PDA

View Full Version : Was the Spit IX 25lbs a common sight in the air?



Sillius_Sodus
02-10-2009, 07:03 PM
Hello,

I was just wondering if the 25lb boost version of the Spitfire was a numerous sub-type during the war. I can't find too much information on it.

Thanks

LW_lcarp
02-10-2009, 07:17 PM
IX production Numbers don't know what ones were 25lbs boost tho

# L.F.Mk.IX, a low-altitude fighter with 1,580hp Merlin 66 (4,010 built)
# F.Mk.IX, a medium-altitude fighter with 1,565hp Merlin 61 or 1,650hp Merlin 63 (1,255 built)
# H.F.Mk.IX, a high-altitude fighter with 1,475hp Merlin 70 (400 built)

Sillius_Sodus
02-10-2009, 07:34 PM
Thanks for the numbers LW_Icarp http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif ,

It's easy enough to find general production figures, but it's a bit more tricky to find out how many were 25lb boost models.

A well flown Spit IX 25lb is a real bear online 1V1 in a late model 109 or 190, at least below 3000m.

VW-IceFire
02-10-2009, 09:28 PM
Sometime between December 1944 and March 1945 various 2nd TAF Spitfire groups started using the higher octane fuel required for the +25lb boost. There are some arguments as to when units would have started using it in actual squadron service...but there would have been large numbers of Spitfires using it by the end of the war.

Despite the performance improvement its still not as fast as the Spitfire XIV, Tempest V, Bf109K-4, or FW190D-9. It definitely keeps the IX model competitive but its not on the top of the game anymore.

Also worth mentioning that you have to think about both the Mark IX and the Mark XVI (not XIV) as both were basically the same aircraft except the XVI had Merlin 266 engines made in the US and some XVIs came with bubble canopys. These would also have been running on the same fuel.

Spitfires during this time would be engaged in similar operations as Tempests and Typhoons which is the low level tactical fighter role. Many of these Spitfires were dropping bombs or occasionally firing rockets (in some rarer cases). So the thinking is always about how the Spitfire was a fighter through and through...but in the late war game flying with the 2nd TAF they would have been bomb trucks in some cases or opportunistic attackers (air or ground) in others.

WTE_Galway
02-10-2009, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Spitfires during this time would be engaged in similar operations as Tempests and Typhoons which is the low level tactical fighter role. Many of these Spitfires were dropping bombs or occasionally firing rockets (in some rarer cases). So the thinking is always about how the Spitfire was a fighter through and through...but in the late war game flying with the 2nd TAF they would have been bomb trucks in some cases or opportunistic attackers (air or ground) in others.

This was very much the case in the PTO late war.

Douglas MacArthur was very much a man of the press and hence late war in the Pacific he made pretty d@mn sure that any air to air combat went to his boys so he could keep up a good supply of new aces to the papers back home in the US.

This meant the Commonwealth forces (flying Spitfires) in the PTO were relegated to mop up duties and often unnecessary ground attack which eventually led to the controversial "Moratai Rebellion" where the RAAF pretty much went on strike and refused to fly.

Kurfurst__
02-11-2009, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
Hello,

I was just wondering if the 25lb boost version of the Spitfire was a numerous sub-type during the war. I can't find too much information on it.

Thanks

It was not a seperate 'model' per se, it was just the older Spitfire IXs which's engine was run at higher power output with a special fuel.

As for numerous - in 1944, no. There were two but Spitfire IX Squadrons doing operational trials from around March 1944, but wider introduction was kept delayed due to mechanical problems and the lack of sufficient supplied of 150 grade fuel the boost would require.

As Icefire noted, in the end of 1944 it was proposed that some 20-25 Spit IX and XVI Squadrons of the 2nd TAF, ie. almost all of the IX Sqns attached there was to convert to +25. Appearantly (given the consumption figures of 150 grade) this occurred sometimes in end of January, early February 1945, but apparently it caused a great increase in the number of fatal accidents that were attributed to the fuel, and the units reverted to 130 grade fuel, and the normal +18 boost of 1943.

