PDA

View Full Version : Overmodeled Spit



Dubow
10-08-2004, 12:21 AM
I've heard that UBI is going to rework the "overmodeled" spit. I don't know how many times a Spit has outclimbed and outdove my P-47 at altitudes over 8000. There is no way a Spit should be able to even stay close to a P-47 in a 800+ kph dive.

I'm done venting.

faustnik
10-08-2004, 12:26 AM
Didn't the Spit have one of the highest mach dive limits of any WW2 fighter?

HellToupee
10-08-2004, 01:05 AM
The spitfire was a very good high alt fighter fighting one of the hights battles in the war at about 12000 odd meters, i belive it had a higher ceeling than the p47, which is where climb rate drops below 1000ft/m i think it is, so the spit should out climb a p47 over 8000m, as for dive it was capable of very high speeds, it should only be the acceleration at high speeds that it should be worse at.

Korolov
10-08-2004, 01:19 AM
Max Ceiling for the P-47D was 42,000ft. Not sure about the spit.

ploughman
10-08-2004, 01:31 AM
1943 Spit IXe HF's service ceiling is given as 43,000 ft.

LINK TO INFO (http://www.fighterfactory.net/flyable/spitfire.html)

jurinko
10-08-2004, 02:09 AM
Spit IX could definitely outclimb P-47 above 8000m in sustained climb but P-47 should outdive it, since it outdived 109G or 190s which outdived MkIX.

Abbuzze
10-08-2004, 02:15 AM
Late Spits were good diver with a high divespeed, but it should have a slower acceleration at the dive.
The story with the highest mach-number...
For me it just seems that the RAF where just eager to get the record. Maybe other Airforces just didn´t had pilots who want to risk their live for such a thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurt Tank reaches very high machnumbers in 190s.
109 reaches Mach 0.805 without any buffeting in a test(was not a highspeed divingtest!). I also thing P51/47 should not be not worse than Spit in max Machnumber...

Edit: I forgot, the only thing where the Spit seems to be overmodelled is its enourmous cooler which let the engine never overheat! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WUAF_Badsight
10-08-2004, 03:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
The story with the highest mach-number...
For me it just seems that the RAF where just eager to get the record. Maybe other Airforces just didn´t had pilots who want to risk their live for such a thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurt Tank reaches very high machnumbers in 190s.
109 reaches Mach 0.805 without any buffeting in a test(was not a highspeed divingtest!). I also thing P51/47 should not be not worse than Spit in max Machnumber... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

probably some truth in that

especially considering the P-51's good aerodynamics

Jasko76
10-08-2004, 03:23 AM
Spits were pushed to M 0.91, I think I saw that on Discovery. Many pilots died, though.

Salfordian
10-08-2004, 03:28 AM
The Spitfire had very good high speed aerodynamic characteristics. The NACA aerofoil section chosen for the Spitfire wing was found in experimental tests to have a higher critical Mach No. than many 'advanced' aerofoils used on late war fighters and early jets.

Kwiatos
10-08-2004, 05:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dubow:
I've heard that UBI is going to rework the "overmodeled" spit. I don't know how many times a Spit has outclimbed and outdove my P-47 at altitudes over 8000. There is no way a Spit should be able to even stay close to a P-47 in a 800+ kph dive.

I'm done venting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm interesting. From where you have info about changes in FM of SPitfire?

TgD Thunderbolt56
10-08-2004, 06:21 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif



.

Snuffly
10-08-2004, 06:28 AM
I have read a book on a ww2 P-47 pilot.
Robert S johnson 28 kills.

Well anyways in his book he said, one time he and another spit where going to "have a go at it" so he could prove that the p-47 had some guts.

He went against the IXe spit, this is how he beat him.

He tried to dive, but found the spit could dive, so he pulled up, spit sped in front of him, and hthe p-47 couldnt climb with it.
So what he did was he got a lot of speed, and when the spit came down on him with alot of speed on his six. He knew one thing the spit could never do "ROLL" The p-47 was the best WW2 rolling american fighter.

What he did, is he rolled to the right and turned then turned left and turned further. The spit could not keep up with his rolls, then all the sudden the spit fealized he took his blind spot and the p-47 came out of the sun onto his six. P-47 is a great plane if its used the righit way.

Spit is not overmodeled. But I think it needs to hold a little more cannon ammo for the MV.VB and LF versions.

WOLFMondo
10-08-2004, 06:36 AM
The cannon ammo in the VB is 60 rounds, in the IX its 120 per gun.

Dubow, The Spitfire is an interceptor, probably the best in WW2, climb was one of the most important assets of an interceptor so its not a suprise a Spit can whoop the P47's butt in climbing, especially given the P47 until up high has a terrible climb rate. If you think the IX is overmodelled in climb your gonna love the XIV if we ever get it. It one of the fastest climbing piston powered planes going.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jasko76:
Spits were pushed to M 0.91, I think I saw that on Discovery. Many pilots died, though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The pilot who made that record did not die. The Spitfire in question had is prop and gear ripped from the engine but the pilot recovered and landed safely without a prop and the front of the plane was a little dented. That takes real big balls!

SOmeone a while ago even posted the image of it.

DeerHunterUK
10-08-2004, 06:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snuffly:
Spit is not overmodeled. But I think it needs to hold a little more cannon ammo for the MV.VB and LF versions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a real shame that we haven't got a Mk Vc ingame as it carried twice the amount of cannon rounds as the Mk Vb I believe.

HART_dreyer
10-08-2004, 06:45 AM
Dubow, you're right, I'm sorry.

Yes, P-47 DOES outdive a Spitfire in the game, even a 109 does.

MEGILE
10-08-2004, 07:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't know how many times a Spit has outclimbed and outdove my P-47 at altitudes over 8000
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this based on your personal experience of flying these planes in real life? Or just a hunch? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

hop2002
10-08-2004, 07:44 AM
According to US figures in a Vought comparison of various US fighters, the P-47D climbed at 1900 ft/min at 20,000ft, 800 ft/min at 30,000ft.
(no idea which D, but it weighed 14,087 lbs, 2600 hp)

On test, the Spit LF IX did 3560 ft/min at 20,000ft, 2120 ft/min at 30,000ft.

The Spit HF IX 3,500 ft/min at 20,000ft, 2600 ft/min at 30,000ft. (Other tests of HF's during tests of different props were a bit lower, by up to 300 ft/min, but they are still far far better than the P-47)

An Australian LF VIII did 3,600 ft/min at 20,000ft, 2150 ft/min at 30,000ft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Max Ceiling for the P-47D was 42,000ft. Not sure about the spit <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe 42,000 ft was for the P-47C, with the D being around 40,000ft.

For the Spit HF IX, service ceiling was up around 43 - 44,000ft. An LF IX on trial 40,900 ft, an LF VIII 41,000 ft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The story with the highest mach-number...
For me it just seems that the RAF where just eager to get the record. Maybe other Airforces just didn´t had pilots who want to risk their live for such a thing <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The RAF didn't carry out the tests. They were carried out by the RAE (Royal Aircraft Establishment) as research into high speed flight approaching the sound barrier. Similar tests were carried out in the US as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>109 reaches Mach 0.805 without any buffeting in a test(was not a highspeed divingtest!). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lukas Schmitt (sorry for the spelling) describes having the stick "almost jerked from his hands" by aileron buffeting.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I also thing P51/47 should not be not worse than Spit in max Machnumber... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-47 should be, and was found to be, quite a bit worse. It had rather thick wings, suffered from an early onset of compression, and for that reason was fitted with dive recovery flaps.

The P-51 was found to be slightly worse than the Spit, again because it had thicker wings. The Spit's wings were the thinnest fitted to any ww2 prop fighter, afaik, and wing thickness is the most important factor for critical mach.

Here, courtesty of Neil Sterling, are drag figures from the RAE for the Spit, P-47 and Mustang at high speed:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1079907714_sd16.jpg

The Spitfire has an advantage at very high speed because of it's thinner wings.

Hunde_3.JG51
10-08-2004, 08:22 AM
One of the problems with the Spitifre IX in-game is that above 6,000m its speed keeps increasing when it should start falling off. The LF. and F. variants in game can reach 422 and 425mph (should be 408 for F., and 404 for LF.) and the HF. reaches 435+mph (should be 416) IIRC. Speeds below 6,000m seem fine for F. and LF., they just don't seem to fall off above that as they should. The HF. is a different story, I'm not sure where the problem starts with that one. If you heard that they were going to fix something with Spit, then I wouldn't be surprised if this is what they were referring to.

I still think the overheat is off though.

VW-IceFire
10-08-2004, 08:27 AM
Hunde, what you said is pretty much spot on. Except that we have no F IX. They are both LF IX's. I keep hammering this one home http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

F = Merlin 61, 63 (we don't have this one - only 300 produced mostly in 1942)
LF = Merlin 66
HF = Merlin 70

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Anyways, what you said is right. Once the supercharger kicks in, the speed keeps increasing (which is odd). Thats the overmodeled bit of the Spitfire IX. That and the radiator cooling are the only issues. It turns, rolls, and fights as well as it should elsewhere. Guys who are getting their buts handed to them on a plate in a 2000 meter dogfight should expect more of the same because they are fighting a very accurately modeled plane there.

Where exactly did you hear that Oleg was working on it? I hadn't heard much at all.

Hunde_3.JG51
10-08-2004, 08:39 AM
DOH!

I forgot Icefire, I have even posted about this in the past, we have all LF.'s with Merlin 66 and an HF.

Thanks for correcting me and I agree with the rest of your post. To some it doesn't matter, but for those of us who like to fight up high it is a problem to have LF. Spits performing so well at higher altitudes, especially without overheat.

Oh, and I didn't hear anything about them changing Spit, just a response to the original poster. I was wondering this myself.

Abbuzze
10-08-2004, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The story with the highest mach-number...
For me it just seems that the RAF where just eager to get the record. Maybe other Airforces just didn´t had pilots who want to risk their live for such a thing <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The RAF didn't carry out the tests. They were carried out by the RAE (Royal Aircraft Establishment) as research into high speed flight approaching the sound barrier. Similar tests were carried out in the US as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>109 reaches Mach 0.805 without any buffeting in a test(was not a highspeed divingtest!). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lukas Schmitt (sorry for the spelling) describes having the stick "almost jerked from his hands" by aileron buffeting.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK then it was the RAE who didn´t care for Pilots lifes.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It´s nice that you mentioned the aileron buffeting- This was the cause, why the test I mentioned was done!
It was less a problem of the ailerons, than the tail of the 109 and it was also the cause why the larger one was introduced since the lage G6!
Sad but true- if you tried to reduce the shaking with the ailerons, it became even worse till the plane broke into parts! You had to use the rudder to reduce this problem... the tall tail should fix this problem, which was not realy compression related!

robban75
10-08-2004, 08:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dubow:
I've heard that UBI is going to rework the "overmodeled" spit. I don't know how many times a Spit has outclimbed and outdove my P-47 at altitudes over 8000. There is no way a Spit should be able to even stay close to a P-47 in a 800+ kph dive.

I'm done venting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Diveaccelerations of planes in FB/AEP.


Planes are in the following order.

Bf 109G-6(late), P-47D-27, Fw 190A-4, Fw 190D-9, P-51D, Yak-3, La-7, Spit MkIXc.

Type - 109 - P47 - 190 - 190 - P51 - Yak - La7 - IXc

5000 - 310 - 310 - 310 - 310 - 310 - 310 - 310 - 310
4500 - 488 - 488 - 487 - 493 - 480 - 481 - 495 - 486
4000 - 612 - 613 - 610 - 623 - 610 - 613 - 619 - 613
3500 - 699 - 707 - 701 - 718 - 710 - 708 - 710 - 706
3000 - 766 - 779 - 770 - 792 - 787 - 780 - 780 - 774
2500 - 818 - 837 - 827 - 854 - 851 - 838 - 841 - 828
2000 - 857 - 884 - 871 - 906 - 902 - 885 - 890 - 869
1500 - 887 - 922 - 907 - 948 - 946 - 925 - N/A - 901
1000 - 910 - 953 - 935 - 983 - 981 - 951 - N/A - 926
500 - 927 - 978 - 958 - 1010 - 1012 - N/A - N/A - 936

Willey
10-08-2004, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ploughman:
1943 Spit IXe HF's service ceiling is given as 43,000 ft.

http://www.fighterfactory.net/flyable/spitfire.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. 1943 no IXe
2. 1943 no HF
3. "Max rate of climb 3950 ft/min" (In FB it's rather something around 4500 at 6000m...)

hop2002
10-08-2004, 10:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>2. 1943 no HF <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In game or in real life? The HF was certainly around in 1943 in real life.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>3. "Max rate of climb 3950 ft/min" (In FB it's rather something around 4500 at 6000m...) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know of 3 seperate Spit HF IX climb tests, they achieved peak climb rates of 4470, 4310 and 4580 ft/min.

They also quote rather odd figures for the fuel tankage. 96 gallons in the fuselage tanks wasn't uncommon on the IX, but 85 was more common. But 60 gallons in the wing tanks was only for recce Spitfires, not the HF IX.

Without checking, 3950 ft/min might be right for a recce Spit with that much fuel.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>F = Merlin 61, 63 (we don't have this one - only 300 produced mostly in 1942) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Minor correction, there were approx 350 F IXs with Merlin 61 produced, around 1,000 with Merlin 63.

The Merlin 61 was the type tested against Faber's 190, maximum boost 15 lbs.

The Merlin 63 succeeded it, 18 lbs boost. The Merlin 63 F should have performance somewhere between the LF and HF, and far better than the Merlin 61 F.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>OK then it was the RAE who didn´t care for Pilots lifes.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't say they didn't care. One of the major reasons for the tests was because operational pilots were being killed by compression, and it was important to try to find out as much as possible about it.

It was also obvious that the problem would get worse with jet fighters being much faster.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It´s nice that you mentioned the aileron buffeting- This was the cause, why the test I mentioned was done!
It was less a problem of the ailerons, than the tail of the 109 and it was also the cause why the larger one was introduced since the lage G6!
Sad but true- if you tried to reduce the shaking with the ailerons, it became even worse till the plane broke into parts! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I've seen the technical instructions not to use the ailerons to try to recover during a dive.

WUAF_Badsight
10-08-2004, 01:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Guys who are getting their buts handed to them on a plate in a 2000 meter dogfight should expect more of the same because they are fighting a very accurately modeled plane there.
. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
so you think the turning of the FB Spits is ok ?

either the Bf109's are boosted or the Spit neutered . . . . . . & that aint just my opinion

all planes in FB do turn times that are too fast

instantaneous & sustained . . . . . . some are boosted a tad more than others tho . . .

Dubow
10-08-2004, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by HART_dreyer
"Once again idiots complain"

If you're not going to participate in the thread in a civil manner, then please don't involve yourself.

<S>
Dubow

Dubow
10-08-2004, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
"Is this based on your personal experience of flying these planes in real life? Or just a hunch?"

Just from flying this game and getting input from others that fly in this game.

SkyChimp
10-08-2004, 09:30 PM
As Hop stated, the Vought chart doesn't give the type of P-47D. It appears that it would be an early D with the thin blade prop and no water injection. Here is the P-47D climb chart from America's Hundred Thousand that is a little more specific:

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/p47.jpg

Nubarus
10-09-2004, 02:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dubow:
Originally posted by Megile:
"Is this based on your personal experience of flying these planes in real life? Or just a hunch?"

Just from flying this game and getting input from others that fly in this game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You complained about the Spitfire outclimbing your P47, with that remark you lost credibility and everybody just thinks you are a whiner.

Next time you feel the need to point something out you should actually do some research, post test documents and be more detailed in order to be taken seriously.

tttiger
10-09-2004, 03:40 AM
This whole thread is meaningless.

You get above 8,000 meters and nothing flies the way it should in this sim.

The high alt model is whacked and always has been. The sim was never designed for high alt combat. It was designed for low alt on the Eastern Front.

I've written this many times but I guess no one ever tries it: Take a P-47 up to 10,000 meters and see how it performs. Instead of being at its best as it was historically, it barely stays in the sky.

This is not a knock on the sim. It was never designed to be flown at high altitudes. It's a knock on all the Noobs (including the thread-starter) who whine their airplane doesn't fly right at high altitudes.

You get past 8,000 meters and there is no realism in any of the aircraft. Oleg, Ubi and Jesus H. Christ all conceded that years ago. And it can't be changed.

Find out what you're talking about before you start complaining.

ttt

Kefuddle
10-09-2004, 05:11 AM
Wasn't the heighest ever interception in a plane without pressurisation in a spit over the med (43,000') when it shot down one of those German pressurised recon planes (can't remember what it was).

The Spit's eliptical wing is so far the most efficient wing produced. It has the heighest mach crit of any non-swept wing and the lowest lift/drag ratio. I was told that the reason the eliptical wing has not been adopted widely is that it is very difficult to manufacture and that the cost/benefit ratio is not in its favour.

Arm_slinger
10-09-2004, 08:32 AM
Lol you whiners never cease to amaze me, youjust can't take it that the spit was just a bloody good plame. If you do wish to moan then please produce suitable documents to support your claims. If you just moan, you are making your self look like a child who needs to get a life http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

But yes at High Alt, all FM go wrong

MOhz
10-09-2004, 08:50 AM
here we go again lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif

WUAF_Badsight
10-09-2004, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tttiger:
You get above 8,000 meters and nothing flies the way it should in this sim.

I've written this many times but I guess no one ever tries it: Take a P-47 up to 10,000 meters and see how it performs. Instead of being at its best as it was historically, it barely stays in the sky.

Oleg, Ubi and Jesus H. Christ all conceded that years ago. And it can't be changed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


tttiger your not doing yourself any favours posting stuff thats plain wrong like whats up there

WUAF_Badsight
10-09-2004, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arm_slinger:
If you do wish to moan then please produce suitable documents to support your claims. If you just moan, you are making your self look like a child who needs to get a life <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you need a clue dude

the Spits speed IS WRONG over 7K , but wait , your OK with that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

FYI the atmosphere is moddeled up to 10K & certian planes needs changes even over that ALT (i.e. changes happen over 10K even)

tttiger
10-09-2004, 01:55 PM
LOL, Badsight, you are, of course, wrong. A good guy to fly with on line....but wrong.

I say again (I'll even hold my nose and try to sound like a Kiwi -- an Aussie with a head cold http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif): Take a P-47 up to 10,000 meters.

It will be struggling above 8,000 meters, wheezing at 9,000 meters, barely able to climb above 10,000 meters and you can't get it any higher than about 10,500.

At 10,000 meters that Jug should rule the sky (at least in 1943). But you can barely get it to fly above 8,000 meters.

Try it. See what happens. The Jug is my ride but it deteriorates above 8,000 rather than improving like it should.

The upper atmosphere never was modeled correctly in this sim and that has been acknowledged since the beginning.

BS, do yourself -- and all of us -- a favor (favour http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) and lighten up. You registered 10 months after me and have 3,100 more posts than I do. You really aren't required to argue with everybody about every subject. Check the rules, it's not mandatory http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Aloha,

ttt

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
10-09-2004, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ploughman:
1943 Spit IXe HF's service ceiling is given as 43,000 ft.

http://www.fighterfactory.net/flyable/spitfire.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. 1943 no IXe
2. 1943 no HF
3. "Max rate of climb 3950 ft/min" (In FB it's rather something around 4500 at 6000m...) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmm can u explain this please ?

MEGILE
10-09-2004, 03:05 PM
You is wrong!!! NO, YOU IS WRONG!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

WUAF_Badsight
10-09-2004, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tttiger:

Take a P-47 up to 10,000 meters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i do ! ! . . . . all the time

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tttiger
It will be struggling above 8,000 meters, wheezing at 9,000 meters, barely able to climb above 10,000 meters and you can't get it any higher than about 10,500.

At 10,000 meters that Jug should rule the sky (at least in 1943). But you can barely get it to fly above 8,000 meters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
what are you expecting ? this is the near end of climb performance
WW2 prop planes didnt fly at 10k like they do at 5K , the P-47 has the best high alt performance of any single propeller plane in FB (except for the level speed of the Ta-152)

i think your expecting planes to perform better than they should

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tttiger
The upper atmosphere never was modeled correctly in this sim and that has been acknowledged since the beginning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
not true ! . . . . that the atmosphere wasnt moddeled with changes after 10K is also dubious !

certian planes need a mix change after 10k ! ! !



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tttiger
You registered 10 months after me and have 3,100 more posts than I do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
when the board changed to this program my registration date got changed . . . . . 2001 for me tttiger

EPP-Gibbs
10-09-2004, 06:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
The story with the highest mach-number...
For me it just seems that the RAF where just eager to get the record. Maybe other Airforces just didn´t had pilots who want to risk their live for such a thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurt Tank reaches very high machnumbers in 190s.
109 reaches Mach 0.805 without any buffeting in a test(was not a highspeed divingtest!). I also thing P51/47 should not be not worse than Spit in max Machnumber... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

probably some truth in that

especially considering the P-51's good aerodynamics <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfire had the highest diving speed of any piston ww2 fighter. The never exceed speeds in the MkIX pilots handbook were higher than the Mustang's max dive speed. And that's a Spit with full war load. It's superb wing gave that capability. Some other planes may have initially accelerated faster in the dive, but as the speed built up, the Spit could keep on diving, and catch up. The key was the very low thickness to chord ratio. Possibly the lowest of WW2. The Spits wing was extraordinarily thin, and thin wings are better able to handle high speeds, as compressibility effects are delayed. The Spit's wing was thinner than even that of a 109, and yet could take heavy armament, undercarriage, and extra fuel tankage, such was it's strength.

SkyChimp
10-09-2004, 07:26 PM
The Spitfire didn't necessarily have the highest dive speed. It may have had the highest critical mach, however. There's a significant difference. At high altitude, the limiting factor is Mach speed, not Indicated Air Speed. At medium to lower altitudes, Mach becomes less and less of the limiting factor, and Indicated Air Speed does.

The Thunderbolt and the Spitfire test Hop referred to showed the Sptifire reached a significantly higher Mach speed before comressibility set in. But they both reached the same True Air Speeds.

The Spitfire's thin wings contributed to delaying the onset of compresibility, thus allowing it to reach high mach numbers and remain controllable. But it didn't allow it to necessarily dive faster. High mach speeds are most easily reached at high altitudes. Similar high mach speeds were very difficult to reach at low altitudes.

HellToupee
10-09-2004, 07:34 PM
ttiger what it means by the p47 peforming best at high alts dosnt mean up high it will perform better than down low, it means that it performs comparativly better than its opponents, the air is very thin up high, ur power output starts decreasing even in a p47 and your cimbrate also much worse, so it will still struggle to stay in the air and climb, but less so than the 109.

Arm_slinger
10-09-2004, 07:38 PM
What?? Did i say i was OK with anything? I don't think so. The truth is i dont care about anything at very high alt as i very rarely fly up there

Provided an aircraft is close to what it should be i don't really care what its like. Even if i did i wouldn't whine about it as A) i dont have the resources to proove it. B) i dont have the capabilities to change what may be wrong, and C) some other tit will do the hard work

Cajun76
10-09-2004, 08:09 PM
If your going to compare the two, for heaven's sake, use something approaching a standard model of the Spit. "F" variants had a standard wing, that should help cut down confusion. The P-47 didn't have special versions. The same model P-47D-27 could escort high altitude bombers to Berlin, or bring the ground pounding pain to the tactical frontline.

Chimp, you beat me to the high alt Mach numbers.

Additionally, the Spit's eliptical wing was changed at Mk. XXI, stiffer, wider, and lost the pure eliptical shape to make it a better diver. Looks similar to the P-47's wing, actually.

http://users.belgacom.net/aircraft2/avion2/5335.html#1866

Kefuddle
10-10-2004, 04:10 AM
Cool SkyChimp!

Somebody who knows what they are talking about http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif