs boost. And, though this is irrevelant to the game, there were only a handful of Spit14s in service, and hundreds of K-4s.


What you qouted here was a flight test for a stripped, repainted Spitfire XIV that was tested with otheraircraft as a desperate measure to catch V-1s. Not a serial, "standard" aircraft, again.

This is what you do all the time. Selectin some prototype Spits, not representative of the normal ones, and present them as "normal" aircraft. Tricks and twist everywhere.

Without 150 grade, they could go use no more than +18lbs, enough for 358mph. At +21lbs, max. boost they could do 368 mph at SL - no more.


-
- And how about climb?
-
- Here's another chart:
-
<img
- src="http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jf31
- 9climb.gif">

-
- Yep, that's right, 5100 ft per minute, kinda leaves
- your K4 sucking wind doesn't it.


You know that`s indeed very funny... you launched some stupid insult and claimed my data is for the prototype Spit (which is bullocks) and that`s not representative, and then, NOW, you give climb rates for the prototype XIV JF319... LOL, /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif But that`s perfectly fine to me, as the prototype really sucked at altitude, it`s climb rate dropped of rapidly, and that would give even more advanatage to the K-4 than it already posesses.


-
- And of course, the Spit XIV will also roll and turn
- circles round the K4.
-

In you dreams, buzz. Spitfire 14 performance trials already speak of even heavier ailrons, and so do Spitfire test pilots. SpitVA had already "excessive" ailron forces. Later ones were even worser.

On the other hand, the K-4 received flettner tabs for it`s ailrons, boosting it`s roll advantage over the Spit even further.


As for turn... who cares. Turning is for suicid types of people. I hope many Spit pilots will do me that favour. La-7s are already far better than any Spit, and they die easily in turnfights, once I get on their tail. They can`t shake me off.


-
- I know who's gonna be laughing.
-

I know too: the entire board on Buzzsaw. They do that already:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/K-4%20Spit14%20Spit9LF-150%20%20CLIMB.jpg


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/K-4%20Spit14%20Spit9LF-150%20SPEED.jpg



Here`s a Spit14 for you, with a Spit9LF running on 150 octane. You will need a LOTS OF luck.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 01:00 PM
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Galland+Molders.jpg


Send more Spitfires!


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 02:55 PM
I feel I should chip in with some comments on the Spit.

Last week I went to Spitfire Day at Duxford - great day out - and had talks by Spitfire display pilot Charlie Brown and a veteran Billy Drake.

Charlie Brown describe what it was like - and he described it as a wonderful thing to fly. He said that it was incredibly easy to fly - he said it was very benign - the plane talked to you... just before you ever got it in to a stall or spin - the plane would be screaming at you to stop. As you got closer to the limit of the aircraft the Spit would tell you that you were getting closer and closer... until the whole thing was shuddering - but it wouldnt "snap" just sit there in the air. He said that it's easier to fly than something like a cessna - very responsive, and you know exactly what it is doing all the time. He has flown many other aircraft including a 109 - compared to the 109 he said that the plane was superb.

Of course - none of his comments directly relates to a combat situation - just that it was wonderful to fly.

The veteran Billy Drake didn't go in to so much detail - but he said it was probably the best plane he flew - he did 4 stints with the RAF - 24 1/2 kills to his name. For each stint he flew a different aeroplane - Hurri, Spit, P39 and Typhoon.

For the dude who said that he's not interested in the clipped wing version - I sort of agree - but the roll rate is soooo improved on those version! I saw first hand on the Spitfire day the difference - and it is sooo much quicker.


My photo's and videos of the Spitfire day are here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/hj.carruthers/spitfireday/


Enjoy the videos! You need WMP9 btw...



James

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 03:26 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-
- Those figures were obtained with C3 fuel and MW-50,
- for a power output of 2000ps. In reality, the
- Germans were short of fuel, and the C3 went to the
- FW190A units, which needed it. The 109Ks used B4 and
- MW50, for a power output of 1800 - 1850ps, which put
- the max climb rate down to around 22m/s.
-

Really, Hop? And where`s the proof to that? Can you prove it in any way, or is it another blanket statement? What were the number of fuel issued to K-4 units? BTW, do you have even idea what units used the K-4?

Most units which operated K-4 also operated Fw190As. In addition, the 190A was giving place for the 190D, which didn`t needed C-3 fuel at all. Bombers neither flew much sorties by late 1944, that freed up a lot of C-3 fuel as well.
All in all, in 1944, the only aircraft still using C-3 in 1944 were the decreasing number FW190A, and the increasing number of Me109K.


The claim that the 109K used B4 only is service is ridiculus and unfounded.
But even only with B-4, it could do 595 km/h at SL - faster than the SpitXIV on it`s regular 100 octane fuel, and a few km/h faster even than on 150 grade feul and maximum boost. By closing the radiator, the climb rate can be increased by 2-2.5m/sec, so even on B4 the K-4 could outclimb ANY Spit.



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 03:46 PM
Thanks jcarruthers!

Some great stuff their, many thanks. Never seen a Spit in flight in real life. One of my dreams though. Of course, thanks to Oleg there are several Russia fighters I would like to see in flight, as well. Maybe someday.

Might want to repost this under its own post. Something like: Spitfire day at Duxford. More people might would see it that way.

Rick

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:11 PM
I should also add that he said this:

"You want to know what the Spitfire is like to fly? Well just look at it and that's exactly what its like."


He said this in regards to the difference between the Merlin and Griffen engined versions. The Merlin is much more graceful and balanced - the Griffen is much more of a brute in comparison - being nose heavy and powerful.

I have to say, when I say the 3 Spits take off and do their aerobatics it put shivers down my spine - it is one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen. That wing shape against the blue sky gives me a warm feeling - almost like some sort of guardian angel flying above me...



James

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:39 PM
Some more Spit test stuff:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14afdu.html

Regards,
Rick

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 06:12 PM
- Really, Hop? And where`s the proof to that? Can you
- prove it in any way, or is it another blanket
- statement?

Butch posted a table over at his forum, and confirmed that was the case. The table shows all the A8 and A9 running on C3, all the 109G10/14s and K4s running on B4.

- Most units which operated K-4 also operated Fw190As.

Like JG 300 and 301, both of which operated mixed fleets of 190s and 109s, both of which show B4 in the 109s, C3 in 190s.

- In addition, the 190A was giving place for the 190D,
- which didn`t needed C-3 fuel at all. Bombers neither
- flew much sorties by late 1944, that freed up a lot
- of C-3 fuel as well.

And the fuel situation got ever more desperate anyway. There was less C3 as time went on, not more.

- The claim that the 109K used B4 only is service is
- ridiculus and unfounded.

I didn't say only. But in the main, the 109K4 used B4 for a max ouput 200 ps below the performance figures you keep quoting, whereas the Spit IXs mainly used 150 octane in the same period, for a max output 2 - 300 hp more than the figures you keep quoting.

- But even only with B-4, it could do 595 km/h at SL -
- faster than the SpitXIV on it`s regular 100 octane
- fuel, and a few km/h faster even than on 150 grade
- feul and maximum boost.

The 109K4 could do more than 389 mph at sea level on B4 fuel? On any fuel, for that matter. I'd really like to see that document, Isegrim.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 09:13 PM
Salute Isengrim

Your lack of knowledge and deliberate warping of facts continues to amuse.

Obviously you don't want to provide the complete document for your NACA tests because the complete document will put into context exactly how your claims are inadequate. This document is the key to your argument, so why are you so afraid to provide us with it complete and untouched by your manipulations?

As far as the 150 octane fuel is concerned, this issue has been gone over many times before and the fact that this fuel was in heavy use, both by Spitfire IX's and XIV's is well known. I will simply post the documents again and let them speak for themselves.

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


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


In regards to you includinig another snippet of a document regarding the Griffon engines having bearing problems is once again an example of you not providing a complete document. Without a doubt the complete document would show that this information relates to a early model Spit XIV or prototype. Why don't you provide the complete document???? Because of course, your argument would be shown to be what it is...

Finally your graphics showing climb rate and speed are not original documents and therefore are about as worthy of consideration as popup spam. Make as many of those as you wish, no one is going to take them seriously.

The rest of your comments are not backed up by any documentation or facts and are basically fantasy.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 10:01 AM
That document showing +21lbs boost and bearing troubles is a cut and paste of 2 different documents.
The top half comes from AVIA 15/2911 a Bristol Aero engine file that contains "Engines cleared for the use of 150 grade fuel" Jan 45. The lower part comes from AVIA 6/5817. August 1944.

This is one half of the document I could not fit all of it on the scanner.
http://www.pbase.com/image/6383220

Neil.

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 12:31 PM
If I can interrupt the flaming for a second and go back on-topic (which is admittedly a first), I remember reading somewhere that the Soviets struggled with the Spitfire because the Merlin was supposed to run on 100-Octane fuel, but the Soviets were using 87-Octane the majority of the time.

Anybody have any more on this?

8.9/10 (EURO)Troll Rating from USAFHelos

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.bryant3/sigpic.GIF

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 01:28 PM
big_lads wrote:
- If I can interrupt the flaming for a second and go
- back on-topic (which is admittedly a first), I
- remember reading somewhere that the Soviets
- struggled with the Spitfire because the Merlin was
- supposed to run on 100-Octane fuel, but the Soviets
- were using 87-Octane the majority of the time.
-
- Anybody have any more on this?
-
- 8.9/10 (EURO)Troll Rating from USAFHelos
-
- <img
- src="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.bryant3/sig
- pic.GIF">

I think I read it in Alfred Price's book "The Spitfire Story" either that, or it was in a book on the Hurricane. I've been trying to find the reference but I can't lay my hand on it at the moment. I'll try and look it out when I'm next at my parents.

On a note concerning the Spit vs the 109/190, the Spitfire IX was introduced as a stopgap to counter the 190, which (according to Price's book) it regained parity with. The 109 was not a good turner. I have seen gun camera footage of Spitfires outturning 109s in the Med.

Comparing figures is useless. It is ALWAYS the pilot and situation that make the difference.

NewS.


Founder member (currently the only member!) of the Unofficial Hurricane Fan Club.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 04:55 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- RAF74Buzzsaw_XO wrote:
-- Salute Isengrim
--
-- Let's see all the documents and ALL the details.
--
-
- Go and find them for yourself Buzzspawn. You have
- produced nothing on your own here. Nothing that
- wasn`t already known to me.
-
--
-- You love to snip out little excerpts which prove
-- your point, without presenting the whole and putting
-- the test in context as to its rationale.
-
- That`s a lie. There are no snipplets, but complete
- parts regarding a certain area from a 50 or so pages
- long report.
-
--
-- What model Spitfire are you talking about?
--
-
- Spit VA, no. W3119, which means it`s roll rate is
- not further reduced by the installations of
- Hispanos. Oh, and METAL ailrons.
-
--
-- When was the test done?
--
-
- Between Dec 30 1941 - Jan 29 1942. Pleased?
-
--
-- You say this test came from NACA?
--
-
- Yes, it was done by NACA. Is it so hard to get a
- grip on that?
-
-
-- Why was it then
-- that in 1942 the USAAF quickly bought up all the
-- Spitfires it could from the British, when they
-- realized the P-39 and P-40 were insufficient to the
-- task and that the P-38 could'nt dogfight with the
-- 109.
-- And equipped all the Squadrons they could with
-- them in Italy and Great Britain.
-
-
- That`s your rather colourful version of it, to put
- it mildly. I bet Skychimp will have some comment on
- how inferior US fighters were to Spitfires...
-
-
-- Have you looked at
-- the facts of how many Spitfire V Squadrons there
-- were in the USAAF??? Or are you still immersed in
-- your uber 109 fantasy?
-
-
- Frankly, buzzsaw, do I care that you have this
- constant inferiority complex when it comes the 109s?
- What can I do, they were so much better than those
- Spits, especially the crappy Spit V, which was
- butchered by 109F and 190A...
-
-
-
--
-- Now take a look at this chart, also produced by NACA
--
- <img
-- src="http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-r
-- eport-868/42.gif">
--
--
-- Check on the rollrate of the Clipped wing Spitfire.
-- That's right 150 degrees per second. So much for
-- the heavy ailerons.
--
-
-
- Interesting, it`s done with a stick force of 50 lbs,
- whereas no Spitfire pilot could make more than 40lbs
- - it`s all there in the report.
-
- "The pilot was able to exert a max. of about 40
- pounds on the stick. With this force, full
- deflection can only be attained up to 130 miles per
- hour. Only one-half of the deflection could be
- reached at 300 miles per hour."
-
- Obviously this is a calculeted figures, that does
- not take wing torsion and pilot limitations into
- account.
-
-
-
- And this is still for an early Spitfire VA, later
- variants were even worser, according the factory
- pilots in Spitfire plants. They state that the MkIX
- rolled only at half the speed than Spit I or Spit V,
- and "later variants were even worser".
-
-
--
-- Now find me a chart, ANY chart which shows the 109
-- rolling comparably to that.
--
-
- Why would I need to present you that?
-
-
-- You won't because max.
-- roll rate of the 109 was no better than 90 degrees
-- per second.
-
- Can you prove this? No, of course not, it`s just
- another of series of blanket, unfounded stupid
- little statements of Buzzspawn, who got hysterical
- because he now saw a REAL test of a Spitfire for the
- first time of his life, showing it`s real merits and
- limits, and not the usual hype about it.
-
-
--
-- In fact produce any chart on the 109's
-- roll rate... I'd really like you to.
--
-
- If you searched these boards, you can easily find
- documents on 109 roll rate. Good luck in that. I am
- not doing your homework.
-
-
-- But I don't think you will, since any chart will
-- also show the 109's rollrate going south after 300
-- mph IAS and into the garbage can at speeds over 350
-- IAS.
-
-
- Well as we can see the Spit`s roll rate "goes
- garbage" over speeds of 130 mph, which is frankly
- the poorest I have seen for any premier WW2 fighter.
-
-
--
-- In regards to your CLAIMED results from the 4th
-- Fighter Group site, you are once again showing your
-- inability to present all the facts.
-
- What a stupid load of garbege, typical of
- Buzzshaw... what`s up my little thing? You got
- angry? Why? because you started to play the smartass
- here as usual, and you were spanked, and humilated.
-
- I have told you many times, try to mess with your
- own weight class. But you don`t learn that. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
-
-
-
-- You present the figures for speed and climb for the
-- Spitfire IX. Which IX... Ohhh... Isengrim says
-- IXF.