This was posted some time ago on this board:


"he noted [in his day's (apr 20 '45) operational summary]as well that two pilots had walked away-"more or less"-with only slight injuries from wrecked and flaming aircraft at B 116 [Wunstorf, Germany]. actually, it was a miracle either man survived. flying officer F R Dennison of 411(sqn)-a Grizzly Bear from Buffalo, NY-crashed while taking off and broke his back. later in the day, flt leiutenant E B Mossing of 401(sqd), who also had his engine cut during take off, scraped his spitfire's belly tank over an obstacle and came down so hard the impact ripped it's wings off, broke the fuselage at the instrument panel and left what remained of the aircraft a mass of flames-yet Mossing "extricated himself with one bone broken in his leg".
the incidents followed a number of engine problems that were attributed to the introduction of 150-grade fuel in early feb. pilots mistrusted it, and were no doubt relieved when the AF brass decided to revert to 130-grade. "the vast majority of pilots, im sure, were beginning to wonder if the additional seven pounds of boost they got from 150-grade fuel were worth the price being paid." the matter was being dicussed at Wunstorf when, incredibly, a spark at the petrol dump ignited and two petrol bowsers containing almost two thousand gallons of the much-despised fuel burst into flames.

Pg. 199 from "Invasion Without Tears", by Monty Berger, Senior Intel Officer of 126 (RCAF) Spitfire Wing, 2 TAF)

M_Gunz
02-11-2009, 02:04 AM
More "common" over England as I believe Oleg had stated he put them in as they were used to chase V1's.

Xiolablu3
02-11-2009, 07:16 AM
Certainly not common in the theatre over France/Germany, until 1945.

Used in small numbers (compared to 18lb boost Spit IX's) in 2nd half of 1944.

Buzzsaw-
02-11-2009, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
Hello,

I was just wondering if the 25lb boost version of the Spitfire was a numerous sub-type during the war. I can't find too much information on it.

Thanks

It was not a seperate 'model' per se, it was just the older Spitfire IXs which's engine was run at higher power output with a special fuel.

As for numerous - in 1944, no. There were two but Spitfire IX Squadrons doing operational trials from around March 1944, but wider introduction was kept delayed due to mechanical problems and the lack of sufficient supplied of 150 grade fuel the boost would require.

As Icefire noted, in the end of 1944 it was proposed that some 20-25 Spit IX and XVI Squadrons of the 2nd TAF, ie. almost all of the IX Sqns attached there was to convert to +25. Appearantly (given the consumption figures of 150 grade) this occurred sometimes in end of January, early February 1945, but apparently it caused a great increase in the number of fatal accidents that were attributed to the fuel, and the units reverted to 130 grade fuel, and the normal +18 boost of 1943.

This was posted some time ago on this board:


"he noted [in his day's (apr 20 '45) operational summary]as well that two pilots had walked away-"more or less"-with only slight injuries from wrecked and flaming aircraft at B 116 [Wunstorf, Germany]. actually, it was a miracle either man survived. flying officer F R Dennison of 411(sqn)-a Grizzly Bear from Buffalo, NY-crashed while taking off and broke his back. later in the day, flt leiutenant E B Mossing of 401(sqd), who also had his engine cut during take off, scraped his spitfire's belly tank over an obstacle and came down so hard the impact ripped it's wings off, broke the fuselage at the instrument panel and left what remained of the aircraft a mass of flames-yet Mossing "extricated himself with one bone broken in his leg".
the incidents followed a number of engine problems that were attributed to the introduction of 150-grade fuel in early feb. pilots mistrusted it, and were no doubt relieved when the AF brass decided to revert to 130-grade. "the vast majority of pilots, im sure, were beginning to wonder if the additional seven pounds of boost they got from 150-grade fuel were worth the price being paid." the matter was being dicussed at Wunstorf when, incredibly, a spark at the petrol dump ignited and two petrol bowsers containing almost two thousand gallons of the much-despised fuel burst into flames.

Pg. 199 from "Invasion Without Tears", by Monty Berger, Senior Intel Officer of 126 (RCAF) Spitfire Wing, 2 TAF) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Completely false information. Not withstanding the fantasies of certain posters, the actual facts can be found here in the details of Spit IX testing: (scroll down for +25 boost tests and bottom of page for links to original documents re. use of +25 boost)

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-IX.html

And here in the use of 150 octane fuel:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform.../150-grade-fuel.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html)

Scroll halfway down the page for details on the use of 150 octane fuel by the Royal Air Force, and in particular, the Spitfire.

The first Spitfire IX was first cleared for testing use of +25 boost with 150 octane fuel in March of 1944. By May of 1944, all Air Defence Great Britain Spitfires were being converted to +25 boost.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/adgbs29867g.gif

The 2nd Tactical Air Force, the other major RAF Formation, for supply reasons, used +18 boost and 130 grade fuel till December of 1944, when they were converted to 150 octane and +25 boost.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/2taf150_112044.gif

There were some problems with the Packard Merlin 266 engines in Spitfire XVI's, they did not tolerate the boost as well as the Rolls Royce Merlin 66's in the Spit IX's, and these Spit XVI's were reduced back to +18. This is the misleading example which Kurfurst refers to above, No. 401 Squadron RCAF was equipped with Spit XVI's.

No Spit IX Squadrons had to discontinue use of 150 octane and +25 boost.

So in response to the original question: "Was the Spit IX +25 lbs a common sight in the air?" Yes, since ALL Spit IX's in 1945 used 150 octane and +25 boost.

References and information courtesy Mike Williams Spitfire Performance site:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html

Buzzsaw-
02-11-2009, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Used in small numbers (compared to 18lb boost Spit IX's) in 2nd half of 1944.

Are 9 Fighter Groups of Spitfires, "...small numbers..."???

I don't think so.

Buzzsaw-
02-11-2009, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
More "common" over England as I believe Oleg had stated he put them in as they were used to chase V1's.

Not only used to chase V1's, Air Defence Great Britain Spitfire Squadrons were also used as the first stage of escort for 8th Air Force Bombers, also used to escort "Operation NoBall" attacks on the V1 sites all over France, Belgium and Holland, also used over the North Sea and off the coast of Norway.

Kurfurst__
02-11-2009, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Used in small numbers (compared to 18lb boost Spit IX's) in 2nd half of 1944.

Are 9 Fighter Groups of Spitfires, "...small numbers..."???

I don't think so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Problem is there were no 9 Fighter Groups of Spitfires using +25 lbs. Of course you know that very well. No 165 and 1 Squadrons were using the boost for trial purposes during the first half of 1944.

You seem to be stuck in the past, arguing the same thing over and over again, which was done and discussed to death.

thefruitbat
02-11-2009, 12:57 PM
Am i missreading the below document?

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/adgbs29867g.gif

To me, it says as of the 1st of may 1944, that all of those groups are cleared for 25lbs boost, and the only thing restricting that would be the availability of 150 octane fuel.

Don't know how many spits are in all of those groups, but i bet its more than a couple, fuel i don't know about.


fruitbat

Kurfurst__
02-11-2009, 01:23 PM
It simply a circulation of the same technical instructions. Pretty much standard procedure at the time.

The giveavay is the number of copies noted behind the specific Group. Appearantly all Groups got one copy of it, but No. 10 Group where Nos. 1 and 165 were deployed got three.

I suppose it is because Group HQs got one each, plus the two Squadrons using 150 grade in No 10 Group.

IIRC the 'conversion' of the aircraft was very simple, practically re-setting the throttle, boost gauge, change of the exhaust etc., but the specific fuel was absolutely required.
This seems to be a technical warning for these two Squadrons, in the event they land on other airfield with ordinary 100 octane fuel, but the Group HQs were also appear to be informed.

No41Sqn_Banks
02-11-2009, 03:14 PM
Dated 12 August, 1944
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/backfire-2.jpg

Looks like 2 Squadrons of Spitfire LF IX with +25lbs Boost till August 1944. I don't think this number increased as they were being replaced by Spitfire XIV.

M_Gunz
02-11-2009, 03:26 PM
Things have been so quiet and now back from the grave, oh the horror....

Is there enough forum energy for 20+ pages? How many of the old crowd will resurrect? Where's the Chimp? He should be here.

julian265
02-11-2009, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

snip ... apparently it caused a great increase in the number of fatal accidents that were attributed to the fuel, and the units reverted to 130 grade fuel, and the normal +18 boost of 1943.

Fatal accidents attributed to the fuel? How does that work?

BTW 150 grade is harder to ignite than 130.

M_Gunz
02-11-2009, 06:08 PM
There's been posted accounts of engine damage, short period overhauls and engines quitting outright during the teething phase
which back and forth documents posted here you could believe or not (lots of arguments) went on until Nov 1944. What does one
report mean when there's another and another, all semi-dubious for various reasons anyway?

