PDA

View Full Version : a small worrying thought on the spitfire...



XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 10:04 PM
As some of you may remember there has been a small argument about the roll rate of the P47 on this forum.

Well i've been reading Robert Shaw's Fighter tactics book and in it there is an anecdote from the USAAF P47 ace Robert Johnson about his mock dogfight in the Jug vs a Spitfire he was able to beat the spit because the P47 could out roll the spitfire! (those big ol' elliptical wings i guess).

Does anyone else have a fear of the TB-3 being able to out-roll the spitfire? or is it just me?

"Address tae an Auld Spitfire"
Arthur Smith.

Whit' maks' ye look sae sad and lost, Auld Spitfire: Whit's the maitter?
These Jets beside ye canna' boast o' Deeds like yours, or better.
You've had yur' Day and proved yur' Worth, in Fearless, Firm Formation,
And smashed Armadas o' The North, tae save an Island Nation.

Don't pout yur' 'Prop', nor wilt yur' Wings because the people pass ye
Tae look at Supersonic Things wha's vanities harass ye.
When Tyranny, at Freedom's Door, in Armoured Might, wis knockin',
Ye made a Nation's 'Finest 'Our' - The Tyrant's Blade wis Broken.

Though streakin' Jets reflect the sun - The people don't forget ye. -
You're staunin noo on Hallowed Grun', - A Monument we've set ye.
You've banked and Spun, at Battle's height when greater numbers matched ye,
And cleared the skies o' Fascist Blight, while Freedom lovers watched ye.

Noo au' yur' Supersonic Brood kin' frolic, frisk and play
In skies where once in balance stood, The Scales o' Destiny.
-Yur' youthful Dash, and Fortitude, and sense o' Service - True.
-Has won the lastin' Gratitude 'o' mony for The Few'.

Ye seem tae ken' yon man that walks, on artificial Limb. -
-He strokes yur' side, and gently talks - YE SEEM TAE TALK TAE HIM
-Ye seem tae me, withoot a doot', attached tae yin' anither:-
-Ye maun' hae much to talk aboot. -Ah'll leave ye baith the gither.

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 10:04 PM
As some of you may remember there has been a small argument about the roll rate of the P47 on this forum.

Well i've been reading Robert Shaw's Fighter tactics book and in it there is an anecdote from the USAAF P47 ace Robert Johnson about his mock dogfight in the Jug vs a Spitfire he was able to beat the spit because the P47 could out roll the spitfire! (those big ol' elliptical wings i guess).

Does anyone else have a fear of the TB-3 being able to out-roll the spitfire? or is it just me?

"Address tae an Auld Spitfire"
Arthur Smith.

Whit' maks' ye look sae sad and lost, Auld Spitfire: Whit's the maitter?
These Jets beside ye canna' boast o' Deeds like yours, or better.
You've had yur' Day and proved yur' Worth, in Fearless, Firm Formation,
And smashed Armadas o' The North, tae save an Island Nation.

Don't pout yur' 'Prop', nor wilt yur' Wings because the people pass ye
Tae look at Supersonic Things wha's vanities harass ye.
When Tyranny, at Freedom's Door, in Armoured Might, wis knockin',
Ye made a Nation's 'Finest 'Our' - The Tyrant's Blade wis Broken.

Though streakin' Jets reflect the sun - The people don't forget ye. -
You're staunin noo on Hallowed Grun', - A Monument we've set ye.
You've banked and Spun, at Battle's height when greater numbers matched ye,
And cleared the skies o' Fascist Blight, while Freedom lovers watched ye.

Noo au' yur' Supersonic Brood kin' frolic, frisk and play
In skies where once in balance stood, The Scales o' Destiny.
-Yur' youthful Dash, and Fortitude, and sense o' Service - True.
-Has won the lastin' Gratitude 'o' mony for The Few'.

Ye seem tae ken' yon man that walks, on artificial Limb. -
-He strokes yur' side, and gently talks - YE SEEM TAE TALK TAE HIM
-Ye seem tae me, withoot a doot', attached tae yin' anither:-
-Ye maun' hae much to talk aboot. -Ah'll leave ye baith the gither.

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 10:08 PM
I too have this fear.....

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

Buzz_25th
10-02-2003, 10:23 PM
They wouldn't have come out with the clipped wing version if it rolled good.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 10:29 PM
Buzz_25th wrote:
- They wouldn't have come out with the clipped wing
- version if it rolled good.

I didn't think about that...man..I'm spacy today.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 10:30 PM
Sierra_Delta wrote:
- As some of you may remember there has been a small
- argument about the roll rate of the P47 on this
- forum.
-
- Well i've been reading Robert Shaw's Fighter tactics
- book and in it there is an anecdote from the USAAF
- P47 ace Robert Johnson about his mock dogfight in
- the Jug vs a Spitfire he was able to beat the spit
- because the P47 could out roll the spitfire! (those
- big ol' elliptical wings i guess).
-
- Does anyone else have a fear of the TB-3 being able
- to out-roll the spitfire? or is it just me?
-


Maybe this means the 47's roll is being fixed? Would a "Bad" spit be released? if not aleast we'll have company

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid79/p9141f290fa1c1c59a2dc382c77af21f3/fb1a8321.jpg


Lead Whiner for the P-47D-40, M and N and Hvars

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 10:37 PM
Actually the P-47 did not out roll the Spit. The P-47 used a vector roll.

The regular wing Spit was above the P-47 below 290mph (IAS) but fell behind above that speed. The clip-wing Spit was all over the P-47(+40*/s at 290mph) and not even getting close till 400mph(still +5*/s).


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 10:54 PM
The clipped-wing Spitfire had a roll rate second to the FW, according to the charts Buzzsaw posted. I'm not sure what Mk was in those charts, but you add a clipped-wing Spit to this game and you will see a whole, helluva lot of them online. Be sure./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The roll in the regular Spitfire was slow and it's weakest point, besides the light armor.

I personally can't wait to fly a clipped-wing Spitfire. Mk. IX or Mk. XIV, either will be fine. Of course, I think the Mk. XIV clipped-wing will dominate in this game. Awesome speed and maneuverability, plus great armament.

If the LuftWhiners think the LA7 is tough to beat, what the heck are they going to do against a plane that can roll with them, has great speed and the Hispanos to bring down the FW?

LOL, this is going to be a doozy./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

Buzz_25th
10-02-2003, 11:17 PM
Only if Oleg thinks the Spit is a good plane Slick.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 12:37 AM
I hear ya, Buzz. However, I don't buy into that "Oleg is biased" stuff. A well-flown FW-A9 or 109-K4 still outclimbs an LA7 and any other VVS plane.

I feel that most of the whining is due to the fact that too many of the LW pilots try to fly and turn with an LA7 under 2500m. Even the LA5FN can handle that task./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

We all know that B and Z is the way of life for the LW planes, but if the LW pilot, who energy fights well, gets too aggressive, the LA7 can turn the tables quickly.

I was shocked today when I saw the LA7 banned on a server. It's not worthy of being banned, IMO.

_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 01:33 AM
And don't get me started on dive speeds. Those LW planes can get some major km/h goin'./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Well past the limit of the LA7. LA7 shimmies at like 590-610 and falls apart at various times nearing 710km/h.

It's never the same, I like that. It seems as the damage from high speed has a bit of randomness to it because I've lost different bits at various speeds often.

The matchups are there in this game. From '43 and back there are some classic matchups that are major fun to fly for both sides. The '44 planes need some tweaking, granted.



_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

Buzz_25th
10-03-2003, 02:10 AM
I used to fly the La5FN a lot in IL2. It's a nice plane. I haven't fooled with the La7 much at all. It does climb better than it's supposed too, but like you said. Not as good as a 109.

I'm going to stick with the 109 for now. Maybe the P-63, P-51, or Spit will change my mind. We'll see how it goes when we get them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 02:56 AM
Buzz, I've been flying the LW planes much more lately, too. I'm in love with the 109-F4 and 109-G2, and the FW-A5 with the outer cannons removed is a great ride.

Here's a little flip to the LW whine tho, I think we can all say that the F4 and G2 turn better now then they ever did in any previous version of IL2 or FB. Very rare to see a 109 turn fighting with any success before V1.11. Now, I see many, many G2s online and when I flew it, I couldn't believe it.

The flight model for the 109 has changed so much over the past two years, that I'm not sure anybody knows which one is right anymore./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I saw CrazyIvan post about a few of the things they were working on with the add-on/patch. They are addressing the CEM/overheat issues of the LW birds and other things and there's no doubt in my mind, that by the time this game is a year old, it will be well-tuned, like IL2 V1.02.

As for the Spitfires, man, those are gonna be some good times. I used to love the P51 as a kid, but once I learned about Spitfires, I was hooked. Elegance, grace, beauty and raw firepower enough to shred FWs./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Clipped-wings helped to level the playing field, albeit not overtake it, and were one of the major innovations that helped stem the onslaught of the awesome FW fighter in the latter parts of the war. Not that you don't know this kind of stuff, I'm just rambling because I love the Mk. IX and if the Mk. XIV comes our way, I'll be a two-plane man for quite some months./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 03:03 AM
I'd rather fly the Eliptical wing...so much more...sexier...did i just use the word sexy to describe a plane? Dammit.. =(

Buzz_25th
10-03-2003, 03:15 AM
I actually want the Spit more than any other plane. I used to talk about it all the time. I just got so tired of waiting for it, that trying to forget it is easier on the waiting. I'm sorry to see the SpitV is going to be the first one. Everybody will rag on it. The IX and IVX are what I want.

Now you've got me thinking about the Spit again../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 03:19 AM
Have any of you know if the P47 can out drive the Spitfire..I guess not why it becuase all of us are not from wwII only real truth if you talked to a WW2 pilot that was there..then there you go...alot of books about ww2 planes but all diffeant anwsears..hard to find the real truth , unless you talk to a vet pilot thast was from 1940 to 45....

http://www.vvs504.com/images/warhawksig.jpg

Buzz_25th
10-03-2003, 03:38 AM
Diving was what the P-47 did best. So we're not surprised. Diving isn't the whole fight though. I'll take a late Spit over the P-47 anyday.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 04:55 AM
the clipped wing spit was designed for better roll at low altitude. the normal spit rolled fine at 20 thou.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 05:01 AM
Definately want to see various versions of the Spitfire and Typhoon/Tempest which was pretty much the core of the RAF fighters by the wars end.

I suspect the Spit XIV clipped wing will be a favorite on the dogfight servers although I think I may be more partial to the eliptical wing version...it just looks better http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nonetheless, amazingly well designed aircraft. Can't wait to take them for a spin.

http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/icefire_tempest.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 05:18 AM
for all those anti-spitwhiners out we wont go play cfs3 etc cause we want our plane modeled like only OLEG knows how to

Konigwolf

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 06:01 AM
Farkitt wrote:
- the clipped wing spit was designed for better roll
- at low altitude. the normal spit rolled fine at 20
- thou.

Yes, in real life, however, this is sim life and not too many dogfights in this game at 20K./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 06:25 AM
Buzz, I thought you were a huge P-51 fan? I didn't know you had any interest in the Spit at all? Despite what many people think, I have a feeling the Mustang will be quite capable when it becomes flyable.



I think the Spits will be good in FB but people should be aware that the Spitfire usually performed best up high, not down low. Then again, the engine determined where it performed best so it is really dependent on what type of Spitfire we get and what type of engine it has modelled. That is what made the Spitfire/Merlin so great IMHO, its ability to adapt to different combat situations. An often overlooked Spitfire that performed great down low was the Spitfire Mk.XII. This was used to catch low flying 190's that were performing high speed raids into England, similar to how the Typhoon was used. I doubt we will ever see it in FB though, and there were relatively few produced.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 06:33 AM
Spitfire had awful roll characteristics.

Full aileron deflection was possible only up to 130mph indicated !! (with 40lb stick force). Also the max roll rate was 59 degrees at 230mph indicated (30lb force). At 300mph ailerons could be deflected only half the travel with 40lb force. Note that the plane was fitted with metal-covered ailerons.

Max practical force that could be exerted by the pilot was, like in 109, limited to 40lb at full stick travel, due to cramped cockpit. Now you have to understand that higher stick forces could be applied in both planes at speeds higher than those at which full stick travel was possible.

All this data is from NACA report L.334 on a combat ready SpitfireV, tested between Dec'41 - Ian'42.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/03/0312:43AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 12:55 PM
And in NACA test 868 Huckie, the Spitfire (normal wing) did:

160mph(IAS) > 87 degrees/sec
210mph > 105 degrees/sec
400mph > 44 degrees/sec

Spitfire, clipped wing:

160mph(IAS) > 114 degrees/sec
210mph > 150 degrees/sec
400mph > 72 degrees/sec

(numbers taken off the graph)

It should be noted that at 400mph the Fw190 did 78degrees/sec. The P-51B did 87 degrees/sec at 400mph.

As usual we see selective posting by one of the "uber twins".


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Hawgdog
10-03-2003, 01:06 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Actually the P-47 did not out roll the Spit. The
- P-47 used a vector roll.


a what?

<center></script>The original HawgDog, dont be fooled by fneb imitations
~W~ cause S! has become USELESS
When you get to hell, tell 'em Hawgdog sent you
http://users.zoominternet.net/~cgatewood/assets/images/sharkdog.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 01:32 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- And in NACA test 868 Huckie, the Spitfire (normal
- wing) did:
-
- 160mph(IAS) > 87 degrees/sec
- 210mph > 105 degrees/sec
- 400mph > 44 degrees/sec
-
- Spitfire, clipped wing:
-
- 160mph(IAS) > 114 degrees/sec
- 210mph > 150 degrees/sec
- 400mph > 72 degrees/sec
-
- (numbers taken off the graph)
-
- It should be noted that at 400mph the Fw190 did
- 78degrees/sec. The P-51B did 87 degrees/sec at
- 400mph.
-
- As usual we see selective posting by one of the
- "uber twins".


You are fabulating as usually. There is no NACA test 868. There is a NACA report no 868, called "Summary of lateral control research". It is NOT a test, is a collection of data gathered by NACA on lateral control until the date of the report.

There is indeed a chart there on roll performance for various planes, but NO DETAILS are given about the actual tests in which those roll rates were obtained. NACA often modified the controls to test solutions for improvement of the flight performance.

On the other hand we have two extensive NACA reports basesd on many successive tests on Spitfire with eliptical wings, first made between Dec'41-Jan'42, second in Nov'42. The results are the same in both tests. a max roll rate of 60 degree/sec obtained at around 230mph.

This is max roll performance of Spitfire with eliptical wings. Learn to live with it.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/03/0307:33AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 01:41 PM
I got to wonder why there are a few who insure every post
about allied, especially american aircraft, degenerates
into a "If it aint German it sucks" contest.

Huck, Milo has good info, back up your BS or get lost.

MR.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 01:55 PM
Huckebein_FW, the Spitfire that is nearest to completion is the MKXIV clipped wing version so why do you even bother to come here with data on early model Spitfires and try to sell a crap roll rate to the entire line of Spitfires?

Sounds like your afraid that the Spitfires are going to tear you a new poo hole in your FW.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 01:56 PM
Mr-Awesome wrote:
- I got to wonder why there are a few who insure every
- post
- about allied, especially american aircraft,
- degenerates
- into a "If it aint German it sucks" contest.

He has a picture impossible to relate to a test.
I have the whole test:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/raf/spit_flying.pdf

Read it and cry.




<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 02:00 PM
Cappadocian_317 wrote:
- Huckebein_FW, the Spitfire that is nearest to
- completion is the MKXIV clipped wing version so why
- do you even bother to come here with data on early
- model Spitfires and try to sell a crap roll rate to
- the entire line of Spitfires?

Aeordynamically SpitXIV had the same wing with early SpitV (eliptical one).

Also what you'll get first in FB is SpitV, so data for it is the most relevant.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 02:06 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-
-
- You are fabulating as usually. There is no NACA test
- 868. There is a NACA report no 868, called "Summary
- of lateral control research". It is NOT a test, is a
- collection of data gathered by NACA on lateral
- control until the date of the report.
-
-

What is "fabulating"?

So it is a report, whippy-do. Are you saying the data for the Fw190 is wrong? Where did the "gathered data" come from Huckie? Flight testing is the obvious source,/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif or it is like your theoretical calculations for the roll rate of the 109?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 02:07 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Also what you'll get first in FB is SpitV, so data
- for it is the most relevant.

Ya right, you only want to talk about the early model Spits because the late model ones make you cry.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 02:14 PM
Better start gathering more test info Huck.

http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID43/216.html

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 02:25 PM
That mock fight mentioned in the begining of this thread, is that the one where the Jug out zoomed the Spit?

If Oleg insists the P-47 zooms right, and models the Spit accordingly, my god...this place will be alight in flames not unlike that of hell. lol

Why is it so hard for us to get a D-27 that rolls right, and an airframe (the entire Jug line) that dives and zooms right? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

For that matter, why not an M? Just an FM tweak of the D-27 is all that would be needed....

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 02:36 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- That mock fight mentioned in the begining of this
- thread, is that the one where the Jug out zoomed the
- Spit?
-
- If Oleg insists the P-47 zooms right, and models the
- Spit accordingly, my god...this place will be alight
- in flames not unlike that of hell. lol
-
- Why is it so hard for us to get a D-27 that rolls
- right, and an airframe (the entire Jug line) that
- dives and zooms right? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
-
- For that matter, why not an M? Just an FM tweak of
- the D-27 is all that would be needed....


And Don't forget the Vertical Fin for lateral stability! Might get past as a M with a -27 tail!



http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid79/p9141f290fa1c1c59a2dc382c77af21f3/fb1a8321.jpg


Lead Whiner for the P-47D-40, M and N and Hvars

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 02:47 PM
kyrule2 wrote:
-
-
-
- I think the Spits will be good in FB but people
- should be aware that the Spitfire usually performed
- best up high, not down low. Then again, the engine
- determined where it performed best so it is really
- dependent on what type of Spitfire we get and what
- type of engine it has modelled. That is what made
- the Spitfire/Merlin so great IMHO, its ability to
- adapt to different combat situations. An often
- overlooked Spitfire that performed great down low
- was the Spitfire Mk.XII. This was used to catch low
- flying 190's that were performing high speed raids
- into England, similar to how the Typhoon was used. I
- doubt we will ever see it in FB though, and there
- were relatively few produced.
-


LOL...the P-47 and P-51 were both specialized high-altitude fighters as well and while we don't have the "51" yet, just look at the Jug. I hope there is consistency is all.




http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 04:42 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Spitfire had awful roll characteristics.

Some early non clipped wing Spits had terrible roll.
Later clipped wing spits were not much behind the 190.
Maybe the battle between the V and 190 made Supermarine
address the issue, as the IX and XIV, especially clipped
wing, weren't _that_ bad.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 04:52 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- He has a picture impossible to relate to a test.
- I have the whole test:

A document thanks!

- Read it and cry.

Seems to indicate 90deg/sec at about 200 IAS, and
70 deg/sec at 300IAS, with an increasing roll rate
towards 400 (although the graph ends at 300). So
it isn't that good or bad, but as expected for a non
clipped wing Spit.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 04:57 PM
SlickStick wrote:
-
- I personally can't wait to fly a clipped-wing
- Spitfire. Mk. IX or Mk. XIV, either will be fine.
- Of course, I think the Mk. XIV clipped-wing will
- dominate in this game. Awesome speed and
- maneuverability, plus great armament.
-
- If the LuftWhiners think the LA7 is tough to beat,
- what the heck are they going to do against a plane
- that can roll with them, has great speed and the
- Hispanos to bring down the FW?



No Spitfire could do anything better than the La-7 at the 0-3000m range where dogfights happen in Il-2. They are slower, have less ammo, roll poorly (with the probable exceptions of clipped wing versions, but that`s a tradeoff again, resulting less manouveribility, climb rate and stall chars).

Just the facts :

Speed at SL

Spit 14 : 580 kph
109K-4 : 607 kph
La-7 : 617 kph
190D-9 : 612 kph


Climb at SL:

Spit 14 : 23.9 m/sec
K-4 : 24.5 m/sec
LA-7 : 24.1 m/sec
D-9 : 22 m/sec

WEP time

Spit 14 : 5 mins
All others : 10 mins

Powerloadings (~=acceleration):

Spit 14 : 1840 HP for 3859kg
K-4 : 2000 HP for 3362 kg
LA-7 : 1850kg for 3320 kg
D-9 : 2240 HP for 4250 kg

In dives and zoom climbs, Spits will be poor again, largely becasue they have poor powerloading, high drag and very low wingloading.

In fact the Spit is high altitude fighter, at low altitudes it`s not very impressive (like Ta-152).

Oh, as for armament. Wing guns, high recoil.... and low ammo capacity : 120 rounds for 20mm and 200 rounds for .50 claiber - just like Yak3. And for what Yak drivers complain all the time? You guessed, too little ammo, even if they have centerline guns.


Anyone who thinks the Spits we get will some kind of killers in those low altitude dogfights we have on server is delluding himself. Not that the Spits won`t be excellent planes, they will be, with a very good (wide) performance envelope, but they will be more like jacks of all trades, masters of none.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/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 performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 05:10 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Anyone who thinks the Spits we get will some kind of
- killers in those low altitude dogfights we have on
- server is delluding himself. Not that the Spits
- won`t be excellent planes, they will be, with a very
- good (wide) performance envelope, but they will be
- more like jacks of all trades, masters of none.

Thats the case with just about every allied fighter except for the soviet fighters. In a game like IL-2, whether or not a fighter has a range of 1,800km, can carry bombs and rockets, doesn't matter. Kind of sad, really; planes like the Fw-190 would become more common because of their multipurpose capabilities, not just their hunter/killer capabilities.

Almost all fighters in the game can carry bombs and strafe things, but some are just vastly better suited for the job. I know, given the choice, I'd take a Fw-190F-8 over a Bf-109G-14 if I wanted to take out a convoy and then get into a melee!

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 05:57 PM
Isegrim,

The main thing is that Hispanos were more powerful and their are wing armaments with 4 -.303s + 2-20mm Hispanos, 2 -.50s and 2 - Hispanos and a 4 Hispano version, though not sure how many of these flew around. That will rival 2-20mm SHVAKS anyday./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

IMO, the clipped-wing XIV will roll INCREDIBLY better than the LA7, which rolls worse the faster you go, and the power will be close enough at sea level to say that the Spitfire MK. XIV will be a dominant plane.

The sea level speeds are close and the Spit actually has a higher top speed @ 721km/h, compared to the 680km/h of the LA7. Your numbers also indicate a better rate of climb for the XIV. Not by much, but better.

I see the XIV as an LA7 that can roll better, has better armament and higher top speed.

_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 06:29 PM
SlickStick wrote:
- Isegrim,
-
- The main thing is that Hispanos were more powerful
- and their are wing armaments with 4 -.303s + 2-20mm
- Hispanos, 2 -.50s and 2 - Hispanos and a 4 Hispano
- version, though not sure how many of these flew
- around. That will rival 2-20mm SHVAKS anyday.


It won't rival SHVAKS. Russians removed the Hispanos from their planes. Good performance on paper does not mean anything. They jammed each time their fire under G load. That means that you can fire only at targets that are not maneuvering. That's a huge limitation. Unfortunatelly this is not modelled in the sim. We have the fire prone Jumo 004 modelled in excess but we don't this essential limitation of hispano cannon, the fundamental reason why it was not widely adopted.

Hispanos had a high muzzle velocity to compensate the weight of the projectile. Higher muzzle velocity and higher projectile weight gives much bigger recoil, which makes aiming very hary hard. The germans took a different approach. Make a small projectile, decrease the fire rate and muzzle velocity until the cannon does not jam, which also adds the benefit of a small recoil, and put a very powerful HE mixture in the projectile. The germans focused on HE mixture development not on guns. Not much could be gained from better cannons, because if you improve the fire rate and muzzle velocity you also decrease the precision in aiming (unless of course you come with a goundbreaking design, as it was the Mauser Mk213 cannon , which practically doubled the specs of the previous designs - 1400rpm and 1050m/s!! the ancestor of all modern european cannons mounted on jets)

What we have now in FB is that the german HE mixtures are the most weak (except 30mm which is correct) and the recoil and therefore aiming is the biggest from all planes. Another instance in which german equipment was the best, but is depicted as the worst in FB.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 06:38 PM
SlickStick wrote:
-
- IMO, the clipped-wing XIV will roll INCREDIBLY
- better than the LA7, which rolls worse the faster
- you go, and the power will be close enough at sea
- level to say that the Spitfire MK. XIV will be a
- dominant plane.

That roll you're talking about has nothing to do with the roll of the real combat aircraft. Just by clipping the wing tips of an aircraft you get a double roll rate. From 60deg/sec to 120 deg/sec is impossible.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 06:44 PM
Isegrim I think your information is incorrect.

This site shows actual tests of a Spitfire XIV and shows a climb of 5100 feet per minute. If my math is correct, that is 25.95 meters per second.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14pt.html

There are also tests of the Spitfire IX LF showing at climb of 5080 feet per minute here.

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

I think the Spitfires will give any aircraft in the game a rough go. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 06:48 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- He has a picture impossible to relate to a test.
-- I have the whole test:
-
- A document thanks!
-
-- Read it and cry.
-
- Seems to indicate 90deg/sec at about 200 IAS, and
- 70 deg/sec at 300IAS, with an increasing roll rate
- towards 400 (although the graph ends at 300). So
- it isn't that good or bad, but as expected for a non
- clipped wing Spit.


Where is this test? Those numbers were impossible on a Spitfire (eliptical wing). Read the NACA test Aaron:


http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/raf/spit_flying.pdf


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 06:52 PM
Huck, Buzzsaw posted a chart that showed the roll rates of a clipped-wing Spitfire. It was second only to the FW.

As for the SHVAKS, personally, I'd rather have 2 -.50s + 2 -Hispanos over 2 - SHVAKS. The Hispanos had higher muzzle velocity and a heavier projectile, 96g vs 130g. Up close and personal shooting means that the heavier projectile at close range will do more damage, thus requiring less time squeezing the trigger.

I'd rather do more damage with a short burst and have less ammo, than have more ammo and do less damage with each burst. IMO, of course.

As for the roll-rate post, I have no clue what the heck you are trying to say here:

"That roll you're talking about has nothing to do with the roll of the real combat aircraft. Just by clipping the wing tips of an aircraft you get a double roll rate. From 60deg/sec to 120 deg/sec is impossible."

LA7 is a dog of a roller at high speeds, whereas the Spitfire gets better at higher speeds, according to charts I've seen. I don't have all kinds of statistics, I just know the LA7 in this game and compared to its listed in-game specs, how it performs, in-game.

_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 06:53 PM
JimboJake wrote:
- Isegrim I think your information is incorrect.
-
- This site shows actual tests of a Spitfire XIV and
- shows a climb of 5100 feet per minute. If my math
- is correct, that is 25.95 meters per second.
-
- <a
- href="http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spi
- t14pt.html"
- target=_blank>http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/ea
- gles/spit14pt.html</a>
-
-
- There are also tests of the Spitfire IX LF showing
- at climb of 5080 feet per minute here.
-
- <a
- href="http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl1
- 65.html"
- target=_blank>http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/ea
- gles/jl165.html</a>
-
-
- I think the Spitfires will give any aircraft in the
- game a rough go. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Those planes tested there have nothing to do with the real Spitfires. All Boscombe tests from '43 to the end of war were made with engines much powerful than those mounted on operational Spitfires, therefore the numbers listed there are not useful unless you're interested particulary in the planes tested at Boscombe.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 07:07 PM
SlickStick wrote:
- Huck, Buzzsaw posted a chart that showed the roll
- rates of a clipped-wing Spitfire. It was second
- only to the FW.

That is not the performance of a Spitfire that saw front service. Here's the NACA test on SpitV:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/raf/spit_flying.pdf

You can see there that max roll performance was 60 deg/sec at 230mph.


- As for the SHVAKS, personally, I'd rather have 2
- -.50s + 2 -Hispanos over 2 - SHVAKS. The Hispanos
- had higher muzzle velocity and a heavier projectile,
- 96g vs 130g. Up close and personal shooting means
- that the heavier projectile at close range will do
- more damage, thus requiring less time squeezing the
- trigger.
-
- I'd rather do more damage with a short burst and
- have less ammo, than have more ammo and do less
- damage with each burst. IMO, of course.

The larger weight of the Hispano ammo did not do more damage, it had only higher AP value (late in the war when it started to work correctly, british cannon projectiles had a bad name for exploding in contact with the skin, doing minor damage). HE effect of the MG151/20 shells was bigger than those of Hispano cannon. Forget about FB experience with Hurri2c, is not realistic.



- As for the roll-rate post, I have no clue what the
- heck you are trying to say here:
-
- "That roll you're talking about has nothing to do
- with the roll of the real combat aircraft. Just by
- clipping the wing tips of an aircraft you get a
- double roll rate. From 60deg/sec to 120 deg/sec is
- impossible."


Yes, max roll rate of the SpifireV was 60deg/sec, and it was the best rolling Spitfire with eliptic wings. Just by cutting the wing tips, the max roll rate won't jump to a double value. If the clipped wing gets to 80-90deg/sec you should be happy.




<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 07:17 PM
SlickStick Wrote: The Hispanos
- had higher muzzle velocity and a heavier projectile,
- 96g vs 130g. Up close and personal shooting means
- that the heavier projectile at close range will do
- more damage, thus requiring less time squeezing the
- trigger.



SlickStick, Mostly Hispanos and Svaks total energy at target is mostly kinetic type. not much He content in rounds, sure it will fragment but thats not bad for plane body, only little holes by fragments. sure the AP ammo will have good penetration capability, but that doesnt much make damage on wings when fired at high deflection, or at tail section thru the fuselage. because, Round will not deliver all its energy to the target if it just flies throught the target. so, it only make bout 20mm holes, nothing more. when we start to talk about german rounds (almost same as what Jets use nowadays), they sure will do damage when hit the target, because MUCH bigger load of HE. it doesnt much make heavy fragments, but the blast effect cos of exploding throws covel panelling away. as we are able to see at photos from WW2. we all can see differencies of damage when comparing Axis allies hits. Lw has upper hand in this case. and didnt hispano have really lousy HE rounds anyway, if i correctly remember, it was called cardboard gun because of instant explodint when hitted something, really sensitive fuse used on those rounds. so, there was no delay at all when they hit, no penetration... so, it just pops right outside the plane panelling, makes nice flashes .))

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 07:31 PM
Um, Huck, the Mk. IX clipped-wing version saw plenty of frontline action. I'm not talking early Spits or early Hispanos. Granted, the early hispanos had problems with short fuses on the explosive rounds and other malfunctions. The later hispanos did not suffer from these problems and most later hispanos were switched to solid AP rounds.

That's real life. I'm talking in this sim. If you take an LA7 with 2 SHVAKS and a Hurricane with 4 - Hispanos against a FW-A9, the Hispanos need one burst, maybe 4-8 shells and the FW is in pieces. I've seen A9's take 15-20 20mms and barely start smoking.

Although, the SHVAK is like a laser beam in this game, the hispano has more punch at closer range. I prefer that.

I'll take 240 rounds of 20mm hispanos and 1360 rounds of .303s in a Mk. IX over the SHVAKS of the LA7 we have now. My opinion of course.

_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 07:37 PM
SlickStick wrote:
- Isegrim,
-
- I see the XIV as an LA7 that can roll better, has
- better armament and higher top speed.
-
- _______________________________________
- çk?¯kT 2003**



And Im sure you'll be flying it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif when it gets here.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 07:38 PM
SlickStick wrote:
- Um, Huck, the Mk. IX clipped-wing version saw plenty
- of frontline action.

Maybe, but do we have the roll rate for clipped wing in a test that all can read? Because 120deg/sec was not achievable by any kind of Spit that saw service.



- That's real life. I'm talking in this sim. If you
- take an LA7 with 2 SHVAKS and a Hurricane with 4 -
- Hispanos against a FW-A9, the Hispanos need one
- burst, maybe 4-8 shells and the FW is in pieces.
- I've seen A9's take 15-20 20mms and barely start
- smoking.
-
- Although, the SHVAK is like a laser beam in this
- game, the hispano has more punch at closer range. I
- prefer that.

Yes, both Hispanos and SHVAKS are overmodelled. They shold do less damage than MG151/20 with the same number of hits. Check with hit arrows on and see that they do much more.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 08:02 PM
The Spitfire had a higher dive limiting speed than the P47, or any other WW2 prop plane for that matter. It may not have accelerated initially in the dive as fast as a Jug or 109, but if the dive continued, the others would have to pull out sooner than the Spit or risk damage. That is how Spits could catch 109's in the dive. The 109 would have to pull out of his dive, and carefully, before the Spit had to and would be caught then. A bit like one car out-braking another into a roundabout.

Spits could dived at mach .89, faster than achieved by any of it's contemporaries, owing to a rather brilliant wing design.

The high speed aileron control issue was a bugbear with early Spits until Supermarine instigated some tests in 1940. The problem hadn't surfaced earlier during design and testing because the prototype had been limited to a dive speed of 380mph indicated, and at that speed the problem didn't manisfest itself to an excessive degree. However the production aircraft had strengthened wings and a dive limiting speed about 100mph higher, and it was above 400mph that the problem of poor roll really manifested iteslf.

The tests they ran discovered that metal skinned ailerons with thin trailing edges made all the difference. Jeffrey Quill, chief Supermarine test pilot, reported that that the difference they made transformed the Spitfire. It became an altogether better fighter almost overnight. Once word got around Fighter Command, the air around Supermarine was thick with the Spits of Wing Commanders and Squadron Leaders all trying to be first to have their planes modified.

"If I had all the money I've spent on drink....I'd spend it on drink!"

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 08:10 PM
Huck, we'll have to either search for Buzzsaw's thread about the P47 roll rate, here in GD or have him post the roll chart again. When I first saw it, I made mention of the clipped-wing Spit's roll rate as being second in the chart to the FW. I was very happy.

The main disparity I see between hispanos and SHVAKs, is the distance of shell travel. Both are straight for the first 800m, but the hispano disappears off the screen almost immediately after. The SHVAK keeps going and going and going. Sure, due to dispersion and gravity, the shells aren't as effective, while arcing towards the ground, but the fact is if they hit something they still have an effect.

If there is some kind of fuse time modeling going on in the game for the hispanos, then we might be seeing the early version modeled and it's problem with short fuses apparent. A neat piece of realism, though, if that's the case and we can only hope later Spitfires bring later hispanos./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AFJ_Locust wrote:
-
- SlickStick wrote:
-- Isegrim,
--
-- I see the XIV as an LA7 that can roll better, has
-- better armament and higher top speed.
--
-- _______________________________________
-- çk?¯kT 2003**
-
-
-

"And Im sure you'll be flying it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif when it gets here."

No doubt in my mind that I will exclusively fly the Spitfire series the first couple of months they are here, just because I love them. I fly the plane that wins. I don't see anything wrong with flying the plane that you can make perform the best. It's most certainly the man, not the machine./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Some choose the high-flying avoidance tactics of the LW birds. Some of us have the skills to take it low and hang with anybody in this game. Think of it as rock, paper, scissors:

LA7 beats FW-A9 (better match is FW-A5 with no outer cannons)

FW-A9 covers Yak3

LA7 cuts Yak3 (Yak will run out of E long before the LA7 will, when flown correctly)

LA7, Yak3 destroy any 109 but the extreme, very best B and Z flyers. Even then, it's tough against a pilot with high situational awareness and if they make one mistake, they lose their advantage./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You sound kind of like the full real whiners. They claim no pit is arcade, but just like no pit games are the pinnacle of situational awareness and skills, because a person chooses to fly the LA7, being one of the best in it has to count for something./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 08:21 PM
Good info, Gibbs.

_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

Message Edited on 10/03/0303:22PM by SlickStick

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 09:00 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Where is this test?

It's at the end of the Spitfire V test document
you posted the link to! At the end it has a series
of charts, one of which is a roll table for
various stick forces, both left and right turns.
The angular velocity is inconveniently in radians
per second, but that is easily converted.

- Those numbers were impossible on
- a Spitfire (eliptical wing). Read the NACA test
- Aaron:

Well they were possible according to the document
you posted!!!!

-----

Apologies.

I misread the chart - I see that the lines
are actually iso-angular velocity lines, indicating
stick force. I have some humble pie to eat. What it
does show, however, is that 1.2 radians per second was
apparently possible throughout the whole range of
130 to 300mph. 1.2 radians/second is 70 degrees/second,
which is a bit higher than the 60 degrees/second at
230mph you were quoting, though.

Note that the stick force for a rotation of 70 deg/sec
peaks at about 170mph, which implies that it might
be possible to apply greater stick force and obtain
more deflection in the 230-300mph range, although the
chart doesn't show roll rates as those speeds.

It looks like that to obtain about 55 deg/sec (1 rad/s)
over the 230-300 range took about 30lbs of stick force,
which doesn't seem too bad.







Message Edited on 10/03/0308:14PM by AaronGT

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 09:23 PM
SlickStick wrote:
- Huck, we'll have to either search for Buzzsaw's
- thread about the P47 roll rate, here in GD or have
- him post the roll chart again. When I first saw it,
- I made mention of the clipped-wing Spit's roll rate
- as being second in the chart to the FW. I was very
- happy.

I have a copy but I don't want to invite spam by
posting it on my yahoo account web space (I assume
I have some? Maybe I don't!)

The roll charts are on page 166 report 868.
It doesn't specify
what the Spitfire is apart from indicating it is
clipped wing.

The speeds/rates are:-
<table>
<tr><td>160</td><td>130</td></tr>
<tr><td>180</td><td>140</td></tr>
<tr><td>200</td><td>150</td></tr>
<tr><td>220</td><td>145</td></tr>
<tr><td>240</td><td>140</td></tr>
<tr><td>260</td><td>132</td></tr>
<tr><td>280</td><td>125</td></tr>
<tr><td>300</td><td>115</td></tr>
<tr><td>320</td><td>105</td></tr>
<tr><td>340</td><td>97</td></tr>
<tr><td>360</td><td>88</td></tr>
<tr><td>380</td><td>78</td></tr>
</table>


No time to do the unclipped one (SNL is on)
but basically 45 deg/sec less than the clipped
at all speeds.






Message Edited on 10/03/0308:26PM by AaronGT

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 09:43 PM
Salute Huckbein

There is a note of desperation in your posting now Huck.

And any semblance of fact or reality is rapidly disappearing.

Quite simply, what you are posting is out and out fiction.

The AIR FIGHTING DEVELOPEMENT UNIT did its tests as scrupulously as any organization that existed on the German side. They tested aircraft to make sure that the Manufacturers specifications were met, and to discover faults and failings.

"All Boscombe tests from '43 to the end of war were made with engines much powerful than those mounted on operational Spitfires,"

A complete falsehood.

The test that JimboJake posted links to is of a Spitfire IX LF operating at +18 boost, which was standard on all operating Spitfire IX's from mid 1943 onwards till the summer of 1944. After mid 1944, Spitfires with Rolls Royce manufactured Merlins were cleared to operate with +25 boost, producing even better performance than the test JJ refers to.


"There is no NACA test 868. There is a NACA report no 868, called "Summary of lateral control research". It is NOT a test, is a collection of data gathered by NACA on lateral control until the date of the report."

Another complete falsehood.

Have you actually read Report #868??? I doubt it.

All the material used in the NACA Paper #868 was taken from actual performance tests.

The other reports which you keep referring to, were done with a stick force of 30 lbs, and therefore do not represent the maximum rollrate which could be achieved in these aircraft.

Are you frightened at the thought of a Spitfire appearing in IL-2? It would seem so, since you are doing all you can to sabotage its performance.

Fortunately, you will not get much attention from Oleg, who makes a point of considering ALL data. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 09:50 PM
It appears that Huck's data for the Spit V is legit. That being the case, though, and reading somewhere (my mind is foggy right now) that 40 lbs was the maximum realistic deflection force a pilot could exert in the cramped quarters of the cockpit, his chart (Figure 28) shows a 1.2 radians per second (69 degrees per second) rolling velocity at 6000 feet and at 210 mph (Corrected IAS). Unfortunately, the data in that report does not account for different altitudes.

So what's up with all the hostility?

If we're getting the Spit V first, then hopefully Oleg and crew will get it right.

* SithSpeeder / _54th_Speeder *

http://members.cox.net/ijhutch/_images/forumlogo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 11:57 PM
SithSpeeder wrote:
- It appears that Huck's data for the Spit V is legit.
- That being the case, though, and reading somewhere
- (my mind is foggy right now) that 40 lbs was the
- maximum realistic deflection force a pilot could
- exert in the cramped quarters of the cockpit,

The chart shows forces up to 60lbs, though, so
that should be possible at least in theory. It might
be that 40lbs is the maximum likely force. In fact
given the chart in the document Huckebein posted you
could interpolate roll rates for various stick forces,
just about (whereas that chart is stick forces for
various roll rates).

The chart in NACA#868 shows roll rates for the
Spitfire (unknown type - one of V to XIV most likely)
of about 100 degrees at 230mph, but for 50lbs stick
force.

In the document Huckebein posted it indicates about
70 degrees/second with a 40lb stick force at 230mph.

Maybe the extra deflection possible with an extra
10 pounds of stick force might add to the roll rate,
and/or the NACA tests are for a mark of Spitfire with
a higher roll rate for the non-clipped version?

With Huckebein's document and NACA#868 we don't have
a complete like-for-like comparasion.

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 02:22 AM
I wrote:

-- I think the Spits will be good in FB but people
-- should be aware that the Spitfire usually performed
-- best up high, not down low. Then again, the engine
-- determined where it performed best so it is really
-- dependent on what type of Spitfire we get and what
-- type of engine it has modelled. That is what made
-- the Spitfire/Merlin so great IMHO, its ability to
-- adapt to different combat situations. An often
-- overlooked Spitfire that performed great down low
-- was the Spitfire Mk.XII. This was used to catch low
-- flying 190's that were performing high speed raids
-- into England, similar to how the Typhoon was used. I
-- doubt we will ever see it in FB though, and there
-- were relatively few produced.
--


Thunderbolt56 wrote:

- LOL...the P-47 and P-51 were both specialized
- high-altitude fighters as well and while we don't
- have the "51" yet, just look at the Jug. I hope
- there is consistency is all.


I'm not sure what you are saying TB. Are you saying that you hope the Spit performs as poorly at low altitude as the 47? My point is that the Spit was very "tunable" to perform well at different altitudes, while the 47 and 51(B/C/D models) remained high altitude performers. This is not to say the 47 and 51 could not have done the same, just that it wasn't done, as the USAAF needs did not require this. The Spit did however come in various versions as operational needs dictated, and which versions Oleg decides to implement will determine its success in FB. I think planes like the 47 and 51 lose out in FB because high altitude modelling isn't one of FB's strong points.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 03:09 AM
kyrule2 wrote: "I think planes like the 47 and 51 lose out in FB because high altitude modelling isn't one of FB's strong points."

Good point, but since most of the DF action is below 2000m in this game, the high altitude modeling works great for cruising around between 2500 and 3500m and swooping on little planes below you./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I've never even had a dogfight above 5,000m in this game online. I'm think I'm going to check it out with someone and start all engagements at 10K. I'm curious to see what each plane does up there. I'm sure others have already done this, I'm just doing it to see for myself.

_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 03:12 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- It won't rival SHVAKS. Russians removed the Hispanos
- from their planes. Good performance on paper does
- not mean anything. They jammed each time their fire
- under G load.

Depends on how they were mounted. Any automatic gun, positioned on its side or at an angle, will have reduced reliability under g-load, or any load. The 20mm Hispano in the P-39 and P-38, as well as mounted in US Navy and Marine aircraft had no reputation of being unreliable.



- That means that you can fire only at
- targets that are not maneuvering. That's a huge
- limitation.

Again, it depends on how they are mounted.



- Unfortunatelly this is not modelled in
- the sim.

And it shouldn't be. It's a non-issue.



- We have the fire prone Jumo 004 modelled in
- excess but we don't this essential limitation of
- hispano cannon, the fundamental reason why it was
- not widely adopted.

It was very widely adopted. Not sure where you get that.



- Hispanos had a high muzzle velocity to compensate
- the weight of the projectile.

To compensate for the weight of the projectile? This doesn't make sense. This is simply a design characterisitic. The round could have been developed to deliver a 130 gram projectile at any velocity, higher or lower. This was simply felt to be an optimal combination.



- Higher muzzle velocity
- and higher projectile weight gives much bigger
- recoil, which makes aiming very hary hard.

High projectile weight and high muzzle velocity may generate heavy recoil, but the mechnism of the gun, its weight, and other recoil dampening characteristics can reduce the recoil effects.

Recoil effects on aiming in a WWII combat aircraft was simply a non-issue.



- The
- germans took a different approach. Make a small
- projectile, decrease the fire rate and muzzle
- velocity until the cannon does not jam, which also
- adds the benefit of a small recoil, and put a very
- powerful HE mixture in the projectile.

You also get a lower muzzle velocity, decreased range, rainbow trajectory, less energy.



- The germans
- focused on HE mixture development not on guns. Not
- much could be gained from better cannons, because if
- you improve the fire rate and muzzle velocity you
- also decrease the precision in aiming

This is simply not correct because the cannon are not firing at the time the pilot takes initial aim. Secondly, once the firing begins, it takes but an instant to adjust the stream of fire into the target.

For instance, a machine gunner can "walk" his fire onto a target if his initial rounds are off target. A pilot could use the same principal.



- What we have now in FB is that the german HE
- mixtures are the most weak (except 30mm which is
- correct) and the recoil and therefore aiming is the
- biggest from all planes. Another instance in which
- german equipment was the best, but is depicted as
- the worst in FB.

If recoil effects are going to effect an aircraft, their effect should be greatest on lighter planes. I have no problem with the way FB is modelled in this regard.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg