PDA

View Full Version : Three Different spitfires in BoB!



Skoshi Tiger
03-13-2008, 02:43 AM
Just checked out the latest Oleg Q&A Post!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2429

And it looks like there will be 3 Spitfire variants in BoB.

MkI - 2 pitch propellor
MkI with the CSU
MkIB - cannon armed!

<Quote>
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evgeny
15. Is it known if the Spitfire and the Hurricane mkIs will be modeled with the 3-bladed De Havilland Constant Speed Propeller? both planes were fitted with them starting in June 1940... Or will the sim start at an earlier date and therefore have both the older 3-bladed 2-pitch DH Hamilton propeller and the later constant speed DH?

Probably both variants. In code it is already.

Originally Posted by Evgeny
19.a, Will - random - weapon jams occur/modelled?

Yes. Epecially on Spitfire Mk IB 

</Quote>

If the MkI with the CSU is modeled after the late model ones thats close enough to a MKII (Only a few MPH difference in top speed!)

Whoo Hooo!

PS - Unfortunately there will be no Tube Launchers!

<Quote>


Quote:
Originally Posted by Evgeny
e, Will it be possible to fire a flare from inside the cocpit (like in real planes for signalling, could be fun for MP)

Probably no. If not animated only.

</Quote>

M_Gunz
03-13-2008, 03:35 AM
Mk IB promises to have easy cannon jams and no Mk II's.
Can you be sure it won't be Mk I with 2 speed and Mk IB with CSU, only two and one is a dud?

But then not all 109's that were used will be there though E-4 will.

Skoshi Tiger
03-13-2008, 03:43 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Mk IB promises to have easy cannon jams and no Mk II's.
Can you be sure it won't be Mk I with 2 speed and Mk IB with CSU, only two and one is a dud?

But then not all 109's that were used will be there though E-4 will.

No I can't!.....

Olegs&Co can't that evil can they?????

Of course they did give us the Beaufighter without a rear guner!!!!!!!!!!

JG53Frankyboy
03-13-2008, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Mk IB promises to have easy cannon jams and no Mk II's.
Can you be sure it won't be Mk I with 2 speed and Mk IB with CSU, only two and one is a dud?

But then not all 109's that were used will be there though E-4 will.

nothing is sure, espacially what will be a flyable plane !

i count on a Spitfire with CSP as flyable........ a two speed propeller one and a canon armed IB (dont forget only the 19.sqn used it for a short time and these early IBs had only canons , no additional .303cal brownings like the later Bs)

im also looking forward if Maddox will give the Merlin III of Spit and Hurri the 100octan 12lb./sq.in. boost ?!


and unfortunatly Oleg "overread" the question about the 109's propeller system http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

M_Gunz
03-13-2008, 06:46 AM
The two speeds should be cool from a just fly historic perspective. We have nothing like that
beside the fixed-pitch props -- TB3 and what else? IIRC two and three speed props started in
the early 30's and times were tight back then.

Really, two speed should help teach more about flying.

Xiola
03-13-2008, 07:06 AM
I think almost every Spitfire used in the actual BOB used a constant speed, three bladed prop, didnt they?

The old 2 bladed manual prop was used in the Battle of France (operating over France but from England), and is the one that Werner Molders gave a bad report in early 1940 (rating the Bf110 a better fighter !)

JG53Frankyboy
03-13-2008, 07:14 AM
indeed, i also don't think that a two speed propeller Spitfire or a canon armed Ib are THE "typical" Spitfires of the mentioned timeframe "June 40- October 40"

anyway, we should take what we are able to get http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M_Gunz
03-13-2008, 08:15 AM
It says in the article (by Oleg?) that the CSU Spits were introduced to units in September.

JG53Frankyboy
03-13-2008, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
It says in the article (by Oleg?) that the CSU Spits were introduced to units in September.

?

Kurfurst__
03-13-2008, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Xiola:
I think almost every Spitfire used in the actual BOB used a constant speed, three bladed prop, didnt they?

The old 2 bladed manual prop was used in the Battle of France (operating over France but from England), and is the one that Werner Molders gave a bad report in early 1940 (rating the Bf110 a better fighter !)

I believe the BOBSOW will span June - October. The CSP units were only begun to be (retro-)fitted to the Spits and Hurris at the very end of June 1940, and naturally it took some time until most of the planes could be retrofitted with them;

IIRC by mid-August something like 1000 has been retrofitted - RAF FC had a little over 1000 fighters in service squadrons, plus a few hundred in reserve, and there have been losses too.

The 2/3s of new production fighters were fitted with CSP props in the factory, so its fair to say that at the start of the battle, it was something like 95% had 2-pitch props, and very few CSPs were around, but a situation reversed by the end of the battle. CSP and 2P prop Spit/Hurris existed at the same time - the earliest batches did have but a fixed pitch, 2 bladed propeller at the start of the war.

September sounds as a reasonable date to me by when CSP largely replaced the 2 pitch screws on RAF fighters. But there were always some true 'veteran' airframes..

luftluuver
03-13-2008, 01:21 PM
Spitfire: The History, pg 54

By 16 August every Spitfire and Hurricane had been converted, including those in store.

pg 72
Modifications Incorporated into Original Design and Dates

#62 Replace DeH 2 pitch with Rotol C/S, Feb 1939
#76 Introduce DeH C/S prop, 3-7-40

Skoshi Tiger
03-13-2008, 05:33 PM
What would be interesting to see is the mix of planes on the front line.

I expect the most upto date planes would have been concentrated in 11 and 10 Group (South East Corner-London) areas. With the lower spec. planes being placed in other areas and operational training squadrons.

In a campaign it would be neat to have to conserve your fighters. If your too wasteful you end up with a bunkie with the two speed prop!

Adam906
03-13-2008, 05:51 PM
It will be interesting to note whether the black/red-out limit for Spitfire pilots will be lower than that of 109 pilots due to the seat arrangement of the two aircraft. The 109s seat was angled back to raise the feet, lower the head and cut down the effect of g-force.

Similarly, I would be interested to see the armour plating on Allied aircraft - or historical lack there of - is represented proportionally and whether this translates into more reds being PKed.

Neither of these points I am expecting will be modelled http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

SeaFireLIV
03-13-2008, 06:09 PM
This poses a problem. Which to choose? spitfire, Spitfire or Spitfire?

I think i`ll take the Spitfire.

Skoshi Tiger
03-13-2008, 06:26 PM
It will be interesting to note whether the black/red-out limit for Spitfire pilots will be lower than that of 109 pilots due to the seat arrangement of the two aircraft. The 109s seat was angled back to raise the feet, lower the head and cut down the effect of g-force.

By the BoB most spitfires had two step rudder pedals. In combat the pilot would raise his feet to the to step. In this arrangement the pilot could with stand an extra 'G' or so. Don't know how that compares with the reclined seat of the 109.



Similarly, I would be interested to see the armour plating on Allied aircraft - or historical lack there of - is represented proportionally and whether this translates into more reds being PKed.

By the BoB most spitfires had a steel plate behind the pilot seat (70 odd lbs worth) and armoured glass slab on the windscreen. Also had a alloy cover to the front fuel tank to deflect glancing rounds.

Adam906
03-14-2008, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It will be interesting to note whether the black/red-out limit for Spitfire pilots will be lower than that of 109 pilots due to the seat arrangement of the two aircraft. The 109s seat was angled back to raise the feet, lower the head and cut down the effect of g-force.

By the BoB most spitfires had two step rudder pedals. In combat the pilot would raise his feet to the to step. In this arrangement the pilot could with stand an extra 'G' or so. Don't know how that compares with the reclined seat of the 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't have thought it would change that much - raising the feet up by two inches isn't a huge balance change, I wouldn't have thought


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Similarly, I would be interested to see the armour plating on Allied aircraft - or historical lack there of - is represented proportionally and whether this translates into more reds being PKed.

By the BoB most spitfires had a steel plate behind the pilot seat (70 odd lbs worth) and armoured glass slab on the windscreen. Also had a alloy cover to the front fuel tank to deflect glancing rounds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sgt Bill Rolls of 72 Squadron at Biggin Hill notes Spitfires - and this is at Biggin Hill in September - were lacking seat armour. I should have mentioned specifically in the other post it was seat armour I was talking about http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Skoshi Tiger
03-14-2008, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Adam906:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
By the BoB most spitfires had two step rudder pedals. In combat the pilot would raise his feet to the to step. In this arrangement the pilot could with stand an extra 'G' or so. Don't know how that compares with the reclined seat of the 109.

I wouldn't have thought it would change that much - raising the feet up by two inches isn't a huge balance change, I wouldn't have thought

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Big enough difference, apparently, for all frontline spitfires to have the change before the Battle.

My book 'The Legendary Spitfire MkI/II 1939-41' (Osprey unfortunately) says at least said the 6 inch rise helped out by about 1G.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
By the BoB most spitfires had a steel plate behind the pilot seat (70 odd lbs worth) and armoured glass slab on the windscreen. Also had a alloy cover to the front fuel tank to deflect glancing rounds.

Sgt Bill Rolls of 72 Squadron at Biggin Hill notes Spitfires - and this is at Biggin Hill in September - were lacking seat armour. I should have mentioned specifically in the other post it was seat armour I was talking about http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I went and re-read about the seat armour and it does not mention a specific date. My Bad! Guess there was a fairly good mix of spitfire variations during the Battle.

Rolls would KNOW if his Spitfire didn't have seat armour. Knowing that you didn't have it would probably help you tighten up your break turns! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif