PDA

View Full Version : Missing weight with Spitfire Mk. IX and VIII



Kurfurst__
12-22-2006, 05:23 AM
Hi,

I just checked the latest Il2compare v4,07 and found that the two staged Spits are missing quite a bit of weight.. especially the MkVIII, which has exactly the same weight, speed, RoC, everything as the MKIX.

Ie.

Mk IXC LF (normal and clipped)
IL2compare takeoff weight : 3227 kg - missing 111 kg
Real life takeoff weight : 3338 kg (7450 lbs)
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-lfix-ads.jpg

Mk IXC HF (normal and clipped)

IL2compare takeoff weight : 3271 kg - missing 67 kg
Real life takeoff weight : 3338 kg (7450 lbs)
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-hfix-ads.jpg

Mk VIII LF
IL2compare takeoff weight : 3227 kg - missing 314 kg
Real life takeoff weight : 3541 kg (7800 lbs)
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitlf8ads.jpg

Note that the MkVIII's values simply repeat the MkIXLF values.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Pusk??s Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon B??k??ben - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurf??rst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Aaron_GT
12-22-2006, 05:30 AM
The VIII might just be a cut-and-past in IL2compare. What does it suggest in game (although saying that the weight programmed in for the VIII might be a third value, of course).

The other question, for the IX, is where the IL2compare figures and your figures are from (oops - from Spitfire performance - a reputable location) There might be differences in ballast weights, IL2 compare might have figures from prototypes, etc. Again I hope the figures actually in the game are accurate at least!

I suppose ultimately what it says the weight is doesn't matter as long as it performs as if the weight was correct. Do you feel there is a performance issue? I've seen arguments either way on whether the Spitfires are overmodelled in various aspects.

ElAurens
12-22-2006, 05:36 AM
You do realize that IL2 compare is not in any way to be trusted, yes?

Not that I'm saying you are wrong or right here, but it is not an official utility, and Oleg has repeatedly said it is not accurate.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/ELsKi.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

Kurfurst__
12-22-2006, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The VIII might just be a cut-and-past in IL2compare. What does it suggest in game (although saying that the weight programmed in for the VIII might be a third value, of course).

The other question, for the IX, is where the IL2compare figures and your figures are from (oops - from Spitfire performance - a reputable location) There might be differences in ballast weights, IL2 compare might have figures from prototypes, etc. Again I hope the figures actually in the game are accurate at least!

I suppose ultimately what it says the weight is doesn't matter as long as it performs as if the weight was correct. Do you feel there is a performance issue? I've seen arguments either way on whether the Spitfires are overmodelled in various aspects.

Indeed it doesn't really matter as long as performance is OK, and the Spit IX seem to be very reasonable (example, Soviet trials with clipped IXLF show turn time of 18.5 seconds, Il-2compare 18.61 seconds) so much off... what actually bothers me that if Il2compare reports it accurately, there should be some difference between the IX and VIII. The latter is cleaner airframe, but has a higher weight, so if nothing else, the stall speed and turn radius should be a bit higher than the IX's. I am not sure about RoC but that is usually very weight-sensitive. Perhaps turn time is similiar (cleaner design can very easily balance out greater wingloading, as turn rate is not so much wingloading sensitive as it's excess thrust sensitive), but still, it's just very odd that a plane with some 400 lbs more weight, just behaves the same.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Pusk??s Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon B??k??ben - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurf??rst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Aaron_GT
12-22-2006, 06:20 AM
The latter is cleaner airframe, but has a higher weight, so if nothing else, the stall speed and turn radius should be a bit higher than the IX's.

Certainly that would be the experience with the XIV which is essentially an VIII-derived airframe with a Griffon.

Zoom2136
12-22-2006, 07:29 AM
Not really... we just have less armor in game ... and the engine is made out of glass and not steel/aluminum... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"http://www.oacsquad.com/images/sigs/zoom.gif "

VFA-195 Snacky
12-22-2006, 08:08 AM
It's pretty funny that anyone would complain about these tie fighters.

You guys that live by this plane online better hope it doesn't get adjusted to real world specs. You might be forced to actually pay attention to energy state instead of always having plentifull amounts of energy at your disposal.

Need to make a turn and engage a target going the opposite direction? no problem, just do a 180 without losing any airspeed and catch him.

Need to climb up 4000 ft to catch an aircraft flying twice your speed? no problem, just crank that stick back and go straight up and catch him.

WTH do you need armor for when you have a plane that can defy simple aerodynamics. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/airplanepictures_1918_16003860

HayateAce
12-22-2006, 09:03 AM
Careful when talking about the G2 like that.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://aerofiles.com/lock-p38j.jpg

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/image,Luftwhiners,black,white.png (http://www.sloganizer.net/en/)

Brain32
12-22-2006, 09:34 AM
I would pwn your 109G2 @ss in a SpitIX anytime Hayate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JtD
12-22-2006, 09:40 AM
Afaik Il-2 compare does not list maximum weight, but weight at standard loadout with 100% fuel. You are comparing these figures with maximum weight. That alone could very well explain a difference of up to 200lbs.

Please also take note that the VIII is a model with extended wingtips and no IX has CW.

Afaik, the differences between the VIII and IX in game are limited to the 3D model.

faustnik
12-22-2006, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Afaik, the differences between the VIII and IX in game are limited to the 3D model.

Are you sure about that? It might be my imagination but, I feel I have slightly better dive and zoom ability in the VIII. I guess this would indicate slightly higher weight and cleaner frame???<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

JtD
12-22-2006, 09:53 AM
I once tested VIII and IX and could not find any notable differences. In a zoom test, the IX beat the VIII by 0.3%, but you can imagine that this was down to testing inaccuracies. Otherwise same speed, fuel, turn etc. +- 0.some%.

So as far as I am concerned, these two are identical.

faustnik
12-22-2006, 09:59 AM
Speaking of dive and zoom. I would love to see you redo some of your tests in 4.07 JtD. The heavy planes feel like they retain energy much better than in 4.05. I think the is going to be the "Fw190, P-47, P-51, Tempest" version.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

JG53Frankyboy
12-22-2006, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
.............Please also take note that the VIII is a model with extended wingtips and no IX has CW.

..............

?

LStarosta
12-22-2006, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst:

Blah blah blah blah blah.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/4967/rockytf9.jpg

Brain32
12-22-2006, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by Spitdweebs: bla,bla,bla,won,bla,bla,bla,t3h,bla,bla,bla,war,bl a,bla,bla,it's hard to fly a Spit,bla,bla,bla
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e-Ra0dH-Lg&mode=related&search=<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Xiolablu3
12-22-2006, 10:41 AM
Spitfire VIII carried a lot more fuel so it should be heavier.

I gather thats why they sent most of them abroad to the Med and Aus, where their range of 650 miles could be put to good use.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

JtD
12-22-2006, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
.............Please also take note that the VIII is a model with extended wingtips and no IX has CW.

..............

? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The data sheets Kurf??rst linked. Look at the wingspan. Gives normal wing for IX and extended early wing for VIII.

Not in game.


Xiola:

Spitfire VIII carried a lot more fuel so it should be heavier.

120 vs. 85 gallons. In game, no difference. That's about 100kg.

tigertalon
12-22-2006, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Speaking of dive and zoom. I would love to see you redo some of your tests in 4.07 JtD. The heavy planes feel like they retain energy much better than in 4.05. I think the is going to be the "Fw190, P-47, P-51, Tempest" version.

My observations exactly!! Looks like all these 'energy retention' threads didn't go overlooked. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<span class="ev_code_BLACK"><pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">???An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child in this great nation.

Wurkeri
12-22-2006, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
I once tested VIII and IX and could not find any notable differences. In a zoom test, the IX beat the VIII by 0.3%, but you can imagine that this was down to testing inaccuracies. Otherwise same speed, fuel, turn etc. +- 0.some%.

So as far as I am concerned, these two are identical.

According to the datasheets there is less than 100kg difference in empty weights so assuming the same fuel load for both, the difference should be minimal.