The dead horse walketh again!

VW-IceFire
02-11-2009, 06:15 PM
Sigh.

Well I hope that the question has been answered for the original poster.

The rest is just the usual suspects http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

How many times have we done this thread? I think I shall go make a La-7 performance thread before long http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sillius_Sodus
02-11-2009, 08:55 PM
Yup, I've heard enough, thanks for all the replies.

Xiolablu3
02-12-2009, 07:55 AM
Basically if you need the info for a historical mission :

If the Luftwaffe are attacking Britian in 2nd half of 1944, then its OK to use the Spit 25lbs

If its a V1 intercept mission then its OK to use the 25lbs.

If its a 1945 map over France/Germany then 25lbs boost would be correct.

If its over Germany in 1944 use the 'normal' 1944 IXe.

If its over Italy/Med in late '43/1944 use the Mk VIII.

If you simply need a good , balanced planeset then a good rule is, if the Germans have the Me262, He162, Me163 or Me109K4 C3 then use the SPit 25lbs. Otherwise use the 'normal' SPit IX.

No41Sqn_Banks
02-12-2009, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
If the Luftwaffe are attacking Britian in 2nd half of 1944, then its OK to use the Spit 25lbs

Were there any Luftwaffe aeroplanes over Britain in the 2nd half of 1944?

Xiolablu3
02-12-2009, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
If the Luftwaffe are attacking Britian in 2nd half of 1944, then its OK to use the Spit 25lbs

Were there any Luftwaffe aeroplanes over Britain in the 2nd half of 1944? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah I know its unlikely, but 25lbs was apparantly used in the 2nd half of 1944 for the Defence of Britain. Which is why I included this. There may have been a few tip and run raids, not sure.

tomtheyak
02-12-2009, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
If the Luftwaffe are attacking Britian in 2nd half of 1944, then its OK to use the Spit 25lbs

Were there any Luftwaffe aeroplanes over Britain in the 2nd half of 1944? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well there was the doodlebug... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Plus with daylight conventional e/a activity incursions at a nadir, most of the the MkIX units on Air Defence Great Britain during the invasion period were deployed on patrols and bomber escort over the channel or Northern France and the low countries so plenty of scope to see +25lb Spitties mixing it over France.

M_Gunz
02-12-2009, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
If the Luftwaffe are attacking Britian in 2nd half of 1944, then its OK to use the Spit 25lbs

Were there any Luftwaffe aeroplanes over Britain in the 2nd half of 1944? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah I know its unlikely, but 25lbs was apparantly used in the 2nd half of 1944 for the Defence of Britain. Which is why I included this. There may have been a few tip and run raids, not sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Between trying to patch the roof and deal with the front the LW had time and fuel then to attack Britain?

DKoor
02-12-2009, 10:19 AM
Was the Spit IX 25lbs a common sight in the air? I personally don't care much... I have many pretty good ideas why.
Here's one of them;
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/images/books/covers/9781846032981.JPG

DKoor
02-12-2009, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
If the Luftwaffe are attacking Britian in 2nd half of 1944, then its OK to use the Spit 25lbs

Were there any Luftwaffe aeroplanes over Britain in the 2nd half of 1944? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah I know its unlikely, but 25lbs was apparantly used in the 2nd half of 1944 for the Defence of Britain. Which is why I included this. There may have been a few tip and run raids, not sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Between trying to patch the roof and deal with the front the LW had time and fuel then to attack Britain? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You wont believe it, those nasty Germans...they even attached flying bombs under the fuselages of the He-111's and launched it mid-air by night on the England coast.
Some of the Mosquito pilots couldn't believe it when they saw it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

M_Gunz
02-12-2009, 12:09 PM
Oh yeah. How far out did the piloted plane detach and fly away?
So still some nuisance strikes... night attacks too IIRC on landing bombers did happen but not a job for Super-Spit!

DKoor
02-12-2009, 12:18 PM
About those buzz-bombs and how far they flew on their deadly trip to England I don't know...but they surely possessed a problem.
Anyhow those night attacks probably happened solely because of Spitfire (and a likes) existence in the first place http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif .

Xiolablu3
02-12-2009, 12:21 PM
Of course we know that the Luftwaffe gave up flying manned planes because they were so scared of the Spitfire.

A plan was put into action during 1940, as it was then discovered how futile fighiting SPitfires was. As no type of plane was ever going to match the Spitfire, they decided to use drones instead.

berg417448
02-12-2009, 12:22 PM
A lot of those V-1 launches from He-111 aircraft were done during night attacks. IIRC, The book "Night Fighter" by C.F. Rawsley has a chapter dedicated to the subject.

WTE_Galway
02-12-2009, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Of course we know that the Luftwaffe gave up flying manned planes because they were so scared of the Spitfire.

A plan was put into action during 1940, as it was then discovered how futile fighiting SPitfires was. As no type of plane was ever going to match the Spitfire, they decided to use drones instead.

... and here I was thinking it was because the Spitfire was so effeminate and pretty looking with all those sexy curvy lines compared to the brute macho 109 that the poor Luftwaffe pilots felt bad about shooting at it.

Buzzsaw-
02-12-2009, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
Dated 12 August, 1944
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/backfire-2.jpg

Looks like 2 Squadrons of Spitfire LF IX with +25lbs Boost till August 1944. I don't think this number increased as they were being replaced by Spitfire XIV.

Wrong.

Read the memo.

The memo is in relation to the backfire problems which the aircraft using 150 octane and higher boost occasionally suffered from.

The memo indicates the backfire problem has been solved in the following listed Squadrons with certain modification, and that all other Squadrons will have the modifications to prevent backfires installed. (the problem was a result of fouling at low rpm and boost, and the modifications included using a different heat sparkplug and also having the pilots open up their engines to higher boost every 15 minutes to clear out any deposits)

This memo does NOT indicate that there are only two Squadrons of Spit IX's running +25 boost, rather that of the Spitfire Squadrons running +25 boost, two have had the modifications to solve the backfire problems.

This is confirmed by this earlier (July) memo, which states specifically in regards to the Spit IX Squadrons: "...All Squadrons of this type will be similarly modified when present difficulties (backfires) are overcome."

Most the summer flying at +25 boost was done by No. 1 and No. 165 Squadrons, but all other Spit IX Squadrons were also converted.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/merlin66_18_25b.jpg

In November of 1944, the consumption of 150 grade octane by Air Defence Great Britain, (Fighter Command) was still rising, as seen by this memo:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/1-supply-23nov44s.jpg

The comments from Kurfurst are just another example of the type we have seen in the past, ie. a complete unwillingness to examine the facts.

M_Gunz
02-12-2009, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Of course we know that the Luftwaffe gave up flying manned planes because they were so scared of the Spitfire.

A plan was put into action during 1940, as it was then discovered how futile fighiting SPitfires was. As no type of plane was ever going to match the Spitfire, they decided to use drones instead.

And had nothing to do with the near impossibility to attack without being detected and intercepted on vectors giving advantage
to British interceptors of every type from Hurricanes to Mustang III's to Tempests to oh yes those awful Spitfire XIV's?

Kurfurst__
02-13-2009, 01:36 AM
As of 18 September:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/appendixa14vj.jpg

No41Sqn_Banks
02-13-2009, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
This memo does NOT indicate that there are only two Squadrons of Spit IX's running +25 boost, rather that of the Spitfire Squadrons running +25 boost, two have had the modifications to solve the backfire problems.

Yes this is right, the backfire memo doesn't indicate that, but the other memo you posted states "all squadrons will be modified when backfires are overcome".
However when the backfire problem was solved in August, the Spitfire IX were being replaced by Spitfire XIV (see backfire memo). Why should all Spitfire IX squadrons be modified when they were being replaced by XIV?

The question is: How many squadrons were operating +25lbs Boost before the backfire problem was solved (or with other words before they were being replaced.) To me it looks like it were only 2 Squadrons. Of course there could have been more, but I didn't see any indicator for this so far.

Anyway one important statement from the September memo: http://www.wwiiaircraftperform.../18-sept-44-doc.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/18-sept-44-doc.html)

(iii) The increased performance obtainable by the use of 150 Grade Fuel is not an essential operational requirement for the role, which A.D.G.B. Squadrons will be called to undertake in the near future.

badatflyski
02-13-2009, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:

... the Spitfire IX were being replaced by Spitfire XIV (see backfire memo). Why should all Spitfire IX squadrons be modified when they were being replaced by XIV? ....


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif then very few spitfires flying in 44 and 45...

MK14 (all marks) Stats of assigned airframes to squadrons (what doesn't mean ready for combat):

44':
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/il2/spit14activ44.jpg

45':
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/il2/spit14activ45.jpg

Production stats for MK14 (only , not the E or FR or FR/E):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/il2/spit14prodgeneral.jpg

there was more me262 assigned to squadrons than spits MK14! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

No41Sqn_Banks
02-13-2009, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by badatflyski:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif then very few spitfires flying in 44 and 45...


Of course this statement is only attributed to ADGB/Fighter Command squadrons. 2nd TAF was not using 150 grade fuel during the time of the memo.

Anyway that are not my words, they are from a primary source.


2 Spitfire L.F. IX Squadrons (being replaced by Spitfire XIV Squadrons)

If there were other Spitfire IX Squadrons not yet modified, why should they replace the 2 that were already modified?

Would be interesting to find out how many and which Spitfire IX Squadrons were assigned to ADGB/Fighter Command during 1944.

Xiolablu3
02-13-2009, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by badatflyski:

there was more me262 assigned to squadrons than spits MK14! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Yes, maybe when looking at numbers 'ASSIGNED TO SQUADRONS' but looking at it from the other side, we must remember that with fuel shortages, logistics problems, extrememly high losses and low survival rate for each plane, many not even getting airbourne that its probable that the Spitfire XIV performaed more wartime sorties, even with its lower build numbers.

No doubt losses were very low in these med-high alt squadrons near the end of the war as the LW was none existant. This is another explanation for the number of XIV's produced. They simply had very few losses and the war was almost won.

The largest number of Me262 day fighter sorties flown on a single day was 57 (!) on the 7 April 1945.

COmpare this number of 57 to the XIV squadrons...

USing 'numbers built' as a base for which planes performed the most meaningful, useful wartime sorties is extremely flawed, as the losing air force is no doubt losing many times the number of aircraft, especially in the last year of defeat. With many of the aircraft only performing one or 2 sorties before being lost. SO me never flying a sortie, being destroyed en route to the airfield. Many sitting idle through lack of fuel or orders.

DKoor
02-13-2009, 01:54 PM
Charts FTW!!!!1!!

Buzzsaw-
02-13-2009, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
As of 18 September:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/appendixa14vj.jpg

Typical example of someone not reading the material they use as a source.

"A total of 9,268 hours was flown with 150 octane fuel and maximum boost pressure of +25 lbs sq./inch. Of this total, over 6,000 hours flying was done by No. 1 and 165 Squadrons..."

Ok Kurfie, if No. 1 and 165 did slightly over 6000 hours, who did the other 3000+ plus flying hours??? Hmmmm...? Let's see if you can guess... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Could it be that other Spit IX Squadrons were flying with +25 boost?

I would refer people to this document again:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/1-supply-23nov44s.jpg

Notice the document indicates the RAF use will be rising from 2000 tons of 150 octance per month for ADGB to 10,000 tons per month. (as well as noting the requirement for an additional 15,000 tons per month for the 2nd TAF)

The document firstly confirms that RAF ADGB continued to use 150 octane after September, and additionally, ADGB's needs were increasing. It also confirms that 2nd TAF was converting to full time use of this fuel.

M_Gunz
02-13-2009, 04:09 PM
These requirements will rise in January, 1945, ... due to an increase in the RAF requirement from 2,000 to 10,000....

Yup, there it is. January 1945 is definitely _after_ September 1944. That's when they will need the increase. 1945.

Xiolablu3
02-13-2009, 04:16 PM
I agree with Max.

IMO 1945 is the time to use the Spitfire IX 25lb in historical missions/online wars.

Its a reasonable stand in for the SPitfire XIV in 1945 too, although not as fast.

For 1944 over France/Germany use the 18lbs boost : SPitfire IXE 1944.

Sure there were some 25lbs SPits were flying at the front through the second half of 1944, but its the 18lbs Spit IX's which were the workhorses. If a Luftwaffe pilot was to meet a Spitfire IX over France/Germany in 1944 it was more than likely a 18lbs boost Spitfire IX.

Having all 25lbs boost Spitfires on a 1944 map would be incorrect IMHO. It would be like fielding the Luftwaffe with only Me262's.