PDA

View Full Version : Spit MK IX



Vittorio1
12-06-2004, 01:43 AM
Whilst flying the spit MKIx the other night (not sure which version, but it wasnt C/W), I found myself being chased down by a 109G, now in the other online sims that I have flown in , in the past, AH, & WB, it was always the way that in this situation you were unable to out run the gustav or even out climb it, so the normal thing was to start a series of tight horizontal turns, this usally threw the con off your tail and forced him to extend.

I tried this but found that my spit was able to turn quite well, but alas so was the gustav on my tail, I also noticed that my MKIX had a nsaty habit of falling into a "snap spin" .

The reason for this post is that in the other 2 x sims mentioed above the MKIx was always able (with some rudder help) able to turn rings on the Gustavs.

Also I noticed that vertiacl turns required much more energy than I expected to stop the MKIX stalling or falling into a spin.

I have always flown spits in other sims and always found it a very hard plane to stall at slow speeds, also the vertical energy in past spits was always more forgiving.

Am i the only one who finds the MKIX family rather tricky, and feeling heavy & unpredictable?

Your comments please gentlemen.

Thanks,

Marco aka Vittorio1

Fehler
12-06-2004, 02:00 AM
The IX is a little heavier than the rest of the Spit family and not as good a turner as it's earlier cousins.

Which version of 109G were you against? A G-2 would probably come close to matching your turn in a low and slow fight, but at higher alts you would win out in a sustained turn.

From what I have read, and believe, the stalls in the IX are tricky because they are not as predictable as pilots accounts suggest. This is, of course since the last patch when there was a global tweak to the game engine.

Verticle maneuvers in the IX are your best bet against the earlier Gustavs, and use of your better elevator autority at slightly higher speeds will, in most cases, shake the hun from your tail.

Dont try and rolling scissor fight a good 190 pilot, as his roll rate is superior to yours in all but the clip wing versions.

At high alts, the late model Spit really shines, and only the late model 109 K's can best you in a climb.

With the experience you cite, I am sure you will be flying rings around the Baby-Messerschmitt-plane in no time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Nubarus
12-06-2004, 05:01 AM
According to this test trail there was little difference between the Mark V and IX, it even states that the Mark IX was better because it has more engine power.

"Manoeuvrability

20......... The Spitfire IX was compared with a Spitfire VC for turning circles and dog-fighting at heights between 15,000 and 30,000 feet. At 15,000 feet there was little to choose between the two aircraft although the superior speed and climb of the Spitfire IX enabled it to break off its attack by climbing away and then attacking in a dive. This manoeuvre was assisted by the negative 'G' carburettor, as it was possible to change rapidly from climb to dive without the engine cutting. At 30,000 feet there is still little to choose between the two aircraft in manoeurvrability, but the superiority in speed and climb of the Spitfire IX becomes outstanding. The pilot of the Spitfire VC found it difficult to maintain a steep turn without losing height, whereas the pilot of the Spitfire IX found that he had a large reserve of power which enabled him to maintain height without trouble. The all-round performance of the Spitfire IX at 30,000 feet is most impressive."

Source (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9tactical.html)

MEGILE
12-06-2004, 06:39 AM
High Flying

22......... Several climbs were made to heights between 39,000 and 40,000 feet and the pilot felt that the aircraft was capable of going even higher. Although the operational ceiling is considered to be 38,000 feet, it is thought that Sections of two could operate up to 39,000 feet and probably higher. The aircraft is easy to fly at high altitudes, but freezing up of the trimming tabs occured. It was therefore difficult to keep the aircraft level as it was still trimmed for climb. During manoeuvres there is otherwise little tendency to lose height even at 38,000 feet. At this height the aircraft was dived for 1,500 feet and zoomed up to 39,000 feet. Steep turns were carried out at 38,000 feet where it was necessary to maintain an indicated airspeed of at least 110 m.p.h. to prevent stalling. The cockpit heating kept the pilot warm at all heights and flying clothing was unnecessary.

23......... Slight icing up of the cockpit was experienced during turns but this dispersed as soon at the aircraft was flown straight. The cold air spray to the windscreen was turned on during descents and no misting was experienced.

24......... During the high flying trials vapour trails were formed between 30,000 and 36,000 feet, but above this height trails were not visible. All flights took place under conditions of no cloud and extremely low temperatures, -64 deg.C. being reported on one occasion

Vittorio1
12-06-2004, 08:36 AM
Thanks for your replys, so basicly is the spit MKIX family in IL2 well represented as far as its true flight model goes?

Thanks.

VW-IceFire
12-06-2004, 08:51 AM
I think its fairly well represnted. For a while it was regarded as overmodeled. That had mostly to do with engine power and a faster top speed at high altitude than it should have had. The IX does feel heavier than its earlier cousin. It takes a bit to get used to it and its harder to fly than many give credit for.

I think the trick is not to get a 109 on your tail. If you do, your options are somewhat limited. My suggestion is to do a high speed dive and try and leverage your slightly better control authority over his cement block flight stick.

The IX does turn better than the 109 at slightly higher speeds. Use the rudder to hold yourself into the turn and try and not bleed too much E. But the differences between the two are very close. Not sure how historical this is but I'm told the 109 was pretty decent in most turns so its just a matter of pilot skill making the difference between holding that Spit in a turn with the 109 and defeating him and him doing the same and beating you.

The 109's to watch out for in a Spit:

109G-2
109G-6A/S
109G-10 (if VERY well flown)
109K-4 (ultimate version)

The last two are more in the range of a Spitfire XIV. Whic we don't yet have.

3.JG51_BigBear
12-06-2004, 09:47 AM
A while back a video link was posted in which Skip Holm, who has flown the 109G and the Sptifire IX felt that the two planes would be equal in the turn. Granted the planes he flys lack their armament and their armour but its something to think about.

Daiichidoku
12-06-2004, 10:01 AM
the IX was considered as having a negligible difference in manuverability as the lighter V, but with improved top speed, accel, climb, ceiling...a true type improvemant, with little or no compromise to any other areas, a rarity in warbird development

Jeffery Quill, who has flown ALL spitfire production types, experimentals, et al, and probably has the most spitfire hours on the planet, has stated
"When I am asked which mark of Spit I condsider the best from the pure flying POV, I ususally reply 'the Mk VIII with standard wingtips.' I HATED the extended wingtips on the Mk VIII and did everything I could to get rid of them. Originally all MK VIIIs had the long wingtips ntil I succeeded in getting them reverted to standard [obviously Mr. Quill didnt have to deal with 1C to get changes made http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif] They were of no practical value to the Mk VIII and simply reduced the aileron response and rate of rool. On the Mks VI and VII, being essentially for high alt operations, the extended wingtips were of value."

VW-IceFire
12-06-2004, 12:03 PM
I hear he liked the XIV quite a bit too...or maybe thats wrong. One of the Supermarine test pilots on the Spitfire really liked the XIV's power while other pilots hated it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Daiichidoku
12-06-2004, 12:20 PM
Yes, IceFire, could be...after all, he said the VIII was his fav from a "pure flying POV", a weekend jaunt and flying in combat are very different, amybe he like the XIV for combat (though he was NOT a combat pilot)

Vipez-
12-06-2004, 12:50 PM
3.01 fixxed spit 9 inability to overheat, but looks like 3.02 brought this bug back.. anyone else noticed the same ? WEP on, and it does not overheat (atleast for 15mins )

WOLFMondo
12-06-2004, 01:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I hear he liked the XIV quite a bit too...or maybe thats wrong. One of the Supermarine test pilots on the Spitfire really liked the XIV's power while other pilots hated it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I read Johnny Johnson liked it but his comment went along the lines of 'great plane but its not a spitfire anymore' or somthing like that.

VW-IceFire
12-06-2004, 01:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
3.01 fixxed spit 9 inability to overheat, but looks like 3.02 brought this bug back.. anyone else noticed the same ? WEP on, and it does not overheat (atleast for 15mins ) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope. But it is different.

In 3.01 it was like the pendelum had swung backwards again. The Mark VIII would overheat within 1 minute of engaging WEP. The IX would take a similar amount of time.

In 3.02, Oleg says that radiator settings were increased to maximum accuracy to try and find the middle ground (well I'm extrapolating that last bit). The IX does overheat now...so does the VIII, but not as fast as some feel it should (not that they are correct either). I find it roughly similar to the 109 or the Mustang in that they are all similar aircraft with automated radiator settings.

If you run the Spitfire IX in a full out dash it will overheat. I should run a test just to confirm but I've noticed the overheat message in 3.02 a fair bit. Of course, the way I fly...I rarely see overheats on FWs, 109s, or Spits.

Bull_dog_
12-06-2004, 07:10 PM
I fly spits alot and I think from a turning aspect, I like you, got used to the Spit having a pretty big turn advantage. That isn't the way it is modelled in this game. I find the spit can turn better at high speed, but at low speed I can take a spit down in a 109 most of the time unless I began with a substantial energy disadvantage.

My recommendation is to not get in a protracted tight turning match with a messer. Depending on model and altitude, the Spit in this game climbs really well. If you get a G-2 through 6 at low or high altitude, you will own him in an energy fight if you have any kind of energy to begin with. Watch it real though between say 4500 meters and 6500 as most 109's peak there in performance and the climb/speed advantage goes to them.

Learn energy fighting and a Spit will do well against everything except a 109K and maybe a well flown G-10. Problem with those planes is their incredible climb coupled with speed and for some reason they retain elevator authority at high speed...don't know why but they do. Other 109's get heavy controls at high speed and historically I think many 109 pilots lost their lives as they overshot P-47's diving from above, unable to pull out of their dive, the Jugs latched onto their tails and caught them.

WUAF_Badsight
12-06-2004, 08:48 PM
below is what someone without any time using the K4 or G10 would say
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
except a 109K and maybe a well flown G-10. Problem with those planes is their incredible climb coupled with speed and for some reason they retain elevator authority at high speed...don't know why but they do.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NO Bf109 retains its elevator authority

especially the K4

Salfordian
12-07-2004, 03:28 AM
Just to note, Jeffrey Quill did have some operational experience, During the Battle of Britain he was temporarily attached to 65 Sqn to recommend improvements from an operational point of view, flying a number of combat missions.
He was also a fighter pilot in the RAF until 1936 when he joined Vickers

Nubarus
12-07-2004, 03:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
3.01 fixxed spit 9 inability to overheat, but looks like 3.02 brought this bug back.. anyone else noticed the same ? WEP on, and it does not overheat (atleast for 15mins ) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Someone in the ORR did a couple of proper tests and the results where as it should be IRL.

So no, this so called bug has not come back, it was fixed because in 3.01 the overheat occured way too fast, especially on the Seafire and the Mark VIII.

Nubarus
12-07-2004, 03:52 AM
As regarding to the turning compared to Bf109's, Huckebein_FW AKA Magister_Ludi once said that the Bf109 G series turning abillity was slightly better then the Tempest V, even so small that it would not even give an advantage during a dogfight.

This was in relation to a thread about the turn abillity of the Ta152 at low altitude since this example was given to convince Oleg to give the Ta152 a better turn rate at low altitude.

I then said that the Tempest V was not a good example since it was not a very good turner at low altitude because even the Spitfire XIV could out turn a Tempest V with ease during combat trials.

So basicly with this logic it would not be very believable that a Bf109 could have the same turn rate as a Spitfire IX.

On top of that the document I posted earlier states that the turn rate of the Mark V and Mark IX where about the same and put the advantage to the Mark IX due to more engine power.

Tactical trails between the Mark IX and Mark XIV also state that the turn rate is the same but that the Mark XIV gives less stall warning then the Mark IX.

So the whole "Spitfires turn ability got worse with each version" is something I really would like the ones that keep preeching it to back it up with official documents instead of just words.

"Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV."