--
-- WRONG.
--
-- Did I say IX F?????? No. I said IXLF. Big
-- difference.
-
-
- Frankly, how could we except you to now anything
- about aircraft, if you don`t even know what you
- said:
-
- "The fact is, and I say this without reservation, a
- correctly modelled Spitfire IXF, VIII or XIV would
- rip one of those pathetic K4's a new one in about 5
- seconds."
-
-
- You said Spitfire IXF.
-
-
-
-- The first was built in 1942, the second
-- in 1943, and further, the LF in 1944 began to use
-- 150 octane fuel and +25 boost.
-
- 150 octane was used on limited scale, and not at all
- in Russia. Not to mention how much the IX LF sucks
- at altitude compared to 109s: it`s even more
- suicadal to engage them there.
-
--
-- You give the climb rate for the K4 as 24,7 meters
-- per second which is approx. 4862 ft per min.
--
-- Let's look at the real climb figure for the IX LF,
-- seen here:
--
-- And what is it? 5080 ft/min, leaves the K4 in the
-- dust.
-
- All up to... well... 152 meters above the ground.
-
- That`s 7 seconds for a K-4. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
- More below.
-
-- Speed? Charts show 360 mph at 2,000 ft. Not as
-- fast as the K4, but when you can outclimb, outroll
-- and outturn it, no big deal.
-
- Outclimb? Hardly. I can climb on full power for 10
- minutes. Any pesky Spitfire cannot do that for
- longer than 5 minutes. And they run out of fuel much
- earlier when doing this. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
-
- At the same time, whereas he can do a mere 579 km/h
- at 2000ft, where I can do 621 kph already. That`s a
- serious 50 km/h speed advantage, which means I
- engage where I want, when I want, always on my own
- terms, and all he can do is to fly target for me.
-
-
--
-- The Spitfire VIII had similar performance with +25
-- boost.
--
-
- In your dreams, it climbed and turned quite a bit
- worser with all that 400 lbs extra ballast.
-
-
--
-- As far as the Spitfire XIV is concerned, lets have a
-- look at its figures.
-- You claim 358 mph. Once again, you are quoting
-- figure for an early model, in fact the prototype.
-
- Again you have no idea on what you are talking as
- usual. It`s not a prototype, poor, poor Buzzshaw.
- It`s a serial Spit XIV from July 1946 tests. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
-
--
-- Have a look at this document which relates to a
-- developed model running 150 octane and +25 boost:
--
- <img
-- src="http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit
-- 14speedns.jpg">
--
--
-- My oh my... looks like your poor little 377mph K4
-- is gonna get eaten alive by the big big shark doing
-- 389 mph
-
- "Big, big shark?" LOL... Spitfire XIVs engine wasn`t
- cleared for +25lbs during the war, and as a matter
- of fact, they didn`t have access to 150 octane on
- the front for most of the time, not until early
- 1945. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
- As clearly seen, no Griffon 65 could run on +25 lbs,
- due to bearing problems:
-
<img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Griffon%
- 20limits%20of%2021lbs.jpg">
-
-
-
- No Spit XIVs on squadron service with +25lbs boost.
- And, though this is irrevelant to the game, there
- were only a handful of Spit14s in service, and
- hundreds of K-4s.
-
-
- What you qouted here was a flight test for a
- stripped, repainted Spitfire XIV that was tested
- with otheraircraft as a desperate measure to catch
- V-1s. Not a serial, "standard" aircraft, again.
-
- This is what you do all the time. Selectin some
- prototype Spits, not representative of the normal
- ones, and present them as "normal" aircraft. Tricks
- and twist everywhere.
-
- Without 150 grade, they could go use no more than
- +18lbs, enough for 358mph. At +21lbs, max. boost
- they could do 368 mph at SL - no more.
-
-
--
-- And how about climb?
--
-- Here's another chart:
--
- <img
-- src="http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jf31
-- 9climb.gif">
-
--
-- Yep, that's right, 5100 ft per minute, kinda leaves
-- your K4 sucking wind doesn't it.
-
-
- You know that`s indeed very funny... you launched
- some stupid insult and claimed my data is for the
- prototype Spit (which is bullocks) and that`s not
- representative, and then, NOW, you give climb rates
- for the prototype XIV JF319... LOL, /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif But that`s perfectly
- fine to me, as the prototype really sucked at
- altitude, it`s climb rate dropped of rapidly, and
- that would give even more advanatage to the K-4 than
- it already posesses.
-
-
--
-- And of course, the Spit XIV will also roll and turn
-- circles round the K4.
--
-
- In you dreams, buzz. Spitfire 14 performance trials
- already speak of even heavier ailrons, and so do
- Spitfire test pilots. SpitVA had already "excessive"
- ailron forces. Later ones were even worser.
-
- On the other hand, the K-4 received flettner tabs
- for it`s ailrons, boosting it`s roll advantage over
- the Spit even further.
-
-
- As for turn... who cares. Turning is for suicid
- types of people. I hope many Spit pilots will do me
- that favour. La-7s are already far better than any
- Spit, and they die easily in turnfights, once I get
- on their tail. They can`t shake me off.
-
-
--
-- I know who's gonna be laughing.
--
-
- I know too: the entire board on Buzzsaw. They do
- that already:
-
<img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/K-4%20Sp
- it14%20Spit9LF-150%20%20CLIMB.jpg">
-
-
<img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/K-4%20Sp
- it14%20Spit9LF-150%20SPEED.jpg">
-
-
-
- Here`s a Spit14 for you, with a Spit9LF running on
- 150 octane. You will need a LOTS OF luck.
-
- <img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-deskt
- opweb.jpg">
- 'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'
-
- Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
- (Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto
- of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)
-
- Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim
-

Huh.. Only the K-4 had Flettner Tabs? Interesting

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 09:16 PM
At a ceremony to commerorate the liberation of Paris De Gaule told an American official " We will stun you with our ingratitude!", back in Moscow Stalin must have shouted "Hear! Hear!"

Tedious unoriginal philoshophical statement the pith of which is lost in repetition.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 09:29 PM
ACE.HOLE wrote:
- I hope we don't get the clipped wing spitfire it
- turns a beaut into a spit I dont care for

Although, I agree with the statement that it turns a beautiful plane into a different Spit, that different Spit is going to be the difference when you can roll like a FW./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I love the Spit MkIX and XIV, but it was very sluggish in the roll with those long wing tips. Those LF models made a HUGE difference in performance and effectively countered the FW threat at the time.

_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 10:26 PM
Funny how Soviets disliked Spitfire.. Even the Finnish ace Ky¶sty Karhula stated, that Spits were not that great .. they were more dangerous above 5000 meters, but it was very rare for soviet pilots to fly that high.. He also stated that they tented to challenge opponents for turn fights, but by avoiding it, and Spits were not a problem /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 10:29 PM
Thx for your post. It's a valuable one.

=======================================
Athlon XP 3200+, FIC AU13 MOBO, DDR 1024M, GeForce4ti4200,
MCP-T SoundStorm, Seagate Barracuda IV 7200rpm 60G HDD,
Yes,I got TrackIR/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif , Two M$ SW Pr2(weird but good HOTAS.Bill,let sticks be made!)

=815=Squadron in South Korea
http://cafe.daum.net/il2sturmovik

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 01:09 AM
Vipez- wrote:
- Funny how Soviets disliked Spitfire.. Even the
- Finnish ace Ky¶sty Karhula stated, that Spits were
- not that great .. they were more dangerous above
- 5000 meters, but it was very rare for soviet pilots
- to fly that high.. He also stated that they tented
- to challenge opponents for turn fights, but by
- avoiding it, and Spits were not a problem

Yeah, but when you've got a 408MPH MkIX and a 429MPH MkXIV with clipped wings, you get the best of both worlds....speed and maneuverability. Not to mention those nasty, nasty Hispanos. My personal favorite WWII plane cannon./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**