Source (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14afdu.html)

VW-IceFire
12-07-2004, 06:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
As regarding to the turning compared to Bf109's, Huckebein_FW AKA Magister_Ludi once said that the Bf109 G series turning abillity was slightly better then the Tempest V, even so small that it would not even give an advantage during a dogfight.

This was in relation to a thread about the turn abillity of the Ta152 at low altitude since this example was given to convince Oleg to give the Ta152 a better turn rate at low altitude.

I then said that the Tempest V was not a good example since it was not a very good turner at low altitude because even the Spitfire XIV could out turn a Tempest V with ease during combat trials.

So basicly with this logic it would not be very believable that a Bf109 could have the same turn rate as a Spitfire IX.

On top of that the document I posted earlier states that the turn rate of the Mark V and Mark IX where about the same and put the advantage to the Mark IX due to more engine power.

Tactical trails between the Mark IX and Mark XIV also state that the turn rate is the same but that the Mark XIV gives less stall warning then the Mark IX.

So the whole "Spitfires turn ability got worse with each version" is something I really would like the ones that keep preeching it to back it up with official documents instead of just words.

"Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV."

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14afdu.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm convinced that the 109 they were flying was not in good shape or that it was not being flown to the best of its ability. The comments in the tactical trials are somewhat vague. The Tempest turns mostly like a FW190 (a bit better because of better wingloading) and the Spitfire can turn inside of it.

Everything I can find suggests that the XIV's turn time is the same or so close that its not worth mentioning over earlier variants. The problem being less of a stall warning and the heavier plane being harder to hold to that best turn speed.

Vipez-
12-07-2004, 07:04 AM
you might be right, i just feld like n00bish last night flying the spit 9 LF , and i had WEP enabled all the time , and not a single time message about overheating.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

HayateAce
12-07-2004, 08:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
you might be right, i just feld like n00bish last night flying the spit 9 LF , and i had WEP enabled all the time , and not a single time message about overheating.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Conversely, I feel noobish in your beloved 109 when I stall/depart at 20 meters above the ground and can easily recover it, quickly accelerate back to good energy and continue the fight. Any 109 driver in this simulated game hasn't one ounce of soil to stand on and call any other plane Noobish.

MEGILE
12-07-2004, 08:37 AM
The Spitfire IX a n00b plane?
It can get out-ran, out-climbed, out-dived and even out-turned.

The only place a Spit IX can dominate is up high vs. BF-109s in the HF.

robban75
12-07-2004, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
The Spitfire IX a n00b plane?
It can get out-ran, out-climbed, out-dived and even out-turned. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The ones it can't outrun it can outturn, the ones it can't outturn it can outrun, the one it can't outclimb it can outturn, the ones it can't outdive it can outturn and outclimb. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

MEGILE
12-07-2004, 10:01 AM
Which is EXACTLY why it is far from a n00b plane.

Undoubtedly you know Robban that in the D9, you can out run, out dive, out zoom climb and out-roll the Spitfire IX.
The Spitfire is almost an easy kill... its only chance is when you "accidently" try to turn fight with it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

robban75
12-07-2004, 10:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
Which is EXACTLY why it is far from a n00b plane.

Now doubt you know Robban that in the D9, you can out run, out dive, out zoom climb and out-roll the Spitfire IX.
Doesn't seem much of a n00b plane does it? The plane you fly performs better.. its a n00b plane eooen1o1neone! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfires ability to turn and climb is what scares me the most whenever I'm up against it. The way it can just hang in the prop coupled with the Hispano's ability to do serious damage is, to say the least, SCARY! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

MEGILE
12-07-2004, 10:12 AM
That is one good thing about the Spitfire.. the weapons.
The two Hispanos are excellent, especialy against BF-109s... even though .50cals more than suffice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

faustnik
12-07-2004, 10:27 AM
Spitfires are too slow outside of 1943. In '42 the A4 is too fast for the Mk. Vb and after '44 the A8 are too fast for the Mk IX. It takes good teamwork and discipline but, 190 can dominate the Spits.

Make a mistake in a 190 though, and the Spits will make you pay.

Vittorio1
12-07-2004, 11:26 AM
come on guys! everyone knows that the real daddy of all n00b planes is the KI84.............................................. ...........................i rest my case.

MEGILE
12-07-2004, 11:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It takes good teamwork and discipline but, 190 can dominate the Spits.

Make a mistake in a 190 though, and the Spits will make you pay.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Precisely. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

p1ngu666
12-07-2004, 12:15 PM
a squad i know had really bad probs with spitfire, (they fly dora) spitfire outclimbs em and bnz dora's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

also maybe faster at really high alt :O

but there should be more stall warning, imo

Nubarus
12-07-2004, 07:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I'm convinced that the 109 they were flying was not in good shape or that it was not being flown to the best of its ability. The comments in the tactical trials are somewhat vague. The Tempest turns mostly like a FW190 (a bit better because of better wingloading) and the Spitfire can turn inside of it.

Everything I can find suggests that the XIV's turn time is the same or so close that its not worth mentioning over earlier variants. The problem being less of a stall warning and the heavier plane being harder to hold to that best turn speed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The tests Huck was refering to where German performance tests vs British performance tests so I am not talking about that captured Bf109 test at all.

This is pure logic at work here.

German performance tests present a slightly better turn performance then a Tempest V from numbers off a British test of the Tempest V. (In the Tempest vs Bf109 test with the captured Bf109 the Tempest out turned it btw, but I am not talking about that test)

In the British test I posted the Spitfire XIV has no problem out turning a Tempest V.

I shoved this logic on Hucky's plate as well in the past and he ignored it at first and his first attempt to brush it off was "British pilots don't know how to fly German planes" but that statement backfired a bit since it's a test between the Tempest V and the Spitfire XIV so he later converted it to "British test pilots don't know how to fly British planes as well"

VW-IceFire
12-07-2004, 09:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I'm convinced that the 109 they were flying was not in good shape or that it was not being flown to the best of its ability. The comments in the tactical trials are somewhat vague. The Tempest turns mostly like a FW190 (a bit better because of better wingloading) and the Spitfire can turn inside of it.

Everything I can find suggests that the XIV's turn time is the same or so close that its not worth mentioning over earlier variants. The problem being less of a stall warning and the heavier plane being harder to hold to that best turn speed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The tests Huck was refering to where German performance tests vs British performance tests so I am not talking about that captured Bf109 test at all.

This is pure logic at work here.

German performance tests present a slightly better turn performance then a Tempest V from numbers off a British test of the Tempest V. (In the Tempest vs Bf109 test with the captured Bf109 the Tempest out turned it btw, but I am not talking about that test)

In the British test I posted the Spitfire XIV has no problem out turning a Tempest V.

I shoved this logic on Hucky's plate as well in the past and he ignored it at first and his first attempt to brush it off was "British pilots don't know how to fly German planes" but that statement backfired a bit since it's a test between the Tempest V and the Spitfire XIV so he later converted it to "British test pilots don't know how to fly British planes as well" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ahhh...I see http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

*confused*

So the Germans tested the 109...and the British tested the Tempest V and in a numbers comparison the two are fairly close? Am I interpreting that correctly?

Actually...the 109 and Tempest V being close in turns seems to be represented in IL2 Compare. At least for the G-2 and G-6 the turns above 350 kph are very close indeed and in the G-6's...the Tempest V actually can out turn them above 400-450 kph. Its a slight minor turn advantage but present nonetheless. Not sure how accurate this all is (the Tempest V IS something like 80 kph too slow so I'm sure its a beta http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) but thats some corroboration.

S.taibanzai
12-07-2004, 10:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
you might be right, i just feld like n00bish last night flying the spit 9 LF , and i had WEP enabled all the time , and not a single time message about overheating.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Conversely, I feel noobish in your beloved 109 when I stall/depart at 20 meters above the ground and can easily recover it, quickly accelerate back to good energy and continue the fight. Any 109 driver in this simulated game hasn't one ounce of soil to stand on and call any other plane Noobish. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif


Hmm Hayateace maybe you have right ?